OMB APPROVAL | ||
OMB Number: |
3235-0570 | |
Expires: |
January 31, 2017 | |
Estimated average burden | ||
hours per response: |
20.6 |
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM N-CSR
CERTIFIED SHAREHOLDER REPORT OF
REGISTERED MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES
Investment Company Act file number: |
811-21786 |
Voya Global Advantage and Premium Opportunity Fund
(formerly known as, ING Global Advantage and Premium Opportunity Fund)
(Exact name of registrant as specified in charter) |
7337 E. Doubletree Ranch Rd. Suite 100, Scottsdale, AZ | 85258 | |
(Address of principal executive offices) | (Zip code) |
The Corporation Trust Company, 1209 Orange
Street, Wilmington, DE 19801
(Name and address of agent for service) |
Registrants telephone number, including area code: 1-800-992-0180
Date of fiscal year end: February 28
Date of reporting period: February 28, 2014
Item 1. | Reports to Stockholders. |
The following is a copy of the report transmitted to stockholders pursuant to Rule 30e-1 under the Act (17 CFR 270.30e-1):
This report is submitted for general information to
shareholders of the ING Funds. It is not authorized for distribution to prospective shareholders unless accompanied or preceded by a prospectus which
includes details regarding the funds investment objectives, risks, charges, expenses and other information. This information should be read
carefully. |
MUTUAL FUNDS |
Presidents Letter |
1 | |||||
Market Perspective |
2 | |||||
Portfolio Managers Report |
4 | |||||
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm |
6 | |||||
Statement of Assets and Liabilities |
7 | |||||
Statement of Operations |
8 | |||||
Statements of Changes in Net Assets |
9 | |||||
Financial Highlights |
10 | |||||
Notes to Financial Statements |
11 | |||||
Summary Portfolio of Investments |
20 | |||||
Tax Information |
25 | |||||
Shareholder Meeting Information |
26 | |||||
Trustee and Officer Information |
27 | |||||
Additional Information |
31 |
Go Paperless with E-Delivery! |
|||||||||||
Sign up now for on-line prospectuses, fund reports, and proxy statements. In less than five minutes, you can help reduce paper mail
and lower fund costs. |
|||||||||||
Just go to www.inginvestment.com, click on the E-Delivery icon from the home page, follow the directions and complete the quick 5
Steps to Enroll. |
|||||||||||
You will be notified by e-mail when these communications become available on the internet. Documents that are not available on the
internet will continue to be sent by mail. |
(1) |
Total investment return at net asset value has been calculated assuming a purchase at net asset value at the beginning of each period and a sale at net asset value at the end of each period and assumes reinvestment of dividends, capital gain distributions, and return of capital distributions/allocations, if any, in accordance with the provisions of the Funds dividend reinvestment plan. |
(2) |
Total investment return at market value measures the change in the market value of your investment assuming reinvestment of dividends, capital gain distributions, and return of capital distributions/allocations, if any, in accordance with the provisions of the Funds dividend reinvestment plan. |
(3) |
Please see the Additional Information section regarding rebranding details on page 31. |
Index | Description | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index |
An unmanaged index of publicly issued investment grade U.S. Government, mortgage-backed, asset-backed and corporate debt
securities. |
|||||
Barclays U.S. Corporate Investment Grade Bond Index |
An unmanaged index consisting of publicly issued, fixed rate, nonconvertible, investment grade debt
securities. |
|||||
Barclays High Yield Bond 2% Issuer Constrained Composite Index |
An unmanaged index that includes all fixed-income securities having a maximum quality rating of Ba1, a minimum amount outstanding of
$150 million, and at least one year to maturity. |
|||||
Barclays Long Term U.S. Treasury Index |
The Index includes all publicly issued, U.S. Treasury securities that have a remaining maturity of 10 or more years, are rated
investment grade, and have $250 million or more of outstanding face value. |
|||||
MSCI Europe ex UK® Index |
A free float-adjusted market capitalization index that is designed to measure developed market equity performance in Europe,
excluding the UK. |
|||||
MSCI Japan® Index |
A free float-adjusted market capitalization index that is designed to measure developed market equity performance in
Japan. |
|||||
MSCI UK® Index |
A free float-adjusted market capitalization index that is designed to measure developed market equity performance in the
UK. |
|||||
MSCI World IndexSM |
An unmanaged index that measures the performance of over 1,400 securities listed on exchanges in the U.S., Europe, Canada, Australia,
New Zealand and the Far East. |
|||||
S&P 500® Index |
An unmanaged index that measures the performance of securities of approximately 500 large-capitalization companies whose securities
are traded on major U.S. stock markets. |
ING GLOBAL ADVANTAGE AND PREMIUM OPPORTUNITY FUND |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS REPORT |
Geographic
Diversification as of February 28, 2014 (as a percentage of net assets) |
|||||||
United States |
55.2 | % | |||||
United Kingdom |
8.7 | % | |||||
Japan |
7.2 | % | |||||
Switzerland |
7.0 | % | |||||
Germany |
4.7 | % | |||||
France |
3.5 | % | |||||
Netherlands |
1.5 | % | |||||
Israel |
1.3 | % | |||||
Singapore |
0.9 | % | |||||
Hong Kong |
0.9 | % | |||||
Countries between 0.0%0.9%ˆ |
7.5 | % | |||||
Assets in Excess of Other Liabilities |
1.6 | % | |||||
Net Assets |
100.0 | % | |||||
ˆ Includes 13 countries, which each represents 0.0%0.9% of net assets. | |||||||
Portfolio holdings are subject to change daily. |
Top Ten Holdings as of February 28, 2014 (as a percentage of net assets) |
|||||||
Google, Inc. Class A |
2.2 | % | |||||
Roche Holding AGGenusschein |
2.2 | % | |||||
Pfizer, Inc. |
2.1 | % | |||||
Wells Fargo & Co. |
1.8 | % | |||||
Merck & Co., Inc. |
1.8 | % | |||||
JPMorgan Chase & Co. |
1.8 | % | |||||
Mylan Laboratories |
1.7 | % | |||||
Nestle S.A. |
1.7 | % | |||||
General Electric Co. |
1.6 | % | |||||
Rio Tinto PLC |
1.5 | % | |||||
Portfolio holdings are subject to change daily. |
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS REPORT | ING GLOBAL ADVANTAGE AND PREMIUM OPPORTUNITY FUND |
* |
Effective May 1, 2014, the Fund will be renamed Voya Global Advantage and Premium Opportunity Fund. |
ASSETS: |
||||||
Investments in securities at fair value* |
$ | 236,360,293 | ||||
Cash |
2,471,613 | |||||
Cash collateral for futures |
372,442 | |||||
Cash pledged as collateral for OTC derivatives (Note 2) |
2,730,000 | |||||
Foreign currencies at value** |
1,637,190 | |||||
Foreign cash collateral for futures*** |
620,032 | |||||
Receivables: |
||||||
Dividends |
480,482 | |||||
Foreign tax reclaims |
286,427 | |||||
Prepaid expenses |
1,595 | |||||
Total assets |
244,960,074 | |||||
LIABILITIES: |
||||||
Payable for investment securities purchased |
203,421 | |||||
Unrealized depreciation on forward foreign currency contracts |
562,659 | |||||
Payable for investment management fees |
181,171 | |||||
Payable for administrative fees |
18,134 | |||||
Payable for trustee fees |
2,808 | |||||
Other accrued expenses and liabilities |
132,551 | |||||
Written options, at fair valueˆ |
3,558,055 | |||||
Total liabilities |
4,658,799 | |||||
NET ASSETS |
$ | 240,301,275 | ||||
NET ASSETS WERE COMPRISED OF: |
||||||
Paid-in capital |
$ | 210,364,992 | ||||
Undistributed net investment income |
521,606 | |||||
Accumulated net realized loss |
(10,955,792 | ) | ||||
Net unrealized appreciation |
40,370,469 | |||||
NET ASSETS |
$ | 240,301,275 | ||||
__________________ |
||||||
* Cost of investments in securities |
$ | 194,676,099 | ||||
** Cost of foreign currencies |
$ | 1,638,636 | ||||
*** Cost of foreign cash collateral for futures |
$ | 620,032 | ||||
ˆ Premiums received on written options |
$ | 2,923,915 | ||||
Net assets |
$ | 240,301,275 | ||||
Shares authorized |
unlimited | |||||
Par value |
$ | 0.010 | ||||
Shares outstanding |
18,353,572 | |||||
Net asset value |
$ | 13.09 |
INVESTMENT INCOME: |
||||||
Dividends, net of foreign taxes withheld* |
$ | 5,813,148 | ||||
Total investment income |
5,813,148 | |||||
EXPENSES: |
||||||
Investment management fees |
1,796,220 | |||||
Transfer agent fees |
29,008 | |||||
Administrative service fees |
239,494 | |||||
Shareholder reporting expense |
41,374 | |||||
Professional fees |
49,140 | |||||
Custody and accounting expense |
164,426 | |||||
Trustee fees |
7,730 | |||||
Miscellaneous expense |
34,801 | |||||
Interest expense |
474 | |||||
Total expenses |
2,362,667 | |||||
Net recouped |
34,731 | |||||
Net expenses |
2,397,398 | |||||
Net investment income |
3,415,750 | |||||
REALIZED AND UNREALIZED GAIN (LOSS): |
||||||
Net realized gain (loss) on: |
||||||
Investments |
7,164,918 | |||||
Foreign currency related transactions |
(1,270,860 | ) | ||||
Futures |
(2,353,756 | ) | ||||
Written options |
(11,562,087 | ) | ||||
Net realized loss |
(8,021,785 | ) | ||||
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on: |
||||||
Investments |
30,432,783 | |||||
Foreign currency related transactions |
(1,561,272 | ) | ||||
Futures |
(487,519 | ) | ||||
Written options |
(127,336 | ) | ||||
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) |
28,256,656 | |||||
Net realized and unrealized gain |
20,234,871 | |||||
Increase in net assets resulting from operations |
$ | 23,650,621 | ||||
__________________ |
||||||
* Foreign taxes withheld |
$ | 310,271 |
Year Ended February 28, 2014 |
Year Ended February 28, 2013 |
|||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FROM OPERATIONS: |
||||||||||
Net investment income |
$ | 3,415,750 | $ | 3,809,262 | ||||||
Net realized gain (loss) |
(8,021,785 | ) | 17,056,764 | |||||||
Net change in unrealized appreciation |
28,256,656 | 5,727,483 | ||||||||
Increase in net assets resulting from operations |
23,650,621 | 26,593,509 | ||||||||
FROM DISTRIBUTIONS TO SHAREHOLDERS: |
||||||||||
Net investment income |
(4,998,362 | ) | (8,099,640 | ) | ||||||
Net realized gains |
| (9,831,041 | ) | |||||||
Return of capital |
(15,553,968 | ) | (3,784,430 | ) | ||||||
Total distributions |
(20,552,330 | ) | (21,715,111 | ) | ||||||
FROM CAPITAL SHARE TRANSACTIONS: |
||||||||||
Reinvestment of distributions |
168,572 | | ||||||||
Net increase in net assets resulting from capital share transactions |
168,572 | | ||||||||
Net increase in net assets |
3,266,863 | 4,878,398 | ||||||||
NET ASSETS: |
||||||||||
Beginning of year or period |
237,034,412 | 232,156,014 | ||||||||
End of year or period |
$ | 240,301,275 | $ | 237,034,412 | ||||||
Undistributed (distributions in excess of) net investment income at end of year or period |
$ | 521,606 | $ | (288,785 | ) |
Per Share Operating Performance |
Ratios and Supplemental Data |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Income (loss) from investment operations |
|
Less distributions |
|
Ratios to average net assets |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net asset value, beginning of year or period |
|
Net investment income gain (loss) |
|
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) |
|
Total from investment operations |
|
From net investment income |
|
From net realized gains |
|
From return of capital |
|
Total distributions |
|
Net asset value, end of year or period |
|
Market value, end of year or period |
|
Total investment return at net asset value(1) |
|
Total investment return at market value (2) |
|
Net assets, end of year or period (000s) |
|
Gross expenses prior to expense waiver/ recoupment (3) |
|
Net expenses after expense waiver/ recoupment (3)(4) |
|
Net investment income after expense waiver/ recoupment (3)(4) |
|
Portfolio turnover rate |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Year or period ended |
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
(%) |
|
(%) |
|
($000s) |
|
(%) |
|
(%) |
|
(%) |
|
(%) |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
02-28-14 |
12.92 | 0.19 | 1.10 | 1.29 | 0.27 | | 0.85 | 1.12 | 13.09 | 11.91 | 10.94 | 3.14 | 240,301 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 1.43 | 11 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
02-28-13 |
12.66 | 0.21 | 1.23 | 1.44 | 0.44 | 0.54 | 0.20 | 1.18 | 12.92 | 12.64 | 12.85 | 17.49 | 237,034 | 1.07 | 1.00 | 1.68 | 234 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
02-29-12 |
13.76 | 0.22 | | 0.00 | * | 0.22 | 1.32 | | | 1.32 | 12.66 | 11.90 | 2.43 | (3.44 | ) | 232,156 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.76 | 135 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
02-28-11 |
13.37 | 0.20 | 1.57 | 1.77 | 1.38 | | | 1.38 | 13.76 | 13.72 | 14.05 | 6.32 | 251,545 | 0.98 | 0.99 | | 1.48 | | 164 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
02-28-10 |
11.29 | 0.21 | | 3.64 | 3.85 | | | 1.77 | 1.77 | 13.37 | 14.30 | 35.81 | 57.38 | 242,426 | 1.01 | 1.00 | | 1.61 | | 141 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
02-28-09 |
17.79 | 0.31 | | (4.95 | ) | (4.64 | ) | 0.74 | | 1.12 | 1.86 | 11.29 | 10.42 | (26.96 | ) | (28.32 | ) | 204,546 | 0.99 | 0.99 | | 2.01 | | 178 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
02-29-08 |
21.19 | 0.30 | | (0.73 | ) | (0.43 | ) | | 2.40 | 0.57 | 2.97 | 17.79 | 16.73 | (2.40 | ) | (7.87 | ) | 324,275 | 0.97 | 0.97 | | 1.45 | | 194 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
02-28-07 |
20.24 | 0.26 | 2.55 | 2.81 | 0.04 | 1.54 | 0.28 | 1.86 | 21.19 | 21.11 | 14.81 | 24.40 | 385,433 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 1.29 | 132 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10-31-05(5)02-28-06 |
19.06 | (6) | 0.06 | | 1.28 | 1.34 | 0.16 | | | 0.16 | 20.24 | 18.61 | 7.08 | (6.17 | ) | 365,374 | 1.06 | 1.00 | 0.86 | 41 |
(1) |
Total investment return at net asset value has been calculated assuming a purchase at net asset value at the beginning of each period and a sale at net asset value at the end of each period and assumes reinvestment of dividends, capital gain distributions and return of capital distributions/allocations, if any, in accordance with the provisions of the dividend reinvestment plan. Total investment return at net asset value is not annualized for periods less than one year. |
(2) |
Total investment return at market value measures the change in the market value of your investment assuming reinvestment of dividends, capital gain distributions and return of capital distributions/allocations, if any, in accordance with the provisions of the Funds dividend reinvestment plan. Total investment return at market value is not annualized for periods less than one year. |
(3) |
Annualized for periods less than one year. |
(4) |
The Investment Adviser has agreed to limit expenses, (excluding interest, taxes, brokerage, extraordinary expenses and acquired fund fees and expenses) subject to possible recoupment by ING Investments, LLC within three years of being incurred. |
(5) |
Commencement of operations. |
(6) |
Net asset value at beginning of period reflects the deduction of the sales load of $0.90 per share and offering costs of $0.04 per share paid by the shareholder from the $20.00 offering price. |
|
Calculated using average number of shares outstanding throughout the period. |
* |
Amount is less than $0.005 or 0.005% or more than $(0.005) or (0.005)%. |
|
Impact of waiving the advisory fee for the ING Institutional Prime Money Market Fund holding has less than 0.005% impact on the expense ratio and net investment income or loss ratio. |
(1) |
Market value of investment securities, other assets and liabilities at the exchange rates prevailing at the end of the day. |
(2) |
Purchases and sales of investment securities, income and expenses at the rates of exchange prevailing on the respective dates of such transactions |
February 28, |
||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
Total |
|||||||||||||
$ |
$ | 37,214 | $ |
$ | 37,214 |
Number of Contracts |
Premiums Received |
|||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Balance at 02/28/13 |
174,600 | $ | 2,586,658 | |||||||
Options Written |
1,411,800 | 24,520,794 | ||||||||
Options Expired |
(362,900 | ) | (5,898,140 | ) | ||||||
Options Exercised |
| | ||||||||
Options Terminated in Closing Purchase Transactions |
(1,059,900 | ) | (18,285,397 | ) | ||||||
Balance at 02/28/14 |
163,600 | $ | 2,923,915 |
Reinvestment of distributions |
Net increase in shares outstanding |
Reinvestment of distributions |
Net increase |
|||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year or period ended |
# | # | ($) | ($) | ||||||||||||||
2/28/2014 |
13,105 | 13,105 | 168,572 | 168,572 | ||||||||||||||
2/28/2013 |
| | | |
Undistributed Net Investment Income |
Accumulated Net Realized Gains/(Losses) |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
$2,393,003 |
$(2,393,003) |
Tax Year Ended December 31, 2013 |
Tax Year Ended December 31, 2012 |
|||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ordinary Income |
Return of Capital |
Ordinary Income |
Long-term Capital Gain |
Return of Capital |
||||||||||||||||
$4,998,362 |
$15,553,968 |
$12,130,631 |
$5,800,051 |
$3,784,430 |
Post-October Capital Losses Deferred |
Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation) |
Short-term Capital Loss Carryforwards |
Expiration |
|||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
$(1,923,827) |
$39,497,844 |
$(7,343,706) |
None |
Per Share Amount |
Declaration Date |
Payable Date |
Record Date |
|||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
$0.280 |
3/17/2014 |
4/15/2014 |
4/3/2014 |
ING GLOBAL ADVANTAGE AND PREMIUM OPPORTUNITY FUND |
SUMMARY PORTFOLIO OF INVESTMENTS AS OF FEBRUARY 28, 2014 |
Shares |
|
|
|
Value |
|
Percentage of Net Assets |
|||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
COMMON STOCK: 98.4% |
|||||||||||||||||||
Brazil: 0.8% |
|||||||||||||||||||
212,559 |
Other Securities |
$ | 1,815,647 | 0.8 | |||||||||||||||
Canada: 0.7% |
|||||||||||||||||||
85,000 |
Other Securities |
1,732,300 | 0.7 | ||||||||||||||||
China: 0.4% |
|||||||||||||||||||
1,290,000 |
Other Securities |
1,037,383 | 0.4 | ||||||||||||||||
France: 3.5% |
|||||||||||||||||||
95,163 |
AXA S.A. |
2,478,742 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||
49,657 |
Total S.A. |
3,221,703 | 1.3 | ||||||||||||||||
30,692 |
Vinci S.A. |
2,288,875 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||
8,196 |
Other Securities |
438,240 | 0.2 | ||||||||||||||||
8,427,560 | 3.5 | ||||||||||||||||||
Germany: 4.7% |
|||||||||||||||||||
14,076 |
Allianz AG |
2,510,252 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||
19,938 |
Bayerische Motoren Werke AG |
2,313,355 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||
46,084 |
Deutsche Bank AG |
2,228,828 | 0.9 | ||||||||||||||||
17,427 |
Siemens AG |
2,323,498 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||
9,220 |
Other Securities |
1,908,346 | 0.8 | ||||||||||||||||
11,284,279 | 4.7 | ||||||||||||||||||
Hong Kong: 0.9% |
|||||||||||||||||||
448,125 |
Other Securities |
2,195,608 | 0.9 | ||||||||||||||||
Israel: 1.3% |
|||||||||||||||||||
59,178 |
Other Securities |
3,062,086 | 1.3 | ||||||||||||||||
Japan: 7.2% |
|||||||||||||||||||
6,000 |
Keyence Corp. |
2,583,758 | 1.1 | ||||||||||||||||
455,800 |
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. |
2,641,204 | 1.1 | ||||||||||||||||
56,700 |
Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, Inc. |
2,545,719 | 1.1 | ||||||||||||||||
60,600 |
Toyota Motor Corp. |
3,487,719 | 1.4 | ||||||||||||||||
302,689 |
Other Securities |
6,132,707 | 2.5 | ||||||||||||||||
17,391,107 | 7.2 | ||||||||||||||||||
Malaysia: 0.0% |
|||||||||||||||||||
100 |
Other Securities |
299 | 0.0 | ||||||||||||||||
Mexico: 0.8% |
|||||||||||||||||||
127,162 |
Other Securities |
1,826,263 | 0.8 | ||||||||||||||||
Netherlands: 1.5% |
|||||||||||||||||||
107,171 |
Other Securities |
3,717,575 | 1.5 | ||||||||||||||||
Norway: 0.5% |
|||||||||||||||||||
58,666 |
Other Securities |
1,119,170 | 0.5 | ||||||||||||||||
Peru: 0.5% |
|||||||||||||||||||
100,684 |
Other Securities |
1,268,618 | 0.5 | ||||||||||||||||
Poland: 0.7% |
|||||||||||||||||||
11,260 |
Other Securities |
1,645,556 | 0.7 | ||||||||||||||||
COMMON STOCK: (continued) |
|||||||||||||||||||
Russia: 0.6% |
|||||||||||||||||||
133,808 |
Other Securities |
$ | 1,379,561 | 0.6 | |||||||||||||||
Singapore: 0.9% |
|||||||||||||||||||
171,000 |
DBS Group Holdings Ltd. |
2,230,719 | 0.9 | ||||||||||||||||
South Korea: 0.9% |
|||||||||||||||||||
1,732 |
Other Securities |
2,194,103 | 0.9 | ||||||||||||||||
Spain: 0.8% |
|||||||||||||||||||
130,761 |
Other Securities |
1,999,378 | 0.8 | ||||||||||||||||
Switzerland: 7.0% |
|||||||||||||||||||
25,173 |
Cie Financiere Richemont SA |
2,500,819 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||
53,183 |
Nestle S.A. |
4,017,719 | 1.7 | ||||||||||||||||
43,635 |
Novartis AG |
3,631,746 | 1.5 | ||||||||||||||||
16,780 |
Roche Holding AG Genusschein |
5,166,564 | 2.2 | ||||||||||||||||
269,074 |
Other Securities |
1,481,712 | 0.6 | ||||||||||||||||
16,798,560 | 7.0 | ||||||||||||||||||
Taiwan: 0.6% |
|||||||||||||||||||
76,816 |
Other Securities |
1,388,065 | 0.6 | ||||||||||||||||
Turkey: 0.2% |
|||||||||||||||||||
171,648 |
Other Securities |
442,188 | 0.2 | ||||||||||||||||
United Kingdom: 8.7% |
|||||||||||||||||||
362,988 |
BP PLC |
3,067,607 | 1.3 | ||||||||||||||||
272,711 |
HSBC Holdings PLC |
2,878,173 | 1.2 | ||||||||||||||||
140,528 |
Prudential PLC |
3,181,913 | 1.3 | ||||||||||||||||
64,921 |
Rio Tinto PLC |
3,722,585 | 1.5 | ||||||||||||||||
117,008 |
WPP PLC |
2,562,723 | 1.1 | ||||||||||||||||
485,981 |
Other Securities |
5,459,476 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||||||
20,872,477 | 8.7 | ||||||||||||||||||
United States: 55.2% |
|||||||||||||||||||
40,577 |
@ |
Adobe Systems, Inc. |
2,783,988 | 1.2 | |||||||||||||||
63,462 |
Altria Group, Inc. |
2,301,132 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||
194,817 |
Bank of America Corp. |
3,220,325 | 1.3 | ||||||||||||||||
88,986 |
Blackstone Group LP |
2,967,683 | 1.2 | ||||||||||||||||
58,639 |
Carnival Corp. |
2,325,623 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||
122,842 |
Cisco Systems, Inc. |
2,677,956 | 1.1 | ||||||||||||||||
69,239 |
Citigroup, Inc. |
3,367,093 | 1.4 | ||||||||||||||||
47,919 |
CVS Caremark Corp. |
3,504,796 | 1.5 | ||||||||||||||||
90,087 |
EMC Corp. |
2,375,594 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||
79,045 |
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc. |
2,578,448 | 1.1 | ||||||||||||||||
155,744 |
General Electric Co. |
3,966,800 | 1.6 | ||||||||||||||||
19,323 |
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. |
3,216,313 | 1.3 | ||||||||||||||||
4,347 |
@ |
Google, Inc. Class A |
5,284,430 | 2.2 | |||||||||||||||
24,230 |
Honeywell International, Inc. |
2,288,281 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||
75,081 |
JPMorgan Chase & Co. |
4,266,102 | 1.8 | ||||||||||||||||
75,674 |
Merck & Co., Inc. |
4,312,661 | 1.8 | ||||||||||||||||
45,718 |
Metlife, Inc. |
2,316,531 | 1.0 |
ING GLOBAL ADVANTAGE AND PREMIUM OPPORTUNITY FUND |
SUMMARY PORTFOLIO OF INVESTMENTS AS OF FEBRUARY 28, 2014 (CONTINUED) |
Shares |
|
|
|
Value |
|
Percentage of Net Assets | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
COMMON STOCK: (continued) |
|||||||||||||||||||
United States: (continued) |
|||||||||||||||||||
95,951 |
Microsoft Corp. |
$ | 3,675,883 | 1.5 | |||||||||||||||
75,243 |
@ |
Mylan Laboratories |
4,181,253 | 1.7 | |||||||||||||||
35,560 |
Nike, Inc. |
2,784,348 | 1.2 | ||||||||||||||||
28,958 |
Occidental Petroleum Corp. |
2,795,026 | 1.2 | ||||||||||||||||
89,179 |
Oracle Corp. |
3,487,791 | 1.5 | ||||||||||||||||
158,081 |
Pfizer, Inc. |
5,075,981 | 2.1 | ||||||||||||||||
28,572 |
Philip Morris International, Inc. |
2,311,760 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||
41,283 |
Procter & Gamble Co. |
3,247,321 | 1.3 | ||||||||||||||||
33,445 |
Qualcomm, Inc. |
2,518,074 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||
32,533 |
UnitedHealth Group, Inc. |
2,513,825 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||
37,139 |
Walt Disney Co. |
3,001,203 | 1.2 | ||||||||||||||||
93,007 |
Wells Fargo & Co. |
4,317,385 | 1.8 | ||||||||||||||||
1,017,582 |
Other Securities |
38,868,185 | 16.2 | ||||||||||||||||
132,531,791 | 55.2 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Common Stock |
|||||||||||||||||||
(Cost $194,676,099) |
236,360,293 | 98.4 | |||||||||||||||||
Assets in Excess of Other Liabilities |
3,940,982 | 1.6 | |||||||||||||||||
Net Assets |
$ | 240,301,275 | 100.0 |
@ |
Non-income producing security |
Cost for federal income tax purposes is $194,977,308. |
Net unrealized appreciation consists of: |
||||||
Gross Unrealized Appreciation |
$ | 47,253,828 | ||||
Gross Unrealized Depreciation |
(5,870,843 | ) | ||||
Net Unrealized Appreciation |
$ | 41,382,985 |
Sector Diversification |
Percentage of Net Assets |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Financials |
24.4 | % | ||||
Information Technology |
15.4 | |||||
Health Care |
10.6 | |||||
Consumer Discretionary |
10.5 | |||||
Energy |
9.5 | |||||
Consumer Staples |
8.7 | |||||
Industrials |
8.6 | |||||
Materials |
6.5 | |||||
Utilities |
2.6 | |||||
Telecommunication Services |
1.6 | |||||
Assets in Excess of Other Liabilities |
1.6 | |||||
Net Assets |
100.0 | % |
Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Investments (Level 1) |
Significant Other Observable Inputs# (Level 2) |
Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3) |
Fair Value at February 28, 2014 |
|||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Asset Table |
||||||||||||||||||
Investments, at fair value |
||||||||||||||||||
Common Stock |
||||||||||||||||||
Brazil |
$ | 1,815,647 | $ | | $ | | $ | 1,815,647 | ||||||||||
Canada |
1,732,300 | | | 1,732,300 | ||||||||||||||
China |
| 1,037,383 | | 1,037,383 | ||||||||||||||
France |
438,240 | 7,989,320 | | 8,427,560 | ||||||||||||||
Germany |
| 11,284,279 | | 11,284,279 | ||||||||||||||
Hong Kong |
| 2,195,608 | | 2,195,608 | ||||||||||||||
Israel |
3,062,086 | | | 3,062,086 | ||||||||||||||
Japan |
| 17,391,107 | | 17,391,107 | ||||||||||||||
Malaysia |
| 299 | | 299 | ||||||||||||||
Mexico |
1,826,263 | | | 1,826,263 | ||||||||||||||
Netherlands |
| 3,717,575 | | 3,717,575 | ||||||||||||||
Norway |
1,119,170 | | | 1,119,170 | ||||||||||||||
Peru |
1,268,618 | | | 1,268,618 | ||||||||||||||
Poland |
| 1,645,556 | | 1,645,556 | ||||||||||||||
Russia |
1,379,561 | | | 1,379,561 | ||||||||||||||
Singapore |
| 2,230,719 | | 2,230,719 | ||||||||||||||
South Korea |
| 2,194,103 | | 2,194,103 | ||||||||||||||
Spain |
| 1,999,378 | | 1,999,378 | ||||||||||||||
Switzerland |
| 16,798,560 | | 16,798,560 | ||||||||||||||
Taiwan |
1,388,065 | | | 1,388,065 | ||||||||||||||
Turkey |
| 442,188 | | 442,188 |
ING GLOBAL ADVANTAGE AND PREMIUM OPPORTUNITY FUND |
SUMMARY PORTFOLIO OF INVESTMENTS AS OF FEBRUARY 28, 2014 (CONTINUED) |
Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Investments (Level 1) |
Significant Other Observable Inputs# (Level 2) |
Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3) |
Fair Value at February 28, 2014 | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Asset Table |
||||||||||||||||||
Investments, at fair value |
||||||||||||||||||
Common Stock |
||||||||||||||||||
United Kingdom |
$ | | $ | 20,872,477 | $ | | $ | 20,872,477 | ||||||||||
United States |
132,489,718 | 42,073 | | 132,531,791 | ||||||||||||||
Total Common Stock |
146,519,668 | 89,840,625 | | 236,360,293 | ||||||||||||||
Total Investments, at fair value |
$ | 146,519,668 | $ | 89,840,625 | $ | | $ | 236,360,293 | ||||||||||
Liabilities Table |
||||||||||||||||||
Other Financial Instruments+ |
||||||||||||||||||
Forward Foreign Currency Contracts |
$ | | $ | (562,659 | ) | $ | | $ | (562,659 | ) | ||||||||
Futures |
(128,062 | ) | | | (128,062 | ) | ||||||||||||
Written Options |
| (3,558,055 | ) | | (3,558,055 | ) | ||||||||||||
Total Liabilities |
$ | (128,062 | ) | $ | (4,120,714 | ) | $ | | $ | (4,248,776 | ) |
ˆ |
See Note 2, Significant Accounting Policies in the Notes to Financial Statements for additional information. |
+ |
Other Financial Instruments are derivatives not reflected in the Portfolio of Investments and may include open forward foreign currency contracts, futures, centrally cleared swaps, OTC swaps and written options. Forward foreign currency contracts, futures and centrally cleared swaps are valued at the unrealized gain (loss) on the instrument. OTC swaps and written options are valued at the fair value of the instrument. |
# |
The earlier close of the foreign markets gives rise to the possibility that significant events, including broad market moves, may have occurred in the interim and may materially affect the value of those securities. To account for this, the Fund may frequently value many of its foreign equity securities using fair value prices based on third party vendor modeling tools to the extent available. Accordingly, a portion of the Funds investments are categorized as Level 2 investments. |
Counterparty |
Currency |
Contract Amount |
Buy/Sell |
Settlement Date |
In Exchange For |
Fair Value |
Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Barclays Bank PLC |
British Pound |
13,094,327 | Sell |
03/31/14 |
$ | 21,823,228 | $ | 21,922,640 | $ | (99,412 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||
Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC |
Japanese Yen |
1,789,205,639 | Sell |
03/31/14 |
17,494,409 | 17,583,364 | (88,955 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC |
Swiss Franc |
13,621,301 | Sell |
03/31/14 |
15,320,876 | 15,490,562 | (169,686 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
BNP Paribas Bank |
EU Euro |
19,122,971 | Sell |
03/31/14 |
26,216,580 | 26,395,116 | (178,536 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
BNP Paribas Bank |
Israeli New Shekel |
10,616,931 | Sell |
03/31/14 |
3,016,750 | 3,042,706 | (25,956 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC |
British Pound |
12,670 | Sell |
03/31/14 |
21,097 | 21,211 | (114 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
$ | (562,659 | ) |
Contract Description |
Number of Contracts |
Expiration Date |
Notional Value |
Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation) |
||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Long Contracts |
||||||||||||||||||
Euro STOXX 50® Index |
15 |
03/19/14 | $ | 650,121 | $ | (2 | ) | |||||||||||
FTSE 100 Index |
27 |
03/21/14 | 3,063,373 | (9,024 | ) | |||||||||||||
Nikkei 225 Index |
15 |
03/13/14 | 1,097,327 | (3,940 | ) | |||||||||||||
$ | 4,810,821 | $ | (12,966 | ) | ||||||||||||||
Short Contracts |
||||||||||||||||||
S&P 500 E-Mini |
(24) |
03/21/14 | (2,229,120 | ) | (115,096 | ) | ||||||||||||
$ | (2,229,120 | ) | $ | (115,096 | ) |
ING GLOBAL ADVANTAGE AND PREMIUM OPPORTUNITY FUND |
SUMMARY PORTFOLIO OF INVESTMENTS AS OF FEBRUARY 28, 2014 (CONTINUED) |
Number of Contracts |
Counterparty |
Description |
Exercise Price |
Expiration Date |
Premiums Received |
Fair Value |
||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Options on Indices | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1,400 |
Barclays Bank PLC |
Call on Euro Stoxx 50® Index |
3,120.560 | EUR | 04/04/14 | $ | 119,985 | $ | (131,502 | ) | ||||||||||||||||
1,400 |
BNP Paribas Bank |
Call on Euro Stoxx 50® Index |
3,045.078 | EUR | 03/21/14 | 130,575 | (229,538 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||
1,300 |
Citigroup, Inc. |
Call on Euro Stoxx 50® Index |
3,158.155 | EUR | 03/07/14 | 115,956 | (33,671 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||
1,300 |
Barclays Bank PLC |
Call on FTSE 100 Index |
6,802.850 | GBP | 03/07/14 | 227,159 | (83,584 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||
1,300 |
BNP Paribas Bank |
Call on FTSE 100 Index |
6,520.060 | GBP | 03/21/14 | 265,596 | (607,974 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||
1,300 |
BNP Paribas Bank |
Call on FTSE 100 Index |
6,801.140 | GBP | 04/04/14 | 241,291 | (177,593 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||
38,000 |
Barclays Bank PLC |
Call on Nikkei 225 Index |
14,738.235 | JPY | 04/04/14 | 178,088 | (172,794 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||
37,600 |
Citigroup, Inc. |
Call on Nikkei 225 Index |
14,530.093 | JPY | 03/20/14 | 179,779 | (191,028 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||
37,400 |
Citigroup, Inc. |
Call on Nikkei 225 Index |
15,880.388 | JPY | 03/07/14 | 170,261 | (1,680 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||
14,300 |
BNP Paribas Bank |
Call on S&P 500 Index |
1,790.894 | USD | 03/21/14 | 474,016 | (1,033,154 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||
14,200 |
BNP Paribas Bank |
Call on S&P 500 Index |
1,838.173 | USD | 04/04/14 | 433,895 | (569,239 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||
14,100 |
Citigroup, Inc. |
Call on S&P 500 Index |
1,841.994 | USD | 03/07/14 | 387,314 | (326,298 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Written OTC
Options |
$ | 2,923,915 | $ | (3,558,055 | ) |
Derivatives not accounted for as hedging instruments |
Location on Statement of Assets and Liabilities |
Fair Value |
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Liability Derivatives |
||||||||||
Foreign exchange contracts |
Unrealized depreciation on forward foreign currency contracts |
$ | 562,659 | |||||||
Equity contracts |
Written options, at fair value |
3,558,055 | ||||||||
Equity contracts |
Net Assets Unrealized depreciation* |
128,062 | ||||||||
Total Liability Derivatives |
$ | 4,248,776 |
* |
Includes cumulative appreciation/depreciation of futures contracts as reported in the table following the Summary Portfolio of Investments. |
Amount of Realized Gain or (Loss) on Derivatives
Recognized in Income |
|||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Derivatives not accounted for as hedging instruments |
Foreign currency related transactions* |
Futures |
Written options |
Total |
|||||||||||||||
Equity contracts |
$ | | $ | (2,353,756 | ) | $ | (11,562,087 | ) | $ | (13,915,843 | ) | ||||||||
Foreign exchange contracts |
(718,723 | ) | | | (718,723 | ) | |||||||||||||
Total |
$ | (718,723 | ) | $ | (2,353,756 | ) | $ | (11,562,087 | ) | $ | (14,634,566 | ) | |||||||
Change in Unrealized Appreciation or (Depreciation) on Derivatives Recognized in Income |
|||||||||||||||||||
Derivatives not accounted for as hedging instruments |
Foreign currency related transactions* |
Futures |
Written options |
Total |
|||||||||||||||
Equity contracts |
$ | | $ | (487,519 | ) | $ | (127,336 | ) | $ | (614,855 | ) | ||||||||
Foreign exchange contracts |
(1,649,392 | ) | | | (1,649,392 | ) | |||||||||||||
Total |
$ | (1,649,392 | ) | $ | (487,519 | ) | $ | (127,336 | ) | $ | (2,264,247 | ) |
* |
Amounts recognized for forward foreign currency contracts are included in net realized gain (loss) on foreign currency related transactions and net change in unrealized appreciation or depreciation on foreign currency related transactions. |
ING GLOBAL ADVANTAGE AND PREMIUM OPPORTUNITY FUND |
SUMMARY PORTFOLIO OF INVESTMENTS AS OF FEBRUARY 28, 2014 (CONTINUED) |
Barclays Bank PLC |
BNP Paribas Bank |
Citigroup, Inc. |
Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC |
Totals |
||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Liabilities: |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Forward foreign currency contracts |
$ | 99,412 | $ | 204,492 | $ | | $ | 258,755 | $ | 562,659 | ||||||||||||
Written options |
387,880 | 2,617,498 | 552,677 | | 3,558,055 | |||||||||||||||||
Total Liabilities |
$ | 487,292 | $ | 2,821,990 | $ | 552,677 | $ | 258,755 | $ | 4,120,714 | ||||||||||||
Net OTC derivative instruments by counterparty, at fair value |
$ | (487,292 | ) | $ | (2,821,990 | ) | $ | (552,677 | ) | $ | (258,755 | ) | $ | (4,120,714 | ) | |||||||
Total collateral pledged by the Fund/(Received from counterparty) |
$ | 20,000 | $ | 2,710,000 | $ | | $ | | $ | 2,730,000 | ||||||||||||
Net Exposure(1) |
$ | (467,292 | ) | $ | (111,990 | ) | $ | (552,677 | ) | $ | (258,755 | ) | $ | (1,390,714 | ) |
(1) |
Positive net exposure represents amounts due from each respective counterparty. Negative exposure represents amounts due from the Fund. Please refer to Note 2 for additional details regarding counterparty credit risk and credit related contingent features. |
% of Total Net Assets against which calls written |
65.04 | % | ||||
Average Days to Expiration at time written |
44 days | |||||
Average Call Moneyness* at time written |
ATM | |||||
Premium received for calls |
$ | 2,923,915 | ||||
Value of calls |
$ | 3,558,055 |
* |
Moneyness is the term used to describe the relationship between the price of the underlying asset and the options exercise or strike price. For example, a call (buy) option is considered in-the-money when the value of the underlying asset exceeds the strike price. Conversely, a put (sell) option is considered in-the-money when its strike price exceeds the value of the underlying asset. Options are characterized for the purpose of Moneyness as, in-the-money (ITM), out-of-the-money (OTM) or at-the-money (ATM), where the underlying asset value equals the strike price. |
