Company: SRV
Filing Date: 2025-08-08
Form Type: N-CSRS
Source: 0001398344-25-014835
Chunk: 33

Company: NXG Cushing Midstream Energy Fund
Filing Date: 2025-08-08
Form: N-CSRS
Chunk 33
---
 the Fund’s contractual advisory fee net of its contractual advisory fee waiver for the purposes of evaluating advisory fees and related costs of the services rendered to the Fund.

The Board determined that the peer group was small, consisting of only five funds (including the Fund), and that the Fund’s total net expense ratio of 1.95% of managed assets was in the most expensive quintile with respect to its peer group, while its contractual advisory fee of 1.25% was in the most expensive quintile for its peer group. However, the Board noted that the advisory fee was reduced to 1.00% as a result of the 0.25% contractual advisory fee waiver, which would be in the middle quintile.

<div align='center'>29</div>

Consideration of Investment Performance

The Board noted that it regularly reviews the performance of the Fund throughout the year. The Board reviewed performance information provided by FUSE for periods ending December 31, 2024 comparing the performance of the Fund against its peer group over several time horizons, and using different performance metrics, including but not limited to the comparative performance of the in terms of net asset value (NAV) and market price.

The Trustees noted that the Fund’s peer group was small, consisting of only five funds (including the Fund). The Trustees determined that, among the funds in the peer group, the Fund’s performance based on NAV was in the fourth quintile for the one-year and three-year periods, second quintile for the five-year period and first quintile for the ten-year period, and based on market price the Fund was in the third quintile for the on-year period, fourth quintile for the three-year period and the second quintile for the five-year period and the-ten year period.

Consideration of Comparable Accounts

The Board reviewed the other accounts and investment vehicles managed by the Adviser and discussed the similarities and differences between these accounts and the Fund.

The Board determined that, bearing in mind the limitations of comparing different types of managed accounts and the different levels of service typically associated with such accounts, the fee structures applicable to the Adviser’s other clients employing a comparable strategy to the Fund was not indicative of any unreasonableness with respect to the advisory fees proposed to be payable by the Fund.

Consideration of Profitability

The Board received and considered a profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser, using a template developed in consultation with counsel to the Independent Trustees, that set forth the fees payable by the Fund under the Agreement and the expenses