Form 497 Fidelity Rutland Square

Fund	Ticker
Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund	FSCFX

Fund of Fidelity Rutland Square Trust II

 

 

April 29, 2023

As Revised October 12, 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 report are incorporated herein. The annual report(s) are supplied with this SAI.

To obtain a free additional copy of a prospectus, dated April 29, 2023, as supplemented on September 18, 2023, or SAI, dated April 29, 2023, As Revised October 12, 2023, or an annual report, please call Fidelity at 1-800-544-3455 or visit Fidelity’s web site at www.fidelity.com.

For more information on any Fidelity® fund, including charges and expenses, call Fidelity at the number indicated above for a free prospectus. Read it carefully before investing or sending money.

245 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02210 

SMC-PTB-1023-141

1.912864.141

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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 Statement of Additional Information (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 in connection with the insurance program established by the fund pursuant to an exemptive order issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission or as otherwise 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.

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 acquisitions of loans and loan participations excluded from the fund’s lending limitation discussed above are only those loans and loan participations considered securities within the meaning of the 1940 Act.

 

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 and options 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.”

For purposes of the fund’s 80% investment policy that defines a particular market capitalization by reference to the capitalization range of one or more indexes (as described in the prospectus), the capitalization range of the index(es) generally will be measured no less frequently than once per month.

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® 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® Small-Mid 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® Small-Mid 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® Small-Mid Cap Fund or an underlying fund, and references to “an adviser” or “the adviser” may relate to Strategic Advisers (or its affiliates) or a sub-adviser of Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid 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® funds and other advisory clients only) shares of Fidelity® 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® 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. 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® 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. Assets underlying the ETF shares may consist of stocks, bonds, commodities, or other instruments, depending on an ETF’s investment objective and strategies. 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. 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® 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® 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® 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® Small-Mid 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.

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. 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.

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. However, regulators have adopted rules imposing certain margin requirements, including minimums, on certain uncleared swaps 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® fund will enter into swap agreements only with counterparties that meet certain standards of creditworthiness. This risk for cleared swaps is generally lower than for uncleared swaps since the counterparty is a clearinghouse, but there can be no assurance that a clearinghouse or its members will satisfy its obligations.

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. 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® fund’s adviser classifies the liquidity of a fund’s investments and monitors the extent of a fund’s 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, at times, grown rapidly. 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.

Rating services have, in the past, lowered their long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States. The market prices and yields of securities supported by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government may be adversely affected by rating services’ decision 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® fund may lend money to, and borrow money from, other funds advised by Fidelity Management & Research Company LLC (FMR) or its affiliates. A Fidelity® fund will borrow through the program only when the costs are equal to or lower than the costs of bank loans. A Fidelity® 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® 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® 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® 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® 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® 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. Under SEC requirements, a fund needs to aggregate the amount of indebtedness associated with its reverse repurchase agreements and similar financing transactions with the aggregate amount of any other senior securities representing indebtedness (e.g., borrowings, if applicable) when calculating the fund’s asset coverage ratio or treat all such transactions as derivatives transactions.

SEC Rule 18f-4. In October 2020, the SEC adopted a final rule related to the use of derivatives, short sales, reverse repurchase agreements and certain other transactions by registered investment companies (the “rule”). Subject to certain exceptions, the rule requires the funds to trade derivatives and certain other transactions that create future payment or delivery obligations subject to a value-at-risk (VaR) leverage limit and to certain derivatives risk management program, reporting and board oversight requirements. Generally, these requirements apply to any fund engaging in derivatives transactions unless a fund satisfies a “limited derivatives users” exception, which requires the fund to limit its gross notional derivatives exposure (with certain exceptions) to 10% of its net assets and to adopt derivatives risk management procedures. Under the rule, when a fund trades reverse repurchase agreements or similar financing transactions, it needs to aggregate the amount of indebtedness associated with the reverse repurchase agreements or similar financing transactions with the aggregate amount of any other senior securities representing indebtedness (e.g., borrowings, if applicable) when calculating the fund’s asset coverage ratio or treat all such transactions as derivatives transactions. The SEC also provided guidance in connection with the final rule regarding the use of securities lending collateral that may limit securities lending activities. In addition, under the rule, a fund may invest in a security on a when-issued or forward-settling basis, or with a non-standard settlement cycle, and the transaction will be deemed not to involve a senior security (as defined under Section 18(g) of the 1940 Act), provided that (i) the fund intends to physically settle the transaction and (ii) the transaction will settle within 35 days of its trade date (the “Delayed-Settlement Securities Provision”). A fund may otherwise engage in when-issued, forward-settling and non-standard settlement cycle securities transactions that do not meet the conditions of the Delayed-Settlement Securities Provision so long as the fund treats any such transaction as a derivatives transaction for purposes of compliance with the rule. Furthermore, under the rule, a fund will be permitted to enter into an unfunded commitment agreement, and such unfunded commitment agreement will not be subject to the asset coverage requirements under the 1940 Act, if the fund reasonably believes, at the time it enters into such agreement, that it will have sufficient cash and cash equivalents to meet its obligations with respect to all such agreements as they come due. These requirements may limit the ability of the funds to use derivatives, short sales, reverse repurchase agreements and similar financing transactions, and the other relevant transactions as part of its investment strategies. These requirements also may increase the cost of the fund’s investments and cost of doing business, which could adversely affect investors.

Securities Lending. A Fidelity® fund may lend securities to parties such as broker-dealers or other institutions, including an affiliate, National Financial Services LLC (NFS). Fidelity® 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® 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® 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 such as mutual funds and ETFs, represent interests in professionally managed portfolios that may invest in any type of instrument. Investing in other investment companies (including investment companies managed by affiliates of Strategic Advisers) 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, unless such fees have been waived by Strategic Advisers. 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. Similarly, ETFs trade on a securities exchange and may trade at a premium or a discount to their NAV. 

