# EDGAR Filing Document

**Accession Number:** 0001364924
**File Stem:** 0001379491-23-000024
**Filing Date:** 2023-1
**Character Count:** 723178
**Document Hash:** a8715d50a4ed732aa4a826257960722e
**Contains OCR:** False
**Source Format:** 

## Filing Content

## Filing Summary
**0001379491-23-000024.hdr.sgml**: 20230117

**ACCESSION NUMBER**: 0001379491-23-000024

**CONFORMED SUBMISSION TYPE**: 497

**PUBLIC DOCUMENT COUNT**: 2

**FILED AS OF DATE**: 20230117

**DATE AS OF CHANGE**: 20230117

**EFFECTIVENESS DATE**: 20230117

**FILER**: 

**COMPANY DATA:**
- **COMPANY CONFORMED NAME:** Fidelity Rutland Square Trust II
- **CENTRAL INDEX KEY:** 0001364924
- **IRS NUMBER:** 000000000
- **STATE OF INCORPORATION:** DE
- **FISCAL YEAR END:** 0228

**FILING VALUES:**
- **FORM TYPE:** 497
- **SEC ACT:** 1933 Act
- **SEC FILE NUMBER:** 333-139427
- **FILM NUMBER:** 23530682

**BUSINESS ADDRESS:**
- **STREET 1:** 245 SUMMER STREET
- **CITY:** BOSTON
- **STATE:** MA
- **ZIP:** 02210
- **BUSINESS PHONE:** 617-563-7000

**MAIL ADDRESS:**
- **STREET 1:** 245 SUMMER STREET
- **CITY:** BOSTON
- **STATE:** MA
- **ZIP:** 02210

## Series and Classes Contracts Data

### Strategic Advisers Large Cap Fund (Series ID: S000069094)

---

|  |  |  |
|:---|:---|:---|
| Class Name                        | Ticker Symbol | Class ID   |
| Strategic Advisers Large Cap Fund | FALCX         | C000220862 |

---

## Series and Classes Contracts Data

### Strategic Advisers Large Cap Fund (Series ID: S000069094)

| Class ID   | Class Name                        | Ticker Symbol   |
|:---|:---|:---|
| C000220862 | Strategic Advisers Large Cap Fund | FALCX           |

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **<u>Fund</u>** | **<u>Ticker</u>** |
| Strategic Advisers® Large Cap Fund | FALCX |

---

#### Fund of Fidelity Rutland Square Trust II

#### STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

#### July 30, 2022

#### As Revised January 17, 2023
*Offered exclusively to certain clients of Strategic Advisers LLC (Strategic Advisers) or its affiliates - not available for sale to the general public.*

This statement of additional information (SAI) is not a prospectus. Portions of the fund's [annual](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001364924/000137949122002737/filing1018.htm#AR_proofplus8061) report are incorporated herein. The annual report is supplied with this SAI.

To obtain a free additional copy of the prospectus, dated July 30, 2022, As Revised December 30, 2022, or SAI, dated July 30, 2022, As Revised January 17, 2023, or an annual report, please call Fidelity at 1-800-544-3455 or visit Fidelity's web site at www.fidelity.com.

LGC-PTB-0722-02

1.9899744.105 ![Fidelity Investments](fi_logo.jpg)

245 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02210

#### **TABLE OF CONTENTS**

---

| |
|:---|
| [INVESTMENT POLICIES AND LIMITATIONS](#id_854797743) |
| [PORTFOLIO TRANSACTIONS](#id_854799456) |
| [VALUATION](#id_854800848) |
| [BUYING AND SELLING INFORMATION](#id_854800969) |
| [DISTRIBUTIONS AND TAXES](#id_854801001) |
| [TRUSTEES AND OFFICERS](#id_854801098) |
| [CONTROL OF INVESTMENT ADVISERS](#id_854801898) |
| [MANAGEMENT CONTRACT](#id_854802081) |
| [PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES](#id_854802433) |
| [DISTRIBUTION SERVICES](#id_854806701) |
| [TRANSFER AND SERVICE AGENT AGREEMENTS](#id_854806781) |
| [SECURITIES LENDING](#id_854806820) |
| [DESCRIPTION OF THE TRUST](#id_854806833) |
| [FUND HOLDINGS INFORMATION](#id_854806910) |
| [FINANCIAL STATEMENTS](#id_854807019) |
| [APPENDIX](#id_854807044) |

---

#### INVESTMENT POLICIES AND LIMITATIONS
The following policies and limitations supplement those set forth in the prospectus. Unless otherwise noted, whenever an investment policy or limitation states a maximum percentage of the fund's assets that may be invested in any security or other asset, or sets forth a policy regarding quality standards, such standard or percentage limitation will be determined immediately after and as a result of the fund's acquisition of such security or other asset. Accordingly, any subsequent change in values, net assets, or other circumstances will not be considered when determining whether the investment complies with the fund's investment policies and limitations.

The fund's fundamental investment policies and limitations cannot be changed without approval by a "majority of the outstanding voting securities" (as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940 (1940 Act)) of the fund. However, except for the fundamental investment limitations listed below, the investment policies and limitations described in this SAI are not fundamental and may be changed without shareholder approval.

#### The following are the fund's fundamental investment limitations set forth in their entirety.
**Diversification**

The fund may not with respect to 75% of the fund's total assets, purchase the securities of any issuer (other than securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities, or securities of other investment companies) if, as a result, (a) more than 5% of the fund's total assets would be invested in the securities of that issuer, or (b) the fund would hold more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of that issuer.

**Senior Securities**

The fund may not issue senior securities, except as permitted under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

**Borrowing**

The fund may not borrow money, except that the fund may borrow money for temporary or emergency purposes (not for leveraging or investment) in an amount not exceeding 33 1/3% of its total assets (including the amount borrowed) less liabilities (other than borrowings). Any borrowings that come to exceed this amount will be reduced within three days (not including Sundays and holidays) to the extent necessary to comply with the 33 1/3% limitation.

**Underwriting**

The fund may not underwrite securities issued by others, except to the extent that the fund may be considered an underwriter within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933 in the disposition of restricted securities or in connection with investments in other investment companies.

**Concentration**

The fund may not purchase the securities of any issuer (other than securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities) if, as a result, more than 25% of the fund's total assets would be invested in the securities of companies whose principal business activities are in the same industry (provided that investments in other investment companies shall not be considered an investment in any particular industry for purposes of this investment limitation).

For purposes of the fund's concentration limitation discussed above, with respect to any investment in repurchase agreements collateralized by U.S. Government securities, Strategic Advisers LLC (Strategic Advisers) looks through to the U.S. Government securities.

For purposes of the fund's concentration limitation discussed above, Strategic Advisers or an affiliate may analyze the characteristics of a particular issuer and security and assign an industry or sector classification consistent with those characteristics in the event that the third-party classification provider used by Strategic Advisers does not assign a classification.

**Real Estate**

The fund may not purchase or sell real estate unless acquired as a result of ownership of securities or other instruments (but this shall not prevent the fund from investing in securities or other instruments backed by real estate or securities of companies engaged in the real estate business).

**Commodities**

The fund may not purchase or sell physical commodities unless acquired as a result of ownership of securities or other instruments (but this shall not prevent the fund from purchasing or selling options and futures contracts or from investing in securities or other instruments backed by physical commodities).

**Loans**

The fund may not lend any security or make any other loan if, as a result, more than 33 1/3% of its total assets would be lent to other parties, but this limitation does not apply to purchases of debt securities or to repurchase agreements, or to acquisitions of loans, loan participations or other forms of debt instruments.

#### The following investment limitations are not fundamental and may be changed without shareholder approval.
**Short Sales**

The fund does not currently intend to sell securities short, unless it owns or has the right to obtain securities equivalent in kind and amount to the securities sold short, and provided that transactions in futures contracts, options, and swaps are not deemed to constitute selling securities short.

**Margin Purchases**

The fund does not currently intend to purchase securities on margin, except that the fund may obtain such short-term credits as are necessary for the clearance of transactions, and provided that margin payments in connection with futures contracts and options on futures contracts shall not constitute purchasing securities on margin.

**Borrowing**

The fund may borrow money only (a) from a bank or from a registered investment company or portfolio for which Strategic Advisers or an affiliate serves as investment adviser or (b) by engaging in reverse repurchase agreements with any party (reverse repurchase agreements are treated as borrowings for purposes of the fundamental borrowing investment limitation).

**Illiquid Securities**

The fund does not currently intend to purchase any security if, as a result, more than 10% of its net assets would be invested in securities that are deemed to be illiquid because they are subject to legal or contractual restrictions on resale or because they cannot be sold or disposed of in the ordinary course of business at approximately the prices at which they are valued.

For purposes of the fund's illiquid securities limitation discussed above, if through a change in values, net assets, or other circumstances, the fund were in a position where more than 10% of its net assets were invested in illiquid securities, it would consider appropriate steps to protect liquidity.

To the extent that the fund acquires the shares of an underlying fund in accordance with Section 12(d)(1)(F) of the 1940 Act, the underlying fund is not obligated to redeem its shares in an amount exceeding 1% of its shares outstanding during any period of less than 30 days. Those underlying fund shares will not be treated as illiquid securities for purposes of the fund's illiquid securities limitation described above to the extent that the fund is able to dispose of such securities by distributing them in kind to redeeming shareholders. (See "Investment Policies and Limitations - Securities of Other Investment Companies.")

**Loans**

The fund does not currently intend to lend assets other than securities to other parties, except by (a) lending money (up to 15% of the fund's net assets) to a registered investment company or portfolio for which Strategic Advisers or an affiliate serves as investment adviser or (b) assuming any unfunded commitments in connection with the acquisition of loans, loan participations, or other forms of debt instruments. (This limitation does not apply to purchases of debt securities, to repurchase agreements, or to acquisitions of loans, loan participations or other forms of debt instruments.)

In addition to the fund's fundamental and non-fundamental investment limitations discussed above:

In order to qualify as a "regulated investment company" under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, the fund currently intends to comply with certain diversification limits imposed by Subchapter M.

For the fund's policies and limitations on futures and options transactions, see "Investment Policies and Limitations - Futures, Options, and Swaps."

Notwithstanding the foregoing investment limitations, the underlying funds in which the fund may invest have adopted certain investment limitations that may be more or less restrictive than those listed above, thereby permitting the fund to engage indirectly in investment strategies that are prohibited under the investment limitations listed above. The investment limitations of each underlying fund are set forth in its registration statement.

In accordance with its investment program as set forth in the prospectus, the fund may invest more than 25% of its assets in any one underlying Fidelity<sup>®</sup> fund. Although the fund does not intend to concentrate its investments in a particular industry, the fund may indirectly concentrate in a particular industry or group of industries through its investments in one or more underlying funds.

The following pages contain more detailed information about types of instruments in which the fund may invest, techniques the fund's adviser (or a sub-adviser) may employ in pursuit of the fund's investment objective, and a summary of related risks. The fund's adviser (or a sub-adviser) may not buy all of these instruments or use all of these techniques unless it believes that doing so will help the fund achieve its goal. However, the fund's adviser (or a sub-adviser) is not required to buy any particular instrument or use any particular technique even if to do so might benefit the fund.

Strategic Advisers® Large Cap Fund may have exposure to instruments, techniques, and risks either directly or indirectly through an investment in an underlying fund. An underlying fund may invest in the same or other types of instruments and its adviser may employ the same or other types of techniques. Strategic Advisers® Large Cap Fund's performance will be affected by the instruments, techniques, and risks associated with an underlying fund, in proportion to the amount of assets that the fund allocates to that underlying fund.

On the following pages in this section titled "Investment Policies and Limitations," and except as otherwise indicated, references to "a fund" or "the fund" may relate to Strategic Advisers® Large Cap Fund or an underlying fund, and references to "an adviser" or "the adviser" may relate to Strategic Advisers LLC (Strategic Advisers) (or its affiliates) or a sub-adviser of Strategic Advisers® Large Cap Fund, or an adviser of an underlying fund.

**Borrowing.** If a fund borrows money, its share price may be subject to greater fluctuation until the borrowing is paid off. If a fund makes additional investments while borrowings are outstanding, this may be considered a form of leverage.

**Cash Management.** A fund may hold uninvested cash or may invest it in cash equivalents such as money market securities, repurchase agreements, or shares of short-term bond or money market funds, including (for Fidelity<sup>®</sup> funds and other advisory clients only) shares of Fidelity<sup>®</sup> central funds. Generally, these securities offer less potential for gains than other types of securities.

**Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Notice of Exclusion.** The Adviser, on behalf of the Fidelity<sup>®</sup> fund to which this SAI relates, has filed with the National Futures Association a notice claiming an exclusion from the definition of the term "commodity pool operator" (CPO) under the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended, and the rules of the CFTC promulgated thereunder, with respect to the fund's operation. Accordingly, neither a fund nor its adviser is subject to registration or regulation as a commodity pool or a CPO. However, the CFTC has adopted certain rule amendments that significantly affect the continued availability of this exclusion, and may subject advisers to funds to regulation by the CFTC. As of the date of this SAI, the adviser does not expect to register as a CPO of the fund. However, there is no certainty that a fund or its adviser will be able to rely on an exclusion in the future as the fund's investments change over time. A fund may determine not to use investment strategies that trigger additional CFTC regulation or may determine to operate subject to CFTC regulation, if applicable. If a fund or its adviser operates subject to CFTC regulation, it may incur additional expenses.

**Common Stock** represents an equity or ownership interest in an issuer. In the event an issuer is liquidated or declares bankruptcy, the claims of owners of bonds and preferred stock take precedence over the claims of those who own common stock, although related proceedings can take time to resolve and results can be unpredictable. For purposes of a Fidelity<sup>®</sup> fund's policies related to investment in common stock Fidelity considers depositary receipts evidencing ownership of common stock to be common stock.

**Convertible Securities** are bonds, debentures, notes, or other securities that may be converted or exchanged (by the holder or by the issuer) into shares of the underlying common stock (or cash or securities of equivalent value) at a stated exchange ratio. A convertible security may also be called for redemption or conversion by the issuer after a particular date and under certain circumstances (including a specified price) established upon issue. If a convertible security held by a fund is called for redemption or conversion, the fund could be required to tender it for redemption, convert it into the underlying common stock, or sell it to a third party.

Convertible securities generally have less potential for gain or loss than common stocks. Convertible securities generally provide yields higher than the underlying common stocks, but generally lower than comparable non-convertible securities. Because of this higher yield, convertible securities generally sell at prices above their "conversion value," which is the current market value of the stock to be received upon conversion. The difference between this conversion value and the price of convertible securities will vary over time depending on changes in the value of the underlying common stocks and interest rates. When the underlying common stocks decline in value, convertible securities will tend not to decline to the same extent because of the interest or dividend payments and the repayment of principal at maturity for certain types of convertible securities. However, securities that are convertible other than at the option of the holder generally do not limit the potential for loss to the same extent as securities convertible at the option of the holder. When the underlying common stocks rise in value, the value of convertible securities may also be expected to increase. At the same time, however, the difference between the market value of convertible securities and their conversion value will narrow, which means that the value of convertible securities will generally not increase to the same extent as the value of the underlying common stocks. Because convertible securities may also be interest-rate sensitive, their value may increase as interest rates fall and decrease as interest rates rise. Convertible securities are also subject to credit risk, and are often lower-quality securities.

**Debt Securities** are used by issuers to borrow money. The issuer usually pays a fixed, variable, or floating rate of interest, and must repay the amount borrowed, usually at the maturity of the security. Some debt securities, such as zero coupon bonds, do not pay interest but are sold at a deep discount from their face values. Debt securities include corporate bonds, government securities, repurchase agreements, and mortgage and other asset-backed securities.

**Disruption to Financial Markets and Related Government Intervention.** Economic downturns can trigger various economic, legal, budgetary, tax, and regulatory reforms across the globe. Instability in the financial markets in the wake of events such as the 2008 economic downturn led the U.S. Government and other governments to take a number of then-unprecedented actions designed to support certain financial institutions and segments of the financial markets that experienced extreme volatility, and in some cases, a lack of liquidity. Federal, state, local, foreign, and other governments, their regulatory agencies, or self-regulatory organizations may take actions that affect the regulation of the instruments in which a fund invests, or the issuers of such instruments, in ways that are unforeseeable. Reforms may also change the way in which a fund is regulated and could limit or preclude a fund's ability to achieve its investment objective or engage in certain strategies. Also, while reforms generally are intended to strengthen markets, systems, and public finances, they could affect fund expenses and the value of fund investments in unpredictable ways.

Similarly, widespread disease including pandemics and epidemics, and natural or environmental disasters, such as earthquakes, droughts, fires, floods, hurricanes, tsunamis and climate-related phenomena generally, have been and can be highly disruptive to economies and markets, adversely impacting individual companies, sectors, industries, markets, currencies, interest and inflation rates, credit ratings, investor sentiment, and other factors affecting the value of a fund's investments. Economies and financial markets throughout the world have become increasingly interconnected, which increases the likelihood that events or conditions in one region or country will adversely affect markets or issuers in other regions or countries, including the United States. Additionally, market disruptions may result in increased market volatility; regulatory trading halts; closure of domestic or foreign exchanges, markets, or governments; or market participants operating pursuant to business continuity plans for indeterminate periods of time. Further, market disruptions can (i) prevent a fund from executing advantageous investment decisions in a timely manner, (ii) negatively impact a fund's ability to achieve its investment objective, and (iii) may exacerbate the risks discussed elsewhere in a fund's registration statement, including political, social, and economic risks.

The value of a fund's portfolio is also generally subject to the risk of future local, national, or global economic or natural disturbances based on unknown weaknesses in the markets in which a fund invests. In the event of such a disturbance, the issuers of securities held by a fund may experience significant declines in the value of their assets and even cease operations, or may receive government assistance accompanied by increased restrictions on their business operations or other government intervention. In addition, it remains uncertain that the U.S. Government or foreign governments will intervene in response to current or future market disturbances and the effect of any such future intervention cannot be predicted.

**Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs)** are shares of other investment companies, commodity pools, or other entities that are traded on an exchange. Typically, assets underlying the ETF shares are stocks, though they may also be commodities or other instruments. An ETF may seek to replicate the performance of a specific index or may be actively managed.

Typically, shares of an ETF that tracks an index are expected to increase in value as the value of the underlying benchmark increases. However, in the case of inverse ETFs (also called "short ETFs" or "bear ETFs"), ETF shares are expected to increase in value as the value of the underlying benchmark decreases. Inverse ETFs seek to deliver the opposite of the performance of the benchmark they track and are often marketed as a way for investors to profit from, or at least hedge their exposure to, downward moving markets. Investments in inverse ETFs are similar to holding short positions in the underlying benchmark.

ETF shares are redeemable only in large blocks of shares often called "creation units" by persons other than a fund, and are redeemed principally in-kind at each day's next calculated net asset value per share (NAV). ETFs typically incur fees that are separate from those fees incurred directly by a fund. A fund's purchase of ETFs results in the layering of expenses, such that the fund would indirectly bear a proportionate share of any ETF's operating expenses. Further, while traditional investment companies are continuously offered at NAV, ETFs are traded in the secondary market (*e.g.,* on a stock exchange) on an intra-day basis at prices that may be above or below the value of their underlying portfolios.

Some of the risks of investing in an ETF that tracks an index are similar to those of investing in an indexed mutual fund, including tracking error risk (the risk of errors in matching the ETF's underlying assets to the index or other benchmark); and the risk that because an ETF that tracks an index is not actively managed, it cannot sell stocks or other assets as long as they are represented in the index or other benchmark. Other ETF risks include the risk that ETFs may trade in the secondary market at a discount from their NAV and the risk that the ETFs may not be liquid. ETFs also may be leveraged. Leveraged ETFs seek to deliver multiples of the performance of the index or other benchmark they track and use derivatives in an effort to amplify the returns (or decline, in the case of inverse ETFs) of the underlying index or benchmark. While leveraged ETFs may offer the potential for greater return, the potential for loss and the speed at which losses can be realized also are greater. Most leveraged and inverse ETFs "reset" daily, meaning they are designed to achieve their stated objectives on a daily basis. Leveraged and inverse ETFs can deviate substantially from the performance of their underlying benchmark over longer periods of time, particularly in volatile periods.

**Exchange Traded Notes (ETNs)** are a type of senior, unsecured, unsubordinated debt security issued by financial institutions that combines aspects of both bonds and ETFs. An ETN's returns are based on the performance of a market index or other reference asset minus fees and expenses. Similar to ETFs, ETNs are listed on an exchange and traded in the secondary market. However, unlike an ETF, an ETN can be held until the ETN's maturity, at which time the issuer will pay a return linked to the performance of the market index or other reference asset to which the ETN is linked minus certain fees. Unlike regular bonds, ETNs typically do not make periodic interest payments and principal typically is not protected.

ETNs also incur certain expenses not incurred by their applicable index. The market value of an ETN is determined by supply and demand, the current performance of the index or other reference asset, and the credit rating of the ETN issuer. The market value of ETN shares may differ from their intraday indicative value. The value of an ETN may also change due to a change in the issuer's credit rating. As a result, there may be times when an ETN's share trades at a premium or discount to its NAV. Some ETNs that use leverage in an effort to amplify the returns of an underlying index or other reference asset can, at times, be relatively illiquid and, thus, they may be difficult to purchase or sell at a fair price. Leveraged ETNs may offer the potential for greater return, but the potential for loss and speed at which losses can be realized also are greater.

**Exposure to Foreign and Emerging Markets.** Foreign securities, foreign currencies, and securities issued by U.S. entities with substantial foreign operations may involve significant risks in addition to the risks inherent in U.S. investments.

Foreign investments involve risks relating to local political, economic, regulatory, or social instability, military action or unrest, or adverse diplomatic developments, and may be affected by actions of foreign governments adverse to the interests of U.S. investors. Such actions may include expropriation or nationalization of assets, confiscatory taxation, restrictions on U.S. investment or on the ability to repatriate assets or convert currency into U.S. dollars, or other government intervention. From time to time, a fund's adviser and/or its affiliates may determine that, as a result of regulatory requirements that may apply to the adviser and/or its affiliates due to investments in a particular country, investments in the securities of issuers domiciled or listed on trading markets in that country above certain thresholds (which may apply at the account level or in the aggregate across all accounts managed by the adviser and its affiliates) may be impractical or undesirable. In such instances, the adviser may limit or exclude investment in a particular issuer, and investment flexibility may be restricted. Additionally, governmental issuers of foreign debt securities may be unwilling to pay interest and repay principal when due and may require that the conditions for payment be renegotiated. There is no assurance that a fund's adviser will be able to anticipate these potential events or counter their effects. In addition, the value of securities denominated in foreign currencies and of dividends and interest paid with respect to such securities will fluctuate based on the relative strength of the U.S. dollar.

It is anticipated that in most cases the best available market for foreign securities will be on an exchange or in over-the-counter (OTC) markets located outside of the United States. Foreign stock markets, while growing in volume and sophistication, are generally not as developed as those in the United States, and securities of some foreign issuers may be less liquid and more volatile than securities of comparable U.S. issuers. Foreign security trading, settlement and custodial practices (including those involving securities settlement where fund assets may be released prior to receipt of payment) are often less developed than those in U.S. markets, and may result in increased investment or valuation risk or substantial delays in the event of a failed trade or the insolvency of, or breach of duty by, a foreign broker-dealer, securities depository, or foreign subcustodian. In addition, the costs associated with foreign investments, including withholding taxes, brokerage commissions, and custodial costs, are generally higher than with U.S. investments.

Foreign markets may offer less protection to investors than U.S. markets. Foreign issuers are generally not bound by uniform accounting, auditing, and financial reporting requirements and standards of practice comparable to those applicable to U.S. issuers. Adequate public information on foreign issuers may not be available, and it may be difficult to secure dividends and information regarding corporate actions on a timely basis. In general, there is less overall governmental supervision and regulation of securities exchanges, brokers, and listed companies than in the United States. OTC markets tend to be less regulated than stock exchange markets and, in certain countries, may be totally unregulated. Regulatory enforcement may be influenced by economic or political concerns, and investors may have difficulty enforcing their legal rights in foreign countries.

Some foreign securities impose restrictions on transfer within the United States or to U.S. persons. Although securities subject to such transfer restrictions may be marketable abroad, they may be less liquid than foreign securities of the same class that are not subject to such restrictions.

American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) as well as other "hybrid" forms of ADRs, including European Depositary Receipts (EDRs) and Global Depositary Receipts (GDRs), are certificates evidencing ownership of shares of a foreign issuer. These certificates are issued by depository banks and generally trade on an established market in the United States or elsewhere. The underlying shares are held in trust by a custodian bank or similar financial institution in the issuer's home country. The depository bank may not have physical custody of the underlying securities at all times and may charge fees for various services, including forwarding dividends and interest and corporate actions. ADRs are alternatives to directly purchasing the underlying foreign securities in their national markets and currencies. However, ADRs continue to be subject to many of the risks associated with investing directly in foreign securities. These risks include foreign exchange risk as well as the political and economic risks of the underlying issuer's country.

The risks of foreign investing may be magnified for investments in emerging markets. Security prices in emerging markets can be significantly more volatile than those in more developed markets, reflecting the greater uncertainties of investing in less established markets and economies. In particular, countries with emerging markets may have relatively unstable governments, may present the risks of nationalization of businesses, restrictions on foreign ownership and prohibitions on the repatriation of assets, and may have less protection of property rights than more developed countries. The economies of countries with emerging markets may be based on only a few industries, may be highly vulnerable to changes in local or global trade conditions, and may suffer from extreme and volatile debt burdens or inflation rates. Local securities markets may trade a small number of securities and may be unable to respond effectively to increases in trading volume, potentially making prompt liquidation of holdings difficult or impossible at times.

**Foreign Currency Transactions.** A fund may conduct foreign currency transactions on a spot (*i.e.,* cash) or forward basis (*i.e.,* by entering into forward contracts to purchase or sell foreign currencies). Although foreign exchange dealers generally do not charge a fee for such conversions, they do realize a profit based on the difference between the prices at which they are buying and selling various currencies. Thus, a dealer may offer to sell a foreign currency at one rate, while offering a lesser rate of exchange should the counterparty desire to resell that currency to the dealer. Forward contracts are customized transactions that require a specific amount of a currency to be delivered at a specific exchange rate on a specific date or range of dates in the future. Forward contracts are generally traded in an interbank market directly between currency traders (usually large commercial banks) and their customers. The parties to a forward contract may agree to offset or terminate the contract before its maturity, or may hold the contract to maturity and complete the contemplated currency exchange.

The following discussion summarizes the principal currency management strategies involving forward contracts that could be used by a fund. A fund may also use swap agreements, indexed securities, and options and futures contracts relating to foreign currencies for the same purposes. Forward contracts not calling for physical delivery of the underlying instrument will be settled through cash payments rather than through delivery of the underlying currency. All of these instruments and transactions are subject to the risk that the counterparty will default.

A "settlement hedge" or "transaction hedge" is designed to protect a fund against an adverse change in foreign currency values between the date a security denominated in a foreign currency is purchased or sold and the date on which payment is made or received. Entering into a forward contract for the purchase or sale of the amount of foreign currency involved in an underlying security transaction for a fixed amount of U.S. dollars "locks in" the U.S. dollar price of the security. Forward contracts to purchase or sell a foreign currency may also be used to protect a fund in anticipation of future purchases or sales of securities denominated in foreign currency, even if the specific investments have not yet been selected.

A fund may also use forward contracts to hedge against a decline in the value of existing investments denominated in a foreign currency. For example, if a fund owned securities denominated in pounds sterling, it could enter into a forward contract to sell pounds sterling in return for U.S. dollars to hedge against possible declines in the pound's value. Such a hedge, sometimes referred to as a "position hedge," would tend to offset both positive and negative currency fluctuations, but would not offset changes in security values caused by other factors. A fund could also attempt to hedge the position by selling another currency expected to perform similarly to the pound sterling. This type of hedge, sometimes referred to as a "proxy hedge," could offer advantages in terms of cost, yield, or efficiency, but generally would not hedge currency exposure as effectively as a direct hedge into U.S. dollars. Proxy hedges may result in losses if the currency used to hedge does not perform similarly to the currency in which the hedged securities are denominated.

A fund may enter into forward contracts to shift its investment exposure from one currency into another. This may include shifting exposure from U.S. dollars to a foreign currency, or from one foreign currency to another foreign currency. This type of strategy, sometimes known as a "cross-hedge," will tend to reduce or eliminate exposure to the currency that is sold, and increase exposure to the currency that is purchased, much as if a fund had sold a security denominated in one currency and purchased an equivalent security denominated in another. A fund may cross-hedge its U.S. dollar exposure in order to achieve a representative weighted mix of the major currencies in its benchmark index and/or to cover an underweight country or region exposure in its portfolio. Cross-hedges protect against losses resulting from a decline in the hedged currency, but will cause a fund to assume the risk of fluctuations in the value of the currency it purchases.

Successful use of currency management strategies will depend on an adviser's skill in analyzing currency values. Currency management strategies may substantially change a fund's investment exposure to changes in currency exchange rates and could result in losses to a fund if currencies do not perform as an adviser anticipates. For example, if a currency's value rose at a time when a fund had hedged its position by selling that currency in exchange for dollars, the fund would not participate in the currency's appreciation. If a fund hedges currency exposure through proxy hedges, the fund could realize currency losses from both the hedge and the security position if the two currencies do not move in tandem. Similarly, if a fund increases its exposure to a foreign currency and that currency's value declines, the fund will realize a loss. Foreign currency transactions involve the risk that anticipated currency movements will not be accurately predicted and that a fund's hedging strategies will be ineffective. Moreover, it is impossible to precisely forecast the market value of portfolio securities at the expiration of a foreign currency forward contract. Accordingly, a fund may be required to buy or sell additional currency on the spot market (and bear the expenses of such transaction), if an adviser's predictions regarding the movement of foreign currency or securities markets prove inaccurate.

A fund may be required to limit its hedging transactions in foreign currency forwards, futures, and options in order to maintain its classification as a "regulated investment company" under the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Hedging transactions could result in the application of the mark-to-market provisions of the Code, which may cause an increase (or decrease) in the amount of taxable dividends paid by a fund and could affect whether dividends paid by a fund are classified as capital gains or ordinary income. A fund will cover its exposure to foreign currency transactions with liquid assets in compliance with applicable requirements. There is no assurance that an adviser's use of currency management strategies will be advantageous to a fund or that it will employ currency management strategies at appropriate times.

**Options and Futures Relating to Foreign Currencies.** Currency futures contracts are similar to forward currency exchange contracts, except that they are traded on exchanges (and have margin requirements) and are standardized as to contract size and delivery date. Most currency futures contracts call for payment or delivery in U.S. dollars. The underlying instrument of a currency option may be a foreign currency, which generally is purchased or delivered in exchange for U.S. dollars, or may be a futures contract. The purchaser of a currency call obtains the right to purchase the underlying currency, and the purchaser of a currency put obtains the right to sell the underlying currency.

The uses and risks of currency options and futures are similar to options and futures relating to securities or indexes, as discussed below. A fund may purchase and sell currency futures and may purchase and write currency options to increase or decrease its exposure to different foreign currencies. Currency options may also be purchased or written in conjunction with each other or with currency futures or forward contracts. Currency futures and options values can be expected to correlate with exchange rates, but may not reflect other factors that affect the value of a fund's investments. A currency hedge, for example, should protect a Yen-denominated security from a decline in the Yen, but will not protect a fund against a price decline resulting from deterioration in the issuer's creditworthiness. Because the value of a fund's foreign-denominated investments changes in response to many factors other than exchange rates, it may not be possible to match the amount of currency options and futures to the value of the fund's investments exactly over time.

Currency options traded on U.S. or other exchanges may be subject to position limits which may limit the ability of the fund to reduce foreign currency risk using such options.

**Foreign Repurchase Agreements.** Foreign repurchase agreements involve an agreement to purchase a foreign security and to sell that security back to the original seller at an agreed-upon price in either U.S. dollars or foreign currency. Unlike typical U.S. repurchase agreements, foreign repurchase agreements may not be fully collateralized at all times. The value of a security purchased by a fund may be more or less than the price at which the counterparty has agreed to repurchase the security. In the event of default by the counterparty, a fund may suffer a loss if the value of the security purchased is less than the agreed-upon repurchase price, or if the fund is unable to successfully assert a claim to the collateral under foreign laws. As a result, foreign repurchase agreements may involve higher credit risks than repurchase agreements in U.S. markets, as well as risks associated with currency fluctuations. In addition, as with other emerging markets investments, repurchase agreements with counterparties located in emerging markets or relating to emerging markets may involve issuers or counterparties with lower credit ratings than typical U.S. repurchase agreements.

**Funds of Funds and Other Large Shareholders.** Certain Fidelity<sup>®</sup> funds and accounts (including funds of funds) invest in other funds ("underlying funds") and, as a result, may at times have substantial investments in one or more underlying funds.

An underlying fund may experience large redemptions or investments due to transactions in its shares by funds of funds, other large shareholders, or similarly managed accounts. While it is impossible to predict the overall effect of these transactions over time, there could be an adverse impact on an underlying fund's performance. In the event of such redemptions or investments, an underlying fund could be required to sell securities or to invest cash at a time when it may not otherwise desire to do so. Such transactions may increase an underlying fund's brokerage and/or other transaction costs and affect the liquidity of a fund's portfolio. In addition, when funds of funds or other investors own a substantial portion of an underlying fund's shares, a large redemption by such an investor could cause actual expenses to increase, or could result in the underlying fund's current expenses being allocated over a smaller asset base, leading to an increase in the underlying fund's expense ratio. Redemptions of underlying fund shares could also accelerate the realization of taxable capital gains in the fund if sales of securities result in capital gains. The impact of these transactions is likely to be greater when a fund of funds or other significant investor purchases, redeems, or owns a substantial portion of the underlying fund's shares.

When possible, Fidelity will consider how to minimize these potential adverse effects, and may take such actions as it deems appropriate to address potential adverse effects, including redemption of shares in-kind rather than in cash or carrying out the transactions over a period of time, although there can be no assurance that such actions will be successful. A high volume of redemption requests can impact an underlying fund the same way as the transactions of a single shareholder with substantial investments. As an additional safeguard, Fidelity<sup>®</sup> fund of funds may manage the placement of their redemption requests in a manner designed to minimize the impact of such requests on the day-to-day operations of the underlying funds in which they invest. This may involve, for example, redeeming its shares of an underlying fund gradually over time.

**Fund's Rights as an Investor.** Fidelity<sup>®</sup> funds do not intend to direct or administer the day-to-day operations of any company. A fund may, however, exercise its rights as a shareholder or lender and may communicate its views on important matters of policy to a company's management, board of directors, and shareholders, and holders of a company's other securities when such matters could have a significant effect on the value of the fund's investment in the company. The activities in which a fund may engage, either individually or in conjunction with others, may include, among others, supporting or opposing proposed changes in a company's corporate structure or business activities; seeking changes in a company's directors or management; seeking changes in a company's direction or policies; seeking the sale or reorganization of the company or a portion of its assets; supporting or opposing third-party takeover efforts; supporting the filing of a bankruptcy petition; or foreclosing on collateral securing a security. This area of corporate activity is increasingly prone to litigation and it is possible that a fund could be involved in lawsuits related to such activities. Such activities will be monitored with a view to mitigating, to the extent possible, the risk of litigation against a fund and the risk of actual liability if a fund is involved in litigation. No guarantee can be made, however, that litigation against a fund will not be undertaken or liabilities incurred. A fund's proxy voting guidelines are included in its SAI.

**Futures, Options, and Swaps.** The success of any strategy involving futures, options, and swaps depends on an adviser's analysis of many economic and mathematical factors and a fund's return may be higher if it never invested in such instruments. Additionally, some of the contracts discussed below are new instruments without a trading history and there can be no assurance that a market for the instruments will continue to exist. Government legislation or regulation could affect the use of such instruments and could limit a fund's ability to pursue its investment strategies. If a fund invests a significant portion of its assets in derivatives, its investment exposure could far exceed the value of its portfolio securities and its investment performance could be primarily dependent upon securities it does not own.

Strategic Advisers<sup>®</sup> Large Cap Fund will not: (a) sell futures contracts, purchase put options, or write call options if, as a result, more than 25% of the fund's total assets would be hedged with futures and options under normal conditions; (b) purchase futures contracts or write put options if, as a result, the fund's total obligations upon settlement or exercise of purchased futures contracts and written put options would exceed 25% of its total assets under normal conditions; or (c) purchase call options if, as a result, the current value of option premiums for call options purchased by the fund would exceed 5% of the fund's total assets. These limitations do not apply to options attached to or acquired or traded together with their underlying securities, and do not apply to structured notes.

The policies and limitations regarding the fund's investments in futures contracts, options, and swaps may be changed as regulatory agencies permit.

The requirements for qualification as a regulated investment company may limit the extent to which a fund may enter into futures, options on futures, and forward contracts.

**Futures Contracts.** In purchasing a futures contract, the buyer agrees to purchase a specified underlying instrument at a specified future date. In selling a futures contract, the seller agrees to sell a specified underlying instrument at a specified date. Futures contracts are standardized, exchange-traded contracts and the price at which the purchase and sale will take place is fixed when the buyer and seller enter into the contract. Some currently available futures contracts are based on specific securities or baskets of securities, some are based on commodities or commodities indexes (for funds that seek commodities exposure), and some are based on indexes of securities prices (including foreign indexes for funds that seek foreign exposure). Futures on indexes and futures not calling for physical delivery of the underlying instrument will be settled through cash payments rather than through delivery of the underlying instrument. Futures can be held until their delivery dates, or can be closed out by offsetting purchases or sales of futures contracts before then if a liquid market is available. A fund may realize a gain or loss by closing out its futures contracts.

The value of a futures contract tends to increase and decrease in tandem with the value of its underlying instrument. Therefore, purchasing futures contracts will tend to increase a fund's exposure to positive and negative price fluctuations in the underlying instrument, much as if it had purchased the underlying instrument directly. When a fund sells a futures contract, by contrast, the value of its futures position will tend to move in a direction contrary to the market for the underlying instrument. Selling futures contracts, therefore, will tend to offset both positive and negative market price changes, much as if the underlying instrument had been sold.

The purchaser or seller of a futures contract or an option for a futures contract is not required to deliver or pay for the underlying instrument or the final cash settlement price, as applicable, unless the contract is held until the delivery date. However, both the purchaser and seller are required to deposit "initial margin" with a futures broker, known as a futures commission merchant, when the contract is entered into. If the value of either party's position declines, that party will be required to make additional "variation margin" payments to settle the change in value on a daily basis. This process of "marking to market" will be reflected in the daily calculation of open positions computed in a fund's NAV. The party that has a gain is entitled to receive all or a portion of this amount. Initial and variation margin payments do not constitute purchasing securities on margin for purposes of a fund's investment limitations. Variation margin does not represent a borrowing or loan by a fund, but is instead a settlement between a fund and the futures commission merchant of the amount one would owe the other if the fund's contract expired. In the event of the bankruptcy or insolvency of a futures commission merchant that holds margin on behalf of a fund, the fund may be entitled to return of margin owed to it only in proportion to the amount received by the futures commission merchant's other customers, potentially resulting in losses to the fund. A fund is also required to segregate liquid assets equivalent to the fund's outstanding obligations under the contract in excess of the initial margin and variation margin, if any.

Although futures exchanges generally operate similarly in the United States and abroad, foreign futures exchanges may follow trading, settlement, and margin procedures that are different from those for U.S. exchanges. Futures contracts traded outside the United States may not involve a clearing mechanism or related guarantees and may involve greater risk of loss than U.S.-traded contracts, including potentially greater risk of losses due to insolvency of a futures broker, exchange member, or other party that may owe initial or variation margin to a fund. Because initial and variation margin payments may be measured in foreign currency, a futures contract traded outside the United States may also involve the risk of foreign currency fluctuation.

There is no assurance a liquid market will exist for any particular futures contract at any particular time. Exchanges may establish daily price fluctuation limits for futures contracts, and may halt trading if a contract's price moves upward or downward more than the limit in a given day. On volatile trading days when the price fluctuation limit is reached or a trading halt is imposed, it may be impossible to enter into new positions or close out existing positions. The daily limit governs only price movements during a particular trading day and therefore does not limit potential losses because the limit may work to prevent the liquidation of unfavorable positions. For example, futures prices have occasionally moved to the daily limit for several consecutive trading days with little or no trading, thereby preventing prompt liquidation of positions and subjecting some holders of futures contracts to substantial losses.

If the market for a contract is not liquid because of price fluctuation limits or other market conditions, it could prevent prompt liquidation of unfavorable positions, and potentially could require a fund to continue to hold a position until delivery or expiration regardless of changes in its value. As a result, a fund's access to other assets held to cover its futures positions could also be impaired. These risks may be heightened for commodity futures contracts, which have historically been subject to greater price volatility than exists for instruments such as stocks and bonds.

Because there are a limited number of types of exchange-traded futures contracts, it is likely that the standardized contracts available will not match a fund's current or anticipated investments exactly. A fund may invest in futures contracts based on securities with different issuers, maturities, or other characteristics from the securities in which the fund typically invests, which involves a risk that the futures position will not track the performance of the fund's other investments.

Futures prices can also diverge from the prices of their underlying instruments, even if the underlying instruments match a fund's investments well. Futures prices are affected by such factors as current and anticipated short-term interest rates, changes in volatility of the underlying instrument, and the time remaining until expiration of the contract, which may not affect security prices the same way. Imperfect correlation may also result from differing levels of demand in the futures markets and the securities markets, from structural differences in how futures and securities are traded, or from imposition of daily price fluctuation limits or trading halts. A fund may purchase or sell futures contracts with a greater or lesser value than the securities it wishes to hedge or intends to purchase in order to attempt to compensate for differences in volatility between the contract and the securities, although this may not be successful in all cases. If price changes in a fund's futures positions are poorly correlated with its other investments, the positions may fail to produce anticipated gains or result in losses that are not offset by gains in other investments. In addition, the price of a commodity futures contract can reflect the storage costs associated with the purchase of the physical commodity.

Futures contracts on U.S. Government securities historically have reacted to an increase or decrease in interest rates in a manner similar to the manner in which the underlying U.S. Government securities reacted. To the extent, however, that a fund enters into such futures contracts, the value of these futures contracts will not vary in direct proportion to the value of the fund's holdings of U.S. Government securities. Thus, the anticipated spread between the price of the futures contract and the hedged security may be distorted due to differences in the nature of the markets. The spread also may be distorted by differences in initial and variation margin requirements, the liquidity of such markets and the participation of speculators in such markets.

**Options.** By purchasing a put option, the purchaser obtains the right (but not the obligation) to sell the option's underlying instrument at a fixed strike price. In return for this right, the purchaser pays the current market price for the option (known as the option premium). Options have various types of underlying instruments, including specific assets or securities, baskets of assets or securities, indexes of securities or commodities prices, and futures contracts (including commodity futures contracts). Options may be traded on an exchange or OTC. The purchaser may terminate its position in a put option by allowing it to expire or by exercising the option. If the option is allowed to expire, the purchaser will lose the entire premium. If the option is exercised, the purchaser completes the sale of the underlying instrument at the strike price. Depending on the terms of the contract, upon exercise, an option may require physical delivery of the underlying instrument or may be settled through cash payments. A purchaser may also terminate a put option position by closing it out in the secondary market at its current price, if a liquid secondary market exists.

The buyer of a typical put option can expect to realize a gain if the underlying instrument's price falls substantially. However, if the underlying instrument's price does not fall enough to offset the cost of purchasing the option, a put buyer can expect to suffer a loss (limited to the amount of the premium, plus related transaction costs).

The features of call options are essentially the same as those of put options, except that the purchaser of a call option obtains the right (but not the obligation) to purchase, rather than sell, the underlying instrument at the option's strike price. A call buyer typically attempts to participate in potential price increases of the underlying instrument with risk limited to the cost of the option if the underlying instrument's price falls. At the same time, the buyer can expect to suffer a loss if the underlying instrument's price does not rise sufficiently to offset the cost of the option.

The writer of a put or call option takes the opposite side of the transaction from the option's purchaser. In return for receipt of the premium, the writer assumes the obligation to pay or receive the strike price for the option's underlying instrument if the other party to the option chooses to exercise it. The writer may seek to terminate a position in a put option before exercise by closing out the option in the secondary market at its current price. If the secondary market is not liquid for a put option, however, the writer must continue to be prepared to pay the strike price while the option is outstanding, regardless of price changes. When writing an option on a futures contract, a fund will be required to make margin payments to a futures commission merchant as described above for futures contracts.

If the underlying instrument's price rises, a put writer would generally expect to profit, although its gain would be limited to the amount of the premium it received. If the underlying instrument's price remains the same over time, it is likely that the writer will also profit, because it should be able to close out the option at a lower price. If the underlying instrument's price falls, the put writer would expect to suffer a loss. This loss should be less than the loss from purchasing the underlying instrument directly, however, because the premium received for writing the option should mitigate the effects of the decline.

Writing a call option obligates the writer to sell or deliver the option's underlying instrument or make a net cash settlement payment, as applicable, in return for the strike price, upon exercise of the option. The characteristics of writing call options are similar to those of writing put options, except that writing calls generally is a profitable strategy if prices remain the same or fall. Through receipt of the option premium, a call writer should mitigate the effects of a price increase. At the same time, because a call writer must be prepared to deliver the underlying instrument or make a net cash settlement payment, as applicable, in return for the strike price, even if its current value is greater, a call writer gives up some ability to participate in price increases and, if a call writer does not hold the underlying instrument, a call writer's loss is theoretically unlimited.

Where a put or call option on a particular security is purchased to hedge against price movements in a related security, the price to close out the put or call option on the secondary market may move more or less than the price of the related security.

There is no assurance a liquid market will exist for any particular options contract at any particular time. Options may have relatively low trading volume and liquidity if their strike prices are not close to the underlying instrument's current price. In addition, exchanges may establish daily price fluctuation limits for exchange-traded options contracts, and may halt trading if a contract's price moves upward or downward more than the limit in a given day. On volatile trading days when the price fluctuation limit is reached or a trading halt is imposed, it may be impossible to enter into new positions or close out existing positions. If the market for a contract is not liquid because of price fluctuation limits or otherwise, it could prevent prompt liquidation of unfavorable positions, and potentially could require a fund to continue to hold a position until delivery or expiration regardless of changes in its value. As a result, a fund's access to other assets held to cover its options positions could also be impaired.

Unlike exchange-traded options, which are standardized with respect to the underlying instrument, expiration date, contract size, and strike price, the terms of OTC options (options not traded on exchanges) generally are established through negotiation with the other party to the option contract. While this type of arrangement allows the purchaser or writer greater flexibility to tailor an option to its needs, OTC options generally are less liquid and involve greater credit risk than exchange-traded options, which are backed by the clearing organization of the exchanges where they are traded.

Combined positions involve purchasing and writing options in combination with each other, or in combination with futures or forward contracts, to adjust the risk and return characteristics of the overall position. For example, purchasing a put option and writing a call option on the same underlying instrument would construct a combined position whose risk and return characteristics are similar to selling a futures contract. Another possible combined position would involve writing a call option at one strike price and buying a call option at a lower price, to reduce the risk of the written call option in the event of a substantial price increase. Because combined options positions involve multiple trades, they result in higher transaction costs and may be more difficult to open and close out.

A fund may also buy and sell options on swaps (swaptions), which are generally options on interest rate swaps. An option on a swap gives a party the right (but not the obligation) to enter into a new swap agreement or to extend, shorten, cancel or modify an existing contract at a specific date in the future in exchange for a premium. Depending on the terms of the particular option agreement, a fund will generally incur a greater degree of risk when it writes (sells) an option on a swap than it will incur when it purchases an option on a swap. When a fund purchases an option on a swap, it risks losing only the amount of the premium it has paid should it decide to let the option expire unexercised. However, when a fund writes an option on a swap, upon exercise of the option the fund will become obligated according to the terms of the underlying agreement. A fund that writes an option on a swap receives the premium and bears the risk of unfavorable changes in the preset rate on the underlying interest rate swap. Whether a fund's use of options on swaps will be successful in furthering its investment objective will depend on the adviser's ability to predict correctly whether certain types of investments are likely to produce greater returns than other investments. Options on swaps may involve risks similar to those discussed below in "Swap Agreements."

Because there are a limited number of types of exchange-traded options contracts, it is likely that the standardized contracts available will not match a fund's current or anticipated investments exactly. A fund may invest in options contracts based on securities with different issuers, maturities, or other characteristics from the securities in which the fund typically invests, which involves a risk that the options position will not track the performance of the fund's other investments.

Options prices can also diverge from the prices of their underlying instruments, even if the underlying instruments match a fund's investments well. Options prices are affected by such factors as current and anticipated short-term interest rates, changes in volatility of the underlying instrument, and the time remaining until expiration of the contract, which may not affect security prices the same way. Imperfect correlation may also result from differing levels of demand in the options and futures markets and the securities markets, from structural differences in how options and futures and securities are traded, or from imposition of daily price fluctuation limits or trading halts. A fund may purchase or sell options contracts with a greater or lesser value than the securities it wishes to hedge or intends to purchase in order to attempt to compensate for differences in volatility between the contract and the securities, although this may not be successful in all cases. If price changes in a fund's options positions are poorly correlated with its other investments, the positions may fail to produce anticipated gains or result in losses that are not offset by gains in other investments.

**Swap Agreements.** Swap agreements are two-party contracts entered into primarily by institutional investors. Cleared swaps are transacted through futures commission merchants that are members of central clearinghouses with the clearinghouse serving as a central counterparty similar to transactions in futures contracts. In a standard "swap" transaction, two parties agree to exchange one or more payments based, for example, on the returns (or differentials in rates of return) earned or realized on particular predetermined investments or instruments (such as securities, commodities, indexes, or other financial or economic interests). The gross payments to be exchanged between the parties are calculated with respect to a notional amount, which is the predetermined dollar principal of the trade representing the hypothetical underlying quantity upon which payment obligations are computed.

Swap agreements can take many different forms and are known by a variety of names. Depending on how they are used, swap agreements may increase or decrease the overall volatility of a fund's investments and its share price and, if applicable, its yield. Swap agreements are subject to liquidity risk, meaning that a fund may be unable to sell a swap contract to a third party at a favorable price. Certain standardized swap transactions are currently subject to mandatory central clearing or may be eligible for voluntary central clearing. Central clearing is expected to decrease counterparty risk and increase liquidity compared to uncleared swaps because central clearing interposes the central clearinghouse as the counterpart to each participant's swap. However, central clearing does not eliminate counterparty risk or illiquidity risk entirely. In addition depending on the size of a fund and other factors, the margin required under the rules of a clearinghouse and by a clearing member futures commission merchant may be in excess of the collateral required to be posted by a fund to support its obligations under a similar uncleared swap. It is expected, however, that regulators will adopt rules imposing certain margin requirements, including minimums, on uncleared swaps in the near future, which could reduce the distinction.

A total return swap is a contract whereby one party agrees to make a series of payments to another party based on the change in the market value of the assets underlying such contract (which can include a security or other instrument, commodity, index or baskets thereof) during the specified period. In exchange, the other party to the contract agrees to make a series of payments calculated by reference to an interest rate and/or some other agreed-upon amount (including the change in market value of other underlying assets). A fund may use total return swaps to gain exposure to an asset without owning it or taking physical custody of it. For example, a fund investing in total return commodity swaps will receive the price appreciation of a commodity, commodity index or portion thereof in exchange for payment of an agreed-upon fee.

In a credit default swap, the credit default protection buyer makes periodic payments, known as premiums, to the credit default protection seller. In return the credit default protection seller will make a payment to the credit default protection buyer upon the occurrence of a specified credit event. A credit default swap can refer to a single issuer or asset, a basket of issuers or assets or index of assets, each known as the reference entity or underlying asset. A fund may act as either the buyer or the seller of a credit default swap. A fund may buy or sell credit default protection on a basket of issuers or assets, even if a number of the underlying assets referenced in the basket are lower-quality debt securities. In an unhedged credit default swap, a fund buys credit default protection on a single issuer or asset, a basket of issuers or assets or index of assets without owning the underlying asset or debt issued by the reference entity. Credit default swaps involve greater and different risks than investing directly in the referenced asset, because, in addition to market risk, credit default swaps include liquidity, counterparty and operational risk.

Credit default swaps allow a fund to acquire or reduce credit exposure to a particular issuer, asset or basket of assets. If a swap agreement calls for payments by a fund, the fund must be prepared to make such payments when due. If a fund is the credit default protection seller, the fund will experience a loss if a credit event occurs and the credit of the reference entity or underlying asset has deteriorated. If a fund is the credit default protection buyer, the fund will be required to pay premiums to the credit default protection seller.

If the creditworthiness of a fund's swap counterparty declines, the risk that the counterparty may not perform could increase, potentially resulting in a loss to the fund. To limit the counterparty risk involved in swap agreements, a Fidelity<sup>®</sup> fund will enter into swap agreements only with counterparties that meet certain standards of creditworthiness.

A fund bears the risk of loss of the amount expected to be received under a swap agreement in the event of the default or bankruptcy of a swap agreement counterparty. In order to cover its outstanding obligations to a swap counterparty, a fund would generally be required to provide margin or collateral for the benefit of that counterparty. If a counterparty to a swap transaction becomes insolvent, the fund may be limited temporarily or permanently in exercising its right to the return of related fund assets designated as margin or collateral in an action against the counterparty.

Swap agreements are subject to the risk that the market value of the instrument will change in a way detrimental to a fund's interest. A fund bears the risk that an adviser will not accurately forecast market trends or the values of assets, reference rates, indexes, or other economic factors in establishing swap positions for a fund. If an adviser attempts to use a swap as a hedge against, or as a substitute for, a portfolio investment, a fund may be exposed to the risk that the swap will have or will develop imperfect or no correlation with the portfolio investment, which could cause substantial losses for a fund. While hedging strategies involving swap instruments can reduce the risk of loss, they can also reduce the opportunity for gain or even result in losses by offsetting favorable price movements in other fund investments. Swaps are complex and often valued subjectively.

**Hybrid and Preferred Securities.** A hybrid security may be a debt security, warrant, convertible security, certificate of deposit or other evidence of indebtedness on which the value of the interest on or principal of which is determined by reference to changes in the value of a reference instrument or financial strength of a reference entity (*e.g.,* a security or other financial instrument, asset, currency, interest rate, commodity, index, or business entity such as a financial institution). Another example is contingent convertible securities, which are fixed income securities that, under certain circumstances, either convert into common stock of the issuer or undergo a principal write-down by a predetermined percentage if the issuer's capital ratio falls below a predetermined trigger level. The liquidation value of such a security may be reduced upon a regulatory action and without the need for a bankruptcy proceeding. Preferred securities may take the form of preferred stock and represent an equity or ownership interest in an issuer that pays dividends at a specified rate and that has precedence over common stock in the payment of dividends. In the event an issuer is liquidated or declares bankruptcy, the claims of owners of bonds generally take precedence over the claims of those who own preferred and common stock.

The risks of investing in hybrid and preferred securities reflect a combination of the risks of investing in securities, options, futures and currencies. An investment in a hybrid or preferred security may entail significant risks that are not associated with a similar investment in a traditional debt or equity security. The risks of a particular hybrid or preferred security will depend upon the terms of the instrument, but may include the possibility of significant changes in the value of any applicable reference instrument. Such risks may depend upon factors unrelated to the operations or credit quality of the issuer of the hybrid or preferred security. Hybrid and preferred securities are potentially more volatile and carry greater market and liquidity risks than traditional debt or equity securities. Also, the price of the hybrid or preferred security and any applicable reference instrument may not move in the same direction or at the same time. In addition, because hybrid and preferred securities may be traded over-the-counter or in bilateral transactions with the issuer of the security, hybrid and preferred securities may be subject to the creditworthiness of the counterparty of the security and their values may decline substantially if the counterparty's creditworthiness deteriorates. In addition, uncertainty regarding the tax and regulatory treatment of hybrid and preferred securities may reduce demand for such securities and tax and regulatory considerations may limit the extent of a fund's investments in certain hybrid and preferred securities.

**Illiquid Investments** means any investment that cannot be sold or disposed of in current market conditions in seven calendar days or less without the sale or disposition significantly changing the market value of the investment. Difficulty in selling or disposing of illiquid investments may result in a loss or may be costly to a fund. Illiquid securities may include (1) repurchase agreements maturing in more than seven days without demand/redemption features, (2) OTC options and certain other derivatives, (3) private placements, (4) securities traded on markets and exchanges with structural constraints, and (5) loan participations.

Under the supervision of the Board of Trustees, a Fidelity<sup>®</sup> fund's adviser classifies the liquidity of the fund's investments and monitors the extent of funds' illiquid investments.

Various market, trading and investment-specific factors may be considered in determining the liquidity of a fund's investments including, but not limited to (1) the existence of an active trading market, (2) the nature of the security and the market in which it trades, (3) the number, diversity, and quality of dealers and prospective purchasers in the marketplace, (4) the frequency, volume, and volatility of trade and price quotations, (5) bid-ask spreads, (6) dates of issuance and maturity, (7) demand, put or tender features, and (8) restrictions on trading or transferring the investment.

Fidelity classifies certain investments as illiquid based upon these criteria. Fidelity also monitors for certain market, trading and investment-specific events that may cause Fidelity to re-evaluate an investment's liquidity status and may lead to an investment being classified as illiquid. In addition, Fidelity uses a third-party to assist with the liquidity classifications of the fund's investments, which includes calculating the time to sell and settle a specified size position in a particular investment without the sale significantly changing the market value of the investment.

**Increasing Government Debt.** The total public debt of the United States and other countries around the globe as a percent of gross domestic product has grown rapidly since the beginning of the 2008 financial downturn. Although high debt levels do not necessarily indicate or cause economic problems, they may create certain systemic risks if sound debt management practices are not implemented.

A high national debt level may increase market pressures to meet government funding needs, which may drive debt cost higher and cause a country to sell additional debt, thereby increasing refinancing risk. A high national debt also raises concerns that a government will not be able to make principal or interest payments when they are due. In the worst case, unsustainable debt levels can decline the valuation of currencies, and can prevent a government from implementing effective counter-cyclical fiscal policy in economic downturns.

On August 5, 2011, Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States one level to "AA+" from "AAA." While Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed the United States' short-term sovereign credit rating as "A-1+," there is no guarantee that Standard & Poor's Ratings Services will not decide to lower this rating in the future. Standard & Poor's Ratings Services stated that its decision was prompted by its view on the rising public debt burden and its perception of greater policymaking uncertainty. The market prices and yields of securities supported by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government may be adversely affected by Standard & Poor's Ratings Services decisions to downgrade the long-term sovereign credit rating of the United States.

**Indexed Securities** are instruments whose prices are indexed to the prices of other securities, securities indexes, or other financial indicators. Indexed securities typically, but not always, are debt securities or deposits whose values at maturity or coupon rates are determined by reference to a specific instrument, statistic, or measure.

Indexed securities also include commercial paper, certificates of deposit, and other fixed-income securities whose values at maturity or coupon interest rates are determined by reference to the returns of particular stock indexes. Indexed securities can be affected by stock prices as well as changes in interest rates and the creditworthiness of their issuers and may not track the indexes as accurately as direct investments in the indexes.

Indexed securities may have principal payments as well as coupon payments that depend on the performance of one or more interest rates. Their coupon rates or principal payments may change by several percentage points for every 1% interest rate change.

Mortgage-indexed securities, for example, could be structured to replicate the performance of mortgage securities and the characteristics of direct ownership.

Inflation-protected securities, for example, can be indexed to a measure of inflation, such as the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

Commodity-indexed securities, for example, can be indexed to a commodities index such as the Bloomberg Commodity Index.

Gold-indexed securities typically provide for a maturity value that depends on the price of gold, resulting in a security whose price tends to rise and fall together with gold prices.

Currency-indexed securities typically are short-term to intermediate-term debt securities whose maturity values or interest rates are determined by reference to the values of one or more specified foreign currencies, and may offer higher yields than U.S. dollar-denominated securities. Currency-indexed securities may be positively or negatively indexed; that is, their maturity value may increase when the specified currency value increases, resulting in a security that performs similarly to a foreign-denominated instrument, or their maturity value may decline when foreign currencies increase, resulting in a security whose price characteristics are similar to a put on the underlying currency. Currency-indexed securities may also have prices that depend on the values of a number of different foreign currencies relative to each other.

The performance of indexed securities depends to a great extent on the performance of the instrument or measure to which they are indexed, and may also be influenced by interest rate changes in the United States and abroad. Indexed securities may be more volatile than the underlying instruments or measures. Indexed securities are also subject to the credit risks associated with the issuer of the security, and their values may decline substantially if the issuer's creditworthiness deteriorates. Recent issuers of indexed securities have included banks, corporations, and certain U.S. Government agencies.

**Insolvency of Issuers, Counterparties, and Intermediaries.** Issuers of fund portfolio securities or counterparties to fund transactions that become insolvent or declare bankruptcy can pose special investment risks. In each circumstance, risk of loss, valuation uncertainty, increased illiquidity, and other unpredictable occurrences may negatively impact an investment. Each of these risks may be amplified in foreign markets, where security trading, settlement, and custodial practices can be less developed than those in the U.S. markets, and bankruptcy laws differ from those of the U.S.

As a general matter, if the issuer of a fund portfolio security is liquidated or declares bankruptcy, the claims of owners of bonds and preferred stock have priority over the claims of common stock owners. These events can negatively impact the value of the issuer's securities and the results of related proceedings can be unpredictable.

If a counterparty to a fund transaction, such as a swap transaction, a short sale, a borrowing, or other complex transaction becomes insolvent, the fund may be limited in its ability to exercise rights to obtain the return of related fund assets or in exercising other rights against the counterparty. Uncertainty may also arise upon the insolvency of a securities or commodities intermediary such as a broker-dealer or futures commission merchant with which a fund has pending transactions. In addition, insolvency and liquidation proceedings take time to resolve, which can limit or preclude a fund's ability to terminate a transaction or obtain related assets or collateral in a timely fashion. If an intermediary becomes insolvent, while securities positions and other holdings may be protected by U.S. or foreign laws, it is sometimes difficult to determine whether these protections are available to specific trades based on the circumstances. Receiving the benefit of these protections can also take time to resolve, which may result in illiquid positions.

**Interfund Borrowing and Lending Program.** Pursuant to an exemptive order issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), a Fidelity<sup>®</sup> fund may lend money to, and borrow money from, other funds advised by Fidelity Management & Research Company LLC (FMR) or its affiliates. A Fidelity<sup>®</sup> fund will borrow through the program only when the costs are equal to or lower than the costs of bank loans. A Fidelity<sup>®</sup> fund will lend through the program only when the returns are higher than those available from an investment in repurchase agreements. Interfund loans and borrowings normally extend overnight, but can have a maximum duration of seven days. Loans may be called on one day's notice. A Fidelity<sup>®</sup> fund may have to borrow from a bank at a higher interest rate if an interfund loan is called or not renewed. Any delay in repayment to a lending fund could result in a lost investment opportunity or additional borrowing costs.

**Investment-Grade Debt Securities.** Investment-grade debt securities include all types of debt instruments that are of medium and high-quality. Investment-grade debt securities include repurchase agreements collateralized by U.S. Government securities as well as repurchase agreements collateralized by equity securities, non-investment-grade debt, and all other instruments in which a fund can perfect a security interest, provided the repurchase agreement counterparty has an investment-grade rating. Some investment-grade debt securities may possess speculative characteristics and may be more sensitive to economic changes and to changes in the financial conditions of issuers. An investment-grade rating means the security or issuer is rated investment-grade by a credit rating agency registered as a nationally recognized statistical rating organization (NRSRO) with the SEC (for example, Moody's Investors Service, Inc.), or is unrated but considered to be of equivalent quality by a fund's adviser. For purposes of determining the maximum maturity of an investment-grade debt security, an adviser may take into account normal settlement periods.

**Loans and Other Direct Debt Instruments.** Direct debt instruments are interests in amounts owed by a corporate, governmental, or other borrower to lenders or lending syndicates (loans and loan participations), to suppliers of goods or services (trade claims or other receivables), or to other parties. Direct debt instruments involve a risk of loss in case of default or insolvency of the borrower and may offer less legal protection to the purchaser in the event of fraud or misrepresentation, or there may be a requirement that a fund supply additional cash to a borrower on demand. A fund may acquire loans by buying an assignment of all or a portion of the loan from a lender or by purchasing a loan participation from a lender or other purchaser of a participation.

Lenders and purchasers of loans and other forms of direct indebtedness depend primarily upon the creditworthiness of the borrower and/or any collateral for payment of interest and repayment of principal. If scheduled interest or principal payments are not made, the value of the instrument may be adversely affected. Loans that are fully secured provide more protections than an unsecured loan in the event of failure to make scheduled interest or principal payments. However, there is no assurance that the liquidation of collateral from a secured loan would satisfy the borrower's obligation, or that the collateral could be liquidated. Indebtedness of borrowers whose creditworthiness is poor involves substantially greater risks and may be highly speculative. Different types of assets may be used as collateral for a fund's loans and there can be no assurance that a fund will correctly evaluate the value of the assets collateralizing the fund's loans. Borrowers that are in bankruptcy or restructuring may never pay off their indebtedness, or may pay only a small fraction of the amount owed. In any restructuring or bankruptcy proceedings relating to a borrower funded by a fund, a fund may be required to accept collateral with less value than the amount of the loan made by the fund to the borrower. Direct indebtedness of foreign countries also involves a risk that the governmental entities responsible for the repayment of the debt may be unable, or unwilling, to pay interest and repay principal when due.

