Company: PGZ
Filing Date: 2025-01-03
Form Type: N-CSR
Source: 0001398344-25-000145
Chunk: 32

Company: Principal Real Estate Income Fund
Filing Date: 2025-01-03
Form: N-CSR
Chunk 32
---
 the Sub-Adviser’s management and other personnel responsible for the portfolio management of the Fund and compliance with the Fund’s investment policies and restrictions. The Trustees also considered the favorable assessment provided by the Adviser as to the nature and quality of the services provided by the Sub-Adviser and the ability of the Sub-Adviser to fulfill its contractual obligations.

Based on the totality of the information considered, the Trustees concluded that the Fund was likely to benefit from the nature, extent and quality of the Adviser’s and the Sub-Adviser’s services, and that the Adviser and the Sub-Adviser have the ability to provide these services based on their respective experience, operations and current resources.

Investment performance of the Fund, the Adviser and the Sub-Adviser.The Board reviewed the Fund’s investment performance over time and compared that performance to other funds in its peer group. In making its comparisons, the Board utilized a report from Fuse, an independent provider of investment company data. The Board considered the peer group in the Fuse report and acknowledged that there were still no peers in the market with a mirrored investment strategy. The Board also considered the views of the Adviser and the Sub-Adviser that in light of the Fund’s dynamic allocation strategy that permits it to vary its allocation to both CMBS and other U.S. and non-U.S. real estate-related securities, such as REITs and REIT-like entities, there are no directly comparable peer funds that utilize a similar investment strategy.

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

October 31, 2024 (Unaudited)

Costs of services and profits realized, and comparison with other advisory contracts.The Board considered the fees payable under the Advisory Agreements. The Board reviewed the information compiled by Fuse comparing the Fund’s contractual management fee rate (on managed assets) and net management fee rate (on both managed assets and common assets—which includes advisory and sub-advisory and administrative service fees—as well as the Fund’s net total expense ratios) to other funds in its expense group. The Board again noted the Fuse peer group and acknowledged the correlation between higher fees and increased complexity in peer funds’ investment strategies. The Board also considered information provided by the Adviser comparing the Fund’s contractual management fee rate (and the Adviser’s share of the contractual management fee rate) to comparable funds advised by the Adviser.

The Trustees also considered that the fee paid to