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, Strategic 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® Small-Mid 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® 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 or money market funds. Any balances that are not invested in repurchase agreements or money market funds 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.

Considerations Regarding Cybersecurity. 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.

 

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 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.

Strategic Advisers.

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.

AllianceBernstein L.P. (AllianceBernstein).

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.

ArrowMark Colorado Holdings, LLC (ArrowMark). 

Portfolio securities transactions are placed by ArrowMark for its portion of the fund. ArrowMark’s objective is to obtain the best available prices in its portfolio transactions, taking into account a broker’s services, costs and promptness of executions. There is no agreement or commitment to place orders with any broker-dealer and ArrowMark expects that a number of broker-dealers will be used in various transactions. ArrowMark evaluates a wide range of criteria in seeking the most favorable price and market for the execution of transactions, including but not limited to the broker’s commission rate, execution capability, back-office efficiency, ability to handle difficult trades, financial stability, and prior performance in serving ArrowMark and its clients.

When circumstances relating to a proposed transaction indicate that a particular broker-dealer is in a position to obtain the best execution of the transaction, the order is placed with that broker-dealer. This may or may not be a broker-dealer which has provided research, statistical or other related services to ArrowMark. Subject to the requirement of seeking the best available prices and executions, ArrowMark may give preferences, in circumstances in which two or more broker-dealers are in a position to offer comparable prices and execution, to broker-dealers which have provided research, statistical, and other related services to ArrowMark for the benefit of its clients, if, in its judgment, the client will obtain prices and executions comparable with those available from other qualified firms. ArrowMark does not consider that it has an obligation to obtain the lowest available commission rate to the exclusion of price, service and other qualitative considerations.

ArrowMark’s policy is to attempt to obtain the best net price considering both the execution price and the commission rate paid. Trades are typically executed through either an execution-only brokerage firm, an electronic trading system, or a full-service brokerage firm. The following factors are considered when selecting a broker: (1) general execution capability; (2) commission rate; (3) operational capability to communicate, clear and settle transactions; (4) expertise in a certain asset class; (5) historical trading experience; (6) integrity of brokerage personnel; and (7) quality of research services. As a result of any of the above factors, a Fund may pay a higher commission than is available from other brokers.

There may be occasions in which portfolio transactions for a client may be executed as part of concurrent authorizations to purchase or sell the same security for another client served by ArrowMark. Although such concurrent authorizations potentially could be either advantageous or disadvantageous to a client, they will be affected only when ArrowMark believes that to do so will be in the best interest of the clients. When such concurrent authorizations occur, the objective will be to allocate the executions in a manner which is deemed equitable to the clients involved.  

BlackRock Investment Management, LLC (“BlackRock”) 

BlackRock is primarily responsible for the execution of portfolio transactions for the portion of Strategic Advisers Small-Mid Cap Fund for which it serves as sub-adviser and the allocation of brokerage. References in this section to a fund or to Strategic Advisers Small-Mid Cap Fund shall mean the portion of Strategic Advisers Small-Mid Cap Fund for which BlackRock serves as sub-adviser, to the extent applicable.

BlackRock does not execute transactions through any particular broker or dealer, but seeks to obtain the best net results for Strategic Advisers Small-Mid Cap Fund, taking into account such factors as price (including the applicable brokerage commission or dealer spread), size of order, difficulty of execution, operational facilities of the firm and the firm’s risk and skill in positioning blocks of securities. While BlackRock generally seeks reasonable trade execution costs, Strategic Advisers Small-Mid Cap Fund does not necessarily pay the lowest spread or commission available, and payment of the lowest commission or spread is not necessarily consistent with obtaining the best price and execution in particular transactions. Subject to applicable legal requirements, BlackRock may select a broker based partly upon brokerage or research services provided to BlackRock and its clients, including Strategic Advisers Small-Mid Cap Fund. In return for such services, BlackRock may cause Strategic Advisers Small-Mid Cap Fund to pay a higher commission than other brokers would charge if BlackRock determines in good faith that the commission is reasonable in relation to the services provided.

In selecting brokers or dealers to execute portfolio transactions, BlackRock seeks to obtain the best price and most favorable execution for a fund, taking into account a variety of factors including: (i) the size, nature and character of the security or instrument being traded and the markets in which it is purchased or sold; (ii) the desired timing of the transaction;

(iii) BlackRock’s knowledge of the expected commission rates and spreads currently available; (iv) the activity existing and expected in the market for the particular security or instrument, including any anticipated execution difficulties; (v) the full range of brokerage services provided; (vi) the broker’s or dealer’s capital; (vii) the quality of research and research services provided; (viii) the reasonableness of the commission, dealer spread or its equivalent for the specific transaction; and (ix) BlackRock’s knowledge of any actual or apparent operational problems of a broker or dealer.

Section 28(e) of the Exchange Act (“Section 28(e)”) permits an investment adviser, under certain circumstances, to cause an account to pay a broker or dealer a commission for effecting a transaction that exceeds the amount another broker or dealer would have charged for effecting the same transaction in recognition of the value of brokerage and research services provided by that broker or dealer. This includes commissions paid on riskless principal transactions under certain conditions. Brokerage and research services include: (1) furnishing advice as to the value of securities, including pricing and appraisal advice, credit analysis, risk measurement analysis, performance and other analysis, as well as the advisability of investing in, purchasing or selling securities, and the availability of securities or purchasers or sellers of securities; (2) furnishing analyses and reports concerning issuers, industries, securities, economic factors and trends, portfolio strategy, and the performance of accounts; and (3) effecting securities transactions and performing functions incidental to securities transactions (such as clearance, settlement, and custody). BlackRock believes that access to independent investment research is beneficial to its investment decision-making processes and, therefore, to Strategic Advisers Small-Mid Cap Fund.