Loans and other types of direct indebtedness (which a fund may originate, acquire or otherwise gain exposure to) may not be readily marketable and may be subject to restrictions on resale. Some indebtedness may be difficult to dispose of readily at what the Adviser believes to be a fair price. In addition, valuation of illiquid indebtedness involves a greater degree of judgment in determining a fund's net asset value than if that value were based on readily available market quotations, and could result in significant variations in a fund's daily share price. Some loan interests are traded among certain financial institutions and accordingly may be deemed liquid. As the market for different types of indebtedness develops, the liquidity of these instruments is expected to improve.

Direct lending and investments in loans through direct assignment of a financial institution's interests with respect to a loan may involve additional risks. For example, if a loan is foreclosed, the lender/purchaser could become part owner of any collateral, and would bear the costs and liabilities associated with owning and disposing of the collateral. In the event of a default by the borrower, a fund may have difficulty disposing of the assets used as collateral for a loan. In addition, a purchaser could be held liable as a co-lender. Direct debt instruments may also involve a risk of insolvency of the lending bank or other intermediary.

A loan is often administered by a bank or other financial institution that acts as agent for all holders. The agent administers the terms of the loan, as specified in the loan agreement. Unless, under the terms of the loan or other indebtedness, the purchaser has direct recourse against the borrower, the purchaser may have to rely on the agent to apply appropriate credit remedies against a borrower. If assets held by the agent for the benefit of a purchaser were determined to be subject to the claims of the agent's general creditors, the purchaser might incur certain costs and delays in realizing payment on the loan or loan participation and could suffer a loss of principal or interest. Direct loans are typically not administered by an underwriter or agent bank. The terms of direct loans are negotiated with borrowers in private transactions. Direct loans are not publicly traded and may not have a secondary market.

A fund may seek to dispose of loans in certain cases, to the extent possible, through selling participations in the loan. In that case, a fund would remain subject to certain obligations, which may result in expenses for a fund and certain additional risks.

Direct indebtedness may include letters of credit, revolving credit facilities, or other standby financing commitments that obligate lenders/purchasers, including a fund, to make additional cash payments on demand. These commitments may have the effect of requiring a lender/purchaser to increase its investment in a borrower at a time when it would not otherwise have done so, even if the borrower's condition makes it unlikely that the amount will ever be repaid.

In the process of originating, buying, selling and holding loans, a fund may receive and/or pay certain fees. These fees are in addition to the interest payments received and may include facility, closing or upfront fees, commitment fees and commissions. A fund may receive or pay a facility, closing or upfront fee when it buys or sells a loan. A fund may receive a commitment fee throughout the life of the loan or as long as the fund remains invested in the loan (in addition to interest payments) for any unused portion of a committed line of credit. Other fees received by the fund may include prepayment fees, covenant waiver fees, ticking fees and/or modification fees. Legal fees related to the originating, buying, selling and holding loans may also be borne by the fund (including legal fees to assess conformity of a loan investment with 1940 Act provisions).

When engaging in direct lending, if permitted by its investment policies, a fund's performance may depend, in part, on the ability of the fund to originate loans on advantageous terms. A fund may compete with other lenders in originating and purchasing loans. Increased competition for, or a diminished available supply of, qualifying loans could result in lower yields on and/or less advantageous terms for such loans, which could reduce fund performance.

For a Fidelity<sup>®</sup> fund that limits the amount of total assets that it will invest in any one issuer or in issuers within the same industry, the fund generally will treat the borrower as the "issuer" of indebtedness held by the fund. In the case of loan participations where a bank or other lending institution serves as financial intermediary between a fund and the borrower, if the participation does not shift to the fund the direct debtor-creditor relationship with the borrower, SEC interpretations require a fund, in appropriate circumstances, to treat both the lending bank or other lending institution and the borrower as "issuers" for these purposes. Treating a financial intermediary as an issuer of indebtedness may restrict a fund's ability to invest in indebtedness related to a single financial intermediary, or a group of intermediaries engaged in the same industry, even if the underlying borrowers represent many different companies and industries.

A fund may choose, at its expense or in conjunction with others, to pursue litigation or otherwise to exercise its rights as a security holder to seek to protect the interests of security holders if it determines this to be in the best interest of the fund's shareholders.

If permitted by its investment policies, a fund may also obtain exposure to the lending activities described above indirectly through its investments in underlying Fidelity funds or other vehicles that may engage in such activities directly.

**Lower-Quality Debt Securities.** Lower-quality debt securities include all types of debt instruments that have poor protection with respect to the payment of interest and repayment of principal, or may be in default. These securities are often considered to be speculative and involve greater risk of loss or price changes due to changes in the issuer's capacity to pay. The market prices of lower-quality debt securities may fluctuate more than those of higher-quality debt securities and may decline significantly in periods of general economic difficulty, which may follow periods of rising interest rates.

The market for lower-quality debt securities may be thinner and less active than that for higher-quality debt securities, which can adversely affect the prices at which the former are sold. Adverse publicity and changing investor perceptions may affect the liquidity of lower-quality debt securities and the ability of outside pricing services to value lower-quality debt securities.

Because the risk of default is higher for lower-quality debt securities, research and credit analysis are an especially important part of managing securities of this type. Such analysis may focus on relative values based on factors such as interest or dividend coverage, asset coverage, earnings prospects, and the experience and managerial strength of the issuer, in an attempt to identify those issuers of high-yielding securities whose financial condition is adequate to meet future obligations, has improved, or is expected to improve in the future.

A fund may choose, at its expense or in conjunction with others, to pursue litigation or otherwise to exercise its rights as a security holder to seek to protect the interests of security holders if it determines this to be in the best interest of the fund's shareholders.

**Low or Negative Yielding Securities.** During periods of very low or negative interest rates, a fund may be unable to maintain positive returns. Interest rates in the U.S. and many parts of the world, including Japan and some European countries, are at or near historically low levels. Japan and those European countries have, from time to time, experienced negative interest rates on certain fixed income instruments. Very low or negative interest rates may magnify interest rate risk for the markets as a whole and for the funds. Changing interest rates, including rates that fall below zero, may have unpredictable effects on markets, may result in heightened market volatility and may detract from fund performance to the extent a fund is exposed to such interest rates.

**Precious Metals.** Precious metals, such as gold, silver, platinum, and palladium, at times have been subject to substantial price fluctuations over short periods of time and may be affected by unpredictable monetary and political policies such as currency devaluations or revaluations, economic and social conditions within a country, trade imbalances, or trade or currency restrictions between countries. The prices of gold and other precious metals, however, are less subject to local and company-specific factors than securities of individual companies. As a result, precious metals may be more or less volatile in price than securities of companies engaged in precious metals-related businesses. Investments in precious metals can present concerns such as delivery, storage and maintenance, possible illiquidity, and the unavailability of accurate market valuations. Although precious metals can be purchased in any form, including bullion and coins, a Fidelity<sup>®</sup> fund intends to purchase only those forms of precious metals that are readily marketable and that can be stored in accordance with custody regulations applicable to mutual funds. A fund may incur higher custody and transaction costs for precious metals than for securities. Also, precious metals investments do not pay income.

For a fund to qualify as a regulated investment company under current federal tax law, gains from selling precious metals may not exceed 10% of the fund's gross income for its taxable year. This tax requirement could cause a fund to hold or sell precious metals or securities when it would not otherwise do so.

**Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs).** Equity REITs own real estate properties, while mortgage REITs make construction, development, and long-term mortgage loans. Their value may be affected by changes in the value of the underlying property of the trusts, the creditworthiness of the issuer, property taxes, interest rates, and tax and regulatory requirements, such as those relating to the environment. Both types of trusts are dependent upon management skill, are not diversified, and are subject to heavy cash flow dependency, defaults by borrowers, self-liquidation, and the possibility of failing to qualify for tax-free status of income under the Internal Revenue Code and failing to maintain exemption from the 1940 Act.

**Repurchase Agreements** involve an agreement to purchase a security and to sell that security back to the original seller at an agreed-upon price. The resale price reflects the purchase price plus an agreed-upon incremental amount which is unrelated to the coupon rate or maturity of the purchased security. As protection against the risk that the original seller will not fulfill its obligation, the securities are held in a separate account at a bank, marked-to-market daily, and maintained at a value at least equal to the sale price plus the accrued incremental amount. The value of the security purchased may be more or less than the price at which the counterparty has agreed to purchase the security. In addition, delays or losses could result if the other party to the agreement defaults or becomes insolvent. A fund may be limited in its ability to exercise its right to liquidate assets related to a repurchase agreement with an insolvent counterparty. A Fidelity<sup>®</sup> fund may engage in repurchase agreement transactions with parties whose creditworthiness has been reviewed and found satisfactory by the fund's adviser.

**Restricted Securities (including Private Placements)** are subject to legal restrictions on their sale. Difficulty in selling securities may result in a loss or be costly to a fund. Restricted securities, including private placements of private and public companies, generally can be sold in privately negotiated transactions, pursuant to an exemption from registration under the Securities Act of 1933 (1933 Act), or in a registered public offering. Where registration is required, the holder of a registered security may be obligated to pay all or part of the registration expense and a considerable period may elapse between the time it decides to seek registration and the time it may be permitted to sell a security under an effective registration statement. If, during such a period, adverse market conditions were to develop, the holder might obtain a less favorable price than prevailed when it decided to seek registration of the security.

**Reverse Repurchase Agreements.** In a reverse repurchase agreement, a fund sells a security to another party, such as a bank or broker-dealer, in return for cash and agrees to repurchase that security at an agreed-upon price and time. A Fidelity<sup>®</sup> fund may enter into reverse repurchase agreements with parties whose creditworthiness has been reviewed and found satisfactory by the fund's adviser. Such transactions may increase fluctuations in the market value of a fund's assets and, if applicable, a fund's yield, and may be viewed as a form of leverage.

**Securities Lending.** A Fidelity<sup>®</sup> fund may lend securities to parties such as broker-dealers or other institutions, including an affiliate, National Financial Services LLC (NFS). Fidelity<sup>®</sup> funds for which Geode Capital Management, LLC (Geode) serves as sub-adviser will not lend securities to Geode or its affiliates. Securities lending allows a fund to retain ownership of the securities loaned and, at the same time, earn additional income. The borrower provides the fund with collateral in an amount at least equal to the value of the securities loaned. The fund seeks to maintain the ability to obtain the right to vote or consent on proxy proposals involving material events affecting securities loaned. If the borrower defaults on its obligation to return the securities loaned because of insolvency or other reasons, a fund could experience delays and costs in recovering the securities loaned or in gaining access to the collateral. These delays and costs could be greater for foreign securities. If a fund is not able to recover the securities loaned, the fund may sell the collateral and purchase a replacement investment in the market. The value of the collateral could decrease below the value of the replacement investment by the time the replacement investment is purchased. For a Fidelity<sup>®</sup> fund, loans will be made only to parties deemed by the fund's adviser to be in good standing and when, in the adviser's judgment, the income earned would justify the risks.

The Fidelity<sup>®</sup> funds have retained agents, including NFS, an affiliate of the funds, to act as securities lending agent. If NFS acts as securities lending agent for a fund, it is subject to the overall supervision of the fund's adviser, and NFS will administer the lending program in accordance with guidelines approved by the fund's Trustees.

Cash received as collateral through loan transactions may be invested in other eligible securities, including shares of a money market fund. Investing this cash subjects that investment, as well as the securities loaned, to market appreciation or depreciation.

**Securities of Other Investment Companies,** including shares of closed-end investment companies (which include business development companies (BDCs)), unit investment trusts, and open-end investment companies, represent interests in professionally managed portfolios that may invest in any type of instrument. Investing in other investment companies involves substantially the same risks as investing directly in the underlying instruments, but may involve additional expenses at the underlying investment company-level, such as portfolio management fees and operating expenses. Fees and expenses incurred indirectly by a fund as a result of its investment in shares of one or more other investment companies generally are referred to as "acquired fund fees and expenses" and may appear as a separate line item in a fund's prospectus fee table. For certain investment companies, such as BDCs, these expenses may be significant. Certain types of investment companies, such as closed-end investment companies, issue a fixed number of shares that trade on a stock exchange or over-the-counter at a premium or a discount to their NAV. Others are continuously offered at NAV, but may also be traded in the secondary market.

The securities of closed-end funds may be leveraged. As a result, a fund may be indirectly exposed to leverage through an investment in such securities. An investment in securities of closed-end funds that use leverage may expose a fund to higher volatility in the market value of such securities and the possibility that the fund's long-term returns on such securities will be diminished.

A fund's ability to invest in securities of other investment companies may be limited by federal securities laws. To the extent a fund acquires securities issued by unaffiliated investment companies, the Adviser's access to information regarding such underlying fund's portfolio may be limited and subject to such fund's policies regarding disclosure of fund holdings.

**Short Sales.** Short sales involve the market sale of a security a fund has borrowed from a prime broker with which it has a contractual relationship, with the expectation that the security will underperform either the market or the securities that the fund holds long. A fund closes a short sale by purchasing the same security at the current market price and delivering it to the prime broker.

Until a fund closes out a short position, the fund is obligated to pay the prime broker (from which it borrowed the security sold short) interest as well as any dividends that accrue during the period of the loan. While a short position is outstanding, a fund must also pledge a portion of its assets to the prime broker as collateral for the borrowed security. The collateral will be marked to market daily.

Short positions create a risk that a fund will be required to cover them by buying the security at a time when the security has appreciated in value, thus resulting in a loss to the fund. A short position in a security poses more risk than holding the same security long. Because a short position loses value as the security's price increases, the loss on a short sale is theoretically unlimited. The loss on a long position is limited to what a fund originally paid for the security together with any transaction costs. A fund may not always be able to borrow a security the fund seeks to sell short at a particular time or at an acceptable price. As a result, a fund may be unable to fully implement its investment strategy due to a lack of available stocks or for other reasons. It is possible that the market value of the securities a fund holds in long positions will decline at the same time that the market value of the securities the fund has sold short increases, thereby increasing the fund's potential volatility. Because a fund may be required to pay dividends, interest, premiums and other expenses in connection with a short sale, any benefit for the fund resulting from the short sale will be decreased, and the amount of any ultimate gain will be decreased or of any loss will be increased, by the amount of such expenses.

A fund may also enter into short sales against the box. Short sales "against the box" are short sales of securities that a fund owns or has the right to obtain (equivalent in kind or amount to the securities sold short). If a fund enters into a short sale against the box, it will be required to set aside securities equivalent in kind and amount to the securities sold short (or securities convertible or exchangeable into such securities) and will be required to hold such securities while the short sale is outstanding. A fund will incur transaction costs, including interest expenses, in connection with opening, maintaining, and closing short sales against the box.

**Sources of Liquidity or Credit Support.** Issuers may employ various forms of credit and liquidity enhancements, including letters of credit, guarantees, swaps, puts, and demand features, and insurance provided by domestic or foreign entities such as banks and other financial institutions. An adviser and its affiliates may rely on their evaluation of the credit of the issuer or the credit of the liquidity or credit enhancement provider in determining whether to purchase or hold a security supported by such enhancement. In evaluating the credit of a foreign bank or other foreign entities, factors considered may include whether adequate public information about the entity is available and whether the entity may be subject to unfavorable political or economic developments, currency controls, or other government restrictions that might affect its ability to honor its commitment. Changes in the credit quality of the issuer and/or entity providing the enhancement could affect the value of the security or a fund's share price.

**Sovereign Debt Obligations** are issued or guaranteed by foreign governments or their agencies, including debt of Latin American nations or other developing countries. Sovereign debt may be in the form of conventional securities or other types of debt instruments such as loans or loan participations. Sovereign debt of developing countries may involve a high degree of risk, and may be in default or present the risk of default. Governmental entities responsible for repayment of the debt may be unable or unwilling to repay principal and pay interest when due, and may require renegotiation or rescheduling of debt payments. In addition, prospects for repayment of principal and payment of interest may depend on political as well as economic factors. Although some sovereign debt, such as Brady Bonds, is collateralized by U.S. Government securities, repayment of principal and payment of interest is not guaranteed by the U.S. Government.

**Special Purpose Acquisition Companies ("SPACs").** A fund may invest in stock, warrants, and other securities of SPACs or similar special purpose entities that pool money to seek potential acquisition opportunities. SPACs are collective investment structures formed to raise money in an initial public offering for the purpose of merging with or acquiring one or more operating companies (the "de-SPAC Transaction"). Until an acquisition is completed, a SPAC generally invests its assets in US government securities, money market securities and cash. In connection with a de-SPAC Transaction, the SPAC may complete a PIPE (private investment in public equity) offering with certain investors. A fund may enter into a contingent commitment with a SPAC to purchase PIPE shares if and when the SPAC completes its de-SPAC Transaction.

Because SPACs do not have an operating history or ongoing business other than seeking acquisitions, the value of their securities is particularly dependent on the ability of the SPAC's management to identify and complete a profitable acquisition. Some SPACs may pursue acquisitions only within certain industries or regions, which may increase the volatility of their prices. An investment in a SPAC is subject to a variety of risks, including that (i) an attractive acquisition or merger target may not be identified at all and the SPAC will be required to return any remaining monies to shareholders; (ii) an acquisition or merger once effected may prove unsuccessful and an investment in the SPAC may lose value; (iii) the values of investments in SPACs may be highly volatile and may depreciate significantly over time; (iv) no or only a thinly traded market for shares of or interests in a SPAC may develop, leaving a fund unable to sell its interest in a SPAC or to sell its interest only at a price below what the fund believes is the SPAC interest's intrinsic value; (v) any proposed merger or acquisition may be unable to obtain the requisite approval, if any, of shareholders; (vi) an investment in a SPAC may be diluted by additional later offerings of interests in the SPAC or by other investors exercising existing rights to purchase shares of the SPAC; (vii) the warrants or other rights with respect to the SPAC held by a fund may expire worthless or may be repurchased or retired by the SPAC at an unfavorable price; (viii) a fund may be delayed in receiving any redemption or liquidation proceeds from a SPAC to which it is entitled; and (ix) a significant portion of the monies raised by the SPAC for the purpose of identifying and effecting an acquisition or merger may be expended during the search for a target transaction.

Purchased PIPE shares will be restricted from trading until the registration statement for the shares is declared effective. Upon registration, the shares can be freely sold, but only pursuant to an effective registration statement or other exemption from registration. The securities issued by a SPAC, which are typically traded either in the over-the-counter market or on an exchange, may be considered illiquid, more difficult to value, and/or be subject to restrictions on resale.

**Structured Securities** (also called "structured notes") are derivative debt securities, the interest rate on or principal of which is determined by an unrelated indicator. The value of the interest rate on and/or the principal of structured securities is determined by reference to changes in the value of a reference instrument (*e.g.,* a security or other financial instrument, asset, currency, interest rate, commodity, or index) or the relative change in two or more reference instruments. A structured security may be positively, negatively, or both positively and negatively indexed; that is, its value or interest rate may increase or decrease if the value of the reference instrument increases. Similarly, its value or interest rate may increase or decrease if the value of the reference instrument decreases. Further, the change in the principal amount payable with respect to, or the interest rate of, a structured security may be calculated as a multiple of the percentage change (positive or negative) in the value of the underlying reference instrument(s); therefore, the value of such structured security may be very volatile. Structured securities may entail a greater degree of market risk than other types of debt securities because the investor bears the risk of the reference instrument. Structured securities may also be more volatile, less liquid, and more difficult to accurately price than less complex securities or more traditional debt securities. In addition, because structured securities generally are traded over-the-counter, structured securities are subject to the creditworthiness of the counterparty of the structured security, and their values may decline substantially if the counterparty's creditworthiness deteriorates.

**Temporary Defensive Policies.** In response to market, economic, political, or other conditions, a fund may temporarily use a different investment strategy for defensive purposes. If a fund does so, different factors could affect the fund's performance and the fund may not achieve its investment objective.

Strategic Advisers® Large Cap Fund reserves the right to invest without limitation in preferred stocks and investment-grade debt instruments for temporary, defensive purposes.

**Transfer Agent Bank Accounts.** Proceeds from shareholder purchases of a Fidelity<sup>®</sup> fund may pass through a series of demand deposit bank accounts before being held at the fund's custodian. Redemption proceeds may pass from the custodian to the shareholder through a similar series of bank accounts.

If a bank account is registered to the transfer agent or an affiliate, who acts as an agent for the fund when opening, closing, and conducting business in the bank account, the transfer agent or an affiliate may invest overnight balances in the account in repurchase agreements. Any balances that are not invested in repurchase agreements remain in the bank account overnight. Any risks associated with such an account are investment risks of the fund. The fund faces the risk of loss of these balances if the bank becomes insolvent.

**Warrants.** Warrants are instruments which entitle the holder to buy an equity security at a specific price for a specific period of time. Changes in the value of a warrant do not necessarily correspond to changes in the value of its underlying security. The price of a warrant may be more volatile than the price of its underlying security, and a warrant may offer greater potential for capital appreciation as well as capital loss.

Warrants do not entitle a holder to dividends or voting rights with respect to the underlying security and do not represent any rights in the assets of the issuing company. A warrant ceases to have value if it is not exercised prior to its expiration date. These factors can make warrants more speculative than other types of investments.

**Zero Coupon Bonds** do not make interest payments; instead, they are sold at a discount from their face value and are redeemed at face value when they mature. Because zero coupon bonds do not pay current income, their prices can be more volatile than other types of fixed-income securities when interest rates change. In calculating a fund's dividend, a portion of the difference between a zero coupon bond's purchase price and its face value is considered income.

In addition to the investment policies and limitations discussed above, a fund is subject to the additional operational risk discussed below.

**<u>Considerations Regarding Cybersecurity.</u>** With the increased use of technologies such as the Internet to conduct business, a fund's service providers are susceptible to operational, information security and related risks. In general, cyber incidents can result from deliberate attacks or unintentional events and may arise from external or internal sources. Cyber attacks include, but are not limited to, gaining unauthorized access to digital systems (e.g., through "hacking" or malicious software coding) for purposes of misappropriating assets or sensitive information; corrupting data, equipment or systems; or causing operational disruption. Cyber attacks may also be carried out in a manner that does not require gaining unauthorized access, such as causing denial-of-service attacks on websites (i.e., efforts to make network services unavailable to intended users). Cyber incidents affecting a fund's manager, any sub-adviser and other service providers (including, but not limited to, fund accountants, custodians, transfer agents and financial intermediaries) have the ability to cause disruptions and impact business operations, potentially resulting in financial losses, interference with a fund's ability to calculate its NAV, impediments to trading, the inability of fund shareholders to transact business, destruction to equipment and systems, violations of applicable privacy and other laws, regulatory fines, penalties, reputational damage, reimbursement or other compensation costs, or additional compliance costs. Similar adverse consequences could result from cyber incidents affecting issuers of securities in which a fund invests, counterparties with which a fund engages in transactions, governmental and other regulatory authorities, exchange and other financial market operators, banks, brokers, dealers, insurance companies and other financial institutions (including financial intermediaries and service providers for fund shareholders) and other parties. In addition, substantial costs may be incurred in order to prevent any cyber incidents in the future.

While a fund's service providers have established business continuity plans in the event of, and risk management systems to prevent, such cyber incidents, there are inherent limitations in such plans and systems including the possibility that certain risks have not been identified. Furthermore, a fund cannot control the cyber security plans and systems put in place by its service providers or any other third parties whose operations may affect a fund or its shareholders. A fund and its shareholders could be negatively impacted as a result.

#### PORTFOLIO TRANSACTIONS
To the extent that Strategic Advisers grants investment management authority over an allocated portion of the fund's assets to a sub-adviser (see the section entitled "Management Contract"), that sub-adviser is authorized to provide the services described in the respective sub-advisory agreement, and in accordance with the policies described in this section.

Orders for the purchase or sale of portfolio securities are placed on behalf of the fund by Strategic Advisers (either directly or through its affiliates) or a sub-adviser, pursuant to authority contained in the management contract and the respective sub-advisory agreement.

Strategic Advisers or a sub-adviser may be responsible for the placement of portfolio securities transactions for other investment companies and investment accounts for which it has or its affiliates have investment discretion.

The fund will not incur any commissions or sales charges when it invests in affiliated mutual funds, but it may incur such costs when it invests in non-affiliated funds and when it invests directly in other types of securities, including exchange traded funds (ETFs).

Purchases and sales of equity securities on a securities exchange or OTC are effected through brokers who receive compensation for their services. Generally, compensation relating to securities traded on foreign exchanges will be higher than compensation relating to securities traded on U.S. exchanges and may not be subject to negotiation. Compensation may also be paid in connection with principal transactions (in both OTC securities and securities listed on an exchange) and agency OTC transactions executed with an electronic communications network (ECN) or an alternative trading system. Equity securities may be purchased from underwriters at prices that include underwriting fees.

Purchases and sales of fixed-income securities are generally made with an issuer or a primary market-maker acting as principal. Although there is no stated brokerage commission paid by the fund for any fixed-income security, the price paid by the fund to an underwriter includes the disclosed underwriting fee and prices in secondary trades usually include an undisclosed dealer commission or markup reflecting the spread between the bid and ask prices of the fixed-income security. New issues of equity and fixed-income securities may also be purchased in underwritten fixed price offerings.

The Trustees of the fund periodically review Strategic Advisers' and its affiliates' and each sub-adviser's performance of their respective responsibilities in connection with the placement of portfolio securities transactions on behalf of the fund. The Trustees also review the compensation paid by the fund over representative periods of time to determine if it was reasonable in relation to the benefits to the fund.

**<u>Strategic Advisers.</u>**

#### The Selection of Securities Brokers and Dealers
Strategic Advisers or its affiliates generally have authority to select brokers (whether acting as a broker or a dealer) to place or execute the fund's portfolio securities transactions. In selecting brokers, including affiliates of Strategic Advisers, to execute the fund's portfolio securities transactions, Strategic Advisers or its affiliates consider the factors they deem relevant in the context of a particular trade and in regard to Strategic Advisers' or its affiliates' overall responsibilities with respect to the fund and other investment accounts, including any instructions from the fund's portfolio manager, which may emphasize, for example, speed of execution over other factors. Based on the factors considered, Strategic Advisers or its affiliates may choose to execute an order using ECNs including broker-sponsored algorithmics, internal crossing, or by verbally working an order with one or more brokers. Other possibly relevant factors include, but are not limited to, the following: price; costs; the size, nature and type of order; the speed of executions; financial condition and reputation of the broker; broker specific considerations (e.g.; not all brokers are able to execute all types of trades); broker willingness to commit capital; the nature and characteristics of the markets in which the security is traded; the trader's assessment of whether and how closely the broker likely will follow the trader's instructions to the broker; and the potential for information leakage; the nature or existence of post-trade clearing, settlement, custody and currency convertibility mechanisms; and the provision of additional brokerage and research products and services, if applicable and where allowed by law.

The trading desks through which Strategic Advisers or its affiliates may execute trades are instructed to execute portfolio transactions on behalf of the fund based on the quality of execution without any consideration of brokerage and research products and services the broker or dealer may provide. The administration of brokerage and research products and services is managed separately from the trading desks, which means that traders have no responsibility for administering soft dollar activities.

In seeking best execution for portfolio securities transactions, Strategic Advisers or its affiliates may from time to time select a broker that uses a trading method, including algorithmic trading, for which the broker charges a higher commission than its lowest available commission rate. Strategic Advisers or its affiliates also may select a broker that charges more than the lowest commission rate available from another broker. Occasionally, Strategic Advisers or its affiliates execute an entire securities transaction with a broker and allocate all or a portion of the transaction and/or related commissions to a second broker where a client does not permit trading with an affiliate of Strategic Advisers or in other limited situations. In those situations, the commission rate paid to the second broker may be higher than the commission rate paid to the executing broker. For futures transactions, the selection of a futures commission merchant is generally based on the overall quality of execution and other services provided by the futures commission merchant. Strategic Advisers or its affiliates execute futures transactions electronically.

**The Acquisition of Brokerage and Research Products and Services**

Strategic Advisers does not maintain a soft dollar program. Some sub-advisers to the fund use soft dollar or other commission-sharing arrangements in connection with transactions effected for the fund. In those cases, sub-advisers could, pursuant to their policies and procedures, allocate brokerage transactions of the fund to brokers in exchange for research-related or brokerage-related goods or services, provided that such arrangements meet the requirements of Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Strategic Advisers does not obtain products, research, or services in connection with directing brokerage business to any broker or dealer.

**Commission Recapture**

Strategic Advisers does not consider, in selecting or recommending brokers, whether Strategic Advisers or a related person to Strategic Advisers receives client referrals from a broker or third party. Strategic Advisers and its affiliates are authorized to allocate brokerage transactions to brokers who are not affiliates of Strategic Advisers who have entered into arrangements with Strategic Advisers or its affiliates under which the broker, using predetermined methodology, rebates a portion of the compensation paid by the fund to offset that fund's expenses, which is paid to Strategic Advisers or its affiliates. Not all brokers with whom the fund trades have agreed to participate in brokerage commission recapture. Strategic Advisers expects that brokers from whom Strategic Advisers or its affiliates purchase research products and services with their own resources (referred to as "hard dollars") are unlikely to participate in commission recapture.

**Affiliated Transactions**

In certain cases, Strategic Advisers and its delegates are authorized to place portfolio transactions with affiliated registered brokers or transfer agents. In particular, Strategic Advisers can place trades with NFS, through its Fidelity Capital Markets (FCM) division, and Luminex Trading & Analytics LLC (Luminex). Strategic Advisers will arrange for the execution of transactions through those brokers or dealers if Strategic Advisers reasonably believes that the quality of the execution of the transaction is comparable to what could be obtained through other qualified brokers or dealers. In determining the ability of a broker or dealer to obtain best execution, Strategic Advisers will consider a number of factors, including the broker's or dealer's execution capabilities, reputation, and access to the markets for the securities being traded. Sub-advisers of the fund are authorized to place portfolio transactions with Strategic Advisers' affiliated brokers in accordance with regulatory guidelines. For certain funds trades are facilitated through FMR's trading desk and then allocated to affiliated or unaffiliated executing brokers. In addition, from time to time, Strategic Advisers or its affiliates may place trades with brokers that use NFS or Fidelity Clearing Canada ULC (FCC) as a clearing agent and/or use Level ATS, an alternative trading system that is deemed to be affiliated with the Adviser, for execution services.

The Trustees of the fund have approved procedures whereby a fund is permitted to purchase securities that are offered in underwritings in which an affiliate of the adviser or certain other affiliates participate. In addition, for underwritings where such an affiliate participates as a principal underwriter, certain restrictions may apply that could, among other things, limit the amount of securities that the fund could purchase in the underwritings.

**Non-U.S. Transactions**

To facilitate trade settlement and related activities in non-United States securities transactions, Strategic Advisers or its affiliates may effect spot foreign currency transactions with foreign currency dealers. In certain circumstances, due to local law and regulation, logistical or operational challenges, or the process for settling securities transactions in certain markets (e.g., short settlement periods), spot currency transactions may be effected on behalf of funds by parties other than Strategic Advisers or its affiliates, including funds' custodian banks (working through sub-custodians or agents in the relevant non-U.S. jurisdiction) or broker-dealers that executed the related securities transaction.

**Trade Allocation**

Although the Trustees and officers of the fund are substantially the same as those of certain other funds managed by Strategic Advisers or its affiliates, investment decisions for the fund are made independently from those of other funds or investment accounts (including proprietary accounts) managed by Strategic Advisers or its affiliates. The same security is often held in the portfolio of more than one of these funds or investment accounts. Simultaneous transactions are inevitable when several funds and investment accounts are managed by the same investment adviser, or an affiliate thereof, particularly when the same security is suitable for the investment objective of more than one fund or investment account.

When two or more funds or investment accounts are simultaneously engaged in the purchase or sale of the same security or instrument, the prices and amounts are allocated in accordance with procedures believed by Strategic Advisers to be appropriate and equitable to each fund or investment account. In some cases this could have a detrimental effect on the price or value of the security or instrument as far as the fund is concerned. In other cases, however, the ability of the fund to participate in volume transactions will produce better executions and prices for the fund.

**<u>Geode.</u>**

#### The Selection of Brokers
In selecting brokers or dealers (including affiliates of Strategic Advisers) to execute the fund's portfolio transactions, Geode considers factors deemed relevant in the context of a particular trade and in regard to Geode's overall responsibilities with respect to the fund and other investment accounts, including any instructions from the fund's portfolio manager, which may emphasize, for example, speed of execution over other factors. The factors considered will influence whether it is appropriate to execute an order using ECNs, electronic channels including algorithmic trading, or by actively working an order. Other factors deemed relevant may include, but are not limited to: price; the size and type of the transaction; the reasonableness of compensation to be paid, including spreads and commission rates; the speed and certainty of trade executions; the nature and characteristics of the markets for the security to be purchased or sold, including the degree of specialization of the broker in such markets or securities; the availability of liquidity in the security, including the liquidity and depth afforded by a market center or market-maker; the reliability of a market center or broker; the degree of anonymity that a particular broker or market can provide; the potential for avoiding market impact; the execution services rendered on a continuing basis; the execution efficiency, settlement capability, and financial condition of the firm; arrangements for payment of fund expenses, if applicable; and the provision of additional brokerage and research products and services, if applicable. In seeking best qualitative execution, Geode may select a broker using a trading method for which the broker may charge a higher commission than its lowest available commission rate. Geode also may select a broker that charges more than the lowest commission rate available from another broker. For futures transactions, the selection of a futures commission merchant is generally based on the overall quality of execution and other services provided by the futures commission merchant.

**The Acquisition of Brokerage and Research Products and Services**

Brokers (who are not affiliates of Strategic Advisers) that execute transactions for the fund may receive higher compensation from the fund than other brokers might have charged the fund, in recognition of the value of the brokerage or research products and services they provide to Geode.

**Research Products and Services.** These products and services may include, when permissible under applicable law: economic, industry, company, municipal, sovereign (U.S. and non-U.S.), legal, or political research reports; market color; company meeting facilitation; compilation of securities prices, earnings, dividends and similar data; quotation services, data, information and other services; analytical computer software and services; and investment recommendations. In addition to receiving brokerage and research products and services via written reports and computer-delivered services, such reports may also be provided by telephone and in person meetings with securities analysts, corporate and industry spokespersons, economists, academicians and government representatives and others with relevant professional expertise. Geode may request that a broker provide a specific proprietary or third-party product or service. Some of these products and services supplement Geode's own research activities in providing investment advice to the fund.

**Execution Services.** In addition, products and services may include, when permissible under applicable law, those that assist in the execution, clearing, and settlement of securities transactions, as well as other incidental functions (including, but not limited to, communication services related to trade execution, order routing and algorithmic trading, post-trade matching, exchange of messages among brokers or dealers, custodians and institutions, and the use of electronic confirmation and affirmation of institutional trades).

**Mixed-Use Products and Services.** Geode may use commission dollars to obtain certain products or services that are not used exclusively in Geode's investment decision-making process (mixed-use products or services). In those circumstances, Geode will make a good faith judgment to evaluate the various benefits and uses to which they intend to put the mixed-use product or service, and will pay for that portion of the mixed-use product or service that does not qualify as brokerage and research products and services with their own resources (referred to as "hard dollars").

**Benefit to Geode.** Geode's expenses would likely be increased if it attempted to generate these additional products and services through its own efforts, or if it paid for these products or services itself. Certain of the brokerage and research products and services Geode receives are furnished by brokers on their own initiative, either in connection with a particular transaction or as part of their overall services. Some of these products or services may not have an explicit cost associated with such product or service.

**Geode's Decision-Making Process.** Before causing the fund to pay a particular level of compensation, Geode will make a good faith determination that the compensation is reasonable in relation to the value of the brokerage and/or research products and services provided to Geode, viewed in terms of the particular transaction for the fund or Geode's overall responsibilities to the fund or other investment companies and investment accounts. While Geode may take into account the brokerage and/or research products and services provided by a broker in determining whether compensation paid is reasonable, neither Geode nor the fund incurs an obligation to any broker, dealer, or third party to pay for any product or service (or portion thereof) by generating a specific amount of compensation or otherwise. Typically, these products and services assist Geode in terms of its overall investment responsibilities to the fund and other investment companies and investment accounts; however, each product or service received may not benefit the fund. Certain funds or investment accounts may use brokerage commissions to acquire brokerage and research products and services that may also benefit other funds or accounts managed by Geode.

**Affiliated Transactions**

Geode may place trades with certain brokers, including NFS, through its FCM division, and Luminex, with whom Strategic Advisers is under common control, provided it determines that these affiliates' trade execution abilities and costs are comparable to those of non-affiliated, qualified brokerage firms.

The Trustees of the fund have approved procedures whereby a fund is permitted to purchase securities that are offered in underwritings in which an affiliate of the adviser or certain other affiliates participate. In addition, for underwritings where such an affiliate participates as a principal underwriter, certain restrictions may apply that could, among other things, limit the amount of securities that the fund could purchase in the underwritings.

**Trade Allocation**

Although the Trustees and officers of the fund are substantially the same as those of certain other Fidelity<sup>®</sup> funds, investment decisions for the fund are made independently from those of other Fidelity<sup>®</sup> funds or investment accounts (including proprietary accounts). The same security is often held in the portfolio of more than one of these funds or investment accounts. Simultaneous transactions are inevitable when several funds and investment accounts are managed by the same investment adviser, particularly when the same security is suitable for the investment objective of more than one fund or investment account.

When two or more funds or investment accounts are simultaneously engaged in the purchase or sale of the same security or instrument, the prices and amounts are allocated in accordance with procedures believed to be appropriate and equitable to each fund or investment account. In some cases this could have a detrimental effect on the price or value of the security or instrument as far as the fund is concerned. In other cases, however, the ability of the fund to participate in volume transactions will produce better executions and prices for the fund.

Orders for funds and investment accounts are not typically combined or "blocked". However, Geode may, when feasible and when consistent with the fair and equitable treatment of all funds and investment accounts and best execution, block orders of various funds and investment accounts for order entry and execution.

Geode has established allocation policies for its various funds and investment accounts to ensure allocations are appropriate given its clients' differing investment objectives and other considerations. When the supply/demand is insufficient to satisfy all outstanding trade orders, generally the amount executed is distributed among participating funds and investment accounts based on account asset size (for purchases and short sales), and security position size (for sales and covers), or otherwise according to the allocation policies. These policies also apply to initial public and secondary offerings. Generally, allocations are determined by traders, independent of portfolio managers, in accordance with these policies. Allocations are determined and documented on trade date.

Geode's trade allocation policies identify circumstances under which it is appropriate to deviate from the general allocation criteria and describe the alternative procedures. For example, if a standard allocation would result in a fund or investment account receiving a very small allocation (*e.g.,* because of its small asset size), the fund or investment account may receive an increased allocation to achieve a more meaningful allocation, or it may receive no allocation. Generally, any exceptions to Geode's policies (*i.e.,* special allocations) must be approved by senior investment or trading personnel, reviewed by the compliance department, and documented.

**<u>FIAM LLC (FIAM).</u>**

#### The Selection of Securities Brokers and Dealers
FIAM or its affiliates generally have authority to select brokers (whether acting as a broker or a dealer) with which to place the fund's portfolio securities transactions. In selecting brokers, including affiliates of FIAM, to execute the fund's portfolio securities transactions, FIAM or its affiliates consider the factors they deem relevant in the context of a particular trade and in regard to FIAM's or its affiliates' overall responsibilities with respect to the fund and other investment accounts, including any instructions from the fund's portfolio manager, which may emphasize, for example, speed of execution or use of specific brokers over other factors. Based on the factors considered, FIAM or its affiliates may choose to execute an order using electronic channels, including broker-sponsored algorithms, internal crossing, or by verbally working an order with one or more brokers. Other possibly relevant factors may include, but are not limited to the following: price; costs; the size, nature and type of the order; speed of execution, financial condition and reputation of the broker; broker-specific considerations (e.g., not all brokers are able to execute all types of trades); broker willingness to commit capital; the nature and characteristics of the markets in which the security is traded; the trader's assessment of whether and how closely the broker likely will follow the trader's instructions to the broker; confidentiality and the potential for information leakage; the nature of existence of post-trade clearing, settlement, custody and currency convertibility mechanisms; and the provision of brokerage and research products and services, if applicable and where allowed by law.

In seeking best execution for portfolio securities transactions, FIAM and/or its affiliates from time to time select a broker that uses a trading method, including algorithmic trading, for which the broker charges a higher commission than its lowest available commission rate. FIAM and/or its affiliates may also select brokers that charge more than the lowest commission rate available from another broker. Occasionally FIAM and/or its affiliates execute an entire securities transaction with a broker and allocate ("step out") all or a portion of the transaction and/or related commissions to a second broker where a client does not permit trading with an affiliate of FIAM or in other limited situations. In those situations, the commission rate paid to the second broker may be higher than the commission rate paid to the executing broker. For futures transactions, the selection of a futures commission merchant is generally based on the overall quality of execution and other services provided by the futures commission merchant. FIAM and/or its affiliates execute futures transactions verbally and electronically.

**The Acquisition of Brokerage and Research Products and Services**

To the extent permitted by applicable law, brokers (who are not affiliates of FIAM) that execute transactions for the fund managed outside of the European Union may receive higher compensation from the fund than other brokers might have charged the fund, in recognition of the value of the brokerage or research products and services they provide to FIAM or its affiliates.

**Research Products and Services.** Products and services that FIAM or its affiliates have received during the last fiscal year include, when permissible under applicable law, but are not limited to: economic, industry, company, municipal, sovereign (U.S. and non-U.S.), legal, or political research reports; market color; company meeting facilitation; compilation of securities prices, earnings, dividends and similar data; quotation services, data, information and other services; analytical computer software and services; and investment recommendations. In addition to receiving brokerage and research products and services via written reports and computer-delivered services, such reports may also be provided by telephone, video and in-person meetings with securities analysts, corporate and industry spokespersons, economists, academicians and government representatives and others with relevant professional expertise. Brokers also provide brokerage and research products and services in the form of a specific proprietary or third-party product or service, upon request by FIAM or its affiliates. Some of these brokerage and research products and services supplement FIAM's or its affiliates' own research activities in providing investment advice to the fund.

**Execution Services.** In addition, when permissible under applicable law, brokerage and research products and services include those that assist in the execution, clearing, and settlement of securities transactions, as well as other incidental functions (including, but not limited to, communication services related to trade execution, order routing and algorithmic trading, post-trade matching, exchange of messages among brokers or dealers, custodians and institutions, and the use of electronic confirmation and affirmation of institutional trades).

**Mixed-Use Products and Services.** Although FIAM or its affiliates do not use fund commissions to pay for products or services that do not qualify as brokerage and research products and services or eligible external research under MiFID II and FCA regulations (as defined below), where allowed by applicable law, they may use commission dollars to obtain certain products or services that are not used exclusively in their investment decision-making process (mixed-use products or services). In those circumstances, FIAM or its affiliates will make a good faith effort to evaluate the various benefits and uses to which they intend to put the mixed-use product or service, and will pay for that portion of the mixed-use product or service that does not qualify as brokerage and research products and services or eligible external research with their own resources (referred to as "hard dollars").

**Benefits to FIAM.** FIAM's or its affiliates' expenses likely would be increased if they attempted to generate these additional brokerage and research products and services through their own efforts, or if they paid for these products or services with their own resources. Therefore, an economic incentive exists for FIAM or its affiliates to select or recommend a broker-dealer based on its interest in receiving the brokerage and research products and services, rather than on FIAM's or its affiliates' clients interest in receiving most favorable execution. FIAM and its affiliates manage the receipt of brokerage and research products and services and the potential conflicts through their Commission Uses Program. The Commission Uses Program effectively "unbundles" commissions paid to brokers who provide brokerage and research products and services, i.e., commissions consist of an execution commission, which covers the execution of the trade (including clearance and settlement), and a research charge, which is used to cover brokerage and research products and services. Those brokers have client commission arrangements (each a CCA) in place with FIAM and its affiliates (each of those brokers is referred to as CCA brokers). In selecting brokers for executing transactions on behalf of the fund, the trading desks through which FIAM or its affiliates may execute trades are instructed to execute portfolio transactions on behalf of the fund based on the brokers' quality of execution and without any consideration of brokerage and research products and services the CCA broker provides. Commissions paid to a CCA broker include both an execution commission and either credits or transmits the research portion (also known as "soft dollars") to a CCA pool maintained by each CCA broker. Soft dollar credits ("credits") accumulated in CCA pools are used to pay research expenses. In some cases, FIAM or its affiliates request that a broker that is not a party to any particular transaction provide a specific proprietary or third-party product or service, which would be paid with credits from the CCA pool. The administration of brokerage and research products and services is managed separately from the trading desks, and the traders have no responsibility for administering the research program, including the payment for research. FIAM or its affiliates, at times, use a third-party aggregator to facilitate payments to research providers. Where an aggregator is involved, the aggregator would maintain credits in an account that is segregated from the aggregator's proprietary assets and the assets of its other clients ("segregated account") and use those credits to pay research providers as instructed by FIAM or its affiliates. Furthermore, where permissible under applicable law, certain of the brokerage and research products and services that FIAM or its affiliates receive are furnished by brokers on their own initiative, either in connection with a particular transaction or as part of their overall services. Some of these brokerage and research products or services are provided at no additional cost to FIAM or its affiliates or might not have an explicit cost associated with them.

**FIAM's Decision-Making Process.** In connection with the allocation of fund brokerage, FIAM or its affiliates make a good faith determination that the compensation paid to brokers and dealers is reasonable in relation to the value of the brokerage and/or research products and services provided to FIAM or its affiliates, viewed in terms of the particular transaction for the fund or FIAM's or its affiliates' overall responsibilities to that fund or other clients for which FIAM or its affiliates have investment discretion; however, each brokerage and research product or service received in connection with the fund's brokerage does not benefit the fund and certain clients will receive the benefit of the brokerage and research product or service obtained with other clients' commissions. As required under applicable laws or client policy, commissions generated by certain clients may only be used to obtain certain brokerage and research products and services. As a result, certain client accounts will pay more proportionately of certain types of brokerage and research products and services than others, while the overall amount of brokerage and research products and services paid by each client continues to be allocated equitably. Certain non-equity accounts that on rare occasion may receive an equity security through an issuer restructuring or other event and are required or determine to dispose of such equity security, subject to applicable law and client policy, may trade at execution only rates outside of the Commission Usage Program. While FIAM or its affiliates take into account the brokerage and/or research products and services provided by a broker or dealer in determining whether compensation paid is reasonable, neither FIAM, its affiliates, nor the fund incur an obligation to any broker, dealer, or third party to pay for any brokerage and research product or service (or portion thereof) by generating a specific amount of compensation or otherwise. Typically, these brokerage and research products and services assist FIAM or its affiliates in terms of their overall investment responsibilities to the fund or any other client accounts for which FIAM or its affiliates may have investment discretion. Certain client accounts use brokerage commissions to acquire brokerage and research products and services that also benefit other client accounts managed by FIAM or its affiliates, and not every client account uses the brokerage and research products and services that have been acquired through that account's commissions.

**Research Contracts.** FIAM or its affiliates have arrangements with certain third-party research providers and brokers through whom FIAM or its affiliates effect fund trades, whereby FIAM or its affiliates pay with fund commissions or hard dollars for all or a portion of the cost of research products and services purchased from such research providers or brokers. If hard dollar payments are used, FIAM or its affiliates, at times, will cause the fund to pay more for execution than the lowest commission rate available from the broker providing research products and services to FIAM or its affiliates, or that may be available from another broker. FIAM's or its affiliates' potential determination to pay for research products and services separately (*e.g.,* with hard dollars) is wholly voluntary on FIAM's or its affiliates' part and may be extended to additional brokers or discontinued with any broker participating in this arrangement.

**Funds Managed within the European Union.** FIAM and its affiliates have established policies and procedures relating to brokerage commission uses in compliance with the revised Markets in Financial Instruments Directive in the European Union, commonly referred to as "MiFID II", as implemented in the United Kingdom through the Conduct of Business Sourcebook Rules of the UK Financial Conduct Authority (the "FCA"), where applicable.

For accounts that are managed within the United Kingdom, FIAM's affiliate FMR Investment Management (UK) Limited (FMRIM (UK)) uses research payment accounts (RPAs) to cover costs associated with equity and high income external research that is consumed by those accounts in accordance with MiFID II and FCA regulations. With RPAs, clients pay for external research through a separate research charge that is generally assessed and collected alongside the execution commission<sup>1</sup>. For clients that use an RPA, FMRIM (UK) establishes a research budget. The budget is set by first grouping accounts by strategy (e.g., asset allocation, blend, growth, etc.), and then determining what external research is consumed to support the strategies and portfolio management services provided within the European Union or the United Kingdom. In this regard, research budgets are set by research needs and are not otherwise linked to the volume or value of transactions executed on behalf of the account. For clients where portions are managed both within and outside of the United Kingdom, external research is paid using both a CCA and an RPA. Determinations of what is eligible research and how costs are allocated are made in accordance with FIAM's and its affiliates' policies and procedures. Costs for research consumed by accounts that use an RPA are allocated among the accounts within defined strategies pro rata based on the assets under management for each account. While the research charge paid on behalf of any one client that uses an RPA varies over time, the overall research charge determined at the client level on an annual basis will not be exceeded.

FMRIM (UK) is responsible for managing the RPA and may delegate its administration to a third-party administrator for the facilitation of the purchase of external research and payments to research providers. RPA assets are maintained in accounts at a third-party depository institution, held in the name of FMRIM (UK). FMRIM (UK) provides to client accounts, on request, a summary of: (i) the providers paid from the RPA; (ii) the total amount they were paid over a defined period; (iii) the benefits and services received by FMRIM (UK); and (iv) how the total amount spent from the RPA compares to the research budget set for that period, noting any rebate or carryover if residual funds remain in the RPA.

Impacted accounts, like those accounts that participate in CCA pools, at times, will make payments to a broker that include both an execution commission and a research charge, but unlike CCAs (for which research charges may be retained by the CCA broker and credited to the CCA, as described above), the broker will receive separate payments for the execution commission and the research charge and will promptly remit the research charge to the RPA. Assets in the RPA are used to satisfy external research costs consumed by the accounts.

If the costs of paying for external research exceed the amount initially agreed in relation to accounts in a given strategy, FIAM or its affiliates may continue to charge those accounts beyond the initially agreed amount in accordance with MiFID II, continue to acquire external research for the accounts using its own resources, or cease to purchase external research for those accounts until the next annual research budget. If assets for specific accounts remain in the RPA at the end of a period, they may be rolled over to the next period to offset next year's research charges for those accounts or rebated to those accounts.

Accounts managed by FIAM or its affiliates that trade only fixed income securities will not participate in RPAs because fixed income securities trade based on spreads rather than commissions, and thus unbundling the execution commission and research charge is impractical. Therefore, FIAM and its affiliates have established policies and procedures to ensure that external research that is paid for through RPAs is not made available to FMRIM (UK) portfolio managers that manage fixed income accounts in any manner inconsistent with MiFID II and FCA regulations.

<sup>1</sup>The staff of the SEC addressed concerns that reliance on an RPA mechanism to pay for research would be permissible under Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by indicating that they would not recommend enforcement against investment advisers who used an RPA to pay for brokerage and research products and services so long as certain conditions were met. Therefore, references to "research charges" as part of the RPA mechanism to satisfy MiFID II requirements can be considered "commissions" for Section 28(e) purposes.

**Commission Recapture**

From time to time, FIAM or its affiliates engage in brokerage transactions with brokers who are not affiliates of FIAM who have entered into arrangements with FIAM or its affiliates under which the broker will, at times, rebate a portion of the compensation paid by a fund ("commission recapture"). Not all brokers with whom the fund trades have been asked to participate in brokerage commission recapture.

**Affiliated Transactions**

FIAM or its affiliates place trades with certain brokers, including NFS and Luminex, with whom they are under common control or otherwise affiliated, provided FIAM or its affiliates determine that these affiliates' trade execution abilities and costs are comparable to those of non-affiliated, qualified brokerage firms, and that such transactions be executed in accordance with applicable rules under the 1940 Act and procedures adopted by the Board of Trustees of the fund and subject to other applicable law. In addition, from time to time, FIAM or its affiliates place trades with brokers that use NFS or FCC as a clearing agent and/or use Level ATS, an alternative trading system that is deemed to be affiliated with the Adviser, for execution services. Similarly, equity trades may be executed through national securities exchanges in which FIAM or its affiliates have an interest. Any decision to execute a trade through an alternative trading system or exchange in which FIAM or its affiliates have an interest are made in accordance with applicable law, including their obligation to seek best execution. For trades placed on such a system or exchange, FIAM or its affiliates may benefit in the form of increased valuations(s) of its equity interest, or other renumeration, but it is not possible to predict the likelihood of that occurring or quantify the amount of any such benefit in advance.

The Trustees of the fund have approved procedures whereby a fund is permitted to purchase securities that are offered in underwritings in which an affiliate of the adviser or certain other affiliates participate. In addition, for underwritings where such an affiliate participates as a principal underwriter, certain restrictions may apply that could, among other things, limit the amount of securities that the fund could purchase in the underwritings.

**Non-U.S. Securities Transactions**

To facilitate trade settlement and related activities in non-U.S. securities transactions, FIAM or its affiliates effect spot foreign currency transactions with foreign currency dealers or may engage a third party to do so. Due to local law and regulation, logistical or operational challenges, or the process for settling securities transactions in certain markets (e.g., short settlement periods), spot currency transactions are effected on behalf of funds by parties other than FIAM or its affiliates, including funds' custodian banks (working through sub-custodians or agents in the relevant non-U.S. jurisdiction) or broker-dealers that executed the related securities transaction.

**Trade Allocation**

Although the Trustees and officers of the fund are substantially the same as those of certain other Fidelity<sup>®</sup> funds, investment decisions for the fund are made independently from those of other Fidelity<sup>®</sup> funds or investment accounts (including proprietary accounts). The same security is often held in the portfolio of more than one of these funds or investment accounts. Simultaneous transactions are inevitable when several funds and investment accounts are managed by the same investment adviser, or an affiliate thereof, particularly when the same security is suitable for the investment objective of more than one fund or investment account.

When two or more funds or investment accounts are simultaneously engaged in the purchase or sale of the same security or instrument, the prices and amounts are allocated in accordance with procedures believed by FIAM to be appropriate and equitable to each fund or investment account. In some cases this could have a detrimental effect on the price or value of the security or instrument as far as the fund is concerned. In other cases, however, the ability of the fund to participate in volume transactions will produce better executions and prices for the fund.

**<u>AllianceBernstein L.P. (AllianceBernstein).</u>**

Subject to the general oversight of the fund's directors, AllianceBernstein is responsible for the investment decisions and the placing of orders for portfolio transactions for its portion of the fund. AllianceBernstein as sub-adviser determines the broker or dealer to be used in each specific transaction it controls with the objective of negotiating a combination of the most favorable commission (for transactions on which a commission is payable) and the best price obtainable on each transaction (generally defined as "best execution"). AllianceBernstein does not consider sales of shares of the fund's shares or other investment service it manages as a factor in the selection of brokers and dealers to effect portfolio transactions and has adopted a policy and procedures reasonably designed to preclude such consideration.

When consistent with the objective of obtaining best execution, brokerage may be directed by to persons or firms supplying investment information to AllianceBernstein. In these cases, the transaction cost charged by the executing broker may be greater than that which another broker may charge if AllianceBernstein determines in good faith that the amount of such transaction cost is reasonable in relation to the value of the brokerage, research and statistical services provided by the executing broker.

The investment information provided to AllianceBernstein is of the type described in Section 28(e)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is designed to augment our own internal research and investment strategy capabilities. Research services furnished by brokers through which AllianceBernstein effects securities transactions are used by AllianceBernstein in carrying out its investment management responsibilities with respect to all its client accounts.

AllianceBernstein may deal in some instances in securities that are not listed on a national stock exchange but are traded in the over-the-counter market. AllianceBernstein may also purchase listed securities through the third market, i.e., from a dealer that is not a member of the exchange on which a security is listed. Where transactions are executed in the over-the-counter market or third market, AllianceBernstein will seek to deal with the primary market makers; but when necessary in order to obtain the best price and execution, it will utilize the services of others. In all cases, AllianceBernstein will attempt to negotiate best execution.

AllianceBernstein may, from time to time, place orders for the purchase or sale of securities (including listed call options) with Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC, an affiliate of AllianceBernstein (the "Affiliated Broker"). In such instances the placement of orders with such broker would be consistent with the fund's objective of obtaining best execution and would not be dependent upon the fact that the Affiliated Broker is an affiliate. With respect to orders placed with the Affiliated Broker for execution on a national securities exchange, commissions received must conform to Section 17(e)(2)(A) of the 1940 Act and Rule 17e-1 thereunder, which permit an affiliated person of a registered investment company (such as the fund), or any affiliated person of such person, to receive a brokerage commission from such registered investment company provided that such commission is reasonable and fair compared to the commissions received by other brokers in connection with comparable transactions involving similar securities during a comparable period of time.

AllianceBernstein's investment decisions for the fund are made independently from those for other investment companies and other advisory accounts managed by AllianceBernstein. It may happen that the same security is held in the portfolio of the fund and one or more of such other companies or accounts. When two or more accounts managed by the portfolio manager are simultaneously engaged in the purchase or sale of the same security, the transactions are allocated by AllianceBernstein to the respective companies or accounts both as to amount and price, in accordance with a method deemed equitable to each company or account. In some cases this system may adversely affect the price paid or received by the fund or the size of the position obtainable for the fund.

**<u>Aristotle Capital Management, LLC (Aristotle Capital).</u>**

In executing trades for clients, Aristotle Capital will at all times seek to obtain the most favorable terms for each transaction reasonably available under the circumstances. In placing brokerage, Aristotle Capital will consider the full range and quality of services including, among other things, the value of research provided as well as execution capability, commission rate, financial responsibility and responsiveness. Aristotle Capital's goal, when evaluating whether best execution is obtained, is to exercise reasonable, good faith judgment to select counterparties such as broker-dealers who will consistently provide best execution.

Aristotle Capital does not maintain formal soft dollar arrangements consisting of accumulation of credits which would be used to pay for products and services covered under the safe harbor provided by Section 28(e) of the Exchange Act. Aristotle Capital may receive certain benefits from broker-dealers it uses to execute client trades where proprietary research is provided as a result of commissions paid. When receiving services under these circumstances, Aristotle Capital does so consistent with the safe harbor provided by Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Aristotle Capital will not enter into any agreement or understanding with any broker-dealer which would obligate Aristotle Capital to direct a specific amount of brokerage transactions or commissions in return for such services.

Aristotle Capital may pay more than the lowest commission rate available to brokers whose proprietary research, services, execution abilities, or other legitimate and appropriate services are particularly helpful in Aristotle Capital's investment decision making process. As part of this determination, Aristotle Capital recognizes some brokerage firms are better at executing some types of orders than others. Thus, it may be in the best interest of the clients to utilize a broker whose commission rates are not the lowest, but whose executions result in lower overall transaction costs. The overriding consideration in selecting brokers for executing portfolio orders is the maximization of client returns through a combination of controlling transaction and securities costs and seeking the most effective uses of brokers' research and execution capabilities.

**<u>Brandywine Global Investment Management, LLC (Brandywine Global).</u>**

As a sub-advisor to the fund, Brandywine Global seeks to obtain the most favorable total cost or proceeds in the execution of portfolio transactions. Brandywine Global considers a number of factors in determining broker selection including but not limited to: order size, price of the security, execution difficulty of the transaction, liquidity of the security, market and exchange conditions, order flow information, speed of execution desired, value if brokerage and research services provided and commission cost. The commission paid may not always reflect the lowest commission available in the market at a given point of time. Brandywine Global may receive research services from a broker in connection with initiating portfolio transactions for the fund. Such research may be available for the benefit of other accounts managed by Brandywine Global. Brandywine Global utilizes research, research-related products and other brokerage services provided to the firm on a third party research commission basis. Brandywine Global seeks to operate within the safe harbor of Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In accordance with that safe harbor, Brandywine Global may execute client portfolio transactions through broker-dealers who provide research and brokerage services to Brandywine Global if Brandywine Global determines that the commissions paid are reasonable in relation to the research or brokerage services received. Trading strategy is determined on Brandywine Global's trading desk after order review by portfolio manager and trader. The portfolio managers and traders analyze brokerage and execution results through review of trading reports available through proprietary Brandywine Global systems and a third-party transaction review provider.

**<u>ClariVest Asset Management LLC (ClariVest).</u>**

ClariVest's principal objective in selecting broker/dealers and entering Client trades is to obtain best execution for Clients' transactions. As such, ClariVest will follow procedures to ensure that it is seeking to receive the best execution available on Client trades as there may be conflicts of interests that on occasion arise in the trading function. ClariVest's full policy regarding portfolio transactions is contained in its Compliance Manual.

**Best Execution**

It is ClariVest's policy to always seek best execution for Client securities transactions. ClariVest maintains a process for ensuring that (1) it is seeking to execute client transactions under the most favorable terms given the circumstances and (2) ClariVest has made a good faith determination that the commissions paid are reasonable in relation to the value of the services provided. All broker-dealers are unaffiliated with ClariVest. ClariVest considers the full range and quality of the broker-dealer's service in selecting broker-dealers to meet best execution obligations, and may not pay the lowest commission rate available. ClariVest shall evaluate its efforts to seek to obtain best execution on Client trades through:

• initial review of individual broker-dealers,

• contemporaneous reviews of trading by ClariVest's Portfolio Managers, and

• quarterly Best Execution Committee meetings. The Best Execution Committee meetings shall include the Chief Investments Officer, CCO and representatives from the Portfolio Management and Operations teams.

ClariVest does not enter into any formal soft dollar commitments/arrangements, written or verbal, explicit or implied, with any broker-dealers. A soft dollar commitment/arrangement is viewed by ClariVest as a commitment, understanding or agreement to pay increased commissions, or direct trades to a broker-dealer, in exchange for research. ClariVest does, however, execute transactions for clients with broker-dealers that provide ClariVest with research or brokerage products and services, providing lawful and appropriate assistance to the Firm in the performance of its investment decision-making responsibilities. Research and brokerage products and services received from broker-dealers are supplements to ClariVest's own research efforts. ClariVest does not separately compensate broker-dealers with soft dollars for such products and services.

**Allocation of Trades**

ClariVest's allocation procedures seek to allocate investment opportunities among clients in the fairest possible way taking into account all clients' best interests. ClariVest will follow procedures to ensure that allocations do not involve a practice of favoring or discriminating against any client or group of clients. The firm's policy is to allocate all trades (initial as well as position building) on a pro-rata basis across all client accounts, unless outside factors (such as client guidelines) prevent such allocation. ClariVest performs this allocation prior to trading, and securities are subsequently allocated by the end of the trading day.

**Allocation of Brokerage**

Portfolio Managers seek to allocate trades across a variety of broker-dealers in an effort to minimize exposure to any single broker-dealer and to mitigate the potential negative consequences to ClariVest's ability to obtain best execution should there be personnel or other management changes at the broker-dealers. Portfolio Managers may utilize any number of trading venues to execute transactions with a broker-dealer from ClariVest's approved broker-dealer list.

**Order Aggregation**

Orders for the same security entered at the same time on behalf of more than one Client in a strategy will generally be aggregated (i.e., blocked or bunched) when possible, subject to the aggregation being in the best interests of all participating Clients. Orders for the same security entered at the same time across various strategies may be aggregated, subject to the aggregation being in the best interests of all participating Clients. All Clients participating in each aggregated order shall receive the average price and subject to minimum ticket charges, pay a pro-rata portion of commissions. Orders for the same security may be traded at the same time with different broker-dealers (and possibly obtain different execution) for a variety of reasons, including if the security is being traded differently.

D. E. Shaw Investment Management, L.L.C. (DESIM).

The vast majority of trades made on behalf of DESIM's Active Equity strategies are executed electronically. With respect to electronic execution, the D. E. Shaw group's selection of brokers is based on many factors, including price relative to peers and degree of electronic connectivity with the D. E. Shaw group's trading platform. The D. E. Shaw group evaluates connectivity by considering, among other factors, each broker's messaging protocols, trading system support, system speed, and technical support. The D. E. Shaw group reviews the competitiveness of executing brokers, including their relative price and degree of connectivity, on a periodic basis. In addition, the D. E. Shaw group considers commission and commission equivalents, if any, and other transaction costs, as well as the overall quality of the execution services offered, including such factors as execution capability, willingness and ability to commit capital, creditworthiness and financial stability, clearance and settlement capability, ability to maintain confidentiality, and potential or perceived conflicts between prospective brokers, on the one hand, and DESIM's clients and the D. E. Shaw group, on the other hand.

The D. E. Shaw group conducts credit due diligence on clearing brokers. This due diligence process includes an initial review of each counterparty's legal structure and financial condition, and ongoing monitoring of news, financial, and credit data. The D. E. Shaw group does not monitor the credit quality of brokers that it engages solely for purposes of trade execution.

All new executing brokers are subject to an "execution review" conducted jointly by the compliance function within the D. E. Shaw group's Legal & Compliance department, the relevant trading desk, and a senior vice president or managing director who directly supports the applicable strategy. This review typically is carried out within 30 days of initially using a broker. Compliance personnel also work with each trading desk on at least an annual basis to review and evaluate the performance of each approved executing broker in terms of its ability to provide attractive pricing and commissions and the overall cost and quality of its services. Compliance personnel oversee such reviews by consulting with D. E. Shaw group traders and front office staff, and reviewing proprietary reports.