Fund Name |
Type |
Per Share Amount |
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ING Global Advantage and Premium Opportunity Fund |
NII | $ | 0.2724 | |||||||
ROC | $ | 0.8476 |
1 |
To approve a new investment advisory agreement for the Fund with ING Investments prompted by the IPO, and to approve, under certain circumstances, any future advisory agreements prompted by Change of Control Events that occur as part of the Separation Plan. |
2 |
To approve a new investment sub-advisory agreement between ING Investments and ING IM with respect to the Fund prompted by the IPO, and to approve, under certain circumstances, any future sub-advisory agreements prompted by Change of Control Events that occur as part of the Separation Plan. |
3 |
To approve a new investment sub-advisory agreement between ING Investments and IIMA with respect to the Fund prompted by the IPO, and to approve, under certain circumstances, any future sub-advisory agreements prompted by Change of Control Events that occur as part of the Separation Plan. |
4 |
To elect five nominees to the Board of Trustees of the Fund. |
Proposal |
Shares voted for |
Shares voted against or withheld |
Shares abstained |
Broker non-vote |
Total Shares Voted |
|||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ING Global Advantage and Premium Opportunity Fund |
1* |
8,742,116.496 | 421,890.473 | 336,749.391 | 2,796,883.235 | 12,297,639.595 | ||||||||||||||||||||
2* |
8,721,912.258 | 437,498.312 | 341,345.790 | 2,796,883.235 | 12,297,639.595 | |||||||||||||||||||||
3* |
8,708,756.406 | 441,444.826 | 350,555.128 | 2,796,883.235 | 12,297,639.595 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Proposal |
For All |
Withhold All |
For all Except |
Broker non-vote |
Total Shares Voted |
|||||||||||||||||||||
John V. Boyer |
4* |
11,887,834.288 | 409,805.307 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 12,297,639.595 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Patricia W. Chadwick |
4* |
11,855,824.162 | 441,815.433 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 12,297,639.595 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Albert E. DePrince, Jr. |
4* |
11,853,097.554 | 444,542.041 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 12,297,639.595 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Martin J. Gavin** |
4* |
11,889,001.273 | 408,638.322 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 12,297,639.595 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Sheryl K. Pressler |
4* |
11,855,485.523 | 442,154.072 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 12,297,639.595 |
* |
Proposals Passed |
** |
Effective close of business September 12, 2013, Mr. Gavin resigned as Trustee. |
Name, Address and Age |
Position(s) Held with the Trust |
Term of Office and Length of Time Served(1) |
Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years |
Number of Funds in Fund Complex Overseen by Trustee(2) |
Other Board Positions Held by Trustee |
||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Independent Trustees: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Colleen D. Baldwin 7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd. Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Age: 53 |
Trustee |
October 2007Present |
President, Glantuam Partners, LLC, a business consulting firm (January 2009Present). |
164 |
DSM/Dentaquest, Boston, MA (February 2014Present). |
||||||||||||||||||
John V. Boyer 7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd. Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Age: 60 |
Chairperson Trustee |
January 2014Present July 2005Present |
President and Chief Executive Officer, Bechtler Arts Foundation, an arts and education foundation (January
2008Present). |
164 |
None. |
||||||||||||||||||
Patricia W. Chadwick 7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd. Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Age: 65 |
Trustee |
January 2006Present |
Consultant and President, Ravengate Partners LLC, a consulting firm that provides advice regarding financial markets and the global
economy (January 2000Present). |
164 |
Wisconsin Energy Corporation (June 2006Present) and The Royce Funds (35 funds) (December
2009Present). |
||||||||||||||||||
Albert E. DePrince, Jr. 7337 E. Doubletree Ranch Rd. Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Age: 73 |
Trustee |
May 2013Present |
Professor of Economics and Finance, Middle Tennessee State University (August 1991Present). |
164 |
None. |
||||||||||||||||||
Peter S. Drotch 7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd. Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Age: 72 |
Trustee |
October 2007Present |
Retired. |
164 |
First Marblehead Corporation (September 2003Present). |
||||||||||||||||||
J. Michael Earley 7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd. Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Age: 68 |
Trustee |
July 2005Present |
Retired. |
164 |
None. |
||||||||||||||||||
Russell H. Jones 7337 E. Doubletree Ranch Rd. Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Age: 69 |
Trustee |
May 2013Present |
Retired. |
164 |
None. |
||||||||||||||||||
Patrick W. Kenny 7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd. Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Age: 71 |
Trustee |
July 2005Present |
Retired. Formerly, President and Chief Executive Officer, International Insurance Society (June 2001June
2009). |
164 |
Assured Guaranty Ltd. (April 2004Present). |
||||||||||||||||||
Joseph E. Obermeyer 7337 E. Doubletree Ranch Rd. Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Age: 56 |
Trustee |
May 2013Present |
President, Obermeyer & Associates, Inc., a provider of financial and economic consulting services (November
1999Present). |
164 |
None. |
Name, Address and Age |
Position(s) Held with the Trust |
Term of Office and Length of Time Served(1) |
Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years |
Number of Funds in Fund Complex Overseen by Trustee(2) |
Other Board Positions Held by Trustee |
||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sheryl K. Pressler 7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd. Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Age: 63 |
Trustee |
January 2006Present |
Consultant (May 2001Present). |
164 |
None. |
||||||||||||||||||
Roger B. Vincent 7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd. Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Age: 68 |
Trustee |
July 2005Present |
Retired. Formerly, President, Springwell Corporation, a corporate finance firm (March 1989August 2011). |
164 |
UGI Corporation (February 2006Present) and UGI Utilities, Inc. (February 2006Present). |
||||||||||||||||||
Trustee who is an Interested Person: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Shaun P. Mathews(3) 7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd. Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Age: 58 |
Trustee |
June 2006Present |
President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Investments, LLC (November 2006Present). |
164 |
ING Capital Corporation, LLC (December 2005Present) and ING Investments Distributor, LLC (December 2005Present; ING Funds
Services, LLC, ING Investments LLC and ING Investment Management, LLC (March 2006Present); and ING Investment Trust Co. (April
2009Present). |
(1) |
Trustees serve until their successors are duly elected and qualified. The tenure of each Trustee (Independent Trustee) is subject to the Boards retirement policy, which states that each duly elected or appointed Independent Trustee shall retire from and cease to be a member of the Board of Trustees as of the close of business on December 31 of the calendar year in which the Independent Trustee attains the age of 73. A majority vote of the Boards other Independent Trustees may extend the retirement date of an Independent Trustee if the retirement would trigger a requirement to hold a meeting of shareholders of the Trust under applicable law, whether for purposes of appointing a successor to the Trustee or otherwise comply with applicable law, in which case the extension would apply until such time as the shareholder meeting can be held or is no longer required (as determined by a vote of a majority of the other Independent Trustees). |
(2) |
For the purpose of this table ING Fund Complex means the following investment companies: ING Asia Pacific High Dividend Equity Income Fund; ING Balanced Portfolio, Inc.; ING Emerging Markets High Dividend Equity Fund; ING Equity Trust; ING Funds Trust; ING Global Advantage and Premium Opportunity Fund; ING Global Equity Dividend and Premium Opportunity Fund; ING Infrastructure, Industrials and Materials Fund; ING Intermediate Bond Portfolio; ING International High Dividend Equity Income Fund; ING Investors Trust; ING Money Market Portfolio; ING Mutual Funds; ING Partners, Inc.; ING Prime Rate Trust; ING Risk Managed Natural Resources Fund; ING Senior Income Fund; ING Separate Portfolios Trust; ING Series Fund, Inc.; ING Strategic Allocation Portfolios, Inc.; ING Variable Funds; ING Variable Insurance Trust; ING Variable Portfolios, Inc.; and ING Variable Products Trust. The number of funds in the ING Fund Complex is as of March 31, 2014. |
(3) |
Interested person, as defined in the 1940 Act, by virtue of this Trustees current affiliation with any of the Funds, ING or any of INGs affiliates. |
Name, Address and Age |
Position(s) Held With the Trust |
Term of Office and Length of Time Served(1) |
Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years |
|||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Shaun P. Mathews 7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd. Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Age: 58 |
President and Chief Executive Officer |
November 2006Present |
President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Investments, LLC (November 2006Present). |
|||||||||||
Michael J. Roland 7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd. Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Age: 55 |
Executive Vice President |
July 2005Present |
Managing Director and Chief Operating Officer, ING Investments, LLC and ING Funds Services, LLC (April 2012Present). Formerly,
Chief Compliance Officer, Directed Services LLC and ING Investments, LLC (March 2011December 2013); Executive Vice President and Chief Operating
Officer, ING Investments, LLC and ING Funds Services, LLC (January 2007April 2012) and Chief Compliance Officer, ING Funds (March
2011February 2012). |
|||||||||||
Stanley D. Vyner 230 Park Avenue New York, New York 10169 Age: 63 |
Executive Vice President Chief Investment Risk Officer |
July 2005Present September 2009Present |
Executive Vice President, ING Investments, LLC (July 2000Present) and Chief Investment Risk Officer, ING Investments, LLC
(January 2003Present). |
|||||||||||
Kevin M. Gleason 7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd. Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Age: 47 |
Chief Compliance Officer |
February 2012Present |
Senior Vice President, ING Investments, LLC (February 2012Present). Formerly, Assistant General Counsel and Assistant
Secretary, The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company (June 2004January 2012). |
|||||||||||
Todd Modic 7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd. Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Age: 46 |
Senior Vice President, Chief/Principal Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary |
July 2005Present |
Senior Vice President, ING Funds Services, LLC (March 2005Present). |
|||||||||||
Kimberly A. Anderson 7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd. Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Age: 49 |
Senior Vice President |
July 2005Present |
Senior Vice President, ING Investments, LLC (October 2003Present). |
|||||||||||
Robert Terris 7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd. Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Age: 43 |
Senior Vice President |
May 2006Present |
Senior Vice President, Head of Division Operations, ING Funds Services, LLC (January 2006Present). |
|||||||||||
Julius A. Drelick, III 7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd. Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Age: 47 |
Senior Vice President |
July 2012Present |
Senior Vice President Fund Compliance, ING Funds Services, LLC (June 2012Present). Chief Compliance Officer of Directed
Services LLC and ING Investments LLC (January 2014Present). Formerly, Vice President Platform Product Management & Project Management,
ING Investments, LLC (April 2007June 2012). |
|||||||||||
Fred Bedoya 7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd. Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Age: 41 |
Vice President and Treasurer |
September 2012Present |
Vice President, ING Funds Services, LLC (March 2012 Present). Formerly, Assistant Vice President Director, ING Funds
Services, LLC (March 2003March 2012). |
|||||||||||
Robyn L. Ichilov 7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd. Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Age: 46 |
Vice President |
July 2005Present |
Vice President, ING Funds Services, LLC (November 1995Present) and ING Investments, LLC (August 1997Present). Formerly,
Treasurer, ING Funds (November 1999February 2012). |
|||||||||||
Maria M. Anderson 7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd. Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Age: 55 |
Vice President |
July 2005Present |
Vice President, ING Funds Services, LLC (September 2004Present). |
Name, Address and Age |
Position(s) Held With the Trust |
Term of Office and Length of Time Served(1) |
Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years |
|||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lauren D. Bensinger 7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd. Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Age: 60 |
Vice President |
July 2012Present |
Vice President, ING Investments, LLC and ING Funds Services, LLC (February 1996Present); Director of Compliance, ING
Investments, LLC (October 2004Present); and Vice President and Money Laundering Reporting Officer, ING Investments Distributor, LLC (April
2010Present). Formerly, Chief Compliance Officer, ING Investments Distributor, LLC (August 1995April 2010). |
|||||||||||
Jason Kadavy 7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd. Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Age: 38 |
Vice President |
September 2012Present |
Vice President, ING Funds Services, LLC (July 2007Present). |
|||||||||||
Kimberly K. Springer 7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd. Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Age: 56 |
Vice President |
March 2006Present |
Vice President Platform Product Management & Project Management, ING Investments, LLC (July 2012Present); Vice
President, ING Investment Management ING Funds (March 2010Present) and Vice President, ING Funds Services, LLC (March 2006Present).
Formerly Managing Paralegal, Registration Statements (June 2003July 2012). |
|||||||||||
Craig Wheeler 7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd. Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Age: 45 |
Vice President |
May 2013Present |
Vice President Director of Tax, ING Funds Services, LLC (March 2013Present). Formerly, Assistant Vice President
Director of Tax, ING Funds Services, LLC (March 2008March 2013). |
|||||||||||
Huey P. Falgout, Jr. 7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd. Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Age: 50 |
Secretary |
July 2005Present |
Senior Vice President and Chief Counsel, ING Investment Management ING Funds (March 2010Present). Formerly, Chief
Counsel, ING Americas, U.S. Legal Services (October 2003March 2010). |
|||||||||||
Theresa K. Kelety 7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd. Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Age: 51 |
Assistant Secretary |
July 2005Present |
Vice President and Senior Counsel, ING Investment Management ING Funds (March 2010Present). Formerly, Senior Counsel,
ING Americas, U.S. Legal Services (April 2008March 2010). |
|||||||||||
Paul A. Caldarelli 7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd. Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Age: 62 |
Assistant Secretary |
June 2010Present |
Vice President and Senior Counsel, ING Investment Management ING Funds (March 2010Present). Formerly, Senior Counsel,
ING Americas, U.S. Legal Services (April 2008March 2010). |
(1) |
The Officers hold office until the next annual meeting of the Board of Trustees and until their successors shall have been elected and qualified. |
ex-dividend basis or 30 days after the payment date for such Dividend, whichever is sooner (the Last Purchase Date), to invest the Dividend amount in Common Shares acquired in Open-Market Purchases.
Declaration Date |
Ex Date |
Payable Date |
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
March 17, 2014 |
April 1, 2014 | April 15, 2014 | ||||||||
June 16, 2014 |
July 1, 2014 | July 15, 2014 | ||||||||
September 15, 2014 |
October 1, 2014 | October 15, 2014 | ||||||||
December 15, 2014 |
December 29, 2014 | January 15, 2015 |
Current Registrant Name and Current Fund Name |
New Registrant Name and New Fund Name, effective May 1, 2014 |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ING Global Advantage and Premium Opportunity Fund |
Voya Global Advantage and Premium Opportunity Fund |
AR-UIGA (0214-042414) |
Item 2. | Code of Ethics. |
As of the end of the period covered by this report, Registrant had adopted a code of ethics, as defined in Item 2 of Form N-CSR, that applies to the Registrants principal executive officer and principal financial officer. There were no amendments to the Code during the period covered by the report. The Registrant did not grant any waivers, including implicit waivers, from any provisions of the Code during the period covered by this report. The code of ethics is filed herewith pursuant to Item 10(a)(l), Exhibit 99,CODE ETH.
Item 3. | Audit Committee Financial Expert. |
The Board of Trustees has determined that J. Michael Earley, Peter S. Drotch and Colleen Baldwin are audit committee financial experts, as defined in Item 3 of Form N-CSR. Mr. Earley, Mr. Drotch and Ms. Baldwin are independent for purposes of Item 3 of Form N-CSR.
Item 4. | Principal Accountant Fees and Services. |
(a) | Audit Fees: The aggregate fees billed for each of the last two fiscal years for professional services rendered by KPMG LLP (KPMG), the principal accountant for the audit of the registrants annual financial statements, for services that are normally provided by the accountant in connection with statutory and regulatory filings or engagements for the fiscal year were $26,600 for the year ended February 28, 2014 and $24,500 for year ended February 28, 2013. | |
(b) | Audit-Related Fees: The aggregate fees billed in each of the last two fiscal years for assurance and related services by KPMG that are seasonably related to the performance of the audit of the registrants financial statements and are not reported under paragraph (a) of this Item were $2,400 for the year ended February 28, 2014 and $2,400 for the year ended February 28, 2013. | |
(c) | Tax Fees: The aggregate fees billed in each of the last two fiscal years for professional services rendered by KPMG for tax compliance, tax advice, and tax planning were $10,567 in the year ended February 28, 2014 and $8,926 in the year ended February 28, 2013. Such services included review of excise distribution calculations (if applicable), preparation of the Funds federal state and excise tax returns, tax services related to mergers and routine consulting. | |
(d) | All Other Fees: The aggregate fees billed in each of the last two fiscal years for all other fees were $0 for the year ended February 28, 2014 and $2,205 for the year ended February 28, 2013. | |
(e)(1) | Audit Committee Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures |
1
AUDIT
AND NON-AUDIT SERVICES
PRE-APPROVAL POLICY
I. Statement of Principles
Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Act”), the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors or Trustees (the “Committee”) of the ING Funds (each a “Fund,” collectively, the “Funds”) set out on Exhibit A to this Audit and Non-Audit Services Pre-Approval Policy (“Policy”) is responsible for the oversight of the work of the Funds’ independent auditors. As part of its responsibilities, the Committee must pre-approve the audit and non-audit services performed by the auditors in order to assure that the provision of these services does not impair the auditors’ independence from the Funds. The Committee has adopted, and the Board has ratified, this Policy, which sets out the procedures and conditions under which the services of the independent auditors may be pre-approved.
Under Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) rules promulgated in accordance with the Act, the Funds may establish two different approaches to pre-approving audit and non-audit services. The Committee may approve services without consideration of specific case-by-case services (“general pre-approval”) or it may pre-approve specific services (“specific pre-approval”). The Committee believes that the combination of these approaches contemplated in this Policy results in an effective and efficient method for pre-approving audit and non-audit services to be performed by the Funds’ independent auditors. Under this Policy, services that are not of a type that may receive general pre-approval require specific pre-approval by the Committee. Any proposed services that exceed pre-approved cost levels or budgeted amounts will also require the Committee’s specific pre-approval.
For both types of approval, the Committee considers whether the subject services are consistent with the SEC’s rules on auditor independence and that such services are compatible with maintaining the auditors independence. The Committee also considers whether a particular audit firm is in the best position to provide effective and efficient services to the Funds. Reasons that the auditors are in the best position include the auditors’ familiarity with the Funds’ business, personnel, culture, accounting systems, risk profile, and other factors, and whether the services will enhance the Funds’ ability to manage and control risk or improve audit quality. Such factors will be considered as a whole, with no one factor being determinative.
The appendices attached to this Policy describe the audit, audit-related, tax-related, and other services that have the Committee’s general pre-approval. For any service that has been approved through general pre-approval, the general pre-approval will remain in place for a period 12 months from the date of pre-approval, unless the Committee determines that a different period is appropriate. The Committee will annually review and pre-approve the services that may be provided by the independent auditors without specific pre-approval. The Committee will revise the list of services subject to general pre-approval as appropriate. This Policy does not serve as a delegation to Fund management of the Committee’s duty to pre-approve services performed by the Funds’ independent auditors.
II. Audit Services
The annual audit services engagement terms and fees are subject to the Committee’s specific pre-approval. Audit services are those services that are normally provided by auditors in connection with statutory and regulatory filings or engagements or those that generally only independent auditors can reasonably provide. They include the Funds’ annual financial statement audit and procedures that the independent auditors must perform in order to form an opinion on the Funds’ financial statements (e.g., information systems and procedural reviews and testing). The Committee will monitor the audit services engagement and approve any changes in terms, conditions or fees deemed by the Committee to be necessary or appropriate.
The Committee may grant general pre-approval to other audit services, such as statutory audits and services associated with SEC registration statements, periodic reports and other documents filed with the SEC or issued in connection with securities offerings.
The Committee has pre-approved the audit services listed on Appendix A. The Committee must specifically approve all audit services not listed on Appendix A.
III. Audit-related Services
Audit-related services are assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or the review of the Funds’ financial statements or are traditionally performed by the independent auditors. The Committee believes that the provision of audit-related services will not impair the independent auditors’ independence, and therefore may grant pre-approval to audit-related services. Audit-related services include accounting consultations related to accounting, financial reporting or disclosure matters not classified as “audit services;” assistance with understanding and implementing new accounting and financial reporting guidance from rulemaking authorities; agreed-upon or expanded audit procedures relating to accounting and/or billing records required to respond to or comply with financial, accounting or regulatory reporting matters; and assistance with internal control reporting requirements under Form N-SAR or Form N-CSR.
The Committee has pre-approved the audit-related services listed on Appendix B. The Committee must specifically approve all audit-related services not listed on Appendix B.
IV. Tax Services
The Committee believes the independent auditors can provide tax services to the Funds, including tax compliance, tax planning, and tax advice, without compromising the auditors’ independence. Therefore, the Committee may grant general pre-approval with respect to tax services historically provided by the Funds’ independent auditors that do not, in the Committee’s view, impair auditor independence and that are consistent with the SEC’s rules on auditor independence.
The Committee will not grant pre-approval if the independent auditors initially recommends a transaction the sole business purpose of which is tax avoidance and the tax treatment of which may not be supported in the Internal Revenue Code and related regulations. The Committee may consult
outside counsel to determine that tax planning and reporting positions are consistent with this Policy.
The Committee has pre-approved the tax-related services listed on Appendix C. The Committee must specifically approve all tax-related services not listed on Appendix C.
V. Other Services
The Committee believes it may grant approval of non-audit services that are permissible services for independent auditors to a Fund. The Committee has determined to grant general pre-approval to other services that it believes are routine and recurring, do not impair auditor independence, and are consistent with SEC rules on auditor independence.
The Committee has pre-approved the non-audit services listed on Appendix D. The Committee must specifically approve all non-audit services not listed on Appendix D.
A list of the SEC’s prohibited non-audit services is attached to this Policy as Appendix E. The SEC’s rules and relevant guidance should be consulted to determine the precise definitions of these impermissible services and the applicability of exceptions to certain of the SEC’s prohibitions.
VI. Pre-approval of Fee levels and Budgeted Amounts
The Committee will annually establish pre-approval fee levels or budgeted amounts for audit, audit-related, tax and non-audit services to be provided to the Funds by the independent auditors. Any proposed services exceeding these levels or amounts require the Committee’s specific pre-approval. The Committee considers fees for audit and non-audit services when deciding whether to pre-approve services. The Committee may determine, for a pre-approval period of 12 months, the appropriate ratio between the total amount of fees for the Fund’s audit, audit-related, and tax services (including fees for services provided to Fund affiliates that are subject to pre-approval), and the total amount of fees for certain permissible non-audit services for the Fund classified as other services (including any such services provided to Fund affiliates that are subject to pre-approval).
VII. Procedures
Requests or applications for services to be provided by the independent auditors will be submitted to management. If management determines that the services do not fall within those services generally pre-approved by the Committee and set out in the appendices to these procedures, management will submit the services to the Committee or its delagee. Any such submission will include a detailed description of the services to be rendered. Notwithstanding this paragraph, the Committee will, on a quarterly basis, receive from the independent auditors a list of services provided for the previous calendar quarter on a cumulative basis by the auditors during the Pre-Approval Period.
VIII. Delegation
The Committee may delegate pre-approval authority to one or more of the Committee’s members. Any member or members to whom such pre-approval authority is delegated must report any pre-approval decisions, including any pre-approved services, to the Committee at its next scheduled meeting. The Committee will identify any member to whom pre-approval authority is delegated in writing. The member will retain such authority for a period of 12 months from the date of pre-approval unless the Committee determines that a different period is appropriate. The period of delegated authority may be terminated by the Committee or at the option of the member.
IX. Additional Requirements
The Committee will take any measures the Committee deems necessary or appropriate to oversee the work of the independent auditors and to assure the auditors’ independence from the Funds. This may include reviewing a formal written statement from the independent auditors delineating all relationships between the auditors and the Funds, consistent with Independence Standards Board No. 1, and discussing with the auditors their methods and procedures for ensuring independence.
Effective April 23, 2008, the KPMG LLP (“KPMG”) audit team for the ING Funds accepted the global responsibility for monitoring the auditor independence for KPMG relative to the ING Funds. Using a proprietary system called Sentinel, the audit team is able to identify and manage potential conflicts of interest across the member firms of the KPMG International Network and prevent the provision of prohibited services to the ING entities that would impair KPMG independence with the respect to the ING Funds. In addition to receiving pre-approval from the ING Funds Audit Committee for services provided to the ING Funds and for services for ING entities in the Investment Company Complex, the audit team has developed a process for periodic notification via email to the ING Funds’ Audit Committee Chairpersons regarding requests to provide services to ING Groep NV and its affiliates from KPMG offices worldwide. Additionally, KPMG provides a quarterly summary of the fees for services that have commenced for ING Groep NV and Affiliates at each Audit Committee Meeting.
Last Approved: November 21, 2013
Appendix A
Pre-Approved Audit Services for the Pre-Approval Period October 1, 2013through December 31, 2014
Service | ||
The Fund(s) | Fee Range | |
Statutory audits or financial audits (including tax services associated with audit services) | √ | As presented to Audit Committee[1] |
Services associated with SEC registration statements, periodic reports and other documents filed with the SEC or other documents issued in connection with securities offerings (e.g., consents), and assistance in responding to SEC comment letters. | √ | Not to exceed $9,750 per filing |
Consultations by Fund management with respect to accounting or disclosure treatment of transactions or events and/or the actual or potential effect of final or proposed rules, standards or interpretations by the SEC, Financial Accounting Standards Board, or other regulatory or standard setting bodies. | √ | Not to exceed $8,000 during the Pre-Approval Period |
Seed capital audit and related review and issuance of consent on the N-2 registration statement | √ | Not to exceed $13,750 per audit |
Audit of summary portfolio of investments | √ | Not to exceed $525 per fund |
____________________ | ||
(1) | For new Funds launched during the Pre-Approval Period, the fee ranges pre-approved will be the same as those for existing Funds, pro-rated in accordance with inception dates as provided in the auditors’ Proposal or any Engagement Letter covering the period at issue. Fees in the Engagement Letter will be controlling. |
Appendix B
Pre-Approved Audit-Related Services for the Pre-Approval Period October 1, 2013through December 31, 2014
Service | |||
The Fund(s) | Fund Affiliates | Fee Range | |
Services related to Fund mergers (Excludes tax services - See Appendix C for tax services associated with Fund mergers) | √ | √ | Not to exceed $10,000 per merger |
Consultations by Fund management with respect to accounting or disclosure treatment of transactions or events and/or the actual or potential effect of final or proposed rules, standards or interpretations by the SEC, Financial Accounting Standards Board, or other regulatory or standard setting bodies. [Note: Under SEC rules some consultations may be “audit” services and others may be “audit-related” services.] | √ | Not to exceed $5,000 per occurrence during the Pre-Approval Period | |
Review of the Funds’ semi-annual and quarterly financial statements | √ | Not to exceed $2,525 per set of financial statements per fund | |
Reports to regulatory or government agencies related to the annual engagement | √ | Up to $5,000 per occurrence during the Pre-Approval Period | |
Regulatory compliance assistance | √ | √ | Not to exceed $5,000 per quarter |
Training courses | √ | Not to exceed $5,000 per course | |
For Prime Rate Trust, agreed upon procedures for quarterly reports to rating agencies | √ | Not to exceed $9,450 per quarter |
Appendix C
Pre-Approved Tax Services for the Pre-Approval Period October 1, 2013 through December 31, 2014
Service | |||
The Fund(s) | Fund Affiliates | Fee Range | |
Preparation of federal and state income tax returns and federal excise tax returns for the Funds including assistance and review with excise tax distributions | √ | As presented to Audit Committee[2] | |
Review of IRC Sections 851(b) and 817(h) diversification testing on a real-time basis | √ | As presented to Audit Committee[2] | |
Assistance and advice regarding year-end reporting for 1099’s | √ | As presented to Audit Committee[2] | |
Tax assistance and advice regarding statutory, regulatory or administrative developments | √ | √ | Not to exceed $5,000 for the Funds or for the Funds’ investment adviser during the Pre-Approval Period |
____________________ | ||
(1) | For new Funds launched during the Pre-Approval Period, the fee ranges pre-approved will be the same as those for existing Funds, pro-rated in accordance with inception dates as provided in the auditors’ Proposal or any Engagement Letter covering the period at issue. Fees in the Engagement Letter will be controlling. |
Appendix C, continued
Service | |||
The Fund(s) | Fund Affiliates | Fee Range | |
Tax training courses | √ | Not to exceed $5,000 per course during the Pre-Approval Period | |
Tax services associated with Fund mergers | √ | √ | Not to exceed $4,000 per fund per merger during the Pre-Approval Period |
Other tax-related assistance and consultation, including, without limitation, assistance in evaluating derivative financial instruments and international tax issues, qualification and distribution issues, and similar routine tax consultations. | √ | Not to exceed $120,000 during the Pre-Approval Period |
Appendix D
Pre-Approved Other Services for the Pre-Approval Period October 1, 2013 through December 31, 2014
Service | |||
The Fund(s) | Fund Affiliates | Fee Range | |
Agreed-upon procedures for Class B share 12b-1 programs | √ | Not to exceed $60,000 during the Pre-Approval Period | |
Security counts performed pursuant to Rule 17f-2 of the 1940 Act (i.e., counts for Funds holding securities with affiliated sub-custodians) Cost to be borne 50% by the Funds and 50% by ING Investments, LLC. |
√
|
√
|
Not to exceed $5,300 per Fund during the Pre-Approval Period |
Agreed upon procedures for 15 (c) FACT Books | √ | Not to exceed $50,000 during the Pre-Approval Period |
Appendix E
Prohibited Non-Audit Services
Dated: October 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014
· | Bookkeeping or other services related to the accounting records or financial statements of the Funds |
· | Financial information systems design and implementation |
· | Appraisal or valuation services, fairness opinions, or contribution-in-kind reports |
· | Actuarial services |
· | Internal audit outsourcing services |
· | Management functions |
· | Human resources |
· | Broker-dealer, investment adviser, or investment banking services |
· | Legal services |
· | Expert services unrelated to the audit |
· | Any other service that the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board determines, by regulation, is impermissible |
EXHIBIT A
ING ASIA PACIFIC HIGH DIVIDEND EQUITY INCOME FUND
ING BALANCED PORTFOLIO, INC.