BlackRock, unless prohibited by applicable law, may participate in client commission arrangements under which BlackRock may execute transactions through a broker-dealer and request that the broker-dealer allocate a portion of the commissions or commission credits to another firm that provides research to BlackRock. BlackRock believes that research services obtained through soft dollar or commission sharing arrangements enhance its investment decision-making capabilities, thereby increasing the prospects for higher investment returns. BlackRock will engage only in soft dollar or commission sharing transactions that comply with the requirements of Section 28(e). BlackRock regularly evaluates the soft dollar products and services utilized, as well as the overall soft dollar and commission sharing arrangements to ensure that trades are executed by firms that are regarded as best able to execute trades for client accounts, while at the same time providing access to the research and other services BlackRock views as impactful to its trading results.

BlackRock, unless prohibited by applicable law, may utilize soft dollars and related services, including research (whether prepared by the broker-dealer or prepared by a third-party and provided to BlackRock by the broker-dealer) and execution or brokerage services within applicable rules and BlackRock’s policies to the extent that such permitted services do not compromise BlackRock’s ability to seek to obtain best execution. In this regard, the portfolio management investment and/or trading teams may consider a variety of factors, including the degree to which the broker-dealer: (a) provides access to company management; (b) provides access to their analysts; (c) provides meaningful/insightful research notes on companies or other potential investments; (d) facilitates calls on which meaningful or insightful ideas about companies or potential investments are discussed; (e) facilitates conferences at which meaningful or insightful ideas about companies or potential investments are discussed; or (f) provides research tools such as market data, financial analysis, and other third-party related research and brokerage tools that aid in the investment process.

Research-oriented services for which BlackRock, unless prohibited by applicable law, might pay with commissions may be in written form or through direct contact with individuals and may include information as to particular companies or industries and securities or groups of securities, as well as market, economic, or institutional advice and statistical information, political developments and technical market information that assists in the valuation of investments. Except as noted immediately below, research services furnished by brokers may be used in servicing some or all client accounts and not all services may be used in connection with the fund or account that paid commissions to the broker providing such services. In some cases, research information received from brokers by mutual fund management personnel, or personnel principally responsible for BlackRock’s individually managed portfolios, is not necessarily shared by and between such personnel. Any investment advisory or other fees paid by a fund to BlackRock are not reduced as a result of BlackRock’s receipt of research services. In some cases, BlackRock may receive a service from a broker that has both a “research” and a “non-research” use. When this occurs BlackRock makes a good faith allocation, under all the circumstances, between the research and non-research uses of the service. The percentage of the service that is used for research purposes may be paid for with client commissions, while BlackRock will use its own funds to pay for the percentage of the service that is used for non-research purposes. In making this good faith allocation, BlackRock faces a potential conflict of interest, but BlackRock believes that its allocation procedures are reasonably designed to ensure that it appropriately allocates the anticipated use of such services to their research and non-research uses.  

Payments of commissions to brokers who are affiliated persons of Strategic Advisers Small-Mid Cap Fund (or affiliated persons of such persons) will be made in accordance with Rule 17e-1 under the 1940 Act.

From time to time, the fund may purchase new issues of securities in a fixed price offering. In these situations, the broker may be a member of the selling group that will, in addition to selling securities, provide BlackRock with research services. FINRA has adopted rules expressly permitting these types of arrangements under certain circumstances. Generally, the broker will provide research “credits” in these situations at a rate that is higher than that available for typical secondary market transactions. These arrangements may not fall within the safe harbor of Section 28(e).

BlackRock does not consider sales of shares of the mutual funds it advises as a factor in the selection of brokers or dealers to execute portfolio transactions for a fund; however, whether or not a particular broker or dealer sells shares of the mutual funds advised by BlackRock neither qualifies nor disqualifies such broker or dealer to execute transactions for those mutual funds.

BlackRock anticipates that its brokerage transactions involving foreign securities for a fund generally will be conducted primarily on the principal stock exchanges of the applicable country. Foreign equity securities may be held by a fund in the form of depositary receipts, or other securities convertible into foreign equity securities. Depositary receipts may be listed on stock exchanges, or traded in OTC markets in the United States or Europe, as the case may be. American Depositary Receipts, like other securities traded in the United States, will be subject to negotiated commission rates. Because the shares of a fund are redeemable on a daily basis in U.S. dollars, BlackRock intends to manage the portfolio so as to give reasonable assurance that it will be able to obtain U.S. dollars to the extent necessary to meet anticipated redemptions. Under present conditions, it is not believed that these considerations will have a significant effect on portfolio strategies.

The fund may invest in certain securities traded in the OTC market and intends to deal directly with the dealers who make a market in the particular securities, except in those circumstances in which better prices and execution are available elsewhere. Under the 1940 Act, persons affiliated with a fund and persons who are affiliated with such affiliated persons are prohibited from dealing with the fund as principal in the purchase and sale of securities unless a permissive order allowing such transactions is obtained from the Securities and Exchange Commission. Since transactions in the OTC market usually involve transactions with the dealers acting as principal for their own accounts, the fund will not deal with affiliated persons in connection with such transactions. However, an affiliated person of a fund may serve as its broker in OTC 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.

OTC issues, including most fixed-income securities such as corporate debt and U.S. Government Securities, are normally traded on a “net” basis without a stated commission, through dealers acting for their own account and not as brokers. A fund will primarily engage in transactions with these dealers or deal directly with the issuer unless a better price or execution could be obtained by using a broker. Prices paid to a dealer with respect to both foreign and domestic securities will generally include a “spread,” which is the difference between the prices at which the dealer is willing to purchase and sell the specific security at the time, and includes the dealer’s normal profit.