DESIM seeks to obtain the best execution of transactions for its clients under the circumstances (consistent with what it believes to be the best overall interests of the client), but need not solicit competitive bids, and does not have an obligation to seek the lowest available commission cost. The execution pricing offered by a financial institution or counterparty, including commissions and commission equivalents, if any, and other transaction costs, is normally an important factor in this decision, but the D. E. Shaw group's selection of executing brokers and other counterparties is also informed by the overall quality of the execution services offered, including such factors as: execution capability; willingness and ability to commit capital; creditworthiness and financial stability; clearance and settlement capability; ability to maintain confidentiality; and potential or perceived conflicts between clients of DESIM and its affiliated entities. Accordingly, transactions will not always be executed at the best price or the lowest available commission. The appropriateness of brokerage commissions is evaluated by the D. E. Shaw group on an ongoing basis.

DESIM does not enter into soft dollar arrangements with any of its executing brokers. However, subject to DESIM's obligations under the express terms of any applicable agreement and under applicable law, DESIM may engage and/or direct transactions or commissions to certain financial institutions and/or counterparties that may be willing to furnish services for the benefit of DESIM or a related party. It is expected that such services (if any) would include only research and brokerage services that are deemed to fall within the safe harbor provided by Section 28(e) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or any amendment or successor to such provision. Such services may include the provision of information on economic trends or conditions, political developments, industries, groups of securities, individual countries, and individual companies, as well as brokerage services or communication services related to the execution, clearing, and settlement of transactions.

DESIM currently does not execute, and in future does not expect to execute, trades through commission-recapture brokers.

The D. E. Shaw group's Legal & Compliance department has established trade allocation policies that govern how trades are allocated among D. E. Shaw group investment vehicles. With respect to DESIM's Active Equity strategies, trades for multiple accounts (i.e., funds or separately managed accounts) may be aggregated in an automated fashion using an algorithmic process, with positions purchased or sold in a bunched transaction allocated among Active Equity clients using methods determined by DESIM in its sole discretion (which methods may include allocating pro rata by assets under management or by relative order size). DESIM may increase or decrease the transaction amount allocated to each Active Equity client if deemed appropriate, for example to avoid holding odd lots or untenably small positions for particular clients. Alternatively, if DESIM is unable to or does not fully execute a bunched transaction, or if it determines that it would be impractical to allocate a small position among all of the Active Equity accounts initially intended to participate in the transaction, DESIM may allocate such positions in a manner determined in good faith to be an appropriate allocation.

The compliance function within the D. E. Shaw group's Legal & Compliance department monitors the trading of separately managed accounts and funds managed by DESIM in relation to the trading of other D. E. Shaw group investment vehicles for pricing and quality of execution. The D. E. Shaw group's centralized trading desk attempts to act in a manner consistent with the best interests of each client.

**<u>J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. (JPMorgan).</u>**

In connection with portfolio transactions, the overriding objective is to obtain the best execution of purchase and sales orders. In making this determination, JPMorgan considers a number of factors including, but not limited to: the price per unit of the security, the broker's execution capabilities, the commissions charged, the broker's reliability for prompt, accurate confirmations and on-time delivery of securities, the broker-dealer firm's financial condition, the broker's ability to provide access to public offerings, as well as the quality of research services provided. As permitted by Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act, JPMorgan may cause the fund to pay a broker-dealer which provides brokerage and research services to JPMorgan, or the fund and/or other accounts for which JPMorgan exercises investment discretion an amount of commission for effecting a securities transaction for the fund in excess of the amount other broker-dealers would have charged for the transaction if JPMorgan determines in good faith that the greater commission is reasonable in relation to the value of the brokerage and research services provided by the executing broker-dealer viewed in terms of either a particular transaction or JPMorgan's overall responsibilities to accounts over which it exercises investment discretion. Not all such services are useful or of value in advising the fund. JPMorgan reports to the Board of Trustees regarding overall commissions paid by the fund and their reasonableness in relation to the benefits to the fund. In accordance with Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act and consistent with applicable SEC guidance and interpretation, the term "brokerage and research services" includes (i) advice as to the value of securities; (ii) the advisability of investing in, purchasing or selling securities; (iii) the availability of securities or of purchasers or sellers of securities; (iv) furnishing analyses and reports concerning issues, industries, securities, economic factors and trends, portfolio strategy and the performance of accounts; and (v) effecting securities transactions and performing functions incidental thereto (such as clearance, settlement, and custody) or required by rule or regulation in connection with such transactions.

Brokerage and research services received from such broker-dealers will be in addition to, and not in lieu of, the services required to be performed by JPMorgan under the sub-advisory agreement. The fees that the fund pays to JPMorgan are not reduced as a consequence of JPMorgan's receipt of brokerage and research services. To the extent the fund's portfolio transactions are used to obtain such services, the brokerage commissions paid by the fund may exceed those that might otherwise be paid by an amount that cannot be presently determined. Such services generally would be useful and of value to JPMorgan in serving one or more of its other clients and, conversely, such services obtained by the placement of brokerage business of other clients generally would be useful to JPMorgan in carrying out its obligations to the fund. While such services are not expected to reduce the expenses of JPMorgan, JPMorgan would, through use of the services, avoid the additional expenses that would be incurred if it should attempt to develop comparable information through its own staff.

Subject to the overriding objective of obtaining the best execution of orders, JPMorgan may allocate a portion of the fund's brokerage transactions to affiliates of JPMorgan. Under the 1940 Act, persons affiliated with the fund and persons who are affiliated with such persons are prohibited from dealing with the fund as principal in the purchase and sale of securities unless an exemptive order allowing such transactions is obtained from the SEC. An affiliated person of the fund may serve as its broker in listed or over-the-counter transactions conducted on an agency basis provided that, among other things, the fee or commission received by such affiliated broker is reasonable and fair compared to the fee or commission received by non-affiliated brokers in connection with comparable transactions.

In addition, the fund may not purchase securities during the existence of any underwriting syndicate for such securities of which JPMorgan Chase Bank or an affiliate is a member or in a private placement in which JPMorgan Chase Bank or an affiliate serves as placement agent, except pursuant to procedures adopted by the Board of Trustees that either comply with rules adopted by the SEC or with interpretations of the SEC's staff. JPMorgan expects to purchase securities from underwriting syndicates of which certain affiliates of JPMorgan Chase act as a member or manager. Such purchases will be effected in accordance with the conditions set forth in Rule 10f-3 under the 1940 Act and related procedures adopted by the Trustees, including a majority of the Trustees who are not "interested persons" of JPMorgan. Among the conditions are that the issuer of any purchased securities will have been in operation for at least three years, that not more than 25% of the underwriting will be purchased by the fund and all other accounts over which the same investment adviser has discretion, and that no shares will be purchased from JPMorgan Distribution Services or any of its affiliates.

On those occasions when JPMorgan deems the purchase or sale of a security to be in the best interests of the fund as well as other customers, including other funds, JPMorgan, to the extent permitted by applicable laws and regulations, may, but is not obligated to, aggregate the securities to be sold or purchased for the fund with those to be sold or purchased for other customers in order to obtain best execution, including lower brokerage commissions if appropriate. In such event, allocation of the securities so purchased or sold as well as any expenses incurred in the transaction will be made by JPMorgan in the manner it considers to be most equitable and consistent with its fiduciary obligations to its customers, including the fund. In some instances, the allocation procedure might not permit the fund to participate in the benefits of the aggregated trade.

Allocation of transactions, including their frequency, to various broker-dealers is determined by JPMorgan based on its best judgment and in a manner deemed fair and reasonable to shareholders and consistent with JPMorgan's obligation to obtain the best execution of purchase and sales orders. In making this determination, JPMorgan considers the same factors for the best execution of purchase and sales orders listed above. Accordingly, in selecting broker-dealers to execute a particular transaction, and in evaluating the best overall terms available, JPMorgan is authorized to consider the brokerage and research services (as those terms are defined in Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act) provided to the fund and/or other accounts over which JPMorgan exercises investment discretion. JPMorgan may cause the fund to pay a broker-dealer that furnishes brokerage and research services a higher commission than that which might be charged by another broker-dealer for effecting the same transaction, provided that JPMorgan determines in good faith that such commission is reasonable in relation to the value of the brokerage and research services provided by such broker-dealer, viewed in terms of either the particular transaction or the overall responsibilities of JPMorgan to the fund. To the extent such services are permissible under the safe harbor requirements of Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act and consistent with applicable SEC guidance and interpretation, such brokerage and research services might consist of advice as to the value of securities, the advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling securities, the availability of securities or purchasers or sellers of securities; analyses and reports concerning issuers, industries, securities, economic factors and trends, portfolio strategy, and the performance of accounts, market data, stock quotes, last sale prices, and trading volumes. Shareholders of the fund should understand that the services provided by such brokers may be useful to JPMorgan in connection with its services to other clients and not all the services may be used by JPMorgan in connection with the fund.

Under the policy for JPMorgan, "soft dollar" services refer to arrangements that fall within the safe harbor requirements of Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act, as amended, which allow JPMorgan to allocate client brokerage transactions to a broker-dealer in exchange for products or services that are research and brokerage-related and provide lawful and appropriate assistance in the performance of the investment decision-making process. These services include third party research, market data services, and proprietary broker-dealer research. The fund receives proprietary research where broker-dealers typically incorporate the cost of such research into their commission structure. Many brokers do not assign a hard dollar value to the research they provide, but rather bundle the cost of such research into their commission structure. It is noted in this regard that some research that is available only under a bundled commission structure is particularly important to the investment process. However, the fund does not participate in soft dollar arrangements for market data services and third-party research.

Investment decisions for each fund are made independently from those for the other funds or any other investment company or account managed by JPMorgan. Any such other investment company or account may also invest in the same securities as the Trusts. When a purchase or sale of the same security is made at substantially the same time on behalf of a given fund and another fund, investment company or account, the transaction will be averaged as to price, and available investments allocated as to amount, in a manner which JPMorgan of the given fund believes to be equitable to the fund(s) and such other investment company or account. In some instances, this procedure may adversely affect the price paid or received by the fund or the size of the position obtained by the fund.

To the extent permitted by law, JPMorgan may aggregate the securities to be sold or purchased by it for the fund with those to be sold or purchased by it for other funds or for other investment companies or accounts in order to obtain best execution. In making investment recommendations for the Trusts, JPMorgan will not inquire or take into consideration whether an issuer of securities proposed for purchase or sale by the Trusts is a customer of JPMorgan or their parents or subsidiaries or affiliates and in dealing with its commercial customers, JPMorgan and their respective parent, subsidiaries, and affiliates will not inquire or take into consideration whether securities of such customers are held by the Trusts.

**<u>Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. (Loomis Sayles).</u>**

<u>Portfolio Transactions</u>

In placing orders for the purchase and sale of equity securities for the Fund, Loomis Sayles selects only brokers that it believes are financially responsible, will provide efficient and effective services in executing, clearing and settling an order and will charge commission rates that, when combined with the quality of the foregoing services, will produce the best price and execution for the transaction. This does not necessarily mean that the lowest available brokerage commission will be paid. However, the commissions are believed to be competitive with generally prevailing rates. Loomis Sayles uses its best efforts to obtain information as to the general level of commission rates being charged by the brokerage community from time to time and will evaluate the overall reasonableness of brokerage commissions paid on transactions by reference to such data. In making such evaluation, all factors affecting liquidity and execution of the order, as well as the amount of the capital commitment by the broker in connection with the order, are taken into account.

Loomis Sayles may place orders for the Fund which, combined with orders for its other clients, may impact the price of the relevant security. This could cause the Fund to obtain a worse price on the transaction than would otherwise be the case if the orders were placed in smaller amounts or spread out over a longer period of time.

Subject to the overriding objective of obtaining the best possible execution of orders, Loomis Sayles may allocate brokerage transactions to affiliated brokers. Any such transactions will comply with Rule 17e-1 under the 1940 Act. In order for the affiliated broker to effect portfolio transactions for the Fund, the commissions, fees or other remuneration received by the affiliated broker must be reasonable and fair compared to the commissions, fees and other remuneration paid to other brokers in connection with comparable transactions involving similar securities being purchased or sold on a securities exchange during a comparable period. Furthermore, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, has adopted procedures that are reasonably designed to provide that any commissions, fees or other remuneration paid to an affiliated broker are consistent with the foregoing standard.

As discussed in more detail below, Loomis Sayles' receipt of brokerage and research products may sometimes be a factor in Loomis Sayles' selection of a broker or dealer to execute transactions for a Fund, subject to Loomis Sayles' duty to seek best execution of the transactions. Such brokerage and research services may be paid for with Loomis Sayles' own assets or may, in connection with transactions in securities effected for client accounts for which Loomis Sayles' exercises investment discretion, be paid for with client commissions (the latter, sometimes referred to as "soft dollars").

Generally, Loomis Sayles seeks to obtain quality executions at favorable security prices and at competitive commission rates, where applicable, through brokers and dealers who, in Loomis Sayles' opinion, can provide the best overall net results for its clients. Transactions in equity securities are frequently executed through a primary market maker, but may also be executed on an Electronic Communication Network ("ECN"), Alternative Trading System ("ATS"), or other execution systems that in Loomis Sayles' opinion can provide the best overall net results for its clients. Equity securities may also be purchased from underwriters at prices which include underwriting fees.

<u>Commissions and Other Factors in Broker or Dealer Selection</u>

Loomis Sayles uses its best efforts to obtain information as to the general level of commission rates being charged by the brokerage community from time to time and to evaluate the overall reasonableness of brokerage commissions paid on client portfolio transactions by reference to such data. In making this evaluation, all factors affecting liquidity and execution of the order, as well as the amount of the capital commitment by the broker or dealer, are taken into account. Other relevant factors may include, without limitation: (a) the execution capabilities of the brokers and/or dealers, (b) research and other products or services (as described in the section "Soft Dollars" below) provided by such brokers and/or dealers which are expected to enhance Loomis Sayles' general portfolio management capabilities, (c) the size of the transaction, (d) the difficulty of execution, (e) the operations facilities of the brokers and/or dealers involved, (f) the risk in positioning a block of securities, (g) fair dealing and (h) the quality of the overall brokerage and research services provided by the broker-dealer.

<u>Soft Dollars</u>

Brokerage trading activity is an essential factor in accessing Wall Street and third-party firm research, as well as key market data. First and foremost, Loomis Sayles recognizes that it has a fiduciary duty to seek best execution of its clients' transactions. Importantly, Loomis Sayles will only allocate brokerage to firms that charge higher commissions when we believe the cost is reasonable in relation to the research and execution services received. In making the evaluation of the amount paid, all factors affecting liquidity and execution of the order, the amount of capital commitment by the broker-dealer, and the research and research services provided by the broker-dealer are taken into account.

Loomis Sayles' receipt of brokerage and research products or services are factors in Loomis Sayles' selection of a broker-dealer to execute transactions for client accounts where Loomis Sayles believes that the broker-dealer will provide quality execution of the transactions. Such brokerage and research products or services may be paid for with Loomis Sayles' own assets or may, in connection with transactions in equity securities effected for client accounts for which Loomis Sayles exercises investment discretion, be paid for with client commissions (i.e. "soft dollars").

For purposes of this soft dollars discussion, the term "commission" includes commissions paid to brokers in connection with transactions effected on an agency basis. Loomis Sayles does not generate soft dollars on fixed income transactions.

If Loomis Sayles receives a particular product or service that both aids it in carrying out its investment decision-making responsibilities (i.e., a "research use") and provides non-research related uses, Loomis Sayles will make a good faith determination as to the allocation of the cost of such "mixed-use item" between the research and non-research uses, and will only use soft dollars to pay for the portion of the cost relating to its research use. As of the date of this Brochure, there are no mixed-use services being provided to Loomis Sayles.

In connection with Loomis Sayles' use of soft dollars, a client's account may pay a broker-dealer an amount of commission for effecting a transaction for the client's account in excess of the amount of commission it or another broker-dealer would have charged for effecting that transaction if Loomis Sayles determines in good faith that the amount of commission is reasonable in relation to the value of the brokerage and research products or services provided by the broker-dealer, viewed in terms of either the particular transaction or Loomis Sayles' overall responsibilities with respect to the accounts as to which Loomis Sayles exercises investment discretion.

Loomis Sayles may use soft dollars to acquire brokerage or research products and services that have potential application to all client accounts, including the Fund. The soft dollars generated by Loomis Sayles' clients that are used to purchase research services with a Fund's commissions are not necessarily for the exclusive benefit of the particular Fund, but rather for the benefit of the funds/clients in the same product (e.g., Large Cap Growth). The soft dollar commissions of an account in one product are not used for the benefit of a product managed by a different investment team. Furthermore given the fact that soft dollars are generated from the trading in client/fund portfolios, those clients/funds that have cash flows will generally generate more soft dollars than clients/funds that do not have cash flows. However, the clients/funds with cash flows will not generate more soft dollars than the amount budgeted for the client/fund in a given year. Finally, while some clients do not generate soft dollar commissions, such as Wrap/Model Program clients, clients with directed brokerage or zero commission arrangements (which may limit or prevent Loomis Sayles from using such clients' commissions to pay for research and research services), and certain fixed income accounts, they may still benefit from the research provided to Loomis Sayles in connection with other transactions placed for other clients. As a result, certain clients may have more of their commissions directed for research and research services than others.

Loomis Sayles' use of soft dollars to acquire brokerage and research products and services benefits Loomis Sayles by allowing it to obtain such products and services without having to purchase them with its own assets. Loomis Sayles believes that its use of soft dollars also benefits client accounts as described above.

Loomis Sayles' traders are diligent in ensuring that the firm's average cost per share is appropriate, in consideration of the number and types of securities being purchased and sold and the various services rendered by broker-dealers, and well within recognized industry ranges of $.004-$.045 per share. The total average commission rate in 2021 was approximately $.03 per share.

<u>Client Commission Arrangements</u>

Loomis Sayles has entered into several client commission arrangements ("CCAs") (also known as commission sharing arrangements) with some of its key broker-dealer relationships. The execution rates Loomis Sayles has negotiated with such firms vary depending on the type of orders Loomis Sayles executes with the CCAs (i.e. electronic or traditional), but they will generally be between $.004 and $.02 per share. The CCA rate with such firms is consistent across broker-dealers and will generally result in a total cost of no more than $.04 per share.

Pursuant to the CCA agreements Loomis Sayles has with these broker-dealers, each firm will pool the research commissions accumulated during a calendar quarter and then, at the direction of Loomis Sayles, pay various broker-dealers and third party services from this pool for the research and research services such firms have provided to Loomis Sayles. These CCAs are deemed to be soft dollar arrangements, and Loomis Sayles and each CCA intends to comply with the applicable requirements of Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as well as the Commission Guidance Regarding Client Commission Practices under Section 28(e) in the SEC Release No. 34-54165 dated July 18, 2006.

Throughout the quarter, the Loomis Sayles' equity portfolio managers, research analysts and strategists assess a value on the research they have received, which can include without limitation: research and other services, idea generation, models, expert consultants, political and economic analysts, technical analysts, discussions with research analysts and corporate executives, seminars and conferences. Loomis Sayles uses a software system from a third party vendor, CommciseBuy ("Commcise"), that provides integrated commission management and research valuation functionality. Commcise is used to: track the Research that is provided to and consumed by Loomis Sayles' investment professionals, assess the quality and value of said Research, reconcile the soft dollars generated, track consumption relative to budgets, instruct our CCAs on the payments to our Research providers, and provide an audit trail of Loomis Sayles' research consumption.

The CCAs enable Loomis Sayles to strengthen its relationships with its key broker-dealers, and limit the broker-dealers with whom it trades to those with whom it has FIX connectivity, while still maintaining the research relationships with broker-dealers that provide Loomis Sayles with research and research services. In addition, the ability to unbundle the execution and research components of commissions enables Loomis Sayles to provide greater transparency to its clients in their commission reports.

In addition to trading with the CCA broker-dealers discussed above, Loomis Sayles continues to trade with full service broker-dealers and ECNs, ATSs and other electronic systems.

As a result of guidance from the UK Financial Conduct Authority, Loomis Sayles pays broker-dealers a "Corporate Access" arrangement fee in hard dollars in connection with the Corporate Access meetings attended by investment team members who manage equity accounts of clients organized in the United Kingdom.

<u>Aggregation of Orders</u>

When Loomis Sayles believes it is desirable, appropriate and feasible to purchase or sell the same security for a number of client accounts at the same time, Loomis Sayles may (but is not obligated to) aggregate its clients' orders ("Aggregated Orders"), including orders on behalf of affiliated clients and hedge funds, in a way that seeks to obtain more favorable executions, in terms of the price at which the security is purchased or sold, the cost of the execution of the orders, and the efficiency of the processing of the transactions. Subject to certain exceptions, as provided in the Loomis Sayles Trade Aggregation and Allocation Policies and Procedures, all client accounts participating in an Aggregated Order, including affiliated clients and hedge funds, will participate at the average price at which the Aggregated Order was executed and will bear a pro rata portion of the execution cost of the Aggregated Order.

Orders may be (but are not required to be) added to a block over a reasonable period of time during the trading day without first allocating executed shares if the traders believe that the additional orders are based on the same news item, analyst recommendation or other triggering event that prompted the first order.

Although Loomis Sayles believes that the ability to aggregate orders for client accounts will in general benefit its clients as a whole over time, in any particular instance, such aggregation may result in a less favorable price or execution for any particular client than might have been obtained if a particular transaction had been effected on an unaggregated basis.

With respect to client accounts that have provided Loomis Sayles with directions to use specific brokers or dealers to execute some or all of their trades, compliance with such directions may in some instances result in such a directed brokerage account not participating in an Aggregated Order. As a result, the directed brokerage account may receive a less favorable price or execution, or incur higher execution costs, in particular transactions than if the directed brokerage account had participated in an Aggregated Order with other client accounts.

**<u>LSV Asset Management (LSV).</u>**

In selecting brokers for transactions, LSV uses its best judgment to choose the broker most capable of providing the brokerage services necessary to obtain the best available price and most favorable execution, i.e., the price and commission which provides the most favorable total cost and proceeds reasonably obtainable under the circumstances. Brokers may be selected on the basis of such factors as the following: the ability to match up natural order flow; the ability to control anonymity; timing or price limits; the quality of the back office; commission rates; use of automation; and/or the ability to provide information relating to the particular transaction or security. LSV periodically evaluates the quality of these brokerage services as provided by various firms.

LSV does not consider itself obligated to choose the broker offering the lowest available commission rate provided that the rate paid is for execution only. LSV keeps informed of rate structures offered by the brokerage community. In the selection of brokers, LSV does not solicit principal or competitive bids unless there is a clear indication that doing so would be in the best interest of its clients. LSV uses algorithmic trading and crossing networks in order to minimize market impact and to trade more efficiently.

Typically, LSV only trades during a rebalance of an investment strategy or upon the receipt of a cash flow request from a client. Cash flow requests, either additional contributions to a client's account or a redemption request, will be traded prior to any rebalance that is currently taking place in the same investment strategy. In the case of a rebalance, LSV may be in the position of buying and/or selling the same security for a number of its clients at roughly the same time. LSV will aggregate such transactions in the same direction if it believes such aggregation is consistent with its duty to seek best execution for its clients and is consistent with the terms of LSV's investment advisory agreement with each client for which trades are being aggregated.

Because of market fluctuations, the prices obtained on such aggregated transactions within a single day may vary substantially. In order to more equitably allocate the effects of such market fluctuations, for certain transactions, LSV may use an "averaging" procedure. Under this procedure, purchases or sales of a particular security for a client's account will at times be combined with purchases or sales of the same security for other clients on the same day in the same direction. These aggregations typically contain trades for accounts in an investment strategy that is undergoing a rebalance and would be sent to the market at approximately the same time. In such cases, the price shown on the confirmation of the client's purchase or sale will be the average execution price on all of the purchases and sales that are aggregated for this purpose. LSV does not step-out trades from aggregated transactions. Commission costs will be shared pro-rata based on each client's participation in the transactions.

**<u>Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers LLC (NBIA).</u>**

Orders for the purchase or sale of portfolio securities are placed on behalf of the allocated portion of the fund (the "Fund") advised by Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers LLC ("NBIA") pursuant to the terms of the sub-advisory agreement. In effecting securities transactions, NBIA, on behalf of the allocated portion of the Fund, seeks to obtain the best price and execution of orders. While affiliates of NBIA are permitted to act as brokers for the allocated portion of the Fund in the purchase and sale of its portfolio securities (other than certain securities traded on the OTC market) where such brokers are capable of providing best execution ("Affiliated Brokers"), NBIA generally will not use Affiliated Brokers with respect to the allocated portion of the Fund. For transactions for the allocated portion of the Fund which involve securities traded on the OTC market, NBIA purchases and sells OTC securities in principal transactions with dealers who are the principal market makers for such securities.

Purchases and sales of certain debt securities generally are transacted with issuers, underwriters, or dealers that serve as primary market-makers, who act as principals for the securities on a net basis. Brokerage commissions typically are not paid for such purchases and sales. Instead, the price paid for newly issued securities usually includes a concession or discount paid by the issuer to the underwriter, and the prices quoted by market-makers reflect a spread between the bid and the asked prices from which the dealer derives a profit.

The amount of brokerage commissions paid by the allocated portion of the Fund may vary significantly from year to year due to a variety of factors, including the types of investments selected by NBIA, investment strategy changes, changing asset levels, shareholder activity, and/or portfolio turnover.

Commission rates, being a component of price, are considered along with other relevant factors in evaluating best price and execution. In selecting a broker to execute transactions for the allocated portion of the Fund, NBIA generally considers the quality and reliability of brokerage services, including execution capability, speed of execution, overall performance, and financial responsibility, and may consider, among other factors, research and other investment information or services ("research services") provided by those brokers as well as any expense offset arrangements offered by the brokers.

NBIA may use an Affiliated Broker for the allocated portion of the Fund where, in the judgment of NBIA, that firm is able to obtain a price and execution at least as favorable as other qualified brokers.

The use of an Affiliated Broker by NBIA for the allocated portion of the Fund is subject to the requirements of Section 11(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Section 11(a) prohibits members of national securities exchanges from retaining compensation for executing exchange transactions for accounts which they or their affiliates manage, except where they have the authorization of the persons authorized to transact business for the account and comply with certain annual reporting requirements. Before an Affiliated Broker is used, NBIA expressly authorizes the Affiliated Broker to retain such compensation, and the Affiliate Broker would have to agree to comply with the reporting requirements of Section 11(a).

Under the 1940 Act, commissions paid by the Fund to an Affiliated Broker in connection with a purchase or sale of securities on a securities exchange may not exceed the usual and customary broker's commission. Accordingly, with respect to the allocated portion of the Fund the commissions paid to an Affiliated Broker will be at least as favorable to the Fund as those that would be charged by other qualified brokers having comparable execution capability in NBIA's judgment. NBIA, on behalf of the Fund, does not deem it practicable and in the best interests of the Fund to solicit competitive bids for commissions on each transaction effected by an Affiliated Broker. However, when an Affiliated Broker is executing portfolio transactions on behalf of the Fund, consideration regularly will be given to information concerning the prevailing level of commissions charged by other brokers on comparable transactions during comparable periods of time. The 1940 Act generally prohibits an Affiliated Broker from acting as principal in the purchase of portfolio securities from, or the sale of portfolio securities to, the Fund unless an appropriate exemption is available.

To ensure that accounts of all investment clients, including the Fund, are treated fairly in the event that NBIA provides transaction instructions to a broker regarding the same security for more than one investment account at or about the same time, NBIA may combine orders placed on behalf of clients, including advisory accounts in which affiliated persons have an investment interest, for the purpose of negotiating brokerage commissions or obtaining a more favorable price. Where appropriate, securities purchased or sold may be allocated, in terms of amount, to a client according to the proportion that the size of the order placed by that account bears to the aggregate size of orders contemporaneously placed by the other accounts, subject to de minimis exceptions. All participating accounts will pay or receive the same price when orders are combined.

In selecting a broker to execute Fund transactions, NBIA considers the quality and reliability of brokerage services, including execution capability, speed of execution, overall performance, and financial responsibility, and may consider, among other factors, research and other investment information provided by non-affiliated brokers.

A committee comprised of officers of NBIA who are portfolio managers of other registered investment companies managed by NBIA (collectively, "Other NB Funds") and some of NBIA's managed accounts ("Managed Accounts") periodically evaluates throughout the year the nature and quality of the brokerage and research services provided by other brokers. Based on this evaluation, the committee establishes a list and projected rankings of preferred brokers for use in determining the relative amounts of commissions to be allocated to those brokers. Ordinarily, the brokers on the list effect a large portion of the brokerage transactions for the Other NB Funds and the Managed Accounts. However, in any semi-annual period, brokers not on the list may be used, and the relative amounts of brokerage commissions paid to the brokers on the list may vary substantially from the projected rankings. These variations reflect the following factors, among others: (1) brokers not on the list or ranking below other brokers on the list may be selected for particular transactions because they provide better price and/or execution, which is the primary consideration in allocating brokerage; (2) adjustments may be required because of periodic changes in the execution capabilities of or research or other services provided by particular brokers or in the execution or research needs of the Other NB Funds and/or the Managed Accounts; and (3) the aggregate amount of brokerage commissions generated by transactions for the Other NB Funds and the Managed Accounts may change substantially from one semi-annual period to the next.

The commissions paid to a broker may be higher than the amount another firm might charge if NBIA determines in good faith that the amount of those commissions is reasonable in relation to the value of the brokerage and research services provided by the broker. NBIA believes that those research services benefit the Fund by supplementing the information otherwise available to NBIA. While such research may be used for the Fund's benefit, that research may also be used by NBIA in servicing Other NB Funds and in servicing the Managed Accounts. On the other hand, research received by NBIA from brokers effecting portfolio transactions on behalf of the Other NB Funds and from brokers effecting portfolio transactions on behalf of the Managed Accounts may be used for the Fund's benefit. In addition, not all research services obtained by NBIA may be used in connection with the Fund.

In certain instances NBIA may specifically allocate brokerage for research services (including research reports on issuers and industries, as well as economic and financial data) which may otherwise be purchased for cash. While the receipt of such services has not reduced NBIA's normal internal research activities, NBIA's expenses could be materially increased if it were to generate such additional information internally. To the extent such research services are provided by others, NBIA is relieved of expenses it may otherwise incur. In some cases research services are generated by third parties but provided to NBIA by or through broker dealers. Research obtained in this manner may be used in servicing any or all clients of NBIA and may be used in connection with clients other than those clients whose brokerage commissions are used to acquire the research services described herein. With regard to allocation of brokerage to acquire research services described above, NBIA always considers its best execution obligation when deciding which broker to utilize.

Insofar as Fund transactions result from active management of equity securities, and insofar as Fund transactions result from seeking capital appreciation by selling securities whenever sales are deemed advisable without regard to the length of time the securities may have been held, it may be expected that the aggregate brokerage commissions paid by the Fund to brokers (including to Affiliated Brokers) may be greater than if securities were selected solely on a long-term basis.

<u>**<u>PineBridge Investments LLC (PineBridge).</u>**</u>

PineBridge has a fiduciary duty to seek best execution when effecting securities transactions on behalf of its Clients. To fulfill this obligation, PineBridge must not only seek for each transaction, the most favorable commission costs or proceeds under the circumstances, but also the best qualitative execution. Generally, equity securities are bought and sold through brokerage transactions for which commissions are payable. PineBridge does not expect to use one particular broker, and when one or more brokers are believed capable of providing the best combination of price and execution, PineBridge may select a broker based upon brokerage or research services provided to PineBridge. PineBridge may pay a higher commission than otherwise obtainable from other brokers in return for such services only if a good faith determination is made that the commission is reasonable in relation to the services provided. In placing trade orders in connection with PineBridge's various investment strategies and investment transactions, PineBridge will seek to obtain the most favorable terms and quality of execution for each transaction reasonably available. PineBridge may consider the full range and quality of a broker-dealer's services including, among other things, the execution capability, commission rate, financial condition and responsibility, responsiveness, and the value of research provided. It is the responsibility of PineBridge's investment and/or trading teams to seek to ensure that firm approved broker-dealers are selected for the execution of trades by PineBridge and that they are evaluated in a manner consistent with the Policy.

PineBridge has entered into commission sharing arrangements ("CSAs") with several broker-dealers. These CSAs are administered by a third party, Westminster Research Associates LLC ("Westminster") which provides commission management services. PineBridge may execute transactions with broker-dealers which pay for brokerage and research services and instruct such brokers to share with Westminster a portion of the commissions received from its clients, with respect to transactions PineBridge designates as "soft dollar" commission sharing. Westminster, in its role as administrator, will pay for these third-party research and brokerage products. All third party research and brokerage services must be preapproved by PineBridge Compliance.

In some instances, PineBridge may receive products and services that may be used for both research and non-research purposes. In such instances, PineBridge will make a good faith effort to determine the relative proportion of the products and services used for research purposes and the relative proportion used for non-research purposes. The proportion of the products and services attributable to research purposes may be paid through brokerage commissions generated by client transactions if they qualify as eligible products and services under the safe harbor of Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; the proportion attributable to non-research purposes will be paid for by PineBridge from its own resources.

It is the policy of PineBridge to allocate investment opportunities and transactions it identifies as being appropriate and prudent among its clients on a fair and equitable basis over time. PineBridge may place a combined order for two or more accounts it manages, including the Fund, engaged in the purchase or sale of the same security if, in its judgment, joint execution is in the best interest of each participant and will result in best price and execution. Transactions involving commingled orders are allocated in a manner deemed equitable to each account or fund. Although it is recognized that, in some cases, the joint execution of orders could adversely affect the price or volume of the security that a particular account or the Fund may obtain, it is the opinion of PineBridge that the advantages of combined orders outweigh the possible disadvantages of combined orders.

**<u>Principal Global Investors, LLC (Principal).</u>**

Principal pays for some services with soft dollars however it generally limits its participation in these arrangements annually to an amount that, in its judgment, ensures best execution of client transactions. It is Principal's policy at all times to use all soft dollar credits generated by brokerage commissions attributable to client accounts in a manner consistent with the "safe harbor" established by Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act. Principal also incorporates and adheres to various client specified guidelines and direction regarding such arrangements. All research and resource costs are ultimately reflected in net investment results to clients, whether in the form of direct fees to Principal, or in the form of transaction costs. Principal is highly attentive to both, consistent with the aim of delivering competitive, value added, risk adjusted performance on behalf of clients. Services purchased with soft dollars might include research, brokerage, and products which assist in the investment decision making process. The research and services received through soft dollars arrangements is used to improve the portfolio management process for the portfolios.

Principal seeks to execute securities transactions for clients in such a manner that the client's total costs or proceeds in each transaction are the most favorable under the circumstances. Principal operates in an unbundled commission structure meaning Principal no longer ties research and trade execution together. Principal has over 120 brokers on its approved list and over 40 of these are part of its Commission Sharing Agreement (CSA) process. Principal uses Virtu Financial as their commission aggregator. This gives Principal experienced trading staff complete flexibility to seek best execution on each trade.

Principal evaluates brokers' trade executions on the basis of: (1) their ability to trade orders within the current price range and position difficult blocks, (2) the use and availability of capital, (3) commission rates, (4) the discreet handling of orders, (5) the promptness and accuracy of their settlement process and (6) their ability to generate ideas and add value. Principal uses the firms that rate the highest on these criteria.

To assist in weighing each broker's merits, Principal conducts a semi-annual Broker Vote to assess the quality of execution services received by the trade desk. In addition, Principal utilizes Transaction Cost Analysis to assist in broker evaluation.

The following is a non-exhaustive list of the services or qualities desired from brokers:

• ability to execute and settle trades in a prompt, orderly and satisfactory manner

• trading flow in securities, ability to have or find the other side of a trade

• good financial condition

• confidentiality about the order

• availability of information, good lines of communication

• bid-ask spreads, inventory, ability to commit capital

• public offering allocations

• trading costs

• responsiveness to requests and issues, especially during volatile market periods

• access to quantitative trading tools

• appropriate bids-offers on complex OTC securities

The aggregation of commission credits may unintentionally result in some Principal clients paying a lower amount of commissions compared to another client. Research obtained through CSAs may be used to benefit any Principal client, not limited to the client whose account generated the credits. Research is not allocated to the client accounts in direct proportion to the commission credits that the client account may have earned. Principal may also share research across teams such that clients who did not earn commission credits may receive a benefit from such research. Principal determines and pays a fair and reasonable amount for research out of its own assets to offset those clients who do not participate in the CSA program and therefore do not earn commission credits.

T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (T. Rowe Price).

**Investment or Brokerage Discretion**

Decisions with respect to the selection, purchase, and sale of portfolio securities on behalf of an allocated portion of the fund's assets (the sub-fund) are made by T. Rowe Price. T. Rowe Price is responsible for implementing the decisions for the sub-fund, including, where applicable, the negotiation of commissions, the allocation of portfolio brokerage and principal business, and the use of affiliates to assist in routing orders for execution. Each T. Rowe Price and its affiliated advisers entity (the "T. Rowe Price Advisers") may delegate actual trade execution to the trading desks of other T. Rowe Price Advisers and may use these affiliated investment advisers for certain other trading-related services.

**How Broker-Dealers Are Selected**

With respect to equity, fixed income, and derivative transactions, the T. Rowe Price may effect principal transactions on behalf of a fund with a broker-dealer that furnishes brokerage and in certain cases research services, designate a broker-dealer to receive selling concessions, discounts, or other allowances, and otherwise deal with a broker-dealer in the acquisition of securities in underwritings.

In purchasing and selling fixed income securities, T. Rowe Price ordinarily place transactions with the issuer or a broker-dealer acting as principal for the securities on a net basis, with no stated brokerage commission being paid by the client, although the price usually reflects undisclosed compensation to the broker-dealer. Fixed income transactions may also be placed with underwriters at prices that include underwriting fees. Fixed income transactions through broker-dealers reflect the spread between the bid and asked prices.

T. Rowe Price may engage in foreign currency transactions ("FX") to facilitate trading in or settlement of trades in foreign securities. T. Rowe Price may use FX, including forward currency contracts, when seeking to manage exposure to or profit from changes in interest or exchange rates; protect the value of portfolio securities; or to facilitate cash management. T. Rowe Price selects broker-dealers that it believes will provide best execution on behalf of the investment accounts that it manages, frequently via electronic platforms. To minimize transaction costs, certain FX trading activity may be aggregated across accounts, but each account's trade is individually settled with the counterparty.

In purchasing and selling equity securities, T. Rowe Price seeks to obtain best execution at favorable security prices through responsible broker-dealers and, in the case of agency transactions, at competitive commission rates. However, under certain conditions, higher brokerage commissions may be paid to broker-dealers providing brokerage and research services to T. Rowe Price than might be paid to other broker-dealers in accordance with Section 28(e) under the 1934 Act and subsequent guidance from regulators.

In selecting broker-dealers to execute T. Rowe Price's portfolio transactions, consideration is given to such factors as the (i) liquidity of the security; (ii) the size and difficulty of the order; (iii) the speed and likelihood of execution and settlement; (iv) the reliability, integrity and creditworthiness, general execution and operational capabilities of competing broker-dealers and services provided; and (v) expertise in particular markets. It is not the policy of T. Rowe Price to seek the lowest available commission rate where it is believed that a broker-dealer charging a higher commission rate would offer greater reliability, provide better pricing, or more efficient execution. Therefore, T. Rowe Price pays higher commission rates to broker-dealers that are believed to offer greater reliability, better pricing, or more efficient execution.

**Best Execution**

T. Rowe Price's Global Trading Committee ("GTC") oversees the brokerage allocation and trade execution policies for the T. Rowe Price Advisers. The GTC is supported by the equity and fixed income best execution subcommittees in monitoring T. Rowe Price's compliance with the execution policy. The execution policy requires T. Rowe Price to execute trades consistent with the principles of best execution which requires an adviser to take all sufficient steps to obtain the best possible result for the T. Rowe Price Funds and our clients taking into account various factors.

**Research Benefits**

T. Rowe Price believes that original in-house research is the primary driver of value-added active management. Although research created or developed by a broker-dealer or its affiliate and research created or developed by an independent third party is an important component of the T. Rowe Price's investment approach, T. Rowe Price relies primarily upon their own research and subject any outside research to internal analysis before incorporating it into the investment process.

T. Rowe Price may use equity brokerage commissions in connection with securities transactions consistent with Section 28(e) under the 1934 Act ("**Section 28(e)**") and other relevant regulatory guidance to acquire brokerage services from broker-dealers. Section 28(e) permits an investment adviser to cause an account to pay a higher commission to a broker-dealer that provides research services than the commission another broker-dealer would charge, provided the adviser determines in good faith that the commission paid is reasonable in relation to the value of the brokerage services provided. An adviser may make this good faith determination based upon either the particular transaction involved or the overall responsibilities of the adviser with respect to the accounts over which it exercises investment discretion.

T. Rowe Price bears the cost of research services for all client accounts we advise. Client accounts only pay execution commissions in connection with equity securities transaction. For certain proprietary pooled investment vehicles, T. Rowe Price continues to use equity brokerage commissions from client transactions through commission sharing arrangements (consistent with Section 28(e)) to compensate certain U.S. broker-dealers for research services. T. Rowe Price, however, voluntarily reimburses such pooled investment vehicles for any amount collected into the commission sharing arrangements.

T. Rowe Price acquires proprietary research from broker-dealers who also provide trade execution, clearing settlement and/or other services. Research received from broker-dealers or independent third party research providers generally includes information on the economy, industries, groups of securities, individual companies, statistical information, accounting and tax law interpretations, political developments, legal developments affecting portfolio securities, technical market action, pricing and appraisal services, credit analysis, currency and commodity market analysis, risk measurement analysis, performance analysis, and analysis of corporate, environmental, social and governance responsibility issues. Research services are received in the form of written reports, computer generated data, telephone contacts, investment conferences, bespoke services, financial models and personal meetings with security analysts, market specialists, corporate and industry executives, and other persons. Research may also include access to unaffiliated individuals with expertise in various industries, businesses, or other related areas, including use of expert referral networks that provide access to industry consultants, vendors, and suppliers. T. Rowe Price may use a limited number of expert networks.

T. Rowe Price generally pays for data subscriptions, investment technology tools and other specialized services to assist with the investment process directly from its own resources. T. Rowe Price also pays for fixed income research and services directly from its own resources where feasible or required.

**Allocation of Brokerage Business\***

T. Rowe Price has a policy of not pre-committing a specific amount of business to any broker-dealer over any specific time period. It makes brokerage placement determinations, as appropriate, based on the needs of a specific transaction such as market-making, availability of a buyer for or seller of a particular security, or specialized execution skills. T. Rowe Price may choose to allocate brokerage among several broker-dealers able to meet the needs of the transaction. Allocation of brokerage business is monitored on a regularly scheduled basis by appropriate personnel and GTC.

T. Rowe Price may have brokerage relationships with broker-dealers that are, or are an affiliate of, clients that have appointed T. Rowe Price or an affiliate to serve as investment adviser, trustee, or recordkeeper. T. Rowe Price also has other relationships with or may own positions in the publicly traded securities of the broker-dealers with whom we transact with or on behalf of our clients.

**Evaluating the Overall Reasonableness of Brokerage Commissions Paid**

On a continuing basis, T. Rowe Price seeks to determine what levels of commission rates are reasonable in the marketplace for transactions executed on behalf of mutual funds and other institutional clients. In evaluating the reasonableness of commission rates, T. Rowe Price may consider any or all of the following: (a) rates quoted by broker-dealers; (b) the size of a particular transaction, in terms of the number of shares, dollar amount, and number of clients involved; (c) the complexity of a particular transaction in terms of both execution and settlement; (d) the level and type of business conducted with a particular firm over a period of time; (e) the extent to which the broker-dealer has capital at risk in the transaction; (f) historical commission rates; (g) rates paid by other institutional investors based on available public information; and (h) research provided by the broker-dealer.

**Commission Recapture**

Currently, T, Rowe Price does not recapture commissions, underwriting discounts, or selling-group concessions for equity or fixed income securities acquired in underwritten offerings. T. Rowe Price may, however, designate a portion of the underwriting spread to broker-dealers that participate in the offering.

**Block Trading/Aggregated Orders/Order Sequencing\***

Because certain investment vehicles managed by T. Rowe Price and other affiliated investment advisers have similar investment objectives and programs, investment decisions may be made that result in the simultaneous purchase or sale of securities. As a result, the demand for, or supply of, securities may increase or decrease, which could have an adverse effect on prices. Aggregation of orders may be a collaborative process between trading and portfolio management staff. T. Rowe Price's policy is not to favor one client over another in grouping orders for various clients.

The grouping of orders could at times result in more or less favorable prices. In certain cases, where the aggregated order is executed in a series of transactions at various prices on a given day, each participating investment vehicle's proportionate share of grouped orders reflects the average price paid or received. T. Rowe Price may include orders on behalf of T. Rowe Price Funds and other clients and products advised by T. Rowe Price and their affiliates, including the not-for-profit entities T. Rowe Price Foundation, Inc., the T. Rowe Price Program for Charitable Giving, Inc., employee stock for certain Retirement Plan Services relationships and T. Rowe Price and its affiliates' proprietary investments, in its aggregated orders.

T. Rowe Price developed written trade allocation guidelines for its trading desks. Generally, when the amount of securities available in a public or initial offering or the secondary markets is insufficient to satisfy the volume for participating clients, T. Rowe Price will make pro rata allocations based upon the relative sizes of the participating client orders or the relative sizes of the participating client portfolios, depending upon the market involved subject to portfolio manager and trader input. For example, a portfolio manager may choose to receive a non-pro rata allocation to comply with certain client guidelines, manage anticipated cash flows, or achieve the portfolio manager's long-term vision for the portfolio. Each investment vehicle receives the same average share price of the securities for each aggregated order. Because a pro rata allocation may not always accommodate all facts and circumstances, the guidelines provide for adjustments to allocation amounts in certain cases. For example, adjustments may be made: (i) to eliminate de minimis positions or to satisfy minimum denomination requirements; (ii) to give priority to accounts with specialized investment policies and objectives; and (iii) to allocate in light of a participating portfolio's characteristics such as available cash, industry or issuer concentration, duration, and credit exposure. Such allocation processes may result in a partial execution of a proposed purchase or sale order.

T. Rowe Price employs certain guidelines in an effort to ensure equitable distribution of investment opportunities among clients of the firm, which may occasionally serve to limit the participation of certain clients in a particular security, based on factors such as client mandate or a sector or industry specific investment strategy or focus. For example, accounts that maintain a broad investment mandate may have less access than targeted investment mandates to certain securities (e.g., sector specific securities) where T. Rowe Price does not receive a fully filled order (e.g., certain IPO transactions) or where aggregate ownership of such securities is approaching firm limits.

Also, for certain types of investments, most commonly private placement transactions, conditions imposed by the issuer may limit the number of clients allowed to participate or number of shares offered to T. Rowe Price.

T. Rowe Price has developed written trade sequencing and execution guidelines that it believes are reasonably designed to provide the fair and equitable allocation of trades, both long and short, to minimize the impact of trading activity across client accounts. The policies and procedures are intended to mitigate conflicts of interest when: (i) trading both long and short in the same security; and (ii) shorting a security that is held by other accounts managed by T. Rowe Price that are not simultaneously transacting in the security. Notwithstanding the application of T. Rowe Price's policies and procedures, it may not be possible to mitigate all conflicts of interest when transacting both long and short in the same security; therefore, there is a risk that one transaction will be completed ahead of the other transaction, that the pricing may not be consistent between long and short transactions, or that an equity long or short transaction may have an adverse impact on the market price of the security being traded.

**Miscellaneous**

The brokerage allocation policies for T. Rowe Price are generally applied to all of their fully discretionary accounts, which represent a substantial majority of all assets under management. Research services furnished by broker-dealers through which the T. Rowe Price effect securities transactions may be used in servicing all accounts managed by T. Rowe Price. Therefore, research services received from broker-dealers that execute transactions for a particular fund will not necessarily be used by T. Rowe Price in connection with the management of that fund. T. Rowe Price does not allocate business to any broker-dealer on a basis of its sales of the funds' shares. However, this does not mean that broker-dealers that purchase fund shares for their clients will not receive business from the fund.

T. Rowe Price may give advice and take action for clients, including the T. Rowe Price Funds, that differs from advice given or the timing or nature of action taken for other clients. T. Rowe Price is not obligated to initiate transactions for clients in any security that their principals, affiliates, or employees may purchase or sell for their own accounts or for other clients.

Purchase and sale transactions may be effected directly among and between non-ERISA client accounts (including affiliated mutual funds), provided no commission is paid to any broker-dealer, the security traded has readily available market quotations, and the transaction is effected at the independent current market price.

The GTC is responsible for developing brokerage policies, monitoring their implementation, and resolving any questions that arise in connection with these policies for T. Rowe Price.

T. Rowe Price has established a general investment policy that they will ordinarily not make additional purchases of a common stock for their clients if, as a result of such purchases, 10% or more of the outstanding common stock of the issuer would be held by clients in the aggregate. Approval may be given for aggregate ownership up to 20%, and in certain instances, higher amounts. All aggregate ownership decisions are reviewed by the appropriate oversight committee. For purposes of monitoring both of these limits, securities held by clients and clients of affiliated advisers are included.

**Conflicts of Interest**

Portfolio managers at T. Rowe Price and its affiliates may manage multiple accounts. These accounts may include, among others, mutual funds, separate accounts (assets managed on behalf of institutions such as pension funds, colleges and universities, and foundations), offshore funds and common trust funds. Portfolio managers make investment decisions for each portfolio based on the investment objectives, policies, practices, and other relevant investment considerations that the managers believe are applicable to that portfolio. Consequently, portfolio managers may purchase (or sell) securities for one portfolio and not another portfolio. T. Rowe Price and its affiliates have adopted brokerage and trade allocation policies and procedures that they believe are reasonably designed to address any potential conflicts associated with managing multiple accounts. Also, the portfolio managers' compensation is determined in the same manner with respect to all portfolios managed by the portfolio manager.

The T. Rowe Price funds may, from time to time, own shares of Morningstar, Inc. Morningstar is a provider of investment research to individual and institutional investors, and publishes ratings on mutual funds, including the T. Rowe Price Funds. T. Rowe Price manages the Morningstar retirement plan and acts as subadvisor to two mutual funds offered by Morningstar. T. Rowe Price and its affiliates pay Morningstar for a variety of products and services. Morningstar may provide investment consulting and investment management services to clients of T. Rowe Price or its affiliates.

Additional potential conflicts may be inherent in our use of multiple strategies. For example, conflicts will arise in cases where different clients invest in different parts of an issuer's capital structure, including circumstances in which one or more clients may own securities or obligations of an issuer and other clients may own or seek to acquire securities of the same issuer that may be in different parts of the issuer's capital structure. For example, a client may acquire a loan, loan participation or a loan assignment of a particular borrower in which one or more other clients have an equity investment or may invest in senior debt obligations of an issuer for one client and junior debt obligations or equity of the same issuer for another client. While it is appropriate for different clients to hold investments in different parts of the same issuer's capital structure under normal circumstances, the interests of stockholders and debt holders may conflict, for example when an issuer is in a distressed financial condition, involved in a merger or acquisition, or a going-private transaction, among other situations. In these situations, investment personnel are mindful of potentially conflicting interests of our clients with investments in different parts of an issuer's capital structure and take appropriate measures to ensure that the interests of all clients are fairly represented.

\* For a fund where T. Rowe Price International Ltd. (TRPIL) or T. Rowe Singapore Private Ltd. (T. Rowe Singapore) serves as a sub-subadviser the above disclosure also applies to TRPIL and T. Rowe Singapore.

**<u>Wellington Management Company LLP (Wellington Management).</u>**

**Brokerage practices**

Our core business practices regarding trading and brokerage are set forth below. We have also sought to describe conflicts that arise in connection with the execution of trades for client accounts and the measures we use to manage those conflicts.

Global Trading executes all orders for trades directed by our firm's portfolio managers. Our Global Trading professionals have responsibility for selection of brokers, negotiation of commission rates, and overall trade execution.

Trades may be executed through electronic trading strategies, including broker-sponsored algorithms, direct trading between client accounts, or by manually working an order with one or more counterparties. Trading policies are developed and monitored by our cross- functional Trading Policy Review Group.

**A. HOW WE TRADE LIKE ORDERS**

**Aggregation of orders**

Given our diverse investment platform, we frequently have open orders to buy or sell the same security in more than one client account. When orders are substantially similar, Global Trading typically aggregates them and places a block order with one or more brokers.

Our trading professionals use guidelines in deciding whether to aggregate orders. They consider factors such as: the time frame over which different portfolio managers wish to build, reduce or eliminate a position; price limits and other instructions established by a portfolio manager for a specific order for a client account; client cash flows; the liquidity of the securities involved; and other relevant market information. Orders may be added to a block over a reasonable period of time during the trading day without first allocating executed shares if Global Trading believes that the additional orders are based on the same news item, analyst recommendation or other triggering event that prompted the first order, or that the addition of the orders will not have a material impact on the block order.

While we typically aggregate similar orders, we may not do so in a number of circumstances, including where Global Trading determines that:

• The order is contingent on other executions or order terms such as price sensitivity or urgency to complete the trade differ significantly. In those circumstances, the trader handling the orders attempts to contact the portfolio managers involved to determine whether their intentions will be affected by the terms of the other orders. Once those conversations are concluded, the trader may sequence the orders in the process of seeking best execution. Likewise, when Global Trading becomes aware of new information that it believes might affect a portfolio manager's instructions regarding an order prior to its completion, Global Trading will seek to contact all appropriate portfolio managers and proceed in accordance with any revised instructions. A material change to a portfolio manager's instructions may also result in the separation of that order from the aggregated orders.

• Client account constraints, such as operational rules or broker/dealer selection requirements may require orders to be traded separately from the aggregate order.

• Program trades or trades with low execution requirements may be traded separately from other orders without a material impact on other orders.

Client accounts with orders traded separately may receive a different and inferior price from those accounts participating in the aggregate order.

**Allocation of executions**

As an aggregate order is filled, we allocate securities or cash among the participating accounts pro rata, based on the order size specified by the portfolio manager at the time of order entry. Except as described below, each participating client account receives a percentage of the executed portion of the order based upon each client account's percentage of the entire order. In some circumstances, additional allocation restrictions or preferences are dictated by the local market requirements or the issuer. When an aggregate order is filled through multiple executions, we allocate equity securities, where possible, at the average execution price, accounting for any differences in applicable commission rates across client accounts.

Similarly, we allocate fixed income instruments (including new issues) pro rata at each executed market level. In both cases, we generally round the allocation to a given account to the nearest round trading lot.

When an aggregate purchase or sale order is only partially filled, our allocation of securities or sale proceeds among participating client accounts can deviate from a pro rata allocation because the size of the allocation to a given account fails to meet one or more of the following criteria: a minimum lot size imposed by the issuer, a round trading lot size established by the relevant exchange or market convention, client-directed guidelines setting minimum position sizes, or a minimum allocation amount that we impose based on our judgment regarding the position size needed to attain reasonable liquidity and pricing in the market. In these instances, our Global Trading systems allocate the securities or cash using methods designed to achieve fair and equitable allocations for all clients over time. Sometimes the application of these criteria will prevent a client from participating in the allocation for a purchase or sale order entered for the client's account.

While we believe that a pro rata allocation treats clients fairly in most instances, we recognize that a rigid formula will not always lead to a fair and equitable result. Accordingly, Global Trading or any portfolio manager may ask our Chief Compliance Officer (or the Chief Compliance Officer's designee) for an exception to the standard order aggregation and trade allocation processes described above. These exceptions are rare and will be granted only when we believe that all clients will be treated fairly under the proposed allocation.

**Initial public offerings of equity securities**

The allocation of equity IPOs is described in *How we allocate equity IPOs*.

**B. HOW WE HANDLE COMPETING TRADES**

Our diverse investment model often causes us to execute trades for one client that differ from, or conflict with, trades we are executing on behalf of another client. For example, one portfolio manager may be attempting to buy a security for one client account while another portfolio manager is selling the same security for another client. Likewise, one portfolio manager may sell short a security for one client while a different portfolio manager is purchasing the same security in another client account. We seek to obtain best price and most favorable execution on all orders, but one client may receive or appear to receive a more favorable outcome.

**Contra orders**

We execute contra orders (orders on opposite sides of the market) for accounts we manage in a manner designed to provide adequate market exposure to both orders. We generally place contra orders with different broker/dealers, but also use alternative trading systems such as electronic communications networks when Global Trading determines that the alternative trading system offers adequate market exposure for the trade. We do not consider trades executed on alternative trading systems with adequate market exposure to be direct trades.

We purchase securities from a broker to which we have recently sold the same securities when we believe that doing so is consistent with seeking best execution, particularly where that dealer is one of a limited number of brokers who hold or deal in those securities.

We do not consider trades executed in this manner to be direct trades between client accounts.

**C. OUR BROKERAGE PRACTICES**

Our firm's relationships with broker/dealers, particularly those affiliated with large financial services organizations, are complex. We use broker/ dealers to execute trades on behalf of clients, but we also have many other relationships with them. Some examples include:

• We invest client assets in securities issued by broker/dealers or their affiliates;

• We provide investment management services to certain broker/dealers or their affiliates;

• Broker/dealers serve as counterparties to a variety of investment instruments, including derivatives that we manage on behalf of our clients;

• Certain broker/dealers serve as prime brokers to one or more of our Sponsored Funds;

• Certain broker/dealers provide both internally generated and third-party research and analytics to us as part of trade executions that we place on behalf of our clients;

• Family members of some of our personnel, including members of Global Trading, are employed by broker/dealers and third- party research providers; and

• Certain broker/dealers distribute some of our Sponsored Funds.

All of these relationships pose the potential for a conflict in the selection of broker/dealers to execute trades in client accounts. For example, we understand that our firm has an incentive to select broker/dealers that provide research in connection with client trade executions or that confer some other benefit to us or our personnel.

In addition to these structural arrangements, we manage the conflicts in our relationships with broker/dealers through our brokerage policies, as described below.

**Best Execution**

We seek best available price and most favorable execution (Best Execution) of the orders directed by our portfolio managers. We define Best Execution as a process, not a result: it is the process of executing portfolio transactions at prices and, if applicable, commissions that provide the most favorable total cost or proceeds reasonably obtainable under the circumstances (taking into account all relevant factors). Trading practices, regulatory requirements, liquidity, public availability of transaction information and commission structures vary considerably from one market to another. Best Execution incorporates many such factors, as well as the portfolio manager's investment intentions, and involves an evaluation of the trading process and execution results over extended periods. We regularly monitor our trade executions to assess our effectiveness in seeking Best Execution and use third-party analysis where applicable. We can never know with certainty that we have achieved Best Execution on any given trade, but we believe that over time we do achieve Best Execution.

Global Trading may choose to trade a portfolio of multiple securities with a single broker/dealer at a time (Portfolio Trades) to access aggregated liquidity more efficiently. The individual transactions may be executed at better or worse prices than similar transactions in the same securities that day in the interest of achieving Best Execution and maximizing the overall benefit to our clients.

**Broker/dealer selection**

An essential component of seeking Best Execution is broker/dealer qualification. We maintain a broad list of approved broker/dealers through which we can execute trades in client accounts. Each of our traders has discretion to decide which of those broker/dealers to use in executing specific transactions. The trader considers the wide range of brokerage services and capabilities applicable to a particular transaction and attempts to select a broker/dealer that is among those most capable of providing Best Execution. On any given trade, the relevant brokerage services and capabilities can include the ability to execute a difficult or unique trade, the ability to provide anonymity and confidentiality, the breadth of the broker/dealer's counterparty relationships, the likelihood of execution, the likelihood and timeliness of settlement, the broker/dealer's underwriting capabilities, its use of automation, and its willingness to commit capital. The applicability and importance of specific criteria will vary depending on the nature of the transaction, the market in which it occurs, and the number of broker/dealers that are capable of executing the transaction. A trader may or may not solicit bids from multiple broker/dealers based on that trader's judgment of the expected impact of a broad solicitation on the execution of that transaction.

In seeking Best Execution, eligible orders may be executed through electronic strategies where broker/dealer selection is based on predetermined criteria.

While a trader does not consider research services when selecting a broker/dealer, we may execute orders with broker/dealers that provide research services to us when the trader handling the order believes that the broker/dealer can provide Best Execution.

**Counterparty risk**

We recognize that, as a by-product of investing, counterparty exposure is an unavoidable risk for all client accounts. We seek to preserve the ability of clients to take advantage of investment opportunities while prudently mitigating counterparty risk through counterparty selection and monitoring, trading discipline, standardized over-the-counter agreement terms and dedicated operational functions that oversee confirmation of trades, collateral management and pricing. Our traders execute transactions only with approved counterparties.

We periodically review all trading counterparties under a risk-based framework. The extent and timing of these reviews vary based on our assessment of the potential risks associated with the type of trading we conduct with that counterparty. We use both internal and external analysis in conducting these reviews, as appropriate. While we believe that these measures reduce the risk that a counterparty default will have a major impact on client accounts, they cannot guarantee that investment losses associated with a major counterparty default will be averted.

**Commission rates**

When applicable, brokerage commissions play an important role in our evaluation of Best Execution. As with other aspects of Best Execution, we believe that an analysis of commission costs must be multifaceted. The most appropriate commission on a trade is not always the lowest available commission. Many orders require skills and/or services that are not available at the lowest possible commission rate. The trader seeking to execute a specific order has full discretion to pay the commission rate necessary to pursue Best Execution of the order and selects a specific broker/dealer and commission rate based on their assessment of the execution requirements for the particular order.

We negotiate commission rates with broker/dealers in advance of trading based on the various types of trade execution that our client accounts may need. In many cases, we also negotiate commission rates with broker/dealers to include research services that are bundled with execution services. We attempt to negotiate rates that maximize the benefits received by our clients for their commission expenditures. Those benefits can include, but are not limited to, trade execution, the willingness and ability to commit capital and the availability of investment research provided by the broker/dealer. While some client accounts routinely make use of a range of services provided by broker/dealers, an account may make use of a particular service only rarely, if at all. As we cannot always predict when orders for a client account will require a particular service, we believe that access to the full range of services provided by broker/dealers generally benefits all client accounts. In the case of client accounts managed in strategies that we deem wholly systematic; Wellington Management has negotiated reduced commission rates for US algorithmic executions that we deem eligible. The reduced commission rates reflect their limited use of direct research. When orders for these client accounts are aggregated with other like orders for different strategies, the lower rate is not available. Global Trading retains discretion to determine whether the aggregation of orders is appropriate.

**Client commissions and research benefits**

Our investment professionals use research provided by broker/dealers (Research Services) in their decision making process. Research Services include written material and analyses, conversations with analysts at the research firms, meetings with corporate management and access to experts in a variety of fields, such as government officials, doctors, researchers, lawyers and scientists. Some of these Research Services are proprietary services developed by the broker/dealers themselves, and some of these Research Services are sourced from and developed by third-party research firms.

We believe that our clients benefit from our access to Research Services. Research Services can supplement our own internal research, particularly with respect to smaller issuers or niche markets. Research Services can also help investment professionals understand external perspectives on a given issuer, market or topic. However, market practices, regulatory constraints and our own choices regarding the provision of Research Services give rise to a number of conflicts between us and our clients and among our clients.

In most cases, broker/dealers provide Research Services as part of a package of services bundled with client trade execution services. Our clients generally pay trading commissions that cover both the cost of Research Services and the cost of execution services. (The portion of the bundled commission that goes towards payment for Research Services is often referred to as ''soft dollars'' or ''soft commissions.'') This practice creates a conflict between us and our clients. When client accounts pay bundled commission rates that include credits for Research Services, the commission rates are higher than the lowest available rate. While these trading commissions are paid for by our clients' accounts, the Research Services are provided to us. We thus receive a benefit because we do not have to pay for the Research Services ourselves. As a result, we may have an incentive to select broker/dealers based on our interest in receiving Research Services instead of our clients' interest in receiving the most favorable execution.

In some cases, a broker/dealer may execute a portion of an equity trade order using securities or cash from its own inventory in order to complete the transaction. In these instances, client trades executed at higher bundled commission rates will not yield all the Research Service credits anticipated at the time we placed the order, because commissions paid for the portion of the order executed by the broker/dealer as principal are not eligible to pay for Research Services.

Our approach to sharing research among our investment professionals also generates a conflict among our clients. We do not attempt to link soft commissions generated by a client's trading activity to Research Services that are specifically used by the investment professionals making investment decisions for that client's portfolio. Rather, we use the pool of soft commissions generated by all eligible client trading activity to pay for Research Services consumed by any of our investment professionals. While we believe that all of our clients benefit from our robust investment discussion across asset classes and investment approaches, some clients contribute more directly to the cost of obtaining Research Services used to inform that discussion.

The use and importance of Research Services to an individual portfolio manager's day-to-day investment process varies among our diverse investment styles. The breadth of use for a given Research Service also varies based on its content. Some Research Services cover topics of wide interest that benefit a broad group of client accounts, while others cover specialized topics that benefit a narrower segment of accounts. In addition, some client accounts generate more trading commissions than others. For example, mark-ups and mark- downs charged by broker/dealers (in lieu of commissions) for transactions in fixed income securities, currencies and derivatives are typically ineligible for Research Service credits, and some investment approaches trade based only on quantitative inputs or simply trade less frequently than others. As a result of these and other similar factors, some client accounts whose commissions pay for Research Services may not directly benefit from them, and some client accounts may benefit from Research Services without generating commissions that pay for them.

We may use some Research Services both to assist in the investment process and for other business purposes. In these ''mixed use'' circumstances, we will either allocate the cost of the services between client commissions and our own resources based on the proportionate use for each purpose, or we will pay for the entire service ourselves.

