Company: GDV-PK
Filing Date: 2025-03-10
Form Type: N-CSR
Source: 0001829126-25-001652
Chunk: 148

Company: GABELLI DIVIDEND & INCOME TRUST
Filing Date: 2025-03-10
Form: N-CSR
Chunk 148
---
 Board Members in particular noted the Adviser’s discussion of the Fund’s portfolio, including the impact of market volatility and the Adviser’s value-oriented approach of holding positions for the long-term.

Profitability. The Independent Board Members reviewed summary data regarding the profitability of the Fund to the Adviser.

Economies of Scale. The Independent Board Members discussed the major elements of the Adviser’s cost structure and the relationship of those elements to potential economies of scale and reviewed data provided by the Adviser. The Independent Board Members noted that the Fund was a closed-end fund trading at a discount to net asset value and accordingly unlikely to achieve growth of the type that might lead to economies of scale that the shareholders would not participate in.

Sharing of Economies of Scale. The Independent Board Members noted that the investment management fee schedule for the Fund does not take into account any potential economies of scale.

Service and Cost Comparisons. The Independent Board Members compared the expense ratios of the investment management fee, other expenses, and total expenses of the Fund to similar expense ratios of the Adviser Peer Group and the Lipper Peer Group. The Independent Board Members noted that the Adviser’s management fee includes substantially all administrative services of the Fund as well as investment advisory services. The Independent Board Members noted that the Fund was larger than average within each peer group and that its expense ratios were either roughly average within each peer group. The Independent Board Members also noted that the management fee structure was the same as that in effect for most of the Gabelli funds. The Independent Board Members were presented with, but did not attach significance to, information comparing the management fee with the fee for other types of accounts managed by an affiliate of the Adviser.

Conclusions. The Independent Board Members concluded that the Fund enjoyed highly experienced portfolio management services, good ancillary services and an acceptable performance record. The Independent Board Members also concluded that the Fund’s expense ratios and the profitability to the Adviser of managing the Fund were reasonable, and that, in part due to the Fund’s structure as a closed-end fund, economies of scale were not a significant factor in their thinking. The Independent Board Members did not view the potential profitability of ancillary services as material to their decision. On the basis of the foregoing and without assigning particular weight to any single conclusion, the Independent Board Members determined to recommend continuation of the Advisory Agreement to the full Board.

Based on a consideration of all these factors in their totality, the Board Members, including all of the Independent Board Members, determined that the Fund’s advisory fee was