Securities purchased in underwritten offerings include a fixed amount of compensation to the underwriter, generally referred to as the underwriter’s concession or discount. When securities are purchased or sold directly from or to an issuer, no commissions or discounts are paid.

BlackRock may seek to obtain an undertaking from issuers of commercial paper or dealers selling commercial paper to consider the repurchase of such securities from a fund prior to maturity at their original cost plus interest (sometimes adjusted to reflect the actual maturity of the securities), if it believes that a fund’s anticipated need for liquidity makes such action desirable. Any such repurchase prior to maturity reduces the possibility that a fund would incur a capital loss in liquidating commercial paper, especially if interest rates have risen since acquisition of such commercial paper.

Investment decisions for a fund and for other investment accounts managed by BlackRock are made independently of each other in light of differing conditions. BlackRock allocates investments among client accounts in a fair and equitable manner. A variety of factors will be considered in making such allocations. These factors include: (i) investment objectives or strategies for particular accounts, including sector, industry, country or region and capitalization weightings, (ii) tax considerations of an account, (iii) risk or investment concentration parameters for an account, (iv) supply or demand for a security at a given price level, (v) size of available investment, (vi) cash availability and liquidity requirements for accounts, (vii) regulatory restrictions, (viii) minimum investment size of an account, (ix) relative size of account, and (x) such other factors as may be approved by BlackRock’s general counsel. Moreover, investments may not be allocated to one client account over another based on any of the following considerations: (i) to favor one client account at the expense of another, (ii) to generate higher fees paid by one client account over another or to produce greater performance compensation to BlackRock, (iii) to develop or enhance a relationship with a client or prospective client, (iv) to compensate a client for past services or benefits rendered to BlackRock or to induce future services or benefits to be rendered to BlackRock, or (v) to manage or equalize investment performance among different client accounts.

Equity securities will generally be allocated among client accounts within the same investment mandate on a pro rata basis. This pro rata allocation may result in a fund receiving less of a particular security than if pro-ration had not occurred. All allocations of equity securities will be subject, where relevant, to share minimums established for accounts and compliance constraints.

Initial public offerings of securities may be over-subscribed and subsequently trade at a premium in the secondary market. When BlackRock is given an opportunity to invest in such an initial offering or “new” or “hot” issue, the supply of securities available for client accounts is often less than the amount of securities the accounts would otherwise take. In order to allocate these investments fairly and equitably among client accounts over time, each portfolio manager or a member of his or her respective investment team will indicate to BlackRock’s trading desk their level of interest in a particular offering with respect to eligible client accounts for which that team is responsible. Initial public offerings of U.S. equity securities will be identified as eligible for particular client accounts that are managed by portfolio teams who have indicated interest in the offering based on market capitalization of the issuer of the security and the investment mandate of the client account and in the case of international equity securities, the country where the offering is taking place and the investment mandate of the client account. Generally, shares received during the initial public offering will be allocated among participating client accounts within each investment mandate on a pro rata basis. In situations where supply is too limited to be allocated among all accounts for which the investment is eligible, portfolio managers may rotate such investment opportunities among one or more accounts so long as the rotation system provides for fair access for all client accounts over time. Other allocation methodologies that are considered by BlackRock to be fair and equitable to clients may be used as well.

Because different accounts may have differing investment objectives and policies, BlackRock may buy and sell the same securities at the same time for different clients based on the particular investment objective, guidelines and strategies of those accounts. For example, BlackRock may decide that it may be entirely appropriate for a growth fund to sell a security at the same time a value fund is buying that security. To the extent that transactions on behalf of more than one client of BlackRock or its affiliates during the same period may increase the demand for securities being purchased or the supply of securities being sold, there may be an adverse effect on price. For example, sales of a security by BlackRock on behalf of one or more of its clients may decrease the market price of such security, adversely impacting other BlackRock clients that still hold the security. If purchases or sales of securities arise for consideration at or about the same time that would involve a fund or other clients or funds for which BlackRock or an affiliate act as investment manager, transactions in such securities will be made, insofar as feasible, for the respective funds and clients in a manner deemed equitable to all.

In certain instances, BlackRock may find it efficient for purposes of seeking to obtain best execution, to aggregate or “bunch” certain contemporaneous purchases or sale orders of its advisory accounts. In general, all contemporaneous trades for client accounts under management by the same portfolio manager or investment team will be bunched in a single order if the trader believes the bunched trade would provide each client with an opportunity to achieve a more favorable execution at a potentially lower execution cost. The costs associated with a bunched order will be shared pro rata among the clients in the bunched order. Generally, if an order for a particular portfolio manager or management team is filled at several different prices through multiple trades, all accounts participating in the order will receive the average price except in the case of certain international markets where average pricing is not permitted. While in some cases this practice could have a detrimental effect upon the price or value of the security as far as a fund is concerned, in other cases it could be beneficial to the fund. Transactions effected by BlackRock on behalf of more than one of its clients during the same period may increase the demand for securities being purchased or the supply of securities being sold, causing an adverse effect on price. The trader will give the bunched order to the broker-dealer that the trader has identified as being able to provide the best execution of the order. Orders for purchase or sale of securities will be placed within a reasonable amount of time of the order receipt and bunched orders will be kept bunched only long enough to execute the order.

The BlackRock portion of the Strategic Advisers Small-Mid Cap Fund will not purchase securities during the existence of any underwriting or selling group relating to such securities of which BlackRock or any affiliated person (as defined in the 1940 Act) thereof is a member except pursuant to procedures established in accordance with Rule 10f-3 under the 1940 Act. In no instance will BlackRock cause Strategic Advisers Small-Mid Cap Fund portfolio securities to be purchased from or sold to BlackRock or any affiliated person thereof except as permitted by Securities and Exchange Commission exemptive order or by applicable law.