The business model bundling trade execution with Research Services prevails in most markets where we do business and manage client assets. However, in January 2018, new rules regarding the use of client commissions to acquire Research Services took effect in the European Union (EU) (these rules were implemented in, and remain in effect in, the United Kingdom). Those rules significantly change the way broker/dealers price and provide their services. Those rules, the conflict between those rules and the regulatory requirements in other major markets and the manner in which we have chosen to respond to those rules combine to generate additional conflicts between us and our clients and among our clients.

After considering the impact of the EU rules on our global clients and our global business, we decided to pay for Research Services related to our European and UK business out of our own resources. The remainder of our business continues to obtain Research Services under the bundled model. Client accounts that we consider to be part of our European and UK business pay execution only rates on their equity trades, and as such these accounts pay lower overall commission rates on equity trades than in accounts not considered part of our European business including when their orders are aggregated with orders for other accounts. We expect global market practices will continue to evolve in response to the changes in the EU over time. We may make further adjustments to our policies and practices as that happens.

**Trades executed using broker capital**

We engage broker/dealers as ''at risk'' counterparties to trades for client accounts (capital trades). Capital trades require broker/dealers to place their own capital at risk with respect to either the particular security or the collection of securities that is the subject of the client order. We use capital trades as part of the ongoing management of client accounts, as well as to facilitate account transitions. However, capital trades are not used proportionately across all client accounts and may not be used at all for some accounts. As with all transactions, we exercise our judgment in determining whether a capital trade is consistent with seeking Best Execution under the circumstances.

Although we may establish a stated commission rate in connection with these transactions, our assessment of Best Execution for these trades focuses on the prices our clients receive (taking into account all relevant factors), rather than the commissions paid. These prices may be influenced by the size of our past and future business with respect to all of our clients' trading activity with a broker/dealer. In any given situation, we may alter the terms of a principal bid trade after they have been agreed upon, if we believe that the terms negotiated have become unfair either to our clients or the broker/dealer due to changed circumstances.

**Affiliated brokers**

We do not own or control a broker/dealer that executes securities trades for client accounts. Clients, including registered mutual funds, that have trading restrictions and/or reporting obligations with respect to principal or agency transactions with particular brokers or dealers are required to notify us in writing of those affiliations and any associated trading restrictions for their accounts.

**D. HOW WE MANAGE OTHER TRADING-RELATED COSTS**

A trader may fulfill a single order through a number of smaller transactions. The number of participating accounts, aggregation of other like orders, execution strategy, market structure, liquidity and the number of execution venues used can result in multiple transactions. The number of transactions per order tends to increase where the liquidity of the security is low or where the firm's overall aggregate order size for a security is large. A client may incur significant trade ticket, custody and related fees due to multiple transactions. The impact of these costs tends to be higher for smaller accounts or for accounts invested in certain markets. We may, in our sole discretion, accept client instructions to impose minimum transaction amounts on that client's account on a ''best efforts'' basis in order to manage the cost of trading the account. Instructions of this type are likely to cause the client's order to be traded after any aggregated orders that do not have similar restrictions. (See *Aggregation of orders*.)

**Commissions Paid**

A fund may pay compensation including both commissions and spreads in connection with the placement of portfolio transactions. The amount of brokerage commissions paid by a fund may change from year to year because of, among other things, changing asset levels, shareholder activity, and/or portfolio turnover.

Effective November 20, 2020, Strategic Advisers<sup>®</sup> Core Fund ("Predecessor Fund") and two other funds were reorganized into the fund ("Reorganization"). The fund has adopted the Financial Statements of the Predecessor Fund. The following table shows the fund's portfolio turnover rate for the fiscal periods ended May 31, 2022 and 2021. Variations in turnover rate may be due to a fluctuating volume of shareholder purchase and redemption orders, market conditions, and/or changes in Strategic Advisers' investment outlook.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Turnover Rates** | **2022** | **2021** |
| Strategic Advisers® Large Cap Fund | 59% | 74% |

---

During the fiscal year ended May 31, 2022, the fund held securities issued by one or more of its regular brokers or dealers or a parent company of its regular brokers or dealers. The following table shows the aggregate value of the securities of the regular broker or dealer or parent company held by the fund as of the fiscal year ended May 31, 2022.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Fund** | **Regular Broker or Dealer** | **Aggregate Value of<br>Securities Held** |
| Strategic Advisers® Large Cap Fund | Morgan Stanley | $122060294 |
|  | JPMorgan Chase & Co. | $297839216 |
|  | Bank of America Corp. | $466913754 |
|  | Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. | $174650990 |
|  | Citigroup, Inc. | $146127997 |

---

Effective November 20, 2020, Strategic Advisers<sup>®</sup> Core Fund ("Predecessor Fund") and two other funds were reorganized into the fund ("Reorganization"). The fund has adopted the Financial Statements of the Predecessor Fund. The following table shows the total amount of brokerage commissions paid by the fund, comprising commissions paid on securities and/or futures transactions, as applicable, for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2022 and the fiscal period ended May 31, 2021. The total amount of brokerage commissions paid is stated as a dollar amount and a percentage of the fund's average net assets.

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Fund** | **Fiscal Year<br>Ended** | **Dollar<br>Amount** | **Percentage of<br>Average<br>Net Assets** |
| **Strategic Advisers® Large Cap Fund** | May 31 |  |  |
|  | 2022 | $8390361 | 0.01% |
|  | 2021 | $8835835 | 0.02% |

---

Effective November 20, 2020, Strategic Advisers<sup>®</sup> Core Fund ("Predecessor Fund") and two other funds were reorganized into the fund ("Reorganization"). The fund has adopted the Financial Statements of the Predecessor Fund. During the fiscal year ended May 31, 2022 and the fiscal period ended May 31, 2021, the following brokerage commissions were paid to affiliated brokers:

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Fiscal Year End May 31** | **Broker** | **Affiliated With** | **Transaction Initiated By** | **Commissions** | **Percentage of Aggregate Brokerage Commissions** | **Percentage of Aggregate Dollar Amount of Brokerage Transactions** |
| 2022 | FCM | FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers | AllianceBernstein | $454 | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| 2022 | Luminex | FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers | AllianceBernstein | $77 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2022 | Luminex | FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers | ClearBridge Investments, LLC<sup>(1)</sup> | $31 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2022 | FCM | FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers | FIAM | $34312 | 0.41% | 0.76% |
| 2022 | Luminex | FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers | FIAM | $7852 | 0.09% | 0.20% |
| 2022 | Luminex | FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers | Invesco Advisers, Inc.<sup>(1)</sup> | $754 | 0.01% | 0.02% |
| 2022 | Luminex | FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers | J.P. Morgan | $9868 | 0.12% | 0.35% |
| 2022 | Luminex | FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers | Principal | $53 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2022 | Luminex | FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers | T. Rowe Price | $6316 | 0.08% | 0.21% |
| 2021 | FCM | FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers | AllianceBernstein | $324 |  |  |
| 2021 | Luminex | FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers | AllianceBernstein | $42 |  |  |
| 2021 | Luminex | FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers | Brandywine Global | $634 |  |  |
| 2021 | Luminex | FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers | ClearBridge Investments, LLC<sup>(1)</sup> | $27 |  |  |
| 2021 | FCM | FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers | FIAM | $49285 |  |  |
| 2021 | Luminex | FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers | FIAM | $7328 |  |  |
| 2021 | Luminex | FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers | Invesco Advisers, Inc.<sup>(1)</sup> | $4559 |  |  |
| 2021 | Luminex | FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers | J.P. Morgan | $2844 |  |  |
| 2021 | Luminex | FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers | T. ROWE PRICE | $8018 |  |  |

---

(1) *No longer serves as a sub-adviser to the Fund.*

The fund commenced operations on November 12, 2020 and, therefore, does not have any affiliated brokerage commissions to report for fiscal year ended May 31, 2020.

Brokerage commissions may vary significantly from year to year due to a variety of factors, including the types of investments selected by the sub-adviser(s), changes in transaction costs, and market conditions.

The following table shows the dollar amount of brokerage commissions paid to firms that may have provided research or brokerage services and the approximate dollar amount of the transactions involved for the fiscal year ended 2022.

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Fund** | **Fiscal Year<br>Ended** | **$ Amount of<br>Commissions<br>Paid to Firms<br>for Providing<br>Research or<br>Brokerage Services** | **$ Amount of<br>Brokerage<br>Transactions<br>Involved** |
| Strategic Advisers® Large Cap Fund | May 31, 2022 | $4262805 | $22728493775 |

---

#### VALUATION
The NAV is the value of a single share. NAV is computed by adding the value of a fund's investments, cash, and other assets, subtracting its liabilities, and dividing the result by the number of shares outstanding.

The Board of Trustees has ultimate responsibility for pricing, but has delegated day-to-day valuation responsibilities to Strategic Advisers. Strategic Advisers has established the Strategic Advisers Fair Value Committee (the Committee) to fulfill these responsibilities. The Committee may rely on information and recommendations provided by affiliates of Strategic Advisers in fulfilling its responsibilities, including the fair valuation of securities.

Shares of underlying funds (other than ETFs) held by a fund are valued at their respective NAVs. If an underlying fund's NAV is unavailable, shares of that underlying fund will be fair valued in good faith by the Committee in accordance with applicable fair value pricing policies.

Generally, other portfolio securities and assets held by a fund, as well as portfolio securities and assets held by an underlying Fidelity<sup>®</sup> non-money market fund, are valued as follows:

Most equity securities (including securities issued by ETFs) are valued at the official closing price or the last reported sale price or, if no sale has occurred, at the last quoted bid price on the primary market or exchange on which they are traded.

Debt securities and other assets for which market quotations are readily available may be valued at market values in the principal market in which they normally are traded, as furnished by recognized dealers in such securities or assets. Or, debt securities and convertible securities may be valued on the basis of information furnished by a pricing service that uses a valuation matrix which incorporates both dealer-supplied valuations and electronic data processing techniques.

Short-term securities with remaining maturities of sixty days or less for which market quotations and information furnished by a pricing service are not readily available may be valued at amortized cost, which approximates current value.

Futures contracts are valued at the settlement or closing price. Options are valued at their market quotations, if available. Swaps are valued daily using quotations received from independent pricing services or recognized dealers.

Prices described above are obtained from pricing services that have been approved by the Board of Trustees. A number of pricing services are available and the funds may use more than one of these services. The funds may also discontinue the use of any pricing service at any time. Strategic Advisers engages in oversight activities with respect to the fund's pricing services, which includes, among other things, testing the prices provided by pricing services prior to calculation of a fund's NAV, conducting periodic due diligence meetings, and periodically reviewing the methodologies and inputs used by these services.

Foreign securities and instruments are valued in their local currency following the methodologies described above. Foreign securities, instruments and currencies are translated to U.S. dollars, based on foreign currency exchange rate quotations supplied by a pricing service as of the close of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), which uses a proprietary model to determine the exchange rate. Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued at an interpolated rate based on days to maturity between the closest preceding and subsequent settlement period reported by the third party pricing service.

The Board of Trustees of the underlying Fidelity<sup>®</sup> funds has ultimate responsibility for pricing portfolio securities and assets held by those funds, but has delegated day-to-day valuation responsibilities to FMR. FMR has established the FMR Fair Value Committee (FMR Committee) to fulfill these responsibilities.

Other portfolio securities and assets for which market quotations, official closing prices, or information furnished by a pricing service are not readily available or, in the opinion of the FMR Committee or the Committee, are deemed unreliable will be fair valued in good faith by the FMR Committee or the Committee in accordance with applicable fair value pricing policies. For example, if, in the opinion of the FMR Committee or the Committee, a security's value has been materially affected by events occurring before a fund's pricing time but after the close of the exchange or market on which the security is principally traded, that security will be fair valued in good faith by the FMR Committee or the Committee in accordance with applicable fair value pricing policies. In fair valuing a security, the FMR Committee and the Committee may consider factors including price movements in futures contracts and ADRs, market and trading trends, the bid/ask quotes of brokers, and off-exchange institutional trading.

Portfolio securities and assets held by an underlying Fidelity<sup>®</sup> money market fund are valued on the basis of amortized cost. This technique involves initially valuing an instrument at its cost as adjusted for amortization of premium or accretion of discount rather than its current market value. The amortized cost value of an instrument may be higher or lower than the price a money market fund would receive if it sold the instrument.

At such intervals as they deem appropriate, the Trustees of an underlying Fidelity<sup>®</sup> money market fund consider the extent to which NAV calculated using market valuations would deviate from the $1.00 per share calculated using amortized cost valuation. If the Trustees believe that a deviation from a money market fund's amortized cost per share may result in material dilution or other unfair results to shareholders, the Trustees have agreed to take such corrective action, if any, as they deem appropriate to eliminate or reduce, to the extent reasonably practicable, the dilution or unfair results. Such corrective action could include selling portfolio instruments prior to maturity to realize capital gains or losses or to shorten average portfolio maturity; withholding dividends; redeeming shares in kind; establishing NAV by using available market quotations; and such other measures as the Trustees may deem appropriate.

In determining the fair value of a private placement security for which market quotations are not available, the Committee generally applies one or more valuation methods including the market approach, income approach and cost approach. The market approach considers factors including the price of recent investments in the same or a similar security or financial metrics of comparable securities. The income approach considers factors including expected future cash flows, security specific risks and corresponding discount rates. The cost approach considers factors including the value of the security's underlying assets and liabilities.

The fund's adviser reports to the Board on the Committee's activities and fair value determinations. The Board monitors the appropriateness of the procedures used in valuing the fund's investments and ratifies the fair value determinations of the Committee.

#### BUYING AND SELLING INFORMATION
Shares of the fund are offered only to certain clients of Strategic Advisers or its affiliates that have granted Strategic Advisers discretionary investment authority. If you are not currently a client in a discretionary investment program offered by Strategic Advisers or its affiliates, please call 1-800-544-3455 for more information.

Investors participating in a discretionary investment program are charged an annual advisory fee based on a percentage of the average market value of assets in their account. The stated fee is then reduced by a credit reflecting the amount of fees, if any, received by Strategic Advisers or its affiliates from mutual funds for investment management or certain other services.

The fund may make redemption payments in whole or in part in readily marketable securities or other property pursuant to procedures approved by the Trustees if Strategic Advisers determines it is in the best interests of the fund. Such securities or other property will be valued for this purpose as they are valued in computing the fund's NAV. Shareholders that receive securities or other property will realize, upon receipt, a gain or loss for tax purposes, and will incur additional costs and be exposed to market risk prior to and upon the sale of such securities or other property.

The fund, in its discretion, may determine to issue its shares in kind in exchange for securities held by the purchaser having a value, determined in accordance with the fund's policies for valuation of portfolio securities, equal to the purchase price of the fund shares issued. The fund will accept for in-kind purchases only securities or other instruments that are appropriate under its investment objective and policies. In addition, the fund generally will not accept securities of any issuer unless they are liquid, have a readily ascertainable market value, and are not subject to restrictions on resale. All dividends, distributions, and subscription or other rights associated with the securities become the property of the fund, along with the securities. Shares purchased in exchange for securities in kind generally cannot be redeemed for fifteen days following the exchange to allow time for the transfer to settle.

#### DISTRIBUTIONS AND TAXES
**<u>Dividends.</u>** A portion of the fund's income may qualify for the dividends-received deduction available to corporate shareholders. A portion of the fund's dividends, when distributed to individual shareholders, may qualify for taxation at long-term capital gains rates (provided certain holding period requirements are met). Distributions by the fund to tax-advantaged retirement plan accounts are not taxable currently (but you may be taxed later, upon withdrawal of your investment from such account).

<u>**Capital Gain Distributions.**</u> Unless your shares of the fund are held in a tax-advantaged retirement plan, the fund's long-term capital gain distributions, including amounts attributable to an underlying fund's long-term capital gain distributions, are federally taxable to shareholders generally as capital gains.

<u>**Returns of Capital.**</u> If the fund's distributions exceed its taxable income and capital gains realized during a taxable year, all or a portion of the distributions made in the same taxable year may be recharacterized as a return of capital to shareholders. A return of capital distribution will generally not be taxable, but will reduce each shareholder's cost basis in the fund and result in a higher reported capital gain or lower reported capital loss when those shares on which the distribution was received are sold in taxable accounts.

**<u>Foreign Tax Credit or Deduction.</u>** Foreign governments may impose withholding taxes on dividends and interest earned by the fund with respect to foreign securities held directly by the fund. Foreign governments may also impose taxes on other payments or gains with respect to foreign securities held directly by the fund. As a general matter, if, at the close of its fiscal year, more than 50% of the fund's total assets is invested in securities of foreign issuers, the fund may elect to pass through eligible foreign taxes paid and thereby allow shareholders to take a deduction or, if they meet certain holding period requirements with respect to fund shares, a credit on their individual tax returns. In addition, if at the close of each quarter of its fiscal year at least 50% of the fund's total assets is represented by interests in other regulated investment companies, the same rules will apply to any foreign tax credits that underlying funds pass through to the fund. Special rules may apply to the credit for individuals who receive dividends qualifying for the long-term capital gains tax rate. Because the fund does not currently anticipate that securities of foreign issuers or underlying regulated investment companies will constitute more than 50% of its total assets at the end of its fiscal year, or fiscal quarter, respectively, shareholders should not expect to be eligible to claim a foreign tax credit or deduction on their federal income tax returns with respect to foreign taxes withheld.

<u>**Tax Status of the Fund.**</u> The fund intends to qualify each year as a "regulated investment company" under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code so that it will not be liable for federal tax on income and capital gains distributed to shareholders. In order to qualify as a regulated investment company, and avoid being subject to federal income or excise taxes at the fund level, the fund intends to distribute substantially all of its net investment income and net realized capital gains within each calendar year as well as on a fiscal year basis (if the fiscal year is other than the calendar year), and intends to comply with other tax rules applicable to regulated investment companies.

**<u>Fund of Funds.</u>** Because the fund is expected to invest in underlying funds in a fund of funds structure, the fund's realized losses on sales of shares of an underlying fund may be indefinitely or permanently deferred as "wash sales." Distributions of short-term capital gains by an underlying fund will be recognized as ordinary income by the upper-tier fund and would not be offset by the upper-tier fund's capital loss carryforwards, if any. Capital loss carryforwards of an underlying fund, if any, would not offset net capital gains of the upper-tier fund or of any other underlying fund.

**<u>Other Tax Information.</u>** The information above is only a summary of some of the tax consequences generally affecting the fund and its shareholders, and no attempt has been made to discuss individual tax consequences. It is up to you or your tax preparer to determine whether the sale of shares of the fund resulted in a capital gain or loss or other tax consequence to you. In addition to federal income taxes, shareholders may be subject to state and local taxes on fund distributions, and shares may be subject to state and local personal property taxes. Investors should consult their tax advisers to determine whether the fund is suitable to their particular tax situation.

#### TRUSTEES AND OFFICERS
The Trustees, Members of the Advisory Board (if any), and officers of the trust and fund, as applicable, are listed below. The Board of Trustees governs the fund and is responsible for protecting the interests of shareholders. The Trustees are experienced executives who meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the fund's activities, review contractual arrangements with companies that provide services to the fund, oversee management of the risks associated with such activities and contractual arrangements, and review the fund's performance. If the interests of the fund and an underlying Fidelity<sup>®</sup> fund were to diverge, a conflict of interest could arise and affect how the Trustees and Members of the Advisory Board fulfill their fiduciary duties to the affected funds. Strategic Advisers has structured the fund to avoid these potential conflicts, although there may be situations where a conflict of interest is unavoidable. In such instances, Strategic Advisers, the Trustees, and Members of the Advisory Board would take reasonable steps to minimize and, if possible, eliminate the conflict. Each of the Trustees oversees 13 funds.

The Trustees hold office without limit in time except that (a) any Trustee may resign; (b) any Trustee may be removed by written instrument, signed by at least two-thirds of the number of Trustees prior to such removal; (c) any Trustee who requests to be retired or who has become incapacitated by illness or injury may be retired by written instrument signed by a majority of the other Trustees; and (d) any Trustee may be removed at any special meeting of shareholders by a two-thirds vote of the outstanding voting securities of the trust. Each Independent Trustee shall retire not later than the last day of the calendar year in which his or her 75th birthday occurs. The Independent Trustees may waive this mandatory retirement age policy with respect to individual Trustees. Officers and Advisory Board Members hold office without limit in time, except that any officer or Advisory Board Member may resign or may be removed by a vote of a majority of the Trustees at any regular meeting or any special meeting of the Trustees. Except as indicated, each individual has held the office shown or other offices in the same company for the past five years.

Each Trustee who is not an interested person (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the trust and the fund is referred to herein as an Independent Trustee.

**Experience, Skills, Attributes, and Qualifications of the Trustees.** The Governance and Nominating Committee has adopted a statement of policy that describes the experience, qualifications, attributes, and skills that are necessary and desirable for potential Independent Trustee candidates (Statement of Policy). The Board believes that each Trustee satisfied at the time he or she was initially elected or appointed a Trustee, and continues to satisfy, the standards contemplated by the Statement of Policy. The Governance and Nominating Committee may also engage professional search firms to help identify potential Independent Trustee candidates with experience, qualifications, attributes, and skills consistent with the Statement of Policy. Additional criteria based on the composition and skills of the current Independent Trustees, as well as experience or skills that may be appropriate in light of future changes to board composition, business conditions, and regulatory or other developments, may be considered by the professional search firms and the Governance and Nominating Committee. In addition, the Board takes into account the Trustees' commitment and participation in Board and committee meetings, as well as their leadership of standing and ad hoc committees throughout their tenure.

In determining that a particular Trustee was and continues to be qualified to serve as a Trustee, the Board has considered a variety of criteria, none of which, in isolation, was controlling. The Board believes that, collectively, the Trustees have balanced and diverse experience, qualifications, attributes, and skills, which allow the Board to operate effectively in governing the fund and protecting the interests of shareholders. Information about the specific experience, skills, attributes, and qualifications of each Trustee, which in each case led to the Board's conclusion that the Trustee should serve (or continue to serve) as a trustee of the fund, is provided below.

**Board Structure and Oversight Function.** Kathleen Murphy is an interested person and currently serves as Chair. The Trustees have determined that an interested Chair is appropriate and benefits shareholders because an interested Chair has a personal and professional stake in the quality and continuity of services provided to the fund. Independent Trustees exercise their informed business judgment to appoint an individual of their choosing to serve as Chair, regardless of whether the Trustee happens to be independent or a member of management. The Independent Trustees have determined that they can act independently and effectively without having an Independent Trustee serve as Chair and that a key structural component for assuring that they are in a position to do so is for the Independent Trustees to constitute a substantial majority for the Board. The Independent Trustees also regularly meet in executive session. Mary C. Farrell serves as the lead Independent Trustee and as such (i) acts as a liaison between the Independent Trustees and management with respect to matters important to the Independent Trustees and (ii) with management prepares agendas for Board meetings.

Fidelity<sup>®</sup> funds are overseen by different Boards of Trustees. The fund's Board oversees asset allocation funds. Other Boards oversee Fidelity's investment-grade bond, money market, and asset allocation funds, and Fidelity's equity and high income funds. The fund may invest in Fidelity<sup>®</sup> funds overseen by such other Boards. The use of separate Boards, each with its own committee structure, allows the Trustees of each group of Fidelity<sup>®</sup> funds to focus on the unique issues of the funds they oversee, including common research, investment, and operational issues.

The Trustees primarily operate as a full Board, but also operate in committees, to facilitate the timely and efficient consideration of all matters of importance to the Trustees, the fund, and fund shareholders and to facilitate compliance with legal and regulatory requirements and oversight of the fund's activities and associated risks. The Board has charged Strategic Advisers and its affiliates with (i) identifying events or circumstances the occurrence of which could have demonstrably adverse effects on the fund's business and/or reputation; (ii) implementing processes and controls to lessen the possibility that such events or circumstances occur or to mitigate the effects of such events or circumstances if they do occur; and (iii) creating and maintaining a system designed to evaluate continuously business and market conditions in order to facilitate the identification and implementation processes described in (i) and (ii) above. Because the day-to-day operations and activities of the fund are carried out by or through Strategic Advisers, its affiliates and other service providers, the fund's exposure to risks is mitigated but not eliminated by the processes overseen by the Trustees. Board oversight of different aspects of the fund's activities is exercised primarily through the full Board, but also through the Audit and Compliance Committee. Appropriate personnel, including but not limited to the fund's Chief Compliance Officer (CCO), FMR's internal auditor, the independent accountants, the fund's Treasurer and portfolio management personnel, make periodic reports to the Board's committees, as appropriate. The responsibilities of each standing committee, including their oversight responsibilities, are described further under "Standing Committees of the Trustees."

#### Interested Trustees\*:
Correspondence intended for a Trustee who is an interested person may be sent to Fidelity Investments, 245 Summer Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02210.

#### Name, Year of Birth; Principal Occupations and Other Relevant Experience+
Charles S. Morrison (1960)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2020

Trustee

Mr. Morrison also serves as Trustee of other funds. Previously, Mr. Morrison served as President (2017-2018) and Director (2014-2018) of Fidelity SelectCo, LLC (investment adviser firm), President of Fidelity Management & Research Company (FMR) (investment adviser firm, 2016-2018), a Director of Fidelity Investments Money Management, Inc. (investment adviser firm, 2014-2018), President, Asset Management (2014-2018), Trustee of the Fidelity Equity and High Income Funds (283 funds as of December 2018) (2014-2018), and was an employee of Fidelity Investments. Mr. Morrison also previously served as Vice President of Fidelity's Fixed Income and Asset Allocation Funds (2012-2014), President, Fixed Income (2011-2014), Vice President of Fidelity's Money Market Funds (2005-2009), President, Money Market Group Leader of FMR (2009), and Senior Vice President, Money Market Group of FMR (2004-2009). Mr. Morrison also served as Vice President of Fidelity's Bond Funds (2002-2005), certain Balanced Funds (2002-2005), and certain Asset Allocation Funds (2002-2007), and as Senior Vice President (2002-2005) of Fidelity's Bond Division.

Kathleen Murphy (1963)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2022

Trustee

Chair of the Board of Trustees

Ms. Murphy also serves as Trustee of other funds. Ms. Murphy serves as a Senior Adviser to the Chief Executive Officer of Fidelity Investments (2022-present), member of the Board of Directors of Snyk Technologies (cybersecurity technology, 2022-present), member of the Advisory Board of FliptRX (pharmacy benefits manager, 2022-present), member of the Board of Directors of Fidelity Investments Life Insurance Company (2009-present)), and member of the Board of Directors of Empire Fidelity Investments Life Insurance Company (2009-present). Previously, Ms. Murphy served as President of Personal Investing at Fidelity Investments (2009-2021), Chief Executive Officer of ING U.S. Wealth Management (2003-2008), and Deputy General Counsel, General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer (1997-2003) of Aetna. Ms. Murphy also serves as Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors of the National Football Foundation (2013-present).

\* Determined to be an "Interested Trustee" by virtue of, among other things, his or her affiliation with the trust or various entities under common control with Strategic Advisers.

+ The information includes the Trustee's principal occupation during the last five years and other information relating to the experience, attributes, and skills relevant to the Trustee's qualifications to serve as a Trustee, which led to the conclusion that the Trustee should serve as a Trustee for the fund.

#### Independent Trustees:
Correspondence intended for an Independent Trustee may be sent to Fidelity Investments, P.O. Box 55235, Boston, Massachusetts 02205-5235.

#### Name, Year of Birth; Principal Occupations and Other Relevant Experience+
Peter C. Aldrich (1944)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2006

Trustee

Mr. Aldrich also serves as Trustee of other funds. Mr. Aldrich is an independent Director of BLPF GP LLC (general partner of a private fund, 2006-present) and BlackRock US Core Property Fund, Inc. (real estate investment trust, 2006-present). Previously, Mr. Aldrich served as a Managing Member of Poseidon, LLC (foreign private investment, 1998-2004), and Chairman and Managing Member of AEGIS, LLC (foreign private investment, 1997-2004). Mr. Aldrich previously was a founder, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of AEW Capital Management, L.P. (then, Aldrich, Eastman and Waltch, L.P.). Mr. Aldrich also served as a Director of LivelyHood, Inc. (private corporation, 2013-2020), a Trustee for the Fidelity Rutland Square Trust (2005-2010), a Director of Zipcar, Inc. (car sharing services, 2001-2009) and as Faculty Chairman of The Research Council on Global Investment of The Conference Board (business and professional education non-profit, 1999-2004). Mr. Aldrich is a Member Emeritus of the Board of Directors of the National Bureau of Economic Research and the Board of Trustees of the Museum of Fine Arts Boston.

Mary C. Farrell (1949)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2013

Trustee

Ms. Farrell also serves as Trustee of other funds. Ms. Farrell is a Director of the W.R. Berkley Corporation (insurance provider) and Director (2006-present) and Chair (2021-present) of the Howard Gilman Foundation (charitable organization). Previously, Ms. Farrell was Managing Director and Chief Investment Strategist at UBS Wealth Management USA and Co-Head of UBS Wealth Management Investment Strategy & Research Group (2003-2005) and President (2009-2021) of the Howard Gilman Foundation (charitable organization). Ms. Farrell also served as Investment Strategist at PaineWebber (1982-2000) and UBS PaineWebber (2000-2002). Ms. Farrell serves as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Yale-New Haven Hospital and Vice Chairman of the Yale New Haven Health System Board and previously served as Trustee on the Board of Overseers of the New York University Stern School of Business.

Karen Kaplan (1960)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2006

Trustee

Ms. Kaplan also serves as Trustee of other funds. Ms. Kaplan is Chair (2014-present) and Chief Executive Officer (2013-present) of Hill Holliday (advertising and specialized marketing). Ms. Kaplan is a Member of the Board of Governors of the Chief Executives' Club of Boston (2010-present), Member of the Executive Committee and past Chair of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce (2006-present), Advisory Board Member of the National Association of Corporate Directors Chapter (2012-present), Member of the Board of Trustees of the Post Office Square Trust (2012-present), Trustee of the Brigham and Women's Hospital (2016-present), Overseer of the Boston Symphony Orchestra (2014-present), Member of the Board of Directors of The Advertising Council, Inc. (2016-present), Member of the Ron Burton Training Village Executive Board of Advisors (2017-present), Member of the Executive Committee of The Ad Council, Inc. (2019-present), and Member of the Board of Directors of The Ad Club of Boston (2020-present). Previously, Ms. Kaplan served as an Advisory Board Member of Fidelity Rutland Square Trust (2006-2010), Director of The Michaels Companies, Inc. (specialty retailer, 2015-2021), a member of the Clinton Global Initiative (2010-2015), Director of DSM (dba Delta Dental and DentaQuest) (2004-2014), Formal Appointee of the 2015 Baker-Polito Economic Development Council, Director of Vera Bradley Inc. (designer of women's accessories, 2012-2015), Member of the Board of Directors of the Massachusetts Conference for Women (2008-2015), Member of the Board of Directors of Jobs for Massachusetts (2012-2015), President of the Massachusetts Women's Forum (2008-2010), Treasurer of the Massachusetts Women's Forum (2002-2006), and Vice Chair of the Board of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (2003-2010).

Christine Marcks (1955)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2020

Trustee

Ms. Marcks also serves as Trustee of other Funds. Prior to her retirement, Ms. Marcks served as Chief Executive Officer and President – Prudential Retirement (2007-2017) and Vice President for Rollover and Retirement Income Strategies (2005-2007), Prudential Financial, Inc. (financial services). Previously, Ms. Marcks served as a Member of the Advisory Board of certain Fidelity<sup>®</sup> funds (2019-2020), was Senior Vice President and Head of Financial Horizons (2002-2004) and Vice President, Strategic Marketing (2000-2002) of Voya Financial (formerly ING U.S.) (financial services), held numerous positions at Aetna Financial Services (financial services, 1987-2000) and served as an International Economist for the United States Department of the Treasury (1980-1987). Ms. Marcks also serves as a member of the Board of Trustees, Audit Committee and Benefits & Operations Committee of the YMCA Retirement Fund (2018-present), a non-profit organization providing retirement plan benefits to YMCA staff members, and as a member of the Board of Trustees of Assumption College (2019-present).

Heidi L. Steiger (1953)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2017

Trustee

Ms. Steiger also serves as Trustee of other funds. Ms. Steiger serves as Managing Partner of Topridge Associates, LLC (consulting, 2005-present) and a member of the Board of Directors (2022-present) of Live Current Media, Inc. Previously, Ms. Steiger served as a member of the Board of Directors (2013-2021) and member of the Membership and Executive Committee (2017-2021) of Business Executives for National Security (nonprofit), a member of the Board of Directors Chair of the Remuneration Committee of Imagine Intelligent Materials Limited (2019-2021) (technology company), a member of the Advisory Board of the joint degree program in Global Luxury Management at North Carolina State University (Raleigh, NC) and Skema (Paris) (2018-2021), a Non-Executive Director of CrowdBureau Corporation (financial technology company and index provider, 2018-2021), a member of the Global Advisory Board and Of Counsel to Signum Global Advisors (international policy and strategy, 2018-2020), Eastern Region President of The Private Client Reserve of U.S. Bancorp (banking and financial services, 2010-2015), Advisory Director of Berkshire Capital Securities, LLC (financial services, 2009-2010), President and Senior Advisor of Lowenhaupt Global Advisors, LLC (financial services, 2005-2007), and President and Contributing Editor of Worth Magazine (2004-2005) and held a variety of positions at Neuberger Berman Group, LLC (financial services, 1986-2004), including Partner and Executive Vice President and Global Head of Private Asset Management at Neuberger Berman (1999-2004). Ms. Steiger also served as a member of the Board of Directors of Nuclear Electric Insurance Ltd (insurer of nuclear utilities, 2006-2017), a member of the Board of Trustees and Audit Committee of the Eaton Vance Funds (2007-2010), a member of the Board of Directors of Aviva USA (formerly AmerUs) (insurance, 2004-2014), and a member of the Board of Trustees and Audit Committee and Chair of the Investment Committee of CIFG (financial guaranty insurance, 2009-2012), and a member of the Board of Directors of Kin Group Plc (formerly, Fitbug Holdings) (health and technology, 2016-2017).

+ The information includes the Trustee's principal occupation during the last five years and other information relating to the experience, attributes, and skills relevant to the Trustee's qualifications to serve as a Trustee, which led to the conclusion that the Trustee should serve as a Trustee for the fund.

#### Advisory Board Members and Officers:
Correspondence intended for a Member of the Advisory Board (if any) may be sent to Fidelity Investments, P.O. Box 55235, Boston, Massachusetts 02205-5235. Correspondence intended for an officer or Howard E. Cox, Jr. may be sent to Fidelity Investments, 245 Summer Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02210. Officers appear below in alphabetical order.

#### Name, Year of Birth; Principal Occupation
Howard E. Cox, Jr. (1944)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2009

Member of the Advisory Board

Mr. Cox also serves as a Member of the Advisory Board of other funds. Mr. Cox is a Partner of Greylock (venture capital, 1971-present) and a Director of Stryker Corporation (medical products and services, 1974-present). Previously, Mr. Cox served as an Advisory Board Member of Fidelity Rutland Square Trust (2006-2010). Mr. Cox also serves as a Member of the Secretary of Defense's Business Board of Directors (2008-present), a Director of Business Executives for National Security (1997-present), a Director of the Brookings Institution (2010-present), a Director of the World Economic Forum's Young Global Leaders Foundation (2009-present), and is a Member of the Harvard Medical School Board of Fellows (2002-present).

Craig S. Brown (1977)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2019

Assistant Treasurer

Mr. Brown also serves as an officer of other funds. Mr. Brown serves as Assistant Treasurer of FIMM, LLC (2021-present) and is an employee of Fidelity Investments (2013-present).

John J. Burke III (1964)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2018

Chief Financial Officer

Mr. Burke also serves as Chief Financial Officer of other funds. Mr. Burke serves as Head of Investment Operations for Fidelity Fund and Investment Operations (2018-present) and is an employee of Fidelity Investments (1998-present). Previously Mr. Burke served as head of Asset Management Investment Operations (2012-2018).

Jonathan Davis (1968)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2010

Assistant Treasurer

Mr. Davis also serves as an officer of other funds. Mr. Davis serves as Assistant Treasurer of FIMM, LLC (2021-present), FMR Capital, Inc. (2017-present), FD Funds GP LLC (2021-present), FD Funds Holding LLC (2021-present), and FD Funds Management LLC (2021-present); and is an employee of Fidelity Investments. Previously, Mr. Davis served as Vice President and Associate General Counsel of FMR LLC (diversified financial services company, 2003-2010).

Laura M. Del Prato (1964)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2018

Assistant Treasurer

Ms. Del Prato also serves as an officer of other funds. Ms. Del Prato serves as Assistant Treasurer of FIMM, LLC (2021-present) and is an employee of Fidelity Investments (2017-present). Previously, Ms. Del Prato served as President and Treasurer of The North Carolina Capital Management Trust: Cash Portfolio and Term Portfolio (2018-2020). Prior to joining Fidelity Investments, Ms. Del Prato served as a Managing Director and Treasurer of the JPMorgan Mutual Funds (2014-2017). Prior to JPMorgan, Ms. Del Prato served as a partner at Cohen Fund Audit Services (accounting firm, 2012-2013) and KPMG LLP (accounting firm, 2004-2012).

James D. Gryglewicz (1972)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2015

Chief Compliance Officer

Mr. Gryglewicz also serves as Chief Compliance Officer of other funds. Mr. Gryglewicz serves as Compliance Officer of Strategic Advisers LLC (investment adviser firm, 2015-present), Senior Vice President of Asset Management Compliance (2009-present), and is an employee of Fidelity Investments (2004-present). Previously, Mr. Gryglewicz served as Compliance Officer of Fidelity SelectCo, LLC (investment adviser firm, 2014-2019), and as Chief Compliance Officer of certain Fidelity<sup>®</sup> funds (2014-2018).

Colm A. Hogan (1973)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2016

Assistant Treasurer

Mr. Hogan also serves as an officer of other funds. Mr. Hogan serves as Assistant Treasurer of FIMM, LLC (2021-present) and FMR Capital, Inc. (2017-present) and is an employee of Fidelity Investments (2005-present). Previously, Mr. Hogan served as Deputy Treasurer of certain Fidelity<sup>®</sup> funds (2016-2020) and Assistant Treasurer of certain Fidelity<sup>®</sup> funds (2016-2018).

Christina H. Lee (1975)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2020

Secretary and Chief Legal Officer

Ms. Lee also serves as Secretary and CLO of other funds. Ms. Lee serves as Vice President, Associate General Counsel (2014-present) and is an employee of Fidelity Investments (2007-present). Previously, Ms. Lee served as Assistant Secretary of certain funds (2018-2019).

Cynthia Lo Bessette (1969)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2020

Assistant Secretary

Ms. Lo Bessette also serves as an officer of other funds. Ms. Lo Bessette serves as CLO, Secretary, and Senior Vice President of Fidelity Management & Research Company LLC (investment adviser firm, 2019-present); CLO of Fidelity Management & Research (Hong Kong) Limited, FMR Investment Management (UK) Limited, and Fidelity Management & Research (Japan) Limited (investment adviser firms, 2019-present); Secretary of FD Funds GP LLC (2021-present), FD Funds Holding LLC (2021-present), and FD Funds Management LLC (2021-present); and Assistant Secretary of FIMM, LLC (2019-present). She is a Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel of FMR LLC (diversified financial services company, 2019-present), and is an employee of Fidelity Investments. Previously, Ms. Lo Bessette served as CLO, Secretary, and Senior Vice President of FMR Co., Inc. (investment adviser firm, 2019); Secretary of Fidelity SelectCo, LLC and Fidelity Investments Money Management, Inc. (investment adviser firms, 2019). Prior to joining Fidelity Investments, Ms. Lo Bessette was Executive Vice President, General Counsel (2016-2019) and Senior Vice President, Deputy General Counsel (2015-2016) of OppenheimerFunds (investment management company) and Deputy Chief Legal Officer (2013-2015) of Jennison Associates LLC (investment adviser firm).

Chris Maher (1972)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2016

Assistant Treasurer

Mr. Maher also serves as an officer of other funds. Mr. Maher serves as Assistant Treasurer of FIMM, LLC (2021-present) and FMR Capital, Inc. (2017-present), and is an employee of Fidelity Investments (2008-present). Previously, Mr. Maher served as Assistant Treasurer of certain funds (2013-2020); Vice President of Asset Management Compliance (2013), Vice President of the Program Management Group of FMR (investment adviser firm, 2010-2013), and Vice President of Valuation Oversight (2008-2010).

Brett Segaloff (1972)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2021

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Officer

Mr. Segaloff also serves as an AML Officer of other funds and other related entities. He is Director, Anti-Money Laundering (2007-present) of FMR LLC (diversified financial services company) and is an employee of Fidelity Investments (1996-present).

Stacie M. Smith (1974)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2020

President and Treasurer

Ms. Smith also serves as an officer of other funds. Ms. Smith serves as Assistant Treasurer of FIMM, LLC (2021-present) and FMR Capital, Inc. (2017-present), is an employee of Fidelity Investments (2009-present), and has served in other fund officer roles. Prior to joining Fidelity Investments, Ms. Smith served as Senior Audit Manager of Ernst & Young LLP (accounting firm, 1996-2009). Previously, Ms. Smith served as Assistant Treasurer (2013-2019) and Deputy Treasurer (2013-2016) of certain Fidelity<sup>®</sup> funds.

Jim Wegmann (1979)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2019

Assistant Treasurer

Mr. Wegmann also serves as an officer of other funds. Mr. Wegmann serves as Assistant Treasurer of FIMM, LLC (2021-present) and is an employee of Fidelity Investments (2011-present). Previously, Mr. Wegmann served as Assistant Treasurer of certain Fidelity® funds (2019-2021).

<u>**Standing Committees of the Trustees.**</u> The Board of Trustees has established two committees to supplement the work of the Board as a whole. The members of each committee are Independent Trustees.

The Audit and Compliance Committee is composed of all of the Independent Trustees, with Ms. Steiger currently serving as Chair. All committee members must be able to read and understand fundamental financial statements, including a company's balance sheet, income statement, and cash flow statement. The committee determines whether at least one member of the committee is an "audit committee financial expert" as defined in rules promulgated by the SEC under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The committee normally meets in conjunction with in person meetings of the Board of Trustees, or more frequently as called by the Chair or a majority of committee members. The committee meets separately periodically with the fund's Treasurer, the fund's Chief Financial Officer, the fund's CCO, personnel responsible for the internal audit function of FMR LLC, and the fund's outside auditors. The committee has direct responsibility for the appointment, compensation, and oversight of the work of the outside auditors employed by the fund for the purpose of preparing or issuing an audit report or related work. The committee assists the Trustees in overseeing and monitoring: (i) the systems of internal accounting and financial controls of the fund and the fund's service providers, (ii) the financial reporting processes of the fund, (iii) the independence, objectivity and qualification of the auditors to the fund, (iv) the annual audits of the fund's financial statements, and (v) the accounting policies and disclosures of the fund. The committee considers and acts upon (i) the provision by any outside auditor of any non-audit services for any fund, and (ii) the provision by any outside auditor of certain non-audit services to fund service providers and their affiliates to the extent that such approval (in the case of this clause (ii)) is required under applicable regulations (auditor independence regulations) of the SEC. It is responsible for approving all audit engagement fees and terms for the fund and for resolving disagreements between the fund and any outside auditor regarding any fund's financial reporting, and has sole authority to hire and fire any auditor. Auditors of the fund report directly to the committee. The committee will obtain assurance of independence and objectivity from the outside auditors, including a formal written statement delineating all relationships between the auditor and the fund and any service providers consistent with Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) Ethics and Independence Rule 3526, Communication with Audit Committees Concerning Independence. The committee will discuss with the outside auditors any such disclosed relationships and their impact on the auditor's independence and objectivity. The committee will receive reports of compliance with provisions of the auditor independence regulations relating to the hiring of employees or former employees of the outside auditors. It oversees and receives reports on the fund's service providers' internal controls and reviews with management, internal audit personnel of FMR LLC, and outside auditors the adequacy and effectiveness of the fund's and service providers' accounting and financial controls, including: (i) any significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting that are reasonably likely to adversely affect the fund's ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data; (ii) any change in the fund's internal control over financial reporting that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the fund's internal control over financial reporting; and (iii) any fraud, whether material or not, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the fund's or service provider's internal controls over financial reporting. The committee will review with counsel any legal matters that may have a material impact on the fund's financial statements and any material reports or inquiries received from regulators or governmental agencies. The committee reviews at least annually a report from the outside auditor describing (i) any material issues raised by the most recent internal quality control review, peer review, or PCAOB examination of the auditing firm and (ii) any material issues raised by any inquiry or investigation by governmental or professional authorities of the auditing firm since the most recent report and in each case any steps taken to deal with such issues. The committee will oversee and receive reports on the fund's financial reporting process from the fund's Treasurer and outside auditors and will receive reports from any outside auditor relating to (i) critical accounting policies and practices used by the fund, (ii) alternative accounting treatments that the auditor has discussed with Strategic Advisers, and (iii) other material written communications between the auditor and Strategic Advisers (as determined by the auditor). The committee will discuss with Strategic Advisers, the fund's Treasurer, outside auditors and, if appropriate, internal audit personnel of FMR LLC, their qualitative judgments about the appropriateness and acceptability of accounting principles and financial disclosure practices used or proposed for adoption by the fund. The committee will review with Strategic Advisers, the fund's Treasurer, outside auditors, and internal audit personnel of FMR LLC (to the extent relevant) the results of audits of the fund's financial statements. The committee will discuss regularly and oversee the review of the fund's major internal controls exposures, the steps that have been taken to monitor and control such exposures, and any risk management programs relating to the fund. The committee also oversees the administration and operation of the compliance policies and procedures of the fund and fund's service providers as required by Rule 38a-1 of the 1940 Act. The committee is responsible for the review and approval of policies and procedures relating to (i) provisions of the Code of Ethics, (ii) anti-money laundering requirements, (iii) compliance with investment restrictions and limitations, (iv) privacy, (v) recordkeeping, and (vi) other compliance policies and procedures which are not otherwise delegated to another committee of the Board of Trustees or reserved to the Board itself. The committee has responsibility for recommending to the Board the designation of a CCO of the fund. The committee serves as the primary point of contact between the CCO and the Board, it oversees the annual performance review and compensation of the CCO and, if required, makes recommendations to the Board with respect to the removal of the appointed CCO. The committee receives reports on significant correspondence with regulators or governmental agencies, employee complaints or published reports which raise concerns regarding compliance matters, and copies of significant non-routine correspondence with the SEC. The committee receives reports from the CCO including the annual report concerning the fund's compliance policies as required by Rule 38a-1 and quarterly reports in respect of any breaches of fiduciary duty or violations of federal securities laws. During the fiscal year ended May 31, 2022, the committee held four meeting(s).

The Governance and Nominating Committee is composed of all of the Independent Trustees, with Ms. Farrell currently serving as Chair. The committee meets as called by the Chair. With respect to fund governance and board administration matters, the committee periodically reviews procedures of the Board of Trustees and its committees (including committee charters) and periodically reviews compensation of Independent Trustees. The committee monitors corporate governance matters and makes recommendations to the Board of Trustees on the frequency and structure of the Board of Trustee meetings and on any other aspect of Board procedures. It reviews the performance of legal counsel employed by the funds and the Independent Trustees. On behalf of the Independent Trustees, the committee will make such findings and determinations as to the independence of counsel for the Independent Trustees as may be necessary or appropriate under applicable regulations or otherwise. The committee is also responsible for Board administrative matters applicable to Independent Trustees, such as expense reimbursement policies and compensation for attendance at meetings, conferences and other events. The committee monitors compliance with, acts as the administrator of, and makes determinations in respect of, the provisions of the Statement of Policy Relating to Personal Investing by the Independent Trustees and Independent Advisory Board Members. The committee monitors the functioning of each Board committee and makes recommendations for any changes, including the creation or elimination of standing or ad hoc Board committees. The committee monitors regulatory and other developments to determine whether to recommend modifications to the committee's responsibilities or other Trustee policies and procedures in light of rule changes, reports concerning "best practices" in corporate governance and other developments in mutual fund governance. The committee recommends that the Board establish such special or ad hoc Board committees as may be desirable or necessary from time to time in order to address ethical, legal, or other matters that may arise. The committee also oversees the annual self-evaluation of the Board of Trustees and establishes procedures to allow it to exercise this oversight function. In conducting this oversight, the committee shall address all matters that it considers relevant to the performance of the Board of Trustees and shall report the results of its evaluation to the Board of Trustees, including any recommended amendments to the principles of governance, and any recommended changes to the fund's or the Board of Trustees' policies, procedures, and structures. The committee reviews periodically the size and composition of the Board of Trustees as a whole and recommends, if necessary, measures to be taken so that the Board of Trustees reflects the appropriate balance of knowledge, experience, skills, expertise, and diversity required for the Board as a whole and contains at least the minimum number of Independent Trustees required by law. The committee makes nominations for the election or appointment of Independent Trustees and for membership on committees. The committee shall have authority to retain and terminate any third-party advisers, including authority to approve fees and other retention terms. Such advisers may include search firms to identify Independent Trustee candidates and board compensation consultants. The committee may conduct or authorize investigations into or studies of matters within the committee's scope of responsibilities, and may retain, at the fund's expense, such independent counsel or other advisers as it deems necessary. The committee will consider nominees to the Board of Trustees recommended by shareholders based upon the criteria applied to candidates presented to the committee by a search firm or other source. Recommendations, along with appropriate background material concerning the candidate that demonstrates his or her ability to serve as an Independent Trustee of the fund, should be submitted to the Chair of the committee at the address maintained for communications with Independent Trustees. If the committee retains a search firm, the Chair will generally forward all such submissions to the search firm for evaluation. During the fiscal year ended May 31, 2022, the committee held four meeting(s).

The following table sets forth information describing the dollar range of equity securities beneficially owned by each Trustee in the fund and in all funds in the aggregate within the same fund family overseen by the Trustee for the calendar year ended December 31, 2021. (The information is as of May 31, 2022 for Ms. Murphy, Trustee as of June 2, 2022.)

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Interested Trustees** | **Interested Trustees** | **Interested Trustees** |
| DOLLAR RANGE OF<br>FUND SHARES | Charles S.Morrison | KathleenMurphy |
| Strategic Advisers® Large Cap Fund |  |  |
| **AGGREGATE DOLLAR RANGE OF<br>FUND SHARES IN ALL FUNDS<br>OVERSEEN WITHIN FUND FAMILY** | over $100,000 | over $100,000 |

---

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Independent Trustees** | **Independent Trustees** | **Independent Trustees** | **Independent Trustees** | **Independent Trustees** |
| DOLLAR RANGE OF<br>FUND SHARES | Peter C.Aldrich | Mary C.Farrell | KarenKaplan | ChristineMarcks |
| Strategic Advisers® Large Cap Fund |  |  |  |  |
| **AGGREGATE DOLLAR RANGE OF<br>FUND SHARES IN ALL FUNDS<br>OVERSEEN WITHIN FUND FAMILY** | over $100,000 |  | over $100,000 |  |
| DOLLAR RANGE OF<br>FUND SHARES | Heidi L.Steiger |  |  |  |
| Strategic Advisers® Large Cap Fund | $50001-$100000 |  |  |  |
| **AGGREGATE DOLLAR RANGE OF<br>FUND SHARES IN ALL FUNDS<br>OVERSEEN WITHIN FUND FAMILY** | over $100,000 |  |  |  |

---

The following table sets forth information describing the compensation of each Trustee and Member of the Advisory Board (if any) for his or her services for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2022, or calendar year ended December 31, 2021, as applicable.

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Compensation Table<sup>(1)</sup>** | **Compensation Table<sup>(1)</sup>** | **Compensation Table<sup>(1)</sup>** | **Compensation Table<sup>(1)</sup>** | **Compensation Table<sup>(1)</sup>** |
| AGGREGATE<br>COMPENSATION<br>FROM A FUND | Peter C.Aldrich | Mary C.Farrell | KarenKaplan | ChristineMarcks |
| Strategic Advisers® Large Cap Fund | $55594 | $64402 | $55079 | $55594 |
| **TOTAL COMPENSATION<br>FROM THE FUND COMPLEX**<sup>(2)</sup> | $275000 | $320000 | $272500 | $275000 |
| AGGREGATE<br>COMPENSATION<br>FROM A FUND | Heidi L.Steiger |  |  |  |
| Strategic Advisers® Large Cap Fund | $64402 |  |  |  |
| **TOTAL COMPENSATION<br>FROM THE FUND COMPLEX**<sup>(2)</sup> | $320000 |  |  |  |

---

(1) *Charles S. Morrison, Kathleen Murphy, and Howard E. Cox, Jr. are interested persons and are compensated by Strategic Advisers or an affiliate (including FMR).*

(2) *Reflects compensation received for the calendar year ended December 31, 2021, for 13 funds of one trust. Compensation figures include cash and may include amounts elected to be deferred.*

As of May 31, 2022, the Trustees, Members of the Advisory Board (if any), and officers of the fund owned, in the aggregate, less than 1% of each class's total outstanding shares, with respect to the fund.

#### CONTROL OF INVESTMENT ADVISERS
FMR LLC, as successor by merger to FMR Corp., is the ultimate parent company of Strategic Advisers, FIAM, FMR Investment Management (UK) Limited (FMR UK), Fidelity Management & Research (Hong Kong) Limited (FMR H.K.), and Fidelity Management & Research (Japan) Limited (FMR Japan). The voting common shares of FMR LLC are divided into two series. Series B is held predominantly by members of the Johnson family, including Abigail P. Johnson, directly or through trusts, and is entitled to 49% of the vote on any matter acted upon by the voting common shares. Series A is held predominantly by non-Johnson family member employees of FMR LLC and its affiliates and is entitled to 51% of the vote on any such matter. The Johnson family group and all other Series B shareholders have entered into a shareholders' voting agreement under which all Series B shares will be voted in accordance with the majority vote of Series B shares. Under the 1940 Act, control of a company is presumed where one individual or group of individuals owns more than 25% of the voting securities of that company. Therefore, through their ownership of voting common shares and the execution of the shareholders' voting agreement, members of the Johnson family may be deemed, under the 1940 Act, to form a controlling group with respect to FMR LLC.

At present, the primary business activities of FMR LLC and its subsidiaries are: (i) the provision of investment advisory, management, shareholder, investment information and assistance and certain fiduciary services for individual and institutional investors; (ii) the provision of securities brokerage services; (iii) the management and development of real estate; and (iv) the investment in and operation of a number of emerging businesses.

As of March 31, 2022, Equitable Holdings, Inc. ("EQH") owns approximately 4.0% of the issued and outstanding units representing assignments of beneficial ownership of limited partnership interests in AllianceBernstein Holding L.P. ("AB Holding Units"). AllianceBernstein Corporation (an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of EQH, "General Partner") is the general partner of both AllianceBernstein Holding L.P. ("AB Holding") and AB. AllianceBernstein Corporation owns 100,000 general partnership units in AB Holding and a 1% general partnership interest in AllianceBernstein.

As of March 31, 2022, the ownership structure of AllianceBernstein, including limited partnership units outstanding as well as the general partner's 1% interest, is as follows: EQH and its subsidiaries, 63.0%; AB Holding, 36.3%; Unaffiliated holders, 0.7%.

Including both the general partnership and limited partnership interests in AB Holding and AllianceBernstein, EQH and its subsidiaries had an approximate 64.5% economic interest in AllianceBernstein as of March 31, 2022.

Aristotle Capital, a registered investment adviser, has its principal office at 11100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, California 90025. Aristotle Capital is a limited liability company wholly owned by employees and management. Howard Gleicher, Aristotle Capital's CEO and Chief Investment Officer and Richard S. Hollander, Aristotle Capital's Chairman, each have 50% of the voting interest in Aristotle Capital. RCB Acquisition Company is a holding company that holds Mr. Hollander's ownership interest in Aristotle Capital Management.

Brandywine Global, a registered investment adviser, has its principal office at 1735 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Brandywine Global operates as an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Franklin Resources, Inc (Franklin Templeton).

ClariVest is a registered investment adviser and has its principal office at 3611 Valley Centre Drive, Suite 100, San Diego, California 92130. Eagle Asset Management, Inc., a subsidiary of Raymond James Financial, owns 100% of ClariVest.

DESIM is a registered investment adviser. DESIM's main office is located at 1166 Avenue of the Americas, Ninth Floor, New York, New York 10036. DESIM is a wholly owned subsidiary of D. E. Shaw & Co., L.P. ("DESCO LP"). D. E. Shaw & Co., Inc. ("DESCO Inc.") is the general partner of DESCO LP. Dr. David E. Shaw is the president and sole shareholder of DESCO Inc.

FIAM is a registered investment adviser. FMR LLC is the ultimate parent company of FIAM. Information regarding the ownership of FMR LLC is disclosed above.

Geode, a registered investment adviser, is a subsidiary of Geode Capital Holdings LLC. Geode was founded in January 2001 to develop and manage quantitative investment strategies and to provide advisory and sub-advisory services.

JPMorgan is a wholly-owned subsidiary of JP Morgan Asset Management Holdings Inc., which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPMorgan Chase), a bank holding company. JPMorgan is located at 383 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10179.

Loomis Sayles, a Delaware limited partnership with its principal business address at One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111, is registered as an investment adviser pursuant to the Advisers Act. Loomis Sayles' sole general partner, Loomis, Sayles & Company, Inc. is directly owned by Natixis Investment Managers, LLC ("Natixis LLC"). Natixis LLC is an indirect subsidiary of Natixis Investment Managers, an international asset management group based in Paris, France, that is in turn owned by Natixis, a French investment banking and financial services firm. Natixis is wholly-owned by BPCE, France's second largest banking group. BPCE is owned by banks comprising two autonomous and complementary retail banking networks consisting of the Caisse d'Epargne regional savings banks and the Banque Populaire regional cooperative banks. The registered address of BPCE is 50, avenue Pierre Mendès France, 75013 Paris, France.

LSV, a registered investment adviser, has its principal office at 155 North Wacker Drive, Suite 4600, Chicago, IL 60606. LSV is a Delaware general partnership between its management team and current and retired employee partners (61%) and SEI Funds, Inc. (39%), a wholly-owned subsidiary of SEI Investments Company.

Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers LLC ("NBIA"), with its principal offices at 1290 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10104, is a registered investment adviser and an indirect subsidiary of Neuberger Berman Group LLC ("NBG"). NBG is a holding company that through its subsidiaries provides a broad range of global asset management services. NBG's voting equity is owned by NBSH Acquisition LLC ("NBSH"). NBSH is owned by current and former employees, directors and consultants and, in certain instances, their permitted transferees.

PineBridge is an SEC-registered investment adviser with its principal office located at Park Avenue Tower, 65 E. 55th St, 6th Floor, New York, New York 10022. Registered as an investment adviser since May 1983, PineBridge was formerly known as AIG Global Investment Corporation. PineBridge is currently an indirect subsidiary of PineBridge Investments, L.P., a company owned by Pacific Century Group ("PCG"), an Asia-based private investment group. PCG is majority owned by Richard Li Tzar Kai. As of May 31, 2022, PineBridge and its affiliates had approximately $142.96 billion in assets under management.

Principal, a registered investment adviser, has its principal office at 801 Grand Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa 50392. Principal is a diversified asset management organization and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Principal Financial Group, Inc. ("PFG"). PFG is a public company listed on the NASDAQ offering a wide range of financial products and services through a diverse family of financial services companies.

T. Rowe Price is a registered investment adviser. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., a publicly-traded financial services holding company (NASDAQ: TROW), owns 100% of the stock of T. Rowe Price and all of its subsidiaries.

Wellington Management, a registered investment adviser, has its principal office at 280 Congress Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 02210. The Managing Partner of Wellington Management Company LLP is Wellington Investment Advisors Holdings LLP. The ultimate parent company of the Wellington Management organization is Wellington Management Group LLP, a Massachusetts private limited liability partnership owned by its partners, all of whom are fully active in the business of the firm. No single partner owns or has the right to vote more than 5% of the Partnership's capital.

Strategic Advisers, AllianceBernstein, Aristotle Capital, Brandywine Global, ClariVest, FIAM, DESIM, FMR UK, FMR H.K., FMR Japan, Geode, JPMorgan, Loomis Sayles, LSV, NBIA, PineBridge, Principal, T. Rowe Price, Wellington Management, (the Investment Advisers), Fidelity Distributors Company LLC (FDC), and the fund have adopted codes of ethics under Rule 17j-1 of the 1940 Act that set forth employees' fiduciary responsibilities regarding the fund, establish procedures for personal investing, and restrict certain transactions. Employees subject to the codes of ethics, including the Investment Advisers' investment personnel, may invest in securities for their own investment accounts, including securities that may be purchased or held by the fund.

#### MANAGEMENT CONTRACT
The fund has entered into a management contract with Strategic Advisers, pursuant to which Strategic Advisers furnishes investment advisory and other services.

The fund's initial shareholder approved a proposal permitting Strategic Advisers to enter into new or amended sub-advisory agreements with one or more unaffiliated sub-advisers without obtaining shareholder approval of such agreements, subject to conditions of an exemptive order that has been granted by the SEC (Exemptive Order). One of the conditions of the Exemptive Order requires the Board of Trustees to approve any such agreement. Subject to oversight by the Board of Trustees, Strategic Advisers has the ultimate responsibility to oversee the fund's sub-advisers and recommend their hiring, termination, and replacement. In the event the Board of Trustees approves a sub-advisory agreement with a new unaffiliated sub-adviser, shareholders will be provided with information about the new sub-adviser and sub-advisory agreement within ninety days of appointment.

Strategic Advisers has retained AllianceBernstein, Aristotle Capital, Brandywine Global, ClariVest, DESIM, FIAM, Geode, JPMorgan, Loomis Sayles, LSV, NBIA, PineBridge, Principal, T. Rowe Price, and Wellington Management to serve as sub-advisers for the fund. FIAM, in turn, has retained FMR H.K., FMR Japan, and FMR UK to serve as sub-subadvisers for the fund. The sub-advisers do not sponsor the fund.

It is not possible to predict the extent to which the fund's assets will be invested by a particular sub-adviser at any given time and one or more sub-advisers may not be managing any assets for the fund at any given time.

<u>**Management and Sub-Advisory Services.**</u> Under the terms of its management contract with the fund, Strategic Advisers acts as investment adviser and, subject to the supervision of the Board of Trustees, directs the investments of the fund in accordance with its investment objective, policies and limitations. Strategic Advisers is authorized, in its discretion, to allocate the fund's assets pursuant to its investment strategy. Strategic Advisers or its affiliates provide the fund with all necessary office facilities and personnel for servicing the fund's investments, compensate all officers of the fund and all Trustees who are interested persons of the trust or of Strategic Advisers, and compensate all personnel of the fund or Strategic Advisers performing services relating to research, statistical and investment activities.

In addition, Strategic Advisers or its affiliates, subject to the supervision of the Board of Trustees, provide the management and administrative services necessary for the operation of the fund. These services include providing facilities for maintaining the fund's organization; supervising relations with custodians, transfer and pricing agents, accountants, underwriters and other persons dealing with the fund; preparing all general shareholder communications and conducting shareholder relations; maintaining the fund's records and the registration of the fund's shares under federal securities laws and making necessary filings under state securities laws; developing management and shareholder services for the fund; and furnishing reports, evaluations and analyses on a variety of subjects to the Trustees.

Under its respective sub-advisory agreement, and subject to the supervision of the Board of Trustees, each sub-adviser directs the investment of its allocated portion of the fund's assets in accordance with the fund's investment objective, policies and limitations.

**<u>Management-Related Expenses.</u>** In addition to the management fee payable to Strategic Advisers, the fund pays all of its expenses that are not assumed by Strategic Advisers or its affiliates. Under the terms of separate agreements between Strategic Advisers and the fund's transfer agent and service agent, Strategic Advisers or an affiliate is responsible for the payment of any fees associated with the transfer agent and service agent agreements. The fund pays for the typesetting, printing, and mailing of its proxy materials to shareholders, legal expenses, and the fees of the custodian, auditor, and Independent Trustees. The fund's management contract further provides that the fund will pay for typesetting, printing, and mailing prospectuses, statements of additional information, notices, and reports to shareholders. Other expenses paid by the fund include interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, fees and expenses associated with the fund's securities lending program, if applicable, the fund's proportionate share of insurance premiums and Investment Company Institute dues, and the costs of registering shares under federal securities laws and making necessary filings under state securities laws. The fund is also liable for such non-recurring expenses as may arise, including costs of any litigation to which the fund may be a party, and any obligation it may have to indemnify its officers and Trustees with respect to litigation.

<u>**Management Fee.**</u>

For the services of Strategic Advisers under the management contract, the fund pays Strategic Advisers a monthly management fee calculated by adding the annual rate of 0.25% of the fund's average daily net assets throughout the month plus the total fees payable monthly to the fund's sub-advisers, if any, pursuant to the applicable investment sub-advisory agreement(s). Provided, however, that the fund's maximum aggregate annual management fee will not exceed 0.65% of the fund's average daily net assets.

In addition, Strategic Advisers has contractually agreed to waive a portion of the fund's management fee in an amount equal to 0.25% of the average daily net assets of the fund until September 30, 2024. The fee waiver will increase returns.

Effective November 20, 2020, Strategic Advisers<sup>®</sup> Core Fund ("Predecessor Fund") and two other funds were reorganized into the fund ("Reorganization"). The fund has adopted the Financial Statements of the Predecessor Fund. The following table shows the amount of management fees paid by the fund to Strategic Advisers for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2022 and the fiscal period ended May 31, 2021. In addition, the table shows the amount of waivers reducing management fees.