ING EMERGING MARKETS LOCAL BOND FUND
ING EMERING MARKETS HIGH DIVIDEND EQUITY FUND
ING EQUITY TRUST
ING FUNDS TRUST
ING GLOBAL ADVANTAGE AND PREMIUM OPPORTUNITY FUND
ING GLOBAL EQUITY DIVIDEND AND PREMIUM OPPORTUNITY FUND
ING GLOBAL STRATEGIC INCOME FUND
ING INFRASTRUCTURE, INDUSTRIALS, AND MATERIALS FUND
ING INTERMEDIATE BOND PORTFOLIO
ING INTERNATIONAL HIGH DIVIDEND EQUITY INCOME FUND
ING INVESTORS TRUST
ING MONEY MARKET PORTFOLIO
ING MUTUAL FUNDS
ING PARTNERS, INC.
ING PRIME RATE TRUST
ING RISK MANAGED NATURAL RESOURCES FUNDING INVESTORS TRUST
ING SENIOR INCOME FUND
ING SEPARATE PORTFOLIOS TRUST
ING SERIES FUND, INC.
ING SHORT DURATION HIGH INCOME FUND
ING STRATEGIC ALLOCATIONS PORTFOLIOS, INC.
ING VARIABLE FUNDS
ING VARIABLE INSURANCE TRUST
ING VARIABLE PORTFOLIOS INC,
ING VARIABLE PRODUCTS TRUST
(e)(2) | Percentage of services referred to in 4(b) (4)(d) that were approved by the audit committee | |
100% of the services were approved by the audit committee. | ||
(f) | Percentage of hours expended attributable to work performed by other than full time employees of KPMG if greater than 50%. | |
Not applicable. | ||
(g) | Non-Audit Fees: The following table presents (i) the aggregate non-audit fees (i.e., fees for audit-related, tax, and other services) billed to each Registrant by the independent registered public accounting firm for each Registrant's fiscal years ended February 28, 2014 and February 28, 2013; and (ii) the aggregate non-audit fees billed to the investment adviser, or any of its affiliates that provide ongoing services to the registrant, by the independent registered public accounting firm for the same time periods. | |
Registrant/Investment Adviser | 2014 | 2013 | ||||||
Voya Global Advantage and Premium Opportunity | $ | 12,967 | $ | 13,531 | ||||
Voya Investments, LLC (1) | $ | 345,500 | $ | 461,250 |
_____________
(1) Each Registrant's investment adviser and any of its affiliates, which are subsidiaries of Voya Financial, Inc.
(h) | Principal Accountants Independence: The Registrants Audit committee has considered whether the provision of non-audit services that were rendered to the registrants 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 Rule 2-01(c)(7)(ii) of Regulation S-X is compatible with maintaining KPMGs independence. |
Item 5. | Audit Committee of Listed Registrants. |
a. | The registrant has a separately-designated standing audit committee. The members are J. Michael Earley, Colleen D. Baldwin, Peter S. Drotch, Patrick W. Kenny, Joseph E. Obermeyer, and Roger B. Vincent. | |
b. | Not applicable. |
13
Item 6. | Schedule of Investments. |
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
The Shareholders and Board of Trustees
ING Global Advantage and Premium Opportunity Fund
We have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the statement of assets and liabilities, including the summary portfolio of investments, of ING Global Advantage and Premium Opportunity Fund as of February 28, 2014, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the years in the two-year period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the years or periods in the nine-year period then ended, and have issued our unqualified report thereon dated April 24, 2014 (which report and financial statements are included in Item 1 of this Certified Shareholder Report on Form N-CSR). In connection with our audits of the aforementioned financial statements and financial highlights, we also audited the related portfolio of investments included in Item 6 of this Form N-CSR. The portfolio of investments is the responsibility of management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the portfolio of investments based on our audits.
In our opinion, the portfolio of investments, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.
Boston, Massachusetts
April 24, 2014
ING GLOBAL ADVANTAGE AND PREMIUM OPPORTUNITY FUND |
PORTFOLIO OF INVESTMENTS AS OF FEBRUARY 28, 2014 |
Shares |
|
|
|
Value |
|
Percentage of Net Assets |
|||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
COMMON STOCK: 98.4% |
|||||||||||||||||||
Brazil: 0.8% |
|||||||||||||||||||
54,486 | Banco do Brasil S.A. |
$ | 481,015 | 0.2 | |||||||||||||||
67,577 | Petroleo Brasileiro SA ADR |
756,862 | 0.3 | ||||||||||||||||
90,496 | Sul America SA |
577,770 | 0.3 | ||||||||||||||||
1,815,647 | 0.8 | ||||||||||||||||||
Canada: 0.7% |
|||||||||||||||||||
85,000 | Barrick Gold Corp. |
1,732,300 | 0.7 | ||||||||||||||||
China: 0.4% |
|||||||||||||||||||
1,084,000 | Bank of China Ltd. |
456,482 | 0.2 | ||||||||||||||||
206,000 | China Resources Enterprise |
580,901 | 0.2 | ||||||||||||||||
1,037,383 | 0.4 | ||||||||||||||||||
France: 3.5% |
|||||||||||||||||||
95,163 | AXA S.A. |
2,478,742 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||
8,196 | @ |
Criteo SA ADR |
438,240 | 0.2 | |||||||||||||||
49,657 | Total S.A. |
3,221,703 | 1.3 | ||||||||||||||||
30,692 | Vinci S.A. |
2,288,875 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||
8,427,560 | 3.5 | ||||||||||||||||||
Germany: 4.7% |
|||||||||||||||||||
14,076 | Allianz AG |
2,510,252 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||
19,938 | Bayerische Motoren Werke AG |
2,313,355 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||
46,084 | Deutsche Bank AG |
2,228,828 | 0.9 | ||||||||||||||||
9,220 | @ |
Linde AG |
1,908,346 | 0.8 | |||||||||||||||
17,427 | Siemens AG |
2,323,498 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||
11,284,279 | 4.7 | ||||||||||||||||||
Hong Kong: 0.9% |
|||||||||||||||||||
448,125 | AIA Group Ltd. |
2,195,608 | 0.9 | ||||||||||||||||
Israel: 1.3% |
|||||||||||||||||||
23,958 | @ |
Check Point Software Technologies |
1,615,248 | 0.7 | |||||||||||||||
35,220 | Nice Systems Ltd. ADR |
1,446,838 | 0.6 | ||||||||||||||||
3,062,086 | 1.3 | ||||||||||||||||||
Japan: 7.2% |
|||||||||||||||||||
173,400 | Itochu Corp. |
2,160,895 | 0.9 | ||||||||||||||||
61,100 | Japan Tobacco, Inc. |
1,946,019 | 0.8 | ||||||||||||||||
6,000 | Keyence Corp. |
2,583,758 | 1.1 | ||||||||||||||||
455,800 | Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. |
2,641,204 | 1.1 | ||||||||||||||||
56,700 | Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, Inc. |
2,545,719 | 1.1 | ||||||||||||||||
68,189 | Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc. |
2,025,793 | 0.8 | ||||||||||||||||
60,600 | Toyota Motor Corp. |
3,487,719 | 1.4 | ||||||||||||||||
17,391,107 | 7.2 | ||||||||||||||||||
Malaysia: 0.0% |
|||||||||||||||||||
100 | Malayan Banking BHD |
299 | 0.0 | ||||||||||||||||
Mexico: 0.8% |
|||||||||||||||||||
12,673 | @ |
Fomento Economico Mexicano SAB de CV ADR |
1,085,062 | 0.5 | |||||||||||||||
114,489 | Grupo Financiero Banorte |
741,201 | 0.3 | ||||||||||||||||
1,826,263 | 0.8 | ||||||||||||||||||
Netherlands: 1.5% |
|||||||||||||||||||
18,826 | @ |
Airbus Group NV |
1,383,284 | 0.6 | |||||||||||||||
60,904 | Reed Elsevier NV |
1,332,875 | 0.5 | ||||||||||||||||
27,441 | Royal Dutch Shell PLC |
1,001,416 | 0.4 | ||||||||||||||||
3,717,575 | 1.5 | ||||||||||||||||||
Norway: 0.5% |
|||||||||||||||||||
58,666 | Subsea 7 SA |
1,119,170 | 0.5 | ||||||||||||||||
Peru: 0.5% |
|||||||||||||||||||
100,684 | Cia de Minas Buenaventura SAA ADR |
1,268,618 | 0.5 | ||||||||||||||||
Poland: 0.7% |
|||||||||||||||||||
11,260 | Powszechny Zaklad Ubezpieczen SA |
1,645,556 | 0.7 | ||||||||||||||||
Russia: 0.6% |
|||||||||||||||||||
133,808 | Sberbank of Russia ADR |
1,379,561 | 0.6 | ||||||||||||||||
Singapore: 0.9% |
|||||||||||||||||||
171,000 | DBS Group Holdings Ltd. |
2,230,719 | 0.9 | ||||||||||||||||
South Korea: 0.9% |
|||||||||||||||||||
1,732 | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. |
2,194,103 | 0.9 | ||||||||||||||||
Spain: 0.8% |
|||||||||||||||||||
130,761 | Telefonica S.A. |
1,999,378 | 0.8 | ||||||||||||||||
Switzerland: 7.0% |
|||||||||||||||||||
25,173 | Cie Financiere Richemont SA |
2,500,819 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||
269,074 | Glencore Xstrata PLC |
1,481,712 | 0.6 | ||||||||||||||||
53,183 | Nestle S.A. |
4,017,719 | 1.7 | ||||||||||||||||
43,635 | Novartis AG |
3,631,746 | 1.5 | ||||||||||||||||
16,780 | Roche Holding AGGenusschein |
5,166,564 | 2.2 | ||||||||||||||||
16,798,560 | 7.0 | ||||||||||||||||||
Taiwan: 0.6% |
|||||||||||||||||||
76,816 | Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. ADR |
1,388,065 | 0.6 | ||||||||||||||||
Turkey: 0.2% |
|||||||||||||||||||
171,648 | Akbank TAS |
442,188 | 0.2 | ||||||||||||||||
United Kingdom: 8.7% |
|||||||||||||||||||
283,764 | Barclays PLC |
1,195,365 | 0.5 | ||||||||||||||||
61,243 | BG Group PLC |
1,114,230 | 0.5 | ||||||||||||||||
362,988 | BP PLC |
3,067,607 | 1.3 | ||||||||||||||||
272,711 | HSBC Holdings PLC |
2,878,173 | 1.2 | ||||||||||||||||
140,528 | Prudential PLC |
3,181,913 | 1.3 |
ING GLOBAL ADVANTAGE AND PREMIUM OPPORTUNITY FUND |
PORTFOLIO OF INVESTMENTS AS OF FEBRUARY 28, 2014 (CONTINUED) |
Shares |
|
|
|
Value |
|
Percentage of Net Assets | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
COMMON STOCK: (continued) |
|||||||||||||||||||
United Kingdom: (continued) |
|||||||||||||||||||
64,921 | Rio Tinto PLC |
$ | 3,722,585 | 1.5 | |||||||||||||||
71,757 | @ |
Scottish & Southern Energy PLC |
1,684,681 | 0.7 | |||||||||||||||
69,217 | Standard Chartered PLC |
1,465,200 | 0.6 | ||||||||||||||||
117,008 | WPP PLC |
2,562,723 | 1.1 | ||||||||||||||||
20,872,477 | 8.7 | ||||||||||||||||||
United States: 55.2% |
|||||||||||||||||||
40,577 | @ |
Adobe Systems, Inc. |
2,783,988 | 1.2 | |||||||||||||||
12,676 | Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. |
1,537,852 | 0.6 | ||||||||||||||||
11,065 | @ |
Allegion Public Ltd. |
601,383 | 0.2 | |||||||||||||||
63,462 | Altria Group, Inc. |
2,301,132 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||
39,362 | American Electric Power Co., Inc. |
1,975,972 | 0.8 | ||||||||||||||||
57,589 | AT&T, Inc. |
1,838,817 | 0.8 | ||||||||||||||||
194,817 | Bank of America Corp. |
3,220,325 | 1.3 | ||||||||||||||||
88,986 | Blackstone Group LP |
2,967,683 | 1.2 | ||||||||||||||||
58,639 | Carnival Corp. |
2,325,623 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||
122,842 | Cisco Systems, Inc. |
2,677,956 | 1.1 | ||||||||||||||||
69,239 | Citigroup, Inc. |
3,367,093 | 1.4 | ||||||||||||||||
21,733 | Comcast Corp. Class A |
1,123,379 | 0.5 | ||||||||||||||||
47,919 | CVS Caremark Corp. |
3,504,796 | 1.5 | ||||||||||||||||
17,916 | Cytec Industries, Inc. |
1,696,108 | 0.7 | ||||||||||||||||
16,874 | @ |
Dresser-Rand Group, Inc. |
916,764 | 0.4 | |||||||||||||||
22,718 | @ |
eBay, Inc. |
1,335,137 | 0.6 | |||||||||||||||
90,087 | EMC Corp. |
2,375,594 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||
43,362 | Exelon Corp. |
1,318,638 | 0.5 | ||||||||||||||||
79,045 | Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc. |
2,578,448 | 1.1 | ||||||||||||||||
155,744 | General Electric Co. |
3,966,800 | 1.6 | ||||||||||||||||
19,323 | Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. |
3,216,313 | 1.3 | ||||||||||||||||
4,347 | @ |
Google, Inc. Class A |
5,284,431 | 2.2 | |||||||||||||||
37,648 | Halliburton Co. |
2,145,936 | 0.9 | ||||||||||||||||
23,484 | Hess Corp. |
1,879,424 | 0.8 | ||||||||||||||||
24,230 | Honeywell International, Inc. |
2,288,281 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||
33,195 | @ |
Ingersoll-Rand PLC Class A |
2,029,542 | 0.8 | |||||||||||||||
75,081 | JPMorgan Chase & Co. |
4,266,102 | 1.8 | ||||||||||||||||
27,995 | Kellogg Co. |
1,699,017 | 0.7 | ||||||||||||||||
51,055 | Marathon Oil Corp. |
1,710,342 | 0.7 | ||||||||||||||||
75,674 | Merck & Co., Inc. |
4,312,661 | 1.8 | ||||||||||||||||
45,718 | Metlife, Inc. |
2,316,531 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||
95,951 | Microsoft Corp. |
3,675,883 | 1.5 | ||||||||||||||||
75,243 | @ |
Mylan Laboratories |
4,181,253 | 1.7 | |||||||||||||||
40,675 | NetApp, Inc. |
1,643,677 | 0.7 | ||||||||||||||||
35,560 | Nike, Inc. |
2,784,348 | 1.2 | ||||||||||||||||
71,407 | @ |
Nuance Communications, Inc. |
1,091,813 | 0.5 | |||||||||||||||
28,958 | Occidental Petroleum Corp. |
2,795,026 | 1.2 | ||||||||||||||||
89,179 | Oracle Corp. |
3,487,791 | 1.5 | ||||||||||||||||
158,081 | Pfizer, Inc. |
5,075,981 | 2.1 | ||||||||||||||||
28,572 | Philip Morris International, Inc. |
2,311,761 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||
46,891 | PPL Corp. |
1,514,110 | 0.6 | ||||||||||||||||
22,089 | @ |
Premier, Inc. |
738,877 | 0.3 | |||||||||||||||
41,283 | Procter & Gamble Co. |
3,247,321 | 1.3 | ||||||||||||||||
33,445 | Qualcomm, Inc. |
2,518,074 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||
177,738 | Regions Financial Corp. |
1,891,132 | 0.8 | ||||||||||||||||
34,408 | @ |
Sensata Technologies Holdings N.V. |
1,398,341 | 0.6 | |||||||||||||||
35,231 | Target Corp. |
2,203,347 | 0.9 | ||||||||||||||||
998 | Transocean Ltd |
42,073 | 0.0 | ||||||||||||||||
27,156 | @ |
Transocean Ltd. |
1,151,414 | 0.5 | |||||||||||||||
12,008 | United Parcel Service, Inc. Class B |
1,150,006 | 0.5 | ||||||||||||||||
32,533 | UnitedHealth Group, Inc. |
2,513,825 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||
37,139 | Walt Disney Co. |
3,001,203 | 1.2 | ||||||||||||||||
99,336 | @ |
Weatherford International Ltd. |
1,655,931 | 0.7 | |||||||||||||||
93,007 | Wells Fargo & Co. |
4,317,385 | 1.8 | ||||||||||||||||
11,254 | @ |
Wesco International, Inc. |
970,207 | 0.4 | |||||||||||||||
21,719 | Yum! Brands, Inc. |
1,608,944 | 0.7 | ||||||||||||||||
132,531,791 | 55.2 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total Common Stock |
|||||||||||||||||||
(Cost $194,676,099) |
236,360,293 | 98.4 | |||||||||||||||||
Assets in Excess of Other Liabilities |
3,940,982 | 1.6 | |||||||||||||||||
Net
Assets |
$ | 240,301,275 | 100.0 |
@ |
Non-income producing security |
ADR |
American Depositary Receipt |
Cost for federal income tax purposes is $194,977,308. |
Net unrealized
appreciation consists of: |
||||||
Gross
Unrealized Appreciation |
$ | 47,253,828 | ||||
Gross
Unrealized Depreciation |
(5,870,843 | ) | ||||
Net Unrealized
Appreciation |
$ | 41,382,985 |
Sector Diversification |
|
Percentage of Net Assets |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Financials |
24.4 | % | ||||
Information
Technology |
15.4 | |||||
Health
Care |
10.6 | |||||
Consumer
Discretionary |
10.5 | |||||
Energy |
9.5 | |||||
Consumer
Staples |
8.7 | |||||
Industrials |
8.6 | |||||
Materials |
6.5 | |||||
Utilities |
2.6 | |||||
Telecommunication
Services |
1.6 | |||||
Assets in Excess
of Other Liabilities |
1.6 | |||||
Net
Assets |
100.0 | % |
Item 7. | Disclosure of Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures for Closed-End Management Investment companies. |
VOYA FAMILY OF FUNDS
PROXY VOTING PROCEDURES and guidelines
Effective Date: July 10, 2003
Revision Date: May 1, 2014
B-1
Table of Contents
I. | Introduction | 1 |
II. | Compliance Committee | 1 |
III. | Delegation of Voting Authority | 1 |
IV. | Approval and Review of Procedures | 3 |
V. | Voting Procedures and Guidelines | 3 |
VI. | Conflicts of Interest | 7 |
VII. | Reporting and Record Retention | 8 |
EXHIBIT 1 – List of Voya funds | 9 | |
EXHIBIT 2 – Proxy Voting Procedures of the Advisers | 10 | |
I. | Introduction | 10 |
II. | Roles and Responsibilities | 10 |
III. | Voting Procedures | 14 |
IV. | Assessment of the Agent and Conflicts of Interest | 15 |
V. | Reporting and Record Retention | 17 |
APPENDIX 1 – Proxy Group | 18 | |
EXHIBIT 3 – Proxy Voting Guidelines of the Voya funds | 19 | |
I. | Introduction | 19 |
II. | Guidelines | 19 |
General Policies | 19 | |
1. | The Board of Directors | 20 |
2. | Proxy Contests | 28 |
3. | Auditors | 28 |
4. | Proxy Contest Defenses | 28 |
5. | Tender Offer Defenses | 29 |
6. | Miscellaneous | 31 |
7. | Capital Structure | 33 |
8. | Executive and Director Compensation | 35 |
9. | State of Incorporation | 39 |
10. | Mergers and Corporate Restructurings | 40 |
11. | Mutual Fund Proxies | 40 |
12. | Social and Environmental Issues | 41 |
13. | Global Proxies | 42 |
i
I. | Introduction |
The following are the Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines (the “Procedures and Guidelines”) of the Voya family of funds set forth on Exhibit 1 attached hereto and each portfolio or series thereof, except for any “Sub-Adviser-Voted Series” identified on Exhibit 1 and further described in Section III. below (each non-Sub-Adviser-Voted Series hereinafter referred to as a “Fund” and collectively, the “Funds”). The purpose of these Procedures and Guidelines is to set forth the process by which each Fund subject to these Procedures and Guidelines will vote proxies related to the equity assets in its investment portfolio (the “portfolio securities”). The term “proxies” as used herein shall include votes in connection with annual and special meetings of equity stockholders but not those regarding bankruptcy matters and/or related plans of reorganization. The Procedures and Guidelines have been approved by the Funds’ Boards of Trustees/Directors1 (each a “Board” and collectively, the “Boards”), including a majority of the independent Trustees/Directors2 of the Boards. These Procedures and Guidelines may be amended only by the Boards. The Boards shall review these Procedures and Guidelines at their discretion, and make any revisions thereto as deemed appropriate by the Boards.
II. | Compliance Committee |
The Boards hereby delegate to the Compliance Committee of each Board (each a “Committee” and collectively, the “Committees”) the authority and responsibility to oversee the implementation of these Procedures and Guidelines and, where applicable, to make determinations on behalf of a Board with respect to the voting of proxies on behalf of each Fund. Furthermore, the Boards hereby delegate to each Committee the authority to review and approve material changes to proxy voting procedures of any Fund’s investment adviser (the “Adviser”). The Proxy Voting Procedures of the Adviser (the “Adviser Procedures”) are attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Any determination regarding the voting of proxies of each Fund that is made by a Committee, or any member thereof, as permitted herein, shall be deemed to be a good faith determination regarding the voting of proxies by the full Board. Each Committee may rely on the Adviser through the Proxy Coordinator, Agent, and/or Proxy Group (as such terms are defined in the Adviser Procedures (Exhibit 2, Sections II.A., B., and C., respectively)) to deal in the first instance with the application of these Procedures and Guidelines. Each Committee shall conduct itself in accordance with its charter.
III. | Delegation of Voting Authority |
Except as otherwise provided for herein, the Boards hereby delegate to the Adviser to each Fund the authority and responsibility to vote all proxies with respect to all portfolio securities of the
____________________
1 | Reference in these Procedures to one or more Funds shall, as applicable, mean those Funds that are under the jurisdiction of the particular Board or Compliance Committee at issue. No provision in these Procedures is intended to impose any duty upon the particular Board or Compliance Committee with respect to any other Fund. |
2 | The independent Trustees/Directors are those Board members who are not “interested persons” of the Funds within the meaning of Section 2(a)(19) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. |
1
Fund in accordance with the current proxy voting procedures and guidelines that have been approved by the Board. The Boards may revoke such delegation with respect to any proxy or proposal, and assume the responsibility of voting any Fund proxy or proxies as they deem appropriate. Non-material amendments to the Procedures and Guidelines may be approved for immediate implementation by the President or Chief Financial Officer of a Fund, subject to ratification at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Compliance Committee.
A Board may elect to delegate the voting of proxies to the Sub-Adviser of a portfolio or series of the Voya funds. In so doing, the Board shall also approve the Sub-Adviser’s proxy policies for implementation on behalf of such portfolio or series (a “Sub-Adviser-Voted Series”). Sub-Adviser-Voted Series shall not be covered under these Procedures and Guidelines, except as described in Section VII.A. below with respect to vote reporting requirements, but rather shall be covered by such Sub-Adviser’s proxy policies, provided that the Board, including a majority of the independent Trustees/Directors3, has approved them on behalf of such Sub-Adviser-Voted Series, and ratifies any subsequent changes at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Compliance Committee and the Board.
When a Fund participates in the lending of its securities and the securities are on loan at record date, proxies related to such securities will not be forwarded to the Adviser by the Fund’s custodian and therefore will not be voted. However, the Adviser shall use best efforts to recall or restrict specific securities from loan for the purpose of facilitating a “material” vote as described in the Adviser Procedures.
Funds that are “Funds-of-Funds” will “echo” vote their interests in underlying mutual funds, which may include mutual funds other than the Voya funds (or portfolios or series thereof) set forth on Exhibit 1 attached hereto. This means that, if the Fund-of-Funds must vote on a proposal with respect to an underlying investment company, the Fund-of-Funds will vote its interest in that underlying fund in the same proportion all other shareholders in the underlying investment company voted their interests.
However, if the underlying fund has no other shareholders, the Fund-of-Funds will vote as follows:
A. | If the Fund-of-Funds and the underlying fund are being solicited to vote on the same proposal (e.g., the election of fund directors/trustees), the Fund-of-Funds will vote the shares it holds in the underlying fund in the same proportion as all votes received from the holders of the Fund-of-Funds’ shares with respect to that proposal; and |
B. | If the Fund-of-Funds is being solicited to vote on a proposal for an underlying fund (e.g., a new Sub-Adviser to the underlying fund), and there is no corresponding proposal at the Fund-of-Funds level, the Board shall determine the most appropriate method of voting with respect to the underlying fund proposal. |
____________________
3 | The independent Trustees/Directors are those Board members who are not “interested persons” of the Funds within the meaning of Section 2(a)(19) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. |
2
The foregoing procedure shall also apply to any Voya fund (an “Investing Fund”) that, while not a Fund-of-Funds, invests in one or more underlying funds. Accordingly:
A. | Each Investing Fund will “echo” vote its interests in an underlying fund, if the underlying fund has shareholders other than the Investing Fund; |
B. | In the event an underlying fund has no other shareholders, and the Investing Fund and the underlying fund are being solicited to vote on the same proposal, the Investing Fund will vote its interests in the underlying fund in the same proportion as all votes received from the holders of its own shares on that proposal; and |
C. | In the event an underlying fund has no other shareholders, and there is no corresponding proposal at the Investing Fund level, the Board shall determine the most appropriate method of voting with respect to the underlying fund proposal. |
A fund that is a “Feeder Fund” in a master-feeder structure does not echo vote. Rather, it passes votes requested by the underlying master fund to its shareholders. This means that, if the Feeder Fund is solicited by the master fund, it will request instructions from its own shareholders, either directly or, in the case of an insurance-dedicated Fund, through an insurance product or retirement plan, as to the manner in which to vote its interest in an underlying master fund.
When a Voya fund is a feeder in a master-feeder structure, proxies for the portfolio securities owned by the master fund will be voted pursuant to the master fund’s proxy voting policies and procedures. As such, except as described in Section VII.A. below with respect to vote reporting requirements, Feeder Funds shall not be subject to these Procedures and Guidelines.
IV. | Approval and Review of Procedures |
Each Fund’s Adviser has adopted proxy voting procedures in connection with the voting of portfolio securities for the Funds as attached hereto in Exhibit 2. The Boards hereby approve such procedures. All material changes to the Adviser Procedures must be approved by the Boards or the Compliance Committees prior to implementation; however, the President or Chief Financial Officer of a Fund may make such non-material changes as he/she deems appropriate, subject to ratification by the Boards or the Compliance Committees at their next regularly scheduled meeting.
V. | Voting Procedures and Guidelines |
The Guidelines that are set forth in Exhibit 3 hereto specify the manner in which the Funds generally will vote with respect to the proposals discussed therein.
Unless otherwise noted, the defined terms used hereinafter shall have the same meaning as defined in the Adviser Procedures (Exhibit 2).
A. Routine Matters
The Agent shall be instructed to submit a vote in accordance with the Guidelines where such Guidelines provide a clear policy (e.g., “For,” “Against,” “Withhold,” or “Abstain”)
3
on a proposal. However, the Agent shall be directed to refer any proxy proposal to the Proxy Coordinator for instructions as if it were a matter requiring case-by-case consideration under circumstances where the application of the Guidelines is unclear, it appears to involve unusual or controversial issues, or an Investment Professional (as such term is defined in the Adviser Procedures (Exhibit 2, Section II.D.)) recommends a vote contrary to the Guidelines.
B. Matters Requiring Case-by-Case Consideration
The Agent shall be directed to refer proxy proposals accompanied by its written analysis and voting recommendation to the Proxy Coordinator where the Guidelines have noted “case-by-case” consideration.
Upon receipt of a referral from the Agent, the Proxy Coordinator may solicit additional research from the Agent, Investment Professional(s), as well as from any other source or service.
Except in cases in which the Proxy Group has previously provided the Proxy Coordinator with standing instructions to vote in accordance with the Agent’s recommendation, the Proxy Coordinator will forward the Agent’s analysis and recommendation and/or any research obtained from the Investment Professional(s), the Agent, or any other source to the Proxy Group. The Proxy Group may consult with the Agent and/or Investment Professional(s), as it deems necessary.
In the event a Proxy Group member believes he/she has a potential conflict of interest that may preclude him/her from making a vote determination in the best interests of the beneficial owners of the applicable Fund, such Proxy Group member shall so advise the Proxy Coordinator. The Proxy Group member may elect to recuse himself/herself from consideration of the relevant proxy or ask the Proxy Coordinator to solicit the opinion of Counsel (as such term is defined in the Adviser Procedures (Exhibit 2, Section IV.A.) on the matter, recusing himself/herself only in the event Counsel determines that a material conflict of interest (as such term is defined in Section V.B.3. below) exists with respect to the Proxy Group member. If recusal, whether voluntary or pursuant to a finding of Counsel, does not occur prior to the member’s participation in any Proxy Group discussion of the relevant proxy, any Out-of-Guidelines Vote determination shall be subject to the Compliance Committee referral process described in Section V.B.3. below.
The Proxy Coordinator shall use best efforts to convene the Proxy Group with respect to all matters requiring its consideration. In the event quorum requirements cannot be timely met in connection with a voting deadline, it shall be the policy of the Funds to vote in accordance with the Agent’s recommendation, unless the Agent’s recommendation is deemed to be materially conflicted as provided for under the Adviser Procedures, in which case no action shall be taken on such matter (i.e., a “Non-Vote”).
1. Within-Guidelines Votes: Votes in Accordance with a Fund’s Guidelines and/or, where applicable, Agent Recommendation
4
In the event the Proxy Group and, where applicable, any Investment Professional participating in the voting process, recommend a vote Within Guidelines, the Proxy Group will instruct the Agent, through the Proxy Coordinator, to vote in this manner, except that the Proxy Coordinator may first consult with a Fund’s Compliance Committee as described in Section V.B.5. below. Except as provided for herein, no Conflicts Report (as such term is defined in the Adviser Procedures (Exhibit 2, Section IV.B.)) is required in connection with Within-Guidelines Votes.
2. Non-Votes: Votes in Which No Action is Taken
The Proxy Group may recommend that a Fund refrain from voting under circumstances including, but not limited to, the following: (1) if the economic effect on shareholders’ interests or the value of the portfolio holding is indeterminable or insignificant, e.g., proxies in connection with fractional shares, securities no longer held in the portfolio of a Voya fund or proxies being considered on behalf of a Fund that is no longer in existence; or (2) if the cost of voting a proxy outweighs the benefits, e.g., certain international proxies, particularly in cases in which share blocking practices may impose trading restrictions on the relevant portfolio security. In such instances, the Proxy Group may instruct the Agent, through the Proxy Coordinator, not to vote such proxy. The Proxy Group may provide the Proxy Coordinator with standing instructions on parameters that would dictate a Non-Vote without the Proxy Group’s review of a specific proxy.