Boston Partners Global Investors, Inc. (Boston Partners).

Boston Partners is responsible for the execution of portfolio transactions and the allocation of brokerage transactions for the Fund. In executing portfolio transactions, Boston Partners seeks to obtain the best price and most favorable execution for the Fund, taking into account such factors as the price (including the applicable brokerage commission or dealer spread), size of the order, difficulty of execution and operational facilities of the firm involved. While Boston Partners generally seeks reasonably competitive commission rates, payment of the lowest commission or spread is not necessarily consistent with obtaining the best price and execution in particular transactions.

Boston Partners may, consistent with the interests of the Fund and subject to the approval of the Board of Directors, select brokers on the basis of the research, statistical and pricing services they provide to the Fund and other clients of Boston Partners. Information and research received from such brokers will be in addition to, and not in lieu of, the services required to be performed by Boston Partners under its respective contracts. A commission paid to such brokers may be higher than that which another qualified broker would have charged for effecting the same transaction, provided that Boston Partners determines in good faith that such commission is reasonable in terms either of the transaction or the overall responsibility of Boston Partners to a Fund and its other clients and that the total commissions paid by a Fund will be reasonable in relation to the benefits to a Fund over the long-term.

FIAM LLC (FIAM).

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 and/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 and/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 and/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 and/or its affiliates, viewed in terms of the particular transaction for the fund or FIAM’s and/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 for 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 and 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 and/or its affiliates have arrangements with certain third-party research providers and brokers through whom FIAM and/or its affiliates effect fund trades, whereby FIAM and/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 and/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 and/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 and 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 commission1. 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.

1The 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, through its Fidelity Capital Markets (FCM) division, 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 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. 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® funds, investment decisions for the fund are made independently from those of other Fidelity® 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.

FIL Investment Advisors (FIA) and FIL Investment Advisors (UK) Limited (FIA(UK)).

The Selection of Securities Brokers and Dealers  

FIA and FIA(UK) (together, for purposes of this section, “FIL”) generally have authority to select broker-dealers to place or execute portfolio securities transactions for the fund. FIL has retained FIL Investments International (“FII”), FIL Investment Management (Hong Kong) Limited (“FIMHK”), FIL Investments (Japan) Limited (“FIJ”), FIL (Luxembourg) Limited (“FILUX”), and Fidelity Investments Canada ULC (“FIC”), affiliates of FIL, to make these selections. In selecting a broker-dealer for a specific transaction, FIL or its affiliates evaluate a variety of criteria and use their good faith judgment to obtain execution of portfolio transactions at prices that they believe are reasonable in relation to the benefits received.

When executing securities transactions on behalf of the fund, FIL or its affiliates will seek to obtain best execution. FIL and its relevant affiliates have in place policies and supporting procedures which are designed to help them obtain achieve this obligation. In selecting broker-dealers, including affiliates of FIL, to execute the fund’s portfolio securities transactions, FIL or its affiliates consider the factors they deem relevant in the context of a particular trade and in regard to FIL’s overall responsibilities with respect to the fund and its other client accounts, including any instructions from the fund’s portfolio manager. Relevant factors may include the context of a particular trade, the nature of the order, the priorities associated with the order and the nature and conditions of the market in question. The diversity of markets, instruments and the kind of orders placed mean that relevant factors will be assessed differently depending upon the circumstances of execution.

In selecting the most appropriate venue or approved counterparty for a portfolio transaction, FIL or its affiliates generally consider a range of quantitative and qualitative factors, including, but not limited to, price, transaction costs, speed and certainty of execution, availability of liquidity, ease of connectivity, size and nature of the transaction, nature and characteristics of the other venues in which the security may be traded, nature of post-trade settlement, and custody and foreign exchange structures. FIL or its affiliates also consider other factors, as deemed relevant, such as the ability of the venue or counterparty to manage complex orders, the speed of execution, the financial condition of the counterparty, and the creditworthiness and the quality of any related clearing and settlement facilities.

In seeking best qualitative execution for portfolio transactions, FIL or its affiliates may select a broker using a trading method for which the broker may charge a higher commission than its lowest available commission rate. FIL or its affiliates also may select a broker that charges more than the lowest available commission rate available from another broker. FIL or its affiliates may execute an entire 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 FIL 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.

The Acquisition of Brokerage and Research Products and Services  

FIL or its affiliates may execute portfolio transactions with broker-dealers that provide brokerage or research products and services that assist FIL or its affiliates in fulfilling their investment management responsibilities in accordance with applicable law. These products and services may include, but are not limited to: economic, industry, company, municipal, sovereign (U.S. and non-U.S.), legal and political research reports or investment recommendations. In addition to receiving these products and services via written reports and computer-delivered services, they 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. FIL or its affiliates may request that a broker provide a specific proprietary or third-party product or service. Some of these brokerage and research products and services supplement FIL’s or its affiliates’ own research activities in providing investment advice to the fund.

Brokerage and research products and services may also 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). In addition, FIL or its affiliates may obtain from broker-dealers certain products or services that are not used exclusively in FIL’s or its affiliates’ investment decision-making process (mixed-use products or services).

For trades placed by FII, FIJ, FILUX, or FIMHK, no commissions on fund portfolio transactions are used by FIL or its affiliates to pay for brokerage or research products and services. All such products and services received from broker-dealers are paid for by FIL or its affiliates from their own resources (referred to as “hard dollars”).

For trades placed by FIC, subject to the requirements of Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, brokers that execute transactions 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 FIC or its affiliates. In those circumstances where the products or services are mixed-use items, FIC 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 FIC or its affiliates 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. FIC may use the fund’s brokerage commissions to acquire brokerage and research products and services that may also benefit other funds or accounts managed by FIC or its affiliates. In an effort to minimize the potential for conflicts of interest, the trading desks through which FIC 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.