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Fund** | **Fiscal Years<br>Ended<br>May 31** | **Amount of<br>Waivers Reducing<br>Management Fees** | **Management<br>Fees<br>Paid to<br>Investment Adviser** | **Management<br>Fees<br>Paid as a % of<br>Average Net<br>Assets of the Fund** |
| Strategic Advisers® Large Cap Fund | 2022 | $151654438 | $107964599 | 0.18% |
|  | 2021 | $109234120 | $79340476 | 0.18% |

---

Strategic Advisers may, from time to time, voluntarily reimburse all or a portion of a fund's or, in the case of a multiple class fund, a class's operating expenses. Strategic Advisers retains the ability to be repaid for these expense reimbursements in the amount that expenses fall below the limit prior to the end of the fiscal year.

Expense reimbursements will increase returns, and repayment of the reimbursement will decrease returns.

<u>**Sub-Adviser - AllianceBernstein.**</u> The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with AllianceBernstein pursuant to which AllianceBernstein may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays AllianceBernstein fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by AllianceBernstein pursuant to a separately negotiated investment mandate (a "Strategy"). The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by AllianceBernstein under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by AllianceBernstein pursuant to that Strategy.

<u>**Sub-Adviser - Aristotle Capital.**</u> The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with Aristotle Capital pursuant to which Aristotle Capital may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays Aristotle Capital fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by Aristotle Capital pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by Aristotle Capital under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by Aristotle Capital pursuant to that Strategy.

<u>**Sub-Adviser - Brandywine Global.**</u> The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with Brandywine Global pursuant to which Brandywine Global may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays Brandywine Global fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by Brandywine Global pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by Brandywine Global under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by Brandywine Global pursuant to that Strategy.

<u>**Sub-Adviser - ClariVest.**</u> The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with ClariVest pursuant to which ClariVest may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays ClariVest fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by ClariVest pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by ClariVest under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by ClariVest pursuant to that Strategy.

**<u>Sub-Adviser - DESIM.</u>** The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with DESIM pursuant to which DESIM may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays DESIM fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by DESIM pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by DESIM under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by DESIM pursuant to that Strategy.

<u>**Sub-Adviser - FIAM.**</u> The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with FIAM pursuant to which FIAM may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays FIAM fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by FIAM pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by FIAM under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by FIAM pursuant to that Strategy.

The following fee rate schedules apply to the mandates below.

<u>Large Cap Core</u>: 0.40% of the first $100 million in assets and 0.30% on any amount in excess of $100 million in assets.

<u>Sector Managed</u>: 0.265% on all assets.

<u>Quantitative Large Cap Core</u>: 0.40% of the first $100 million in assets; 0.35% of the next $150 million in assets; 0.30% of the next $100 million in assets; and 0.25% on any amount in excess of $350 million in assets.

<u>US Equity Strategy</u>: 0.275% of the first $500 million in assets and 0.225% on any amount in excess of $500 million in assets.

<u>Large Cap Value</u>: 0.40% of the first $100 million in assets; 0.35% of the next $150 million in assets; 0.30% of the next $100 million in assets; and 0.25% on any amount in excess of $350 million in assets.

<u>U.S. Equity Large Cap Plus</u>: 0.28% of the first $100 million in assets; 0.24% of the next $400 million in assets; and 0.17% on any amount in excess of $500 million in assets.

On behalf of the fund, FIAM, in turn, has entered into sub-subadvisory agreements with FMR UK, FMR H.K., and FMR Japan. Pursuant to the sub-subadvisory agreement, FIAM may receive from the sub-subadviser investment research and advice on issuers outside the United States (non-discretionary services) and FIAM may grant the sub-subadviser investment management authority and the authority to buy and sell securities if FIAM believes it would be beneficial to the fund (discretionary services). FIAM, not the fund, pays the sub-subadvisers.

**<u>Sub-Adviser - Geode.</u>** The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with Geode pursuant to which Geode may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays Geode fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by Geode pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by Geode under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by Geode pursuant to that Strategy.

The following fee rate schedule applies to the mandate below.

<u>Factor-Based:</u> 0.125% of the first $500 million in assets; 0.10% of the next $500 million in assets; and 0.075% on any amount in excess of $1 billion in assets.

<u>Large Cap Put Spread:</u> 0.125% of the first $500 million in assets; 0.10% of the next $500 million in assets; and 0.075% on any amount in excess of $1 billion in assets.

<u>**Sub-Adviser - JPMorgan.**</u> The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with JPMorgan pursuant to which JPMorgan may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays JPMorgan fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by JPMorgan pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by JPMorgan under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by JPMorgan pursuant to that Strategy.

<u>**Sub-Adviser - Loomis Sayles.**</u> The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with Loomis Sayles pursuant to which Loomis Sayles may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays Loomis Sayles fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by Loomis Sayles pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by Loomis Sayles under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by Loomis Sayles pursuant to that Strategy.

<u>**Sub-Adviser - LSV.**</u> The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with LSV pursuant to which LSV may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays LSV fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by LSV pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by LSV under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by LSV pursuant to that Strategy.

**<u>Sub-Adviser - NBIA.</u>** The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with NBIA pursuant to which NBIA may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays NBIA fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by NBIA pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by NBIA under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by NBIA pursuant to that Strategy.

<u>**Sub-Adviser - PineBridge.**</u> The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with PineBridge pursuant to which PineBridge may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays PineBridge fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by PineBridge pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by PineBridge under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by PineBridge pursuant to that Strategy.

<u>**Sub-Adviser - Principal.**</u> The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with Principal pursuant to which Principal may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays Principal fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by Principal pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by Principal under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by Principal pursuant to that Strategy.

<u>**Sub-Adviser - T. Rowe Price.**</u> The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with T. Rowe Price pursuant to which T. Rowe Price may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays T. Rowe Price fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by T. Rowe Price pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by T. Rowe Price under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by T. Rowe Price pursuant to that Strategy.

**<u>Sub-Adviser - Wellington Management.</u>** The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with Wellington Management pursuant to which Wellington Management may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays Wellington Management fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by Wellington Management pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by Wellington Management under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by Wellington Management pursuant to that Strategy.

The following table shows the amount of sub-advisory fees paid by Strategic Advisers, on behalf of the fund, to FIAM for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2022 and the fiscal period ended May 31, 2021.

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Fund** | **Fiscal Years<br>Ended<br>May 31** | **Sub-Advisory<br>Fees Paid to<br>FIAM** | **Sub-Advisory<br>Fees<br>Paid to<br>FIAM<br>as a % of<br>Average Net<br>Assets of the<br>Fund** |
| Strategic Advisers<sup>®</sup> Large Cap Fund | 2022 | $28189386 | 0.05% |
|  | 2021 | $12140452 | 0.02% |

---

No sub-advisory fees were paid by Strategic Advisers, on behalf of the fund, to Geode since the fund commenced operations.

The following table shows the aggregate amount of sub-advisory fees paid by Strategic Advisers, on behalf of the fund, to sub-adviser(s) other than FIAM and Geode for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2022 and the fiscal period ended May 31, 2021.

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Fund** | **Fiscal Years<br>Ended<br>May 31** | **Aggregate<br>Sub-Advisory<br>Fees Paid to<br>Unaffiliated<br>Sub-Adviser(s)** | **Aggregate<br>Sub-Advisory Fees<br>Paid to<br>Unaffiliated<br>Sub-Adviser(s)<br>as a % of<br>Average Net<br>Assets of the Fund** |
| Strategic Advisers<sup>®</sup> Large Cap Fund | 2022 | $79828194 | 0.13% |
|  | 2021 | $40356454 | 0.08% |

---

Differences between the amount of the management fees paid by the fund to Strategic Advisers and the aggregate amount of the sub-advisory fees paid by Strategic Advisers, on behalf of the fund, to the sub-adviser(s) may be due to expense estimates, which are accrued in the period to which they relate and adjusted when actual amounts are known.

Niall Devitt and Gopalakrishnan Anantanatarajan are employees of Strategic Advisers, a subsidiary of FMR LLC and an affiliate of FMR. Strategic Advisers is the adviser to the fund.

Mr. Devitt is lead portfolio manager of the fund and Mr. Anantanatarajan is co-manager of the fund, and each receives compensation for those services. As of May 31, 2022, portfolio manager compensation generally consists of a fixed base salary determined periodically (typically annually), a bonus, and in certain cases, participation in several types of equity-based compensation plans. A portion of each portfolio manager's compensation may be deferred based on criteria established by Strategic Advisers or at the election of the portfolio manager.

Each portfolio manager's base salary is determined by level of responsibility and tenure at Strategic Advisers or its affiliates. The primary components of each portfolio manager's bonus are based on (i) the pre-tax investment performance of the portfolio manager's fund(s) and account(s) measured against a benchmark index and a defined peer group assigned to each fund or account, and (ii) the investment performance of a broad range of Strategic Advisers<sup>®</sup> funds and accounts, including the fund. Accounts may include model portfolios designed for asset allocation, retirement planning, or tax-sensitive goals. The pre-tax investment performance of each portfolio manager's fund(s) and account(s) is weighted according to the portfolio manager's tenure on those fund(s) and account(s), and the average asset size of those fund(s) and account(s) over the portfolio manager's tenure. Each component is calculated separately over a measurement period that initially is contemporaneous with the portfolio manager's tenure, but that eventually encompasses rolling periods of up to five years for the comparison to a benchmark index and peer group. A smaller subjective component of the bonus is based on each portfolio manager's overall contribution to management of Strategic Advisers. The portion of each portfolio manager's bonus that is linked to the investment performance of the portfolio manager's fund is based on the fund's pre-tax investment performance measured against the S&P 500<sup>®</sup> Index, and the pre-tax investment performance of the fund measured against the Morningstar<sup>®</sup> Large Blend Category. Each portfolio manager may be compensated under equity-based compensation plans linked to increases or decreases in the net asset value of the stock of FMR LLC, Strategic Advisers' parent company. FMR LLC is a diverse financial services company engaged in various activities that include fund management, brokerage, retirement, and employer administrative services.

A portfolio manager's compensation plan may give rise to potential conflicts of interest. Although investors in the fund may invest through either tax-deferred accounts or taxable accounts, a portfolio manager's compensation is linked to the pre-tax performance of the fund, rather than its after-tax performance. A portfolio manager's base pay tends to increase with additional and more complex responsibilities that include increased assets under management and a portion of the bonus relates to marketing efforts, which together indirectly link compensation to sales. When a portfolio manager takes over a fund or an account, the time period over which performance is measured may be adjusted to provide a transition period in which to assess the portfolio. The management of multiple funds and accounts (including proprietary accounts) may give rise to potential conflicts of interest if the funds and accounts have different objectives, benchmarks, time horizons, and fees as a portfolio manager must allocate time and investment ideas across multiple funds and accounts. In addition, a fund's trade allocation policies and procedures may give rise to conflicts of interest if the fund's orders do not get fully executed due to being aggregated with those of other accounts managed by Strategic Advisers or an affiliate. A portfolio manager may execute transactions for another fund or account that may adversely impact the value of securities held by a fund. Securities selected for other funds or accounts may outperform the securities selected for the fund. Portfolio managers may be permitted to invest in the funds they manage, even if a fund is closed to new investors. Trading in personal accounts, which may give rise to potential conflicts of interest, is restricted by a fund's Code of Ethics.

The following table provides information relating to other accounts managed by Mr. Devitt as of May 31, 2022:

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **Registered<br>Investment<br>Companies\*** | **Other Pooled<br>Investment<br>Vehicles** | **Other<br>Accounts\*\*** |
| Number of Accounts Managed | 1 |  | 4 |
| Number of Accounts Managed with Performance-Based Advisory Fees |  |  |  |
| Assets Managed (in millions) | $55748 |  | $33959 |
| Assets Managed with Performance-Based Advisory Fees (in millions) |  |  |  |

---

\* Includes Strategic Advisers<sup>®</sup> Large Cap Fund ($55,748 (in millions) assets managed). The amount of assets managed of the fund reflects trades and other assets as of the close of the business day prior to the fund's fiscal year-end.

\*\* Includes assets invested in registered investment companies managed by the portfolio manager.

As of May 31, 2022, the dollar range of shares of Strategic Advisers<sup>®</sup> Large Cap Fund beneficially owned by Mr. Devitt was $50,001 - $100,000.

The following table provides information relating to other accounts managed by Mr. Anantanatarajan as of May 31, 2022:

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **Registered<br>Investment<br>Companies\*** | **Other Pooled<br>Investment<br>Vehicles** | **Other<br>Accounts\*\*** |
| Number of Accounts Managed | 2 |  | 5 |
| Number of Accounts Managed with Performance-Based Advisory Fees |  |  |  |
| Assets Managed (in millions) | $124569 |  | $16931 |
| Assets Managed with Performance-Based Advisory Fees (in millions) |  |  |  |

---

\* Includes Strategic Advisers<sup>®</sup> Large Cap Fund ($55,748 (in millions) assets managed). The amount of assets managed of the fund reflects trades and other assets as of the close of the business day prior to the fund's fiscal year-end.

\*\* Includes assets invested in registered investment companies managed by the portfolio manager.

As of May 31, 2022, the dollar range of shares of Strategic Advisers<sup>®</sup> Large Cap Fund beneficially owned by Mr. Anantanatarajan was none.

#### PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES

#### Proxy Voting - Strategic Advisers.
On behalf of the fund, the Board of Trustees of the trust has delegated proxy voting authority to Strategic Advisers. Strategic Advisers has established the following Proxy Voting Guidelines.

I. General Principles

A. Strategic Advisers generally intends to vote shares of underlying funds held by a fund using echo voting procedures (that is, in the same proportion as the holders of all other shares of the particular underlying fund).

B. Any proposals not covered by paragraph A above or other special circumstances will be voted pursuant to the Proxy Voting Guidelines included as Attachment A.

#### Attachment A
**I. <u>Introduction</u>**

These guidelines are intended to help Fidelity's customers and the companies in which Fidelity invests understand how Fidelity votes proxies to further the values that have sustained Fidelity for over 70 years. In particular, these guidelines are animated by two fundamental principles: 1) putting first the long-term interests of our customers and fund shareholders; and 2) investing in companies that share our approach to creating value over the long-term. Fidelity generally adheres to these guidelines in voting proxies and our **Stewardship Principles** serve as the foundation for these guidelines. Our evaluation of proxies reflects information from many sources, including management or shareholders of a company presenting a proposal and proxy voting advisory firms. Fidelity maintains the flexibility to vote individual proxies based on our assessment of each situation.

In evaluating proxies, we recognize that companies can conduct themselves in ways that have important environmental and social consequences. While Fidelity always remains focused on maximizing long-term shareholder value, we also consider potential environmental, social and governance (ESG) impacts that we believe are material to individual companies and investing funds' investment objectives and strategies.

Fidelity will vote on proposals not specifically addressed by these guidelines based on an evaluation of a proposal's likelihood to enhance the long-term economic returns or profitability of the company or to maximize long-term shareholder value. Fidelity will not be influenced by business relationships or outside perspectives that may conflict with the interests of the funds and their shareholders.

**II. <u>Board of Directors and Corporate Governance</u>**

Directors of public companies play a critical role in ensuring that a company and its management team serve the interests of its shareholders. Fidelity believes that through proxy voting, it can help ensure accountability of management teams and boards of directors, align management and shareholder interests, and monitor and assess the degree of transparency and disclosure with respect to executive compensation and board actions affecting shareholders' rights. The following general guidelines are intended to reflect these proxy voting principles.

**A. Election of Directors**

Fidelity will generally support director nominees in elections where all directors are unopposed (uncontested elections), except where board composition raises concerns, and/or where a director clearly appears to have failed to exercise reasonable judgment or otherwise failed to sufficiently protect the interests of shareholders.

Fidelity will evaluate board composition and generally will oppose the election of certain or all directors if, by way of example:

1. Inside or affiliated directors serve on boards that are not composed of a majority of independent directors.

2. There are no women on the board or if a board of ten or more members has fewer than two women directors.

3. The director is a public company CEO who sits on more than two unaffiliated public company boards.

Fidelity will evaluate board actions and generally will oppose the election of certain or all directors if, by way of example:

1. The director attended fewer than 75% of the total number of meetings of the board and its committees on which the director served during the company's prior fiscal year, absent extenuating circumstances.

2. The company made a commitment to modify a proposal or practice to conform to these guidelines, and failed to act on that commitment.

3. For reasons described below under the sections entitled Compensation and Anti-Takeover Provisions and Director Elections.

**B. Contested Director Elections**

On occasion, directors are forced to compete for election against outside director nominees (contested elections). Fidelity believes that strong management creates long-term shareholder value. As a result, Fidelity generally will vote in support of management of companies in which the funds' assets are invested. Fidelity will vote its proxy on a case-by-case basis in a contested election, taking into consideration a number of factors, amongst others:

1. Management's track record and strategic plan for enhancing shareholder value;

2. The long-term performance of the company compared to its industry peers; and

3. The qualifications of the shareholder's and management's nominees.

Fidelity will vote for the outcome it believes has the best prospects for maximizing shareholder value over the long-term.

**C. Cumulative Voting Rights**

Under cumulative voting, each shareholder may exercise the number of votes equal to the number of shares owned multiplied by the number of directors up for election. Shareholders may cast all of their votes for a single nominee (or multiple nominees in varying amounts). With regular (non-cumulative) voting, by contrast, shareholders cannot allocate more than one vote per share to any one director nominee. Fidelity believes that cumulative voting can be detrimental to the overall strength of a board. Generally, therefore, Fidelity will oppose the introduction of, and support the elimination of, cumulative voting rights.

**D. Classified Boards**

A classified board is one that elects only a percentage of its members each year (usually one-third of directors are elected to serve a three-year term). This means that at each annual meeting only a subset of directors is up for re-election. Fidelity believes that, in general, classified boards are not as accountable to shareholders as declassified boards. For this and other reasons, Fidelity generally will oppose a board's adoption of a classified board structure and support declassification of existing boards.

**E. Independent Chairperson**

In general, Fidelity believes that boards should have a process and criteria for selecting the board chair, and will oppose shareholder proposals calling for, or recommending the appointment of, a non-executive or independent chairperson. If, however, based on particular facts and circumstances, Fidelity believes that appointment of a non-executive or independent chairperson appears likely to further the interests of shareholders and promote effective oversight of management by the board of directors, Fidelity will consider voting to support a proposal for an independent chairperson under such circumstances.

**F. Majority Voting in Director Elections**

In general, Fidelity supports proposals calling for directors to be elected by a majority of votes cast if the proposal permits election by a plurality in the case of contested elections (where, for example, there are more nominees than board seats). Fidelity may oppose a majority voting shareholder proposal where a company's board has adopted a policy requiring the resignation of an incumbent director who fails to receive the support of a majority of the votes cast in an uncontested election.

**G. Proxy Access**

Proxy access proposals generally require a company to amend its by-laws to allow a qualifying shareholder or group of shareholders to nominate directors on a company's proxy ballot. Fidelity believes that certain safeguards as to ownership threshold and duration of ownership are important to assure that proxy access is not misused by those without a significant economic interest in the company or those driven by short term goals. Fidelity will evaluate proxy access proposals on a case-by-case basis, but generally will support proposals that include ownership of at least 3% (5% in the case of small-cap companies) of the company's shares outstanding for at least three years; limit the number of directors that eligible shareholders may nominate to 20% of the board; and limit to 20 the number of shareholders that may form a nominating group.

**H. Indemnification of Directors and Officers**

In many instances there are sound reasons to indemnify officers and directors, so that they may perform their duties without the distraction of unwarranted litigation or other legal process. Fidelity generally supports charter and by-law amendments expanding the indemnification of officers or directors, or limiting their liability for breaches of care unless Fidelity is dissatisfied with their performance or the proposal is accompanied by anti-takeover provisions (see Anti-Takeover Provisions and Shareholders Rights Plans below).

**III. <u>Compensation</u>**

Incentive compensation plans can be complicated and many factors are considered when evaluating such plans. Fidelity evaluates such plans based on protecting shareholder interests and our historical knowledge of the company and its management.

**A. Equity Compensation Plans**

Fidelity encourages the use of reasonably designed equity compensation plans that align the interest of management with those of shareholders by providing officers and employees with incentives to increase long-term shareholder value. Fidelity considers whether such plans are too dilutive to existing shareholders because dilution reduces the voting power or economic interest of existing shareholders as a result of an increase in shares available for distribution to employees in lieu of cash compensation. Fidelity will generally oppose equity compensation plans or amendments to authorize additional shares under such plans if:

1. The company grants stock options and equity awards in a given year at a rate higher than a benchmark rate ("burn rate") considered appropriate by Fidelity and there were no circumstances specific to the company or the compensation plans that leads Fidelity to conclude that the rate of awards is otherwise acceptable.

2. The plan includes an evergreen provision, which is a feature that provides for an automatic increase in the shares available for grant under an equity compensation plan on a regular basis.

3. The plan provides for the acceleration of vesting of equity compensation even though an actual change in control may not occur.

As to stock option plans, considerations include the following:

1. Pricing: We believe that options should be priced at 100% of fair market value on the date they are granted. We generally oppose options priced at a discount to the market, although the price may be as low as 85% of fair market value if the discount is expressly granted in lieu of salary or cash bonus.

2. Re-pricing: An "out-of-the-money" (or underwater) option has an exercise price that is higher than the current price of the stock. We generally oppose the re-pricing of underwater options because it is not consistent with a policy of offering options as a form of long-term compensation. Fidelity also generally opposes a stock option plan if the board or compensation committee has re-priced options outstanding in the past two years without shareholder approval.

Fidelity generally will support a management proposal to exchange, re-price or tender for cash, outstanding options if the proposed exchange, re-pricing, or tender offer is consistent with the interests of shareholders, taking into account a variety of factors such as:

1. Whether the proposal excludes senior management and directors;

2. Whether the exchange or re-pricing proposal is value neutral to shareholders based upon an acceptable pricing model;

3. The company's relative performance compared to other companies within the relevant industry or industries;

4. Economic and other conditions affecting the relevant industry or industries in which the company competes; and

5. Any other facts or circumstances relevant to determining whether an exchange or re-pricing proposal is consistent with the interests of shareholders.

**B. Employee Stock Purchase Plans**

These plans are designed to allow employees to purchase company stock at a discounted price and receive favorable tax treatment when the stock is sold. Fidelity generally will support employee stock purchase plans if the minimum stock purchase price is equal to or greater than 85% (or at least 75% in the case of non-U.S. companies where a lower minimum stock purchase price is equal to the prevailing "best practices" in that market) of the stock's fair market value and the plan constitutes a reasonable effort to encourage broad based participation in the company's stock.

**IV. <u>Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Say on Pay) and Frequency of Say on Pay Vote</u>**

Current law requires companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding votes on the compensation for named executive officers, as well as the frequency of such votes. Fidelity generally will support proposals to ratify executive compensation unless the compensation appears misaligned with shareholder interests or is otherwise problematic, taking into account:

- The actions taken by the board or compensation committee in the previous year, including whether the company re-priced or exchanged outstanding stock options without shareholder approval; adopted or extended a golden parachute without shareholder approval; or adequately addressed concerns communicated by Fidelity in the process of discussing executive compensation;

- The alignment of executive compensation and company performance relative to peers; and

- The structure of the compensation program, including factors such as whether incentive plan metrics are appropriate, rigorous and transparent; whether the long-term element of the compensation program is evaluated over at least a three-year period; the sensitivity of pay to below median performance; the amount and nature of non-performance-based compensation; the justification and rationale behind paying discretionary bonuses; the use of stock ownership guidelines and amount of executive stock ownership; and how well elements of compensation are disclosed.

When presented with a frequency of Say on Pay vote, Fidelity generally will support holding an annual advisory vote on Say on Pay.

**A. Compensation Committee**

Directors serving on the compensation committee of the Board have a special responsibility to ensure that management is appropriately compensated and that compensation, among other things, fairly reflects the performance of the company. Fidelity believes that compensation should align with company performance as measured by key business metrics. Compensation policies should align the interests of executives with those of shareholders. Further, the compensation program should be disclosed in a transparent and timely manner.

Fidelity will oppose the election of directors on the compensation committees if:

1. The company has not adequately addressed concerns communicated by Fidelity in the process of discussing executive compensation.

2. Within the last year, and without shareholder approval, a company's board of directors or compensation committee has either:

a) Re-priced outstanding options, exchanged outstanding options for equity, or tendered cash for outstanding options; or

b) Adopted or extended a golden parachute.

**B. Executive Severance Agreements**

Executive severance compensation and benefit arrangements resulting from a termination following a change in control are known as "golden parachutes." Fidelity generally will oppose proposals to ratify golden parachutes where the arrangement includes an excise tax gross-up provision; single trigger for cash incentives; or may result in a lump sum payment of cash and acceleration of equity that may total more than three times annual compensation (salary and bonus) in the event of a termination following a change in control.

**V. <u>Environmental and Social Issues</u>**

Grounded in our **Stewardship Principles**, these guidelines outline our views on corporate governance. As part of our efforts to maximize long-term shareholder value, we incorporate environmental and social issues into our evaluation of a company, particularly if we believe an issue is material to that company and the investing fund's investment objective and strategies.

Fidelity generally considers management's recommendation and current practice when voting on shareholder proposals concerning environmental or social issues because it generally believes that management and the board are in the best position to determine how to address these matters. Fidelity, however, also believes that transparency is critical to sound corporate governance. Therefore, Fidelity may support shareholder proposals that request additional disclosures from companies regarding environmental or social issues, including where it believes that the proposed disclosures could provide meaningful information to the investment management process without unduly burdening the company. This means that Fidelity may support shareholder proposals calling for reports on sustainability, renewable energy, and environmental impact issues. Fidelity also may support proposals on issues in other areas, including but not limited to equal employment, board diversity and workforce diversity.

**VI. <u>Anti-Takeover Provisions and Shareholders Rights Plans</u>**

Fidelity generally will oppose a proposal to adopt an anti-takeover provision.

Anti-takeover provisions include:

- classified boards;

- "blank check" preferred stock (whose terms and conditions may be expressly determined by the company's board, for example, with differential voting rights);

- golden parachutes;

- supermajority provisions (that require a large majority (generally between 67-90%) of shareholders to approve corporate changes as compared to a majority provision that simply requires more than 50% of shareholders to approve those changes);

- poison pills;

- restricting the right to call special meetings;

- provisions restricting the right of shareholders to set board size; and

- any other provision that eliminates or limits shareholder rights.

**A. Shareholders Rights Plans ("poison pills")**

Poison pills allow shareholders opposed to a takeover offer to purchase stock at discounted prices under certain circumstances and effectively give boards veto power over any takeover offer. While there are advantages and disadvantages to poison pills, they can be detrimental to the creation of shareholder value and can help entrench management by deterring acquisition offers not favored by the board, but that may, in fact, be beneficial to shareholders.

Fidelity generally will support a proposal to adopt or extend a poison pill if the proposal:

1. Includes a condition in the charter or plan that specifies an expiration date (sunset provision) of no greater than five years;

2. Is integral to a business strategy that is expected to result in greater value for the shareholders;

3. Requires shareholder approval to be reinstated upon expiration or if amended;

4. Contains a mechanism to allow shareholders to consider a bona fide takeover offer for all outstanding shares without triggering the poison pill; and

5. Allows the Fidelity funds to hold an aggregate position of up to 20% of a company's total voting securities, where permissible.

Fidelity generally also will support a proposal that is crafted only for the purpose of protecting a specific tax benefit if it also believes the proposal is likely to enhance long-term economic returns or maximize long-term shareholder value.

**B. Shareholder Ability to Call a Special Meeting**

Fidelity generally will support shareholder proposals regarding shareholders' right to call special meetings if the threshold required to call the special meeting is no less than 25% of the outstanding stock.

**C. Shareholder Ability to Act by Written Consent**

Fidelity generally will support proposals regarding shareholders' right to act by written consent if the proposals include appropriate mechanisms for implementation. This means that proposals must include record date requests from at least 25% of the outstanding stockholders and consents must be solicited from all shareholders.

**D. Supermajority Shareholder Vote Requirement**

Fidelity generally will support proposals regarding supermajority provisions if Fidelity believes that the provisions protect minority shareholder interests in companies where there is a substantial or dominant shareholder.

**VII. <u>Anti-Takeover Provisions and Director Elections</u>**

Fidelity will oppose the election of all directors or directors on responsible committees if the board adopted or extended an anti-takeover provision without shareholder approval.

Fidelity will consider supporting the election of directors with respect to poison pills if:

- All of the poison pill's features outlined under the Anti-Takeover Provisions and Shareholders Rights section above are met when a poison pill is adopted or extended.

- A board is willing to consider seeking shareholder ratification of, or adding the features outlined under the Anti-Takeover Provisions and Shareholders Rights Plans section above to, an existing poison pill. If, however, the company does not take appropriate action prior to the next annual shareholder meeting, Fidelity will oppose the election of all directors at that meeting.

- It determines that the poison pill was narrowly tailored to protect a specific tax benefit, and subject to an evaluation of its likelihood to enhance long-term economic returns or maximize long-term shareholder value.

**VIII. <u>Capital Structure and Incorporation</u>**

These guidelines are designed to protect shareholders' value in the companies in which the Fidelity funds invest. To the extent a company's management is committed and incentivized to maximize shareholder value, Fidelity generally votes in favor of management proposals; Fidelity may vote contrary to management where a proposal is overly dilutive to shareholders and/or compromises shareholder value or other interests. The guidelines that follow are meant to protect shareholders in these respects.

**A. Increases in Common Stock**

Fidelity may support reasonable increases in authorized shares for a specific purpose (a stock split or re-capitalization, for example). Fidelity generally will oppose a provision to increase a company's authorized common stock if such increase will result in a total number of authorized shares greater than three times the current number of outstanding and scheduled to be issued shares, including stock options.

In the case of REITs, however, Fidelity will oppose a provision to increase the REIT's authorized common stock if the increase will result in a total number of authorized shares greater than five times the current number of outstanding and scheduled to be issued shares.

**B. Multi-Class Share Structures**

Fidelity generally will support proposals to recapitalize multi-class share structures into structures that provide equal voting rights for all shareholders, and generally will oppose proposals to introduce or increase classes of stock with differential voting rights. However, Fidelity will evaluate all such proposals in the context of their likelihood to enhance long-term economic returns or maximize long-term shareholder value.

**C. Incorporation or Reincorporation in another State or Country**

Fidelity generally will support management proposals calling for, or recommending that, a company reincorporate in another state or country if, on balance, the economic and corporate governance factors in the proposed jurisdiction appear reasonably likely to be better aligned with shareholder interests, taking into account the corporate laws of the current and proposed jurisdictions and any changes to the company's current and proposed governing documents. Fidelity will consider supporting these shareholder proposals in limited cases if, based upon particular facts and circumstances, remaining incorporated in the current jurisdiction appears misaligned with shareholder interests.

**IX. <u>Shares of Fidelity Funds, ETFs, or other non-Fidelity Mutual Funds and ETFs</u>**

When a Fidelity fund invests in an underlying Fidelity fund with public shareholders, an exchange traded fund (ETF), or fund that is not affiliated, Fidelity will vote in the same proportion as all other voting shareholders of the underlying fund (this is known as "echo voting"). Fidelity may not vote if "echo voting" is not operationally practical or not permitted under applicable laws and regulations. For Fidelity fund investments in a Fidelity Series Fund, Fidelity generally will vote in a manner consistent with the recommendation of the Fidelity Series Fund's Board of Trustees on all proposals.

**X. <u>Foreign Markets</u>**

Many Fidelity funds invest in voting securities issued by companies that are domiciled outside the United States and are not listed on a U.S. securities exchange. Corporate governance standards, legal or regulatory requirements and disclosure practices in foreign countries can differ from those in the United States. When voting proxies relating to non-U.S. securities, Fidelity generally will evaluate proposals under these guidelines and where applicable and feasible, take into consideration differing laws, regulations and practices in the relevant foreign market in determining how to vote shares.

In certain non-U.S. jurisdictions, shareholders voting shares of a company may be restricted from trading the shares for a period of time around the shareholder meeting date. Because these trading restrictions can hinder portfolio management and could result in a loss of liquidity for a fund, Fidelity generally will not vote proxies in circumstances where such restrictions apply. In addition, certain non-U.S. jurisdictions require voting shareholders to disclose current share ownership on a fund-by-fund basis. When such disclosure requirements apply, Fidelity generally will not vote proxies in order to safeguard fund holdings information.

**XI. <u>Securities on Loan</u>**

Securities on loan as of a record date cannot be voted. In certain circumstances, Fidelity may recall a security on loan before record date (for example, in a particular contested director election or a noteworthy merger or acquisition). Generally, however, securities out on loan remain on loan and are not voted because, for example, the income a fund derives from the loan outweighs the benefit the fund receives from voting the security. In addition, Fidelity may not be able to recall and vote loaned securities if Fidelity is unaware of relevant information before record date, or is otherwise unable to timely recall securities on loan.

**XII. <u>Avoiding Conflicts of Interest</u>**

Voting of shares is conducted in a manner consistent with the best interests of the Fidelity funds. In other words, securities of a company generally will be voted in a manner consistent with these guidelines and without regard to any other Fidelity companies' business relationships.

Fidelity takes its responsibility to vote shares in the best interests of the funds seriously and has implemented policies and procedures to address actual and potential conflicts of interest.

**XIII. <u>Conclusion</u>**

Since its founding more than 70 years ago, Fidelity has been driven by two fundamental values: 1) putting the long-term interests of our customers and fund shareholders first; and 2) investing in companies that share our approach to creating value over the long-term. With these fundamental principles as guideposts, the funds are managed to provide the greatest possible return to shareholders consistent with governing laws and the investment guidelines and objectives of each fund.

Fidelity believes that there is a strong correlation between sound corporate governance and enhancing shareholder value. Fidelity, through the implementation of these guidelines, puts this belief into action through consistent engagement with portfolio companies on matters contained in these guidelines, and, ultimately, through the exercise of voting rights by the funds.

**Glossary**

• Burn rate means the total number of stock option and full value equity awards granted as compensation in a given year divided by the weighted average common stock outstanding for that same year.

- For a large-capitalization company, burn rate higher than 1.5%.

- For a small-capitalization company, burn rate higher than 2.5%.

- For a micro-capitalization company, burn rate higher than 3.5%.

• Golden parachute means employment contracts, agreements, or policies that include an excise tax gross-up provision; single trigger for cash incentives; or may result in a lump sum payment of cash and acceleration of equity that may total more than three times annual compensation (salary and bonus) in the event of a termination following a change in control.

• Large-capitalization company means a company included in the Russell 1000<sup>®</sup> Index or the Russell Global ex-U.S. Large Cap Index.

• Micro-capitalization company means a company with market capitalization under US $300 million.

• Poison pill refers to a strategy employed by a potential takeover / target company to make its stock less attractive to an acquirer. Poison pills are generally designed to dilute the acquirer's ownership and value in the event of a takeover.

• Small-capitalization company means a company not included in the Russell 1000<sup>®</sup> Index or the Russell Global ex-U.S. Large Cap Index that is not a Micro-Capitalization Company.

#### Sub-Adviser(s):
Proxy voting policies and procedures are used by a sub-adviser to determine how to vote proxies relating to the securities held by its allocated portion of the fund's assets. The proxy voting policies and procedures used by a sub-adviser are described below.

#### Proxy Voting - AllianceBernstein.
**Introduction**

AB's mission is to deliver better investment outcomes to our clients through differentiated research insights and innovative portfolio solutions in our clients' best interests. As a fiduciary, we place the interests of our clients first and treat all our clients fairly and equitably, and as an investment adviser we are stewards of our client's capital, and have an obligation to responsibly allocate, manage and oversee their investments to create sustainable, long-term shareholder value.

To be effective stewards of our client's investments, we need to invest responsibly. We believe that integration of environmental, social and governance ("ESG") including climate change considerations into our investment and research processes allows us to promote long-term shareholder value by capturing a more comprehensive set of risks and opportunities. Proxy voting is an integral part of this process, enabling us to act as shareholder advocates to support strong corporate governance structures, shareholder rights, transparency and disclosure, and encourage corporate action on material ESG and climate issues.

This Proxy Voting and Governance Policy ("Proxy Voting and Governance Policy" or "Policy"), outlines our principles for proxy voting, includes a wide range of issues that often appear on voting ballots, and applies to all of AB's internally managed assets, globally. It is intended for use by those involved in the proxy voting decision-making process and those responsible for the administration of proxy voting ("members of Responsible Investing team"), in order to ensure that this Policy and its procedures are implemented consistently. This Policy forms part of a suite of policies and frameworks beginning with AB's Stewardship Statement that outlines our approach to responsibility, responsible investing, stewardship, engagement, climate change, human rights, global slavery and human trafficking, and controversial investments.

This Policy is overseen by the Proxy Voting and Governance Committee ("Proxy Voting and Governance Committee" or "Committee"), which provides oversight and includes senior representatives from Equities, Fixed Income, Responsibility, Legal and Operations. It is the responsibility of the Committee to evaluate and maintain proxy voting procedures and guidelines, to evaluate proposals and issues not covered by these guidelines, to consider changes in policy, and to review the Policy no less frequently than annually. In addition, the Committee meets at least three times a year and as necessary to address special situations.

**Research Underpins Decision Making**

As a research-driven firm, we approach our proxy voting responsibilities with the same commitment to rigorous research and engagement that we apply to all of our investment activities. The different investment philosophies utilized by our investment teams may occasionally result in different conclusions being drawn regarding certain proposals. In turn, our votes on some proposals may vary by issuer while maintaining the goal of maximizing the value of the securities in client portfolios.

We sometimes manage accounts where proxy voting is directed by clients or newly-acquired subsidiary companies. In these cases, voting decisions may deviate from this Policy. Where we have agreed to vote proxies on behalf of our clients, we have an obligation to vote proxies in a timely manner and we apply the principles in this policy to our proxy decisions.

***Research Services***

We subscribe to the corporate governance and proxy research services of vendors such as Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. ("**ISS**") and Glass Lewis at different levels. All our investment professionals can access these materials via the members of Responsible Investing team and/or the Committee.

***Engagement***

In evaluating proxy issues and determining our votes, we welcome and seek out the points of view of various parties. Internally, members of Responsible Investing team may consult the Committee, Chief Investment Officers, Portfolio Managers, and/or Research Analysts across our equities platforms, and Portfolio Managers who manage accounts a stock is held. Externally, we may engage with companies in advance of their Annual General Meeting, and throughout the year. We believe engagement provides the opportunity to share our philosophy, our corporate governance values, and more importantly, affect positive change. Also, these meetings often are joint efforts between the investment professionals, who are best positioned to comment on company-specific details, and members of Responsible Investing team, who offer a more holistic view of ESG and climate practices and relevant trends. In addition, we engage with shareholder proposal proponents and other stakeholders to understand different viewpoints and objectives.

**Proxy Voting Guidelines**

Our proxy voting guidelines are both principles-based and rules-based. We adhere to a core set of principles that are described in the Policy. We assess each proxy proposal in light of these principles. Our proxy voting "litmus test" will always be what we view as most likely to maximize long-term shareholder value. We believe that authority and accountability for setting and executing corporate policies, goals and compensation generally should rest with the board of directors and senior management. In return, we support strong investor rights that allow shareholders to hold directors and management accountable if they fail to act in the best interests of shareholders.

Our proxy voting guidelines pertaining to specific issues are set forth in the Policy and include guidelines relating to board and director proposals, compensation proposals, capital changes and anti-takeover proposals, auditor proposals, shareholder access and voting proposals, and environmental, social and disclosure proposals. The following are examples of specific issues within each of these broad categories:

<u>Shareholder Proposal Assessment Framework</u>

AB's commitment to maximize the long-term value of clients' portfolios as a shareholder advocate transcends through how we analyze shareholder proposals. Rather than opting to automatically support all shareholder proposals that mention an ESG or climate issue, we evaluate whether or not those requests will actually enhance shareholder value for our clients. A proposal that promotes genuine improvement in the way a company addresses an ESG or climate issue, thereby managing a more comprehensive risk and opportunities for a company's business, should consider following core factors, but not limited to:

• Materiality of the mentioned ESG or climate issue for the company's business

• The company's current practice, policy and framework

• Prescriptiveness of the proposal – does the shareholder demand unreasonably restrict management from conducting its business?

• Context of the shareholder proposal – is the proponent tied to any particular interest group(s)? Does the proposal aim to promote the interest of shareholders or the group that that they are associated with?

• How does the proposal add value for shareholders?

We consider ESG and climate as an important element that will improve the accuracy of our valuation of companies by incorporating a more comprehensive set of risks and opportunities from a long-term shareholder value perspective.

<u>Board and Director Proposals: Director Accountability on Material Environmental and Social Topics Impacting Shareholder Value: Climate Risk Management and Human Rights Oversight</u>

AB believes that director accountability is a critical element of corporate governance. The successful governance of a company is demonstrated through shareholder responsiveness, proactive outreach by the board and management along with enhanced long-term shareholder value through a more comprehensive oversight on risk and opportunities. In fulfilling its fiduciary duty by evaluating investee companies' adaptiveness to evolving climate risks, AB targeted its significant holdings to engage on climate strategy through a firmwide campaign. Companies that failed to respond will be assigned a negative vote towards responsible incumbent director(s). Human Rights and modern slavery oversight is another topic on which AB will make a proactive assessment of its portfolio companies and hold respective directors accountable as defined by the committee charter of each issuer.

<u>Board and Director Proposals: Election of Directors</u>

The election of directors is an important vote. We expect directors to represent shareholder interests at the company and maximize shareholder value. We generally vote in favor of the management-proposed slate of directors while considering a number of factors, including local market best practice. We believe companies should have a majority of independent directors and independent key committees. However, we will incorporate local market regulation and corporate governance codes into our decision making. We may support more progressive requirements than those implemented in a local market if we believe more progressive requirements may improve corporate governance practices. We will generally regard a director as independent if the director satisfies the criteria for independence (i) espoused by the primary exchange on which the company's shares are traded, or (ii) set forth in the code we determine to be best practice in the country where the subject company is domiciled and may take into account affiliations, related-party transactions and prior service to the company. We consider the election of directors who are "bundled" on a single slate on a case-by-case basis considering the amount of information available and an assessment of the group's qualifications.

In addition:

• We believe that directors have a duty to respond to shareholder actions that have received significant shareholder support. We may vote against directors (or withhold votes for directors if plurality voting applies) who fail to act on key issues. We oppose directors who fail to attend at least 75% of board meetings within a given year without a reasonable excuse.

• We may abstain or vote against (depending on a company's history of disclosure in this regard) directors of issuers where there is insufficient information about the nominees disclosed in the proxy statement.

• We may vote against directors for poor compensation, audit or governance practices including the lack of a formal key committee.

• We may vote against directors for unilateral bylaw amendments that diminish shareholder rights.

We also may consider engaging company management (by phone, in writing and in person), until any issues have been satisfactorily resolved.

<u>Controlled Company Exemption</u>

In certain markets, a different standard for director independence may be applicable for controlled companies, which are companies where more than 50% of the voting power is held by an individual, group or another company, or as otherwise defined by local market standards. We may take these local standards into consideration when determining the appropriate level of independence required for the board and key committees.

Exchanges in certain jurisdictions do not have a controlled company exemption (or something similar). In such a jurisdiction, if a company has a majority shareholder or group of related majority shareholders with a majority economic interest, we generally will not oppose that company's directors simply because the board does not include a majority of independent members, although we may take local standards into consideration when determining the appropriate level of independence required for the board and key committees. We will, however, consider these directors in a negative light if the company has a history of violating the rights of minority shareholders.

<u>Voting for Director Nominees in a Contested Election</u>

Votes in a contested election of directors are evaluated on a case-by-case basis with the goal of maximizing shareholder value.

<u>Board Capacity</u>

We believe that incorporating an assessment of each director's capacity into consideration for a director election is essential to promote meaningful board oversight of the management. Director effectiveness aside, a social externality arises when the practice of directors serving on many public company boards becomes widespread, as this limits the opportunities for other board candidates, particularly diverse candidates. AB currently votes against the appointment of directors who occupy, or would occupy following the vote, 4 or more outside public company board seats for non-CEOs, 3 or more outside public company board seats for the sitting CEO of the company in question and 2 or more outside public company board seats for sitting CEOs of companies other than the company under consideration. We may also exercise flexibility on occasions where the "over-boarded" director nominee's presence on the board is critical, based on company specific contexts in absence of any notable accountability concerns.

<u>Board Diversity</u>

Diversity is an important element of assessing the board's quality, as it promotes wider range of perspectives to be considered for companies to both strategize and mitigate risks. In line with this view, several European countries legally require a quota of female directors. Other European countries have a comply-or-explain policy. In the U.S., California requires corporations headquartered in the State of California to have at least one female director on board.

We believe that boards should develop, as part of their refreshment process, a framework for identifying diverse candidates for all open board positions. We believe diversity is broader than gender and should also take into consideration factors such as business experience, ethnicity, tenure and nationality. As such, we generally vote in favor of proposals that encourage the adoption of a diverse search policy ("Rooney Rule"), assuring that each director search includes at least one woman, and in the US, at least one underrepresented person of color, in the slate of nominees. This translates to following two voting approach:

a. Gender Diversity: AB will generally vote against the nominating/governance committee chair, or a relevant incumbent member in case of classified boards, when the board has no female members. In Japan, we will vote against the top management. This approach applies globally.

b. Ethnic and Racial Diversity: AB will escalate the topic of board level ethnic/racial diversity and engage with its significant holdings that lack a minority ethnic/racial representation on board through 2021. Based on the outcome, AB will begin voting against the nominating/governance committee chair or a relevant incumbent member for classified boards of companies that lack minority ethnic/racial representation on board in 2022.

<u>Compensation Proposals: Executive and Employee Compensation Plans, Policies, and Reports</u>

In certain markets, (e.g., Australia, Canada, Germany and the United States), publicly traded issuers are required by law to submit their company's remuneration report to a non-binding shareholder vote. The report contains, among other things, the nature and amount of the compensation of the directors and certain executive officers as well as a discussion of the company's performance. In other markets, remuneration policy resolutions are binding.

We evaluate remuneration reports and policies on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the reasonableness of the company's compensation structure and the adequacy of the disclosure. In all cases, however, we assess each proposed Compensation Plan within the framework of four guiding principles, each of which ensures a company's Compensation Plan and helps to align to the long-term interests of management with shareholders:

1. Valid measures of business performance should be tied to the firm's strategy and shareholder value creation, which should also be clearly articulated and incorporate appropriate time periods;

2. Compensation costs should be managed in the same way as any other expense;

3. Compensation should reflect management's handling, or failure to handle, any recent social, environmental, governance, ethical, or legal issue that had a significant adverse financial or reputational effect on the company; and

4. In granting compensatory awards, management should exhibit a history of integrity and decision-making based on logic and well thought out processes.

We may oppose plans which include, and directors who establish, compensation plan provisions deemed to be in poor practice such as automatic acceleration of equity, or single-triggered, in the event of a change in control.

Although votes on compensation plans are by nature only broad indications of shareholder views, they do lead to more compensation-related dialogue between management and shareholders and help ensure that management and shareholders meet their common objective: maximizing shareholder value.

In markets where votes on compensation plans are not required for all companies, we will support shareholder proposals asking the board to adopt such a vote on an advisory basis.

<u>Capital Changes and Anti-Takeover Proposals: Authorize Share Repurchase</u>

We generally support share repurchase proposals that are part of a well-articulated and well-conceived capital strategy. We assess proposals to give the board unlimited authorization to repurchase shares on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, we would generally support the use of derivative instruments (e.g., put options and call options) as part of a share repurchase plan absent a compelling reason to the contrary. Also, absent a specific concern at the company, we will generally support a repurchase plan that could be continued during a takeover period.

<u>Auditor Proposals: Appointment of Auditors</u>

We believe that the company is in the best position to choose its accounting firm, and we generally support management's recommendation.

We recognize that there may be inherent conflicts when a company's independent auditors perform substantial non-audit related services for the company. Therefore, in reviewing a proposed auditor, we will consider the amount of fees paid for non-audit related services performed compared to the total audit fees paid by the company to the auditing firm, and whether there are any other reasons for us to question the independence or performance of the firm's auditor such as, for example, tenure. We generally will deem as excessive the non-audit fees paid by a company to its auditor if those fees account for 50% or more of total fees paid. In the UK market, which utilizes a different standard, we adhere to a non-audit fee cap of 100% of audit fees. Under these circumstances, we generally vote against the auditor and the directors, in particular the members of the company's audit committee. In addition, we generally vote against authorizing the audit committee to set the remuneration of such auditors. We exclude from this analysis non-audit fees related to IPOs, bankruptcy emergence, and spin-offs and other extraordinary events. We may vote against or abstain due to a lack of disclosure of the name of the auditor while taking into account local market practice.

<u>Shareholder Access and Voting Proposals: Proxy Access for Annual Meetings</u> 

These proposals allow "qualified shareholders" to nominate directors. We generally vote in favor of management and shareholder proposals for proxy access that employ guidelines reflecting the SEC framework for proxy access (adopted by the US Securities and Exchange Commission ("**SEC**") in 2010, but vacated by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in 2011), which would have allowed a single shareholder, or group of shareholders, who hold at least 3% of the voting power for at least three years continuously to nominate up to 25% of the current board seats, or two directors, for inclusion in the subject company's annual proxy statement alongside management nominees.

We may vote against proposals that use requirements that are stricter than the SEC's framework, including implementation restrictions, and against individual board members, or entire boards, who exclude from their ballot properly submitted shareholder proxy access proposals or include their own competing, and stricter, proposals on the same ballot.

We will evaluate on a case-by-case basis proposals with less stringent requirements than the vacated SEC framework.

From time to time we may receive requests to join with other shareholders to support a shareholder action. We may, for example, receive requests to join a voting block for purposes of influencing management. If the third parties requesting our participation are not affiliated with us and have no business relationships with us, we will consider the request on a case-by-case basis. However, where the requesting party has a business relationship with us (e.g., the requesting party is a client or a significant service provider), agreeing to such a request may pose a potential conflict of interest. As a fiduciary we have an obligation to vote proxies in the best interest of our clients (without regard to our own interests in generating and maintaining business with our other clients) and given our desire to avoid even the appearance of a conflict, we will generally decline such a request.

<u>Environmental, Social and Disclosure Proposals: Lobbying and Political Spending</u>

We generally vote in favor of proposals requesting increased disclosure of political contributions and lobbying expenses, including those paid to trade organizations and political action committees, whether at the federal, state, or local level. These proposals may increase transparency.

**Conflicts of Interest**

As a fiduciary, we always must act in our clients' best interests. We strive to avoid even the appearance of a conflict that may compromise the trust our clients have placed in us, and we insist on strict adherence to fiduciary standards and compliance with all applicable federal and state securities laws. We have adopted a comprehensive Code of Business Conduct and Ethics ("**Code**") to help us meet these obligations. As part of this responsibility and as expressed throughout the Code, we place the interests of our clients first and attempt to avoid any perceived or actual conflicts of interest.

AllianceBernstein L.P. ("AB") recognizes that there may be a potential material conflict of interest when we engage with a company or vote a proxy solicited by an issuer that sponsors a retirement plan we manage (or administer), that distributes AB-sponsored mutual funds, or with which AB or one or more of our employees have another business or personal relationship that may affect how we vote on the issuer's proxy. Similarly, we may have a potential material conflict of interest when engaging with and deciding how to vote on a proposal sponsored or supported by a shareholder group that is a client. In order to avoid any perceived or actual conflict of interest, the procedures set forth in sections 4.2 through 4.8 in the full version of AB's Proxy Voting and Governance Policy have been established for use when we encounter a potential conflict to ensure that our engagement activities and voting decisions are based on maximizing shareholder value and are not the product of a conflict.

In addition, our Proxy Voting and Governance Committee takes reasonable steps to verify that ISS continues to be independent, including an annual review of ISS's conflict management procedures. When reviewing these conflict management procedures, we consider, among other things, whether ISS (i) has the capacity and competency to adequately analyze proxy issues; and (ii) can offer research in an impartial manner and in the best interests of our clients.

**Voting Transparency**

Many clients have requested that we provide them with periodic reports on how we voted their proxies. Clients may obtain information about how we voted proxies on their behalf by contacting their Advisor.

**Recordkeeping**

All of the records referenced will be kept in an easily accessible place for at least the length of time required by local regulation and custom, and, if such local regulation requires that records are kept for less than five years from the end of the fiscal year during which the last entry was made on such record, we will follow the US rule of five years. If the local regulation requires that records are kept for more than five years, we will comply with the local regulation. We maintain the vast majority of these records electronically.

#### Proxy Voting - Aristotle Capital.
Aristotle Capital's policy is to vote proxies on behalf of client accounts. Aristotle Capital has adopted Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures. Where Aristotle Capital has proxy voting authority for securities of its advisory clients, Aristotle Capital will vote such securities for the exclusive benefit, and in the best economic interest, of those clients and their beneficiaries, as determined by Aristotle Capital in good faith, subject to any restrictions or directions from the client. Aristotle Capital will not have the ability to accept direction from clients on a particular solicitation.

Aristotle Capital has written proxy voting policies and procedures ("Proxy Procedures") as required by Rule 206(4)-6 under the Advisers Act. Such voting responsibilities are exercised in accordance with the general antifraud provisions of the Advisers Act, as well as with Aristotle Capital's fiduciary duties under federal and state law to act in the best interests of its clients.

Aristotle Capital acknowledges its responsibility for identifying material conflicts of interest related to voting proxies. In order to ensure that Aristotle Capital is aware of the facts necessary to identify conflicts, senior management of Aristotle Capital must disclose to the CCO any personal conflicts such as officer or director positions held by them, their spouses or close relatives, in any portfolio company. Conflicts based on business relationships with Aristotle Capital or any affiliate of Aristotle Capital will be considered only to the extent that Aristotle Capital has actual knowledge of such relationships. If a conflict may exist which cannot be otherwise addressed by the CIO, Aristotle Capital may choose one of several options including: (1) "echo" or "mirror" voting the proxies in the same proportion as the votes of other proxy holders that are not Aristotle Capital clients; (2) if possible, erecting information barriers around the person or persons making the voting decision sufficient to insulate the decision from the conflict; or (3) if agreed upon in writing with the client, forwarding the proxies to affected clients and allowing them to vote their own proxies.

Clients may choose to vote their own proxies for securities held in their account or designate a third party to vote proxies. If this is the case, the Client must notify Aristotle Capital and proxy solicitations will be sent directly to clients or the third party designee who will then assume responsibility for voting them. If Aristotle Capital does not have the authority to vote proxies on behalf of the client, the client may contact Aristotle Capital with questions about a particular solicitation.

#### Proxy Voting - Brandywine Global.
*Policy.* Brandywine Global has a responsibility to its clients for voting proxies for portfolio securities consistent with the best economic interests of its clients. Brandywine Global maintains written policies and procedures as to the handling, research, voting and reporting of proxy voting and makes appropriate disclosures about our firm's proxy policies and practices. The policy and practice includes the fact that the firm has a responsibility to monitor corporate actions, receive and vote client proxies and disclose any potential conflicts of interest as well as making information available to clients about the voting of proxies for their portfolio securities and maintaining relevant and required records.

*Background.* Proxy voting is an important right of shareholders and reasonable care and diligence must be undertaken to ensure that such rights are properly and timely exercised.

Investment advisers registered with the SEC, and which exercise voting authority with respect to client securities, are required by Rule 206(4)-6 of the Advisers Act to (a) adopt and implement written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that client securities are voted in the best interests of clients, which must include how an adviser addresses material conflicts that may arise between an adviser's interests and those of its clients; (b) to disclose to clients how they may obtain information from the adviser with respect to the voting of proxies for their securities; (c) to describe to clients a summary of its proxy voting policies and procedures and, upon request, furnish a copy to its clients; and (d) maintain certain records relating to the adviser's proxy voting activities when the adviser does have proxy voting authority.

*Responsibility.* Compliance has the responsibility for the implementation and monitoring of the firm's proxy voting policy, practices, disclosures and record keeping, including outlining voting guidelines in the procedures.

*Procedures.* Brandywine Global has implemented policies and procedures that we believe are reasonably designed to ensure that proxies are voted in the best interest of clients, in accordance with our fiduciary duties and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 ("Advisers Act"). Our authority to vote the proxies of our clients is established through investment management agreements or comparable documents.

In exercising its voting authority, Brandywine Global will not consult or enter into agreements with officers, directors or employees of its parent, Franklin Resources Inc., or any of its affiliates, regarding the voting of any securities owned by its clients.

While the guidelines included in the procedures are intended to provide a benchmark for voting standards, each vote is ultimately cast on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration Brandywine Global's contractual obligations to our clients and all other relevant facts and circumstances at the time of the vote (such that these guidelines may be overridden to the extent Brandywine Global believes appropriate).

**Voting Authority**

• Brandywine Global shall assume the responsibility and authority with respect to the voting of proxies for all client accounts, unless such responsibility and authority expressly have been delegated to others or reserved to the trustee or other named fiduciary of a client account. In no event will Brandywine Global's authority to vote proxies obligate it to undertake any shareholder activism on behalf of any client.

• Brandywine Global's clients shall be responsible for notifying their custodians of the name and address of the person or entity with voting authority.

• Brandywine Global's Compliance Department, on a random basis, reviews the proxy voting process. The gathering and voting of proxies is coordinated through the Administrative Department and Brandywine Global maintains internal procedures to govern the processing of proxies, including handling client requests and monitoring for potential material conflicts. Research analysts, corporate action specialists and portfolio managers, otherwise referred to as voting persons, and are responsible for determining appropriate voting positions on each proxy utilizing any applicable guidelines contained in these procedures.

• Brandywine Global will not decline to vote proxies except in extraordinary circumstances, nor will Brandywine Global accept direction from others with regard to the voting of proxies. Brandywine Global will take the investment guidelines of an account into consideration in deciding how to vote on a particular issue.

• Brandywine Global may vote proxies related to the same security differently for each client.

• Brandywine Global seeks to identify any material conflicts that may arise between the interests of Brandywine Global and its clients in accordance with the following procedures. Except for extraordinary circumstances, in any such instance, the material conflict will be resolved by either excluding any conflicted person from the voting process or by voting in accordance with the recommendation of Glass Lewis, an independent third party.

• All relevant proxies are reviewed by the Legal and Compliance Department for potential material conflicts of interest. Issues to be reviewed may include whether Brandywine Global manages assets for the issuer, a shareholder proponent or an employee group of the issuer or otherwise has a current or potential business relationship with the issuer; whether Brandywine Global, one of its officers or directors or any voting person is a close relative of or has any personal or business relationship with the issuer (excluding normal commercial transactions and investment relationships where there is no special treatment), with an officer, director or other executive person at the issuer, with a candidate for election to the board of the issuer or with a shareholder proponent; whether there is any other material business or personal relationship which may create an interest in the outcome of the matter on the part of a voting person; or whether an affiliate of Brandywine Global's has a conflict as described above which is known to Brandywine Global's voting persons. Conflicts of this nature will be considered material. If the conflict pertains to an individual voting person that person will exclude him- or herself from the vote determination process in order to shield the Brandywine Global and other voting persons from the conflict, provided the compliance department believes that the other voting persons can determine a vote completely separate from the conflicted voting person. If the conflict cannot be contained, the proxy is voted according to the recommendation of Glass Lewis. Any time a material conflict is encountered, Brandywine Global will keep records on the nature of the conflict, the actual vote and the basis for the vote determination.

**Voting Guidelines**

• Proxies will not be voted without an analysis of the underlying issues involved.

• Brandywine Global's proxy voting policy at all times shall be directed toward maximizing the value of the assets of managed accounts, for the benefit of the accounts' ultimate owners/beneficiaries.

• Any item on a proxy, which would tend to inhibit the realization of maximum value, may receive a negative vote from Brandywine Global. Examples of such items would be staggered terms for directors, restrictions against cumulative voting, and establishment of different classes of stock, excessive compensation, poor stewardship, or any activity, which could be viewed as a "poison pill" maneuver.

• On other matters specific to a company, such as the election of directors, the appointment of auditors, granting of options, repricing of options, mergers and other material issues, a decision shall be made in conjunction with the primary analyst responsible for overseeing that company, consistent with the policy of maximizing value.

**Voting Records & Client Notification**

A proxy log shall be maintained by Brandywine Global that includes the issuer name, exchange ticker symbol, CUSIP number, shareholder meeting date, brief identification of the matter voted on, whether the matter was proposed by the issuer or by a shareholder of the issuer, whether a vote was cast on the matter, record of how the vote was cast, and whether the vote was cast for or against the recommendation of the issuer's management team.

Administration of Proxies

• At the inception of a new account over which Brandywine Global has domestic proxy voting authority:

• New client information is entered onto the "Proxy System" Broadridge Proxy Edge.

• Custodians are notified by the Client that proxies should be forwarded to Brandywine Global or transmitted to Broadridge's ProxyEdge system.

• Those proxies that arrive in the Mail Room are sorted and forwarded to a Proxy Administrator.

• Proxies are placed in date order into pending vote proxy files by a Proxy Administrator.

• Proxies are cross-referenced against the Alert List (discussed under *Identifying Potential Conflicts*).

• Proxies are then distributed to either the appropriate investment team or voted in accordance with Brandywine's Conflict of Interest procedures.

• In the event that no material conflict exists, the following procedures apply:

• The voting person's initials are entered onto the Proxy System's tickler file in the analyst block.

• Ballots are voted by a voting person and are returned to a Proxy Administrator for processing on the Proxy System.

• Where applicable, a Proxy Administrator will verify that the ballot was in fact voted in accordance with the Glass Lewis recommendation before entering it onto the Proxy System.

• The proxy booklets and Proxy System ballots are subjected to an approval process by a Proxy Administrator.

• During the approval process, ballot shares are matched against holdings shares.

• Discrepancies are researched through Brandywine Global's internal data warehouse and custodian banks are contacted where necessary to reconcile share amounts.

• Brandywine Global personnel act in such a manner to ensure that, absent special circumstances, the proxy gathering and proxy voting steps noted above could be completed before the applicable deadline for returning proxy votes.

• Any pending unvoted meetings are reviewed and monitored on a daily basis by Proxy Administrators.

• All voting records are maintained within the Proxy Systems.

**Administration of Client Requests**

• All client requests for proxy information (both written and oral), including but not limited to voting records and requests for detailed Policies and Procedures, are referred to a Proxy Administrator.

• All requests are entered onto a Proxy Request Log maintained by a Proxy Administrator. Information on the log includes the date of the request, the content of the request and the date of the response by Brandywine Global.

• The Proxy Administrator works in conjunction with the Client Service Department to respond to all requests in writing.

• Copies of all written requests and responses thereto, including voting record reports, are maintained in a separate Proxy Request file.

**Identifying Potential Conflict of interest**

<u>Personal Conflicts</u>

• Each voting person must certify in writing at the beginning of each proxy season that he or she will notify the Legal and Compliance Department of:

1. any potential personal conflict with regard to a specific proxy; and

2. any potential conflict of which they become aware relating to another voting person.

• Potential conflicts should be interpreted broadly in order to capture instances where a conflict of interest could be perceived to exist by a third party. An objective `reasonableness' standard should be applied as opposed to a subjective determination that the individual is not in fact conflicted.

• The following are examples of potential personal conflicts which are extracted from the SEC's Final Rule (17 CFR Part 275 [Release No. IA-2106; File No. S7-38-02], RIN 3235-AI65):

• The adviser may also have business or personal relationships with participants in proxy contests, corporate directors or candidates for directorships. For example, an executive of the adviser may have a spouse or other close relative that serves as a director or executive of a company.

• Any Board positions held on a publicly traded company by a voting person (as evidenced by their most recent Code of Ethics Certification) will be examined on a case-by-case basis as proxy votes arise in that security.

• A list of potentially conflicted securities ("Alert List") will be provided to the Proxy Administrators, who will cross-reference proxy votes as they arise.

• Any proxies matching securities on the Alert List will be referred to the Legal and Compliance Department for an assessment of the materiality of the conflict.

<u>Professional Conflicts</u>

• In order to identify instances where a professional association could be perceived as a conflict of interest between Brandywine Global and a client for purposes of proxy voting, the following procedures will be followed:

• The names of all clients who are directly connected to a publicly traded security, through a significant ownership interest, which was held by a Brandywine Global account during the relevant proxy period, will be added to the Alert List.

• The names of all significant prospects that are directly connected to a publicly traded security, through a significant ownership interest, which was held by a Brandywine Global account during the relevant proxy period, will be added to the Alert List.

• The Alert List will be cross-referenced by the Proxy Administrators against proxies on a weekly basis.

#### Proxy Voting - ClariVest.
It is ClariVest's policy to vote proxies in the interest of maximizing value for ClariVest's Clients. ClariVest's full policy regarding proxy voting is contained in its Compliance Manual.

ClariVest has retained Institutional Shareholder Services ("ISS"), and with the exception of certain ESG shareholder proposals as described in the full policy, generally follows their recommendation when voting proxies. However, ClariVest retains ultimate decision-making authority with respect to the voting of Client proxies and reserves the right to override ISS recommendations.