Reasonable efforts shall be made to secure and vote all other proxies for the Funds, but, particularly in markets in which shareholders’ rights are limited, Non-Votes may also occur in connection with a Fund’s related inability to timely access ballots or other proxy information in connection with its portfolio securities.
Non-Votes may also result in certain cases in which the Agent’s recommendation has been deemed to be conflicted, as described in Sections V.B. above and V.B.4. below.
3. Out-of-Guidelines Votes: Votes Contrary to Procedures and Guidelines, or Agent Recommendation; where applicable, Where No Recommendation is Provided by Agent; or Where Agent’s Recommendation is Conflicted
If the Proxy Group recommends that a Fund vote contrary to the Guidelines, or the recommendation of the Agent, where applicable; if the Agent has made no recommendation on a matter and the Procedures and Guidelines are silent; or the Agent’s recommendation on a matter is deemed to be materially conflicted as provided for under the Adviser Procedures, the Proxy Coordinator will then request that all members of the Proxy Group participating in the voting process and each Investment Professional participating in the voting process complete a Conflicts Report.
5
As provided for in the Adviser Procedures, the Proxy Coordinator shall be responsible for identifying to Counsel potential conflicts of interest with respect to the Agent, the Advisers, the Funds’ principal underwriters (“Underwriters”), or an affiliated person (as such term is defined in Section 2(a)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940) of the Funds, their investment advisers, or principal underwriters (hereinafter, “Affiliate”). Such potential conflicts of interest are identified by the Proxy Coordinator based upon information periodically provided by the Agent; analyses of client, distributor, broker-dealer, and vendor lists; and information derived from other sources, including public filings. The Proxy Coordinator gathers and analyzes this information on a best efforts basis, as much of this information is provided directly by individuals and groups other than the Proxy Coordinator, and the Advisers rely upon the accuracy of the information received from such parties. Such potential conflicts of interest shall be documented as deemed appropriate by Counsel, e.g., on a consolidated basis rather than individual Conflicts Reports. Upon Counsel’s finding that a conflict of interest exists that could unduly influence vote recommendation(s) (a “material conflict of interest”) with respect to the Agent, the Advisers, Underwriters, or Affiliates, the participating members of the Proxy Group shall not be required to complete a Conflicts Report in connection with the relevant proxy.
If Counsel determines that a material conflict of interest appears to exist with respect to the Agent, the Advisers, Underwriters, or Affiliates, any participating member of the Proxy Group, or any participating Investment Professional(s), the Proxy Coordinator will then contact the Compliance Committee(s), generally through the Committee Chair, and forward all information relevant to the Committee’s review, including the following materials or a summary thereof: the applicable Procedures and Guidelines; the recommendation of the Agent, where applicable; the recommendation of the Investment Professional(s), where applicable; any resources used by the Proxy Group in arriving at its recommendation; the Conflicts Report and/or any other written materials establishing whether a conflict of interest exists; and findings of Counsel).
If Counsel determines that there does not appear to be a material conflict of interest with respect to the Agent, the Advisers, Underwriters, Affiliates, any participating member of the Proxy Group, or any participating Investment Professional(s), the Proxy Coordinator will instruct the Agent to vote the proxy as recommended by the Proxy Group.
A vote that is contrary to the Agent’s recommendation, but is based on input from an Investment Professional provided in connection with a Guideline requiring case-by-case review while specifying that primary consideration will be given to such input, shall be not be deemed an Out-of-Guidelines Vote if the Investment Professional completes and returns a Conflicts Report and Counsel determines that no material conflict of interest appears to be present. The Proxy Group members shall not be required to complete a Conflicts Report in connection with such votes.
6
4. Referrals to a Fund’s Compliance Committee
A Fund’s Compliance Committee may consider all recommendations, analysis, research and Conflicts Reports provided to it by the Proxy Coordinator, Agent, Proxy Group, and/or Investment Professional(s), and any other written materials used to establish whether a conflict of interest exists, in determining how to vote the proxies referred to the Committee. The Committee, generally through the Committee Chair, will instruct the Proxy Coordinator how such referred proposals should be voted.
The Proxy Coordinator shall use best efforts to timely refer matters to a Fund’s Committee for its consideration. In the event any such matter cannot be timely referred to or considered by the Committee, it shall be the policy of the Funds, except as noted below, to vote Within Guidelines, except that Counsel may permit the Proxy Group to abstain from voting any proposal(s) subject to the material conflict, provided such abstention does not have the same effect as an “against” vote and therefore has no effect on the outcome of the vote. If the Agent’s recommendation is deemed by Counsel to be materially conflicted on a matter, no action shall be taken on such matter, either by abstaining from voting any proposal(s) subject to the material conflict or not voting the entire proxy (i.e., a “Non-Vote”), as deemed appropriate by Counsel with respect to the nature of the Agent’s material conflict.
The Proxy Coordinator will maintain a record of all proxy questions that have been referred to a Fund’s Committee, as well as all applicable recommendations, analysis, research, Conflicts Reports, and vote determinations.
5. Consultation with a Fund’s Compliance Committee
The Proxy Coordinator may consult with the Chair of a Fund’s Compliance Committee for guidance on behalf of the Committee if application of the Procedures and Guidelines is unclear or in connection with any unusual or controversial issue or a recommendation received from an Investment Professional. The Chair may consider all recommendations, analysis, research, or Conflicts Reports provided by the Agent, Proxy Group, and/or Investment Professional(s). The Chair may provide guidance or direct the Proxy Coordinator to refer the proposal(s) to the full Compliance Committee. The guidance of the Chair, or the Committee, as applicable, shall be given primary consideration by the Proxy Group in making a vote determination.
The Proxy Coordinator will maintain a record of all proxy questions that have been referred to the Chair or Committee for guidance, as well as all applicable recommendations, analysis, research, Conflicts Reports and vote determinations.
VI. | Conflicts of Interest |
In all cases in which a vote has not been clearly determined in advance by the Procedures and Guidelines or for which the Proxy Group recommends an Out-of-Guidelines Vote, and Counsel
7
has determined that a material conflict of interest appears to exist with respect to the Agent, the Advisers, Underwriters, Affiliates, any participating member of the Proxy Group, or any Investment Professional participating in the voting process, the proposal shall be referred to the Fund’s Committee for determination so that the Adviser shall have no opportunity to exercise voting discretion over a Fund’s proxy in a situation in which the Adviser or its Underwriters or Affiliates or the Agent may be deemed to have a conflict of interest. In the event a member of a Fund’s Committee believes he/she has a conflict of interest that would preclude him/her from making a vote determination in the best interests of the beneficial owners of the applicable Fund, such Committee member shall so advise the Committee Chair and recuse himself/herself with respect to determinations regarding the relevant proxy.
VII. | Reporting and Record Retention |
A. Reporting by the Funds
Annually in August, each Fund and each Sub-Adviser-Voted Series will post its proxy voting record, or a link thereto, for the prior one-year period ending on June 30th on the Voya funds’ website. The proxy voting record for each Fund and each Sub-Adviser-Voted Series will also be available on Form N-PX in the EDGAR database on the website of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). For any Voya fund that is a feeder in a master/feeder structure, no proxy voting record related to the portfolio securities owned by the master fund will be posted on the Voya funds’ website or included in the Fund’s Form N-PX; however, a cross-reference to the master fund’s proxy voting record as filed in the SEC’s EDGAR database will be included in the Fund’s Form N-PX and posted on the Voya funds’ website. If any Feeder Fund was solicited for vote by its underlying master fund during the reporting period, a record of the votes cast by means of the pass-through process described in Section III. above will be included on the Voya funds’ website and in the Feeder Fund’s Form N-PX.
B. Reporting to a Fund’s Compliance Committee
At each regularly scheduled meeting, the Committee will receive a report from the Proxy Coordinator indicating each proxy proposal, or a summary of such proposals, that was (1) voted Out-of-Guidelines, including any proposals voted Out-of-Guidelines pursuant to special circumstances raised by an Investment Professional; (2) voted Within Guidelines in cases in which an Investment Professional’s recommendation was not adopted by the Proxy Group; or (3) referred to the Committee for determination in accordance with Section V. hereof. Such report shall indicate the name of the issuer, the substance of the proposal, a summary of the Investment Professional’s recommendation, where applicable, and the reasons for voting, or recommending, an Out-of-Guidelines Vote or, in the case of (2) above, a Within-Guidelines Vote.
8
EXHIBIT 1 – List of Voya funds
VOYA ASIA PACIFIC HIGH DIVIDEND EQUITY INCOME FUND
VOYA BALANCED PORTFOLIO, INC.
VOYA EMERGING MARKETS HIGH DIVIDEND EQUITY FUND
VOYA EQUITY TRUST
VOYA FUNDS TRUST
VOYA GLOBAL ADVANTAGE AND PREMIUM OPPORTUNITY FUND
VOYA GLOBAL EQUITY DIVIDEND AND PREMIUM OPPORTUNITY FUND
VOYA INFRASTRUCTURE, INDUSTRIALS AND MATERIALS FUND
VOYA INTERMEDIATE BOND PORTFOLIO
VOYA INTERNATIONAL HIGH DIVIDEND EQUITY INCOME FUND
VOYA INVESTORS TRUST4
VOYA MONEY MARKET PORTFOLIO
VOYA MUTUAL FUNDS
VOYA PARTNERS, INC.
VOYA PRIME RATE TRUST
VOYA NATURAL RESOURCES EQUITY INCOME FUND
VOYA SENIOR INCOME FUND
VOYA SEPARATE PORTFOLIOS TRUST
VOYA SERIES FUND, INC.
VOYA STRATEGIC ALLOCATION PORTFOLIOS, INC.
VOYA VARIABLE FUNDS
VOYA VARIABLE INSURANCE TRUST
VOYA VARIABLE PORTFOLIOS, INC.
VOYA VARIABLE PRODUCTS TRUST
____________________
4 Sub-Adviser-Voted Series: VY Franklin Mutual Shares Portfolio
9
EXHIBIT 2 – Proxy Voting Procedures of the Advisers
Voya Investments, LLC
and
Directed Services LLC
I. | Introduction |
Voya Investments, LLC and Directed Services LLC (each an “Adviser” and collectively, the “Advisers”) are the investment advisers for the registered investment companies and each series or portfolio thereof (each a “Fund” and collectively, the “Funds”) comprising the Voya family of funds. As such, the Advisers have been delegated the authority to vote proxies with respect to securities for certain Funds over which they have day-to-day portfolio management responsibility.
The Advisers will abide by the proxy voting guidelines adopted by a Fund’s respective Board of Directors or Trustees (each a “Board” and collectively, the “Boards”) with regard to the voting of proxies unless otherwise provided in the proxy voting procedures adopted by a Fund’s Board.
In voting proxies, the Advisers are guided by general fiduciary principles. Each must act prudently, solely in the interest of the beneficial owners of the Funds it manages. The Advisers will not subordinate the interest of beneficial owners to unrelated objectives. Each Adviser will vote proxies in the manner that it believes will do the most to maximize shareholder value.
The following are the Proxy Voting Procedures of Voya Investments, LLC and Directed Services LLC (the “Adviser Procedures”) with respect to the voting of proxies on behalf of their client Funds as approved by the respective Board of each Fund.
Unless otherwise noted, best efforts shall be used to vote proxies in all instances.
II. | Roles and Responsibilities |
A. | Proxy Coordinator |
The Proxy Coordinator identified in Appendix 1 will assist in the coordination of the voting of each Fund’s proxies in accordance with the Voya family of funds Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines (the “Procedures” or “Guidelines” and collectively, the “Procedures and Guidelines”). The Proxy Coordinator is authorized to direct the Agent to vote a Fund’s proxy in accordance with the Procedures and Guidelines unless the Proxy Coordinator receives a recommendation from an Investment Professional (as described below) to vote contrary to the Guidelines. In such event, and in connection with proxy proposals requiring case-by-case consideration (except in cases in which the Proxy Group has previously provided the Proxy Coordinator with standing instructions to vote in accordance with the Agent’s recommendation), the Proxy Coordinator will call a meeting of the Proxy Group (as described below).
10
Responsibilities assigned herein to the Proxy Coordinator, or activities in support thereof, may be performed by such members of the Proxy Group or employees of the Advisers’ Affiliates as are deemed appropriate by the Proxy Group.
Unless specified otherwise, information provided to the Proxy Coordinator in connection with duties of the parties described herein shall be deemed delivered to the Advisers.
B. | Agent |
An independent proxy voting service (the “Agent”), as approved by the Board of each Fund, shall be engaged to assist in the voting of Fund proxies for publicly traded securities through the provision of vote analysis, implementation, recordkeeping, and disclosure services. The Agent is Institutional Shareholder Services Inc., a subsidiary of MSCI Inc. The Agent is responsible for coordinating with the Funds’ custodians to ensure that all proxy materials received by the custodians relating to the portfolio securities are processed in a timely fashion. To the extent applicable, the Agent is required to vote and/or refer all proxies in accordance with these Adviser Procedures. The Agent will retain a record of all proxy votes handled by the Agent. Such record must reflect all the information required to be disclosed in a Fund’s Form N-PX pursuant to Rule 30b1-4 under the Investment Company Act. In addition, the Agent is responsible for maintaining copies of all proxy statements received by issuers and to promptly provide such materials to the Adviser upon request.
The Agent shall be instructed to vote all proxies in accordance with a Fund’s Guidelines, except as otherwise instructed through the Proxy Coordinator by the Advisers’ Proxy Group or a Fund’s Compliance Committee (“Committee”).
The Agent shall be instructed to obtain all proxies from the Funds’ custodians and to review each proxy proposal against the Guidelines. The Agent also shall be requested to call the Proxy Coordinator’s attention to specific proxy proposals that although governed by the Guidelines appear to involve unusual or controversial issues.
Subject to the oversight of the Advisers, the Agent shall establish and maintain adequate internal controls and policies in connection with the provision of proxy voting services voting to the Advisers, including methods to reasonably ensure that its analysis and recommendations are not influenced by conflict of interest, and shall disclose such controls and policies to the Advisers when and as provided for herein. Unless otherwise specified, references herein to recommendations of the Agent shall refer to those in which no material conflict of interest has been identified.
C. | Proxy Group |
The Adviser shall establish a Proxy Group (the “Group” or “Proxy Group”) which shall assist in the review of the Agent’s recommendations when a proxy voting issue is referred to the Group through the Proxy Coordinator. The members of the Proxy Group, which may include employees of the Advisers’ Affiliates, are identified in Appendix 1, as may be amended from time at the Advisers’ discretion.
11
A minimum of four (4) members of the Proxy Group (or three (3) if one member of the quorum is either the Fund’s Chief Investment Risk Officer or Chief Financial Officer) shall constitute a quorum for purposes of taking action at any meeting of the Group. The vote of a simple majority of the members present and voting shall determine any matter submitted to a vote, except that tie votes shall be resolved by securing the vote of members not present at the meeting; provided, however, that the Proxy Coordinator shall ensure compliance with all applicable voting and conflict of interest procedures and shall use best efforts to secure votes from as many absent members as may reasonably be accomplished and to provide such members with a substantially similar level of relevant information as that provided at the in-person meeting. In the event a tie vote cannot be timely resolved in this manner in connection with a voting deadline, or in the event that the vote remains a tie, the Proxy Coordinator shall follow the procedures established by a Fund’s Board for resolving a material conflict of interest. In the event a tie vote cannot be timely resolved in this manner, the Proxy Coordinator shall follow the procedures established by a Fund’s Board to address a failure to timely meet quorum requirements. A member of the Proxy Group may abstain from voting on any given matter, provided that the member does not participate in the Proxy Group discussion(s) in connection with the vote determination. If abstention results in the loss of quorum, the process for resolving tie votes shall be observed.
The Proxy Group may meet in person or by telephone. The Proxy Group also may take action via electronic mail in lieu of a meeting, provided that each Group member has received a copy of any relevant electronic mail transmissions circulated by each other participating Group member prior to voting and provided that the Proxy Coordinator follows the directions of a majority of a quorum (as defined above) responding via electronic mail. For all votes taken in person or by telephone or teleconference, the vote shall be taken outside the presence of any person other than the members of the Proxy Group and such other persons whose attendance may be deemed appropriate by the Proxy Group from time to time in furtherance of its duties or the day-to-day administration of the Funds. In its discretion, the Proxy Group may provide the Proxy Coordinator with standing instructions to perform responsibilities assigned herein to the Proxy Group, or activities in support thereof, on its behalf, provided that such instructions do not contravene any requirements of these Adviser Procedures or a Fund’s Procedures and Guidelines.
A meeting of the Proxy Group will be held whenever (1) the Proxy Coordinator receives a recommendation from an Investment Professional to vote a Fund’s proxy contrary to the Guidelines, or the recommendation of the Agent, where applicable, (2) the Agent has made no recommendation on a matter and the Procedures and Guidelines are silent, or (3) a matter requires case-by-case consideration, including those in which the Agent’s recommendation is deemed to be materially conflicted as provided for herein, provided that, if the Proxy Group has previously provided the Proxy Coordinator with standing instructions to vote in accordance with the Agent’s recommendation and no issue of conflict must be considered, the Proxy Coordinator may implement the instructions without calling a meeting of the Proxy Group.
12
For each proposal referred to the Proxy Group, it will review (1) the relevant Procedures and Guidelines, (2) the recommendation of the Agent, if any, (3) the recommendation of the Investment Professional(s), if any, and (4) any other resources that any member of the Proxy Group deems appropriate to aid in a determination of a recommendation.
If the Proxy Group recommends that a Fund vote in accordance with the Procedures and Guidelines, or the recommendation of the Agent, where applicable, it shall instruct the Proxy Coordinator to so advise the Agent, except that the Proxy Coordinator shall follow any procedures established by a Fund’s Board with respect to recommendations received from an Investment Professional.
If the Proxy Group recommends that a Fund vote contrary to the Guidelines, or the recommendation of the Agent, where applicable, or if the Agent’s recommendation on a matter is deemed to be materially conflicted as provided for herein, it shall follow the procedures for such voting as established by a Fund’s Board. The Proxy Group may vote contrary to the Guidelines based on a recommendation from an Investment Professional, provided that incorporation of any such recommendation shall be subject to the conflict of interest review process established by a Fund’s Board.
The Proxy Coordinator shall use best efforts to convene the Proxy Group with respect to all matters requiring its consideration. In the event quorum requirements cannot be timely met in connection with a voting deadline, the Proxy Coordinator shall follow the procedures for such voting as established by a Fund’s Board.
D. | Investment Professionals |
The Funds’ Sub-Advisers and/or portfolio managers (each referred to herein as an “Investment Professional” and collectively, “Investment Professionals”) may submit, or be asked to submit, a recommendation to the Proxy Group regarding the voting of proxies related to the portfolio securities over which they have day-to-day portfolio management responsibility. The Investment Professionals may accompany their recommendation with any other research materials that they deem appropriate or with a request that the vote be deemed “material” in the context of the portfolio(s) they manage, such that lending activity on behalf of such portfolio(s) with respect to the relevant security should be reviewed by the Proxy Group and considered for recall and/or restriction. Input from the relevant Investment Professionals shall be given primary consideration in the Proxy Group’s determination of whether a given proxy vote is to be deemed material and the associated security accordingly restricted from lending. The determination that a vote is material in the context of a Fund’s portfolio shall not mean that such vote is considered material across all Funds voting that meeting. In order to recall or restrict shares timely for material voting purposes, the Proxy Group shall use best efforts to consider, and when deemed appropriate, to act upon, such requests timely. Requests to review lending activity in connection with a potentially material vote may be initiated by any relevant Investment Professional and submitted for the Proxy Group’s consideration at any time.
13
III. | Voting Procedures |
A. | In all cases, the Adviser shall follow the voting procedures as set forth in the Procedures and Guidelines of the Fund on whose behalf the Adviser is exercising delegated authority to vote. |
B. | Routine Matters |
The Agent shall be instructed to submit a vote in accordance with the Guidelines where such Guidelines provide a clear policy (e.g., “For,” “Against,” “Withhold,” or “Abstain”) on a proposal. However, the Agent shall be directed to refer any proxy proposal to the Proxy Coordinator for instructions as if it were a matter requiring case-by-case consideration under circumstances where the application of the Guidelines is unclear, it appears to involve unusual or controversial issues, or an Investment Professional recommends a vote contrary to the Guidelines.
C. | Matters Requiring Case-by-Case Consideration |
The Agent shall be directed to refer proxy proposals accompanied by its written analysis and voting recommendation to the Proxy Coordinator where the Guidelines have noted “case-by-case” consideration.
Upon receipt of a referral from the Agent, the Proxy Coordinator may solicit additional research from the Agent, Investment Professional(s), as well as from any other source or service.
Except in cases in which the Proxy Group has previously provided the Proxy Coordinator with standing instructions to vote in accordance with the Agent’s recommendation, the Proxy Coordinator will forward the Agent’s analysis and recommendation and/or any research obtained from the Investment Professional(s), the Agent, or any other source to the Proxy Group. The Proxy Group may consult with the Agent and/or Investment Professional(s), as it deems necessary.
1. | Within-Guidelines Votes: Votes in Accordance with a Fund’s Guidelines and/or, where applicable, Agent Recommendation |
In the event the Proxy Group and, where applicable, any Investment Professional participating in the voting process, recommend a vote Within Guidelines, the Proxy Group will instruct the Agent, through the Proxy Coordinator, to vote in this manner, except that the Proxy Coordinator shall follow any procedures established by a Fund’s Board with respect to recommendations received from an Investment Professional. Except as provided for herein, no Conflicts Report (as such term is defined herein) is required in connection with Within-Guidelines Votes.
2. | Non-Votes: Votes in Which No Action is Taken |
The Proxy Group may recommend that a Fund refrain from voting under circumstances including, but not limited to, the following: (1) if the economic effect on shareholders’ interests or the value of the portfolio holding is
14
indeterminable or insignificant, e.g., proxies in connection with fractional shares, securities no longer held in the portfolio of a Voya fund or proxies being considered on behalf of a Fund that is no longer in existence; or (2) if the cost of voting a proxy outweighs the benefits, e.g., certain international proxies, particularly in cases in which share blocking practices may impose trading restrictions on the relevant portfolio security. In such instances, the Proxy Group may instruct the Agent, through the Proxy Coordinator, not to vote such proxy. The Proxy Group may provide the Proxy Coordinator with standing instructions on parameters that would dictate a Non-Vote without the Proxy Group’s review of a specific proxy.
Reasonable efforts shall be made to secure and vote all other proxies for the Funds, but, particularly in markets in which shareholders’ rights are limited, Non-Votes may also occur in connection with a Fund’s related inability to timely access ballots or other proxy information in connection with its portfolio securities.
Non-Votes may also result in certain cases in which the Agent’s recommendation has been deemed to be conflicted, as provided for in the Funds’ Procedures.
3. | Out-of-Guidelines Votes: Votes Contrary to Procedures and Guidelines, or Agent Recommendation, where applicable; Where No Recommendation is Provided by Agent; or Where Agent’s Recommendation is Conflicted |
If the Proxy Group or, where applicable, an Investment Professional, recommends that a Fund vote contrary to the Guidelines, or the recommendation of the Agent, where applicable; if the Agent has made no recommendation on a matter and the Procedures and Guidelines are silent; or the Agent’s recommendation on a matter is deemed to be materially conflicted as provided for under these Adviser Procedures, the Proxy Coordinator will then implement the procedures for handling such votes as adopted by the Fund’s Board.
The Proxy Coordinator will maintain a record of all recommendations from Investment Professionals to vote contrary to the Guidelines, all proxy questions that have been referred to a Fund’s Compliance Committee, and all applicable recommendations, analysis, research, Conflicts Reports, and vote determinations.
IV. | Assessment of the Agent and Conflicts of Interest |
In furtherance of the Advisers’ fiduciary duty to the Funds and their beneficial owners, the Advisers shall establish the following:
A. | Assessment of the Agent |
The Advisers shall establish that the Agent (1) is independent from the Advisers, (2) has resources that indicate it can competently provide analysis of proxy issues, and (3) can make recommendations in an impartial manner and in the best interests of the Funds and their beneficial owners. The Advisers shall utilize, and the Agent shall comply with, such methods for establishing the foregoing as the
15
Advisers may deem reasonably appropriate and shall do so not less than annually as well as prior to engaging the services of any new proxy service. The Agent shall also notify the Advisers in writing within fifteen (15) calendar days of any material change to information previously provided to an Adviser in connection with establishing the Agent’s independence, competence, or impartiality.
Information provided in connection with assessment of the Agent shall be forwarded to a member of the mutual funds practice group of Voya Investment Management (“Counsel”) for review. Counsel shall review such information and advise the Proxy Coordinator as to whether a material concern exists and if so, determine the most appropriate course of action to eliminate such concern.
B. | Conflicts of Interest |
The Advisers shall establish and maintain procedures to identify and address potential conflicts that may arise from time to time concerning the Agent. Upon the Advisers’ request, which shall be not less than annually, and within fifteen (15) calendar days of any material change to such information previously provided to an Adviser, the Agent shall provide the Advisers with such information as the Advisers deem reasonable and appropriate for use in determining material relationships of the Agent that may pose a conflict of interest with respect to the Agent’s proxy analysis or recommendation(s). The Proxy Coordinator shall forward all such information to Counsel for review. Counsel shall review such information and provide the Proxy Coordinator with a brief statement regarding whether or not a material conflict of interest is present. Matters as to which a material conflict of interest is deemed to be present shall be handled as provided in the Fund’s Procedures and Guidelines.
In connection with their participation in the voting process for portfolio securities, each member of the Proxy Group, and each Investment Professional participating in the voting process, must act solely in the best interests of the beneficial owners of the applicable Fund. The members of the Proxy Group may not subordinate the interests of the Fund’s beneficial owners to unrelated objectives, including taking steps to reasonably insulate the voting process from any conflict of interest that may exist in connection with the Agent’s services or utilization thereof.
For all matters for which the Proxy Group or, where applicable, an Investment Professional, recommends an Out-of-Guidelines Vote, or for which a recommendation contrary to that of the Guidelines or, where applicable, the Agent, has been received from an Investment Professional, the Proxy Coordinator will implement the procedures for handling such votes as adopted by the Fund’s Board, including completion of such Conflicts Reports as may be required under the Fund’s Procedures. Completed Conflicts Reports should be provided to the Proxy Coordinator within two (2) business days and may be submitted to the Proxy Coordinator verbally, provided the Proxy Coordinator documents the Conflicts Report in writing. Such Conflicts Report should describe any known relationships of either a business or personal nature not previously assessed by Counsel, which may include communications with respect to the referral item, but
16
excluding routine communications with or submitted to the Proxy Coordinator or Investment Professional(s) on behalf of the subject company or a proponent of a shareholder proposal. The Conflicts Report should also include written confirmation that any recommendation from an Investment Professional provided in connection with an Out-of-Guidelines Vote or under circumstances where a conflict of interest exists was made solely on the investment merits and without regard to any other consideration.
The Proxy Coordinator shall forward all Conflicts Reports to Counsel for review. Counsel shall review each report and provide the Proxy Coordinator with a brief statement regarding whether or not a material conflict of interest is present. Matters as to which a material conflict of interest is deemed to be present shall be handled as provided in the Fund’s Procedures and Guidelines.
V. | Reporting and Record Retention |
The Adviser shall maintain the records required by Rule 204-2(c)(2), as may be amended from time to time, including the following: (1) A copy of each proxy statement received regarding a Fund’s portfolio securities. Such proxy statements received from issuers are available either in the SEC’s EDGAR database or are kept by the Agent and are available upon request. (2) A record of each vote cast on behalf of a Fund. (3) A copy of any document created by the Adviser that was material to making a decision how to vote a proxy, or that memorializes the basis for that decision. (4) A copy of written requests for Fund proxy voting information and any written response thereto or to any oral request for information on how the Adviser voted proxies on behalf of a Fund. All proxy voting materials and supporting documentation will be retained for a minimum of six (6) years, the first two (2) years in the Advisers’ office.
17
APPENDIX 1 – Proxy Group
Name
|
Title or Affiliation
|
Stanley D. Vyner |
Chief Investment Risk Officer and Executive Vice President, Voya Investments, LLC
|
Todd Modic |
Senior Vice President, Voya Funds Services, LLC and Voya Investments, LLC; and Chief Financial Officer of the Voya Family of Funds
|
Maria Anderson |
Vice President, Fund Compliance, Voya Funds Services, LLC
|
Sara Donaldson | Proxy Coordinator for the Voya Family of Funds and Vice President, Proxy Voting, Voya Funds Services, LLC |
Julius A. Drelick III, CFA |
Senior Vice President, Head of Fund Compliance, Voya Funds Services, LLC
|
Harley Eisner |
Vice President, Financial Analysis, Voya Funds Services, LLC
|
Evan Posner, Esq. | Vice President and Counsel, Voya Family of Funds |
Effective as of May 1, 2014
18
EXHIBIT 3 – Proxy Voting Guidelines of the Voya funds
I. | Introduction |
The following is a statement of the Proxy Voting Guidelines (“Guidelines”) that have been adopted by the respective Boards of Directors or Trustees of each Fund. Unless otherwise provided for herein, any defined term used herein shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Funds’ and Advisers’ Proxy Voting Procedures (the “Procedures”).
Proxies must be voted in the best interest of the Fund(s). The Guidelines summarize the Funds’ positions on various issues of concern to investors, and give a general indication of how Fund portfolio securities will be voted on proposals dealing with particular issues. The Guidelines are not exhaustive and do not include all potential voting issues.
The Advisers, in exercising their delegated authority, will abide by the Guidelines as outlined below with regard to the voting of proxies except as otherwise provided in the Procedures. In voting proxies, the Advisers are guided by general fiduciary principles. Each must act prudently, solely in the interest of the beneficial owners of the Funds it manages. The Advisers will not subordinate the interest of beneficial owners to unrelated objectives. Each Adviser will vote proxies in the manner that it believes will do the most to maximize shareholder value.
II. | Guidelines |
The following Guidelines are grouped according to the types of proposals generally presented to shareholders of U.S. issuers: Board of Directors, Proxy Contests, Auditors, Proxy Contest Defenses, Tender Offer Defenses, Miscellaneous, Capital Structure, Executive and Director Compensation, State of Incorporation, Mergers and Corporate Restructurings, Mutual Fund Proxies, and Social and Environmental Issues. An additional section addresses proposals most frequently found in global proxies.
General Policies
These Guidelines apply to securities of publicly traded companies and to those of privately held companies if publicly available disclosure permits such application. All matters for which such disclosure is not available shall be considered Case-by-Case.
In all cases receiving case-by-case consideration, including cases not specifically provided for under these Guidelines, unless otherwise determined in accordance with the Procedures or otherwise provided for under these Guidelines, it shall generally be the policy of the Funds to vote in accordance with the recommendation provided by the Funds’ Agent, Institutional Shareholder Services Inc., a subsidiary of MSCI Inc.
Unless otherwise provided for herein, it shall generally be the policy of the Funds to vote in accordance with the Agent’s recommendation when such recommendation aligns with the recommendation of the relevant issuer’s management or management has made no recommendation. However, this policy shall not apply to Case-by-Case proposals for which a contrary recommendation from the relevant Investment Professional(s) has been received and
19
is to be utilized, provided that incorporation of any such recommendation shall be subject to the conflict of interest review process required under the Procedures.
Recommendations from the Investment Professionals, while not required under the Procedures, may be submitted or requested in connection with any proposal and are likely to be requested with respect to proxies for private equity securities and/or proposals related to merger transactions/corporate restructurings, proxy contests, or unusual or controversial issues. Such input shall be given primary consideration with respect to CASE-BY-CASE proposals being considered on behalf of the relevant Fund, provided that incorporation of any such recommendation shall be subject to the conflict of interest review process required under the Procedures.
Except as otherwise provided for herein, it shall generally be the policy of the Funds not to support proposals that would impose a negative impact on existing rights of the Funds to the extent that any positive impact would not be deemed sufficient to outweigh removal or diminution of such rights.
The foregoing policies may be overridden in any case as provided for in the Procedures. Similarly, the Procedures provide that proposals whose Guidelines prescribe a firm voting position may instead be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis when unusual or controversial circumstances so dictate.
Interpretation and application of these Guidelines is not intended to supersede any law, regulation, binding agreement, or other legal requirement to which an issuer may be or become subject. No proposal shall be supported whose implementation would contravene such requirements.
1. | The Board of Directors |
Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections
Unless otherwise provided for herein, the Agent’s standards with respect to determining director independence shall apply. These standards generally provide that, to be considered completely independent, a director shall have no material connection to the company other than the board seat.
Agreement with the Agent’s independence standards shall not dictate that a Fund’s vote shall be cast according to the Agent’s corresponding recommendation. Votes on director nominees not subject to specific policies described herein should be made on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Where applicable and except as otherwise provided for herein, it shall generally be the policy of the Funds to lodge disagreement with an issuer’s policies or practices by withholding support from a proposal for the relevant policy or practice rather than the director nominee(s) to which the Agent assigns a correlation. Support shall be withheld from nominees deemed responsible for governance shortfalls, but if they are not standing for election (e.g., the board is classified), support shall generally not be withheld from others in their stead. When a determination is made to withhold support due to concerns other than those related to an individual director’s independence or actions, responsibility may be attributed to the entire board, a committee, or an
20
individual (such as the CEO or committee chair), taking into consideration whether the desired effect is to send a message or to remove the director from service.
Where applicable and except as otherwise provided for herein, generally vote FOR nominees in connection with issues raised by the Agent if the nominee did not serve on the board or relevant committee during the majority of the time period relevant to the concerns cited by the Agent.
WITHHOLD support from a nominee who, during both of the most recent two years, attended less than 75 percent of the board and committee meetings during the nominee’s period of service without a valid reason for the absences. WITHHOLD support if two-year attendance cannot be ascertained from available disclosure. DO NOT WITHHOLD support in connection with attendance issues for nominees who have served on the board for less than the two most recent years.
