Company: PGZ
Filing Date: 2025-01-03
Form Type: N-CSR
Source: 0001398344-25-000145
Chunk: 33

Company: Principal Real Estate Income Fund
Filing Date: 2025-01-03
Form: N-CSR
Chunk 33
---
 the Sub-Adviser is paid out of the fees paid to the Adviser and that no separate fee for sub-advisory services is charged to the Fund and that the Sub-Advisory Agreement was the subject of arm’s length negotiations between the parties. The Trustees also considered the fees charged by the Sub-Adviser to other accounts managed using a CMBS strategy, and to other accounts managed using a REIT strategy, during which it was noted that the Sub-Adviser differentiated the types of services that the Fund receives, noting that the Sub-Adviser does not provide a leverage strategy or a dynamic asset allocation strategy for the other accounts, and does not utilize derivative instruments for that account, in each case unlike the mandate it has with respect to the Fund. The Trustees also considered the Adviser’s opinion that the compensation payable to the Sub-Adviser is reasonable, appropriate and fair in light of the nature and quality of the services provided to the Fund.

The Board reviewed the Meeting Materials it received from the Adviser regarding its revenues and expenses in connection with the services provided to the Fund, both solely with respect to the Adviser, as well as together with revenues earned by the Adviser’s affiliates, ALPS Fund Services, Inc. (“AFS”) (in its capacity as administrator of the Fund), and DST Systems, Inc. (in its capacity as transfer agent of the Fund). The Board noted that the profitability of the Adviser was included both with and without distribution expenses. They further noted that both (i) the process by which the Adviser determines profitability and (ii) the assumptions the Adviser uses in determining profitability are the same as those used by the Adviser for its other managed registered investment companies. The Board next reviewed the Adviser’s summary regarding the Fund’s expenses and allocation methodology.

The Trustees then reviewed the profitability information provided by the Adviser and the Sub-Adviser noting that the Fund remained profitable for the Adviser. The Board further noted that the Sub-Adviser’s profitability was not a significant factor considered by the Board, as the sub-advisory fee is paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee paid to it by the Fund, and not by the Fund.

| 38 | www.principalcef.com |

| Principal Real Estate Income Fund | Approval of Investment Advisory 
 and Sub-Advisory Agreements     |

October 31, 2024 (Unaudited)

Economies of scale.With respect to whether economies