ClariVest's parent company Carillon Tower Advisers ("Carillon") has established a Stewardship Committee that includes members from each affiliate investment team and compliance. Effective April 1, 2022, proxy voting for ClariVest (for our clients for whom we vote proxies) will be centralized at the Carillon level pursuant to an updated set of guidelines. *The updated guidelines specify certain shareholder resolutions and other proxy votes that are now evaluated by our portfolio management teams on a "case by case" basis (rather than relying on the ISS recommendation.)*

ClariVest is not required to vote every Client proxy and refraining from voting should not necessarily be construed as a violation of ClariVest's fiduciary obligations. There may be times when refraining from voting is in the Client's best interest, such as when an adviser's analysis of a particular Client proxy reveals that the cost of voting the proxy may exceed the expected benefit to the Client (i.e., casting a vote on a foreign security may require that the adviser engage a translator or travel to a foreign country to vote in person).

#### Proxy Voting - DESIM.
**INTRODUCTION**

This document summarizes the proxy voting policies and procedures of D. E. Shaw Investment Management, L.L.C. ("DESIM").

**STATEMENT OF POLICY**

When voting proxies for a client account, DESIM's primary objective is to make voting decisions in the best interest of the client. DESIM has discretion to take into account any factors or considerations that it determines to be relevant, including those outlined in Part 2A of Form ADV, applicable advisory agreements, or other governing documents, when making any voting determination regarding the best interests of a client. In fulfilling its obligations to an advisory client, DESIM endeavors to act in a manner that will enhance the economic value of the assets of the client under management, subject to any express agreements with the applicable client. DESIM has established written policies and procedures that are designed to ensure that proxies relating to shares owned by a client to which DESIM provides advice are voted in the best interest of such client (the "Proxy Voting Policy"). Among other topics, the Proxy Voting Policy addresses DESIM's handling of material conflicts of interests in proxy voting situations.

**VOTING OF PROXIES**

DESIM has determined that the most efficient and effective method in which to vote proxies is through the engagement of an independent third-party proxy voting service (the "Proxy Voting Service"). DESIM generally votes most proxies through and in accordance with the recommendations of the Proxy Voting Service. DESIM believes that the independent Proxy Voting Service's internal policy regarding conflicts of interest, including the use of information barriers, adequately addresses its potential conflicts of interest.

To facilitate voting execution, DESIM utilizes the independent Proxy Voting Service's electronic vote management system to pre-populate and automatically submit votes in accordance with the Proxy Voting Service's recommendations, except in the cases where DESIM determines to deviate from a recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service or where manual voting is required. For the avoidance of doubt, DESIM retains the authority to vote proxies, has not delegated such authority to any other party, and may vote contrary to any recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service if it determines such recommendation may be contrary to the client's best interests. If DESIM believes that the recommendations of the Proxy Voting Service may be contrary to the best interest of a client, DESIM must obtain the approval of the Chief Compliance Officer and a Managing Director, or their respective designees, before instructing the Proxy Voting Service to vote the applicable proxy.

DESIM may elect not to vote proxies in cases where the cost of doing so, in the opinion of DESIM, would exceed the expected benefits to the client. Moreover, logistical issues may have a detrimental effect on DESIM's ability to vote proxies and thereby cause the cost of voting to exceed the expected benefits to the client. Unless expressly agreed otherwise with the applicable client, DESIM generally believes the costs of voting proxies would exceed the expected benefits, and generally does not vote proxies, in the following circumstances: (a) the proxies must be voted in-person; (b) the proxies are in jurisdictions that impose restrictions on the sale of the securities in order to vote (e.g., share-blocking jurisdictions); (c) the relevant securities are on loan pursuant to a securities lending program; (d) the proxies require execution of a power of attorney; (e) the relevant securities must be re-registered to the shareholder's name and not held in "street name"; and (f) the proxies require a certain client status with respect to the relevant resolutions, issuer, or jurisdiction to be voted.

**RECORDKEEPING**

Under applicable law, DESIM is required to maintain a number of books and records related to its business, including proxy voting records. Accordingly, DESIM maintains, or causes the Proxy Voting Service to maintain, the following documents:

• copies of the Proxy Voting Policy and any amendments thereto;

• copies of proxy statements received regarding client securities;

• records of votes cast on behalf of each client;

• records of each advisory client request for proxy voting information; and

• copies of any written documents prepared by DESIM that were material to a voting decision or that memorialized the basis for such decision.

**DISCLOSURE TO CLIENTS**

DESIM provides a summary of its proxy policies in Part 2A of Form ADV, which includes information on how a client may obtain a copy of the Proxy Voting Policy. DESIM will also furnish a copy of the Proxy Voting Policy and a summary of applicable proxy votes to any client upon written request.

**REVIEW OF POLICY AND PROCEDURES**

DESIM reviews annually the Proxy Voting Policy and the Proxy Voting Service.

#### Proxy Voting - FIAM
**I. <u>Introduction</u>**

These guidelines are intended to help Fidelity's customers and the companies in which Fidelity invests understand how Fidelity votes proxies to further the values that have sustained Fidelity for over 70 years. In particular, these guidelines are animated by two fundamental principles: 1) putting first the long-term interests of our customers and fund shareholders; and 2) investing in companies that share our approach to creating value over the long-term. Fidelity generally adheres to these guidelines in voting proxies and our **Stewardship Principles** serve as the foundation for these guidelines. Our evaluation of proxies reflects information from many sources, including management or shareholders of a company presenting a proposal and proxy voting advisory firms. Fidelity maintains the flexibility to vote individual proxies based on our assessment of each situation.

In evaluating proxies, we recognize that companies can conduct themselves in ways that have important environmental and social consequences. While Fidelity always remains focused on maximizing long-term shareholder value, we also consider potential environmental, social and governance (ESG) impacts that we believe are material to individual companies and investing funds' investment objectives and strategies.

Fidelity will vote on proposals not specifically addressed by these guidelines based on an evaluation of a proposal's likelihood to enhance the long-term economic returns or profitability of the company or to maximize long-term shareholder value. Fidelity will not be influenced by business relationships or outside perspectives that may conflict with the interests of the funds and their shareholders.

**II. <u>Board of Directors and Corporate Governance</u>**

Directors of public companies play a critical role in ensuring that a company and its management team serve the interests of its shareholders. Fidelity believes that through proxy voting, it can help ensure accountability of management teams and boards of directors, align management and shareholder interests, and monitor and assess the degree of transparency and disclosure with respect to executive compensation and board actions affecting shareholders' rights. The following general guidelines are intended to reflect these proxy voting principles.

**A. Election of Directors**

Fidelity will generally support director nominees in elections where all directors are unopposed (uncontested elections), except where board composition raises concerns, and/or where a director clearly appears to have failed to exercise reasonable judgment or otherwise failed to sufficiently protect the interests of shareholders.

Fidelity will evaluate board composition and generally will oppose the election of certain or all directors if, by way of example:

1. Inside or affiliated directors serve on boards that are not composed of a majority of independent directors.

2. There are no women on the board or if a board of ten or more members has fewer than two women directors.

3. The director is a public company CEO who sits on more than two unaffiliated public company boards.

Fidelity will evaluate board actions and generally will oppose the election of certain or all directors if, by way of example:

1. The director attended fewer than 75% of the total number of meetings of the board and its committees on which the director served during the company's prior fiscal year, absent extenuating circumstances.

2. The company made a commitment to modify a proposal or practice to conform to these guidelines, and failed to act on that commitment.

3. For reasons described below under the sections entitled Compensation and Anti-Takeover Provisions and Director Elections.

**B. Contested Director Elections**

On occasion, directors are forced to compete for election against outside director nominees (contested elections). Fidelity believes that strong management creates long-term shareholder value. As a result, Fidelity generally will vote in support of management of companies in which the funds' assets are invested. Fidelity will vote its proxy on a case-by-case basis in a contested election, taking into consideration a number of factors, amongst others:

1. Management's track record and strategic plan for enhancing shareholder value;

2. The long-term performance of the company compared to its industry peers; and

3. The qualifications of the shareholder's and management's nominees.

Fidelity will vote for the outcome it believes has the best prospects for maximizing shareholder value over the long-term.

**C. Cumulative Voting Rights**

Under cumulative voting, each shareholder may exercise the number of votes equal to the number of shares owned multiplied by the number of directors up for election. Shareholders may cast all of their votes for a single nominee (or multiple nominees in varying amounts). With regular (non-cumulative) voting, by contrast, shareholders cannot allocate more than one vote per share to any one director nominee. Fidelity believes that cumulative voting can be detrimental to the overall strength of a board. Generally, therefore, Fidelity will oppose the introduction of, and support the elimination of, cumulative voting rights.

**D. Classified Boards**

A classified board is one that elects only a percentage of its members each year (usually one-third of directors are elected to serve a three-year term). This means that at each annual meeting only a subset of directors is up for re-election. Fidelity believes that, in general, classified boards are not as accountable to shareholders as declassified boards. For this and other reasons, Fidelity generally will oppose a board's adoption of a classified board structure and support declassification of existing boards.

**E. Independent Chairperson**

In general, Fidelity believes that boards should have a process and criteria for selecting the board chair, and will oppose shareholder proposals calling for, or recommending the appointment of, a non-executive or independent chairperson. If, however, based on particular facts and circumstances, Fidelity believes that appointment of a non-executive or independent chairperson appears likely to further the interests of shareholders and promote effective oversight of management by the board of directors, Fidelity will consider voting to support a proposal for an independent chairperson under such circumstances.

**F. Majority Voting in Director Elections**

In general, Fidelity supports proposals calling for directors to be elected by a majority of votes cast if the proposal permits election by a plurality in the case of contested elections (where, for example, there are more nominees than board seats). Fidelity may oppose a majority voting shareholder proposal where a company's board has adopted a policy requiring the resignation of an incumbent director who fails to receive the support of a majority of the votes cast in an uncontested election.

**G. Proxy Access**

Proxy access proposals generally require a company to amend its by-laws to allow a qualifying shareholder or group of shareholders to nominate directors on a company's proxy ballot. Fidelity believes that certain safeguards as to ownership threshold and duration of ownership are important to assure that proxy access is not misused by those without a significant economic interest in the company or those driven by short term goals. Fidelity will evaluate proxy access proposals on a case-by-case basis, but generally will support proposals that include ownership of at least 3% (5% in the case of small-cap companies) of the company's shares outstanding for at least three years; limit the number of directors that eligible shareholders may nominate to 20% of the board; and limit to 20 the number of shareholders that may form a nominating group.

**H. Indemnification of Directors and Officers**

In many instances there are sound reasons to indemnify officers and directors, so that they may perform their duties without the distraction of unwarranted litigation or other legal process. Fidelity generally supports charter and by-law amendments expanding the indemnification of officers or directors, or limiting their liability for breaches of care unless Fidelity is dissatisfied with their performance or the proposal is accompanied by anti-takeover provisions (see Anti-Takeover Provisions and Shareholders Rights Plans below).

**III. <u>Compensation</u>**

Incentive compensation plans can be complicated and many factors are considered when evaluating such plans. Fidelity evaluates such plans based on protecting shareholder interests and our historical knowledge of the company and its management.

**A. Equity Compensation Plans**

Fidelity encourages the use of reasonably designed equity compensation plans that align the interest of management with those of shareholders by providing officers and employees with incentives to increase long-term shareholder value. Fidelity considers whether such plans are too dilutive to existing shareholders because dilution reduces the voting power or economic interest of existing shareholders as a result of an increase in shares available for distribution to employees in lieu of cash compensation. Fidelity will generally oppose equity compensation plans or amendments to authorize additional shares under such plans if:

1. The company grants stock options and equity awards in a given year at a rate higher than a benchmark rate ("burn rate") considered appropriate by Fidelity and there were no circumstances specific to the company or the compensation plans that leads Fidelity to conclude that the rate of awards is otherwise acceptable.

2. The plan includes an evergreen provision, which is a feature that provides for an automatic increase in the shares available for grant under an equity compensation plan on a regular basis.

3. The plan provides for the acceleration of vesting of equity compensation even though an actual change in control may not occur.

As to stock option plans, considerations include the following:

1. Pricing: We believe that options should be priced at 100% of fair market value on the date they are granted. We generally oppose options priced at a discount to the market, although the price may be as low as 85% of fair market value if the discount is expressly granted in lieu of salary or cash bonus.

2. Re-pricing: An "out-of-the-money" (or underwater) option has an exercise price that is higher than the current price of the stock. We generally oppose the re-pricing of underwater options because it is not consistent with a policy of offering options as a form of long-term compensation. Fidelity also generally opposes a stock option plan if the board or compensation committee has re-priced options outstanding in the past two years without shareholder approval.

Fidelity generally will support a management proposal to exchange, re-price or tender for cash, outstanding options if the proposed exchange, re-pricing, or tender offer is consistent with the interests of shareholders, taking into account a variety of factors such as:

1. Whether the proposal excludes senior management and directors;

2. Whether the exchange or re-pricing proposal is value neutral to shareholders based upon an acceptable pricing model;

3. The company's relative performance compared to other companies within the relevant industry or industries;

4. Economic and other conditions affecting the relevant industry or industries in which the company competes; and

5. Any other facts or circumstances relevant to determining whether an exchange or re-pricing proposal is consistent with the interests of shareholders.

**B. Employee Stock Purchase Plans**

These plans are designed to allow employees to purchase company stock at a discounted price and receive favorable tax treatment when the stock is sold. Fidelity generally will support employee stock purchase plans if the minimum stock purchase price is equal to or greater than 85% (or at least 75% in the case of non-U.S. companies where a lower minimum stock purchase price is equal to the prevailing "best practices" in that market) of the stock's fair market value and the plan constitutes a reasonable effort to encourage broad based participation in the company's stock.

**IV. <u>Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Say on Pay) and Frequency of Say on Pay Vote</u>**

Current law requires companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding votes on the compensation for named executive officers, as well as the frequency of such votes. Fidelity generally will support proposals to ratify executive compensation unless the compensation appears misaligned with shareholder interests or is otherwise problematic, taking into account:

- The actions taken by the board or compensation committee in the previous year, including whether the company re-priced or exchanged outstanding stock options without shareholder approval; adopted or extended a golden parachute without shareholder approval; or adequately addressed concerns communicated by Fidelity in the process of discussing executive compensation;

- The alignment of executive compensation and company performance relative to peers; and

- The structure of the compensation program, including factors such as whether incentive plan metrics are appropriate, rigorous and transparent; whether the long-term element of the compensation program is evaluated over at least a three-year period; the sensitivity of pay to below median performance; the amount and nature of non-performance-based compensation; the justification and rationale behind paying discretionary bonuses; the use of stock ownership guidelines and amount of executive stock ownership; and how well elements of compensation are disclosed.

When presented with a frequency of Say on Pay vote, Fidelity generally will support holding an annual advisory vote on Say on Pay.

**A. Compensation Committee**

Directors serving on the compensation committee of the Board have a special responsibility to ensure that management is appropriately compensated and that compensation, among other things, fairly reflects the performance of the company. Fidelity believes that compensation should align with company performance as measured by key business metrics. Compensation policies should align the interests of executives with those of shareholders. Further, the compensation program should be disclosed in a transparent and timely manner.

Fidelity will oppose the election of directors on the compensation committees if:

1. The company has not adequately addressed concerns communicated by Fidelity in the process of discussing executive compensation.

2. Within the last year, and without shareholder approval, a company's board of directors or compensation committee has either:

a) Re-priced outstanding options, exchanged outstanding options for equity, or tendered cash for outstanding options; or

b) Adopted or extended a golden parachute.

**B. Executive Severance Agreements**

Executive severance compensation and benefit arrangements resulting from a termination following a change in control are known as "golden parachutes." Fidelity generally will oppose proposals to ratify golden parachutes where the arrangement includes an excise tax gross-up provision; single trigger for cash incentives; or may result in a lump sum payment of cash and acceleration of equity that may total more than three times annual compensation (salary and bonus) in the event of a termination following a change in control.

**V. <u>Environmental and Social Issues</u>**

Grounded in our **Stewardship Principles**, these guidelines outline our views on corporate governance. As part of our efforts to maximize long-term shareholder value, we incorporate environmental and social issues into our evaluation of a company, particularly if we believe an issue is material to that company and the investing fund's investment objective and strategies.

Fidelity generally considers management's recommendation and current practice when voting on shareholder proposals concerning environmental or social issues because it generally believes that management and the board are in the best position to determine how to address these matters. Fidelity, however, also believes that transparency is critical to sound corporate governance. Therefore, Fidelity may support shareholder proposals that request additional disclosures from companies regarding environmental or social issues, including where it believes that the proposed disclosures could provide meaningful information to the investment management process without unduly burdening the company. This means that Fidelity may support shareholder proposals calling for reports on sustainability, renewable energy, and environmental impact issues. Fidelity also may support proposals on issues in other areas, including but not limited to equal employment, board diversity and workforce diversity.

**VI. <u>Anti-Takeover Provisions and Shareholders Rights Plans</u>**

Fidelity generally will oppose a proposal to adopt an anti-takeover provision.

Anti-takeover provisions include:

- classified boards;

- "blank check" preferred stock (whose terms and conditions may be expressly determined by the company's board, for example, with differential voting rights);

- golden parachutes;

- supermajority provisions (that require a large majority (generally between 67-90%) of shareholders to approve corporate changes as compared to a majority provision that simply requires more than 50% of shareholders to approve those changes);

- poison pills;

- restricting the right to call special meetings;

- provisions restricting the right of shareholders to set board size; and

- any other provision that eliminates or limits shareholder rights.

**A. Shareholders Rights Plans ("poison pills")**

Poison pills allow shareholders opposed to a takeover offer to purchase stock at discounted prices under certain circumstances and effectively give boards veto power over any takeover offer. While there are advantages and disadvantages to poison pills, they can be detrimental to the creation of shareholder value and can help entrench management by deterring acquisition offers not favored by the board, but that may, in fact, be beneficial to shareholders.

Fidelity generally will support a proposal to adopt or extend a poison pill if the proposal:

1. Includes a condition in the charter or plan that specifies an expiration date (sunset provision) of no greater than five years;

2. Is integral to a business strategy that is expected to result in greater value for the shareholders;

3. Requires shareholder approval to be reinstated upon expiration or if amended;

4. Contains a mechanism to allow shareholders to consider a bona fide takeover offer for all outstanding shares without triggering the poison pill; and

5. Allows the Fidelity funds to hold an aggregate position of up to 20% of a company's total voting securities, where permissible.

Fidelity generally also will support a proposal that is crafted only for the purpose of protecting a specific tax benefit if it also believes the proposal is likely to enhance long-term economic returns or maximize long-term shareholder value.

**B. Shareholder Ability to Call a Special Meeting**

Fidelity generally will support shareholder proposals regarding shareholders' right to call special meetings if the threshold required to call the special meeting is no less than 25% of the outstanding stock.

**C. Shareholder Ability to Act by Written Consent**

Fidelity generally will support proposals regarding shareholders' right to act by written consent if the proposals include appropriate mechanisms for implementation. This means that proposals must include record date requests from at least 25% of the outstanding stockholders and consents must be solicited from all shareholders.

**D. Supermajority Shareholder Vote Requirement**

Fidelity generally will support proposals regarding supermajority provisions if Fidelity believes that the provisions protect minority shareholder interests in companies where there is a substantial or dominant shareholder.

**VII. <u>Anti-Takeover Provisions and Director Elections</u>**

Fidelity will oppose the election of all directors or directors on responsible committees if the board adopted or extended an anti-takeover provision without shareholder approval.

Fidelity will consider supporting the election of directors with respect to poison pills if:

- All of the poison pill's features outlined under the Anti-Takeover Provisions and Shareholders Rights section above are met when a poison pill is adopted or extended.

- A board is willing to consider seeking shareholder ratification of, or adding the features outlined under the Anti-Takeover Provisions and Shareholders Rights Plans section above to, an existing poison pill. If, however, the company does not take appropriate action prior to the next annual shareholder meeting, Fidelity will oppose the election of all directors at that meeting.

- It determines that the poison pill was narrowly tailored to protect a specific tax benefit, and subject to an evaluation of its likelihood to enhance long-term economic returns or maximize long-term shareholder value.

**VIII. <u>Capital Structure and Incorporation</u>**

These guidelines are designed to protect shareholders' value in the companies in which the Fidelity funds invest. To the extent a company's management is committed and incentivized to maximize shareholder value, Fidelity generally votes in favor of management proposals; Fidelity may vote contrary to management where a proposal is overly dilutive to shareholders and/or compromises shareholder value or other interests. The guidelines that follow are meant to protect shareholders in these respects.

**A. Increases in Common Stock**

Fidelity may support reasonable increases in authorized shares for a specific purpose (a stock split or re-capitalization, for example). Fidelity generally will oppose a provision to increase a company's authorized common stock if such increase will result in a total number of authorized shares greater than three times the current number of outstanding and scheduled to be issued shares, including stock options.

In the case of REITs, however, Fidelity will oppose a provision to increase the REIT's authorized common stock if the increase will result in a total number of authorized shares greater than five times the current number of outstanding and scheduled to be issued shares.

**B. Multi-Class Share Structures**

Fidelity generally will support proposals to recapitalize multi-class share structures into structures that provide equal voting rights for all shareholders, and generally will oppose proposals to introduce or increase classes of stock with differential voting rights. However, Fidelity will evaluate all such proposals in the context of their likelihood to enhance long-term economic returns or maximize long-term shareholder value.

**C. Incorporation or Reincorporation in another State or Country**

Fidelity generally will support management proposals calling for, or recommending that, a company reincorporate in another state or country if, on balance, the economic and corporate governance factors in the proposed jurisdiction appear reasonably likely to be better aligned with shareholder interests, taking into account the corporate laws of the current and proposed jurisdictions and any changes to the company's current and proposed governing documents. Fidelity will consider supporting these shareholder proposals in limited cases if, based upon particular facts and circumstances, remaining incorporated in the current jurisdiction appears misaligned with shareholder interests.

**IX. <u>Shares of Fidelity Funds, ETFs, or other non-Fidelity Mutual Funds and ETFs</u>**

When a Fidelity fund invests in an underlying Fidelity fund with public shareholders, an exchange traded fund (ETF), or fund that is not affiliated, Fidelity will vote in the same proportion as all other voting shareholders of the underlying fund (this is known as "echo voting"). Fidelity may not vote if "echo voting" is not operationally practical or not permitted under applicable laws and regulations. For Fidelity fund investments in a Fidelity Series Fund, Fidelity generally will vote in a manner consistent with the recommendation of the Fidelity Series Fund's Board of Trustees on all proposals.

**X. <u>Foreign Markets</u>**

Many Fidelity funds invest in voting securities issued by companies that are domiciled outside the United States and are not listed on a U.S. securities exchange. Corporate governance standards, legal or regulatory requirements and disclosure practices in foreign countries can differ from those in the United States. When voting proxies relating to non-U.S. securities, Fidelity generally will evaluate proposals under these guidelines and where applicable and feasible, take into consideration differing laws, regulations and practices in the relevant foreign market in determining how to vote shares.

In certain non-U.S. jurisdictions, shareholders voting shares of a company may be restricted from trading the shares for a period of time around the shareholder meeting date. Because these trading restrictions can hinder portfolio management and could result in a loss of liquidity for a fund, Fidelity generally will not vote proxies in circumstances where such restrictions apply. In addition, certain non-U.S. jurisdictions require voting shareholders to disclose current share ownership on a fund-by-fund basis. When such disclosure requirements apply, Fidelity generally will not vote proxies in order to safeguard fund holdings information.

**XI. <u>Securities on Loan</u>**

Securities on loan as of a record date cannot be voted. In certain circumstances, Fidelity may recall a security on loan before record date (for example, in a particular contested director election or a noteworthy merger or acquisition). Generally, however, securities out on loan remain on loan and are not voted because, for example, the income a fund derives from the loan outweighs the benefit the fund receives from voting the security. In addition, Fidelity may not be able to recall and vote loaned securities if Fidelity is unaware of relevant information before record date, or is otherwise unable to timely recall securities on loan.

**XII. <u>Avoiding Conflicts of Interest</u>**

Voting of shares is conducted in a manner consistent with the best interests of the Fidelity funds. In other words, securities of a company generally will be voted in a manner consistent with these guidelines and without regard to any other Fidelity companies' business relationships.

Fidelity takes its responsibility to vote shares in the best interests of the funds seriously and has implemented policies and procedures to address actual and potential conflicts of interest.

**XIII. <u>Conclusion</u>**

Since its founding more than 70 years ago, Fidelity has been driven by two fundamental values: 1) putting the long-term interests of our customers and fund shareholders first; and 2) investing in companies that share our approach to creating value over the long-term. With these fundamental principles as guideposts, the funds are managed to provide the greatest possible return to shareholders consistent with governing laws and the investment guidelines and objectives of each fund.

Fidelity believes that there is a strong correlation between sound corporate governance and enhancing shareholder value. Fidelity, through the implementation of these guidelines, puts this belief into action through consistent engagement with portfolio companies on matters contained in these guidelines, and, ultimately, through the exercise of voting rights by the funds.

**Glossary**

• Burn rate means the total number of stock option and full value equity awards granted as compensation in a given year divided by the weighted average common stock outstanding for that same year.

- For a large-capitalization company, burn rate higher than 1.5%.

- For a small-capitalization company, burn rate higher than 2.5%.

- For a micro-capitalization company, burn rate higher than 3.5%.

• Golden parachute means employment contracts, agreements, or policies that include an excise tax gross-up provision; single trigger for cash incentives; or may result in a lump sum payment of cash and acceleration of equity that may total more than three times annual compensation (salary and bonus) in the event of a termination following a change in control.

• Large-capitalization company means a company included in the Russell 1000<sup>®</sup> Index or the Russell Global ex-U.S. Large Cap Index.

• Micro-capitalization company means a company with market capitalization under US $300 million.

• Poison pill refers to a strategy employed by a potential takeover / target company to make its stock less attractive to an acquirer. Poison pills are generally designed to dilute the acquirer's ownership and value in the event of a takeover.

• Small-capitalization company means a company not included in the Russell 1000<sup>®</sup> Index or the Russell Global ex-U.S. Large Cap Index that is not a Micro-Capitalization Company.

#### Geode Proxy Voting Policies
As an investment adviser, Geode holds voting authority for securities in many of the client accounts that it manages. Geode takes seriously its responsibility to monitor events affecting securities in those client accounts and to exercise its voting authority with respect to those securities in the best interests of its clients (as well as shareholders of mutual funds for which it serves as adviser or sub-adviser). The purposes of these proxy voting policies are to (1) establish a framework for Geode's analysis and decision-making with respect to proxy voting and (2) set forth operational procedures for Geode's exercise of proxy voting authority.

**Overview**

Geode anticipates that, based on its current business model, it will manage the vast majority of assets under its management using passive investment management techniques, such as indexing. Geode also manages funds and separate accounts using active investment management techniques, primarily employing quantitative investment strategies.

Geode will engage established commercial proxy advisory firms for comprehensive analysis, research and voting recommendations, particularly for matters that may be controversial or require additional analysis under these proxy voting policies.

Geode may determine to follow or reject any recommendation based on the research and analysis provided by proxy advisory firms or on any independent research and analysis obtained or generated by Geode. However, Geode has retained a third-party proxy voting service (the "Agent") to affect votes based on the customized policies established by Geode and maintain records of all of Geode's proxy votes. In limited instances where the proxy voting policies do not address the specific matter, the Agent will refer the ballot back to Geode. For ballots related to proxy contests, mergers, acquisitions and other organizational transactions, Geode may determine it is appropriate to conduct a company specific evaluation. In cases of proxies not voted by the Agent, the ultimate voting decision and responsibility rests with Geode Proxy. Geode's Operations Committee oversees the exercise of voting authority under these proxy voting policies.

Due to its focused business model and the number of investments that Geode will make for its clients (particularly pursuant to its indexing strategy), Geode does not anticipate that actual or potential conflicts of interest are likely to occur in the ordinary course of its business. However, Geode believes it is essential to avoid having conflicts of interest affect its objective of voting in the best interests of its clients. Therefore, in the event that members of the Operations Committee, the Agent or any other person involved in the analysis or voting of proxies has knowledge of, or has reason to believe there may exist, any potential relationship, business or otherwise, between the portfolio company subject to the proxy vote and Geode (or any affiliate of Geode) or their respective directors, officers, employees or agents, such person shall notify the other members of the Operations Committee. Geode will analyze and address such potential conflict of interest, consulting with outside counsel, as appropriate. In the case of an actual conflict of interest, on the advice of counsel, Geode expects that the independent directors of Geode will consider the matter and may (1) determine that there is no conflict of interest (or that reasonable measures have been taken to remedy or avoid any conflict of interest) that would prevent Geode from voting the applicable proxy, (2) abstain, (3) cause authority to be delegated to the Agent or a similar special fiduciary to vote the applicable proxy or (4) recommend other methodology for mitigating the conflict of interest, if deemed appropriate (e.g., echo voting).

Geode has established the specific proxy voting policies that are summarized below to maximize the value of investments in its clients' accounts, which it believes will be furthered through (1) accountability of a company's management and directors to its shareholders, (2) alignment of the interests of management with those of shareholders (including through compensation, benefit and equity ownership programs), and (3) increased disclosure of a company's business and operations. Geode reserves the right to override any of its proxy voting policies with respect to a particular shareholder vote when such an override is, in Geode's best judgment, consistent with the overall principle of voting proxies in the best long-term economic interests of Geode's clients.

**Policies**

All proxy votes shall be considered and made in a manner consistent with the best interests of Geode's clients (as well as shareholders of mutual fund clients) without regard to any other relationship, business or otherwise, between the portfolio company subject to the proxy vote and Geode or its affiliates. As a general matter, (1) proxies will be voted FOR incumbent members of a board of directors and FOR routine management proposals, except as otherwise addressed under these policies; (2) shareholder and non-routine management proposals addressed by these policies will be voted as provided in these policies; and (3) shareholder and non-routine management proposals not addressed by these policies will be evaluated by Geode Proxy based on fundamental analysis and/or research and recommendations provided by the Agent and other third-party proxy advisory firms.

When voting the securities of non-US issuers, Geode will evaluate proposals in accordance with these policies but will also take local market standards and best practices into consideration. Geode may also limit or modify its voting at certain non-US meetings (*e.g.*, if shares are required to be blocked or reregistered in connection with voting).

Geode's specific policies are as follows:

**I. Election of Directors**

**Geode will generally vote FOR incumbent members of a board of directors except:**

• **Attendance.** The incumbent board member failed to attend at least 75% of meetings in the previous year and does not provide a reasonable explanation.

• **Independent Directors.** Nominee is not independent and full board comprises less than a majority of independents. Nominee is not independent and sits on the audit, compensation or nominating committee.

• **Director Responsiveness.** The board failed to act on shareholder proposals that received approval by Geode and a majority of the votes cast in the previous year. The board failed to act on takeover offers where Geode and a majority of shareholders tendered their shares. At the previous board election, directors opposed by Geode received more than 50 percent withhold/against votes of the shares cast, and the company failed to address the issue(s) that caused the high withhold/against vote.

• **Golden Parachutes.** Incumbent members of the compensation committee adopted or renewed an excessive golden parachute within the past year.

• **Gender Diversity.** If there are no women on the Board unless the Board has made a firm commitment to return to a gender-diverse status when there was a woman on the Board at the preceding annual meeting.

• **Overboarding.** The Director is a CEO and sits on the Board of more than two public companies besides his or her own; or a non-CEO Director who sits on more than five public company boards.

• In **Other Circumstances** when a member of the board has acted in a manner inconsistent with the interests of shareholders of a company whose securities are held in client accounts.

**II. Majority Election.** Unless a company has a policy achieving a similar result, Geode will generally vote in favor of a proposal calling for directors to be elected by a majority of votes cast in a board election provided that the plurality vote applies when there are more nominees than board seats.

**III. Say on Pay (non-binding).**

• **Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation.** Geode will generally vote AGAINST advisory vote when: (1) there is a significant misalignment between executive pay and company performance; (2) the company maintains significant problematic pay practices; or (3) the board exhibits a significant level of poor communication and responsiveness to shareholders.

• **Frequency Vote.** Geode will generally vote FOR having an advisory vote on executive compensation every year.

• **Advisory Vote on Golden Parachute.** Geode will vote AGAINST excessive change-in-control severance payments.

**IV. Vote AGAINST <u>Anti-Takeover Proposals</u>,** including:

• **Addition of Special Interest Directors** to the board.

• **Authorization of "Blank Check" Preferred Stock.** Geode will vote FOR proposals to require shareholder approval for the distribution of preferred stock except for acquisitions and raising capital in the ordinary course of business.

• **Classification of Boards,** Geode will vote FOR proposals to de-classify boards.

• **Fair Price Amendments,** other than those that consider only a two-year price history and are not accompanied by other anti-takeover measures.

• **Golden Parachutes,** that Geode deems to be excessive in the event of change-in-control.

• **Poison Pills.** Adoption or extension of a Poison Pill without shareholder approval will result in our voting AGAINST the election of incumbents or a management slate in the concurrent or next following vote on the election of directors, provided the matter will be considered if (a) the board has adopted a Poison Pill with a sunset provision; (b) the Pill is linked to a business strategy that will result in greater value for the shareholders; (c) the term is less than three years; (d) the Pill includes a qualifying offer clause; or (e) shareholder approval is required to reinstate the expired Pill. Geode will vote FOR shareholder proposals requiring or recommending that shareholders be given an opportunity to vote on the adoption of poison pills.

• **Reduction or Limitation of Shareholder Rights** (*e.g.*, action by written consent, ability to call meetings, or remove directors).

• **Reincorporation** in another state (when accompanied by <u>Anti-Takeover</u> Provisions, including increased statutory anti-takeover provisions). Geode will vote FOR reincorporation in another state when not accompanied by such anti-takeover provisions.

• **Requirements that the Board Consider Non-Financial Effects** of merger and acquisition proposals.

• **Requirements regarding Size, Selection and Removal of the Board** that are likely to have an anti-takeover effect (although changes with legitimate business purposes will be evaluated).

• **Supermajority Voting Requirements** (*i.e.*, typically 2/3 or greater) for boards and shareholders. Geode will vote FOR proposals to eliminate supermajority voting requirements.

• **Transfer of Authority from Shareholders to Directors.**

**V. Vote FOR** proposed amendments to a company's certificate of incorporation or by-laws that enable the company to Opt **<u>Out of the Control Shares Acquisition Statutes.</u>**

**VI. Vote AGAINST** the introduction of new classes of **<u>Stock with Differential Voting Rights.</u>**

**VII. Vote AGAINST** introduction and FOR elimination of **<u>Cumulative Voting Rights,</u>** except in certain instances where it is determined not to enhance shareholders' interests.

**VIII. Vote FOR** elimination of **<u>Preemptive Rights.</u>**

**IX. Vote FOR <u>Anti-Greenmail</u>** proposals so long as they are not part of anti-takeover provisions (in which case the vote will be AGAINST).

**X. Vote FOR** charter and by-law amendments expanding the **<u>Indemnification of Directors</u>** to the maximum extent permitted under Delaware law (regardless of the state of incorporation) and vote **AGAINST** charter and by-law amendments completely <u>**Eliminating Directors' Liability for Breaches of Care.**</u>

**XI. Vote FOR** proposals to adopt **<u>Confidential Voting and Independent Vote Tabulation</u>** practices.

**XII. Vote FOR** Open-Market <u>**Stock Repurchase Programs**</u>, unless there is clear evidence of past abuse of the authority; the plan contains no safeguards against selective buybacks, or the authority can be used as an anti-takeover mechanism.

**XIII. Vote FOR** management proposals to implement a <u>**Reverse Stock Split**</u> when the number of authorized shares will be proportionately reduced or the Reverse Stock Split is necessary to avoid de-listing.

**XIV. Vote FOR** management proposals to <u>**Reduce the Par Value**</u> of common stock unless the proposal may facilitate an anti-takeover device or other negative corporate governance action.

**XV. Vote FOR** the <u>**Issuance of Large Blocks of Stock**</u> if such proposals have a legitimate business purpose and do not result in dilution of greater than 20%. However, a company's specific circumstances and market practices may be considered in determining whether the proposal is consistent with shareholders' interests.

**XVI. Vote AGAINST <u>Excessive Increases in Common Stock.</u>** Vote AGAINST increases in authorized common stock that would result in authorized capital in excess of three times the company's shares outstanding and reserved for legitimate purposes. For non-U.S. securities with conditional capital requests, vote AGAINST issuances of shares with preemptive rights in excess of 100% of the company's current shares outstanding. Special requests will be evaluated, taking company-specific circumstances into account.

**XVII. Vote AGAINST** the adoption of or amendment to authorize additional shares under a **<u>Stock Option Plan</u>** if:

• The **stock option plan** includes **evergreen provisions,** which provides for an automatic allotment of equity compensation every year.

• The **dilution effect** of the shares authorized under the plan (including by virtue of any "evergreen" or replenishment provision), plus the shares reserved for issuance pursuant to all other option or restricted stock plans, is **greater than 10%.** However, dilution may be increased to 15% for small capitalization companies, and 20% for micro capitalization companies, respectively. If the plan fails this test, the dilution effect may be evaluated relative to any unusual factor involving the company.

• The **offering price of options is less than 100% of fair market value** on the date of grant, except that the offering price may be as low as 85% of fair market value if the discount is expressly granted in lieu of salary or cash bonus, except that a modest number of shares (limited to 5% for a large capitalization company and 10% for small and micro capitalization companies) may be available for grant to employees and directors under the plan if the grant is made by a compensation committee composed entirely of independent directors (the "De Minimis Exception").

• **The plan is administered by** (1) a **compensation committee not comprised entirely of independent directors** or (2) a **board of directors not comprised of a majority of independent directors,** provided that a plan is acceptable if it satisfies the De Minimis Exception.

• The **plan's terms allow repricing of underwater options, or the board/committee has repriced options outstanding under the plan in the past two years without shareholder approval,** unless by the express terms of the plan or a board resolution such repricing is rarely used (and then only to maintain option value due to extreme circumstances beyond management's control) and is within the limits of the De Minimis Exception.

• **Liberal Definition of Change in Control:** the plan provides that the vesting of equity awards may accelerate even though an actual change in control may not occur.

**XVIII. Vote AGAINST** the election of incumbent members of the compensation committee or a management slate in the concurrent or next following vote on the election of directors if, within the last year and without shareholder approval, the company's board of directors or compensation committee has <u>repriced outstanding options</u>.

**XIX. Evaluate proposals to <u>Reprice Outstanding Stock Options</u>,** taking into account such factors as: (1) whether the repricing proposal excludes senior management and directors; (2) whether the options proposed to be repriced exceeded the dilution thresholds described in these current proxy voting policies when initially granted; (3) whether the repricing proposal is value neutral to shareholders based upon an acceptable options pricing model; (4) the company's relative performance compared to other companies within the relevant industry or industries; (5) economic and other conditions affecting the relevant industry or industries in which the company competes; and (6) other facts or circumstances relevant to determining whether a repricing proposal is consistent with the interests of shareholders.

**XX. Vote AGAINST** adoption of or amendments to authorize additional shares for **<u>Restricted Stock Awards</u> ("RSA")** if:

• The **dilution effect** of the shares authorized under the plan, plus the shares reserved for issuance pursuant to all other option or restricted stock plans, is **greater than 10%.** However, dilution may be increased to 15% for small capitalization companies, and 20% for micro capitalization companies, respectively. If the plan fails this test, the dilution effect may be evaluated relative to any unusual factor involving the company.

**XXI. Vote AGAINST <u>Omnibus Stock Plans</u>** if one or more component violates any of the criteria applicable to Stock Option Plans or RSAs under these proxy voting policies, unless such component is de minimis. In the case of an omnibus stock plan, the dilution limits applicable to Stock Option Plans or RSAs under these proxy voting policies will be measured against the total number of shares under all components of such plan.

**XXII. Vote AGAINST <u>Employee Stock Purchase Plans</u>** if the plan violates any of the relevant criteria applicable to Stock Option Plans or RSAs under these proxy voting policies, except that (1) the minimum stock purchase price may be equal to or greater than 85% of the stock's fair market value if the plan constitutes a reasonable effort to encourage broad based participation in the company's equity, and (2) in the case of non-U.S. company stock purchase plans, the minimum stock purchase price may be equal to the prevailing "best practices," as articulated by the Agent, provided that the minimum stock purchase price must be at least 75% of the stock's fair market value.

**XXIII. Vote AGAINST <u>Stock Awards</u>** (other than stock options and RSAs) unless it is determined they are identified as being granted to officers/directors in lieu of salary or cash bonus, subject to number of shares being reasonable.

**XXIV. Vote AGAINST equity vesting acceleration programs** or amendments to authorize additional shares under such programs if the program provides for the acceleration of vesting of equity awards even though an actual change in control may not occur.

**XXV. Vote FOR <u>Employee Stock Ownership Plans</u> ("ESOPs") of non-leveraged ESOPs,** and in the case of leveraged ESOPs, giving consideration to the company's state of incorporation, existence of supermajority vote rules in the charter, number of shares authorized for the ESOP, and number of shares held by insiders. Geode may also examine where the ESOP shares are purchased and the dilution effect of the purchase. Geode will vote AGAINST a leveraged ESOP if all outstanding loans are due immediately upon a change in control.

**XXVI. Vote AGAINST management or shareholder** proposals on other **<u>Compensation Plans or Practices</u>** if such plans or practices are <u>**Inconsistent with the Interests of Shareholders.**</u> In addition, Geode may vote AGAINST the election of incumbents or a management slate in the concurrent or next following vote on the election of directors if Geode believes a board has approved executive compensation arrangements inconsistent with the interests of shareholders.

**XXVII. Environmental and Social Proposals**. Evaluate each proposal related to environmental and social issues (including political contributions). Generally, Geode expects to vote with management's recommendation on shareholder proposals concerning environmental or social issues, as Geode believes management and the board are ordinarily in the best position to address these matters. Geode may support certain shareholder environmental and social proposals that request additional disclosures from companies which may provide material information to the investment management process, or where Geode otherwise believes support will help maximize shareholder value. Geode may take action against the re-election of board members if there are serious concerns over ESG practices or the board failed to act on related shareholder proposals that received approval by Geode and a majority of the votes cast in the previous year.

**XXVIII. Geode will generally vote AGAINST shareholder proposals seeking to establish proxy access.** Geode will evaluate management proposals on proxy access. Geode will evaluate shareholder proposals seeking to amend an existing proxy access right.

**XXIX. Shares of Investment Companies.**

• For institutional accounts, Geode will generally vote in favor of proposals recommended by the underlying funds' Board of Trustees, unless voting is not permitted under applicable laws and regulations.

• For retail managed accounts, Geode will employ echo voting when voting shares. To avoid certain potential conflicts of interest, if an investment company has a shareholder meeting, Geode would vote their shares in the investment company in the same proportion as the votes of the other shareholders of the investment company.

#### Proxy Voting - JPMorgan.
The Board of Trustees has delegated to JPMorgan, and its affiliated advisers, proxy voting authority with respect to the fund's portfolio securities. To ensure that the proxies of portfolio companies are voted in the best interests of the fund, the fund's Board of Trustees has adopted JPMorgan's detailed proxy voting procedures (the "Procedures") that incorporate guidelines ("Guidelines") for voting proxies on specific types of issues.

JPMorgan and its affiliated advisers are part of a global asset management organization with the capability to invest in securities of issuers located around the globe. Because the regulatory framework and the business cultures and practices vary from region to region, the Guidelines are customized for each region to take into account such variations. Separate Guidelines cover the regions of (1) North America, (2) Europe, Middle East, Africa, Central America and South America ("EMEA"), (3) Asia (ex-Japan) and (4) Japan, respectively.

Notwithstanding the variations among the Guidelines, all of the Guidelines have been designed with the uniform objective of encouraging corporate action that enhances shareholder value consistent with the fund's objectives and strategies. As a general rule, in voting proxies of a particular security, JPMorgan and its affiliated advisers will apply the Guidelines of the region in which the issuer of such security is organized. Except as noted below, proxy voting decisions will be made in accordance with the Guidelines covering a multitude of both routine and non-routine matters that JPMorgan and its affiliated adviser have encountered globally, based on many years of collective investment management experience.

To oversee and monitor the proxy-voting process, JPMorgan has established a proxy committee and appointed a proxy administrator in each global location where proxies are voted. The primary functions of each proxy committee include review and approval of the Guidelines annually and the provision of advice and recommendations on general proxy-voting matters as well as on specific voting issues. The procedures permit an independent voting service to perform certain services otherwise carried out or coordinated by the proxy administrator.

Although for many matters the Guidelines specify the votes to be cast, for many others, the Guidelines contemplate case-by-case determinations. In addition, there will undoubtedly be proxy matters that are not contemplated by the Guidelines. For both of these categories of matters and to override the Guidelines, the Procedures require a certification and review process to be completed before the vote is cast. That process is designed to identify actual or potential material conflicts of interest (between the fund on the one hand, and JPMorgan, its underwriter or an affiliate of any of the foregoing, on the other hand) and ensure that the proxy vote is cast in the best interests of the fund. A conflict is deemed to exist when the proxy is for JPMorgan Chase & Co. stock or for J.P. Morgan Funds, or when the proxy administrator has actual knowledge indicating that a JPMorgan affiliate is an investment banker or rendered a fairness opinion with respect to the matter that is the subject of the proxy vote. When such conflicts are identified, the proxy will be voted by an independent third party either in accordance with JPMorgan proxy voting guidelines or by the third party using its own guidelines; provided, however, that JPMorgan's investment professional(s) may request an exception to this process to vote against a proposal rather than referring it to an independent third party ("Exception Request") where the proxy administrator has actual knowledge indicating that a JPMorgan Chase affiliate is an investment banker or rendered a fairness opinion with respect to the matter that is the subject of the proxy vote. The applicable proxy committee shall review the Exception Request and shall determine whether JPMorgan should vote against the proposal or whether such proxy should still be referred to an independent third party due to the potential for additional conflicts or otherwise.

When other types of potential material conflicts of interest are identified, the applicable proxy administrator and, as necessary and applicable, a legal representative from the applicable proxy committee will evaluate the potential conflict of interest and determine whether such conflict actually exists, and if so, will recommend how JPMorgan will vote the proxy. In addressing any material conflict, JPMorgan may take one or more of the following measures (or other appropriate action): removing or "walling off" from the proxy voting process certain JPMorgan personnel with knowledge of the conflict, voting in accordance with any applicable Guideline if the application of the Guideline would objectively result in the casting of a proxy vote in a predetermined manner, or deferring the vote to or obtaining a recommendation from an independent third party, in which case the proxy will be voted by, or in accordance with the recommendation of, the independent third party.

The following summarizes some of the more noteworthy types of proxy voting policies of the North America Guidelines:

• JPMorgan considers votes on director nominees on a case-by-case basis. Votes generally will be withheld from directors who: (a) attend less than 75% of board and committee meetings without a valid excuse; (b) adopt or renew a poison pill without shareholder approval; (c) are affiliated directors who serve on audit, compensation or nominating committees or are affiliated directors and the full board serves on such committees or the company does not have such committees; (d) ignore a shareholder proposal that is approved by a majority of either the shares outstanding or the votes cast based on a review over a consecutive two year time frame; (e) are insiders and affiliated outsiders on boards that are not at least majority independent except, in the case of controlled companies vote FOR non-independent directors who serve on committees other than the audit committee; or (f) are CEOs of publicly-traded companies who serve on more than three public boards or serve on more than four public company boards. In addition, votes are generally withheld for directors who serve on committees in certain cases. For example, JPMorgan generally withholds votes from audit committee members in circumstances in which there is evidence that there exists material weaknesses in the company's internal controls. Votes generally are also withheld from directors when there is a demonstrated history of poor performance or inadequate risk oversight or when the board adopts changes to the company's governing documents without shareholder approval if the changes materially diminish shareholder rights. Votes generally will be withheld from Board chair, lead independent directors, or government committee chairs of publicly traded companies where employees have departed for significant violation of code of conduct without claw back of compensation.

• JPMorgan votes proposals to classify boards on a case-by-case basis, but normally will vote in favor of such proposal if the issuer's governing documents contain each of eight enumerated safeguards (for example, a majority of the board is composed of independent directors and the nominating committee is composed solely of such directors).

• JPMorgan also considers management poison pill proposals on a case-by-case basis, looking for shareholder-friendly provisions before voting in favor.

• JPMorgan votes against proposals for a super-majority vote to approve a merger.

• JPMorgan considers proposals to increase common and/or preferred shares and to issue shares as part of a debt restructuring plan on a case-by-case basis, taking into account such factors as the extent of dilution and whether the transaction will result in a change in control.

• JPMorgan considers vote proposals with respect to compensation plans on a case-by-case basis. The analysis of compensation plans focuses primarily on the transfer of shareholder wealth (the dollar cost of pay plans to shareholders) and includes an analysis of the structure of the plan and pay practices of other companies in the relevant industry and peer companies. Other matters included in the analysis are the amount of the company's outstanding stock to be reserved for the award of stock options, whether the exercise price of an option is less than the stock's fair market value at the date of the grant of the options, and whether the plan provides for the exchange of outstanding options for new ones at lower exercise prices.

• JPMorgan also considers on a case-by-case basis proposals to change an issuer's state of incorporation, mergers and acquisitions and other corporate restructuring proposals and certain social issue proposals.

• JPMorgan generally votes for management proposals which seek shareholder approval to make the state of incorporation the exclusive forum for disputes if the company is a Delaware corporation; otherwise, JPMorgan votes on a case by case basis.

• JPMorgan supports board refreshment, independence, and a diverse skill set for directors. As a matter of principle, JPMorgan expects its investee companies to be committed to diversity and inclusiveness in their general recruitment policies as we believe such diversity contributes to the effectiveness of boards. JPMorgan will utilize its voting power to bring about change where Boards are lagging in gender and racial/ethnic diversity. JPMorgan will generally vote against the chair of the Nominating Committee when the issuer does not disclose the gender or racial and ethnic composition of the Board, with adequate diversity data considered as adequate in instances where individual directors do not wish to disclose personal identification. JPMorgan will also generally vote against the chair of the Nominating Committee when the issuer lacks any gender diversity or any racial/ethnic diversity unless there are mitigating factors such as recent retirement of relevant directors, a relatively new public company and an ongoing search for a director.

• JPMorgan reviews Say on Pay proposals on a case by case basis with additional review of proposals where the issuer's previous year's proposal received a low level of support.

The following summarizes some of the more noteworthy types of proxy voting polices of Section 12 Social and Environmental Issues from the North America Guidelines:

• JPMorgan generally encourages a level of reporting on environmental matters that is not unduly costly or burdensome and which does not place the company at a competitive disadvantage, but which provides meaningful information to enable shareholders to evaluate the impact of the company's environmental policies and practices on its financial performance. In general, JPMorgan supports management disclosure practices that are overall consistent with the goals and objective expressed above. Proposals with respect to companies that have been involved in controversies, fines or litigation are expected to be subject to heightened review and consideration.

• In evaluating how to vote environmental proposals, key considerations may include but are not limited to issuer considerations such as asset profile of the company, including whether it is exposed to potentially declining demand for the company's products or services due to environmental considerations; cash deployments; cost structure of the company, including its position on the cost curve, expected impact of future carbon tax and exposure to high fixed operating costs; corporate behavior of the company; demonstrated capabilities of the company, its strategic planning process, and past performance; current level of disclosure of the company and consistency of disclosure across its industry; and whether the company incorporates environmental or social issues in a risk assessment or risk reporting framework. JPMorgan may also consider whether peers have received similar proposals and if so, were the responses transparent and insightful; would adoption of the proposal inform and educate shareholders; and have companies that adopted the proposal provided insightful and meaningful information that would allow shareholders to evaluate the long-term risks and performance of the company; does the proposal require disclosure that is already addressed by existing and proposed mandated regulatory requirements or formal guidance at the local, state, or national level or the company's existing disclosure practices; and does the proposal create the potential for unintended consequences such as a competitive disadvantage.

• JPMorgan votes against the chair of the committee responsible for providing oversight of environmental matters and/or risk where JPMorgan believes the company is lagging peers in terms of disclosure, business practices or targets. JPMorgan also votes against committee members, lead independent director and/or board chair for companies that have lagged over several years.

• With regard to social issues, among other factors, JPMorgan considers the company's labor practices, supply chain, how the company supports and monitors those issues, what types of disclosure the company and its peers currently provide, and whether the proposal would result in a competitive disadvantage for the company.

• JPMorgan expects Boards to provide oversight of human capital management which includes the company management of its workforce, use of full time versus part time employees, workforce cost, employee engagement and turnover, talent development, retention and training, compliance record and health and safety. As an engaged and diverse employee base is integral to a company's ability to innovate, respond to a diverse customer base and engage with diverse communities and deliver shareholder returns, JPMorgan will generally support shareholder resolutions seeking the company to disclose data on workforce demographics including diversity, and release of EEO-1 or comparable data where such disclosure is deemed by JPMorgan as inadequate.

The following summarizes some of the more noteworthy types of proxy voting policies of the EMEA, Asia (E-Japan) and Japan Guidelines (collectively, "Non-U.S. Guidelines"):

• Corporate governance procedures differ among the countries. Because of time constraints and local customs, it is not always possible for JPMorgan to receive and review all proxy materials in connection with each item submitted for a vote. Many proxy statements are in foreign languages. Proxy materials are generally mailed by the issuer to the sub-custodian which holds the securities for the client in the country where the portfolio company is organized, and there may not be sufficient time for such materials to be transmitted to JPMorgan in time for a vote to be cast. In some countries, proxy statements are not mailed at all, and in some locations, the deadline for voting is two to four days after the initial announcement that a vote is to be solicited and it may not always be possible to obtain sufficient information to make an informed decision in good time to vote.

• Certain markets require that shares being tendered for voting purposes are temporarily immobilized from trading until after the shareholder meeting has taken place. Elsewhere, notably emerging markets, it may not always be possible to obtain sufficient information to make an informed decision in good time to vote. Some markets require a local representative to be hired in order to attend the meeting and vote in person on our behalf, which can result in considerable cost. JPMorgan also considers the cost of voting in light of the expected benefit of the vote. In certain instances, it may sometimes be in the Fund's best interests to intentionally refrain from voting in certain overseas markets from time to time.

• The Non-U.S. Guidelines reflect the applicable region's corporate governance or stewardship codes with respect to corporate governance and proxy voting. For example, the EMEA Guidelines for UK companies are based on the revised UK Corporate Governance Code. If a portfolio company chooses to deviate from the provisions of the UK Corporate Governance Code, JPMorgan takes the company's explanation into account as appropriate, based on JPMorgan's overall assessment of the standards of corporate governance evidenced at the company. For Continental European markets, the Adviser expects companies to comply with local Corporate Governance Codes, where they exist. In markets where a comparable standard does not exist, we use the EMEA Guidelines as the primary basis for voting, while taking local market practice into consideration where applicable. The Japan Guidelines reflect the 2020 revisions to the Japanese Stewardship Code. Likewise, the Asia (Ex-Japan) Guidelines endorse the stewardship principles promoted by different regulators and industry bodies in the region including the Singapore Stewardship Principles for Responsible Investors supported by Monetary Authority of Singapore and Singapore Exchange, the Principles for Responsible Ownership issued by the Securities and Futures Commission in Hong Kong, and the Principles of Internal Governance and Asset Stewardship issued by the Financial Services Council of Australia.

• Where proxy issues concern corporate governance, takeover defense measures, compensation plans, capital structure changes and so forth, JPMorgan pays particular attention to management's arguments for promoting the prospective change.

• The Non-U.S. Guidelines encourage transparency and disclosure with respect to remuneration reporting as well as processes and policies designed to align compensation with the long-term performance of portfolio companies.

• In particular, the EMEA Guidelines indicate that the remuneration policy as it relates to senior management should ideally be presented to shareholders for approval with such votes normally occurring every third year. In addition, the EMEA Guidelines describe information that JPMorgan expects to be included in remuneration reports including disclosure on amounts paid to executives, alignment between company performance and pay out to executives, disclosure of, among other things, variable incentive targets, levels of achievement and performance awards, information on the ratio of CEO pay to median employee pay.

• With respect to the Japan Guidelines, the voting decision will be made taking into account matters such as recent trends in the company's earnings and performance, with the expectation that companies will have a remuneration system comprised of a reasonable mix of fixed and variable (based on short term and medium to long term incentives) compensation. Such Guidelines also support the introduction of clawback clauses in order to prevent excessive risk taking which can negatively impact shareholder value and excessive pay.

• Where shareholders are able to exercise a binding vote on remuneration policies, the Asia (Ex-Japan) Guidelines reflect JPMorgan's belief that such polices should stand the test of time. The Asia (Ex-Japan) Guidelines further encourage companies to provide information on the ratio of CEO pay to median employee pay and to explain the reasons for changes to the ratio as it unfolds year by year. The Asia (Ex-Japan) Guidelines also highlight information that companies should have regard to gender pay gaps and indicate how this issue is being addressed.

• JPMorgan is in favor of a unitary board structure of the type found in the United Kingdom as opposed to tiered board structures. Thus, under the EMEA Guidelines, JPMorgan will generally vote to encourage the gradual phasing out of tiered board structures, in favor of unitary boards. However, since tiered boards are still very prevalent in markets outside of the United Kingdom, the Non-U.S. Guidelines do not mandate a unitary board structure and local market practice will always be taken into account.

• JPMorgan will use its voting powers to encourage appropriate levels of board independence and diversity, taking into account local market practice.

• JPMorgan will usually vote against discharging the board from responsibility in cases of pending litigation, or if there is evidence of wrongdoing for which the board must be held accountable.

• JPMorgan will vote in favor of increases in capital which enhance a company's long-term prospects. JPMorgan will also vote in favor of the partial suspension of preemptive rights if they are for purely technical reasons (e.g., rights offers which may not be legally offered to shareholders in certain jurisdictions). However, JPMorgan will vote against increases in capital which would allow the company to adopt "poison pill" takeover defense tactics, or where the increase in authorized capital would dilute shareholder value in the long term.

• JPMorgan will vote in favor of proposals which will enhance a company's long-term prospects. JPMorgan will vote against an increase in bank borrowing powers which would result in the company reaching an unacceptable level of financial leverage, where such borrowing is expressly intended as part of a takeover defense, or where there is a material reduction in shareholder value.

• JPMorgan will generally vote against anti-takeover devices.

• JPMorgan considers social or environmental issues on a case-by-case basis under the Non-U.S. Guidelines, keeping in mind at all times the best economic interests of its clients. With respect to environmental proposals, the Non-U.S. Guidelines indicate that good corporate governance policies should consider the impact of company operations on the environment and the costs of compliance with laws and regulations relating to environmental matters, physical damage to the environment (including the costs of clean-ups and repairs), consumer preferences and capital investments related to climate change. The Non-U.S. Guidelines further encourage a level of environmental reporting that is not unduly costly or burdensome and which does not place the company at a competitive disadvantage, but which provides meaningful information to enable shareholders to evaluate the impact of the company's environmental policies and practices on its financial performance. With regard to social issues, among other factors, JPMorgan considers the company's labor practices, supply chain, how the company supports and monitors those issues, what types of disclosure the company and its peers currently provided, and whether the proposal would result in a competitive disadvantage for the company.

#### Proxy Voting – Loomis Sayles.
1. GENERAL

A. Introduction.

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. ("Loomis Sayles") will vote proxies of the securities held in its clients' portfolios on behalf of each client that has delegated proxy voting authority to Loomis Sayles as investment adviser. Loomis Sayles has adopted and implemented these policies and procedures ("Proxy Voting Procedures") to ensure that, where it has voting authority, proxy matters are handled in the best interests of clients, in accordance with Loomis Sayles' fiduciary duty, and all applicable law and regulations. The Proxy Voting Procedures, as implemented by the Loomis Sayles Proxy Committee (as described below), are intended to support good corporate governance, including those corporate practices that address environmental and social issues ("ESG Matters"), in all cases with the objective of protecting shareholder interests and maximizing shareholder value.

Loomis Sayles uses the services of third parties (each a "Proxy Voting Service" and collectively the "Proxy Voting Services"), to provide research, analysis and voting recommendations and to administer the process of voting proxies for those clients for which Loomis Sayles has voting authority. Any reference in these Proxy Voting Procedures to a "Proxy Voting Service" is a reference either to the Proxy Voting Service that provides research, analysis and voting recommendations to Loomis Sayles or to the Proxy Voting Service that administers the process of voting proxies for Loomis Sayles or to both, as the context may require. Loomis Sayles will generally follow its express policy with input from the Proxy Voting Service that provides research, analysis and voting recommendations to Loomis Sayles unless the Proxy Committee determines that the client's best interests are served by voting otherwise.

B. General Guidelines.

The following guidelines will apply when voting proxies on behalf of accounts for which Loomis Sayles has voting authority.

1. Client's Best Interests. The Proxy Voting Procedures are designed and implemented in a way that is reasonably expected to ensure that proxy matters are conducted in the best interests of clients. When considering the best interests of clients, Loomis Sayles has determined that this means the best investment interest of its clients as shareholders of the issuer. To protect its clients' best interests, Loomis Sayles has integrated the consideration of ESG Matters into its investment process. The Proxy Voting Procedures are intended to reflect the impact of these factors in cases where they are material to the growth and sustainability of an issuer. Loomis Sayles has established its Proxy Voting Procedures to assist it in making its proxy voting decisions with a view toward enhancing the value of its clients' interests in an issuer over the period during which it expects its clients to hold their investments. Loomis Sayles will vote against proposals that it believes could adversely impact the current or future market value of the issuer's securities during the expected holding period. Loomis Sayles also believes that protecting the best interests of clients requires the consideration of potential material impacts of proxy proposals associated with ESG Matters.

For the avoidance of doubt, and notwithstanding any other provisions of these Proxy Voting Procedures, in all instances in which Loomis Sayles votes proxies on behalf of clients that are employee benefit plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), Loomis Sayles (a) will act solely in accordance with the economic interest of the plan and its participants and beneficiaries, and (b) will not subordinate the interests of the participants and beneficiaries in their retirement income or financial benefits under the plan to any other objective, or promote benefits or goals unrelated to those financial interests of the plan's participants and beneficiaries.

2. Client Proxy Voting Policies. Rather than delegating proxy voting authority to Loomis Sayles, a client may (a) retain the authority to vote proxies on securities in its account; (b) delegate voting authority to another party; or (c) instruct Loomis Sayles to vote proxies according to a policy that differs from the Proxy Voting Procedures. Loomis Sayles will honor any of these instructions if the instruction is agreed to in writing by Loomis Sayles in its investment management agreement with the client. If Loomis Sayles incurs additional costs or expenses in following any such instruction, it may request payment for such additional costs or expenses from the client.

3. Stated Policies. In the interest of consistency in voting proxies on behalf of its clients where appropriate, Loomis Sayles has adopted policies that identify issues where Loomis Sayles will (a) generally vote in favor of a proposal; (b) generally vote against a proposal; (c) generally vote as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service; and (d) specifically consider its vote for or against a proposal. However, these policies are guidelines and each vote may be cast differently than the stated policy, taking into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances at the time of the vote. In certain cases where the recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service and the recommendation of the issuer's management are the same, the vote will generally be cast as recommended and will not be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the Proxy Committee. In cases where the portfolio manager of an account that holds voting securities of an issuer or the analyst covering the issuer or its securities recommends a vote, the proposal(s) will be voted according to these recommendations after a review for any potential conflicts of interest is conducted and will not be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the Proxy Committee. There may be situations where Loomis Sayles casts split votes despite the stated policies. For example, Loomis Sayles may cast a split vote when different clients may be invested in strategies with different investment objectives, or when different clients may have different economic interests in the outcome of a particular proposal. Loomis Sayles also may cast a split vote on a particular proposal when its investment teams have differing views regarding the impact of the proposal on their clients' investment interests.

4. Abstentions and Other Exceptions. Loomis Sayles' general policy is to vote rather than abstain from voting on issues presented, unless the Proxy Committee determines, pursuant to its best judgment, that the client's best interests require abstention. However, in the following circumstances Loomis Sayles may not vote a client's proxy:

• The Proxy Committee has concluded that voting would have no meaningful, identifiable economic benefit to the client as a shareholder, such as when the security is no longer held in the client's portfolio or when the value of the portfolio holding is insignificant.

• The Proxy Committee has concluded that the costs of or disadvantages resulting from voting outweigh the economic benefits of voting. For example, in some non-US jurisdictions, the sale of securities voted may be legally or practically prohibited or subject to some restrictions for some period of time, usually between the record and meeting dates ("share blocking"). Loomis Sayles believes that the loss of investment flexibility resulting from share blocking generally outweighs the benefit to be gained by voting. Information about share blocking is often incomplete or contradictory. Loomis Sayles relies on the client's custodian and on its Proxy Voting Service to identify share blocking jurisdictions. To the extent such information is wrong, Loomis Sayles could fail to vote shares that could have been voted without loss of investment flexibility, or could vote shares and then be prevented from engaging in a potentially beneficial portfolio transaction.

• Administrative requirements for voting proxies in certain foreign jurisdictions (which may be imposed a single time or may be periodic), such as providing a power of attorney to the client's local sub-custodian, cannot be fulfilled due to timing of the requirement, or the costs required to fulfill the administrative requirements appear to outweigh the benefits to the client of voting the proxy.

• The client, as of the record date, has loaned the securities to which the proxy relates and Loomis Sayles has concluded that it is not in the best interest of the client to recall the loan or is unable to recall the loan in order to vote the securities<sup>1</sup>.

• The client so directs Loomis Sayles.

The Proxy Committee will generally vote against, rather than abstain from voting on, ballot issues where the issuer does not provide sufficient information to make an informed decision. In addition, there may be instances where Loomis Sayles is not able to vote proxies on a client's behalf, such as when ballot delivery instructions have not been processed by a client's custodian, when the Proxy Voting Service has not received a ballot for a client's account (e.g., in cases where the client's shares have been loaned to a third party<sup>1</sup>), when proxy materials are not available in English, and under other circumstances beyond Loomis Sayles' control.