Unless a company has implemented a policy that should reasonably prevent abusive use of its poison pill, WITHHOLD support from nominees responsible for implementing excessive anti-takeover measures, including failure to remove restrictive poison pill features or to ensure a pill’s expiration or timely submission to shareholders for vote. Responsibility will generally be assigned to the board chair or, if not standing for election, the lead director. If neither is standing for election, WITHHOLD support from all continuing directors.
Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis any nominee whom the Agent cites as having failed to implement a majority-approved shareholder proposal. Vote FOR if the shareholder proposal has been reasonably addressed. Proposals seeking shareholder ratification of a poison pill may be deemed reasonably addressed if the company has implemented a policy that should reasonably prevent abusive use of the pill. WITHHOLD support if the shareholder proposal at issue is supported under these Guidelines and the board has not disclosed a credible rationale for not implementing the proposal.
Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis any nominee whom the Agent cites as having failed to opt out of a state law requiring companies to implement a staggered board structure, generally withholding support when the company:
(1) | Demonstrates sustained poor stock performance (measured by one- and three-year total shareholder returns); |
(2) | Has a non-shareholder-approved poison pill in place, without provisions to redeem or seek approval in a reasonable period of time; and |
(3) | Maintains a dual class capital structure, imposes a supermajority vote requirement, or has authority to issue blank check preferred stock. |
21
If the board has not acted upon negative votes (WITHHOLD or AGAINST, as applicable based on the issuer’s election standard) representing a majority of the votes cast at the previous annual meeting, consider board nominees on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. Generally, vote FOR nominees when:
(1) | The issue relevant to the majority negative vote has been adequately addressed or cured, which may include disclosure of the board’s rationale; or |
(2) | The Funds’ Guidelines or voting record do not support the relevant issue causing the majority negative vote. |
If the above provisions have not been satisfied, generally WITHHOLD support from the chair of the nominating committee, or if not standing for election, consider CASE-BY-CASE.
WITHHOLD support from inside or affiliated outside directors who sit on the audit committee.
Vote FOR inside or affiliated outside directors who sit on the nominating or compensation committee, provided that such committee meets the applicable independence requirements of the relevant listing exchange.
Vote FOR inside or affiliated outside directors if the full board serves as the compensation or nominating committee OR has not created one or both committees, provided that the issuer is in compliance with all provisions of the listing exchange in connection with performance of relevant functions (e.g., performance of relevant functions by a majority of independent directors in lieu of the formation of a separate committee).
Compensation Practices:
It shall generally be the policy of the Funds that matters of compensation are best determined by an independent board and compensation committee, but that support may be withheld from compensation committee members whose actions or disclosure do not appear to support compensation practices aligned with the best interests of the company and its shareholders. Votes on compensation committee members in connection with compensation practices should be considered on a Case-by-Case basis, and generally:
(1) | Say on pay. If shareholders have been provided with an advisory vote on executive compensation (say on pay, or “SOP”), and practices not supported under these Guidelines have been identified, it shall generally be the policy of the Funds to align with the Agent when a vote AGAINST the say on pay proposal has been recommended in lieu of withholding support from certain nominees for compensation concerns. Issuers receiving negative recommendations on both compensation committee members and say on pay regarding issues not otherwise supported by these Guidelines will be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. |
(2) | Say on pay responsiveness. Compensation committee members opposed by the Agent for failure to sufficiently address compensation concerns evidenced by significant opposition to the most recent SOP vote will be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, factoring in the following: |
(a) | If the most recent SOP vote received majority opposition, generally vote AGAINST the compensation committee chair if the company has not |
22
demonstrated an adequate level of responsiveness.
(b) | If the most recent SOP vote passed but received significant opposition, generally vote FOR the nominee(s) if a Fund voted FOR that SOP proposal or did not have voting rights on that proposal. If a Fund voted AGAINST the SOP proposal and the company has not demonstrated an adequate level of responsiveness, generally vote AGAINST the compensation committee chair. |
(c) | If the compensation committee chair is not standing for election under circumstances meriting the chair’s opposition, consider the compensation committee member(s) opposed by the Agent on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. |
(3) | Say on frequency. If the Agent opposes nominees because the company has implemented an SOP schedule that is less frequent than the frequency most recently preferred by at least a plurality of shareholders, generally WITHHOLD support from the compensation committee chair. If the compensation committee chair is not standing for election, WITHHOLD support from the other compensation committee members. If no compensation committee members are standing for election, consider other nominees opposed by the Agent on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. |
(4) | Tenure. Where applicable and except as otherwise provided for herein, vote FOR compensation committee members who did not serve on the compensation committee during the majority of the time period relevant to the concerns cited by the Agent. |
(5) | Pay for performance. Consider compensation committee members receiving an adverse recommendation from the Agent CASE-BY-CASE when the Agent has identified a pay practice (or combination of practices) not otherwise supported under these Guidelines that appears to have created a misalignment between CEO pay and performance with regard to shareholder value. Generally vote FOR nominees if the company has provided a reasonable rationale regarding pay and performance and/or they appear reasonably correlated. Generally WITHHOLD support from compensation committee members for structuring compensation packages that unreasonably insulate pay from performance conditions. |
(6) | Pay disparity. Generally DO NOT WITHHOLD support from compensation committee members solely due to internal pay disparity as assessed by the Agent, but consider pay magnitude concerns on a Case-by-Case basis. |
(7) | Change in control provisions. If the Agent recommends withholding support from compensation committee members in connection with overly liberal change in control provisions, including those lacking a double trigger, generally WITHHOLD support from such nominees. If the Agent recommends withholding support from compensation committee members in connection with potential change in control payments or tax-gross-ups on change in control payments, vote FOR the nominees if the amount appears reasonable and no material governance concerns exist. Generally WITHHOLD support if the amount is so significant (individually or collectively) as to potentially influence an executive’s decision to enter into a transaction or to effectively act as a poison pill. |
(8) | Repricing. If the Agent recommends withholding support from compensation committee members in connection with their failure to seek, or acknowledge, a |
23
shareholder vote on plans to reprice, replace, buy back, or exchange options, generally WITHHOLD support from such nominees, except that cancellation of options would not be considered an exchange unless the cancelled options were regranted or expressly returned to the plan reserve for reissuance.
(9) | Tax benefits. If the Agent recommends withholding support from compensation committee members that have approved compensation that is ineligible for tax benefits to the company (e.g., under Section 162(m) of OBRA), generally vote FOR such nominees if the company has provided an adequate rationale or the plan itself is being put to shareholder vote at the same meeting. If the plan is up for vote, the provisions under Section 8. OBRA-Related Compensation Proposals shall apply. |
(10) | Director perquisites. If the Agent recommends withholding support from compensation committee members in connection with director compensation in the form of perquisites, generally vote FOR the nominees if the cost is reasonable in the context of the directors’ total compensation and the perquisites themselves appear reasonable given their purpose, the directors’ duties, and the company’s line of business. |
(11) | Incentive plans. Generally consider nominees on a CASE-BY-CASE basis in connection with short-term incentive plans over which the nominee has exercised discretion to exclude extraordinary items, and WITHHOLD support if treatment of such items has been inconsistent (e.g., exclusion of losses but not gains). Generally WITHHOLD support from compensation committee members opposed by the Agent in connection with long-term incentive plans, or total executive compensation packages, inadequately aligned with shareholders because the vesting period is too short, performance period being measured is too short, or the packages lack an appropriate equity component (e.g., overly cash-based plans), except that the latter will be considered CASE-BY-CASE in connection with executives already holding significant equity positions. |
(12) | Options backdating. If the Agent has raised issues of options backdating, consider members of the compensation committee, as well as company executives nominated as directors, on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. |
(13) | Independence from management. Generally WITHHOLD support from compensation committee members cited by the Agent for permitting named executives to have excessive input into setting their own compensation. |
(14) | Multiple concerns. If the Agent recommends withholding support from compensation committee members in connection with other compensation practices such as tax gross-ups, perquisites, retention or recruitment provisions (including contract length or renewal provisions), “guaranteed” awards, pensions/SERPs, or severance or termination arrangements, vote FOR such nominees if the issuer has provided adequate rationale and/or disclosure, factoring in any overall adjustments or reductions to the compensation package at issue. Except as otherwise provided for herein, generally DO NOT WITHHOLD support solely due to any single such practice if the total compensation appears reasonable, but consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis compensation packages representing a combination of such provisions and deemed by the Agent to be excessive. |
24
(15) | Commitments. Generally, vote FOR compensation committee members receiving an adverse recommendation from the Agent due to problematic pay practices if the issuer makes a public commitment (e.g., via a Form 8-K filing) to rectify the practice on a going-forward basis. |
(16) | Other. If the Agent has raised other considerations regarding poor compensation practices, consider compensation committee members on a Case-by-Case basis. |
Accounting Practices:
(1) | Generally, except as otherwise provided for herein, vote FOR independent outside director nominees serving on the audit committee. |
(2) | Where applicable and except as otherwise provided for herein, generally vote FOR nominees serving on the audit committee, or the company’s CEO or CFO if nominated as directors, who did not serve on that committee or have responsibility over the relevant financial function, as applicable, during the majority of the time period relevant to the concerns cited by the Agent. |
(3) | If the Agent has raised concerns regarding poor accounting practices, consider the company’s CEO and CFO, if nominated as directors, and nominees serving on the audit committee on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. Generally vote FOR nominees if the company has taken adequate steps to remediate the concerns cited, which would typically include removing or replacing the responsible executives, and if the concerns are not re-occurring and/or the company has not yet had a full year to remediate the concerns since the time they were identified. |
(4) | If total non-audit fees exceed the total of audit fees, audit-related fees, and tax compliance and preparation fees, the provisions under Section 3. Auditor Ratification shall apply. |
Board Independence:
It shall generally be the policy of the Funds that a board should be majority independent and therefore to consider inside or affiliated outside director nominees when the full board is not majority independent on a Case-by-Case basis. Generally:
(1) | WITHHOLD support from the fewest directors whose removal would achieve majority independence across the remaining board, except that support may be withheld from additional nominees whose relative level of independence cannot be differentiated. |
(2) | WITHHOLD support from all non-independent nominees, including the founder, chairman, or CEO, if the number required to achieve majority independence is equal to or greater than the number of non-independent nominees. |
(3) | Except as provided above, vote FOR non-independent nominees in the role of CEO, and when appropriate, founder or chairman, and determine support for other non-independent nominees based on the qualifications and contributions of the nominee as well as the Funds’ voting precedent for assessing relative independence to management, e.g., insiders holding senior executive positions are deemed less independent than affiliated outsiders with a transactional or advisory relationship to the |
25
company, and affiliated outsiders with a material transactional or advisory relationship are deemed less independent than those with lesser relationships.
(4) | Non-voting directors (e.g., director emeritus or advisory director) shall be excluded from calculations with respect to majority board independence. |
(5) | When conditions contributing to a lack of majority independence remain substantially similar to those in the previous year, it shall generally be the policy of the Funds to vote on nominees in a manner consistent with votes cast by the Fund(s) in the previous year. |
Generally vote FOR nominees without regard to “over-boarding” issues raised by the Agent unless other concerns requiring Case-by-Case consideration have been raised.
Generally, when the Agent recommends withholding support due to assessment that a nominee acted in bad faith or against shareholder interests in connection with a major transaction, such as a merger or acquisition, or if the Agent recommends withholding support due to other material failures or egregious actions, consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, factoring in the merits of the nominee’s performance and rationale and disclosure provided. If the Agent cites concerns regarding actions in connection with a candidate’s service on another board, vote FOR the nominee if the issuer has provided adequate rationale regarding the appropriateness of the nominee to serve on the board under consideration.
Generally, when the Agent recommends withholding support from any nominee due to share pledging concerns, consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, factoring in the pledged amount, unwind time, and any historical concerns being raised. Responsibility will generally be assigned to the pledgor, where the pledged amount and unwind time are deemed significant and, therefore, an unnecessary risk to the company.
Performance Test for Directors
Consider nominees failing the Agent’s performance test, which includes market-based and operating performance measures, on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. Input from the relevant Investment Professional(s) shall be given primary consideration with respect to such proposals.
Support will generally be WITHHELD from nominees receiving a negative recommendation from the Agent due to sustained poor stock performance (measured by one- and three-year total shareholder returns) combined with multiple takeover defenses/entrenchment devices if the issuer:
(1) | Is a controlled company or has a non-shareholder-approved poison pill in place, without provisions to redeem or seek approval in a reasonable period of time; and |
(2) | Maintains a dual class capital structure, imposes a supermajority vote requirement, or has authority to issue blank check preferred stock. |
Nominees receiving a negative recommendation from the Agent due to sustained poor stock performance combined with other takeover defenses/entrenchment devices will be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Proposals Regarding Board Composition or Board Service
Generally, except as otherwise provided for herein, vote AGAINST shareholder proposals to impose new board structures or policies, including those requiring that the positions of chairman
26
and CEO be held separately, but vote FOR proposals in connection with a binding agreement or other legal requirement to which an issuer has or reasonably may expect to become subject, and consider such proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if the board is not majority independent or corporate governance concerns have been identified. Generally, except as otherwise provided for herein, vote FOR management proposals to adopt or amend board structures or policies, except consider such proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if the board is not majority independent, corporate governance concerns have been identified, or the proposal may result in a material reduction in shareholders’ rights.
Generally, vote AGAINST shareholder proposals:
Generally, vote FOR shareholder proposals that seek creation of an audit, compensation, or nominating committee of the board, unless the committee in question is already in existence or the issuer has availed itself of an applicable exemption of the listing exchange (e.g., performance of relevant functions by a majority of independent directors in lieu of the formation of a separate committee).
Stock Ownership Requirements
Generally, vote AGAINST shareholder proposals requiring directors to own a minimum amount of company stock in order to qualify as a director or to remain on the board.
Director and Officer Indemnification and Liability Protection
Proposals on director and officer indemnification and liability protection should be evaluated on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, using Delaware law as the standard. Vote against proposals to limit or eliminate entirely directors’ and officers’ liability for monetary damages for violating the duty of care. Vote against indemnification proposals that would expand coverage beyond just legal expenses to acts, such as negligence, that are more serious violations of fiduciary obligation than mere carelessness. Vote for only those proposals providing such expanded coverage in cases when a director’s or officer’s legal defense was unsuccessful if:
(1) | The director was found to have acted in good faith and in a manner that he reasonably believed was in the best interests of the company; and |
(2) | Only if the director’s legal expenses would be covered. |
27
2. | Proxy Contests |
These proposals should generally be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Input from the relevant Investment Professional(s) shall be given primary consideration with respect to proposals in connection with proxy contests being considered on behalf of that Fund.
Voting for Director Nominees in Contested Elections
Votes in a contested election of directors must be evaluated on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Reimburse Proxy Solicitation Expenses
Voting to reimburse proxy solicitation expenses should be analyzed on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, generally voting FOR if associated nominees are also supported.
3. | Auditors |
Ratifying Auditors
Generally, except in cases of poor accounting practices or high non-audit fees, vote FOR management proposals to ratify auditors. Consider management proposals to ratify auditors on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if the Agent cites poor accounting practices. If fees for non-audit services exceed 50 percent of total auditor fees as described below, consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, voting AGAINST management proposals to ratify auditors only if concerns exist that remuneration for the non-audit work is so lucrative as to taint the auditor’s independence. For purposes of this review, fees deemed to be reasonable, generally non-recurring exceptions to the non-audit fee category (e.g., those related to an IPO) shall be excluded. Generally vote FOR shareholder proposals asking the issuer to present its auditor annually for ratification.
Auditor Independence
Generally, consider shareholder proposals asking companies to prohibit their auditors from engaging in non-audit services (or capping the level of non-audit services) on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Audit Firm Rotation
Generally, vote AGAINST shareholder proposals asking for mandatory audit firm rotation.
4. | Proxy Contest Defenses |
Presentation of management and shareholder proposals on the same matter on the same agenda shall not require a Fund to vote FOR one and AGAINST the other.
Board Structure: Staggered vs. Annual Elections
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals to classify the board or otherwise restrict shareholders’ ability to vote upon directors and FOR proposals to repeal classified boards and to elect all directors annually.
Shareholder Ability to Remove Directors
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals that provide that directors may be removed only for cause.
Generally, vote FOR proposals to restore shareholder ability to remove directors with or without cause.
28
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals that provide that only continuing directors may elect replacements to fill board vacancies.
Generally, vote FOR proposals that permit shareholders to elect directors to fill board vacancies.
Cumulative Voting
If the company is controlled or maintains a classified board of directors or a dual class voting structure, generally, vote AGAINST management proposals to eliminate cumulative voting (except that such proposals may be supported irrespective of classification in furtherance of an issuer’s plan to declassify its board or adopt a majority voting standard), and vote FOR shareholder proposals to restore or permit cumulative voting.
Time-Phased Voting
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals to implement, and FOR proposals to eliminate, time-phased or other forms of voting that do not promote a one share, one vote standard.
Shareholder Ability to Call Special Meetings
Generally, vote FOR shareholder proposals that provide shareholders with the ability to call special meetings when either (1) the company does not currently permit shareholders to do so or (2) the existing ownership threshold is greater than 25 percent.
Consider management proposals to permit shareholders to call special meetings on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, generally voting FOR such proposals not opposed by the Agent. Generally vote FOR such proposals if the Agent’s sole concern relates to a net-long position requirement.
Shareholder Ability to Act by Written Consent
Generally, vote AGAINST shareholder proposals seeking the right to act by written consent if the issuer:
(1) | Permits shareholders to call special meetings; |
(2) | Does not impose supermajority vote requirements; and |
(3) | Has otherwise demonstrated its accountability to shareholders (e.g., the company has reasonably addressed majority-supported shareholder proposals). |
Consider management proposals to eliminate the right to act by written consent on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, generally voting FOR if the above conditions are present.
Generally, vote FOR shareholder proposals seeking the right to act by written consent if the above conditions are not present.
Shareholder Ability to Alter the Size of the Board
Generally, vote FOR proposals that seek to fix the size of the board or designate a range for its size.
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals that give management the ability to alter the size of the board outside of a specified range without shareholder approval.
5. | Tender Offer Defenses |
Poison Pills
Generally, vote FOR shareholder proposals that ask a company to submit its poison pill for
29
shareholder ratification, or to redeem its pill in lieu thereof, unless (1) shareholders have approved adoption of the plan, (2) a policy has already been implemented by the company that should reasonably prevent abusive use of the pill, or (3) the board had determined that it was in the best interest of shareholders to adopt a pill without delay, provided that such plan would be put to shareholder vote within twelve months of adoption or expire, and if not approved by a majority of the votes cast, would immediately terminate.
Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis shareholder proposals to redeem a company’s poison pill.
Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis management proposals to approve or ratify a poison pill or any plan or charter amendment (e.g., investment restrictions) that can reasonably be construed as an anti-takeover measure, with voting decisions generally based on the Agent’s approach to evaluating such proposals, considering factors such as rationale, trigger level, and sunset provisions. Votes will generally be cast in a manner that seeks to preserve shareholder value and the right to consider a valid offer, voting AGAINST management proposals in connection with poison pills or anti-takeover activities that do not meet the Agent’s standards.
Fair Price Provisions
Vote proposals to adopt fair price provisions on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Generally, vote AGAINST fair price provisions with shareholder vote requirements greater than a majority of disinterested shares.
Greenmail
Generally, vote FOR proposals to adopt anti-greenmail charter or bylaw amendments or otherwise restrict a company’s ability to make greenmail payments.
Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis anti-greenmail proposals when they are bundled with other charter or bylaw amendments.
Pale Greenmail
Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis restructuring plans that involve the payment of pale greenmail.
Unequal Voting Rights
Generally, except as otherwise provided for herein, vote AGAINST dual-class exchange offers and dual-class recapitalizations.
Supermajority Shareholder Vote Requirement
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals to require a supermajority shareholder vote and FOR management or shareholder proposals to lower supermajority shareholder vote requirements, unless, for companies with shareholder(s) with significant ownership levels, the Agent recommends retention of existing supermajority requirements in order to protect minority shareholder interests.
White Squire Placements
Generally, vote FOR shareholder proposals to require approval of blank check preferred stock issues for other than general corporate purposes.
30
6. | Miscellaneous |
Amendments to Corporate Documents
Except to align with legislative or regulatory changes or when support is recommended by the Agent or relevant Investment Professional(s) (including, for example, as a condition to a major transaction such as a merger), generally, vote AGAINST proposals seeking to remove shareholder approval requirements or otherwise remove or diminish shareholder rights, e.g., by (1) adding restrictive provisions, (2) removing provisions or moving them to portions of the charter not requiring shareholder approval, or (3) in corporate structures such as holding companies, removing provisions in an active subsidiary’s charter that provide voting rights to parent company shareholders. This policy would also generally apply to proposals seeking approval of corporate agreements or amendments to such agreements that the Agent recommends AGAINST because a similar reduction in shareholder rights is requested.
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals for charter amendments that support board entrenchment or may be used as an anti-takeover device (or to further anti-takeover conditions), particularly if the proposal is bundled or the board is classified.
Generally, vote FOR proposals seeking charter or bylaw amendments to remove anti-takeover provisions.
Consider proposals seeking charter or bylaw amendments not addressed under these Guidelines on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Confidential Voting
Generally, vote FOR shareholder proposals that request companies to adopt confidential voting, use independent tabulators, and use independent inspectors of election as long as the proposals include clauses for proxy contests as follows:
· | In the case of a contested election, management should be permitted to request that the dissident group honor its confidential voting policy. |
· | If the dissidents agree, the policy remains in place. |
· | If the dissidents do not agree, the confidential voting policy is waived. |
Generally, vote FOR management proposals to adopt confidential voting.
Proxy Access
Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals to provide shareholders with access to management’s proxy material in order to nominate their own candidates(s) to the board. Generally, vote AGAINST shareholder proposals, unless significant or multiple corporate governance concerns have been identified. Generally, vote FOR management proposals also supported by the Agent.
Majority Voting Standard
Generally, vote FOR proposals seeking election of directors by the affirmative vote of the majority of votes cast in connection with a meeting of shareholders, provided they contain a plurality carve-out for contested elections, and provided such standard does not conflict with state law in which the company is incorporated. Generally, vote FOR amendments to corporate documents or other actions in furtherance of a majority standard. (See also Section 11. Mutual Fund Proxies.)
31
Bundled Proposals
Except as otherwise provided for herein, review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis bundled or “conditioned” proxy proposals, generally voting AGAINST bundled proposals containing one or more items not supported under these Guidelines if the Agent or relevant Investment Professional(s) deems the negative impact, on balance, to outweigh any positive impact.
Moot Proposals
Generally, vote with the Agent’s recommendation to withhold support (AGAINST or ABSTAIN, as appropriate) from a proposal for which support has become moot (e.g., an incentive grant to a person no longer employed by the company.)
Shareholder Advisory Committees
Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals to establish a shareholder advisory committee.
Reimburse Shareholder for Expenses Incurred
Voting to reimburse expenses incurred in connection with shareholder proposals should be analyzed on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Other Business
In connection with proxies of U.S. issuers (e.g., those filing a DEF 14A and considered domestic by the Agent), generally vote FOR management proposals for Other Business, except when the primary proposal is not supported by a Fund or in connection with a proxy contest in which a Fund is not voting in support of management.
Quorum Requirements
Review on a case-by-case basis proposals to lower quorum requirements for shareholder meetings below a majority of the shares outstanding.
Advance Notice for Shareholder Proposals
Generally, vote FOR management proposals related to advance notice period requirements, provided that the period requested is in accordance with applicable law and no material governance concerns have been identified in connection with the issuer.
Multiple Proposals
Multiple proposals of a similar nature presented as options to the course of action favored by management may all be voted FOR, provided that support for a single proposal is not operationally required, no one proposal is deemed superior in the interest of the Fund(s), and each proposal would otherwise be supported under these Guidelines.
32
7. | Capital Structure |
Common Stock Authorization
Review proposals to increase the number of shares of common stock authorized for issuance on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. Except where otherwise indicated, the Agent’s proprietary approach of determining appropriate thresholds and, for requests above such allowable threshold, applying a company-specific, qualitative review (e.g., considering rationale and prudent historical usage), will generally be utilized in evaluating such proposals.
Generally, vote FOR:
· | Proposals to authorize capital increases within the Agent’s allowable thresholds or those in excess but meeting Agent’s qualitative standards, but consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis those requests failing the Agent’s review for proposals in connection with which a contrary recommendation from the relevant Investment Professional(s) has been received and is to be utilized (e.g., in support of a merger or acquisition proposal). |
· | Proposals to authorize capital increases within the Agent’s allowable thresholds or those in excess but meeting Agent’s qualitative standards, unless the company states that the stock may be used as a takeover defense. In those cases, consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if a contrary recommendation from the relevant Investment Professional(s) has been received and is to be utilized. |
· | Proposals to authorize capital increases exceeding the Agent’s thresholds when a company’s shares are in danger of being delisted or if a company’s ability to continue to operate as a going concern is uncertain. |
Generally, vote AGAINST:
· | Proposals to increase the number of authorized shares of a class of stock if the issuance which the increase is intended to service is not supported under these Guidelines. |
· | Nonspecific proposals authorizing excessive discretion to a board. |
Consider management proposals to make changes to the capital structure not otherwise addressed under these Guidelines CASE-BY-CASE, generally voting with the Agent’s recommendation unless a contrary recommendation has been received from the relevant Investment Professional(s) and is to be utilized.
Dual Class Capital Structures
Generally, vote AGAINST:
· | Proposals to create or perpetuate dual class capital structures unless supported by the Agent (e.g., to avert bankruptcy or generate non-dilutive financing, and not designed to increase the voting power of an insider or significant shareholder). |
· | Proposals to increase the number of authorized shares of the class of stock that has superior voting rights in companies that have dual class capital structures. |
However, consider such proposals CASE-BY-CASE if (1) bundled with favorable proposal(s), (2) approval of such proposal(s) is a condition of such favorable proposal(s), or (3) part of a recapitalization for which support is recommended by the Agent or relevant Investment Professional(s).
33
Consider management proposals to eliminate or make changes to dual class capital structures CASE-BY-CASE, generally voting with the Agent’s recommendation unless a contrary recommendation has been received from the relevant Investment Professional(s) and is to be utilized.
Generally, vote FOR shareholder proposals to eliminate dual class capital structures unless the relevant Fund owns a class with superior voting rights.
Stock Distributions: Splits and Dividends
Generally, vote FOR management proposals to increase common share authorization for a stock split, provided that the increase in authorized shares falls within the Agent’s allowable thresholds, but consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis those proposals exceeding the Agent’s threshold for proposals in connection with which a contrary recommendation from the relevant Investment Professional(s) has been received and is to be utilized.
Reverse Stock Splits
Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis management proposals to implement a reverse stock split. In the event the split constitutes a capital increase effectively exceeding the Agent’s allowable threshold because the request does not proportionately reduce the number of shares authorized, consider management’s rationale and/or disclosure, generally voting FOR, but generally not supporting additional requests for capital increases on the same agenda.
Preferred Stock
Review proposals to increase the number of shares of preferred stock authorized for issuance on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, and except where otherwise indicated, generally utilize the Agent’s approach for evaluating such proposals. This approach incorporates both qualitative and quantitative measures, including a review of past performance (e.g., board governance, shareholder returns and historical share usage) and the current request (e.g., rationale, whether shares are blank check and declawed, and dilutive impact as determined through the Agent’s proprietary model for assessing appropriate thresholds).
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals authorizing the issuance of preferred stock or creation of new classes of preferred stock with unspecified voting, conversion, dividend distribution, and other rights (“blank check” preferred stock), but vote FOR if the Agent or relevant Investment Professional(s) so recommends because the issuance is required to effect a merger or acquisition proposal.
Generally, vote FOR proposals to issue or create blank check preferred stock in cases when the company expressly states that the stock will not be used as a takeover defense. Generally vote AGAINST in cases where the company expressly states that, or fails to disclose whether, the stock may be used as a takeover defense, but vote FOR if the Agent or relevant Investment Professional(s) so recommends because the issuance is required to address special circumstances such as a merger or acquisition.
Generally, vote FOR proposals to authorize or issue 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 appear reasonable.
34
Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to increase the number of blank check preferred shares after analyzing the number of preferred shares available for issue given a company’s industry and performance in terms of shareholder returns.
Shareholder Proposals Regarding Blank Check Preferred Stock
Generally, vote FOR shareholder proposals to have blank check preferred stock placements, other than those shares issued for the purpose of raising capital or making acquisitions in the normal course of business, submitted for shareholder ratification.
Adjustments to Par Value of Common Stock
Generally, vote FOR management proposals to reduce the par value of common stock, unless doing so raises other concerns not otherwise supported under these Guidelines.
Preemptive Rights
Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis shareholder proposals that seek preemptive rights or management proposals that seek to eliminate them. In evaluating proposals on preemptive rights, consider the size of a company and the characteristics of its shareholder base.
Debt Restructurings
Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals to increase common and/or preferred shares and to issue shares as part of a debt restructuring plan.
Share Repurchase Programs
Generally, vote FOR management proposals to institute open-market share repurchase plans in which all shareholders may participate on equal terms, but vote AGAINST plans with terms favoring selected parties. This policy shall also apply to companies incorporated outside the U.S. if they are listed on a U.S. exchange and treated as a U.S. domestic issuer by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).
Generally, vote FOR management proposals to cancel repurchased shares.
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals for share repurchase methods lacking adequate risk mitigation or exceeding appropriate volume or duration parameters for the market.
Consider shareholder proposals seeking share repurchase programs on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with input from the relevant Investment Professional(s) to be given primary consideration.
Tracking Stock
Votes on the creation of tracking stock are determined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
8. | Executive and Director Compensation |
Except as otherwise provided for herein, votes with respect to compensation and employee benefit plans, or the issuance of shares in connection with such plans, should be determined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with voting decisions generally based on the Agent’s approach to evaluating such plans, which includes determination of costs and comparison to an allowable cap, except as otherwise provided herein.
· | Generally, vote in accordance with the Agent’s recommendations FOR equity-based plans with costs within such cap and AGAINST those with costs in excess of it, except |
35
that plans above the cap may be supported if so recommended by the Agent or relevant Investment Professional(s) as a condition to a major transaction such as a merger.
· | Generally, vote AGAINST plans if the Agent suggests cost or dilution assessment may not be possible due to the method of disclosing shares allocated to the plan(s). |
· | Generally, vote AGAINST equity-based plans whose awards further a misalignment between CEO pay and performance with regard to shareholder value, including where pay appears unreasonably insulated from performance conditions and/or awards under the plan are concentrated among named executive officers. |
· | Generally, vote AGAINST plans with inadequate disclosure regarding vesting or performance requirements. However, except as otherwise provided herein, consider plans CASE-BY-CASE if the Agent questions the form or stringency of the vesting or performance criteria. |
· | Generally, vote FOR plans with costs within the cap if the primary concerns raised by the Agent pertain to matters that would not result in a negative vote under these Guidelines on a management say on pay proposal or the relevant board or committee member(s). |
· | Generally, vote AGAINST plans administered by potential grant recipients. |
· | Generally, vote AGAINST proposals to eliminate existing shareholder approval requirements for material plan changes, unless the company has provided a reasonable rationale and/or adequate disclosure regarding the requested changes. |
· | Generally vote AGAINST long-term incentive plans that are inadequately aligned with shareholders because the performance period is too short or they lack an appropriate equity component, except that such cases will be considered CASE-BY-CASE in connection with executives already holding significant equity positions. |
· | Generally, vote AGAINST plans that contain an overly liberal change in control definition (e.g., does not result in actual change in control or results in a change in control but does not terminate the employment relationship). |
· | Consider plans CASE-BY-CASE if the Agent raises other considerations not otherwise provided for herein. |
Management Proposals Seeking Approval to Reprice Options
Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis management proposals seeking approval to reprice, replace, or exchange options, considering factors such as rationale, historic trading patterns, value-for-value exchange, vesting periods, and replacement option terms. Generally, vote FOR proposals that meet the Agent’s criteria for acceptable repricing, replacement, or exchange transactions. Generally, vote AGAINST compensation plans that (1) permit or may permit (e.g., history of repricing and no express prohibition against future repricing) repricing of stock options, or any form or alternative to repricing, without shareholder approval, (2) include provisions that permit repricing, replacement, or exchange transactions that do not meet the Agent’s criteria, or (3) give the board sole discretion to approve option repricing, replacement, or exchange programs.
36
Director Compensation
Votes on stock-based plans for directors are made on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with voting decisions generally based on the Agent’s quantitative approach described above as well as a review of qualitative features of the plan when costs exceed the Agent’s threshold.
Employee Stock Purchase Plans
Votes on employee stock purchase plans, and capital issuances in support of such plans, should be made on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with voting decisions generally based on the Agent’s approach to evaluating such plans.
OBRA-Related Compensation Proposals
Votes on plans intended to qualify for favorable tax treatment under the provisions of Section 162(m) of OBRA should be evaluated irrespective of the Agent’s assessment of board independence, provided that the board meets the independence requirements of the relevant listing exchange and no potential recipient under the plan(s) sits on the committee that exercises discretion over the related compensation awards. Unless the issuer has provided a compelling rationale, generally vote with the Agent’s recommendations AGAINST plans that include practices or features not supported under these Guidelines or deliver excessive compensation that fails to qualify for favorable tax treatment.
Amendments that Place a Cap on Annual Grants or Amend Administrative Features
Generally, vote FOR plans that simply amend shareholder-approved plans to include administrative features or place a cap on the annual grants any one participant may receive to comply with the provisions of Section 162(m) of OBRA.
Amendments to Add Performance-Based Goals
Generally, vote FOR amendments to add performance goals to existing compensation plans to comply with the provisions of Section 162(m) of OBRA, unless they are clearly inappropriate.