Affiliated Transactions  

FIL or its affiliates may place trades with certain brokers, including National Financial Services LLC, through its Fidelity Capital Markets (FCM) division, with whom they or FMR are affiliated, provided FIL or the applicable affiliate determines 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 Trustees of the fund and subject to other applicable law. In addition, FIL or its affiliates may place trades with brokers that use a clearing agent in whom FIL or its affiliates have a financial interest.

FIL or its affiliates may execute transactions between the fund and other mutual funds or other client accounts FIL manages or sub-advises, as well as with certain funds or client accounts managed by the fund’s manager. All cross trade transactions may only be executed in accordance with applicable rules under the Investment Company Act and the procedures approved by the Trustees of the fund.

The Trustees of the fund have approved procedures whereby the fund may purchase securities that are offered in underwritings in which an affiliate of the adviser, sub-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  

FIL or its relevant affiliates have established policies designed to ensure that trade allocations are fair and appropriate, taking into account the investment objectives of the relevant clients and other considerations. These policies apply to initial public and secondary offerings and secondary market trades.

For fixed income and equity trades, when, in FIL’s or its affiliates’ opinion, the supply/demand is insufficient under the circumstances to satisfy all outstanding trade orders, the amount executed generally is distributed among participating client accounts based on order size. For both fixed income and equity trades, trades are executed by traders based on orders or indications of interest for clients, which are established prior to or at the time of a transaction.

The trade allocation policies generally provide for minimum allocations. If a standard allocation would result in an account receiving a very small allocation (for example, because of its small asset size), depending upon the circumstances, the account may receive an increased allocation to achieve a more meaningful allocation or the account may receive no allocation. The policies also provide for the execution of short sales, provided that consideration is given to whether the short sale might have a material effect on other active orders on the trading desk.

The trading systems used by FIL and its applicable affiliates contain rules that allocate trades on an automated basis, in accordance with the trade allocation policies. Generally, any exceptions to the trade allocation policies (for example, a special allocation) must be approved by senior trading and compliance personnel and documented. The trade allocation policies identify certain circumstances under which it may be appropriate to deviate from the general allocation criteria, and describe the alternative procedures in those circumstances.

Geode.

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 Fidelity Capital Markets (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® funds, investment decisions for the fund are made independently from those of other Fidelity® 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.

GW&K Investment Management, LLC (GW&K).

As a SEC registered investment adviser, GW&K has a duty to seek best execution in its trading on behalf of client accounts. GW&K has implemented a series of policies, procedures and controls designed to ensure that the firm places client trades in a manner that achieves the most favorable overall execution and cost that can reasonably be obtained under the circumstances. GW&K Traders and Portfolio Managers evaluate a number of considerations in determining the best potential execution opportunity for each trade. However, GW&K is not obligated to choose the most favorable level of any single criterion, such as commission rate or spread, if GW&K believes total cost or proceeds from the transaction might be less favorable than may be obtainable elsewhere. GW&K makes every effort to keep informed of commission rate structures and prevalent bid/ask spread characteristics of the markets and securities traded for clients. GW&K may or may not solicit competitive bids for a particular transaction based on GW&K’s judgment of the expected overall potential benefit of doing so. The following factors are among those that may be considered by GW&K when selecting a broker for client transactions:

• execution capability (including access to or capacity to accept desired securities)
• security price
• commission rates or spreads
• value of investment research provided
• access to company management
• ability to obtain volume discounts
• industry reputation and financial stability
• effectiveness in trade settlement
• responsiveness to GW&K

GW&K may reasonably determine that one broker or multiple brokers can offer potential best qualitative execution. Recognizing the value of the above referenced factors, GW&K may select a broker/dealer that does not offer to execute at the best price or at the lowest commission or mark-up if, in GW&K’s judgment, the total overall execution represents the best opportunity for GW&K’s clients.

In certain circumstances, clients may direct GW&K to place orders with specific brokers that provide services to that client. GW&K may accept such preference or direction to the extent it meets applicable regulatory obligations and does not unreasonably constrain GW&K’s ability to manage the account.

To facilitate GW&K’s oversight and review of brokerage practices, GW&K maintains a Brokerage Committee, which typically meets quarterly to review trading related matters including best execution, broker utilization, soft dollar usage, directed brokerage, trade errors (if any), trade rotation, and other items as applicable. The Committee is comprised of GW&K’s Chief Compliance Officer, General Counsel and other members of the Legal & Compliance Department, investment team leaders, and trading personnel. In addition, GW&K uses a recognized, independent third-party service to review and analyze trade execution data, and these reports are reviewed and analyzed by the GW&K Brokerage Committee.

Whenever practical, GW&K will allocate trades on a pro-rata basis. In practice, this means that security transactions are to be allocated to client accounts based on size relative to the size of all other client accounts included in the order until the order is completed. In certain situations, pro-rata allocation may not be achievable based on the circumstances of the trade, the number of and capacity of brokers GW&K engages to execute the trade or operational considerations for the numerous types of strategies and accounts GW&K manages for its clients. In such instances, GW&K maintains procedures for the fair and equitable treatment of accounts over time.

When GW&K intends to buy or sell the same security in two or more client accounts, GW&K may, but is not obligated to, aggregate those transactions to form a single block trade. GW&K has discretion to wait to place orders if it is aware of potential additional trades for the same security that may be pending or it may decide to execute trades immediately when it receives them. Decisions around the timing and aggregation of trades are made with the goal to seek best execution and to effectively manage GW&K’s order flow across numerous types of strategies and client accounts.