5. Oversight. All issues presented for shareholder vote are subject to the oversight of the Proxy Committee, either directly or by application of this policy. All non-routine issues will generally be considered directly by the Proxy Committee and, when necessary, the investment professionals responsible for an account holding the security, and will be voted in the best investment interests of the client. All routine "for" and "against" issues will be voted according to this policy unless special factors require that they be considered by the Proxy Committee and, when necessary, the investment professionals responsible for an account holding the security.

6. Availability of Procedures. Loomis Sayles publishes these Proxy Voting Procedures, as updated from time to time, on its public website, www.loomissayles.com, and includes a description of its Proxy Voting Procedures in Part 2A of its Form ADV. Upon request, Loomis Sayles also provides clients with a copy of its Proxy Voting Procedures.

7. Disclosure of Vote. Loomis Sayles makes certain disclosures regarding its voting of proxies in the aggregate (not specific as to clients) on its website, www.loomissayles.com. For mutual funds that it manages, Loomis Sayles is required by law to make certain disclosures regarding its voting of proxies annually. This information is also available on the Loomis Sayles website. Additionally, Loomis Sayles will, upon request by a client, provide information about how each proxy was voted with respect to the securities in that client's account. Loomis Sayles' policy is not to disclose a client's proxy voting records to third parties except as required by applicable law and regulations.

C. Proxy Committee.

1. Proxy Committee. Loomis Sayles has established a Proxy Committee. The Proxy Committee is composed of, senior representatives from firm investment teams and members of the Legal and Compliance Department, and other employees of Loomis Sayles as needed. In the event that any member is unable to participate in a meeting of the Proxy Committee, he or she may designate another individual to act on his or her behalf. A vacancy in the Proxy Committee is filled by the prior member's successor in position at Loomis Sayles or a person of equivalent experience. Each portfolio manager of an account that holds voting securities of an issuer or the analyst covering the issuer or its securities may be an ad hoc member of the Proxy Committee in connection with voting proxies of that issuer. Voting determinations made by the Proxy Committee generally will be memorialized electronically (e.g., by email).

2. Duties. The Proxy Committee's specific responsibilities include the following:

a. developing, authorizing, implementing and updating the Proxy Voting Procedures, including:

(i) annually reviewing the Proxy Voting Procedures to ensure consistency with internal policies and regulatory agency policies, including determining the continuing adequacy of the Proxy Voting Procedures to confirm that they have been formulated reasonably and implemented effectively, including whether they continue to be reasonably designed to ensure that proxy votes are cast in clients' best interest,

(ii) annually reviewing existing voting guidelines and developing of additional voting guidelines to assist in the review of proxy proposals, and

(iii) annually reviewing the proxy voting process and addressing any general issues that relate to proxy voting;

b. overseeing the proxy voting process, including:

(i) overseeing the vote on proposals according to the predetermined policies in the voting guidelines,

(ii) directing the vote on proposals where there is reason not to vote according to the predetermined policies in the voting guidelines or where proposals require special consideration,

(iii) consulting with the portfolio managers and analysts for the accounts holding the security when necessary or appropriate, and

(iv) periodically sampling or engaging an outside party to sample proxy votes to ensure they comply with the Proxy Voting Procedures and are cast in accordance with the clients' best interests;

c. engaging and overseeing third-party vendors that materially assist Loomis Sayles with respect to proxy voting, such as the Proxy Voting Services, including:

(i) determining and periodically reassessing whether, as relevant, the Proxy Voting Service has the capacity and competency to adequately analyze proxy issues by considering:

(a) the adequacy and quality of the Proxy Voting Service's staffing, personnel, and technology,

(b) whether the Proxy Voting Service has adequately disclosed its methodologies in formulating voting recommendations, such that Loomis Sayles can understand the factors underlying the Proxy Voting Service's voting recommendations,

(c) the robustness of the Proxy Voting Service's policies and procedures regarding its ability to ensure that its recommendations are based on current, materially complete and accurate information, and

(d) the Proxy Voting Service's policies and procedures regarding how it identifies and addresses conflicts of interest, including whether the Proxy Voting Service's policies and procedures provide for adequate disclosure of its actual and potential conflicts of interest with respect to the services it provides to Loomis Sayles.

(ii) providing ongoing oversight of the Proxy Voting Services to ensure that proxies continue to be voted in the best interests of clients and in accordance with these Proxy Voting Procedures and the determinations and directions of the Proxy Committee,

(iii) receiving and reviewing updates from the Proxy Voting Services regarding relevant business changes or changes to the Proxy Voting Services' conflict policies and procedures, and

(iv) in the event that the Proxy Committee becomes aware that a recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service was based on a material factual error (including materially inaccurate or incomplete information): investigating the error, considering the nature of the error and the related recommendation, and determining whether the Proxy Voting Service has taken reasonable steps to reduce the likelihood of similar errors in the future; and

d. further developing and/or modifying these Proxy Voting Procedures as otherwise appropriate or necessary.

3. Standards.

a. When determining the vote of any proposal for which it has responsibility, the Proxy Committee shall vote in the client's best interests as described in section 1(B)(1) above. In the event a client believes that its other interests require a different vote, Loomis Sayles shall vote as the client instructs if the instructions are provided as required in section 1(B)(2) above.

b. When determining the vote on any proposal, the Proxy Committee shall not consider any benefit to Loomis Sayles, any of its affiliates, any of its or their clients or service providers, other than benefits to the owner of the securities to be voted.

c. If Loomis Sayles becomes aware of additional information relevant to the voting of a shareholder meeting after a vote has been entered but before the applicable voting deadline has passed, it will consider whether or not such information impacts the vote determination entered, and if necessary, use reasonable efforts to change the vote instruction.

D. Conflicts of Interest.

Loomis Sayles has established policies and procedures to ensure that proxy votes are voted in its clients' best interests and are not affected by any possible conflicts of interest. First, except in certain limited instances, Loomis Sayles votes in accordance with its pre-determined policies set forth in these Proxy Voting Procedures. Second, where these Proxy Voting Procedures allow for discretion, Loomis Sayles will generally consider the recommendations of the Proxy Voting Service in making its voting decisions. However, if the Proxy Committee determines that the Proxy Voting Service's recommendation is not in the best interests of the firm's clients, then the Proxy Committee may use its discretion to vote against the Proxy Voting Service's recommendation, but only after taking the following steps: (1) conducting a review for any material conflict of interest Loomis Sayles may have, and (2) if any material conflict is found to exist, excluding anyone at Loomis Sayles who is subject to that conflict of interest from participating in the voting decision in any way. However, if deemed necessary or appropriate by the Proxy Committee after full disclosure of any conflict, that person may provide information, opinions or recommendations on any proposal to the Proxy Committee. In such event, prior to directing any vote, the Proxy Committee will make reasonable efforts to obtain and consider information, opinions and recommendations from or about the opposing position.

E. Recordkeeping.

Proxy voting books and records are maintained in an easily accessible place for a period of five years, the first two in an appropriate office of Loomis Sayles.

2. PROXY VOTING

A. Introduction

Loomis Sayles has established certain specific guidelines intended to achieve the objective of the Proxy Voting Procedures: to support good corporate governance, including ESG Matters, in all cases with the objective of protecting shareholder interests and maximizing shareholder value.

B. Board of Directors

Loomis Sayles believes that an issuer's independent, qualified board of directors is the foundation of good corporate governance. Loomis Sayles supports proxy proposals that reflect the prudent exercise of the board's obligation to provide leadership and guidance to management in fulfilling its obligations to its shareholders. As an example, it may be prudent not to disqualify a director from serving on a board if they participated in affiliated transactions if all measures of independence and good corporate governance were met.

Annual Election of Directors: Vote for proposals to repeal classified boards and to elect all directors annually.

Chairman and CEO are Separate Positions: Vote for proposals that require the positions of chairman and CEO to be held by different persons.

Director and Officer Indemnification and Liability Protection:

A. Vote against proposals concerning director and officer indemnification and liability protection that limit or eliminate entirely director and officer liability for monetary damages for violating the duty of care, or that would expand coverage beyond legal expenses to acts such as gross negligence that are more serious violations of fiduciary obligations than mere carelessness.

B. Vote for only those proposals that provide such expanded coverage in cases when a director's or officer's legal defense was unsuccessful if (i) the director or officer was found to have acted in good faith and in a manner that the director or officer reasonably believed was in the best interests of the company, and (ii) if the director's or officer's legal expenses only would be covered.

Director Nominees in Contested Elections: Votes in a contested election of directors or a "vote no" campaign must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, considering the following factors: (1) long-term financial performance of the issuer relative to its industry; management's track record; (2) background to the proxy contest; qualifications of director nominees (both slates); (3) evaluation of what each side is offering shareholders as well as the likelihood that the proposed objectives and goals can be met; and (4) stock ownership positions.

Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections:

A. Vote for proposals involving routine matters such as election of directors, provided that at least two-thirds of the directors would be independent, as determined by the Proxy Voting Service, and affiliated or inside nominees do not serve on any key board committee, defined as the Audit, Compensation, Nominating and/or Governance Committees.

B. Vote against nominees that are CFOs of the subject company. Generally, vote against nominees that the Proxy Voting Service has identified as not acting in the best interests of shareholders (e.g., due to over-boarding, risk management failures, a lack of diversity, etc.). Vote against nominees that have attended less than 75% of board and committee meetings, unless a reasonable cause (e.g., health or family emergency) for the absence is noted and accepted by the Proxy Voting Service and the board. Vote against affiliated or inside nominees who serve on a key board committee (as defined above). Vote against affiliated and inside nominees if less than two-thirds of the board would be independent. Vote against Governance or Nominating Committee members if both the following are true: a) there is no independent lead or presiding director; and b) the position of CEO and chairman are not held by separate individuals. Generally, vote against Audit Committee members if auditor ratification is not proposed, except in cases involving: (i) investment company board members, who are not required to submit auditor ratification for shareholder approval pursuant to Investment Company Act of 1940 rules; or (ii) any other issuer that is not required by law or regulation to submit a proposal ratifying the auditor selection. Vote against Compensation Committee members when Loomis Sayles or the Proxy Voting Service recommends a vote against the issuer's "say on pay" advisory vote.

C. Generally, vote against all members of a board committee and not just the chairman or a representative thereof in situations where the Proxy Voting Service finds that the board committee has not acted in the best interests of shareholders.

D. Vote as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service when directors are being elected as a slate and not individually.

E. When electing directors for any foreign-domiciled issuer to which the Proxy Voting Service believes it is reasonable to apply U.S. governance standards, we generally will vote in accordance with our policies set forth in (A) through (D) above. When electing directors for any other foreign-domiciled issuers, a recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed in lieu of the above stipulations.

Independent Audit, Compensation and Nominating and/or Governance Committees: Vote for proposals requesting that the board Audit, Compensation and/or Nominating and/or Governance Committees include independent directors exclusively.

Independent Board Chairman:

A. Vote for shareholder proposals that generally request the board to adopt a policy requiring its chairman to be "independent," (based on some reasonable definition of that term) with respect to any issuer whose enterprise value is, according to the Proxy Voting Service, greater than or equal to $10 billion.

B. Vote such proposals on a case-by-case basis when, according to the Proxy Voting Service, the issuer's enterprise value is less than $10 billion.

Multiple Directorships: Generally vote against a director nominee who serves as an executive officer of any public company while serving on more than two total public company boards and any other director nominee who serves on more than five total public company boards, unless a convincing argument to vote for that nominee is made by the Proxy Voting Service, in which case, the recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed.

Staggered Director Elections: Vote against proposals to classify or stagger the board.

Stock Ownership Requirements: Generally vote against shareholder proposals requiring directors to own a minimum amount of company stock in order to qualify as a director, or to remain on the board.

Term of Office: Vote against shareholder proposals to limit the tenure of outside directors.

C. Ratification of Auditor

Loomis Sayles generally supports proposals for the selection or ratification of independent auditors, subject to consideration of various factors such as independence and reasonableness of fees.

A. Generally vote for proposals to ratify auditors.

B. Vote against ratification of auditors where an auditor has a financial interest in or association with the company, and is therefore not independent; or there is reason to believe that the independent auditor has rendered an opinion which is neither accurate nor indicative of the company's financial position.

C. In general, if non-audit fees amount to 35% or more of total fees paid to a company's auditor we will vote against ratification and against the members of the Audit Committee, unless the Proxy Voting Service states that the fees were disclosed and determined to be reasonable. In such instances, the recommendation of the Proxy Voting service will generally be followed.

D. Vote against ratification of auditors and vote against members of the Audit Committee where it is known that an auditor has negotiated an alternative dispute resolution procedure.

E. Vote against ratification of auditors if the Proxy Voting Service indicates that a vote for the ratification of auditors it is not in the best long term interest of shareholders.

D. Remuneration and Benefits

Loomis Sayles believes that an issuer's compensation and benefit plans must be designed to ensure the alignment of executives' and employees' interests with those of its shareholders.

401(k) Employee Benefit Plans: Vote for proposals to implement a 401(k) savings plan for employees.

Compensation Plans: Proposals with respect to compensation plans generally will be voted as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service.

Compensation in the Event of a Change in Control: Votes on proposals regarding executive compensation in the event of a change in control of the issuer will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Director Related Compensation: Vote proposals relating to director compensation, that are required by and comply with applicable laws (domestic or foreign) or listing requirements governing the issuer, as recommended by the Proxy Voting Services.

Employee Stock Ownership Plans ("ESOPs"): Vote for proposals that request shareholder approval in order to implement an ESOP or to increase authorized shares for existing ESOPs, except in cases when the number of shares allocated to the ESOP is "excessive" (i.e., generally greater than five percent of outstanding shares), in which case the recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed.

Golden Coffins: Review on a case-by-case basis all proposals relating to the obligation of an issuer to provide remuneration or awards to survivors of executives payable upon such executive's death.

Golden and Tin Parachutes:

A. Vote for shareholder proposals to have golden (top management) and tin (all employees) parachutes submitted for shareholder ratification.

B. Review on a case-by-case basis all proposals to ratify or cancel golden or tin parachutes.

OBRA (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act)-Related Compensation Proposals:

A. Vote for proposals to amend shareholder-approved plans to include administrative features or place a cap on the annual grants any one participant may receive to comply with the provisions of Section 162(m) of OBRA.

B. Vote for amendments to add performance goals to existing compensation plans to comply with the provisions of Section 162(m) of OBRA.

C. Vote for cash or cash-and-stock bonus plans to exempt the compensation from taxes under the provisions of Section 162(m) of OBRA.

D. Votes on amendments to existing plans to increase shares reserved and to qualify the plan for favorable tax treatment under the provisions of Section 162(m) should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Shareholder Proposals to Limit Executive and Director Pay Including Executive Compensation Advisory Resolutions ("Say on Pay"):

A. Generally, vote for shareholder proposals that seek additional disclosure of executive and director pay information.

B. Review on a case-by-case basis (1) all shareholder proposals that seek to limit executive and director pay and (2) all advisory resolutions on executive pay other than shareholder resolutions to permit such advisory resolutions.

C. Vote against proposals to link all executive or director variable compensation to performance goals.

D. Vote for an annual review of executive compensation.

E. Non-binding advisory votes on executive compensation will be voted as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service.

F. For foreign domiciled issuers where a non-binding advisory vote on executive compensation is proposed concurrently with a binding vote on executive compensation, and the recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service is the same for each proposal, a vote will be entered as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service.

Share Retention by Executives: Generally vote against shareholder proposals requiring executives to retain shares of the issuer for fixed periods unless the board and the Proxy Voting Service recommend voting in favor of the proposal.

Stock Option Plans: A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed using the following as a guide:

A. Vote against stock option plans which expressly permit repricing of underwater options.

B. Vote against proposals to make all stock options performance based.

C. Vote against stock option plans that could result in an earnings dilution above the company specific cap considered by the Proxy Voting Service.

D. Vote for proposals that request expensing of stock options.

E. Capital Structure Management Issues

Adjustments to Par Value of Common Stock: Vote for management proposals to reduce the par value of common stock.

Authority to Issue Shares: Vote for proposals by boards to authorize the issuance of shares (with or without preemptive rights) to the extent the size of the proposed issuance in proportion to the issuer's issued ordinary share capital is consistent with industry standards and the recommendations of the issuer's board and the Proxy Voting Service are in agreement. Proposals that do not meet the above criteria will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Blank Check Preferred Authorization:

A. Vote for proposals to create blank check preferred stock in cases when the company expressly states that the stock will not be used as a takeover defense or carry superior voting rights, and expressly states conversion, dividend, distribution and other rights.

B. Vote for shareholder proposals to have blank check preferred stock placements, other than those shares issued for the purpose of raising capital or making acquisitions in the normal course of business, submitted for shareholder ratification.

C. Review proposals to increase the number of authorized blank check preferred shares on a case-by-case basis.

Common Stock Authorization: Vote against proposed common stock authorizations that increase the existing authorization by more than 100% unless a clear need for the excess shares is presented by the company. A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed.

Greenshoe Options (French issuers only): Vote for proposals by boards of French issuers in favor of greenshoe options that grant the issuer the flexibility to increase an over-subscribed securities issuance by up to 15% so long as such increase takes place on the same terms and within thirty days of the initial issuance, provided that the recommendation of the issuer's board and the Proxy Voting Service are in agreement. Proposals that do not meet the above criteria will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Reverse Stock Splits: Vote for management proposals to reduce the number of outstanding shares available through a reverse stock split.

Share Cancellation Programs: Vote for management proposals to reduce share capital by means of cancelling outstanding shares held in the issuer's treasury.

Share Repurchase Programs: Vote for management proposals to institute open-market share repurchase plans in which all shareholders may participate on equal terms.

Stock Distributions, Splits and Dividends: Generally vote for management proposals to increase common share authorization, provided that the increase in authorized shares following the split or dividend is not greater than 100 percent of existing authorized shares.

F. Mergers, Asset Sales and Other Special Transactions

Proposals for transactions that have the potential to affect the ownership interests and/or voting rights of the issuer's shareholders, such as mergers, asset sales and corporate or debt restructuring, will be considered on a case-by-case basis, based on (1) whether the best economic result is being created for shareholders, (2) what changes in corporate governance will occur, (3) what impact they will have on shareholder rights, (4) whether the proposed transaction has strategic merit for the issuer, and (5) other factors as noted in each section below, if any.

Asset Sales: Votes on asset sales will be determined on a case-by-case basis after considering the impact on the balance sheet/working capital, value received for the asset, and potential elimination of inefficiencies.

Conversion of Debt Instruments: Votes on the conversion of debt instruments will be considered on a case-by-case basis after the recommendation of the relevant Loomis Sayles equity or fixed income analyst is obtained.

Corporate Restructuring: Votes on corporate restructuring proposals, including minority squeeze-outs, leveraged buyouts, spin-offs, liquidations, and asset sales will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Debt Restructurings: Review on a case-by-case basis proposals to increase common and/or preferred shares and to issue shares as part of a debt-restructuring plan. Consider the following issues:

A. Dilution - How much will ownership interest of existing shareholders be reduced, and how extreme will dilution to any future earnings be?

B. Change in Control - Will the transaction result in a change in control of the company?

C. Bankruptcy – Loomis Sayles' Corporate Actions Department is responsible for consents related to bankruptcies and debt holder consents related to restructurings.

D. Potential Conflicts of Interest – For example, clients may own securities at different levels of the capital structure; in such cases, Loomis Sayles will exercise voting or consent rights for each such client based on that client's best interests, which may differ from the interests of other clients.

Delisting a Security: Proposals to delist a security from an exchange will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Fair Price Provisions:

A. Vote for fair price proposals, as long as the shareholder vote requirement embedded in the provision is no more than a majority of disinterested shares.

B. Vote for shareholder proposals to lower the shareholder vote requirement in existing fair price provisions.

Greenmail:

A. Vote for proposals to adopt anti-greenmail charter or bylaw amendments or otherwise restrict a company's ability to make greenmail payments.

B. Review anti-greenmail proposals on a case-by-case basis when they are bundled with other charter or bylaw amendments.

C. Vote for proposals to eliminate an anti-greenmail bylaw if the recommendations of management and the Proxy Voting Service are in agreement. If they are not in agreement, review and vote such proposals on a case-by-case basis.

Liquidations: Proposals on liquidations will be voted on a case-by-case basis after reviewing relevant factors including but not necessarily limited to management's efforts to pursue other alternatives, the appraisal value of assets, and the compensation plan for executives managing the liquidation.

Mergers and Acquisitions: Votes on mergers and acquisitions should be considered on a case-by-case basis, generally taking into account relevant factors, including but not necessarily limited to: anticipated financial and operating benefits; offer price (cost vs. premium); prospects of the combined companies; how the deal was negotiated; golden parachutes; financial benefits to current management; and changes in corporate governance and their impact on shareholder rights.

Poison Pills:

A. Vote for shareholder proposals that ask a company to submit its poison pill for shareholder ratification.

B. Review on a case-by-case basis shareholder proposals to redeem a company's poison pill.

C. Review on a case-by-case basis management proposals to ratify a poison pill.

Reincorporation Provisions: Proposals to change a company's domicile will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Right to Adjourn: Vote for the right to adjourn in conjunction with a vote for a merger or acquisition or other proposal, and vote against the right to adjourn in conjunction with a vote against a merger or acquisition or other proposal.

Spin-offs: Votes on spin-offs will be considered on a case-by-case basis depending on relevant factors including but not necessarily limited to the tax and regulatory advantages, planned use of sale proceeds, market focus, and managerial incentives.

Tender Offer Defenses: Proposals concerning tender offer defenses will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

G. Shareholder Rights

Loomis Sayles believes that issuers have a fundamental obligation to protect the rights of their shareholders. Pursuant to its fiduciary duty to vote shares in the best interests of its clients, Loomis Sayles considers proposals relating to shareholder rights based on whether and how they affect and protect those rights.

Appraisal Rights: Vote for proposals to restore, or provide shareholders with, rights of appraisal.

Bundled Proposals: Review on a case-by-case basis bundled or "conditioned" proxy proposals. In the case of items that are conditioned upon each other, examine the benefits and costs of the packaged items. In instances when the joint effect of the conditioned items is not in shareholders' best interests, vote against the proposals. If the combined effect is positive, support such proposals.

Confidential Voting: Vote for shareholder proposals that request corporations to adopt confidential voting, use independent tabulators and use independent inspectors of election as long as the proposals include clauses for proxy contests as follows: in the case of a contested election, management should be permitted to request that the dissident group honor its confidential voting policy. If the dissidents agree, the policy remains in place. If the dissidents do not agree, the confidential voting policy is waived. Vote for management proposals to adopt confidential voting.

Counting Abstentions: Votes on proposals regarding counting abstentions when calculating vote proposal outcomes will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Cumulative Voting: Vote for proposals to permit cumulative voting, except where the issuer already has in place a policy of majority voting.

Equal Access: Vote for shareholder proposals that would allow significant company shareholders equal access to management's proxy material in order to evaluate and propose voting recommendations on proxy proposals and director nominees, and in order to nominate their own candidates to the board.

Exclusive Forum Provisions: Vote against proposals mandating an exclusive forum for any shareholder lawsuits. Vote against the members of the issuer's Governance Committee in the event of a proposal mandating an exclusive forum without shareholder approval.

Independent Proxy: Vote for proposals to elect an independent proxy to serve as a voting proxy at shareholder meetings.

Majority Voting: Vote for proposals to permit majority rather than plurality or cumulative voting for the election of directors/trustees.

Preemptive Rights: Votes with respect to preemptive rights generally will be voted as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service subject to the Common Stock Authorization requirements above.

Proxy Access: A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed with regard to proposals intended to grant shareholders the right to place nominees for director on the issuer's proxy ballot ("Proxy Access"). Vote for such proposals when they require the nominating shareholder(s) to hold, in aggregate, at least 3% of the voting shares of the issuer for at least three years, and be allowed to nominate up to 25% of the nominees. All other proposals relating to Proxy Access will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Shareholder Ability to Alter the Size of the Board:

A. Vote for proposals that seek to fix the size of the board.

B. Vote against proposals that give management the ability to alter the size of the board without shareholder approval.

Shareholder Ability to Remove Directors:

A. Vote against proposals that provide that directors may be removed only for cause.

B. Vote against proposals that provide that only continuing directors may elect replacements to fill board vacancies.

C. Vote for proposals to restore shareholder ability to remove directors with or without cause and proposals that permit shareholders to elect directors to fill board vacancies.

Shareholder Advisory Committees: Proposals to establish a shareholder advisory committee will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Shareholder Rights Regarding Special Meetings:

A. Vote for proposals that set a threshold of 10% of the outstanding voting stock as a minimum percentage allowable to call a special meeting of shareholders. Vote against proposals that increase or decrease the threshold from 10%.

B. Vote against proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholder ability to call special meetings.

Supermajority Shareholder Voting Requirements: Vote for all proposals to replace supermajority shareholder voting requirements with simple majority shareholder voting requirements, subject to applicable laws and regulations. Vote against management proposals to require a supermajority shareholder vote to approve charter and bylaw amendments.

Unequal Voting Rights:

A. Vote against dual class exchange offers and dual class recapitalizations.

B. Vote on a case-by-case basis on proposals to eliminate an existing dual class voting structure.

Written Consent: Vote for proposals regarding the right to act by written consent when the Proxy Voting Service recommends a vote for the proposal. Proposals regarding the right to act by written consent where the Proxy Voting Service recommends a vote against will be sent to the Proxy Committee for determination. Generally vote against proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholder ability to take action by written consent.

H. Environmental and Social Matters

Loomis Sayles has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of its clients.

Loomis Sayles believes good corporate governance, including those practices that address ESG Matters, is essential to the effective management of a company's financial, litigation and reputation risk, the maximization of its long-term economic performance and sustainability, and the protection of its shareholders' best interests, including the maximization of shareholder value.

Proposals on environmental and social matters cover a wide range of issues, including environmental and energy practices and their impacts, labor matters, diversity and human rights. These proposals may be voted as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service or may, in the determination of the Proxy Committee, be reviewed on a case-by-case basis if the Proxy Committee believes that a particular proposal (i) could have a material impact on an industry or the growth and sustainability of an issuer; (ii) is appropriate for the issuer and the cost to implement would not be excessive; (iii) is appropriate for the issuer in light of various factors such as reputational damage or litigation risk; or (iv) is otherwise appropriate for the issuer.

Loomis Sayles will consider whether such proposals are likely to enhance the value of the client's investments after taking into account the costs involved, pursuant to its fiduciary duty to its clients.

<u>Climate Reporting:</u> Generally vote for proposals requesting the issuer produce a report, at reasonable expense, on the issuer's climate policies. A recommendation against such proposals by the Proxy Voting Service will be considered by the Proxy Committee.

<u>Workplace Diversity Reporting:</u> Generally vote for proposals requesting the issuer produce a report, at reasonable expense, on the issuer's workforce diversity or equity policies and/or performance. A recommendation against such proposals by the Proxy Voting Service will be considered by the Proxy Committee.

I. General Corporate Governance

Loomis Sayles has a fiduciary duty to its clients with regard to proxy voting matters, including routine proposals that do not present controversial issues. The impact of proxy proposals on its clients' rights as shareholders must be evaluated along with their potential economic benefits.

Changing Corporate Name: Vote for management proposals to change the corporate name.

Charitable and Political Contributions and Lobbying Expenditures: Votes on proposals regarding charitable contributions, political contributions, and lobbying expenditures, should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Proposals of UK issuers concerning political contributions will be voted for if the issuer states that (a) it does not intend to make any political donations or incur any expenditures in respect to any political party in the EU; and (b) the proposal is submitted to ensure that the issuer does not inadvertently breach the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and sections 366 and 367 of the Companies Act 2006.

Delivery of Electronic Proxy Materials: Vote for proposals to allow electronic delivery of proxy materials to shareholders.

Disclosure of Prior Government Service: Review on a case-by-case basis all proposals to disclose a list of employees previously employed in a governmental capacity.

<u>Financial Statements:</u> Generally, proposals to accept and/or approve the delivery of audited financial statements shall be voted as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service. In certain non-US jurisdictions where local regulations and/or market practices do not require the release of audited financial statements in advance of custodian vote deadlines (e.g., Korea), and the Proxy Voting Service has not identified any issues with the company's past financial statements or the audit procedures used, then Loomis Sayles shall vote for such proposals.

Non-Material Miscellaneous Bookkeeping Proposals: A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed regarding miscellaneous bookkeeping proposals of a non-material nature.

<u>Ratification of Board and/or Management Acts:</u> Generally, proposals concerning the ratification or approval of the acts of the board of directors and/or management of the issuer for the past fiscal year shall be voted as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service.

Reimbursement of Proxy Contest Defenses: Generally, proposals concerning all proxy contest defense cost reimbursements should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Reimbursement of Proxy Solicitation Expenses: Proposals to provide reimbursement for dissidents waging a proxy contest should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

State Takeover Statutes: Review on a case-by-case basis proposals to opt in or out of state takeover statutes (including control share acquisition statutes, control share cash-out statutes, freeze out provisions, fair price provisions, stakeholder laws, poison pill endorsements, severance pay and labor contract provisions, anti-greenmail provisions, and disgorgement provisions).

Technical Amendments to By-Laws: A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed regarding technical or housekeeping amendments to by-laws or articles designed to bring the by-laws or articles into line with current regulations and/or laws.

Transaction of Other Business: Vote against proposals asking for authority to transact open-ended other business without any information provided by the issuer at the time of voting.

Transition Manager Ballots: Any ballot received by Loomis Sayles for a security that was held for a client by a Transition Manager prior to Loomis Sayles' management of the client's holdings will be considered on a case-by case basis by the Proxy Committee (without the input of any Loomis Sayles analyst or portfolio manager) if such security is no longer held in the client's account with Loomis Sayles.

J. Investment Company Matters

Election of Investment Company Trustees: Vote for nominees who oversee fewer than 60 investment company portfolios. Vote against nominees who oversee 60 or more investment company portfolios that invest in substantially different asset classes (e.g., if the applicable portfolios include both fixed income funds and equity funds). Vote on a case-by-case basis for or against nominees who oversee 60 or more investment company portfolios that invest in substantially similar asset classes (e.g., if the applicable portfolios include only fixed income funds or only equity funds). These policies will be followed with respect to funds advised by Loomis Sayles and its affiliates, as well as funds for which Loomis Sayles acts as subadviser and other third parties.

Mutual Fund Distribution Agreements: Votes on mutual fund distribution agreements should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Investment Company Fundamental Investment Restrictions: Votes on amendments to an investment company's fundamental investment restrictions should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Investment Company Investment Advisory Agreements: Votes on investment company investment advisory agreements should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

<sup>1</sup> Loomis Sayles does not engage in securities lending. However, some clients do opt to lend securities, availing themselves of their custodians' services.

#### Proxy Voting - LSV.
LSV Asset Management's ("LSV") proxy voting responsibilities on behalf of a client's account are expressly stated in the applicable agreement with such client. If LSV is responsible for voting proxies, the agreement with each client will typically state whether the votes will be cast in accordance with this proxy voting policy or in accordance with the client's proxy voting policy. In either case, LSV will make appropriate arrangements with each account custodian to have proxies forwarded on a timely basis, and will endeavor to correct delays or other problems relating to timely delivery of proxies and proxy materials to the extent it is aware of such delays or problems. If the client elects to retain proxy voting responsibility, LSV will have no involvement in the proxy voting process for that client.

To satisfy its fiduciary duty in making any voting determination, an investment adviser must make the determination in the best interests of the client and must not place the investment adviser's own interests ahead of the interests of the client. In addition, with respect to Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") plan clients, LSV is required to consider those factors that may affect the value of the client's investment and may not subordinate the interests of the participants and beneficiaries in their retirement income or financial benefits under the plan to any other objective, or promote benefits or goals unrelated to those financial interests of the plan's participants and beneficiaries.

In general, LSV's quantitative investment process does not provide output or analysis that would be functional in analyzing proxy issues. As a result, LSV does not consider proxy voting to be a material factor in its investment strategy or results. LSV, therefore, has retained an expert independent third party to assist in proxy voting, currently Glass Lewis & Co. ("GLC"). LSV's selection of GLC was made after careful consideration of GLC's proxy voting services, including related voting policies and expertise. GLC implements LSV's proxy voting process, develops proxy voting guidelines and provides analysis of proxy issues on a case-by-case basis. Where LSV has been responsible for voting proxies for a client, LSV votes in accordance with GLC's standard guidelines, as updated from time to time, which can be found at https://www.glasslewis.com/guidelines. For new clients who wish to make LSV responsible for voting proxies, LSV intends to vote in accordance with GLC's climate guidelines, as updated from time to time, which are described by GLC at https://www.glasslewis.com/climate-policy, and which may be obtained from LSV and applied to existing clients' accounts upon request. LSV describes available GLC guidelines to clients on at least an annual basis. Those guidelines generally are aligned with LSV's investment goals, and LSV's use of GLC, therefore, is not a delegation of LSV's fiduciary obligation to vote proxies for clients. GLC's guidelines have been developed based on, among other things, GLC's focus on facilitating shareholder voting in favor of governance structures that drive performance and create shareholder value. LSV believes that GLC's guidelines are reasonably designed to ensure that proxies are voted in the best interests of LSV's clients. Although it is expected to be rare, LSV reserves the right to vote issues contrary to, or issues not covered by, GLC's guidelines when LSV believes it is in the best interests of the client and LSV does not have a material conflict of interest. In certain circumstances, clients are permitted to direct their vote in a particular solicitation. Direction from a client on a particular proxy vote will take precedence over GLC's guidelines. Where the client has engaged LSV to vote proxies and has also provided proxy voting guidelines to LSV, those guidelines will be followed with the assistance of GLC.

GLC assists LSV with voting execution, including through an electronic vote management system that allows GLC to: (1) populate each client's votes shown on GLC's electronic voting platform with GLC's recommendations under applicable guidelines ("pre-population"); and (2) automatically submit the client's votes to be counted ("automated voting"). There will likely be circumstances where, before the submission deadline for proxies to be voted at the shareholder meeting, an issuer intends to file or has filed additional soliciting materials with the SEC regarding a matter to be voted upon. It is possible in such circumstances that LSV's use of pre-population and automated voting could result in votes being cast that do not take into account such additional information. In order to address this concern, GLC actively monitors information sources for supplemental or updated information and has in place a system to allow for issuer feedback on its voting recommendations. Such updated information and feedback is considered by GLC and voting recommendations are modified as appropriate. LSV's pre-populated votes would then also be automatically updated. GLC's processes in this area are part of LSV's review of their services as described below.

LSV conducts a number of periodic reviews to seek to ensure votes are cast in accordance with this policy and applicable GLC guidelines. In addition, on a semi-annual basis, LSV requires GLC to, among other things, provide confirmations regarding its policies and procedures and reporting on any changes to such policies and procedures. As part of such semi-annual process, LSV also obtains information regarding the capacity and competency of GLC to provide proxy advisory services to LSV.

In the voting process, conflicts can arise between LSV's interests and that of its clients, or between clients' interests due to each client's objectives. In such situations, LSV will continue to vote the proxies in accordance with the recommendations of GLC based on each client's applicable guidelines. A written record will be maintained explaining the reasoning for the vote recommendation. LSV also monitors GLC's conflicts of interest policies and procedures on a periodic basis.

LSV may be unable or may choose not to vote proxies in certain situations. For example, and without limitation, LSV may refrain from voting a proxy if (i) the cost of voting the proxy exceeds the expected benefit to the client, (ii) LSV is not given enough time to process the vote, (iii) voting the proxy requires the security to be "blocked" or frozen from trading or (iv) it is otherwise impractical or impossible to vote the proxy, such as in the case of voting a foreign security that must be cast in person.

Clients may receive a copy of this proxy voting policy and LSV's voting record for their account by request. In addition, clients are sent a copy of their respective guidelines and a summary of other available options on an annual basis and may elect to change their guidelines at any time. LSV will additionally provide any mutual fund for which LSV acts as adviser or sub-adviser, a copy of LSV's voting record for the fund so that the fund may fulfill its obligation to report proxy votes to fund shareholders.

LSV may modify this policy and use of GLC from time to time.

<u>Recordkeeping</u>

LSV will retain:

1. Copies of its proxy voting policies and procedures.

2. A copy of each proxy statement received regarding client securities (maintained by the proxy voting service and/or available on EDGAR).

3. A record of each vote cast on behalf of a client (maintained by the proxy voting service).

4. A copy of any document created that was material to the voting decision or that memorializes the basis for that decision (maintained by the proxy voting service).

5. A copy of clients' written requests for proxy voting information and a copy of LSV's written response to a client's request for proxy voting information for the client's account.

LSV will ensure that it may obtain access to the proxy voting service's records promptly upon LSV's request.

The above listed information is intended to, among other things, enable clients to review LSV's proxy voting procedures and actions taken in individual proxy voting situations.

LSV will maintain required materials in an easily accessible place for not less than five years from the end of the fiscal year during which the last entry took place.

<u>Consideration of Environmental, Social and Governance Factors</u>

LSV became a signatory to the Principles for Responsible Investment ("PRI") in April 2014. GLC is also a signatory to the PRI. The PRI provides a framework, through its six principles, for consideration of environmental, social and governance ("ESG") factors in portfolio management and investment decision-making. The six principles ask an investment manager, to the extent consistent with its fiduciary duties, to seek to: (1) incorporate ESG issues into investment analysis and decision-making processes; (2) be an active owner and incorporate ESG issues into its ownership policies and practices; (3) obtain appropriate disclosure on ESG issues by the entities in which it invests; (4) promote acceptance and implementation of the PRI principles within the investment industry; (5) work to enhance its effectiveness in implementing the PRI principles; and (6) report on its activities and progress toward implementing the PRI principles. Voting in favor of effective disclosure and governance of ESG issues is incorporated into GLC's standard guidelines, as well as a supplement GLC maintains for shareholder initiatives. GLC's climate guidelines are substantially similar, but go further to encourage enhanced disclosure of climate-related governance measures, risk mitigation, and metrics or targets. Through utilizing these GLC guidelines, LSV incorporates ESG issues into its proxy voting decision-making processes. Further, through GLC, LSV is able to offer ESG-focused guidelines that include an additional level of analysis on behalf of clients seeking to vote to encourage company actions that are consistent with widely-accepted enhanced ESG practices.

#### Proxy Voting - NBIA.
Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers LLC ("NBIA") has implemented written Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures (Proxy Voting Policy) that are designed to reasonably ensure that NBIA votes proxies prudently and in the best interest of its advisory clients for whom NBIA has voting authority. The Proxy Voting Policy, which is included as Attachment A, also describes how NBIA addresses any conflicts that may arise between its interests and those of its clients with respect to proxy voting. The following is a summary of the Proxy Voting Policy. NBIA's Governance and Proxy Committee ("Proxy Committee") is responsible for developing, authorizing, implementing and updating the Proxy Voting Policy, administering and overseeing the proxy voting process, and engaging and overseeing any independent third-party vendors as voting delegates to review, monitor and/or vote proxies. In order to apply the Proxy Voting Policy noted above in a timely and consistent manner, NBIA utilizes Glass, Lewis & Co. ("Glass Lewis") to vote proxies in accordance with NBIA's voting guidelines or, in instances where a material conflict has been determined to exist, in accordance with the voting recommendations of an independent third party.

NBIA retains final authority and fiduciary responsibility for proxy voting. NBIA believes that this process is reasonably designed to address material conflicts of interest that may arise between NBIA and a client as to how proxies are voted.

In the event that an investment professional at NBIA believes that it is in the best interest of a client or clients to vote proxies in a manner inconsistent with the voting guidelines, the Proxy Committee will review information submitted by the investment professional to determine that there is no material conflict of interest between NBIA and the client with respect to the voting of the proxy in the requested manner. If the Proxy Committee determines that the voting of a proxy as recommended by the investment professional would not be appropriate, the Proxy Committee shall: (i) take no further action, in which case Glass Lewis shall vote such proxy in accordance with the voting guidelines; (ii) disclose such conflict to the client or clients and obtain written direction from the client as to how to vote the proxy; (iii) suggest that the client or clients engage another party to determine how to vote the proxy; or (iv) engage another independent third party to determine how to vote the proxy.

**<u>Attachment A</u>**

**I. Introduction and General Principles**

A. Certain subsidiaries of Neuberger Berman Group LLC ("NB") have been delegated the authority and responsibility to vote the proxies of their respective investment advisory clients and exercise such responsibility according to these policies and procedures.

B. NB understands that proxy voting is an integral aspect of investment management. Accordingly, proxy voting must be conducted with the same degree of prudence and loyalty accorded any fiduciary or other obligation of an investment manager.

C. NB believes that the following policies and procedures are reasonably expected to ensure that proxy matters are conducted in the best interest of clients, in accordance with NB's fiduciary duties, applicable rules under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, fiduciary standards and responsibilities for ERISA clients set out in Department of Labor interpretations, the UK Stewardship Code, the Japan Stewardship Code and other applicable laws and regulations.

D. In instances where NB does not have authority to vote client proxies, it is the responsibility of the client to instruct the relevant custody bank or banks to mail proxy material directly to such client.

E. In all circumstances, NB will comply with specific client directions to vote proxies, whether or not such client directions specify voting proxies in a manner that is different from NB's policies and procedures.

F. NB will seek to vote all shares under its authority so long as that action is not in conflict with client instructions. There may be circumstances under which NB may abstain from voting a client proxy, such as when NB believes voting would not be in clients' best interests (e.g., not voting in countries with share blocking or meetings in which voting would entail additional costs). NB understands that it must weigh the costs and benefits of voting proxy proposals relating to foreign securities and make an informed decision with respect to whether voting a given proxy proposal is prudent and solely in the interests of the clients and, in the case of an ERISA client and other accounts and clients subject to similar local laws, a plan's participants and beneficiaries. NB's decision in such circumstances will take into account the effect that the proxy vote, either by itself or together with other votes, is expected to have on the value of the client's investment and whether this expected effect would outweigh the cost of voting.

II. Responsibility and Oversight

A. NB has designated a Governance & Proxy Committee ("Proxy Committee") with the responsibility for:

(i) developing, authorizing, implementing and updating NB's policies and procedures;

(ii) administering and overseeing the governance and proxy voting processes; and

(iii) engaging and overseeing any third-party vendors as voting delegates to review, monitor and/or vote proxies.

NB, at the recommendation of the Proxy Committee, has retained Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC ("Glass Lewis") as its voting delegate.

B. The Proxy Committee will meet as frequently and in such manner as necessary or appropriate to fulfill its responsibilities.

C. The members of the Proxy Committee will be appointed from time to time and will include the Chief Investment Officer (Equities), the Director of Global Equity Research, the Head of ESG Investing, and certain portfolio managers. A senior member of the Legal and Compliance Department will advise the Proxy Committee and may vote as a full member of the Committee if a vote is needed to establish a quorum or in the event that a vote is needed to break a tie.

D. In the event that one or more members of the Proxy Committee are not independent with respect to a particular matter, the remaining members of the Proxy Committee shall constitute an ad hoc independent subcommittee of the Proxy Committee, which will have full authority to act upon such matter.

**III. Proxy Voting Guidelines**

A. The Proxy Committee developed the Governance and Proxy Voting Guidelines ("Voting Guidelines") based on our Governance and Engagement Principles. These Guidelines are updated as appropriate and generally on an annual basis. With input from certain of our investment professionals, the modifications are intended to reflect emerging corporate governance issues and themes. The Proxy Committee recognizes that in certain circumstances it may be in the interests of our clients to deviate from our Voting Guidelines.

B. Our views regarding corporate governance and engagement, and the related stewardship actions, are informed by our ESG Investing group, in consultation with professionals in the Legal & Compliance and Global Equity Research groups, among others. These insightful, experienced and dedicated groups enable us to think strategically about engagement and stewardship priorities.

C. We believe NB's Voting Guidelines generally represent the voting positions most likely to support our clients' best economic interests across a range of sectors and contexts. These guidelines are not intended to constrain our consideration of the specific issues facing a particular company on a particular vote, and so there will be times when we deviate from the Voting Guidelines.

D. In the event that a senior investment professional at Neuberger Berman believes that it is in the best interest of a client or clients to vote proxies in a manner inconsistent with NB's Voting Guidelines, the investment professional will submit in writing to the Proxy Committee the basis for his or her recommendation. The Proxy Committee will review this recommendation in the context of the specific circumstances of the situation and with the intention of remaining consistent with our Engagement Principles.

**IV. Proxy Voting Procedures**

A. The Proxy NB will vote client proxies in accordance with a client's specific request even if it is in a manner inconsistent with NB's policies and procedures. Such specific requests should be made in writing by the individual client or by an authorized officer, representative or named fiduciary of a client.

B. NB has engaged Glass Lewis as its advisor and voting agent to:

(i) provide research on proxy matters;

(ii) in a timely manner, notify NB of and provide additional solicitation materials made available reasonably in advance of a vote deadline;

(iii) vote proxies in accordance with NB's Voting Guidelines or as otherwise instructed and submit such proxies in a timely manner;

(iv) handle other administrative functions of proxy voting;

(v) maintain records of proxy statements and additional solicitation materials received in connection with proxy votes and provide copies of such proxy statements promptly upon request; and

(vi) maintain records of votes cast.

C. Except in instances where clients have retained voting authority, NB will instruct custodians of client accounts to forward all proxy statements and materials received in respect of client accounts to Glass Lewis.

D. NB retains final authority and fiduciary responsibility for proxy voting.

**V. Conflicts of Interest**

A. Glass Lewis will vote proxies in accordance with the Voting Guidelines described in Section III or, in instances where a material conflict has been determined to exist, as Glass Lewis recommends. NB believes that this process is reasonably designed to address material conflicts of interest that may arise in conjunction with proxy voting decisions. Potential conflicts considered by the Proxy Committee when it is determining whether to deviate from NB's Voting Guidelines include, among others: a material client relationship with the corporate issuer being considered; personal or business relationships between the portfolio managers and an executive officer; director, or director nominee of the issuer; joint business ventures; or a direct transactional relationship between the issuer and senior executives of NB.

B. In the event that an NB Investment Professional believes that it is in the best interest of a client or clients to vote proxies in a manner inconsistent with the Voting Guidelines described in Section III, such NB Investment Professional will contact a member of the Legal & Compliance Department advising the Proxy Committee and complete and sign a questionnaire in the form adopted from time to time. Such questionnaires will require specific information, including the reasons the NB Investment Professional believes a proxy vote in this manner is in the best interest of a client or clients and disclosure of specific ownership, business or personal relationship, or other matters that may raise a potential material conflict of interest with respect to the voting of the proxy. The Proxy Committee will meet with the NB Investment Professional to review the completed questionnaire and consider such other matters as it deems appropriate to determine that there is no material conflict of interest with respect to the voting of the proxy in the requested manner. The Proxy Committee shall document its consideration of such other matters. In the event that the Proxy Committee determines that such vote will not present a material conflict, the Proxy Committee will make a determination whether to vote such proxy as recommended by the NB Investment Professional. In the event of a determination to vote the proxy as recommended by the NB Investment Professional, an authorized member of the Proxy Committee will instruct Glass Lewis to vote in such manner with respect to the client or clients. In the event that the Proxy Committee determines that the voting of a proxy as recommended by the NB Investment Professional would not be appropriate, the Proxy Committee will:

(i) take no further action, in which case the Committee shall vote such proxy in accordance with the Voting Guidelines;

(ii) disclose such conflict to the client or clients and obtain written direction from the client with respect to voting the proxy;

(iii) suggest that the client or clients engage another party to determine how to vote the proxy; or

(iv) engage another independent third party to determine how to vote the proxy.

A record of the Proxy Committee's determinations shall be prepared and maintained in accordance with applicable policies.

C. In the event that the Voting Guidelines described in Section III do not address how a proxy should be voted the Proxy Committee will make a determination as to how the proxy should be voted. The Proxy Committee will consider such matters as it deems appropriate to determine how such proxy should be voted, including whether there is a material conflict of interest with respect to the voting of the proxy in accordance with its decision. The Proxy Committee shall document its consideration of such matters, and an authorized member of the Proxy Committee will instruct Glass Lewis to vote in such manner with respect to such client or clients.

D. Material conflicts cannot be resolved by simply abstaining from voting.

**VI. Recordkeeping**

NB will maintain records relating to the implementation of the Voting Guidelines and these procedures, including:

(i) a copy of the Voting Guidelines and these procedures, which shall be made available to clients upon request;

(ii) proxy statements received regarding client securities (which will be satisfied by relying on EDGAR or Glass Lewis);

(iii) a record of each vote cast (which Glass Lewis maintains on NB's behalf);

(iv) a copy of each questionnaire completed by any NB Investment Professional under Section V above; and

Such proxy voting books and records shall be maintained in an easily accessible place, which may include electronic means, for a period of five years, the first two by the Legal & Compliance Department.

**VII. Engagement and Monitoring**

Consistent with the firm's active management strategies, NB portfolio managers and members of the Global Equity Research team continuously monitor material investment factors at portfolio companies. NB professionals remain informed of trends and best practices related to the effective fiduciary administration of proxy voting. NB will make revisions to its Voting Guidelines and related procedures document when it determines it is appropriate or when we observe the opportunity to materially improve outcomes for our clients. Additionally, we will regularly undertake a review of selected voting and engagement cases to better learn how to improve the monitoring of our portfolio companies and the effectiveness of our stewardship activities.

**VIII. Securities Lending**

Some NB products may participate in a securities lending program. Where a security on loan is subject to a proxy event and a determination has been made that the shares on loan may have a meaningful impact on the vote outcome and the potential value of the security, a portfolio manager, in consultation with relevant investment professionals, will restrict the security from lending, or will make best efforts to recall the security from the lending program, in the best interest of the client. NB maintains the list of securities restricted from lending and receives daily updates on upcoming proxy events from the custodian.

**IX. Disclosure**

Neuberger Berman will publicly disclose all voting records of its co-mingled funds (Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) and mutual funds), which can be found at https://www.nb.com/en/us/esg/nb-votes -- Neuberger Berman cannot publicly disclose vote level records for separate accounts without express permission of the client. Neuberger Berman will publicly disclose aggregate reporting on at least an annual basis for all votes cast across co-mingled and separate accounts. Neuberger Berman welcomes the opportunity to discuss the rationale for a given vote with investee companies as part of our ongoing engagement activities. Neuberger Berman may also choose to provide broad explanations for certain voting positions on important or topical issues in advance of the vote. Additionally, our proxy voting guidelines can be found on our website: https://www.nb.com/en/us/esg/nb-votes.

#### Proxy Voting - PineBridge.
**I. Introduction**

Proxy voting is an important right of shareholders, such as PineBridge Clients, for which PineBridge must take reasonable care and diligence to ensure such rights are properly and timely exercised. PineBridge, as a fiduciary for its Clients, must vote proxies in their best interest. We believe considering forward looking improvement in ESG issues is in the economic interest of our Clients. Please refer to the PineBridge Stewardship and Engagement Policy for details on how PineBridge interacts with companies, entities or other market participants on Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) issues.

**II. Policy Statement**

***Proxy Procedures***

As a registered investment adviser that votes (or delegates the voting of) securities held in Client portfolios, PineBridge has implemented proxy voting procedures that are reasonably designed to help ensure that a) PineBridge votes proxies in the best interest of its Clients; b) describes its proxy voting procedures to its Clients, and c) discloses to Clients how they may obtain information on how PineBridge voted their proxies. These procedures are designed to help enable PineBridge to manage material conflicts of interest. While PineBridge must disclose its votes upon request to Clients, no public disclosure is required. (Note that disclosure is required for any mutual funds advised by PineBridge, on Form N-PX.)

***Record-Keeping***

PineBridge must retain (i) these proxy voting policies and procedures; (ii) proxy statements received regarding Client securities; (iii) records of votes it casts on behalf of Clients; (iv) records of Client requests for proxy voting information, and; (v) any documents prepared by PineBridge that were material to making a decision how to vote, or that memorialized the basis for the decision. PineBridge may rely on proxy statements filed on EDGAR instead of keeping its own copies and rely on proxy statements and records of proxy votes cast by PineBridge that are maintained by contract with a third-party proxy voting service or other third party.

***Proxies of Shares of Non-U.S. Corporations***

PineBridge has implemented general voting policies with respect to non-U.S. shares owned by Clients. However, although U.S. companies must give shareholders at least 20 days' advance notice to vote proxies, some non-U.S. companies may provide considerably shorter notice or none at all. PineBridge is not required to "rush" voting decisions in order to meet an impractical deadline, and as a result, PineBridge or PineBridge affiliates' regional designees under certain circumstances may not vote certain proxies. In addition, certain non-U.S. regulations impose additional costs to a Portfolio that votes proxies, and PineBridge will take that into consideration when determining whether to or not to vote.

In the case of a material conflict between the interests of PineBridge and those of its Clients, PineBridge will take steps to address such conflicts (which may include consulting with counsel) and will attempt to resolve all conflicts in the Client's best interest.

**III. Procedures**

• Compliance is responsible for ensuring that the PineBridge ADV includes the appropriate language summarizing PineBridge's proxy voting procedures and for updating the summary in the ADV whenever the procedures are updated. Compliance is also responsible for consulting with Legal to ensure that PineBridge's proxy voting policy is kept up to date and in a form appropriate for transmission to Clients.

• If a Client or potential Client requests a copy of the Proxy Voting Policy from Client Relations or Sales, Compliance should be contacted for the most recent version, or it may be obtained from the intranet. Client Relations will send to such Client a copy of the current version of the voting procedures within 7 days and will ensure that Compliance receives a log of each Client's request and the action taken.

• If a Client requests access to the records of how PineBridge voted its proxies, the Client should be assured that this will be provided, and Operations should be consulted. Operations has access to these proxy voting records.

• PineBridge has established a Stewardship Committee (the "Committee"), which is responsible for defining and monitoring PineBridge's proxy voting strategy and process. The Committee is comprised of members of senior management, portfolio management, Compliance, Legal, Product and Operations.

• The Committee conducts an annual review of the proxy voting guidelines for domestic and non-U.S. Portfolios. Guidelines are reviewed to ensure that the interests of PineBridge's Clients are best served.

• Issues not addressed in the voting guidelines are determined on a case-by-case basis with input from the Committee and portfolio managers.

• PineBridge has engaged a third-party vendor to administer proxy voting on its behalf. The vendor receives, in a majority of cases, proxies directly from the Client's custodian and votes them based on PineBridge's voting guidelines.

• In circumstances where PineBridge receives proxies directly, these proxies must be sent to the vendor promptly. The vendor then votes them in accordance with PineBridge's voting guidelines. The vendor maintains a listing of all votes cast on behalf of PineBridge Clients.

#### Proxy Voting – Principal.
**<u>Introduction</u>**

Principal Global Investors<sup>1</sup> ("PGI") is an investment adviser registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") pursuant to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the "Advisers Act"). As a registered investment adviser, PGI has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of its clients. PGI recognizes that this duty requires it to vote client securities, for which it has voting power on the applicable record date, in a timely manner and make voting decisions that are in the best interests of its clients. This document, Principal Global Investors' Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures (the "Policy") is intended to comply with the requirements of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Investment Company Act of 1940 and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 applicable to the voting of the proxies of both US and non-US issuers on behalf of PGI's clients who have delegated such authority and discretion.

<u>**Relationship between Investment Strategy, ESG and Proxy Voting**</u>

PGI has a fiduciary duty to make investment decisions that are in its clients' best interests by maximizing the value of their shares. Proxy voting is an important part of this process through which PGI can support strong corporate governance structures, shareholder rights and transparency. PGI also believes a company's positive environmental, social and governance ("ESG") practices may influence the value of the company, leading to long-term shareholder value. PGI may take these factors into considerations when voting proxies in its effort to seek the best outcome for its clients. PGI believes that the integration of consideration of ESG practices in PGI's investment process helps identify sources of risk that could erode the long-term investment results it seeks on behalf of its clients. From time to time, PGI may work with various ESG-related organizations to engage issuers or advocate for greater levels of disclosure.

**<u>Roles and Responsibilities</u>**

***Role of the Proxy Voting Committee***

PGI's Proxy Voting Committee (the "Proxy Voting Committee") shall (i) oversee the voting of proxies and the Proxy Advisory Firm, (ii) where necessary, make determinations as to how to instruct the vote on certain specific proxies, (iii) verify ongoing compliance with the Policy, (iv) review the business practices of the Proxy Advisory Firm and (v) evaluate, maintain, and review the Policy on an annual basis. The Proxy Voting Committee is comprised of representatives of each investment team and a representative from PGI Risk, Legal, Operations, and Compliance will be available to advise the Proxy Voting Committee but are non-voting members. The Proxy Voting Committee may designate one or more of its members to oversee specific, ongoing compliance with respect to the Policy and may designate personnel to instruct the vote on proxies on behalf the PGI's clients (collectively, "Authorized Persons").

The Proxy Voting Committee shall meet at least four times per year, and as necessary to address special situations.

***Role of Portfolio Management***

While the Proxy Voting Committee establishes the Guidelines and Procedures, the Proxy Voting Committee does not direct votes for any client except in certain cases where a conflict of interest exists. Each investment team is responsible for determining how to vote proxies for those securities held in the portfolios their team manages. While investment teams generally vote consistently with the Guidelines, there may be instances where their vote deviates from the Guidelines. In those circumstances, the investment team will work within the Exception Process. In some instances, the same security may be held by more than one investment team. In these cases, PGI may vote differently on the same matter for different accounts as determined by each investment team.

**Proxy Voting Guidelines**

The Proxy Voting Committee, on an annual basis, or more frequently as needed, will direct each investment team to review draft proxy voting guidelines recommended by the Proxy Advisory Firm ("Draft Guidelines"). The Proxy Voting Committee will collect the reviews of the Draft Guidelines to determine whether any investment teams have positions on issues that deviate from the Draft Guidelines. Based on this review, PGI will adopt proxy voting guidelines. Where an investment team has a position which deviates from the Draft Guidelines, an alternative set of guidelines for that investment team may be created. Collectively, these guidelines will constitute PGI's current Proxy Voting Guidelines and may change from time to time (the "Guidelines"). The Proxy Voting Committee has the obligation to determine that, in general, voting proxies pursuant to the Guidelines is in the best interests of clients. Exhibit A to the Policy sets forth the current Guidelines.

There may be instances where proxy votes will not be in accordance with the Guidelines. Clients may instruct PGI to utilize a different set of guidelines, request specific deviations, or directly assume responsibility for the voting of proxies. In addition, PGI may deviate from the Guidelines on an exception basis if the investment team or PGI has determined that it is the best interest of clients in a particular strategy to do so, or where the Guidelines do not direct a particular response and instead list relevant factors. Any such a deviation will comply with the Exception Process which shall include a written record setting out the rationale for the deviation.

The subject of the proxy vote may not be covered in the Guidelines. In situations where the Guidelines do not provide a position, PGI will consider the relevant facts and circumstances of a particular vote and then vote in a manner PGI believes to be in the clients' bests interests. In such circumstance, the analysis will be documented in writing and periodically presented to the Proxy Voting Committee. To the extent that the Guidelines do not cover potential voting issues, PGI may consider the spirit of the Guidelines and instruct the vote on such issues in a manner that PGI believes would be in the best interests of the client.

**<u>Use of Proxy Advisory Firms</u>**

PGI has retained one or more third-party proxy service provider(s) (the "Proxy Advisory Firm") to provide recommendations for proxy voting guidelines, information on shareholder meeting dates and proxy materials, translate proxy materials printed in a foreign language, provide research on proxy proposals, operationally process votes in accordance with the Guidelines on behalf of the clients for whom PGI has proxy voting responsibility, and provide reports concerning the proxies voted ("Proxy Voting Services"). Although PGI has retained the Proxy Advisory Firm for Proxy Voting Services, PGI remains responsible for proxy voting decisions. PGI has designed the Policy to oversee and evaluate the Proxy Advisory Firm, including with respect to the matters described below, to support the PGI's voting in accordance with this Policy.

*Oversight of Proxy Advisory Firms*

Prior to the selection of any new Proxy Advisory Firm and annually thereafter or more frequently if deemed necessary by PGI, the Proxy Voting Committee will consider whether the Proxy Advisory Firm: (a) has the capacity and competency to adequately analyze proxy issues and provide the Proxy Voting Services the Proxy Advisory Firm has been engaged to provide and (b) can make its recommendations in an impartial manner, in consideration of the best interests of PGI's clients, and consistent with the PGI's voting policies. Such considerations may include, depending on the Proxy Voting Services provided, the following: (i) periodic sampling of votes pre-populated by the Proxy Advisory Firm's systems as well as votes cast by the Proxy Advisory Firm to review that the Guidelines adopted by PGI are being followed; (ii) onsite visits to the Proxy Advisory Firm office and/or discussions with the Proxy Advisory Firm to determine whether the Proxy Advisory Firm continues to have the capacity and competency to carry out its proxy obligations to PGI; (iii) a review of those aspects of the Proxy Advisory Firm's policies, procedures, and methodologies for formulating voting recommendations that PGI consider material to Proxy Voting Services provided to PGI, including factors considered, with a particular focus on those relating to identifying, addressing and disclosing potential conflicts of interest (including potential conflicts related to the provision of Proxy Voting Services, activities other than Proxy Voting Services, and those presented by affiliation such as a controlling shareholder of the Proxy Advisory Firm) and monitoring that materially current, accurate, and complete information is used in creating recommendations and research; (iv) requiring the Proxy Advisory Firm to notify PGI if there is a substantive change in the Proxy Advisory Firm's policies and procedures or otherwise to business practices, including with respect to conflicts, information gathering and creating voting recommendations and research, and reviewing any such change(s); (v) a review of how and when the Proxy Advisory Firm engages with, and receives and incorporates input from, issuers, the Proxy Advisory Firm's clients and other third-party information sources; (vi) assessing how the Proxy Advisory Firm considers factors unique to a specific issuer or proposal when evaluating a matter subject to a shareholder vote; (vii) in case of an error made by the Proxy Advisory Firm, discussing the error with the Proxy Advisory Firm and determining whether appropriate corrective and preventive action is being taken; and (viii) assessing whether the Proxy Advisory Firm appropriately updates its methodologies, guidelines, and voting recommendations on an ongoing basis and incorporates input from issuers and Proxy Advisory Firm clients in the update process. In evaluating the Proxy Advisory Firm, PGI may also consider the adequacy and quality of the Proxy Advisory Firm's staffing, personnel, and/or technology.

***Procedures for Voting Proxies***

To increase the efficiency of the voting process, PGI utilizes the Proxy Advisory Firm to act as its voting agent for its clients' holdings. Issuers initially send proxy information to the clients' custodians. PGI instructs these custodians to direct proxy related materials to the Proxy Advisory Firm. The Proxy Advisory Firm provides PGI with research related to each resolution.

PGI analyzes relevant proxy materials on behalf of their clients and seek to instruct the vote (or refrain from voting) proxies in accordance with the Guidelines. A client may direct PGI to vote for such client's account differently than what would occur in applying the Policy and the Guidelines. PGI may also agree to follow a client's individualized proxy voting guidelines or otherwise agree with a client on particular voting considerations.

PGI seeks to vote (or refrain from voting) proxies for its clients in a manner that PGI determines is in the best interests of its clients, which may include both considering both the effect on the value of the client's investments and ESG factors. In some cases, PGI may determine that it is in the best interests of clients to refrain from exercising the clients' proxy voting rights. PGI may determine that voting is not in the best interests of a client and refrain from voting if the costs, including the opportunity costs, of voting would, in the view of PGI, exceed the expected benefits of voting to the client.

***Procedures for Proxy Issues within the Guidelines***

Where the Guidelines address the proxy matter being voted on, the Proxy Advisor Firm will generally process all proxy votes in accordance with the Guidelines. The applicable investment team may provide instructions to vote contrary to the Guidelines in their discretion and with sufficient rationale documented in writing to seek to maximize the value of the client's investments or is otherwise in the client's best interest. This rationale will be submitted to PGI Compliance to approve and once approved administered by PGI Operations. This process will follow the Exception Process. The Proxy Voting Committee will receive and review a quarterly report summarizing all proxy votes for securities for which PGI exercises voting authority. In certain cases, a client may have elected to have PGI administer a custom policy which is unique to the Client. If PGI is also responsible for the administration of such a policy, in general, except for the specific policy differences, the procedures documented here will also be applicable, excluding reporting and disclosure procedures.

***Procedures for Proxy Issues Outside the Guidelines***

To the extent that the Guidelines do not cover potential voting issues, the Proxy Advisory Firm will seek direction from PGI. PGI may consider the spirit of the Guidelines and instruct the vote on such issues in a manner that PGI believes would be in the best interests of the client. Although this not an exception to the Guidelines, this process will also follow the Exception Process. The Proxy Voting Committee will receive and review a quarterly report summarizing all proxy votes for securities for which PGI exercises voting discretion, which shall include instances where issues fall outside the Guidelines.

**<u>Securities Lending</u>**

Some clients may have entered into securities lending arrangements with agent lenders to generate additional revenue. If a client participates in such lending, the client will need to inform PGI as part of their contract with PGI if they require PGI to take actions in regard to voting securities that have been lent. If not commemorated in such agreement, PGI will not recall securities and as such, they will not have an obligation to direct the proxy voting of lent securities.

In the case of lending, PGI maintains one share for each company security out on loan by the client. PGI will vote the remaining share in these circumstances.

In cases where PGI does not receive a solicitation or enough information within a sufficient time (as reasonably determined by PGI) prior to the proxy-voting deadline, PGI or the Proxy Advisory Firm may be unable to vote.