Amendments to Increase Shares and Retain Tax Deductions Under OBRA
Votes on amendments to existing plans to increase shares reserved and to qualify the plan for favorable tax treatment under the provisions of Section 162(m) should be evaluated on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, generally voting FOR such plans that do not raise any negative concerns under these Guidelines.
Approval of Cash or Cash-and-Stock Bonus Plans
Generally, vote FOR cash or cash-and-stock bonus plans to exempt the compensation from taxes under the provisions of Section 162(m) of OBRA, with primary consideration given to management’s assessment that such plan meets the requirements for exemption of performance-based compensation. However, consider CASE-BY-CASE when broader compensation concerns exist.
Shareholder Proposals Regarding Executive and Director Pay
Unless evidence exists of abuse in historical compensation practices, and except as otherwise provided for herein, generally vote AGAINST shareholder proposals that seek to impose new compensation structures or policies.
37
Severance and Termination Payments
Generally, vote FOR shareholder proposals to have parachute arrangements submitted for shareholder ratification (with “parachutes” defined as compensation arrangements related to termination that specify change in control events) and provided that the proposal does not include unduly restrictive or arbitrary provisions such as advance approval requirements.
Generally, vote FOR shareholder proposals seeking double triggers on change in control cash severance provisions.
Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals seeking a specific treatment (e.g., double trigger or pro-rata) of equity that vests upon change in control. Generally vote FOR management proposals, unless evidence exists of abuse in historical compensation practices. Generally vote AGAINST shareholder proposals regarding the treatment of equity if the change in control cash severance provisions are double-triggered and the company has provided a reasonable rationale regarding the treatment of equity.
Generally vote FOR shareholder proposals to submit executive severance agreements for shareholder ratification, if such proposals specify change in control events, Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans, or deferred executive compensation plans, or if ratification is required by the listing exchange.
Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis all proposals to approve, ratify, or cancel executive severance or termination arrangements, including those related to executive recruitment or retention. Generally vote FOR such compensation arrangements if:
(1) | The primary concerns raised by the Agent would not result in a negative vote under these Guidelines on a management say on pay proposal or the relevant board or committee member(s); |
(2) | The issuer has provided adequate rationale and/or disclosure; or |
(3) | Support is recommended by the Agent or relevant Investment Professional(s) (e.g., as a condition to a major transaction such as a merger). |
However, vote in accordance with the Agent’s recommendations AGAINST new or materially amended plans, contracts, or payments that include single trigger change in control cash severance provisions or do not require an actual change in control in order to be triggered.
Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis any parachute arrangement proposals opposed by the Agent due to single trigger equity acceleration or legacy single trigger change in control cash severance provisions. Generally vote FOR such proposals, unless: (1) the total payout to the named executive officers is deemed excessive versus the transaction equity value of the merger, (2) the single-triggered component of the payout is excessive versus the total payout, or (3) the arrangements contain an overly liberal change in control definition.
Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs)
Generally, vote FOR proposals that request shareholder approval in order to implement an ESOP or to increase authorized shares for existing ESOPs, except in cases when the number of shares allocated to the ESOP is “excessive” (i.e., generally greater than five percent of outstanding shares).
38
401(k) Employee Benefit Plans
Generally, vote FOR proposals to implement a 401(k) savings plan for employees.
Holding Periods
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals requiring mandatory periods for officers and directors to hold company stock.
Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation (Say on Pay)
Generally, management proposals seeking ratification of the company’s compensation program will be voted FOR unless the program includes practices or features not supported under these Guidelines (including those referenced under Section 1. The Board of Directors, Compensation Practices) and the proposal receives a negative recommendation from the Agent. Unless otherwise provided for herein, proposals not receiving the Agent’s support due to concerns regarding incentive structures, severance/termination payments, or vesting or performance criteria not otherwise supported by these Guidelines will be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, factoring in whether the issuer has made improvements to its overall compensation program, and generally voting FOR if CEO pay appears aligned with performance and/or the company has provided a reasonable rationale and/or adequate disclosure regarding the matter(s) under consideration. For say on pay proposals not supported by the Agent and referencing incentive plan concerns:
(1) | Short-term incentive plans: Proposals will be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if they cite short-term incentive plans over which the board has exercised discretion to exclude extraordinary items, and voted AGAINST if treatment of such items has been inconsistent (e.g., exclusion of losses but not gains). |
(2) | Long-term incentive plans: Proposals will be voted AGAINST if they cite long-term incentive plans that are inadequately aligned with shareholders because the performance period is too short or they lack an appropriate equity component (e.g., overly cash-based plans), except that the latter will be considered CASE-BY-CASE in connection with executives already holding significant equity positions. |
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals when named executives have material input into setting their own compensation.
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals presented by issuers subject to Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) provisions if there is inadequate discussion of the process for ensuring that incentive compensation does not encourage excessive risk-taking.
Frequency of Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation
Generally, support proposals seeking an annual say on pay and oppose those seeking a less frequent say on pay.
9. | State of Incorporation |
Voting on State Takeover Statutes
Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals to opt in or out of state takeover statutes (including control share acquisition statutes, control share cash-out statutes, freezeout provisions, fair price provisions, stakeholder laws, poison pill endorsements, severance pay and labor contract provisions, anti-greenmail provisions, and disgorgement provisions).
39
Voting on Reincorporation Proposals
Proposals to change a company’s state of incorporation should be examined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, generally supporting management proposals not assessed as a (1) potential takeover defense or (2) significant reduction of minority shareholder rights that outweigh the aggregate positive impact, but if so assessed, weighing management’s rationale for the change. Generally, vote FOR management reincorporation proposals upon which another key proposal, such as a merger transaction, is contingent if the other key proposal is also supported. Generally, vote AGAINST shareholder reincorporation proposals not also supported by the company.
10. | Mergers and Corporate Restructurings |
Input from the relevant Investment Professional(s) shall be given primary consideration with respect to proposals regarding business combinations, particularly those between otherwise unaffiliated parties, or other corporate restructurings being considered on behalf of that Fund.
Generally, vote FOR a proposal not typically supported under these Guidelines if a key proposal, such as a merger transaction, is contingent upon its support and a vote FOR is accordingly recommended by the Agent or relevant Investment Professional(s).
Mergers and Acquisitions
Votes on mergers and acquisitions should be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with voting decisions generally based on the Agent’s approach to evaluating such proposals if no input is provided by the relevant Investment Professional(s).
Corporate Restructurings
Votes on corporate restructuring proposals, including demergers, minority squeezeouts, leveraged buyouts, spinoffs, liquidations, dispositions, divestitures, and asset sales, should be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with voting decisions generally based on the Agent’s approach to evaluating such proposals if no input is provided by the relevant Investment Professional(s).
Adjournment
Generally, vote FOR proposals to adjourn a meeting to provide additional time for vote solicitation when the primary proposal, such as a merger or corporate restructuring, is also supported. Absent such a proposal, vote FOR adjournment if all other proposals are supported and AGAINST if all others are opposed. Under any other circumstances, consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Appraisal Rights
Generally, vote FOR proposals to restore, or provide shareholders with, rights of appraisal.
Changing Corporate Name
Generally, vote FOR changing the corporate name.
11. | Mutual Fund Proxies |
Approving New Classes or Series of Shares
Generally, vote FOR the establishment of new classes or series of shares.
40
Authorizing the Board to Hire and Terminate Sub-Advisers Without Shareholder Approval
Generally, vote FOR these proposals.
Master-Feeder Structure
Generally, vote FOR the establishment of a master-feeder structure.
Establish Director Ownership Requirement
Generally, vote AGAINST shareholder proposals for the establishment of a director ownership requirement.
The matters below should be examined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis:
· | Election of Directors |
· | Converting Closed-end Fund to Open-end Fund |
· | Proxy Contests |
· | Investment Advisory Agreements |
· | Preferred Stock Proposals |
· | 1940 Act Policies |
· | Changing a Fundamental Restriction to a Nonfundamental Restriction |
· | Change Fundamental Investment Objective to Nonfundamental |
· | Name Rule Proposals |
· | Disposition of Assets/Termination/Liquidation |
· | Changes to the Charter Document |
· | Changing the Domicile of a Fund |
· | Change in Fund’s Subclassification |
· | Distribution Agreements |
· | Mergers |
· | Reimburse Shareholder for Expenses Incurred |
· | Terminate the Investment Adviser |
· | Majority Voting Proposals |
12. | Social and Environmental Issues |
Boards of directors and company management are responsible for guiding the corporation in connection with matters that are most often the subject of shareholder proposals on social and environmental issues: ensuring that the companies they oversee comply with applicable legal, regulatory and ethical standards, effectively managing risk, and assessing and addressing matters that may have a financial impact on shareholder value. The Funds will generally vote in accordance with the board’s recommendation on such proposals unless it appears both that the stewardship noted above has fallen short and the issue is material to the company. The former may be evidenced by the company’s failure to align its actions and disclosure with market practice and that of its peers, or the company’s having been subject to significant controversies, litigation, fines, or penalties in connection with the relevant issue. Such instances will be considered CASE-BY-CASE. The Funds will generally vote AGAINST shareholder proposals
41
seeking to dictate corporate conduct, impose excessive costs or restrictions, duplicate policies already substantially in place, or release information that would not help a shareholder evaluate an investment in the corporation as an economic matter. The Funds may ABSTAIN from voting on shareholder proposals where application of the Guidelines is unclear. This may include cases where the concerns raised are considered valid but the policies or actions requested are not deemed appropriate or the issues are not clearly relevant to corporate performance or are not deemed appropriate for shareholder consideration.
13. | Global Proxies |
Companies incorporated outside the U.S. shall generally be subject to the foregoing U.S. Guidelines if they are listed on a U.S. exchange and treated as a U.S. domestic issuer by the SEC. Where applicable and not provided for otherwise herein, certain U.S. Guidelines may also be applied to companies incorporated outside the U.S., e.g., companies with a significant base of U.S. operations and employees. However, the following provide for differing regulatory and legal requirements, market practices, and political and economic systems existing in various global markets.
Unless otherwise provided for herein, it shall generally be the policy of the Funds to vote AGAINST global proxy proposals when the Agent recommends voting AGAINST such proposal because relevant disclosure by the issuer, or the time provided for consideration of such disclosure, is inadequate. For purposes of these global Guidelines, “AGAINST” shall mean withholding of support for a proposal, resulting in submission of a vote of AGAINST or ABSTAIN, as appropriate for the given market and level of concern raised by the Agent regarding the issue or lack of disclosure or time provided.
In connection with practices described herein that are associated with a firm AGAINST vote, it shall generally be the policy of the Funds to consider them on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if the Agent recommends their support (1) as the issuer or market transitions to better practices (e.g., having committed to new regulations or governance codes) or (2) as the more favorable choice when shareholders must choose between alternate proposals.
Routine Management Proposals
Generally, vote FOR the following and other similar routine management proposals:
· | the opening of the shareholder meeting |
· | that the meeting has been convened under local regulatory requirements |
· | the presence of quorum |
· | the agenda for the shareholder meeting |
· | the election of the chair of the meeting |
· | the appointment of shareholders to co-sign the minutes of the meeting |
· | regulatory filings (e.g., to effect approved share issuances) |
· | the designation of inspector or shareholder representative(s) of minutes of meeting |
· | the designation of two shareholders to approve and sign minutes of meeting |
· | the allowance of questions |
· | the publication of minutes |
· | the closing of the shareholder meeting |
42
Consider proposals seeking authority to call shareholder meetings on less than 21 days’ notice on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with voting decisions generally based on the Agent’s approach to consider whether the issuer has provided clear disclosure of its compliance with any hurdle conditions for the authority imposed by applicable law and has historically limited its use of such authority to time-sensitive matters.
Discharge of Management/Supervisory Board Members
Generally, vote FOR management proposals seeking the discharge of management and supervisory board members, unless the Agent recommends AGAINST due to concern about the past actions of the company’s auditors or directors or legal action is being taken against the board by other shareholders, including when the proposal is bundled. Generally do not withhold support from such proposals in connection with remuneration practices otherwise supported under these Guidelines or as a means of expressing disapproval of broader practices of the issuer or its board.
Director Elections
Unless otherwise provided for herein, the Agent’s standards with respect to determining director independence shall apply. These standards generally provide that, to be considered completely independent, a director shall have no material connection to the company other than the board seat.
Agreement with the Agent’s independence standards shall not dictate that a Fund’s vote shall be cast according to the Agent’s corresponding recommendation. Further, unless otherwise provided for herein, the application of Guidelines in connection with such standards shall apply only when the nominee’s level of independence can be ascertained based on available disclosure. These policies generally apply to director nominees in uncontested elections; votes in contested elections, and votes on director nominees not subject to policies described herein, should be made on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with primary consideration in contested elections given to input from the relevant Investment Professional(s).
For issuers domiciled in Finland, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, or tax haven markets, generally vote AGAINST non-independent directors opposed by the Agent when the full board serves as the audit committee, or the company does not have an audit committee.
For issuers in all markets, vote AGAINST non-independent nominees to the audit committee, as well as bundled slates including such nominees, unless the Agent otherwise recommends support (e.g., due to market practices or requirements). If the slate is bundled and audit committee membership is unclear or proposed as a separate agenda item, vote FOR if the Agent otherwise recommends support. For Canadian issuers, the Funds’ U.S. Guidelines with respect to audit committees shall apply. For issuers in all markets, nominees (or slates of nominees) will be voted AGAINST if opposed by the Agent for failing to disclose audit fees broken down by category. If the Agent opposes audit committee members because fees for non-audit services (excluding significant, one-time events) exceed 50 percent of total auditor fees, the provisions under Section 13. Ratification of Auditors and Approval of Auditors’ Fees shall apply.
Generally, vote FOR non-independent directors when the full board serves as the remuneration (compensation) or nominating committee, or the company does not have a remuneration or nominating committee, if the board meets the applicable independence requirements of the relevant listing exchange. Vote FOR non-independent directors who sit on the remuneration or
43
nominating committees if such committee meets the applicable independence requirements of the relevant listing exchange.
Generally follow the Agent’s recommendations to vote AGAINST individuals nominated as outside/non-executive directors who do not meet the Agent’s standard for independence, unless the slate of nominees is bundled and includes independent nominees, in which case the proposal(s) to elect board members shall be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Generally follow the Agent’s standards for withholding support (AGAINST or ABSTAIN, as appropriate) from bundled slates or non-independent directors (typically, but not always, excluding the CEO), as applicable, if the board does not meet the Agent’s independence standards or the board’s independence cannot be ascertained due to inadequate disclosure.
For issuers in Italy presenting multiple slates of directors (voto di lista), generally withhold support (AGAINST or ABSTAIN, as appropriate) from all slates until nominee names are disclosed, and upon disclosure, generally follow the Agent’s standards for assessing which slate is best suited to represent shareholder interests.
For issuers in Japan, generally follow the Agent’s recommendations in furtherance of greater board independence and minority shareholder protections, including:
· | At companies with controlling shareholders, if the board after the shareholder meeting does not include at least two directors deemed independent under the Agent’s standards, generally vote AGAINST reelection of top executives. |
· | At companies with a three-committee structure, generally vote AGAINST (1) outside director nominees not deemed independent under the Agent’s standards if the board after the shareholder meeting is not majority independent and (2) non-independent directors on the nominating committee if the board does not include at least two directors deemed independent under the Agent’s standards. |
· | At all companies, vote AGAINST the top executive if the board does not include at least one outside director. |
Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis any nominee whom the Agent cites as having failed to implement a majority-approved shareholder proposal. Vote FOR if the shareholder proposal has been reasonably addressed. Vote AGAINST if the shareholder proposal is supported under these Guidelines and the board has not disclosed a credible rationale for not implementing the proposal.
Generally, withhold support (AGAINST or ABSTAIN, as appropriate) from nominees or slates of nominees opposed by the Agent because they are presented in a manner not aligned with market best practice and/or regulation, including:
· | Bundled slates of nominees (e.g., Canada, France, Hong Kong, or Spain); |
· | Simultaneous reappointment of retiring directors (e.g., South Africa); |
· | In markets with term lengths capped by regulation or market practice, nominees whose terms exceed the caps or are not disclosed; or |
· | Nominees whose names are not disclosed in advance of the meeting or far enough in advance relative to voting deadlines to make an informed voting decision. |
44
Generally vote FOR nominees without regard to recommendations that the position of chairman should be separate from that of CEO or otherwise required to be independent, unless other concerns requiring Case-by-Case consideration have been raised. The latter would include former CEOs proposed as board chairmen in markets such as the United Kingdom for which best practice and the Agent recommend against such practice.
When cumulative or net voting applies, generally vote with the Agent’s recommendation to support nominees asserted by the issuer to be independent, irrespective of audit committee membership, even if independence disclosure or criteria fall short of Agent’s standards.
Consider nominees for whom the Agent has raised concerns regarding scandals or internal controls on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, generally supporting nominees or slates of nominees unless:
· | The scandal or shortfall in controls took place at the company, or an affiliate, for which the nominee is being considered; |
· | Culpability can be attributed to the nominee (e.g., nominee manages or audits the relevant function); and |
· | The nominee has been directly implicated, with resulting arrest and criminal charge or regulatory sanction. |
Consider non-independent nominees on a CASE-BY-CASE basis when the Agent has raised concerns regarding diminished shareholder value as evidenced by a significant drop in share price, generally voting with Agent’s recommendation AGAINST such nominees when few, if any, outside directors are present on the board and:
· | The founding family has retained undue influence over the company despite a history of scandal or problematic controls; |
· | The nominees have engaged in protectionist activities such as introduction of a poison pill or preferential and/or dilutive share issuances; or |
· | Evidence exists regarding compliance or accounting shortfalls. |
If the Agent recommends withholding support due to other material failures or egregious actions, the Funds’ U.S. Guidelines with respect to such issues shall apply.
Consider nominees serving on the remuneration committee on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if the Agent recommends withholding support from nominees in connection with remuneration practices not otherwise supported by these Guidelines, including cases in which the issuer has not followed market practice by submitting a resolution on executive compensation. For Canadian issuers, the Funds’ U.S. Guidelines with respect to Section 1. Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections, Compensation Practices, shall apply.
For issuers in markets in which it is common practice for nominees’ attendance records to be disclosed, the Funds’ U.S. Guidelines with respect to director attendance shall apply. The same two-year attendance policy shall be applied regarding attendance by directors and statutory auditors of Japanese companies if year-over-year data can be tracked by nominee.
Consider self-nominated or shareholder-nominated director candidates on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with voting decisions generally based on the Agent’s approach to evaluating such candidates, except that (1) an unqualified candidate will generally not be supported simply to
45
effect a “protest vote,” (2) a candidate will generally not be supported if the candidate’s agenda is not in line with the long-term best interests of the company, and (3) cases of multiple self-nominated candidates may be considered as a proxy contest if similar issues are raised (e.g., potential change in control).
Generally vote FOR nominees without regard to “over-boarding” issues raised by the Agent unless other concerns requiring Case-by-Case consideration have been raised.
In cases where a director holds more than one board seat and corresponding votes, manifested as one seat as a physical person plus an additional seat as a representative of a legal entity, generally vote with the Agent’s recommendation to withhold support (AGAINST or ABSTAIN, as appropriate) from the legal entity and vote on the physical person.
Generally, vote with the Agent’s recommendation to withhold support (AGAINST or ABSTAIN, as appropriate) from nominees for whom support has become moot since the time the individual was nominated (e.g., due to death, disqualification, or determination not to accept appointment).
Generally, vote with the Agent’s recommendation when more candidates are presented than available seats and no other provisions under these Guidelines apply.
Board Structure
Generally, vote FOR proposals to fix board size, but vote AGAINST if the Agent opposes due to corporate governance, anti-takeover, or board independence concerns. Generally, vote FOR proposals seeking a board range if the range is reasonable in the context of market practice and anti-takeover considerations. Proposed article amendments in this regard shall be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with voting decisions generally based on the Agent’s approach to evaluating such proposals. Consider other proposals regarding board structure or policies on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, voting AGAINST if they promote practices not supported under these Guidelines.
For Japanese issuers, generally, follow the Agent’s approach to proposals seeking a board structure that would provide greater independence oversight of management and the board.
Director and Officer Indemnification and Liability Protection
Generally, vote in accordance with the Agent’s standards for indemnification and liability protection for officers and directors, voting AGAINST overly broad provisions.
Independent Statutory Auditors
With respect to Japanese companies that have not adopted the three-committee structure, vote AGAINST any nominee to the position of “independent statutory auditor” whom the Agent considers affiliated, e.g., if the nominee has worked a significant portion of his career for the company, its main bank, or one of its top shareholders. Where shareholders must vote on multiple nominees in a single resolution, vote AGAINST all nominees. When multiple slates of statutory auditors are presented, generally vote with the Agent’s recommendation, typically to support nominees deemed to be more independent and/or aligned with interests of minority shareholders.
Generally, vote AGAINST incumbent nominees at companies implicated in scandals or exhibiting poor internal controls.
46
Key Committees
Generally, except where market practice otherwise dictates, vote AGAINST proposals that permit non-board members to serve on the audit, remuneration (compensation), or nominating committee, provided that bundled slates, if otherwise acceptable under these Guidelines, may be supported if no slate nominee serves on the relevant committee(s). If not otherwise addressed under these Guidelines, consider other negative recommendations from the Agent regarding committee members on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Director and Statutory Auditor Remuneration
Consider director compensation plans on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with voting decisions generally based on the Agent’s approach to evaluating such proposals, while also factoring in the merits of the rationale and disclosure provided.
Generally, vote FOR proposals to approve the remuneration of directors and auditors as long as the amount is not excessive (e.g., significant increases should be supported by adequate rationale and disclosure), there is no evidence of abuse, the recipient’s overall compensation appears reasonable, and the board and/or responsible committee meet exchange or market standards for independence.
For European issuers, vote AGAINST non-executive director remuneration if:
· | The advance general meeting documents do not specify fees paid to non-executive directors; |
· | The company seeks to excessively increase the fees relative to market or sector practices without providing a reasonable rationale for the increase; or |
· | It provides for granting of stock options or similarly structured equity-based compensation. |
For Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) issuers, the Agent’s limits with respect to equity awards to non-employee directors shall apply.
Bonus Payments
With respect to Japanese companies, generally follow the Agent’s guidelines on retirement and annual bonus payments, which include voting FOR retirement bonus proposals if all payments are for directors or auditors who have served as executives of the company and AGAINST such proposals if any payments are for outsiders, except when deemed appropriate by the Agent, provided that no payments shall be supported unless the individual or aggregate amounts are disclosed. In all markets, if issues have been raised regarding a scandal or internal controls, generally vote AGAINST bonus proposals for retiring directors or continuing directors or auditors when culpability can be attributed to the nominee (e.g., if a Fund is also voting AGAINST the nominee under criteria herein regarding issues of scandal or internal controls), unless bundled with bonuses for a majority of directors or auditors a Fund is voting FOR.
Stock Option Plans for Independent Internal Statutory Auditors
With respect to Japanese companies, follow the Agent’s guidelines with respect to proposals regarding option grants to independent internal statutory auditors or other outside parties, generally voting AGAINST such plans.
47
Amendment Procedures for Equity Compensation Plans and Employee Share Purchase Plans (ESPPs)
For TSX issuers, votes with respect to amendment procedures for security-based compensation arrangements and ESPPs shall generally be cast in a manner designed to preserve shareholder approval rights, with voting decisions generally based on the Agent’s recommendation.
Compensation Plans and Shares Reserved for Equity Compensation Plans
Unless otherwise provided for herein, votes with respect to equity compensation plans (e.g., option, warrant, restricted stock, or employee share purchase plans or participation in company offerings such as IPOs or private placements) or awards thereunder, the issuance of shares in connection with such plans, cash-based plans where appropriate, or related management proposals (e.g., article amendments), should be determined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with voting decisions generally based on the Agent’s approach to evaluating such proposals, considering quantitative or qualitative factors as appropriate for the market and utilizing the Agent’s methodology, including classification of a company’s stage of development as growth or mature and the corresponding determination as to reasonability of the share requests.
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals that:
· | Exceed Agent’s recommended burn rates or dilution limits, including cases in which the Agent suggests dilution cannot be fully assessed (e.g., due to inadequate disclosure); |
· | Provide deep or near-term discounts (or the equivalent, such as dividend equivalents on unexercised options) to executives or directors, unless discounts to executives are deemed by the Agent to be adequately mitigated by other requirements such as long-term vesting or performance requirements (e.g., Japan) or broad-based employee participation otherwise meeting the Agent’s standards (e.g., France); |
· | Are administered with discretion by potential grant recipients, unless such discretion is deemed acceptable due to market practice or other mitigating provisions; |
· | Provide for retirement benefits or equity incentive awards to outside directors if not in line with market practice (e.g., Australia, Belgium, or The Netherlands); |
· | Permit financial assistance to executives, directors, subsidiaries, affiliates, or related parties under conditions not supported by the Agent (e.g., misaligned with shareholders’ interests and/or posing excessive risk or independence concerns); |
· | For matching share plans, do not meet the Agent’s standards, considering holding period, discounts, dilution, participation, purchase price, and performance criteria; |
· | Provide for vesting upon change in control if deemed to evidence a potential conflict of interest or anti-takeover device or if the change in control definition is too liberal (e.g., does not result in actual change in control); |
· | Provide inadequate disclosure regarding vesting or performance requirements. |
· | Include vesting or performance periods that do not meet market standards (or the Agent’s standards where market standards are unclear); |
· | Permit post-employment vesting or exercise if deemed inappropriate by the Agent; |
· | Allow plan administrators to make material amendments without shareholder approval unless adequate prior disclosure has been provided, with such voting decisions generally based on the Agent’s approach to evaluating such plans; |
48
· | Provide for contract or notice periods or severance/termination payments that exceed market practice, e.g., relative to multiples of annual compensation; |
· | Promote a pay practice (or combination of practices) not otherwise supported under these Guidelines that appears to diminish accountability to shareholders and/or has created a misalignment between CEO pay and performance with regard to shareholder value; or |
· | Provide for retesting in connection with achievement of performance hurdles unless the Agent’s analysis indicates that (1) performance targets are adequately increased in proportion to the additional time available, (2) the retesting is de minimis as a percentage of overall compensation or is acceptable relative to market practice, or (3) the issuer has committed to cease retesting within a reasonable period of time. |
Generally, vote FOR such plans/awards or the related issuance of shares that (1) do not suffer from the defects noted above or (2) otherwise meet the Agent’s tests if the considerations raised by the Agent pertain primarily to vesting provisions, performance hurdles, discretionary bonuses, recruitment awards, retention incentives, non-compete payments, severance/termination payments, or incentive structures if:
(1) | The company has provided adequate disclosure and/or a reasonable rationale regarding the relevant plan/award, practice, or participation; |
(2) | The recipient’s overall compensation appears reasonable; |
(3) | Potential payments or awards are not so significant (individually or collectively) as to potentially influence an executive’s decision-making (e.g., to enter into a transaction that will result in a change of control payment) or to effectively act as a poison pill; and |
(4) | The board and/or responsible committee meet exchange or market standards for independence. |
Unless otherwise provided for herein, market practice of the primary country in which a company does business or competes for talent, or in which an employee is serving, as applicable, shall supersede that of the issuer’s domicile.
Consider proposals in connection with such plans or the related issuance of shares in other instances on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Remuneration Reports (Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation)
Generally, withhold support (AGAINST or ABSTAIN as appropriate for specific market and level of concerns identified) from remuneration reports/advisory votes on compensation that include compensation plans that:
(1) | Permit practices or features not supported under these Guidelines, including conditions described under Compensation Plans and Shares Reserved for Equity Compensation Plans above; |
(2) | Permit retesting excessive relative to market practice (irrespective of the Agent’s support for the report as a whole); |
(3) | Cite long-term incentive plans deemed to be inadequately aligned with shareholders because the performance period is too short or they lack an appropriate equity component (e.g., overly cash-based plans), except that the latter will be considered CASE-BY-CASE in connection with executives already holding significant equity positions; |
49
(4) | Cite equity award valuation methods triggering a negative recommendation from the Agent; |
(5) | Include components, metrics, or rationales that have not been disclosed in line with market practice (although retrospective disclosure may be considered adequate); |
(6) | For issuers in Australia, permit open market purchase of shares in support of equity grants in lieu of seeking shareholder approval, but only if the issuer has a history of significant negative votes when formally seeking approval for such grants; or |
(7) | Include provisions for retirement benefits or equity incentive awards to outside directors if not in line with market practice, except that reports will generally be voted FOR if contractual components are reasonably aligned with market practices on a going-forward basis (e.g., existing obligations related to retirement benefits or terms contrary to evolving standards would not preclude support for the report). |
Reports receiving the Agent’s support and not triggering the concerns cited above will generally be voted FOR. Unless otherwise provided for herein, reports not receiving the Agent’s support due to concerns regarding vesting provisions, performance hurdles, discretionary bonuses, recruitment awards, retention incentives, non-compete payments, severance/termination payments, or incentive structures not otherwise supported by these Guidelines shall be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, generally voted FOR if:
(1) | The company has provided a reasonable rationale and/or adequate disclosure regarding the matter(s) under consideration; |
(2) | The recipient’s overall compensation appears reasonable; |
(3) | Potential payments or awards are not so significant (individually or collectively) as to potentially influence an executive’s decision-making (e.g., to enter into a transaction that will result in a change of control payment) or to effectively act as a poison pill; and |
(4) | The board and/or responsible committee meet exchange or market standards for independence. |
Reports with typically unsupported features may be voted FOR when the Agent recommends their initial support as the issuer or market transitions to better practices (e.g., having committed to new regulations or governance codes).
Proposals to Provide an Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation
For issuers in Canada, generally support proposals seeking a say on pay, with a preference for an annual vote.
Shareholder Proposals Regarding Executive and Director Pay
Except as otherwise provided for herein, the Funds’ U.S. Guidelines with respect to shareholder proposals regarding executive and director pay shall generally apply.
General Share Issuances
Unless otherwise provided for herein, voting decisions shall generally be based on the Agent’s practice to determine support for general issuance requests (with or without preemptive rights), or related requests to repurchase and reissue shares, based on their amount relative to currently issued capital, appropriate volume and duration parameters, and market-specific considerations (e.g., priority right protections in France, reasonable levels of dilution and discount in Hong
50
Kong). Requests to reissue repurchased shares will not be supported unless a related general issuance request is also supported.
Consider specific issuance requests on a Case-by-Case basis based on the proposed use and the company’s rationale.
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals to issue shares (with or without preemptive rights), convertible bonds, or warrants, to grant rights to acquire shares, or to amend the corporate charter relative to such issuances or grants when concerns have been identified by the Agent with respect to inadequate disclosure, inadequate restrictions on discounts, failure to meet the Agent’s standards for general issuance requests, or authority to refresh share issuance amounts without prior shareholder approval.
Generally, vote AGAINST nonspecific proposals authorizing excessive discretion to a board.
Increases in Authorized Capital
Unless otherwise provided for herein, voting decisions should generally be based on the Agent’s approach, as follows. Generally:
· | Vote FOR nonspecific proposals, including bundled proposals, to increase authorized capital up to 100 percent over the current authorization unless the increase would leave the company with less than 30 percent of its new authorization outstanding. |
· | Vote FOR specific proposals to increase authorized capital, unless: |
§ | The specific purpose of the increase (such as a share-based acquisition or merger) does not meet these Guidelines for the purpose being proposed; or |
§ | The increase would leave the company with less than 30 percent of its new authorization outstanding after adjusting for all proposed issuances. |
· | Vote AGAINST proposals to adopt unlimited capital authorizations. |
· | The Agent’s market-specific exceptions to the above parameters shall be applied. |
Preferred Stock
Unless otherwise provided for herein, voting decisions should generally be based on the Agent’s approach, including:
· | Vote FOR the creation of a new class of preferred stock or issuances of preferred stock up to 50 percent of issued capital unless the terms of the preferred stock would adversely affect the rights of existing shareholders. |
· | Vote FOR the creation/issuance of convertible preferred stock as long as the maximum number of common shares that could be issued upon conversion meets the Agent’s guidelines on equity issuance requests. |
· | Vote AGAINST the creation of (1) a new class of preference shares that would carry superior voting rights to the common shares or (2) blank check preferred stock, unless the board states that the authorization will not be used to thwart a takeover bid. |
Poison Pills/Protective Preference Shares
Generally, vote AGAINST management proposals in connection with poison pills or anti-takeover activities (e.g., disclosure requirements or issuances, transfers, or repurchases) that do not meet the Agent’s standards. Generally vote in accordance with Agent’s recommendation to withhold support from a nominee in connection with poison pill or anti-takeover considerations
51
when responsibility for the actions can be reasonably attributed to the nominee. Generally DO NOT VOTE AGAINST director remuneration in connection with poison pill considerations raised by the Agent.
Waiver on Tender-Bid Requirement
Generally, consider proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis seeking a waiver for a major shareholder or concert party from the requirement to make a buyout offer to minority shareholders, voting FOR when little concern of a creeping takeover exists and the company has provided a reasonable rationale for the request, and with voting decisions generally based on the Agent’s approach to evaluating such requests.
Approval of Financial Statements and Director and Auditor Reports
Generally, vote FOR management proposals seeking approval of financial accounts and reports, unless there is concern about the company’s financial accounts and reporting, which, in the case of related party transactions, would include concerns raised by the Agent regarding inadequate disclosure, remuneration arrangements (including severance/termination payments exceeding local standards for multiples of annual compensation), or consulting agreements with non-executive directors. Unless otherwise provided for herein, reports not receiving the Agent’s support due to other concerns regarding severance/termination payments not otherwise supported by these Guidelines shall be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, factoring in the merits of the rationale or disclosure provided and generally voted FOR if the overall remuneration package and/or program at issue appears reasonable and the board and/or responsible committee meet exchange or market standards for independence. Generally, vote AGAINST board-issued reports receiving a negative recommendation from the Agent due to concerns regarding independence of the board or the presence of non-independent directors on the audit committee. However, generally do not withhold support from such proposals in connection with remuneration practices otherwise supported under these Guidelines or as a means of expressing disapproval of broader practices of the issuer or its board.