GW&K may utilize alternative trade rotation methods, if it believes such alternative methods are appropriate under the circumstances and that the method is generally fair and equitable. The trade rotation results and methodology are reviewed periodically by GW&K’s Brokerage Committee to ensure that no client accounts are being inadvertently advantaged over others over time.

GW&K’s Policy is to use limited amounts of Soft Dollars for matters related to research only. GW&K will pay, with “hard dollars” from its own corporate account, all services and systems that are not eligible for Soft Dollars including but not limited to Bloomberg terminals, computer hardware and telephones. GW&K will only use Soft Dollars within safe harbor guidelines of Section 28(e). These guidelines are defined to include products or services which:

• Furnish advice, either directly or through publications or writings, as to the value of a security, the advisability of investing in purchasing or selling a security, and the availability of the security or purchasers/sellers of the security.
• Furnish analyses and reports concerning issues, industries, securities, economic factors and trends, portfolio strategy, and the performance of accounts.
• Otherwise support GW&K’s investment research process.

The practice of soft dollar transactions may present a potential conflict of interest because these transactions can cause clients to pay a commission rate higher than would be charged for execution only trades. When GW&K uses client brokerage commissions to obtain research, we receive a benefit because we do not have to produce or pay for that research directly. As such, we have an incentive to select a broker/dealer based on our interest in receiving the research to support our investment decision making process, rather than seeking the lowest cost execution. 

GW&K also receives proprietary research provided by certain broker/dealers with which GW&K trades on behalf of its client accounts. Soft dollar transactions, and trades placed with full service broker/dealers that provide proprietary research, generally have higher overall trading costs than execution only trades. The research items that GW&K receives from broker/dealers through these arrangements, include, but are not limited to, company or industry reports, analyses, statistical data, conferences and access to meetings with analysts and company management teams.

These research products or services generally benefit GW&K’s investment process on behalf of all client accounts within the investment strategies where the research is being used, including accounts other than those that paid commissions to the broker/dealers on a particular transaction. In some instances, other client accounts may also benefit from this research, including those clients with customized brokerage instructions, as well as clients that have required GW&K to trade their accounts on an “execution only” basis.

GW&K has entered into Commission Sharing Arrangements (“CSAs”) as a means to facilitate soft dollar research administration and payments. CSAs enable GW&K to pool commission dollars generated in transactions with certain broker/dealers to be aggregated and distributed to other third parties to pay for investment research provided by the third parties. This enables GW&K to compensate research providers who do not have brokerage operations where traditional soft dollars can be credited through trade execution or where, in support of GW&K’s policy to seek best execution, GW&K determines that a research provider’s trading desk may not be capable of executing GW&K’s orders as effectively as other broker/dealers.

GW&K’s Brokerage Committee reviews, monitors and oversees GW&K’s Soft Dollar Policy and related practices. Among other matters, the Brokerage Committee reviews the amount and usage of soft dollar credits, the broker/dealers being used to generate soft dollars, and the investment research services being purchased through soft dollars. The Committee also reviews and approves any proposed new broker/dealer or research service.

J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. (JPMorgan).

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.

LSV Asset Management (LSV). 

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. 

Portolan Capital Management, LLC (Portolan). 

Portolan assumes general supervision over placement of securities orders for the client portfolios it manages. In selecting a broker-dealer for a specific transaction, Portolan evaluates a variety of criteria and seeks to obtain “best execution” after considering a variety of factors such as execution price, reasonableness of commissions, size and type of the transaction, speed of execution, anonymity, transaction settlement, financial condition of the broker-dealer, and reliability and efficiency of electronic trading systems, among other factors. When selecting a broker-dealer, Portolan may also consider a broker-dealer’s arranging for participation in road shows and similar access to the management teams of various issuers, the broker-dealer’s arranging for access to the research capabilities of the broker-dealer, the effectiveness of industry and company research provided by the broker-dealer and the quality of ideas and analysis provided by the broker-dealer.

On occasion, Portolan will direct trades in over-the-counter securities on an agency basis through Electronic Communication Networks (“ECNs”) rather than directing them to a market-maker or a dealer on a principal basis. Portolan will direct trades to ECNs if it believes that use of ECNs will provide best execution for the client, because Portolan believes that by using the ECNs either it can obtain a better price or better access to thinly traded securities that may not be available (or as available) in other markets, or because Portolan believes it can better effect a trading strategy because of the anonymity that trading on the ECNs provides, or in other circumstances because of the facility for block trading.

Clients may pay commissions higher than those obtainable from other broker-dealers in return for the above-described considerations when Portolan determines in good faith that the commissions charged are reasonable relative to the value of the brokerage and research products and services provided by such broker. Portolan monitors its trading activity to measure trade execution quality including comparing prices paid by Portolan with prices in the market. Portolan also uses a broker vote system to obtain qualitative information from its investment and trading team regarding the execution, research and other products and services provided by broker-dealers.

Portolan uses soft dollars for services and products in connection with the execution of transactions, consistent with Section 28(e) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Portolan may acquire research, analytical, statistical and quotation services, data, information and other services and products that will assist Portolan in the performance of its investment responsibilities with soft dollars that are generated from client brokerage transactions, provided that receipt of such services does not compromise Portolan’s obligation to seek the best overall execution for its clients. Portolan may utilize proprietary research (created or developed by the broker-dealer) and research created or developed by a third party. The services paid for using soft dollars may include, but are not limited to, company and industry research publications for use in making investment decisions, Bloomberg, industry-specific periodicals, quotation feeds from the NYSE and other markets, research on markets, industries or companies, data analytics, expert networks, and specific trade conferences for investment research. Portolan does not currently acquire any products or services with soft dollars that have non-research or non-brokerage uses and therefore has not engaged in mixed use allocations.