**<u>Regional Variances in Proxy Voting</u>**

PGI utilizes the Policy and Guidelines for both US and non-US clients, and there are some significant differences between voting U.S. company proxies and voting non-U.S. company proxies. For U.S. companies, it is usually relatively easy to vote proxies, as the proxies are typically received automatically and may be voted by mail or electronically. In most cases, the officers of a U.S. company soliciting a proxy act as proxies for the company's shareholders.

With respect to non-U.S. companies, we make reasonable efforts to vote most proxies and follow a similar process to those in the U.S. However, in some cases it may be both difficult and costly to vote proxies due to local regulations, customs or other requirements or restrictions, and such circumstances and expected costs may outweigh any anticipated economic benefit of voting. The major difficulties and costs may include: (i) appointing a proxy; (ii) obtaining reliable information about the time and location of a meeting; (iii) obtaining relevant information about voting procedures for foreign shareholders; (iv) restrictions on trading securities that are subject to proxy votes (share-blocking periods); (v) arranging for a proxy to vote locally in person; (vi) fees charged by custody banks for providing certain services with regard to voting proxies; and (vii) foregone income from securities lending programs. In certain instances, it may be determined by PGI that the anticipated economic benefit outweighs the expected cost of voting. PGI intends to make their determination on whether to vote proxies of non-U.S. companies on a case-by-case basis. In doing so, PGI shall evaluate market requirements and impediments, including the difficulties set forth above, for voting proxies of companies in each country. PGI periodically reviews voting logistics, including costs and other voting difficulties, on a client by client and country by country basis, in order to determine if there have been any material changes that would affect PGI's determinations and procedures.

**<u>Conflicts of Interest</u>**

PGI recognizes that, from time to time, potential conflicts of interest may exist. In order to avoid any perceived or actual conflict of interest, the procedures set forth below have been established for use when PGI encounters a potential conflict to ensure that PGI's voting decisions are based on maximizing shareholder value and are not the product of a conflict.

***Addressing Conflicts of Interest – Exception Process***

Prior to voting contrary to the Guidelines, the relevant investment team must complete and submit a report to PGI Compliance setting out the name of the security, the issue up for vote, a summary of the Guidelines' recommendation, the vote changes requested and the rational for voting against the Guidelines' recommendation. The member of the investment team requesting the exception must attest to compliance with Principal's Code of Conduct and the has an affirmative obligation to disclose any known personal or business relationship that could affect the voting of the applicable proxy. PGI Compliance will approve or deny the exception in consultation, if deemed necessary, with the Legal.

If PGI Compliance determines that there is no potential material conflict exists, the Guidelines may be overridden. If PGI Compliance determines that there exists or may exist a material conflict, it will refer the issue to the Proxy Voting Committee. The Proxy Voting Committee will consider the facts and circumstances of the pending proxy vote and the potential or actual material conflict and decide by a majority vote as to how to vote the proxy – i.e., whether to permit or deny the exception.

In considering the proxy vote and potential material conflict of interest, the Proxy Voting Committee may review the following factors:

• The percentage of outstanding securities of the issuer held on behalf of clients by PGI;

• The nature of the relationship of the issuer with the PGI, its affiliates or its executive officers;

• Whether there has been any attempt to directly or indirectly influence the investment team's decision;

• Whether the direction of the proposed vote would appear to benefit PGI or a related party; and/or

• Whether an objective decision to vote in a certain way will still create a strong appearance of a conflict.

In the event that the Proxy Advisor Firm itself has a conflict and thus is unable to provide a recommendation, the investment team may vote in accordance with the recommendation of another independent service provider, if available. If a recommendation from an independent service provider other than the Proxy Advisor Firm is not available, the investment team will follow the Exception Process. PGI Compliance will review the form and if it determines that there is no potential material conflict mandating a voting recommendation from the Proxy Voting Committee, the investment team may instruct the Proxy Advisory Firm to vote the proxy issue as it determines is in the best interest of clients. If PGI Compliance determines that there exists or may exist a material conflict, it will refer the issue to the Proxy Voting Committee for consideration as outlined above.

<u>**Availability of Proxy Voting Information and Recordkeeping**</u>

***Disclosure***

On a quarterly basis, PGI publicly discloses on our website https://www.principalglobal.com/eu/about-us/responsible-investing a voting report setting forth the manner in which votes were cast, including details related to (i) votes against management, and (ii) abstentions. Form more information, Clients may contact PGI for more information related to how PGI has voted with respect to securities held in the Client's account. On request, PGI will provide clients with a summary of PGI's proxy voting guidelines, process and policies and will inform the clients how they can obtain a copy of the complete Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures upon request. PGI will also include such information described in the preceding two sentences in Part 2A of its Form ADV.

***Recordkeeping***

PGI will keep records of the following items: (i) the Guidelines, (ii) the Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures; (iii) proxy statements received regarding client securities (unless such statements are available on the SEC's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) system); (iv) records of votes they cast on behalf of clients, which may be maintained by a Proxy Advisory Firm if it undertakes to provide copies of those records promptly upon request; (v) records of written client requests for proxy voting information and PGI's responses (whether a client's request was oral or in writing); (vi) any documents prepared by PGI that were material to making a decision how to vote, or that memorialized the basis for the decision; (vii) a record of any testing conducted on any Proxy Advisory Firm's votes; (viii) materials collected and reviewed by PGI as part of its due diligence of the Proxy Advisory Firm; (ix) a copy of each version of the Proxy Advisory Firm's policies and procedures provided to PGI; and (x) the minutes of the Proxy Voting Committee meetings. All of the records referenced above will be kept in an easily accessible place for at least the length of time required by local regulation and custom, and, if such local regulation requires that records are kept for less than six years from the end of the fiscal year during which the last entry was made on such record, we will follow the US rule of six years. If the local regulation requires that records are kept for more than six years, we will comply with the local regulation. We maintain the vast majority of these records electronically.

<sup>1</sup> These policies and procedures apply to Principal Global Investors, LLC, Principal Real Estate Investors, LLC, Principal Global Investors (Hong Kong) Limited and any affiliates which have entered into participating affiliate agreements with the aforementioned managers.

T. ROWE PRICE ASSOCIATES, INC. AND CERTAIN OF ITS INVESTMENT ADVISER AFFILIATES

**PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES**

**RESPONSIBILITY TO VOTE PROXIES**

T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. and certain of its investment adviser affiliates (collectively, **"T. Rowe Price"**) have adopted these Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures (**"Policies and Procedures"**) for the purpose of establishing formal policies and procedures for performing and documenting their fiduciary duty with regard to the voting of client proxies. This document is reviewed at least annually and updated as necessary.

T. Rowe Price recognizes and adheres to the principle that one of the privileges of owning stock in a company is the right to vote in the election of the company's directors and on matters affecting certain important aspects of the company's structure and operations that are submitted to shareholder vote. The U.S.-registered investment companies which T. Rowe Price sponsors and serves as investment adviser (the **"Price Funds"**) as well as other investment advisory clients have delegated to T. Rowe Price certain proxy voting powers. As an investment adviser, T. Rowe Price has a fiduciary responsibility to such clients when exercising its voting authority with respect to securities held in their portfolios. T. Rowe Price reserves the right to decline to vote proxies in accordance with client-specific voting guidelines.

**Fiduciary Considerations.** It is the policy of T. Rowe Price that decisions with respect to proxy issues will be made in light of the anticipated impact of the issue on the desirability of investing in the portfolio company from the viewpoint of the particular advisory client or Price Fund. Proxies are voted solely in the interests of the client, Price Fund shareholders or, where employee benefit plan assets are involved, in the interests of plan participants and beneficiaries. Our intent has always been to vote proxies, where possible to do so, in a manner consistent with our fiduciary obligations and responsibilities.

One of the primary factors T. Rowe Price considers when determining the desirability of investing in a particular company is the quality and depth of its management. We recognize that a company's management is entrusted with the day-to-day operations of the company, as well as its long-term direction and strategic planning, subject to the oversight of the company's board of directors. Accordingly, our proxy voting guidelines are not intended to substitute our judgment for management's with respect to the company's day-to-day operations. Rather, our proxy voting guidelines are designed to promote accountability of a company's management and board of directors to its shareholders; to align the interests of management with those of shareholders; and to encourage companies to adopt best practices in terms of their corporate governance and disclosure. In addition to our proxy voting guidelines, we rely on a company's public filings, its board recommendations, its track record, country-specific best practices codes, our research providers and – most importantly – our investment professionals' views in making voting decisions. T. Rowe Price investment personnel do not coordinate with investment personnel of its affiliated investment adviser, TRPIM, with respect to proxy voting decisions.

T. Rowe Price seeks to vote all of its clients' proxies. In certain circumstances, T. Rowe Price may determine that refraining from voting a proxy is in a client's best interest, such as when the cost of voting outweighs the expected benefit to the client. For example, the practicalities and costs involved with international investing may make it impossible at times, and at other times disadvantageous, to vote proxies in every instance.

**ADMINISTRATION OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES**

**Environmental, Social and Governance Committee.** T. Rowe Price's Environmental, Social and Governance Committee (**"TRPA ESG Committee"**) is responsible for establishing positions with respect to corporate governance and other proxy issues. Certain delegated members of the TRPA ESG Committee also review questions and respond to inquiries from clients and mutual fund shareholders pertaining to proxy issues. While the TRPA ESG Committee sets voting guidelines and serves as a resource for T. Rowe Price portfolio management, it does not have proxy voting authority for any Price Fund or advisory client. Rather, voting authority and responsibility is held by the Chairperson of the Price Fund's Investment Advisory Committee or the advisory client's portfolio manager. The TRPA ESG Committee is also responsible for the oversight of third-party proxy services firms that T. Rowe Price engages to facilitate the proxy voting process.

**Proxy Voting Team.** The Proxy Voting team is responsible for administering the proxy voting process as set forth in the Policies and Procedures.

**Governance Team.** Our Governance team is responsible for reviewing the proxy agendas for all upcoming meetings and making company-specific recommendations to our global industry analysts and portfolio managers with regard to the voting decisions in their portfolios.

**Responsible Investment Team.** Our Responsible Investment team oversees the integration of environmental and social factors into our investment processes across asset classes. In formulating vote recommendations for matters of an environmental or social nature, the Governance team frequently consults with the appropriate sector analyst from the Responsible Investment team.

**HOW PROXIES ARE REVIEWED, PROCESSED AND VOTED**

In order to facilitate the proxy voting process, T. Rowe Price has retained Institutional Shareholder Services (**"ISS"**) as an expert in the proxy voting and corporate governance area. ISS specializes in providing a variety of fiduciary-level proxy advisory and voting services. These services include custom vote recommendations, research, vote execution, and reporting. Services provided by ISS do not include automated processing of votes on our behalf using the ISS Benchmark Policy recommendations. Instead, in order to reflect T. Rowe Price's issue-by-issue voting guidelines as approved each year by the TRPA ESG Committee, ISS maintains and implements custom voting policies for the Price Funds and other advisory client accounts.

**Meeting Notification**

T. Rowe Price utilizes ISS' voting agent services to notify us of upcoming shareholder meetings for portfolio companies held in client accounts and to transmit votes to the various custodian banks of our clients. ISS tracks and reconciles our clients' holdings against incoming proxy ballots. If ballots do not arrive on time, ISS procures them from the appropriate custodian or proxy distribution agent. Meeting and record date information is updated daily and transmitted to T. Rowe Price through ProxyExchange, an ISS application.

**Vote Determination**

Each day, ISS delivers into T. Rowe Price's customized ProxyExchange environment a comprehensive summary of upcoming meetings, proxy proposals, publications discussing key proxy voting issues, and custom vote recommendations to assist us with proxy research and processing. The final authority and responsibility for proxy voting decisions remains with T. Rowe Price. Decisions with respect to proxy matters are made primarily in light of the anticipated impact of the issue on the desirability of investing in the company from the perspective of our clients.

Portfolio managers execute their responsibility to vote proxies in different ways. Some have decided to vote their proxies generally in line with the guidelines as set by the TRPA ESG Committee. Others review the customized vote recommendations and approve them before the votes are cast. Portfolio managers have access to current reports summarizing all proxy votes in their client accounts. Portfolio managers who vote their proxies inconsistent with T. Rowe Price guidelines are required to document the rationale for their votes. The Proxy Voting team is responsible for maintaining this documentation and assuring that it adequately reflects the basis for any vote which is contrary to our proxy voting guidelines.

**T. Rowe Price Voting Policies**

Specific proxy voting guidelines have been adopted by the TRPA ESG Committee for all regularly occurring categories of management and shareholder proposals. A detailed set of proxy voting guidelines is available on the T. Rowe Price website, www.troweprice.com/esgpolicy.

**Global Portfolio Companies**

The TRPA ESG Committee has developed custom international proxy voting guidelines based on ISS' general global policies, regional codes of corporate governance, and our own views as investors in these markets. ISS applies a two-tier approach to determining and applying global proxy voting policies. The first tier establishes baseline policy guidelines for the most fundamental issues, which span the corporate governance spectrum without regard to a company's domicile. The second tier takes into account various idiosyncrasies of different countries, making allowances for standard market practices, as long as they do not violate the fundamental goals of good corporate governance. The goal is to enhance shareholder value through effective use of the shareholder franchise, recognizing that application of a single set of policies is not appropriate for all markets.

**Fixed Income and Passively Managed Strategies**

Proxy voting for our fixed income and indexed portfolios is administered by the Proxy Voting team using T. Rowe Price's guidelines as set by the TRPA ESG Committee. Indexed strategies generally vote in line with the T. Rowe Price guidelines. Fixed income strategies generally follow the proxy vote determinations on security holdings held by our equity accounts unless the matter is specific to a particular fixed income security such as consents, restructurings, or reorganization proposals.

**Shareblocking**

Shareblocking is the practice in certain countries of "freezing" shares for trading purposes in order to vote proxies relating to those shares. In markets where shareblocking applies, the custodian or sub-custodian automatically freezes shares prior to a shareholder meeting once a proxy has been voted. T. Rowe Price's policy is generally to refrain from voting shares in shareblocking countries unless the matter has compelling economic consequences that outweigh the loss of liquidity in the blocked shares.

**Securities on Loan**

The Price Funds and our institutional clients may participate in securities lending programs to generate income for their portfolios. Generally, the voting rights pass with the securities on loan; however, lending agreements give the lender the right to terminate the loan and pull back the loaned shares provided sufficient notice is given to the custodian bank in advance of the applicable deadline. T. Rowe Price's policy is generally not to vote securities on loan unless we determine there is a material voting event that could affect the value of the loaned securities. In this event, we have the discretion to pull back the loaned securities in order to cast a vote at an upcoming shareholder meeting. A monthly monitoring process is in place to review securities on loan and how they may affect proxy voting.

**Monitoring and Resolving Conflicts of Interest**

The TRPA ESG Committee is also responsible for monitoring and resolving potential material conflicts between the interests of T. Rowe Price and those of its clients with respect to proxy voting. We have adopted safeguards to ensure that our proxy voting is not influenced by interests other than those of our fund shareholders and other investment advisory clients. While membership on the TRPA ESG Committee is diverse, it does not include individuals whose primary duties relate to client relationship management, marketing, or sales. Since T. Rowe Price's voting guidelines are predetermined by the TRPA ESG Committee, application of the guidelines by portfolio managers to vote client proxies should in most instances adequately address any potential conflicts of interest. However, consistent with the terms of the Policies and Procedures, which allow portfolio managers to vote proxies opposite our general voting guidelines, the TRPA ESG Committee regularly reviews all such proxy votes that are inconsistent with the proxy voting guidelines to determine whether the portfolio manager's voting rationale appears reasonable. The TRPA ESG Committee also assesses whether any business or other material relationships between T. Rowe Price and a portfolio company (unrelated to the ownership of the portfolio company's securities) could have influenced an inconsistent vote on that company's proxy. Issues raising potential conflicts of interest are referred to designated members of the TRPA ESG Committee for immediate resolution prior to the time T. Rowe Price casts its vote.

With respect to personal conflicts of interest, T. Rowe Price's Code of Ethics and Conduct requires all employees to avoid placing themselves in a "compromising position" in which their interests may conflict with those of our clients and restrict their ability to engage in certain outside business activities. Portfolio managers or TRPA ESG Committee members with a personal conflict of interest regarding a particular proxy vote must recuse themselves and not participate in the voting decisions with respect to that proxy.

*Specific Conflict of Interest Situations* - Voting of T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. common stock (sym: TROW) by certain T. Rowe Price Index Funds will be done in all instances in accordance with T. Rowe Price voting guidelines and votes inconsistent with the guidelines will not be permitted. In the event that there is no previously established guideline for a specific voting issue appearing on the T. Rowe Price Group proxy, the Price Funds will abstain on that voting item. In addition, T. Rowe Price has voting authority for proxies of the holdings of certain Price Funds that invest in other Price Funds. In cases where the underlying fund of an investing Price Fund, including a fund-of-funds, holds a proxy vote, T. Rowe Price will mirror vote the fund shares held by the upper-tier fund in the same proportion as the votes cast by the shareholders of the underlying funds (other than the T. Rowe Price Reserve Investment Fund).

**Limitations on Voting Proxies of Banks**

T. Rowe Price has obtained relief from the U.S. Federal Reserve Board (the **"FRB Relief"**) which permits, subject to a number of conditions, T. Rowe Price to acquire in the aggregate on behalf of its clients, 10% or more of the total voting stock of a bank, bank holding company, savings and loan holding company or savings association (each a **"Bank"**), not to exceed a 15% aggregate beneficial ownership maximum in such Bank. One such condition affects the manner in which T. Rowe Price will vote its clients' shares of a Bank in excess of 10% of the Bank's total voting stock (**"Excess Shares"**). The FRB Relief requires that T. Rowe Price use its best efforts to vote the Excess Shares in the same proportion as all other shares voted, a practice generally referred to as "mirror voting," or in the event that such efforts to mirror vote are unsuccessful, Excess Shares will not be voted. With respect to a shareholder vote for a Bank of which T. Rowe Price has aggregate beneficial ownership of greater than 10% on behalf of its clients, T. Rowe Price will determine which of its clients' shares are Excess Shares on a pro rata basis across all of its clients' portfolios for which T. Rowe Price has the power to vote proxies.

**REPORTING, RECORD RETENTION AND OVERSIGHT**

The TRPA ESG Committee, and certain personnel under the direction of the TRPA ESG Committee, perform the following oversight and assurance functions, among others, over T. Rowe Price's proxy voting: (1) periodically samples proxy votes to ensure that they were cast in compliance with T. Rowe Price's proxy voting guidelines; (2) reviews, no less frequently than annually, the adequacy of the Policies and Procedures to make sure that they have been implemented effectively, including whether they continue to be reasonably designed to ensure that proxies are voted in the best interests of our clients; (3) performs due diligence on whether a retained proxy advisory firm has the capacity and competency to adequately analyze proxy issues, including the adequacy and quality of the proxy advisory firm's staffing and personnel and its policies; and (4) oversees any retained proxy advisory firms and their procedures regarding their capabilities to (i) produce proxy research that is based on current and accurate information and (ii) identify and address any conflicts of interest and any other considerations that we believe would be appropriate in considering the nature and quality of the services provided by the proxy advisory firm.

T. Rowe Price will furnish Vote Summary Reports, upon request, to its institutional clients that have delegated proxy voting authority. The report specifies the portfolio companies, meeting dates, proxy proposals, and votes which have been cast for the client during the period and the position taken with respect to each issue. Reports normally cover quarterly or annual periods and are provided to such clients upon request.

T. Rowe Price retains proxy solicitation materials, memoranda regarding votes cast in opposition to the position of a company's management, and documentation on shares voted differently. In addition, any document which is material to a proxy voting decision such as the T. Rowe Price proxy voting guidelines, TRPA ESG Committee meeting materials, and other internal research relating to voting decisions are maintained in accordance with applicable requirements.

#### Proxy Voting - Wellington Management.
**Introduction**

Wellington Management has adopted and implemented policies and procedures that it believes are reasonably designed to ensure that proxies are voted in the best interests of clients for whom it exercises proxy-voting discretion.

Wellington Management's Proxy Voting Guidelines (the "Guidelines") set forth broad guidelines and positions on common proxy issues that Wellington Management uses in voting on proxies. In addition, Wellington Management also considers each proposal in the context of the issuer, industry and country or countries in which the issuer's business is conducted. The Guidelines are not rigid rules and the merits of a particular proposal may cause Wellington Management to enter a vote that differs from the Guidelines. Wellington Management seeks to vote all proxies with the goal of increasing long-term client value and, while client investment strategies may differ, applying this common set of guidelines is consistent with the investment objective of achieving positive long-term investment performance for each client.

**STATEMENT OF POLICY**

Wellington Management:

1) Votes client proxies for which clients have affirmatively delegated proxy-voting authority, in writing, unless it has arranged in advance with the client to limit the circumstances in which it would exercise voting authority or determines that it is in the best interest of one or more clients to refrain from voting a given proxy.

2) Votes all proxies in the best interests of the client for whom it is voting.

3) Identifies and resolves all material proxy-related conflicts of interest between the firm and its clients in the best interests of the client.

**RESPONSIBILITY AND OVERSIGHT**

The Investment Research Group ("Investment Research") monitors regulatory requirements with respect to proxy voting and works with the firm's Legal and Compliance Group and the Investment Stewardship Committee to develop practices that implement those requirements. Investment Research also acts as a resource for portfolio managers and research analysts on proxy matters as needed. Day-to-day administration of the proxy voting process is the responsibility of Investment Research. The Investment Stewardship Committee is responsible for oversight of the implementation of the Global Proxy Policy and Procedures, review and approval of the Guidelines, identification and resolution of conflicts of interest, and for providing advice and guidance on specific proxy votes for individual issuers. The Investment Stewardship Committee reviews the Global Proxy Policy and Procedures annually.

**PROCEDURES**

**Use of Third-Party Voting Agent**

Wellington Management uses the services of a third-party voting agent for research, voting recommendations, and to manage the administrative aspects of proxy voting. The voting agent processes proxies for client accounts, casts votes based on the Guidelines and maintains records of proxies voted. Wellington Management complements the research received by its primary voting agent with research from another voting agent.

**Receipt of Proxy**

If a client requests that Wellington Management votes proxies on its behalf, the client must instruct its custodian bank to deliver all relevant voting material to Wellington Management or its voting agent.

**Reconciliation**

Each public security proxy received by electronic means is matched to the securities eligible to be voted and a reminder is sent to any custodian or trustee that has not forwarded the proxies as due. This reconciliation is performed at the ballot level. Although proxies received for private securities, as well as those received in non- electronic format, are voted as received, Wellington Management is not able to reconcile these ballots, nor does it notify custodians of non-receipt.

**Research**

In addition to proprietary investment research undertaken by Wellington Management investment professionals, Investment Research conducts proxy research internally, and uses the resources of a number of external sources including third-party voting agents to keep abreast of developments in corporate governance and of current practices of specific companies.

**Proxy Voting**

Following the reconciliation process, each proxy is compared against the Guidelines, and handled as follows:

• Generally, issues for which explicit proxy voting guidance is provided in the Guidelines (i.e., "For", "Against", "Abstain") are voted in accordance with the Guidelines.

• Issues identified as "case-by-case" in the Guidelines are further reviewed by Investment Research. In certain circumstances, further input is needed, so the issues are forwarded to the relevant research analyst and/or portfolio manager(s) for their input.

• Absent a material conflict of interest, the portfolio manager has the authority to decide the final vote. Different portfolio managers holding the same securities may arrive at different voting conclusions for their clients' proxies.

Wellington Management reviews a subset of the voting record to ensure that proxies are voted in accordance with these *Global Proxy Policy and Procedures* and the Guidelines; and ensures that documentation and reports, for clients and for internal purposes, relating to the voting of proxies are promptly and properly prepared and disseminated.

**Material Conflict of Interest Identification and Resolution Processes**

Wellington Management's broadly diversified client base and functional lines of responsibility serve to minimize the number of, but not prevent, material conflicts of interest it faces in voting proxies. Annually, the Investment Stewardship Committee sets standards for identifying material conflicts based on client, vendor, and lender relationships, and publishes those standards to individuals involved in the proxy voting process. In addition, the Investment Stewardship Committee encourages all personnel to contact Investment Research about apparent conflicts of interest, even if the apparent conflict does not meet the published materiality criteria. Apparent conflicts are reviewed by designated members of the Investment Stewardship Committee to determine if there is a conflict and if so whether the conflict is material.

If a proxy is identified as presenting a material conflict of interest, the matter must be reviewed by designated members of the Investment Stewardship Committee, who will resolve the conflict and direct the vote. In certain circumstances, the designated members may determine that the full Investment Stewardship Committee should convene.

**OTHER CONSIDERATIONS**

In certain instances, Wellington Management may be unable to vote or may determine not to vote a proxy on behalf of one or more clients. While not exhaustive, the following are potential instances in which a proxy vote might not be entered.

**Securities Lending**

In general, Wellington Management does not know when securities have been lent out pursuant to a client's securities lending program and are therefore unavailable to be voted. Efforts to recall loaned securities are not always effective, but, in rare circumstances, Wellington Management may determine voting would outweigh the benefit to the client resulting from use of securities for lending and recommend that a client attempt to have its custodian recall the security to permit voting of related proxies.

**Share Blocking and Re-registration**

Certain countries impose trading restrictions or requirements regarding re-registration of securities held in omnibus accounts in order for shareholders to vote a proxy. The potential impact of such requirements is evaluated when determining whether to vote such proxies.

**Lack of Adequate Information, Untimely Receipt of Proxy Materials, or Excessive Costs**

Wellington Management may abstain from voting a proxy when the proxy statement or other available information is inadequate to allow for an informed vote, when the proxy materials are not delivered in a timely fashion or when, in Wellington Management's judgment, the costs exceed the expected benefits to clients (such as when powers of attorney or consularization are required).

**ADDITIONAL INFORMATION**

Wellington Management maintains records related to proxies pursuant to Rule 204-2 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the "Advisers Act"), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), and other applicable laws. In addition, Wellington Management discloses annually how it has exercised its voting rights for significant votes, as require by the EU Shareholder Rights Directive II ("SRD II").

Wellington Management provides clients with a copy of its *Global Proxy Policy and Procedures*, including the Guidelines, upon written request. In addition, Wellington Management will provide specific client information relating to proxy voting to a client upon written request.

**<u>WELLINGTON'S PHILOSOPHY</u>**

Wellington Management are long-term stewards of clients' assets and aim to vote proxies for which we have voting authority in the best interest of clients.

These guidelines are based on Wellington Management's fiduciary obligation to act in the best interest of its clients as shareholders and while written to apply globally, we consider differences in local practice, cultures, and law to make informed decisions.

It should be noted that the following are guidelines, not rigid rules, and Wellington Management reserves the right in all cases to deviate from the general direction set out below when doing so is judged to represent the best interest of its clients.

**<u>OUR APPROACH TO STEWARDSHIP</u>**

The goal of our stewardship activities is to support decisions that we believe will deliver sustainable, competitive investment returns for our clients.

The mechanisms we use to implement our stewardship activities vary by asset class. Engagement applies to all our investments across equity and credit, in both private and public markets. Proxy voting applies mostly to public equities.

Stewardship extends to any area that may affect the long-term sustainability of an investment, including the considerations of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues. Stewardship can be accomplished through research and constructive dialogue with company management and boards, by monitoring company behavior through informed active ownership, and by emphasizing management accountability for important issues via our proxy votes, which have long been part of Wellington's investment ethos. Please refer to our Engagement Policy for more information on how engagement is conducted at Wellington.

**<u>OUR APPROACH TO VOTING</u>**

We vote proxies in what we consider to be the best interests of our clients. Our approach to voting is investment-led and serves as an influential component of our engagement and escalation strategy. The Investment Stewardship Committee, a cross-functional group of experienced professionals, oversees Wellington Management's stewardship activities with regards to proxy voting and engagement practices.

Generally, issues which can be addressed by the proxy voting guidance below are voted by means of standing instructions communicated to our primary voting agent. Some votes warrant analysis of specific facts and circumstances and therefore are reviewed individually. We examine such proxy proposals on their merits and take voting action in a manner that best serves the interests of our clients. While manual votes are often resolved by ESG analysts, grounded in their sector and company research, each portfolio manager is empowered to make a final decision for their relevant client portfolio(s), absent a material conflict of interest. Proactive portfolio manager input is sought under certain circumstances, which may include consideration of position size and proposal subject matter and nature. Where portfolio manager input is proactively sought, deliberation across the firm may occur. This collaboration does not prioritize consensus across the firm above all other interests but rather seeks to inform portfolio managers' decisions by allowing them to consider multiple perspectives. Consistent with our community-of- boutiques model, portfolio managers may occasionally arrive at different voting conclusions for their clients, resulting in different decisions for the same vote. Robust voting procedures and the deliberation that occurs before a vote decision are aligned with our role as active owners and fiduciaries for our clients.

When voting on shareholder proposals, we consider the spirit of the proposal, not just the letter, and generally support proposals addressing material issues even when management has been responsive to our engagement on the issue. In this way, we seek to align our voting with our engagement activities. If our views differ from any specific suggestions in the proposals, we may provide clarification via direct engagement.

Please refer to our Global Proxy Policy and Procedures for further background on the process and governance of our voting approach.

Detailed below are the principles which we consider when deciding how to vote.

**<u>Voting Guidelines</u>**

**<u>BOARD COMPOSITION AND ROLE OF DIRECTORS</u>**

Effective boards should act in shareholders' best economic interests and possess the relevant skills to implement the company's strategy.

We consider shareholders' ability to elect directors annually an important right and accordingly, generally support proposals to enable annual director elections and declassify boards.

We may withhold votes from directors for being unresponsive to shareholders or for failing to make progress on material issues. We also may withhold votes from directors who fail to implement shareholder proposals that have received majority support or have implemented poison pills without shareholder approval.

<u>Time commitments</u>

We expect directors to have the time and energy to fully commit to their board-related responsibilities and not be over-stretched with multiple external directorships. We reserve the right to vote against directors when serving on five or more public company boards; and public company executives when serving on three or more public company boards, including their own.

We consider the roles of board chair and chair of the audit committee as equivalent to an additional board seat when evaluating the overboarding matrix for non-executives. We may take into consideration that certain directorships, such as Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) and investment companies, are usually less demanding.

Directors also should attend at least 75% of scheduled board meetings and we may vote against their re-election unless they disclose a valid reason.

<u>Succession planning and board refreshment</u>

We do not have specific voting policies relating to director age or tenure. We prefer to take a holistic view, evaluating whether the company is balancing the perspectives of new directors with the institutional knowledge of longer-serving board members. Succession planning is a key topic during many of our board engagements.

We expect companies to refresh their board membership every five years and may vote against the chair of the nominating committee for failure to implement. We believe a degree of director turnover allows companies to strengthen board diversity and add new skillsets to the board to enhance their oversight and adapt to evolving strategies.

Boards should offer transparency around their process to evaluate director performance and independence, conducting a rigorous regular evaluation of the board, key committees as well as individual directors, which is responsive to shareholder input. We believe externally facilitated board evaluations may contribute to companies retaining an appropriate mix of skills, experience and diversity on their boards over time.

In certain markets companies are governed by multi-tiered boards, with each tier having different responsibilities. We hold supervisory board members to similar standards, subject to prevailing local governance best practices.

<u>Board independence</u>

In our view, boards perform best when composed of an appropriate combination of executive and non-executive (in particular independent non-executive) directors to challenge and counsel management.

To determine appropriate minimum levels of board independence, we look to prevailing market best practices; two- thirds in the US, for example, and majority in the UK and France. In Japan, we will consider voting against the board chair (or most senior executive on the ballot) in cases where the board is less than one-third independent.

In addition to the overall independence at the board level, we also consider the independence of audit, compensation, and nominating committees. Where independence falls short of our expectations, we may withhold approval for non- independent directors or those responsible for the board's composition. We typically vote in support of shareholder proposals calling for improved independence.

We believe that having an independent chair is the preferred structure for board leadership. Having an independent chair avoids the inherent conflict of self-oversight and helps ensure robust debate and diversity of thought in the boardroom. We generally will support proposals to separate the chair and CEO or establish a lead director but may support the involvement of an outgoing CEO as executive chair for a limited period to ensure a smooth transition to new management.

<u>Board diversity</u>

We believe boards which reflect a wide range of perspectives are best positioned to create shareholder value. Appointing boards that thoughtfully debate company strategy and direction is not possible unless boards elect highly qualified and diverse directors. By setting a leadership example, diverse boardrooms encourage an organizational culture that promotes diverse thinkers, enabling better strategic decisions and the navigation of increasingly complex issues facing companies today.

We think it is not in shareholders' best interests for the full board to be comprised of directors from the same industry, gender, race, nationality, or ethnic group. We expect for our portfolio companies to be thoughtful and intentional in considering the widest possible pool of skilled candidates who bring diverse perspectives into the boardroom. We encourage companies to disclose the composition of their board and to communicate their ambitions and strategies for creating and fostering a diverse board.

We reserve the right to vote against the re-election of the Nominating/Governance Committee Chair when the board is not meeting local market standards from a diversity perspective or when the gender-diverse representation is below 20% at companies in major indices. Outside of these major indices and absent a market-defined standard, we may vote against the reelection of the Nominating/Governance Committee Chair where no gender-diverse directors are represented on a board.

We reserve the right to vote against the reelection of the Nominating/Governance Committee Chair at US large cap and FTSE 100 companies that failed to appoint at least one director from a minority ethnic group and provide clear and compelling reason why it has been unable to do so. We will continue to engage on ethnic diversity of the board in other markets and may vote against the re-election of directors where we fail to see improvements.

<u>Majority vote on election of directors</u>

Because we believe the election of directors by a majority of votes cast is the appropriate standard, we will generally support proposals that seek to adopt such a standard. Our support will typically extend to situations where the relevant company has an existing resignation policy for directors that receive a majority of ''withhold'' votes. We believe majority voting should be defined in the company's charter and not simply in its corporate governance policy.

Generally, we oppose proposals that fail to provide for the exceptional use of a plurality standard in the case of contested elections. Further, we will not support proposals that seek to adopt a standard of majority of votes outstanding (total votes eligible as opposed to votes cast). We likely will support shareholder and management proposals to remove existing supermajority vote requirements.

We generally support proposals to remove existing supermajority vote requirements.

<u>Contested director elections</u>

We approach contested director elections on a case-by-case basis, considering the specific circumstances of each situation to determine what we believe to be in the best interest of our clients. In each case, we welcome the opportunity to engage with both the company and the proponent to ensure that we understand both perspectives and are making an informed decision on our clients' behalf.

**COMPENSATION**

Executive compensation plans establish the incentive structure that plays a role in strategy-setting, decision-making, and risk management. While design and structure vary widely, we believe the most effective compensation plans attract and retain high caliber executives, foster a culture of performance and accountability, and align management's interests with those of long-term shareholders.

Due to each company's unique circumstances and wide range of plan structures, Wellington determines support for a compensation plan on a case-by-case basis. We support plans that we believe lead to long-term value creation for our clients and the right to vote on compensation plans annually.

In evaluating compensation plans, we consider the following attributes in the context of the company's business, size, industry, and geographic location:

<u>Alignment</u> — We believe in pay-for-performance and encourage plan structures that align executive compensation with shareholder experience. We compare total compensation to performance metrics on an absolute and relative basis over various timeframes, and we look for a strong positive correlation. To ensure shareholder alignment, executives should maintain meaningful equity ownership in the company while they are employed, and for a period thereafter.

<u>Transparency</u> — We expect compensation committees to articulate the decision-making process and rationale behind the plan structure, and to provide adequate disclosure so shareholders can evaluate actual compensation relative to the committee's intentions. Disclosure should include how metrics, targets, and timeframes are chosen, and detail desired outcomes. We also seek to understand how the compensation committee determines the target level of compensation and constructs the peer group for benchmarking purposes.

<u>Structure</u> — The plan should be clear and comprehensible. We look for a mix of cash versus equity, fixed versus variable, and short- versus long-term pay that incentivizes appropriate risk-taking and aligns with industry practice. Performance targets should be achievable but rigorous, and equity awards should be subject to performance and/or vesting periods of at least three years, to discourage executives from managing the business with a near-term focus. Unless otherwise specified by local market regulators, performance-based compensation should be based primarily on quantitative financial and non-financial criteria such as ESG-related criteria. There is scope, however, for qualitative criteria related to strategic, individual, or ESG goals, that are critical to the business. Qualitative goals may be acceptable if a compensation committee has demonstrated a fair and consistent approach to evaluating qualitative performance and applying discretion over time.

<u>Accountability</u> — Compensation committees should be able to use discretion, positive and negative, to ensure compensation aligns with performance and provide a cogent explanation to shareholders. We generally oppose one- time awards aimed at retention or achieving a pre-determined goal. Barring an extenuating circumstance, we view retesting provisions unfavorably.

<u>Approving equity incentive plans</u>

A well-designed equity incentive plan facilitates the alignment of interests of long-term shareholders, management, employees, and directors. We evaluate equity-based compensation plans on a case-by-case basis, considering projected plan costs, plan features, and grant practices. We will reconsider our support for a plan if we believe these factors, on balance, are not in the best interest of shareholders. Specific items of concern may include excessive cost or dilution, unfavorable change-in-control features, insufficient performance conditions, holding/vesting periods, or stock ownership requirements, repricing stock options/stock appreciation rights (SARs) without prior shareholder approval, or automatic share replenishment (an "evergreen" feature).

<u>Employee stock purchase plans</u>

We generally support employee stock purchase plans, as they may align employees' interests with those of shareholders. That said, we typically vote against plans that do not offer shares to a broad group of employees (e.g., if only executives can participate) or plans that offer shares at a significant discount.

<u>Non-executive director compensation</u>

We expect companies to disclose non-executive director compensation and we prefer the use of an annual retainer or fee, delivered as cash, equity, or a combination. We do not believe non-executive directors should receive performance- based compensation, as this creates a potential conflict of interest. Non-executive directors oversee executive compensation plans; their objectivity is compromised if they design a plan that they also participate in.

<u>Severance arrangements</u>

We are mindful of the board's need for flexibility in recruitment and retention but will oppose excessively generous arrangements unless agreements encourage management to negotiate in shareholders' best interest. We generally support proposals calling for shareholder ratification of severance arrangements.

<u>Retirement bonuses (Japan)</u>

Misaligned compensation which is based on tenure and seniority may compromise director independence. We generally vote against directors and statutory auditors if retirement bonuses are given to outgoing directors.

<u>Claw-back policies</u>

We believe companies should be able to recoup incentive compensation from members of management who received awards based on fraudulent activities, accounting misstatements, or breaches in standards of conduct that lead to corporate reputational damage. We generally support shareholder proposals requesting that a company establish a robust claw back provision if existing policies do not cover these circumstances. We also support proposals seeking greater transparency about the application of claw back policies.

<u>Audit quality and oversight</u>

Scrutiny of auditors, particularly audit quality and oversight, has been increasing. When we assess financial statement reporting and audit quality, we generally will support management's choice of auditors, unless the auditors have demonstrated failure to act in shareholders' best economic interest. We also pay close attention to the non-audit services provided by auditors and consider the potential for the revenue from those services to create conflicts of interest that could compromise the integrity of financial statement audits.

<u>Shareholder rights plans</u>

Also known as poison pills, these plans can enable boards of directors to negotiate higher takeover prices on behalf of shareholders. Such plans also may be misused, however, as a means of entrenching management. Consequently, we may support plans that include a shareholder approval requirement, a sunset provision, or a permitted bid feature (e.g., bids that are made for all shares and demonstrate evidence of financing must be submitted to a shareholder vote). Because boards generally have the authority to adopt shareholder rights plans without shareholder approval, we are equally vigilant in our assessment of requests for authorization of blank-check preferred shares.

<u>Multiple voting rights</u>

We generally support one share, one vote structures. The growing practice of going public with a dual-class share structure can raise governance and performance concerns. In our view, dual-class shares can create misalignment between shareholders' economic stake and their voting power and can grant control to a small number of insiders who may make decisions that are not in the interests of all shareholders.

We generally prefer that companies dispense with dual-class share structures but we recognize that newly listed companies may benefit from a premium by building in some protection for founders for a limited time after their IPO. The Council of Institutional Investors, a nonprofit association of pension funds, endowments, and foundations, recommends that newly public companies that adopt structures with unequal voting rights do away with the structure within seven years of going public. We believe such sunset clauses are a reasonable compromise between founders seeking to defend against takeover attempts in pivotal early years, and shareholders demanding a mechanism for holding management accountable, especially in the event of leadership changes.

Similarly, we generally do not support the introduction of loyalty shares, which grant increased voting rights to investors who hold shares over multiple years.

<u>Proxy access</u>

We believe shareholders should have the right to nominate director candidates on the management's proxy card. We generally will support shareholder proposals seeking proxy access unless the existing policy is already in-line with market norms.

<u>Special meeting rights</u>

We believe the right to call a special meeting is a shareholder right, and we generally will support such proposals to establish this right at companies that lack this facility. We generally will support proposals lowering thresholds where the current level exceeds 15% and the shareholder proposals calls for a 10%+ threshold, taking into consideration the make-up of the existing shareholder base and the company's general responsiveness to shareholders. If shareholders are granted the right to call special meetings, we generally do not support written consent.

**CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND CAPITAL ALLOCATION**

<u>Mergers and acquisitions</u>

We approach votes to approve mergers and acquisitions on a case-by-case basis, considering the specific circumstances of each proposal to determine what we believe to be in the best interest of our clients.

<u>Increases in authorized common stock</u>

We generally support requests for increases up to 100% of the shares with preemption rights. Exceptions will be made when the company has clearly articulated a reasonable need for a greater increase. Conversely, at companies trading in less liquid markets, we may impose a lower threshold. When companies seek to issue shares without preemptive rights, we consider potential dilution and generally support requests when dilution is below 20%. For issuance with preemptive rights, we review on a case-by-case basis, considering the size of issuance relative to peers.

<u>Capital allocation (Japan)</u>

We hold board chairs accountable for persistently low returns on equity (ROE) in Japan, using a five-year average ROE of below 5% as a guide. Our assessment of a company's capital stewardship complements our assessment of board effectiveness without dictating specific capital allocation decisions. We may make exceptions where ROE is improving, where a long-cycle business warrants a different standard, or where new management is in place, and we feel they should not be punished for the past CEO/Chair's record.

<u>Cross-shareholdings (Japan)</u>

Cross-shareholdings reduce management accountability by creating a cushion of cross-over investor support. We may vote against the highest-ranking director up for re-election for companies where management has allocated a significant portion (20% or more) of net assets to cross-shareholdings. When considering this issue, we will take into account a company's trajectory in reducing cross-shareholdings over time as well as legitimate business reasons given to retain specific shareholdings.

We assess portfolio companies' performance on environmental issues we deem to be material to long-term financial performance and communicate our expectations for best practice.

**<u>ENVIRONMENTAL TOPICS</u>**

<u>Climate change</u>

As an asset manager entrusted with investing on our clients' behalf, we aim to assess, monitor, and manage the potential effects of climate change on our investment processes and portfolios, as well as on our business operations. Proxy voting is a key tool we use for managing climate risks, as part of our stewardship escalation process.

We expect companies facing material climate risks to have credible transition plans communicated using the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). Appropriate reporting on climate readiness will help stakeholders understand companies' willingness and ability to adapt to or mitigate climate- related risks. In addition to the voting policies specifically mentioned, we also may vote against directors at companies where climate plans and disclosures meaningfully lag our expectations for those companies.

*Emissions disclosure*

We encourage all companies to disclose Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. While we recognize the challenges associated with collecting Scope 3 emissions data, this disclosure is necessary for us to fully understand the transition risks applicable to an issuer. Disclosure of both overall categories of Scope 3 emissions --- upstream and downstream --- with context and granularity from companies about the most significant Scope 3 sources, enhances our ability to evaluate investment risks and opportunities. We encourage companies to adopt emerging global standards for measurement and disclosure of emissions such as those being developed by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) and believe companies will benefit from acting now and consequently evolving their approach in line with emerging global standards.

We view disclosure of Scope 1 and 2 emissions as a minimum expectation where measurement practices are well- defined and attainable. We generally will vote against the re-election of the Chair of MSCI World companies, Climate Action 100+ companies, as well as companies assessed by the Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI) which do not disclose Scope 1 and 2 emissions, have not made a commitment to do so in the next year and where emissions intensity is material. We will expand this expectation to large cap companies in Emerging Markets in 2024.

*Net-zero targets*

As an outcome of enterprise risk management and strategic planning to reduce the potential financial impacts of climate change, we encourage companies to set a credible, science-based decarbonization glidepath, with an interim and long-term target, that comprises all categories of material emissions and is consistent with the ambition to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 or sooner. For Climate Action 100+ companies we reserve the right to vote against the company chair where quantitative emission reduction targets have not been defined. We consider it to be best practice for companies to pursue validation from the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi).

We generally support shareholder proposals asking for improved disclosure on climate risk management and we generally support those that request alignment of business strategies with the Paris Agreement or similar language. We also generally support proposals asking for board oversight of political contributions and lobbying activities or those asking for improved disclosures where material inconsistencies in reporting and strategy may exist, especially as it relates to climate strategy.

<u>Other environmental shareholder proposals</u>

For other environmental proposals covering themes including biodiversity, natural capital, deforestation, water usage, (plastic) packaging as well as palm oil, we take a case-by-case approach and generally will support proposals calling for companies to provide disclosure where this is additive to the company's existing efforts, the proposed information pertains to a material impact and in our view is of benefit to investors. When voting on any shareholder proposals, we consider the spirit of the proposal, not just the letter, and generally support proposals addressing material issues even when management has been responsive to our engagement on the issue.

**SOCIAL TOPICS**

<u>Corporate culture, human capital, and diversity, equity, and inclusion</u>

Through engagement we emphasize to management the importance of how they invest in and cultivate their human capital to perpetuate a strong culture. We assess culture holistically from an alignment of management incentives, responsiveness to employee feedback, evidence of an equitable and sound talent management strategy and commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. We value transparency and use of key performance indicators.

A well-articulated culture statement and talent attraction, retention and development strategy suggest that a company appreciates culture and talent as competitive advantages that can drive long-term value creation. It also sends a strong message when management compensation is linked, when appropriate, to employee satisfaction. If the company conducts regular employee engagement surveys, we look for leadership to disclose the results — both positive and negative — so we can monitor patterns and assess whether they are implementing changes based on the feedback they receive. We consider workplace locations and how a company balances attracting talent with the costs of operating in desirable cities.

We maintain that a deliberate human capital management strategy should foster a collaborative, productive workplace in which all talent can thrive. One ongoing engagement issue that pertains to human capital management is diversity, equity, and inclusion. We seek to better understand how and to what extent a company's approach to diversity is integrated with talent management at all levels. A sound long-term plan holds more weight than a company's current demographics, so we look for a demonstrable diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) strategy that seeks to improve metrics over time and align management incentives accordingly. We expect companies in the US to publicly disclose their EEO-1 reporting and their strategy to create an inclusive, diverse, and equitable workplace. We see DEI practices as a material input to long-term performance, so as our clients' fiduciaries, we seek to better understand how and to what extent a company's approach to diversity is integrated with talent management at all levels. This is only possible when there is consistent, robust disclosure in place.

Gender and racial pay equity are important parts of our assessment of a company's diversity efforts. Pay equity can impact shareholder value by exposing a company to challenges with recruiting and retaining talent, job dissatisfaction, workforce turnover, and costly lawsuits. Consequently, we may support proposals asking for improved transparency on a company's gender and/or racial pay gap if existing disclosures are lagging best practice and if the company has not articulated its efforts to eliminate disparities and promote equal opportunities for women and minorities to advance to senior roles.

We believe diversity among directors, leaders, and employees contributes positively to shareholder value by imbuing a company with myriad perspectives that help it better navigate complex challenges. A strong culture of diversity and inclusion begins in the boardroom. See the Board Diversity section above for more on our approach.

<u>Stakeholders and risk management</u>

In recent years, discourse on opioids, firearms, and sexual harassment has brought the potential for social externalities — the negative effects that companies can have on society through their products, cultures, or policies — into sharp focus. These nuanced, often misunderstood issues can affect the value of corporate securities.

In our engagement with companies facing these risks, we encourage companies to disclose risk management strategies that acknowledge their societal impacts. When a company faces litigation or negative press, we inquire about lessons learned and request evidence of substantive changes that aim to prevent recurrence and mitigate downside risk. In these cases, we may also support proposals requesting enhanced disclosure on actions taken by management, including racial equity audits.

<u>Human rights</u>

Following the 2015 passage of the UK's Modern Slavery Act, a handful of countries have passed laws requiring companies to report on how they are addressing risks related to human rights abuses in their global supply chains. While human rights have been a part of our research and engagement in this context, we seek to assess companies' exposures to these risks, determine the sectors for which this risk is most material (highest possibility of supply-chain exposure), enhance our own engagement questions, and potentially work with external data providers to gain insights on specific companies or industries. To help us assess company practices and drive more substantive engagement with companies on this issue, we will generally support proposals requesting enhanced disclosure on companies' approach to mitigating the risk of human rights violations in their business.

<u>Cybersecurity</u>

Robust cybersecurity practices are imperative for maintaining customer trust, preserving brand strength, and mitigating regulatory risk. Companies that fail to strengthen their cybersecurity platforms may end up bearing large costs. Through engagement, we aim to compare companies' approaches to cyber threats, regardless of region or sector, to distinguish businesses that lag from those that are better prepared.

<u>Political contributions and lobbying</u>

We generally support proposals asking for board oversight of a company's political contributions and lobbying activities or those asking for improved disclosures where material inconsistencies in reporting and strategy may exist. In assessing shareholder proposals focused on lobbying, we also focus on the level of transparency of existing disclosures and whether companies clearly explain how they will respond if policy engagement of trade association membership to which they belong do not align with company policy.

To view a fund's proxy voting record for the most recent 12-month period ended June 30, if applicable, visit www.fidelity.com/proxyvotingresults or visit the SEC's web site at www.sec.gov.

#### DISTRIBUTION SERVICES
The fund has entered into a distribution agreement with FDC, an affiliate of Strategic Advisers. The principal business address of FDC is 900 Salem Street, Smithfield, Rhode Island 02917. FDC is a broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. The distribution agreement calls for FDC to use all reasonable efforts, consistent with its other business, to secure purchasers for shares of the fund, which are continuously offered at NAV. Promotional and administrative expenses in connection with the offer and sale of shares are paid by Strategic Advisers.

The Trustees have approved a Distribution and Service Plan with respect to shares of the fund (the Plan) pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act (the Rule). The Rule provides in substance that a fund may not engage directly or indirectly in financing any activity that is primarily intended to result in the sale of shares of the fund except pursuant to a plan approved on behalf of the fund under the Rule. The Plan, as approved by the Trustees, allows shares of the fund and/or Strategic Advisers to incur certain expenses that might be considered to constitute indirect payment by the fund of distribution expenses.

The Plan adopted for the fund is described in the prospectus.

Under the Plan, if the payment of management fees by the fund to Strategic Advisers is deemed to be indirect financing by the fund of the distribution of its shares, such payment is authorized by the Plan. The Plan specifically recognizes that Strategic Advisers may use its management fee revenue, as well as its past profits or its other resources, to pay FDC for expenses incurred in connection with providing services intended to result in the sale of shares of the fund and/or shareholder support services. In addition, the Plan provides that Strategic Advisers, directly or through FDC, may pay significant amounts to intermediaries that provide those services. Currently, the Board of Trustees has authorized such payments for shares of the fund.

Prior to approving the Plan, the Trustees carefully considered all pertinent factors relating to the implementation of the Plan, and determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the Plan will benefit the fund and its shareholders. In particular, the Trustees noted that the Plan does not authorize payments by shares of the fund other than those made to Strategic Advisers under its management contract with the fund. To the extent that the Plan gives Strategic Advisers and FDC greater flexibility in connection with the distribution of shares, additional sales of shares or stabilization of cash flows may result. Furthermore, certain shareholder support services may be provided more effectively under the Plan by local entities with whom shareholders have other relationships.

#### TRANSFER AND SERVICE AGENT AGREEMENTS
The fund has entered into a transfer agent agreement with Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations Company LLC (FIIOC), an affiliate of Strategic Advisers, which is located at 245 Summer Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02210. Under the terms of the agreement, FIIOC (or an agent, including an affiliate) performs transfer agency services.

For providing transfer agency services, FIIOC receives no fees from the fund; however, each underlying Fidelity<sup>®</sup> fund pays its respective transfer agent (either FIIOC or an affiliate of FIIOC) fees based, in part, on the number of positions in and/or assets of the fund invested in such underlying Fidelity<sup>®</sup> fund. Strategic Advisers or an affiliate of Strategic Advisers will bear the costs of the transfer agency services with respect to assets managed by one or more sub-advisers and assets invested in non-affiliated ETFs under the terms of an agreement between Strategic Advisers and FIIOC.

FIIOC may collect fees charged in connection with providing certain types of services such as exchanges, closing out fund balances, maintaining fund positions with low balances, checkwriting, wire transactions, and providing historical account research, as applicable.

FIIOC bears the expense of typesetting, printing, and mailing prospectuses, statements of additional information, and all other reports, notices, and statements to existing shareholders, with the exception of proxy statements.

The fund has entered into a service agent agreement with Fidelity Service Company, Inc. (FSC), an affiliate of Strategic Advisers (or an agent, including an affiliate). Under the terms of the agreement, FSC calculates the NAV and dividends for shares, maintains the fund's portfolio and general accounting records, and administers the fund's securities lending program.

For providing pricing and bookkeeping services, FSC receives a monthly fee based on the fund's average daily net assets throughout the month.

Strategic Advisers or its affiliate bears the cost of pricing and bookkeeping services under the terms of an agreement between Strategic Advisers and FSC.

#### SECURITIES LENDING
During the fiscal year, the securities lending agent, or the investment adviser (where the fund does not use a securities lending agent) monitors loan opportunities for the fund, negotiates the terms of the loans with borrowers, monitors the value of securities on loan and the value of the corresponding collateral, communicates with borrowers and the fund's custodian regarding marking to market the collateral, selects securities to be loaned and allocates those loan opportunities among lenders, and arranges for the return of the loaned securities upon the termination of the loan. Income and fees from securities lending activities for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2022, are shown in the following table:

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Security Lending Activities | Fund(s) |
|  | Strategic Advisers<sup>®</sup> Large Cap Fund |
| Gross income from securities lending activities | $1989979 |
| Fees paid to securities lending agent from a revenue split | 48745 |
| Administrative fees | 0 |
| Rebate (paid to borrower) | 277703 |
| Other fees not included in the revenue split (lending agent fees to NFS) | 86475 |
| Aggregate fees/compensation for securities lending activities | 412922 |
| Net income from securities lending activities | 1577057 |

---

A fund does not pay cash collateral management fees, separate indemnification fees, or other fees not reflected above.

#### DESCRIPTION OF THE TRUST
<u>**Trust Organization.**</u> Strategic Advisers<sup>®</sup> Large Cap Fund is a fund of Fidelity Rutland Square Trust II, an open-end management investment company created under an initial trust instrument dated March 8, 2006. The Trustees are permitted to create additional funds in the trust and to create additional classes of the fund.

The assets of the trust received for the issue or sale of shares of each of its funds and all income, earnings, profits, and proceeds thereof, subject to the rights of creditors, are allocated to such fund, and constitute the underlying assets of such fund. The underlying assets of each fund in the trust shall be charged with the liabilities and expenses attributable to such fund. Any general expenses of the trust shall be allocated between or among any one or more of the funds.

**<u>Shareholder Liability.</u>** The trust is a statutory trust organized under Delaware law. Delaware law provides that, except to the extent otherwise provided in the Trust Instrument, shareholders shall be entitled to the same limitations of personal liability extended to stockholders of private corporations for profit organized under the general corporation law of Delaware. The courts of some states, however, may decline to apply Delaware law on this point. The Trust Instrument contains an express disclaimer of shareholder liability for the debts, liabilities, obligations, and expenses of the trust. The Trust Instrument provides that the trust shall not have any claim against shareholders except for the payment of the purchase price of shares and requires that each agreement, obligation, or instrument entered into or executed by the trust or the Trustees relating to the trust or to a fund shall include a provision limiting the obligations created thereby to the trust or to one or more funds and its or their assets. The Trust Instrument further provides that shareholders of a fund shall not have a claim on or right to any assets belonging to any other fund.

The Trust Instrument provides for indemnification out of a fund's property of any shareholder or former shareholder held personally liable for the obligations of the fund solely by reason of his or her being or having been a shareholder and not because of his or her acts or omissions or for some other reason. The Trust Instrument also provides that a fund shall, upon request, assume the defense of any claim made against any shareholder for any act or obligation of the fund and satisfy any judgment thereon. Thus, the risk of a shareholder incurring financial loss on account of shareholder liability is limited to circumstances in which Delaware law does not apply, no contractual limitation of liability was in effect, and a fund is unable to meet its obligations. Strategic Advisers believes that, in view of the above, the risk of personal liability to shareholders is extremely remote.

**<u>Voting Rights.</u>** Each fund's capital consists of shares of beneficial interest. Shareholders are entitled to one vote for each dollar of net asset value they own. The voting rights of shareholders can be changed only by a shareholder vote. Shares may be voted in the aggregate, by fund, and by class.

The shares have no preemptive or conversion rights. Shares are fully paid and nonassessable, except as set forth under the heading "Shareholder Liability" above.

The trust or a fund or a class may be terminated upon the sale of its assets to, or merger with, another open-end management investment company, series, or class thereof, or upon liquidation and distribution of its assets. The Trustees may reorganize, terminate, merge, or sell all or a portion of the assets of the trust or a fund or a class without prior shareholder approval. In the event of the dissolution or liquidation of the trust, shareholders of each of its funds are entitled to receive the underlying assets of such fund available for distribution. In the event of the dissolution or liquidation of a fund or a class, shareholders of that fund or that class are entitled to receive the underlying assets of the fund or class available for distribution.

**<u>Custodians</u>.** The Bank of New York Mellon, 1 Wall Street, New York, New York, is custodian of the assets of the fund. The custodian is responsible for the safekeeping of the fund's assets and the appointment of any subcustodian banks and clearing agencies. From time to time, subject to approval by a fund's Treasurer, a Fidelity® fund may enter into escrow arrangements with other banks if necessary to participate in certain investment offerings.

Strategic Advisers, its officers and directors, its affiliated companies, Members of the Advisory Board (if any), and Members of the Board of Trustees may, from time to time, conduct transactions with various banks, including banks serving as custodians for certain funds advised by Strategic Advisers. Transactions that have occurred to date include mortgages and personal and general business loans. In the judgment of the fund's adviser, the terms and conditions of those transactions were not influenced by existing or potential custodial or other fund relationships.

**<u>Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.</u>** PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 101 Seaport Boulevard, Boston, Massachusetts, independent registered public accounting firm, audits financial statements for the fund and provides other audit, tax, and related services.

#### FUND HOLDINGS INFORMATION
The fund views holdings information as sensitive and limits its dissemination. The Board authorized Strategic Advisers, in consultation with FMR, to establish and administer guidelines for the dissemination of fund holdings information, which may be amended at any time without prior notice. FMR's Disclosure Policy Committee (comprising executive officers of FMR) evaluates disclosure policy with the goal of serving the fund's best interests by striking an appropriate balance between providing information about the fund's portfolio and protecting the fund from potentially harmful disclosure. The Board reviews the administration and modification of these guidelines and receives reports from the fund's chief compliance officer periodically.

Other registered investment companies that are advised or sub-advised by Strategic Advisers or a sub-adviser may be subject to different portfolio holdings disclosure policies, and neither Strategic Advisers nor the Board exercises control over such policies or disclosure. In addition, separate account clients of Strategic Advisers and the sub-advisers have access to their portfolio holdings and are not subject to the fund's portfolio holdings disclosure policies. Some of the funds that are advised or sub-advised by Strategic Advisers or a sub-adviser and some of the separate accounts managed by Strategic Advisers or a sub-adviser have investment objectives and strategies that are substantially similar or identical to the fund's and, therefore, potentially substantially similar, and in certain cases nearly identical, portfolio holdings as the fund.

The fund will provide a full list of holdings monthly on www.fidelity.com 30 days after the month-end (excluding high income security holdings, which generally will be presented collectively monthly and included in a list of full holdings 60 days after month-end).

The fund will provide its top mutual fund positions (if any) on Fidelity's web site (i) monthly, 30 days after month-end, and (ii) quarterly, 15 or more days after the quarter-end.

Unless otherwise indicated, this information will be available on the web site until updated for the next applicable period.

The fund may also from time to time provide or make available to the Board or third parties upon request specific fund level performance attribution information and statistics. Third parties may include fund shareholders or prospective fund shareholders, members of the press, consultants, and ratings and ranking organizations. Nonexclusive examples of performance attribution information and statistics may include (i) the allocation of the fund's portfolio holdings and other investment positions among various asset classes, sectors, industries, and countries, (ii) the characteristics of the stock and bond components of the fund's portfolio holdings and other investment positions, (iii) the attribution of fund returns by asset class, sector, industry, and country and (iv) the volatility characteristics of the fund.

FMR's Disclosure Policy Committee may approve a request for fund level performance attribution and statistics as long as (i) such disclosure does not enable the receiving party to recreate the complete or partial portfolio holdings of any Fidelity fund prior to such fund's public disclosure of its portfolio holdings and (ii) Fidelity has made a good faith determination that the requested information is not material given the particular facts and circumstances. Fidelity may deny any request for performance attribution information and other statistical information about a fund made by any person, and may do so for any reason or for no reason.

Disclosure of non-public portfolio holdings information for a Fidelity fund's portfolio may only be provided pursuant to the guidelines below.

<u>**The Use of Holdings In Connection With Fund Operations.**</u> Material non-public holdings information may be provided as part of the activities associated with managing Fidelity<sup>®</sup> funds to: entities which, by explicit agreement or by virtue of their respective duties to the fund, are required to maintain the confidentiality of the information disclosed; other parties if legally required; or persons Strategic Advisers believes will not misuse the disclosed information. These entities, parties, and persons include, but are not limited to: the fund's trustees; the fund's manager, its sub-advisers, if any, and their affiliates whose access persons are subject to a code of ethics (including portfolio managers of affiliated funds of funds); contractors who are subject to a confidentiality agreement; the fund's auditors; the fund's custodians; proxy voting service providers; financial printers; pricing service vendors; broker-dealers in connection with the purchase or sale of securities or requests for price quotations or bids on one or more securities; securities lending agents; counsel to the fund or its Independent Trustees; regulatory authorities; stock exchanges and other listing organizations; parties to litigation; third parties in connection with a bankruptcy proceeding relating to a fund holding; and third parties who have submitted a standing request to a money market fund for daily holdings information. Non-public holdings information may also be provided to an issuer regarding the number or percentage of its shares that are owned by the fund and in connection with redemptions in kind.

**<u>Other Uses Of Holdings Information.</u>** In addition, the fund may provide material non-public holdings information to (i) third parties that calculate information derived from holdings for use by Strategic Advisers, a sub-adviser, or their affiliates, (ii) ratings and rankings organizations, and (iii) an investment adviser, trustee, or their agents to whom holdings are disclosed for due diligence purposes or in anticipation of a merger involving the fund. Each individual request is reviewed by the Disclosure Policy Committee which must find, in its sole discretion that, based on the specific facts and circumstances, the disclosure appears unlikely to be harmful to the fund. Entities receiving this information must have in place control mechanisms to reasonably ensure or otherwise agree that, (a) the holdings information will be kept confidential, (b) no employee shall use the information to effect trading or for their personal benefit, and (c) the nature and type of information that they, in turn, may disclose to third parties is limited. Strategic Advisers relies primarily on the existence of non-disclosure agreements and/or control mechanisms when determining that disclosure is not likely to be harmful to the fund.

At this time, the entities receiving information described in the preceding paragraph are: Factset Research Systems Inc. (full or partial holdings daily, on the next business day) and MSCI Inc. and certain affiliates (full or partial fund holdings daily, on the next business day).

Strategic Advisers, its affiliates, or the fund will not enter into any arrangements with third parties from which they derive consideration for the disclosure of material non-public holdings information. If, in the future, such an arrangement is desired, prior Board approval would be sought and any such arrangements would be disclosed in the fund's SAI.

There can be no assurance that the fund's policies and procedures with respect to disclosure of fund portfolio holdings will prevent the misuse of such information by individuals and firms that receive such information.

#### FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The fund's financial statements and financial highlights for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2022, and report of the independent registered public accounting firm, are included in the fund's [annual](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001364924/000137949122002737/filing1018.htm#AR_proofplus8061) report and are incorporated herein by reference. Total annual operating expenses as shown in the prospectus fee table may differ from the ratios of expenses to average net assets in the financial highlights because total annual operating expenses as shown in the prospectus fee table include any acquired fund fees and expenses, whereas the ratios of expenses in the financial highlights do not, except to the extent any acquired fund fees and expenses relate to an entity, such as a wholly-owned subsidiary, with which a fund's financial statements are consolidated. Acquired funds include other investment companies in which the fund has invested, if and to the extent it is permitted to do so. Total annual operating expenses in the prospectus fee table and the financial highlights do not include any expenses associated with investments in certain structured or synthetic products that may rely on the exception from the definition of "investment company" provided by section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act.

#### APPENDIX
Strategic Advisers, Fidelity Investments & Pyramid Design, and Fidelity are registered service marks of FMR LLC.© 2023 FMR LLC. All rights reserved.

Any third-party marks that may appear above are the marks of their respective owners.

------