Remuneration of Auditors
Generally, vote FOR proposals to authorize the board to determine the remuneration of auditors, unless there is evidence of excessive compensation relative to the size and nature of the company.
Indemnification of Auditors
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals to indemnify auditors.
Ratification of Auditors and Approval of Auditors’ Fees
For Canadian issuers, the Funds’ U.S. Guidelines with respect to auditors and auditor fees shall apply.
For other markets, generally, follow the Agent’s standards for proposals seeking auditor ratification or approval of auditors’ fees, which generally indicate a vote FOR such proposals if the level of disclosure and independence meet the Agent’s standards. However, if fees for non-audit services (excluding significant, one-time events) exceed 50 percent of total auditor fees, consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, and vote AGAINST ratification of auditors or approval of auditors’ fees opposed by the Agent if it appears that remuneration for the non-audit work is so lucrative as to taint the auditor’s independence, including circumstances where no rationale is provided.
52
In other cases, generally vote FOR such proposals unless there are material concerns raised by the Agent about the auditor’s practices or independence.
Audit Commission
Consider nominees to the audit commission on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with voting decisions generally based on the Agent’s approach to evaluating such candidates.
Allocation of Income and Dividends
With respect to Japanese companies, consider management proposals concerning allocation of income and the distribution of dividends, including adjustments to reserves to make capital available for such purposes, on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, generally voting with the Agent’s recommendations to support such proposals unless:
· | The dividend payout ratio has been consistently below 30 percent without adequate explanation; or |
· | The payout is excessive given the company’s financial position. |
Generally vote FOR such proposals by issuers in other markets.
In any markets, in the event management offers multiple dividend proposals on the same agenda, consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with primary consideration given to input from the relevant Investment Professional(s) and voting decisions generally based on the Agent’s recommendation if no input is received.
Stock (Scrip) Dividend Alternatives
Generally, vote FOR most stock (scrip) dividend proposals, but vote AGAINST proposals that do not allow for a cash option unless management demonstrates that the cash option is harmful to shareholder value.
Debt Instruments and Issuance Requests
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals authorizing excessive discretion to a board to issue or set terms for debt instruments (e.g., commercial paper). Generally, vote FOR debt issuances for companies when the gearing level (current debt-to-equity ratio) is between zero and 100 percent. Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals where the issuance of debt will result in the gearing level being greater than 100 percent, or for which inadequate disclosure precludes calculation of the gearing level, comparing any such proposed debt issuance to industry and market standards, and with voting decisions generally based on the Agent’s approach to evaluating such requests.
Financing Plans
Generally, vote FOR the adoption of financing plans if they are in the best economic interests of shareholders.
Related Party Transactions
Consider related party transactions on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. Generally, vote FOR approval of such transactions unless the agreement requests a strategic move outside the company’s charter, contains unfavorable or high-risk terms (e.g., deposits without security interest or guaranty), or is deemed likely to have a negative impact on director independence.
53
Approval of Donations
Generally, vote AGAINST such proposals unless adequate, prior disclosure of amounts is provided; if so, single- or multi-year authorities may be supported.
Capitalization of Reserves
Generally, vote FOR proposals to capitalize the company’s reserves for bonus issues of shares or to increase the par value of shares, unless concerns not otherwise supported under these Guidelines are raised by the Agent.
Investment of Company Reserves
These proposals should generally be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, with primary consideration given to input from the relevant Investment Professional(s).
Article and Bylaw Amendments
Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis all proposals seeking adoption of, or amendments to, the articles of association, bylaws, or related board policies.
Generally, vote FOR the proposal if:
· | The change or policy is editorial in nature; |
· | Shareholder rights are protected; |
· | There is negligible or positive impact on shareholder value; |
· | Management provides adequate reasons for the amendments or the Agent otherwise supports management’s position; |
· | It seeks to discontinue and/or delist a form of the issuer’s securities when the relevant Fund does not hold the affected security type; |
· | Notice or disclosure requirements are reasonable; or |
· | The company is required to do so by law (if applicable). |
Generally, vote AGAINST the proposal if:
· | It removes or lowers quorum requirements for board or shareholder meetings below levels recommended by the Agent; |
· | It reduces relevant disclosure to shareholders; |
· | It seeks to align the articles with provisions of another proposal not supported by these Guidelines; |
· | It is not supported under these Guidelines, is presented within a bundled proposal, and the negative impact, on balance, outweighs any positive impact; or |
· | It imposes a negative impact on existing shareholder rights, including rights of the Funds, or diminishes accountability to shareholders to the extent that any positive impact would not be deemed to be sufficient to outweigh removal or diminution of such rights. |
With respect to article amendments for Japanese companies:
· | Generally vote FOR management proposals to amend a company’s articles to expand its business lines. |
· | Generally vote FOR management proposals to amend a company’s articles to provide for an expansion or reduction in the size of the board, unless the expansion/reduction is clearly disproportionate to the growth/decrease in the scale of the business or raises anti-takeover concerns. |
· | If anti-takeover concerns exist, generally vote AGAINST management proposals, |
54
including bundled proposals, to amend a company’s articles to authorize the Board to vary the annual meeting record date or to otherwise align them with provisions of a takeover defense.
· | Generally follow the Agent’s guidelines with respect to management proposals regarding amendments to authorize share repurchases at the board’s discretion, voting AGAINST proposals unless there is little to no likelihood of a creeping takeover or constraints on liquidity (free float of shares is low), and where the company is trading at below book value or is facing a real likelihood of substantial share sales; or where this amendment is bundled with other amendments which are clearly in shareholders’ interest. |
Other Business
In connection with global proxies, vote in accordance with the Agent’s market-specific recommendations on management proposals for Other Business, generally AGAINST.
55
Item 8. | Fund Managers of Closed-End Management Investment Companies. |
(a) (1) Fund Management. The following individuals share responsibility for the day-to-day management of the Funds Fund:
Pieter Schop. Pieter Schop is Senior Investment Manager Equities in the Global Equity Core Team. In his role he combines stock selection and portfolio management activities. Prior to this position Pieter was a Senior Investment Manager in the European Equity Team. In this team he was a sector specialist most recently for the Telecom and Cyclical Services sectors. Moreover, he managed a number of segregated mandates. He started his career at ING Investment Management in 1996. Prior to ING Investment Management he worked at Mercer Ten Pas, a consulting firm, where Pieter made assessments of key institutional investors. He obtained his masters degree in econometrics at the State University of Groningen in 1994.
Bert Veldman. Bert Veldman is senior investment manager Equities in the Global Equity Core Team which he joined in 2006. In his role he combines stock selection and portfolio management activities. He started his career in 1992 with Nationale-Nederlanden as a financial analyst with responsibilities for the Japanese and Asian equity portfolios. In 1997 he joined ING IM (Hong Kong) where he managed a portfolio of Asian equities. In 1999 he then joined ING IM in Singapore. In August 2000 Bert returned back to The Netherlands to join the Japan equity team of ING IM based in The Hague, and subsequently relocated to Tokyo in 2003. Bert has built up extensive expertise in the Asian regions and managed several segregated mandates. He has a masters degree in Financial Economics from the ‘Vrije Univerisiteit’ in Amsterdam. Bert holds the Chartered Financial Analyst® designation.
Willem van Dommelen. Willem van Dommelen joined ING Investment Management in 2002 as Portfolio Manager Institutional clients, where he advised and serviced around 80 Institutional Clients of ING. In 2004 Willem moved to the Structured Investments department. In the capacity of Senior Investment Manager he was responsible for the management of a broad range of structured mutual funds and the advice and implementation of hedging activities for ING affiliates. Currently Willem is Heading the Investment Managers team of the Systematic Beta column in the Structured Investment Strategy department. Willem obtained his Master’s degree in Economics from Tilburg University in 2002, specializing in accountancy and investment theory. He holds a RBA degree (registered investment analyst).
Edwin Cuppen, RBA, CAIA. Edwin joined ING Investment Management in 2007 as an investment manager of Structured Investments. In the capacity of investment manager he is responsible for managing a range of structured mutual funds and the execution of transactions in derivatives portfolios. Edwin started his career as a trader in FX forwards and Money Market derivatives with ABN AMRO Bank in 2000 and recently he was a sales advisor in a broad range of Treasury products for Rabobank International servicing Corporate and Institutional clients. Edwin obtained his Master's degree in Financial Management from Nyenrode University in Breukelen in 1999, specializing in Corporate Finance and Treasury. In addition, Edwin holds a RBA-degree (Certified European Financial Analyst) and CAIA designation (Chartered Alternative Investment Analyst).
(a) (2) (i-iii) Other Accounts Managed
The following table shows the number of accounts and total assets in the accounts managed by the Fund managers of the Sub-Adviser as of February 28, 2013, unless otherwise noted:
ING Global Advantage and Premium Fund (IGA) |
Mutual
Funds Registered Investment Companies |
Trusts, Sep Accts and Stable Value Other Pooled Investment Vehicles and Alternative |
Other Accounts, IIM Managed | |||||
Portfolio Manager |
Number of Accts / Total Assets (rounded to nearest million) |
Number of Accts / Total Assets (rounded to nearest million) |
Number of Accts / Total Assets (rounded to nearest million) | |||||
IIM Portion | Pieter Schop | 1 account/$240 million | 3 accounts/$6,109 million | 0/0 | ||||
Bert Veldman | 1 account/$240 million | 3 accounts/$6,109 million | 0/0 | |||||
Willem van Dommelen | 10 accounts/$3,112 million | 5 accounts/$681 million | 0/0 | |||||
Edwin Cuppen | 8 accounts/$2,923 million | 5 accounts/$681 million | 0/0 |
(a) (2) (iv) Conflicts of Interest
A portfolio manager may be subject to potential conflicts of interest because the portfolio manager is responsible for other accounts in addition to a Fund. These other accounts may include, among others, other mutual funds, separately managed advisory accounts, commingled trust accounts, insurance separate accounts, wrap fee programs and hedge funds. Potential conflicts may arise out of the implementation of differing investment strategies for the portfolio managers various accounts, the allocation of investment opportunities among those accounts or differences in the advisory fees paid by the portfolio managers accounts.
A potential conflict of interest may arise as a result of the portfolio managers responsibility for multiple accounts with similar investment guidelines. Under these circumstances, a potential investment may be suitable for more than one of the portfolio managers accounts, but the quantity of the investment available for purchase is less than the aggregate amount the accounts would ideally devote to the opportunity. Similar conflicts may arise when multiple accounts seek to dispose of the same investment.
A portfolio manager may also manage accounts whose objectives and policies differ from that of the Fund. These differences may be such that under certain circumstances, trading activity appropriate for one account managed by the portfolio manager may not be appropriate for the Fund. For example, if an account were to sell a significant position in a security, which could cause the market price of that security to decrease, while the Fund maintained its position in that security.
A potential conflict may arise when a portfolio manager is responsible for accounts that have different advisory fees the difference in the fees may create an incentive for the portfolio manager to favor one account over another, for example, in terms of access to particularly appealing investment opportunities. This conflict may be heightened where an account is subject to a performance-based fee.
As part of its compliance program, ING IM has adopted policies and procedures reasonably designed to address the potential conflicts of interest described above.
Finally, a potential conflict of interest may arise because the investment mandates for certain other accounts, such as hedge funds, may allow extensive use of short sales, which, in theory, could allow them to enter into short positions in securities where other accounts hold long positions. ING IM has policies and procedures reasonably designed to limit and monitor short sales by the other accounts to avoid harm to the Fund.
(a) (3) Compensation
For each of the portfolio managers (each a Portfolio Manager and collectively the Portfolio Managers) of the Portfolios listed above, compensation consists of (a) fixed base salary; (b) bonus which is based on ING IM performance, one and three year pre-tax performance of the accounts the portfolio managers are primarily and jointly responsible for relative to account benchmarks and peer universe performance, and revenue growth of the accounts they are responsible for; and, in certain instances, (c) long-term equity awards tied to the performance of the parent company, ING Groep.
The Portfolio Managers for the Portfolios listed above are also eligible to participate in an annual cash incentive plan. The overall design of the annual incentive plan was developed to tie pay to both performance and cash flows, structured in such a way as to drive performance and
promote retention of top talent. As with base salary compensation, individual target awards are determined and set based on external market data and internal comparators. Investment performance is measured on both relative and absolute performance in all areas. Relevant indices include the MSCI World Index and the MSCI Europe Index. Relevant peer groups include Morningstar global equity funds in the Netherlands and the rest of Europe. The measures for each team are outlined on a scorecard that is reviewed on an annual basis. These scorecards measure investment performance versus peer groups over one- and three-year periods and year-to-date net cash flow (changes in the accounts net assets not attributable to changes in the value of the accounts investments) for all accounts managed by each team. The results for overall ING IM scorecards are calculated on an asset weighted performance basis of the individual team scorecards.
Investment professionals performance measures for bonus determinations are weighted by 25% being attributable to the overall ING IM performance and 75% attributable to their specific team results (60% investment performance and 15% net cash flow).
Based on job function, internal comparators and external market data, portfolio managers participate in the ING Long-Term Incentive Plan. Plan awards are based on the current years performance as defined by the ING IM component of the annual incentive plan. The awards vest in three years and are paid in a combination of ING restricted stock, stock options and restricted performance units.
Portfolio Managers whose base salary compensation exceeds a particular threshold may participate in ING IMs deferred compensation plan. The plan provides an opportunity to invest deferred amounts of compensation in mutual funds, ING IM stock or at an annual fixed interest rate. Deferral elections are done on an annual basis and the amount of compensation deferred is irrevocable.
(a) (4) Ownership of Securities
Ownership:
Portfolio Manager |
Dollar Range of Trust Shares Owned | |
Pieter Schop |
None | |
Bert Veldman |
None | |
Willem van Dommelen |
None | |
Edwin Cuppen |
None |
Item 9. Purchases of Equity Securities by Closed-End Management Investment Company and Affiliated Purchasers
Period* |
(a) TOTAL NUMBER OF SHARES (OR UNITS) PURCHASED |
(b) AVERAGE PRICE PAID PER SHARE (OR UNIT) |
(c) TOTAL NUMBER OF SHARES (OR UNITS) PART OF PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED PLANS OR PROGRAMS |
(d)* MAXIMUM NUMBER (OR APPROXIMATE DOLLAR VALUE) OF SHARES (OR UNITS) THAT MAY YET BE PURCHASED UNDER THE PLANS OR PROGRAMS |
MARCH 1-31, 2009 | 1,106,116 | $ 7.44 | 1,106,116 | 8,633,884 |
APRIL 1-30, 2009 | 0 | — | 0 | 8,633,884 |
MAY 1-31, 2009 | 0 | — | 0 | 8,633,884 |
JUNE 1-30, 2009 | 0 | — | 0 | 8,633,884 |
JULY 1-31, 2009 | 0 | — | 0 | 8,633,884 |
AUGUST 1-31, 2009 | 0 | — | 0 | 8,633,884 |
SEPTEMBER 1-30, 2009 | 0 | — | 0 | 8,633,884 |
OCTOBER 1-31, 2009 | 0 | — | 0 | 8,633,884 |
NOVEMBER 1-30, 2009 | 0 | — | 0 | 8,633,884 |
DECEMBER 1-31, 2009 | 0 | — | 0 | 8,633,884 |
JANUARY 1-31, 2010** | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
FEBRUARY 1-28, 2010** | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
TOTAL | 1,106,116 |
____________________ | ||
* | The Registrant’s repurchase program, which authorized the repurchase of 9,740,000 shares, was announced on December 5, 2008. Any repurchases made by the registrant pursuant to the program were made through open-market transactions. | |
** | The repurchase program expired on December 31, 2009 |
Item 10. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.
The Board has a Nominating Committee for the purpose of considering and presenting to the Board candidates it proposes for nomination to fill Independent Trustee vacancies on the Board. The Committee currently consists of all Independent Trustees of the Board (6 individuals). The Nominating Committee operates pursuant to a Charter approved by the Board. The primary purpose of the Nominating Committee is to consider and present to the Board the candidates it proposes for nomination to fill vacancies on the Board. In evaluating candidates, the Nominating Committee may consider a variety of factors, but it has not at this time set any specific minimum qualifications that must be met. Specific qualifications of candidates for Board membership will be based on the needs of the Board at the time of nomination.
The Nominating Committee is willing to consider nominations received from shareholders and shall assess shareholder nominees in the same manner as it reviews its own nominees. A shareholder nominee for director should be submitted in writing to the Fund’s Secretary. Any such shareholder nomination should include at a minimum the following information as to each individual proposed for nomination as trustee: such individual’s written consent to be named in the proxy statement as a nominee (if nominated) and to serve as a trustee (if elected), and all information relating to such individual that is required to be disclosed in the solicitation of proxies for election of trustees, or is otherwise required, in each case under applicable federal securities laws, rules and regulations.
The Secretary shall submit all nominations received in a timely manner to the Nominating Committee. To be timely, any such submission must be delivered to the Fund’s Secretary not earlier than the 90 day prior to such meeting and not later than the close of business on the later of the 60 day prior to such meeting or the 10 day following the day on which public announcement of the date of the meeting is first made, by either disclosure in a press release or in a document publicly filed by the Fund with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Item 11. Controls and Procedures.
(a) Based on our evaluation conducted within 90 days of the filing date, hereof, the design and operation of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures are effective to ensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known to the certifying officers by others within the appropriate entities, particularly during the period in which Forms N-CSR are being prepared, and the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures allow timely preparation and review of the information for the registrant’s Form N-CSR and the officer certifications of such Form N-CSR.
(b) There were no significant changes in the registrant’s internal controls that occurred during the second fiscal quarter of the period covered by this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Item 12. Exhibits.
(a) (l) Code of Ethics pursuant to Item 2 of Form N-CSR is filed and attached hereto as EX-99.CODE ETH.
(a) (2) A separate certification for each principal executive officer and principal financial officer of the registrant as required by Rule 30a-2 under the Act (17 CFR 270.30a-2) is attached hereto as EX-99.CERT.
(b) The officer certifications required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 are attached hereto as EX-99.906CERT.
(3) Not applicable.
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
(Registrant): Voya Global Advantage and Premium Opportunity Fund
By | /s/ Shaun P. Mathews | |
Shaun P. Mathews | ||
President and Chief Executive Officer |
Date: May 7, 2014
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.
By | /s/ Shaun P. Mathews | |
Shaun P. Mathews President and Chief Executive Officer |
Date: May 7, 2014
By | /s/ Todd Modic | |
Todd Modic | ||
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
Date: May 7, 2014
EX-99.CODE ETH
ING FUNDS
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
CODE OF ETHICS
A. | Adoption |
The Boards of Directors/Trustees (collectively, the Board) of the ING Funds (each a Fund, and collectively, the Funds) set forth on Exhibit A hereto, as such exhibit may be amended from time to time, have adopted this code of ethics (the Code) in connection with the requirements of Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the Act) concerning disclosure of a code of ethics for the principal executive officer, the principal financial officer, the principal accounting officer or controller, and persons performing similar functions (regardless of whether they are employed by a Fund or a third party) of the Funds (the Covered Officers). For the purposes of this Code, the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer of the Funds are the Covered Officers for the Funds.
B. | Policy and Purpose; Conflicts with Law and Policy |
1. | Policy and Purpose |
It is the policy of the Funds to conduct their affairs in an honest and ethical manner, and to comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations. The purpose of this Code is to assist in the accomplishment of the foregoing policy, to deter wrongdoing and to promote:
a. | Honest and ethical conduct, including the ethical handling of actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personal and professional relationships. |
b. | Full, fair, accurate, timely and understandable disclosure in reports and documents that a Fund files with, or submits to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) and in other public communications made by a Fund. |
c. | Compliance with applicable laws and governmental rules and regulations. |
d. | The prompt internal reporting of violations of this Code to an appropriate person or persons identified in this Code. |
e. | Accountability for adherence to this Code. |
2. | Conflicts with Law and Policy |
If any part of this Code, or if compliance with any part of this Code, violates or is in conflict with any applicable law, the provisions of such applicable law shall control. If any part of this Code, or if compliance with any part of this Code, violates or is in conflict with any policy or practice of the Funds or of any service provider to the Funds, the provisions of this Code shall control.
C. | Covered Officer Duties |
Each Covered Officer shall adhere to a high standard of business ethics in his or her dealings with and on behalf of a Fund. Specifically, each Covered Officer shall:
1. | Conduct himself or herself in an honest and ethical manner when dealing with or on behalf of a Fund. |
1
2. | Refrain from engaging in any activity that would compromise his or her professional ethics or otherwise prejudice his or her ability faithfully to carry out his or her duties to the Funds. |
3. | Refrain from using or appearing to use material non-public information acquired in the course of his or her work for the Funds for unethical or illegal advantage, either directly or indirectly through others. |
4. | Place the interests of the Funds and their shareholders before his or her personal interests, and handle actual or apparent conflicts of interest between his or her personal interests and the interests of a Fund in an ethical manner. |
5. | Be familiar with the disclosure requirements generally applicable to the Funds and take all reasonable actions, consistent with his or her position(s) with a Fund and/or a Funds service provider(s) to ensure full, fair, accurate, timely and understandable disclosure in reports and documents that a Fund files with, or submits to, the SEC or other governmental authorities, and in other public communications made by a Fund. |
6. | Comply with applicable laws and governmental rules and regulations in his or her dealings with or on behalf of a Fund, and take all reasonable actions, consistent with his or her position(s) with a Fund and/or a Funds service provider(s), to ensure compliance by the Fund with applicable laws and governmental rules and regulations. |
7. | Take all reasonable actions, consistent with his or her position(s) with a Fund and/or a Funds service provider(s), to ensure prompt internal reporting of violations of this Code to an appropriate person or persons identified in this Code. |
8. | Not knowingly misrepresent, or knowingly cause or permit others to misrepresent, facts about a Fund to a Funds shareholders, directors, counsel or auditors, to governmental regulators or self-regulatory organizations, or to the public. |
9. | Consult with other officers and employees of a Fund, and its adviser(s), administrator and principal underwriter, with the goal of promoting full, fair, accurate, timely and understandable disclosure in the reports and documents the Fund files with, or submits to, the SEC and in other public communications made by the Funds. |
10. | Promote compliance by the Funds with the standards and restrictions imposed by applicable laws, rules and regulations. |
11. | Not influence investment decisions or financial or other reporting by the Fund whereby the Covered Officer would benefit personally. |
12. | Not cause a Fund to take an action, or fail to take an action, whereby the Covered Officer would benefit personally. |
13. | Not retaliate or take any adverse action against, or cause or permit any retaliation or adverse action to be taken against, any other Covered Officer or any employee of the Funds or their affiliated persons for reports of potential violations of this Code or of applicable laws and governmental rules and regulations that are made in good faith. |
D. | Definitions |
1. | Conflicts of Interest |
For the purposes of this Code (i) an actual conflict of interest is a situation in which a Covered Officer, a member of a Covered Officers immediate family, or an entity other than a Fund on whose behalf a Covered Officer is acting or from which a Covered Officer may receive compensation or other personal benefit, has an interest in a transaction or the results of a transaction in which a Fund is involved that is different from the interests of the Fund with regard to that same transaction, and (ii) an apparent conflict of interest is a situation in which a Covered Officer, a member of a Covered Officers immediate family, or an entity other than a Fund on whose behalf a Covered Officer is acting or from which a Covered Officer may receive compensation or other personal benefit, appears to have an actual conflict of interest, without regard to whether an actual conflict of interest in fact exists.(1)
These inherent conflicts of interest are known to and understood by the Funds and the Board, and the Board has determined that the existence of these conflicts of interest is consistent with the performance by the Covered Officers of their duties as officers of the Fund. Therefore, the fact that a Covered Officer acts primarily or exclusively on behalf of a party other than a Fund with regard to a transaction that is covered by such inherent conflicts of interest shall not ipso facto cause such conduct to be in violation of the requirements of this Code. Absent specific dishonest or unethical conduct in such a transaction, the actions by a Covered Officer in such regard shall be deemed to be honest and ethical conduct, including the ethical handling of actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personal and professional relationships.
(1) | Certain actual conflicts of interest are inherent in the relationship between a Fund and a Covered Officer who is employed by the Funds investment adviser, administrator or principal underwriter. As a result, this Code recognizes that Covered Officers will, in the normal course of their duties (whether acting on behalf of a Fund or on behalf of the adviser, administrator or principal underwriter, or for a combination thereof), be involved in recommending actions that may have different effects on the respective parties or may redound to the benefit of the adviser, the administrator or the principal underwriter at the expense of the Fund. For example, the negotiation of the underlying advisory, administrative and underwriting agreements necessarily places such Covered Officers in an actual conflict of interest position as to a Fund. |
2
Notwithstanding the foregoing, an actual conflict of interest shall not include situations that are covered by law or by the Funds and an investment advisers code of ethics required under Rule 17j-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940.(2)
2. | Waiver and Implicit Waiver |
The term waiver means the approval by a Fund of a material departure from a provision of this Code. The term implicit waiver means a failure by a Fund to take action within a reasonable period of time regarding a material departure from a provision of this Code that has been made known to an executive officer(3) of the Fund.
3. | Benefit Personally; Immediate Family |
With regard to a Covered Officer, the term benefit personally means the direct or indirect receipt by the Covered Officer, by a member of the Covered Officers immediate family, or by any entity (other than a Funds investment adviser or any affiliate thereof) of which the Covered Officer or any member of the Covered Officers immediate family owns 5% or more of the beneficial ownership interest or by which the Covered Officer or any member of the Covered Officers immediate family is employed, or from which the Covered Officer or any member of the Covered Officers immediate family receives any compensation or other benefit, of any compensation or other personal benefit. For the purposes of this Code, the term member of the immediate family means a Covered Officers parent, spouse of a parent, child, spouse of a child, spouse, brother, or sister, and includes step and adoptive relationships.
E. | Activities Requiring Prior Approval |
A Covered Officer and his or her immediate family shall not engage in any of the following activities without the prior written approval of the Funds Chief Legal Officer (the Chief Legal Officer) and the Funds Chief Executive Officer, except that in the case of the Chief Executive Officer or a member of the Chief Executive Officers immediate family, such approval shall be from the Chief Legal Officer and the Coordination and Compliance Committee of the Board. To obtain such approval, the Covered Officer shall submit a written statement to the Chief Legal Officer describing in detail the proposed activity and the reasons for it.
(2) | These inherent conflicts of interest are already subject to prohibitions in the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the Investment Company Act) and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the Investment Advisers Act). For example, a Covered Officer may not individually engage in certain transactions (such as the purchase of sale or securities or other property) with a Fund because of his or her status as an affiliated person of the Fund. The Funds and the investment advisers compliance programs and procedures are designed to prevent, or identify and correct, violations of these provisions. This Code does not, and is not intended to, repeat and replace those programs and procedures, and such actual and apparent conflicts of interest fall outside of the coverage of this Code. All other actual and apparent conflicts of interest, even if such actual and apparent conflicts of interest are not subject to provisions in the Investment Company Act or the Investment Advisers Act, are covered by this Code. |
(3) | The term executive officer, when used with reference to a registrant, means its president, any vice president of the registrant in charge of a principal business unit, division or function (such as sales, administration or finance), any other officer who performs a policy making function or any other person who performs similar policy making functions for the registrant. |
3
1. | Service as a director, partner, officer, manager or managing member on the board of any public or private company(4) other than a Funds investment adviser, administrator, principal underwriter, or an affiliate of any of the foregoing, if such company has current or prospective business dealings with a Fund or if any Fund may invest in securities issued by such company. |
2. | Receipt of any entertainment(5) or meals from any company with which the Fund has current or prospective business dealings unless such entertainment or meals are business-related, reasonable in cost, appropriate as to time and place, and not so frequent as to raise any question of impropriety. For the purposes of this Code, entertainment and meals that are incidental to a business conference, seminar or meeting shall be deemed business-related, reasonable in cost, and appropriate as to time and place. |
3. | Having any ownership interest in, or any consulting, employment or compensation relationship with, any of a Funds service providers, other than its investment adviser(s), administrator, principal underwriter, or any affiliated person thereof. |
4. | Exploit for his or her own personal gain any opportunity which a Fund may exploit. This prohibition shall not apply to securities trading undertaken in conformance with the Funds and an investment advisers code of ethics adopted pursuant to Rule 17j-1 of the Investment Company Act. |
F. | Prohibited Activities |
A Covered Officer and his or her immediate family shall not engage in any of the following activities:
1. | Have a direct or indirect financial interest, such as compensation or equity ownership, in commissions, transaction charges or spreads paid by the Fund for effecting portfolio transactions or for selling or redeeming shares other than an interest arising from the Covered Officers employment with the Funds investment adviser, administrator, principal underwriter, or any affiliated person thereof. |
2. | Receive any gifts in excess of $500 in any calendar year from any entity or person that directly or indirectly currently or prospectively does or will do business with or receives compensation or other benefits from a Fund. For the purposes of this restriction, gifts from different persons employed by the same entity shall be aggregated, along with any gifts from the entity itself, in order to determine whether the $500 limit has been exceeded. |
3. | Accept employment from any company, other than a Funds investment adviser(s), administrator or principal underwriter (or any affiliate thereof), with which the Fund has current or prospective business dealings within one year after the latest to occur of such Covered Officers termination of employment at the Fund or at the Funds investment adviser(s), administrator or principal underwriter (or any affiliate thereof). |
4. | Borrow money from any Fund, or borrow money from or have any other financial transactions with any company, other than a Funds investment adviser(s), administrator or principal underwriter (or any affiliate thereof), with which the Fund has current or prospective business dealings, other than routine retail transactions that are effected on the same terms and conditions as are available to the general public. |
(4) | For the purposes of this Code, company includes any legal or business entity such as a corporation, limited liability company, partnership, limited partnership, trust, association, sole proprietorship, etc. |
(5) | For the purposes of this Code, entertainment means activities or events, such as golfing, theater, sporting events, etc., at which a representative of the entertaining company is present along with the Covered Officer or his or her immediate family member. If a representative of the entertaining company is not present, such activities or events shall be treated as gifts hereunder. |
4
5. | Engage in a transaction directly as a principal with a Fund, except that this prohibition shall not apply to the purchase or redemption of the shares of any Fund on the same terms and conditions as all other shareholders. |
6. | Any other activity that would cause them to benefit personally at the expense of a Fund. |
G. | Reporting and Accountability |
1. | Reporting |
Each Covered Officer must:
a. | Upon adoption of this Code (or thereafter, as applicable, upon becoming a Covered Officer), affirm in writing to the Chief Legal Officer and the Board that he or she has received, read and understands this Code. Such affirmation shall be substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B. |
b. | Annually thereafter affirm to the Chief Legal Officer and the Board that he or she has complied with the requirements of this Code. Such affirmation shall be substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C. |
c. | Report at least annually all employment, ownership, affiliations or other relationships related to conflicts of interest that the Funds Directors and Officers Questionnaire covers. |
d. | Notify the Chief Legal Officer promptly if he or she knows of any violation of this Code or of any applicable laws and governmental rules and regulations. Failure to do so is itself a violation of this Code. |
2. | Interpretations |
The Chief Legal Officer has the authority and shall be responsible for applying this Code to specific situations and for making interpretations of this Code in any particular situation. In making interpretations of this Code, the Chief Legal Officer may consult with the Funds outside counsel.
3. | Investigations |
The Funds will follow these procedures in investigating and enforcing this Code:
a. | The Chief Legal Officer will take all appropriate action to investigate any potential violations reported to him or her. |
b. | If, after such investigation, the Chief Legal Officer believes that no violation has occurred, the Chief Legal Officer is not required to take any further action. |
c. | If, after such investigation, the Chief Legal Officer believes that a violation has occurred, the Chief Legal Officer shall report such potential violation to the Coordination and Compliance Committee. |
d. | If the Coordination and Compliance Committee concurs that a violation has occurred, it will inform and make a recommendation to the Board, which will consider appropriate action, which may include review of, and appropriate modifications to, applicable policies and procedures; notification to appropriate personnel of the investment adviser or its board; and a recommendation to discipline or dismiss the Covered Officer or to require reimbursement or disgorgement by the Covered Officer of any personal benefits received. |
4. | Waivers |
The Coordination and Compliance Committee and the Chief Legal Officer, as applicable, may grant a waiver to compliance with this Code by a Covered Officer or his or her immediate family if the Coordination and Compliance Committee or the Chief Legal Officer determines that the proposed activity will not have an adverse impact on any Fund or on the ability of a Covered Officer faithfully to perform his or her duties to the Funds. To obtain a waiver, a Covered Officer shall submit a written statement to the Chief Legal Officer describing in detail the proposed activity, and the reasons for it, and the provision(s) of this Code as to which a waiver is requested. Any waivers of the provisions of this Code shall be disclosed to the extent required by law and SEC rules.
5
H. | Relationship to Other Policies and Procedures |
This Code shall be the sole code of ethics adopted by the Funds for purposes of Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the rules and forms applicable to registered investment companies thereunder. Insofar as other policies or procedures of the Funds, the Funds adviser(s), administrator, principal underwriter, or other service providers govern or purport to govern the behavior or activities of the Covered Officers who are subject to this Code, they are superseded by this Code to the extent that they overlap or conflict with the provisions of this Code. The Funds and their investment advisers and principal underwriters codes of ethics under Rule 17j-1 under the Investment Company Act are separate requirements applying to the Covered Officers and others, and are not part of this Code.
