Company: ECC-PD
Filing Date: 2025-08-12
Form Type: N-CSRS
Source: 0001104659-25-076373
Chunk: 101

Company: Eagle Point Credit Co Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-08-12
Form: N-CSRS
Chunk 101
---
 current market conditions. Based on the above factors, together with those referenced below, the Board concluded that it was satisfied with, and that the Company should continue to benefit from, the nature, extent and quality of services provided to the Company by the Adviser. Investment Advisory Fee Rates and Total Expense Ratio The Board then reviewed and considered the advisory fee rates, including the base management fee and incentive fee, payable by the Company to the Adviser under the Investment Advisory Agreement and the total expense ratio of the Company. Additionally, the Board received and considered information comparing the advisory fee rates and total expense ratio of the Company with those of the Peer Companies and the advisory fee rate of the Comparable Account. The Board noted that the Company’s contractual management fee rate was lower than or the same as that of four of the Peer Group Companies, higher than that of two of the Peer Group Companies and higher than the average contractual management fee rate of the Peer Group Companies. The Board considered that the Company’s net expense ratio was lower than the average of the Peer Group Companies. The Board further noted that the Company’s effective incentive fee rate was lower than all but one of the Peer Group Companies that have an incentive fee. The Board also considered the Company’s fees and expenses as compared to those of the Peer Universe Companies. The Board noted that the fee structures and the investment strategies and portfolios of the Peer Universe Companies are materially different than those of the Company, and, therefore, the comparisons of the advisory fee rates and total expense ratios to such Peer Universe Companies were not particularly meaningful. The Board also compared the advisory fee rates paid by each of the Company and the Comparable Account to the Adviser. The Board noted the differences in the fee structures and that such differences could cause the Company to pay a higher or lower effective advisory fee rate than the Comparable Account in certain circumstances. The Board considered that the different rate structures are driven by investor expectations for the different fund structures, the additional complexity of the Adviser’s investment strategy in the regulatory and tax environment applicable to the Company’s portfolio and the costs associated with operating as an investment adviser for a publicly listed registered investment company. In considering the advisory fee rates, the Board also discussed the Company’s use of leverage, including the Company’s previous issuance of preferred stock and debt securities. The Board noted that while the Adviser believes that the prudent use of leverage is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders, the use of leverage has the potential 70 to increase the Adviser’s incentive fee and, with respect to preferred stock