I. | Confidentiality |
All reports and records prepared or maintained pursuant to this Code will be considered confidential and shall be maintained and protected accordingly. Except as otherwise required by law or this Code, such matters shall not be disclosed to anyone other than the appropriate Board or committee thereof or the Funds outside counsel.
J. | Internal Use |
The Code is intended solely for the internal use by the Funds and does not constitute an admission, by or on behalf of any Fund or any Covered Officer or his or her immediate family, as to any fact, circumstance, or legal conclusion.
K. | Amendments |
Any amendments to this Code must be approved or ratified by a majority vote of the Board, including a majority of the independent directors. Any amendments to this Code shall be disclosed to the extent required by law and SEC rules.
Date:
6
EXHIBIT A
VOYA ASIA PACIFIC HIGH DIVIDEND EQUITY INCOME FUND
VOYA BALANCED PORTFOLIO, INC.
VOYA EMERGING MARKETS HIGH DIVIDEND EQUITY FUND
VOYA EQUITY TRUST
VOYA FUNDS TRUST
VOYA GLOBAL ADVANTAGE AND PREMIUM OPPORTUNITY FUND
VOYA GLOBAL EQUITY DIVIDEND AND PREMIUM OPPORTUNITY FUND
VOYA INFRASTRUCTURE, INDUSTRIALS AND MATERIALS FUND
VOYA INTERMEDIATE BOND PORTFOLIO
VOYA INTERNATIONAL HIGH DIVIDEND EQUITY INCOME FUND
VOYA INVESTORS TRUST
VOYA MONEY MARKET PORTFOLIO
VOYA MUTUAL FUNDS
VOYA PARTNERS, INC.
VOYA PRIME RATE TRUST
VOYA NATURAL RESOURCES EQUITY INCOME FUND
VOYA SENIOR INCOME FUND
VOYA SEPARATE PORTFOLIOS TRUST
VOYA SERIES FUND, INC.
VOYA STRATEGIC ALLOCATION PORTFOLIOS, INC.
VOYA VARIABLE FUNDS
VOYA VARIABLE INSURANCE TRUST
VOYA VARIABLE PORTFOLIOS, INC.
VOYA VARIABLE PRODUCTS TRUST
7
Exhibit B
INITIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Covered Officer Name and Title: |
|
|||
(please print) |
I acknowledge that I have received and read a copy of the ING Funds Sarbanes-Oxley Act Code of Ethics (the Code) and that I understand it. I further acknowledge that I am responsible for understanding and complying with the policies set forth in the Code during my tenure as a Covered Officer, as defined in the Code.
I also acknowledge my responsibility to report any violation of the Code to the Chief Legal Officer of the Funds.
I further acknowledge that the policies contained in the Code are not intended to create any contractual rights or obligations, express or implied. I also understand that, consistent with applicable law, the Funds have the right to amend, interpret, modify or withdraw any of the provisions of the Code at any time in their sole discretion, with or without notice.
|
|
|||||
Signature | Date |
8
Exhibit C
ANNUAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Covered Officer Name and Title: |
|
|||
(please print) |
I acknowledge that I have received and read a copy of the ING Funds Sarbanes-Oxley Act Code of Ethics (the Code) and that I understand it. I further acknowledge that I am responsible for understanding and complying with the policies set forth in the Code during my tenure as a Covered Officer, as defined in the Code.
I also acknowledge that I have fully complied with the terms and provisions of the Code during the period of time since the most recent Initial or Annual Acknowledgement provided by me.
I further acknowledge that the policies contained in the Code are not intended to create any contractual rights or obligations, express or implied. I also understand that, consistent with applicable law, the Funds have the right to amend, interpret, modify or withdraw any of the provisions of the Code at any time in their sole discretion, with or without notice.
|
|
|||||
Signature | Date |
9
EXHIBIT-99.CERT
CERTIFICATION
I Shaun P. Mathews certify that:
1. | I have reviewed this report on Form N-CSR of Voya Global Advantage and Premium Opportunity Fund; |
2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations, changes in net assets, and cash flows (if the financial statements are required to include a statement of cash flows) of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; |
4. | The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 30a-3(c) under the Investment Company Act of 1940) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 30a-3(d) under the Investment Company Act of 1940) for the registrant and have: |
a) | Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; |
b) | Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; |
c) | Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this. report based on such evaluation; and |
d) | Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the second fiscal quarter of the period covered by this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and |
5. | The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): |
a) | All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and |
b) | Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting. |
Date: May 7, 2014 | /s/ Shaun P. Mathews | |
Shaun P. Mathews | ||
President and Chief Executive Officer |
1
EXHIBIT-99.CERT
CERTIFICATION
I, Todd Modic, certify that:
1. | I have reviewed this report on Form N-CSR of Voya Global Advantage and Premium Opportunity Fund: |
2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations, changes in net assets, and cash flows (if the financial statements are required to include a statement of cash flows) of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; |
4. | The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 30a-3(c) under the Investment Company Act of 1940) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 30a-3(d) under the Investment Company Act of 1940) for the registrant and have: |
a) | Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; |
b) | Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; |
c) | Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report based on such evaluation; and |
d) | Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the second fiscal quarter of the period covered by this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and |
5. | The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): |
a) | All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and |
b) | Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting. |
Date: May 7, 2014 | /s/ Todd Modic | |
Todd Modic | ||
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
2
EXHIBIT-99.906CERT
Certification
Pursuant to Section 906
of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
Name of Registrant: |
Voya Global Advantage and Premium Opportunity Fund | |
Date of Form N-CSR: |
February 28, 2014 |
The undersigned, the principal executive officer of the above named registrant (the Fund), hereby certifies that, with respect to the Form N-CSR referred to above, to the best of his knowledge and belief, after reasonable inquiry:
1 . such Form N-CSR fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
2. the information contained in such Form N-CSR fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Fund.
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Voya Global Advantage and Premium Opportunity Fund and will be retained by Voya Global Advantage and Premium Opportunity Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certification below, as of this 7th day of May, 2014.
/s/ Shaun P. Mathews |
Shaun P. Mathews |
President and Chief Executive Officer |
1
EXHIBIT-99.906CERT
Certification
Pursuant to Section 906
of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
Name of Registrant: |
Voya Global Advantage and Premium Opportunity Fund | |
Date of Form N-CSR: |
February 28, 2014 |
The undersigned, the principal financial officer of the above named registrant (the Fund), hereby certifies that, with respect to the Form N-CSR referred to above, to the best of his knowledge and belief, after reasonable inquiry:
1. such Form N-CSR fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
2. the information contained in such Form N-CSR fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Fund.
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Voya Global Advantage and Premium Opportunity Fund and will be retained by Voya Global Advantage and Premium Opportunity Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certification below, as of this 7th day of May, 2014.
/s/ Todd Modic |
Todd Modic |
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
2
&$#PQ<3P
MD+2>&92?>.`(`0Q*Y&_Z(Y6HAV'^'18?+8'P;)(;0D,0AH40=*@$<7`"&!FK
MDPG^+H(OK*FJ?NW^#/W3#"$0MZU_R562%+R=:.U,'A!PV."?!HWM:)AA"()!
M =NV;4J1-L@^(G5C77
M0R\Q-L)Q$N72^OHIJA/T_61[@_(.\XJTH^[Q/CU(X;Q/CU)8)$]??`H_6G['
MW*,B,@::OA)
MG.V21N9,'.`\F?;GS_BIQGPL!`@ML;@Q(;^D15\9NM.<:;[<+T^5]F@XA`)#
M`PT$AAC#VV9G"HS^%*R)
M]:.)'.#BS&<<)PR+2>U(6"9?86M.3]\UEC;(M9=GW($%XB,145F555#VSX[@
MO+]<^%'R#Q.',C@G+13XV8X;TOWX4U2%%B^T8>V08:L65]V26SDHJR=%NR!`
M\G+8/DXDDMB+%"S$JC@P?+VX^V95*^:\_!ESM&"#\*#B#0F,EO=?/`?WWZ%X49"\F@O#8
M/&209:D^%J-8Z3]Z^W+9VY
D8V;7J1P+SB22]A1;W
M]1@H>#4LX?:XU=:KS1.J1`Q,?^&/HK!6^E/RE\+_`$6O[23E+X7^BU_:0.[_
M`(8^B4IS",6O&
7!E96YU;0````I%4VQI
M8V54>7!E`````$EM9R`````&8F]U;F1S3V)J8P````$```````!28W0Q````
M!`````!4;W`@;&]N9P``````````3&5F=&QO;F<``````````$)T;VUL;VYG
M```%^@````!29VAT;&]N9P``!!H````#=7)L5$585`````$```````!N=6QL
M5$585`````$```````!- *6?^C%T%(V]
M]?\`7A4,6QK;07"0=5HMM:>-)_(DIO8C&&P$`2[0^:+G8A:QSV=NQ6=Z^W4.
MB>)\E(]0M:"TNY^,?BDIKN>'>W1P=HYKN"#S_G+CNN8V1A7OKJ<7X[F^MC`F
M"W:8?3/_``7^"76N?N<2("HY^* 0[V@Q^ #4S?6T.4` KQ,+MEBA4Q.NU)=@#E,`C=V
MR05)/4YJ#0-*$CW5[/$`L+8"G@;VW[)L2;O?[6_017X%[
M39>2P#]+8&[MSCM/H%D-_/WK:Z3BTONK;M=8-^/IKR?5*JW.:VAPAK6EKVM(
M(EP-EC]_[S?HI*:-W1[:&DDE[&NJI+M&^YX986;2=VYGJ;4(TL;%08-S[=A,
MZP-S-NY7\G+Z;;3NR+7'(=>Q[C7!;Z,-W$"-V_V[&*@_*Q'8M=#6.WLO-C[.
M#M.YOIQ]%WM]Z2G_T+'U2!;BV-<((92"#V.TA:MF=_E6GI[JVGU*W7-MD[AM
MD.&S;M]W]=4^AEWVC.#VAK][=P'`,OGA7;.H!G5*>GFEA-M;K6W3[QM^DW9M
M_.V_Z1)3P/6@!UC.`[9%O_5%4VM<)
&EF``!)
M22H`"`````,`&@$%``$````R````&P$%``$````Z````*`$#``$````"`#H`
M0@``````6`(```$```!8`@```0`#``,!`P`!````!@````$"!``!````;```
M``("!``!````CA,```````#_V/_M``Q!9&]B95]#30`#_^X`#D%D;V)E`&2`
M`````?_;`(0`#`@("`D(#`D)#!$+"@L1%0\,#`\5&!,3%1,3&!$,#`P,#`P1
M#`P,#`P,#`P,#`P,#`P,#`P,#`P,#`P,#`P,#`$-"PL-#@T0#@X0%`X.#A04
M#@X.#A01#`P,#`P1$0P,#`P,#!$,#`P,#`P,#`P,#`P,#`P,#`P,#`P,#`P,
M#`P,_\``$0@`H`!N`P$B``(1`0,1`?_=``0`!__$`3\```$%`0$!`0$!````
M``````,``0($!08'"`D*"P$``04!`0$!`0$``````````0`"`P0%!@<("0H+
M$``!!`$#`@0"!0<&"`4###,!``(1`P0A$C$%05%A$R)Q@3(&%)&AL4(C)!52
MP6(S-'*"T4,')9)3\.'Q8W,U%J*R@R9$DU1D1<*C=#87TE7B9?*SA,/3=>/S
M1B>4I(6TE<34Y/2EM<75Y?569G:&EJ:VQM;F]C='5V=WAY>GM\?7Y_<1``("
M`0($!`,$!08'!P8%-0$``A$#(3$2!$%187$B$P4R@9$4H;%"(\%2T?`S)&+A
MT?SC?^"O9^GJ_X-5/
M\5-6[J_4,@C^;Q6,'_7+0[_T2M?ZW]8Z4[J7V5F.^R[$:696=2X-
#11BDZS<6V^G_`-MOO;:LPV&O
M%8XR8:7.>\'<''9N^FSZ?[WO_/L_G5I=*=1C?53$#F"YUN1;G.K/&X31C[O^
MM8O_`(.JF3C,LKI]4OLMX($2X.=&YKIW['.MLL9^CLK]EW^C24]/_BN^L3[`
M_H>7/I;G.Z;:1`F/6R,+V^WV?TBG_KC/]%6NL^M_7!T/H5V6P@93_P!!A@][
MG@[7Q_P#-^0[_BEYUTS$
/\%^A9AV_K/Z>S$6>?J)UOZYEO5_ MK5FW837N<[!Z4QK2['H?8RWT[7[:V?:'X^^GW8_VC^BVY7\Q]A29_BO;TCIU MEV5]9,VK%Q&^M<<<.J8VK'L;G,V4MLR';\=WV^^K;O\`UK)JR:JOT-M>8E/I M"2\D_P`7_3/K=]8,)_6*OK1EXK\?(?CBFT.RV&*ZW[W5Y.1Z+OZ1]%]/L_G% MI]0^N'UM^I'4*L;ZS^CUGI^8Y[L?,H#:;PUCJV/!I8VNG?52[U?L^SWV9'_* M/Z-)3Z0DN4ZA_C&Z'A8'5,DML^T=+R+,1N+;MK=D75N;4[[&\N>RZIC[&/R/ M3WY&-1^FNQOTE'K;?0.K?MKHV)U7[/9B?:ZQ9Z%OTFZ[=#IOJ?'J46_X:CT[ M4E.@DO//\8/UW=NJ^KGU8S''K=^2,:_T0T!H>TT_9_M5T,JR'WW5?I,=^_&? M3;ZMV/8N]W,Q,7?DWRRBN;LFXM;HP?I+[G,;52SZ/J6;655)*3)+FNPU.? ML>R'@-L RI_T+6)*=!))))2DDECX?UDJR_K-G_5^O&N#NG4U6VY<#TBZT M"ST)'T'^E96^G_3;,K_N/^F2G8269]9.N5?5_HF5U>VIU[<5K2*FD`N<]S:: MF[G?09ZMC/4?^8S_``=GT%A97UXZS2SIN31]6LO-P>H8].0_(QGBTL]1M=US M&445V/?Z#+MM;LK[#]IM]39^C_2I*>P27#T_XR I2SUM_Z%EES+;7_X/])5ZB4__]`O^,K'ZKUOZZ]$Z!TZ MRO&R*\=^5BY#G/86V$VV/<;:O4>S8SIM?H>G5O\`5_\``Z72QU?ZA?6/[?\` M7#&;GXV>YM3>N2 Y7U8?D M?77"^LWJ5FK$Q'XQI K?8/Y[[.=_P!'^9EOV[^=]O\`0OM'_"?Z']*N<_YJ M_7/ZI.NN^JW4&YO1Z*76CIF=OM>7-;:]]&-5C5?3LM?ZU?V:S#]:[]%?ZGI^ MI;T?1[ D] G=2KZSU/+R.L]6KU^T91EF\>VB]M3_5M]6BIK*Z MO6R;]G\[7L_0^CU6)BT86+3AXS?3Q\:MM5+))VL8!76W<\N>[:QOYR67C,R\ M6[%L,,OK=4X[6NT>"QWZ.]EM+_I?0NJMJ_TE:2GPWZG_`%`S>O=$ZGU)V.YQ M%/I]*:Y_HBV\.#K+:[7;V[*6U?9]EM/V?(??Z7VG%MH]>GI>A_67ZQY^+T_Z MK?5/`=TX].IIIZSG74L#L>T/97EV5X]KVT;][ A] M`Z)B]!Z31TG#?99CXV_8ZT@O.][[W;G5MJ9].W]Q:"2GR2KZJX71/\8_U9Z- M2[>*<3U[;S77NMN8[/R?5>Q[+6?3J957_P!J**&5>ED>M37>I_XP.I6]2^N^ M-]6^JYEW2/J_MK%U@)%=V_\`6/M#O:UFSUVUX3+;_M&/A7469/\`IV+J/KS1 M^SNI=%^MS!6UG2LCT.H/ F5.94'%_IXF,*FV.BAN]C'?9F[W-L=_/>G_0KO^Z?VFCE?53_`!ILPW=. M;U?$ZG@>H&MKRV,N>]AL#FW9/V_$R=WH_P!(?7]IR/2]/T\;UOT*C=A?XTKL M)W1&='Z5C]/R75.&RN@T8X=Z5UE;<6VVYCV57BRS(WX68_[1Z[\3U/U5)3T_ MU>^OG3>OY5.-C86?CC)KLMQ\C(HBFP4EM=^R^FR]GZ-[]CGN_1>I^A]3UK*J M[.F6)]3^AYO0>AT].SLO[;=7KZDV$-&UC6X]?VBVW]%1M].GT:\2KTO^TK+? M5]3;24I<)_B[QJ,CKGUHZVS']+U\]^/4YU980&.?;?\`TBQV;5;D.MINS,>V MC'J9;Z7I_P#$[M<%TO_%Y]8^DX65@=+^LCNGX61=:\4MQF6O#7_H:G_;7. MQ[FY'V6NCU/0;3Z5W\Q_I4E,O\;Q?=T/`Z;4/TN?GU5-<:76@#;9]%]5.195 M;ZCJ]K,?] 1=BXWI_P!&M?\`I$;I_P!0 __1^DDIXS"ZM]8&_XQ^M]9Z?TRSJ9JR#TVVC' M YECFG<&ULJ#F45-]6S(M<_P#2/WO]3T?YNO'QL6FOTUL)*?_1 M]527RJDDI^JDE\JI)*?JI)?*J22GZJ27RJDDI^E/K9_XE>L_^$,K_P`\V)?5 M/_Q*]&_\(8O_`)YK7S6DDI^JDE\JI)*?JI)?*J22GZJ27RJDDI^JDE\JI)*? MJI)?*J22G__9`#A"24T$(0``````50````$!````#P!!`&0`;P!B`&4`(`!0 M`&@`;P!T`&\` )E\K.$P]-UX_-&)Y2DA;25Q-3D]*6UQ=7E M]59F=H:6IK;&UN;V-T=79W>'EZ>WQ]?G]Q$``@(!`@0$`P0%!@<'!@4U`0`" M$0,A,1($05%A<2(3!3*!D12AL4(CP5+1\#,D8N%R@I)#4Q5C
+RLX3#TW7C\T:4I(6TE<34Y/2EM<75Y?569G:& MEJ:VQM;F]B 7I[?'_]H`#`,!``(1`Q$`/P#U%SL?%J:'%E%32RI@ M)#&@N+:::F\-][W,JJ9_81%YU_CKR;ZNAX5%>1Z=61D$78XL#3:&M]1CG4>G MZEU5-FW<[[1753;Z'J47V6468W2_6?Z[]#^KF+>^^^N_.JAK.GUO;ZQ>X;ZQ M8P;GX]6S](^^QG\W_I;/2JL2G:RLO%PJ'9.9=7C8]<;[K7!C&R0QNZRPM8W< M]VU<;]5_KAU[ZU?6.R[IV.VGZK8S2RRR]FVYUCF5N:P/99 /\%^A9AV M_K/Z>S$6>?J)UOZYEO5_K5FW837N<[!Z4QK2['H?8RWT[7[:V?:'X^^GW8_V MC^BVY7\Q]A29_BO;TCIUEV5]9,VK%Q&^M<<<.J8VK'L;G,V4MLR';\=WV^^K M;O\`UK)JR:JOT-M>8E/I"2\D_P`7_3/K=]8,)_6*OK1EXK\?(?CBFT.RV&*Z MW[W5Y.1Z+OZ1]%]/L_G%I]0^N'UM^I'4*L;ZS^CUGI^8Y[L?,H#:;PUCJV/! MI8VNG?52[U?L^SWV9'_*/Z-)3Z0DN4ZA_C&Z'A8'5,DML^T=+R+,1N+;MK=D M75N;4[[&\N>RZIC[&/R/3WY&-1^FNQOTE'K;?0.K?MKHV)U7[/9B?:ZQ9Z%O MTFZ[=#IOJ?'J46_X:CT[4E.@DO//\8/UW=NJ^KGU8S''K=^2,:_T0T!H>TT_ M9_M5T,JR'WW5?I,=^_&?3;ZMV/8N]W,Q,7?DWRRBN;LFXM;HP?I+[G,;52SZ M/J6;655)*3)+FNPU.?L>R'@-L RI_T+6)*=!))))2DDECX?UDJR_K-G M_5^O&N#NG4U6VY<#TBZT"ST)'T'^E96^G_3;,K_N/^F2G8269]9.N5?5_HF5 MU>VIU[<5K2*FD`N<]S::F[G?09ZMC/4?^8S_``=GT%A97UXZS2SIN31]6LO- MP>H8].0_(QGBTL]1M=US&445V/?Z#+MM;LK[#]IM]39^C_2I*>P27#T_XRI2SUM_Z%EES+;7_X/])5ZB4_ M_]`O^,K'ZKUOZZ]$Z!TZRO&R*\=^5BY#G/86V$VV/<;:O4>S8SIM?H>G5O\` M5_\``Z72QU?ZA?6/[?\`7#&;GXV>YM3>N2 Y7U8?D?77"^LWJ5FK$Q'XQI K?8/Y[[.=_P!'^9EOV[^= M]O\`0OM'_"?Z']*N<_YJ_7/ZI.NN^JW4&YO1Z*76CIF=OM>7-;:]]&-5C5?3 MLM?ZU?V:S#]:[]%?ZGI^I;T?1[ D] G=2KZSU/+R.L]6KU^T9 M1EF\>VB]M3_5M]6BIK*ZO6R;]G\[7L_0^CU6)BT86+3AXS?3Q\:MM5+))VL8 M!76W<\N>[:QOYR67C,R\6[%L,,OK=4X[6NT>"QWZ.]EM+_I?0NJMJ_TE:2GP MWZG_`%`S>O=$ZGU)V.YQ%/I]*:Y_HBV\.#K+:[7;V[*6U?9]EM/V?(??Z7VG M%MH]>GI>A_67ZQY^+T_ZK?5/`=TX].IIIZSG74L#L>T/97EV5X]KVT;][ A]`Z)B]!Z31TG#?99CXV_8ZT@O.][[W;G5MJ9].W]Q M:"2GR2KZJX71/\8_U9Z-2[>*<3U[;S77NMN8[/R?5>Q[+6?3J957_P!J**&5 M>ED>M37>I_XP.I6]2^N^-]6^JYEW2/J_MK%U@)%=V_\`6/M#O:UFSUVUX3+; M_M&/A7469/\`IV+J/KS1^SNI=%^MS!6UG2LCT.H/ F5.94'%_IXF,*FV.BAN]C'?9F[W-L=_/>G_0K MO^Z?VFCE?53_`!ILPW=.;U?$ZG@>H&MKRV,N>]AL#FW9/V_$R=WH_P!(?7]I MR/2]/T\;UOT*C=A?XTKL)W1&='Z5C]/R75.&RN@T8X=Z5UE;<6VVYCV57BRS M(WX68_[1Z[\3U/U5)3T_U>^OG3>OY5.-C86?CC)KLMQ\C(HBFP4EM=^R^FR] MGZ-[]CGN_1>I^A]3UK*J[.F6)]3^AYO0>AT].SLO[;=7KZDV$-&UC6X]?VBV MW]%1M].GT:\2KTO^TK+?5]3;24I<)_B[QJ,CKGUHZVS']+U\]^/4YU980&.? M;?\`TBQV;5;D.MINS,>VC'J9;Z7I_P#$[M<%TO_%Y]8^DX65@=+^LCNGX6 M1=:\4MQF6O#7_H:G_;7.Q[FY'V6NCU/0;3Z5W\Q_I4E,O\;Q?=T/`Z;4/TN? MGU5-<:76@#;9]%]5.195;ZCJ]K,?] 1=BXWI_P!&M?\`I$;I_P!0 M __1^DDIXS"ZM]8&_X MQ^M]9Z?TRSJ9JR#TVVC' YECFG<&ULJ#F45-]6S(M<_P#2/WO] M3T?YNO'QL6FOTUL)*?_1]527RJDDI^JDE\JI)*?JI)?*J22GZJ27RJDDI^E/ MK9_XE>L_^$,K_P`\V)?5/_Q*]&_\(8O_`)YK7S6DDI^JDE\JI)*?JI)?*J22 MGZJ27RJDDI^JDE\JI)*?JI)?*J22G__9_]L`0P`(!@8'!@4(!P<'"0D("@P4 M#0P+"PP9$A,/%!T:'QX=&AP<("0N)R`B+",<'"@W*2PP,30T-!\G.3TX,CPN M,S0R_]L`0P$)"0D,"PP8#0T8,B$<(3(R,C(R,C(R,C(R,C(R,C(R,C(R,C(R M,C(R,C(R,C(R,C(R,C(R,C(R,C(R,C(R,C(R_\``$0@`*@#)`P$B``(1`0,1 M`?_$`!\```$%`0$!`0$!```````````!`@,$!08'"`D*"__$`+40``(!`P," M!`,%!00$```!?0$"`P`$$042(3%!!A-180'EZ@X2%AH>(B8J2DY25EI>8F9JBHZ2EIJ>HJ:JRL[2UMK>XN;K" MP\3%QL?(R ;GZ.GJ\?+S]/7V]_CY^O_$`!\!``,! M`0$!`0$!`0$````````!`@,$!08'"`D*"__$`+41``(!`@0$`P0'!00$``$" M=P`!`@,1!`4A,08205$'87$3(C*!"!1"D:&QP0DC,U+P%6)RT0H6)#3A)?$7 M&!D:)B H*#A(6&AXB)BI*3E)66EYB9FJ*CI*6FIZBIJK*SM+6VM[BYNL+#Q,7&Q\C) MRM+3U-76U]C9VN+CY.7FY^CIZO+S]/7V]_CY^O_:``P#`0`"$0,1`#\`]_HK MR;X[^,M7\+:!IUMH]Q]EEU"1UDN$)$B*@4X4]L[N3U_.O2]&N)[O0]/N;G'V MB6VCDEP,#<5!/ZT`7JQ_$_BC2O"&B2ZMJ\_E6Z':JJ,O*Y!(1!W8X/Y$G`!- M "D:TC/]H:PPQ'9P,#L/;S#_``CVY/MWKP_Q+X>^*/B[5(M7U?0; MVY4D-%:D8CC7/W0F[*@XY[^IH`]E^%?CW7O'=SK-U>Z7%;Z1'(/L SX&"2,8/U&/2J\"_M_XP:%I3K;^%].L-/LXW;;%`BI&BY)P`_X^]3:7\9/' MFI:2-4M?!*7ME'D23V^\@D=>F<=O6@#W>BO+].^.GAN;4DT_6++4M$N&[WL. M$7TR0 "6.50Q4E`,#@CCN#Q0!)14=Q<0VMO)<7$J0PQJ6 M>21@JJ!U))Z"J,_B+1;:S@NY]6L8K:X!,,KW"JLF.NTD\T`:5%98\2Z"6*C6 M]-W`9Q]J3./SJ]%=6\Y417$4A9=ZA'!ROJ/;WH`FHHHH`^>?VDM0CDU'P_IW MG)B-)9943!==Q4`D9]`<=.]6[KXD>(/B3JI\+_#^W.F6?E?O+R;"/'&!AC\N M=@Y`&WYNG3M6\4Z+INO_`+2]OINJQ>=:30)OBR5WD0D@9'/8?E6EXM^!/V(_ MVQX%NKBVOX&\U+1I>"<@@1N2-N/]HG.!S0!U_@?X1Z/X3F&I7K_VMK399[NX M3(5B0=R`YPW^UG)R?7%>AUY'\/\`XS0:G(VC>,/+TC6(<)YDX,23'G.01B-N MG!.#GCTKUR@#S+X[ZHMA\,KB`S>7->3QPHJO@N,[F'N,#FN:^#_BWPCX0^'B MKJ6NVL%Y/++ V2$^N*Z#PQ\(_!D&@Z;/=^'[>:^>SC^T/*\CAG*#<=K'`YSV&/:@#S7XF M>/+#XF/:>'/">B2W]WYW%Y);J'VYZ1D_,JDX)+;>G(JG\4)=0\%>%/!O@T7K M"YLHVO;EK?*J7,A,>T]3M/F=O0XKZ.TO1=+T2U6VTO3[:SA7.$@C"_RZU\U^ M.M*E\;?M`S:(I$0:6.!G.3A%C#,>!Z9_QH`S;;6-:\??%_P]?ZNIMQ<744EI M&00B0JY("\ F^"-`EU*_?=)]R"W4C?*YZ`#T[D]A7*?$S MP/J]Y-H?B#P?';IJNB`K';L``\>!M"@_+E<'CC(8\\"L7P'\'+S^U4\3>.K@ MWNI,S2&RF(E"OG`9VR0QP.`.!QZ8H`\QU>S\1>-/B)H*>(+@;]:9;B"T>1L6 MENSG"8P-ORKD8Z@@DY)KZ2\9^.-&\!Z3%>ZJ96$K^7#;VX4R2'O@$@8' Y\T0O;H\!!11E5?@9QD9'(Y//':L;]I#2[X:QH^K%GDL#` MT`3#%8G#9)/8;@R^YVGTH`G_`.$T^*WQ#EW^%],;2],=2HE`4*06QN\UQR0. M/D]"<>FA'X'^- "\O8H56>X";?,<#DXJ]7S[KWCWXQZ-I;:E?:%;V5F- MN9!`'V9Y!(W$C\1P>.#7:>!I/B9?W&GZCJ^K:#=:).N^06Y#R8(.-K(NTG<` M#\Q%`'IU%%%`&!XWNFLO`FO7"YW)838(;:02A&<^V:X_X!V+VGPRAG<$&[N9 M91DYR,[<_P#CIJ[\;;EK;X4ZL48`R&*/!)Y!D7(&/:MCX=6T>F?#;P["SA ?YG\J`.>^.^IOIWPPNHXY-C7D\=MG)!(.6(&/4(>O;-5=)^$6A: M[X"\,V^NQ7(NK2S!S#,5QYA,C*1R.K?I6)^T%J,6I>'O#]E97=M+!=:@QWI( M"-R+MZYQ@>8<_A7JLOBWPW9Q*)]?TQ,`?\O2>A]#[&@#R7XB?"SP9X.\!ZCK M%IIL\US$JQQ>9=O@,[!0WOC.<=#BJ_P]^#VBZ_X`TS6WN-3T[6)U=UN89=NP MAV"L%QTV@=^1SWK4_:"N5U'X=Z7?Z?J*RV#WX4K"P9)LH^#N'7:5/'O["H-) M^$7B34?#-I%$+4A836L7EVB;_+2,KG9@OC`&`/I0!7\.^)M<\&?%.#P(FL MGQ#I !1-)IRRS7DXVR75P0 MSE (LUZCVVHQKMCO(/O8YPK#HPR<^OH1DY\[@\'_%;X=R^7X7OHM:TR M5VD>!V3*$$=5D(()']PGH #M`M/$]QXD@TU%U>X4K)<[V)(.`<*3M!P!R M`#^9K XT?QAX<6:()?:5?1G&^-E#KR.C`$=/8UI2Q1SPO#-&LD3J5='&0P/!!!ZBH MK&TMK"SCM;.WBM[>+*QQ0H$1!D\`#@4`>0:]^SOHUS*]QH.I7.FR$LRQ2?O( MP3G`!X8#MU/`K)MO@[\1](;9I/C=(HG`#XN9X\8ST`!_R:]]HH`\!NOA)\3= M>M4LM=\8P2V?F@O&US+)QZX*C)]`?TKV;PMX &].\/A&LM-L;E+B.&VP`=N[Y3G/!W$D]<]ZZL````8`Z`4M%`!1110!__ !V3\_ ` end
D!
M\@'Z`@,"#`(4`AT")@(O`C@"00)+`E0"70)G`G$">@*$`HX"F`*B`JP"M@+!
M`LL"U0+@`NL"]0,``PL#%@,A`RT#.`-#`T\#6@-F`W(#?@.*`Y8#H@.N`[H#
MQP/3`^`#[`/Y!`8$$P0@!"T$.P1(!%4$8P1Q!'X$C`2:!*@$M@3$!-,$X03P
M!/X%#044%]@8&!A8&)P8W!D@&
M609J!GL&C`:=!J\&P`;1!N,&]0<'!QD'*P<]!T\'80=T!X8'F0>L![\'T@?E
M!_@("P@?"#((1@A:"&X(@@B6"*H(O@C2".<(^PD0"24).@E/"60)>0F/":0)
MN@G/">4)^PH1"B<*/0I4"FH*@0J8"JX*Q0K<"O,+"PLB"SD+40MI"X`+F`NP
M"\@+X0OY#!(,*@Q##%P,=0R.#*<,P`S9#/,-#0TF#4`-6@UT#8X-J0W##=X-
M^`X3#BX.20YD#G\.FPZV#M(.[@\)#R4/00]>#WH/E@^S#\\/[!`)$"800Q!A
M$'X0FQ"Y$-<0]1$3$3$13Q%M$8P1JA')$>@2!Q(F$D429!*$$J,2PQ+C$P,3
M(Q-#$V,3@Q.D$\43Y10&%"<4211J%(L4K13.%/`5$A4T%585>!6;%;T5X!8#
M%B86219L%H\6LA;6%OH7'1=!%V47B1>N%](7]Q@;&$`891B*&*\8U1CZ&2`9
M11EK&9$9MQG=&@0:*AI1&G<:GAK%&NP;%!L[&V,;BANR&]H<`APJ'%(<>QRC
M',P<]1T>'4<=:AZ4'KX>Z1\3'SX?:1^4'[\?ZB`5($$@
M;""8(,0@\"$<(4@A=2&A( &YXS'DJ>8EYYWI&
M>J5[!'MC>\)\(7R!?.%]07VA?@%^8G["?R-_A'_E@$>`J($*@6N!S8(P@I*"
M](-7@[J$'82`A..%1X6KA@Z&