Portolan may receive research services and products from broker-dealer firms with which Portolan places portfolio transactions or from third parties with which these broker-dealers have arrangements; however, Portolan may acquire research from third parties with soft dollars generated from client transactions only if either (i) the obligation to pay for the services or products rests with the executing broker-dealer, and not Portolan, or (ii) the executing broker-dealer is not directly obligated to pay for the services or products, but pays the third party provider and assures itself that the brokerage commissions directed to it are used only for eligible services and products. The Chief Compliance Officer, or his or her designee, approves all new soft dollar arrangements and reviews all soft dollar arrangements on a regular basis.

When Portolan uses client brokerage commissions to obtain research or other products or services, Portolan will receive a benefit because it will not have to produce or pay directly for the research, products or services that are provided. As a result, Portolan may have an incentive to select a broker-dealer based on its interest in receiving the research or other products or services, rather than on clients’ interest in receiving most favorable execution.

All research services received from broker-dealers to whom commissions are paid are used collectively. There is no direct relationship between commissions received by a broker-dealer from a particular client’s transactions and the use of any or all of that broker-dealer’s research material in relation to that client’s account. Portolan may pay a broker-dealer a brokerage commission in excess of that which another broker-dealer might have charged for the same transaction in recognition of research and brokerage related services provided by the broker-dealer.

Broker-dealers may, in addition to their services (and not for any additional compensation), sponsor conferences or seminars or provide so-called “capital introduction services” in which consultants and prospective institutional investors may be introduced to Portolan, consistent with private placement limitations. Portolan does not consider whether it or a related person receives capital introduction services or other client referrals from a broker-dealer or third party in selecting or recommending broker-dealers.

Portolan does not recommend, request or require that a client direct Portolan to execute transactions through a specified broker-dealer. In cases where a client directs Portolan to use a specified broker-dealer(s) to execute all or a portion of their transactions, Portolan will use the broker dealer as directed by the client. When a client directs Portolan to use a particular broker-dealer, Portolan does not negotiate commissions and the client may pay a higher commission. In addition, the transactions generally cannot be included in “block trades” which may produce lower commissions due to volume discounts. Accordingly, when a client directs the use of a particular broker, transactions for such client may not receive best execution, which may cost such client more money.

Portolan frequently purchases or sells the same securities for more than one client account at the same time. In determining whether or not a client account will participate in a “block” or aggregated purchase or sale of a particular security, Portolan considers investment objectives, guidelines and restrictions applicable to the client’s account, anticipated subscriptions and redemptions and other liquidity requirements, the size of an available investment, the supply or demand for a particular security at a given price level, and the investment programs and portfolio positions of each client, including any differing regulatory, tax, investment and other considerations. To identify and mitigate potential conflicts associated with trades that are not aggregated or clients not participating in aggregated trades, aggregated trades are monitored in accordance with Portolan’s compliance policies.

In the event Portolan aggregates purchase and sale orders for accounts under its management, all client accounts that participate in an aggregated trade receive the average share price for all transactions executed for the aggregated trade order during that trading day and all accounts share in the commissions and other transaction costs relating to such trade order on a pro rata basis. If an aggregated purchase or sale order is not completed, if demand for a security exceeds available supply, and/or if in Portolan’s opinion the order cannot be filled in one trading day, the shares executed will be allocated across all participating accounts on a pro rata basis based on each account’s net assets at the time of the allocation.

River Road Asset Management, LLC (River Road).

In selecting broker-dealers for client securities transactions, River Road seeks best execution. In seeking best execution, River Road does not necessarily seek the lowest commission but the best overall qualitative execution in the particular circumstances. When evaluating broker-dealers, River Road’s policy is to consider the value of any research provided by the broker-dealer, execution capability, commission rate, financial responsibility, and responsiveness. River Road’s trading department has full discretion to choose which broker to execute with for any given trade within the confines of River Road’s Approved Broker List. In choosing a particular broker for a specific trade execution, the trading department uses both qualitative and quantitative measures.

Some of River Road’s brokers also provide River Road with benefits other than execution. When River Road receives research or other products or services other than execution from a broker-dealer or third party in connection with client securities transactions these are “Soft Dollar Benefits” (and known as paying with “soft dollars”).

River Road has created the Brokerage Allocation and Review Committee which typically meets twice per year to evaluate broker-dealers:

• Execution Only Trades: Trades sent to brokers for “execution only” are evaluated mainly based on the results of third-party best execution testing. River Road engages Global Trading Analytics (GTA) to perform an independent review of the firm’s executions. This testing is a post-trade evaluation of the trades executed by each of the firm’s executing brokers in the prior year. In addition to execution capability and commission rate, River Road’s analysis considers a broker’s financial responsibility (via a high-level review of financials and reviewing for regulatory actions against the broker) and responsiveness (via the trading department’s experience with the broker).

• Proprietary Soft Dollar Trades: Trades sent to brokers for execution who also provide internally-created research are evaluated using a target commission system. The committee assigns a target commission to each of these brokers for the next year based on the portfolio managers’ (and analysts’ as appropriate) votes and additional analysis of the value and quality of the broker’s research. The committee also considers these brokers’ commission rate, financial responsibility, and responsiveness.

• Third-Party Soft Dollar Trades: The brokers who execute trades and put a portion of clients’ commissions into a pool of money for River Road to use are evaluated based on results of third-party best execution testing. The committee also considers these brokers’ commission rate, financial responsibility, and responsiveness. The committee also evaluates the third-party research and services that are being paid for out of the pool of money. If the third party is providing proprietary research, they are typically subject to the target commission system discussed above. Other types of soft dollar eligible third-party services are evaluated on an ongoing basis based on the value and quality of the services provided to River Road by the third party.

River Road utilizes research, research-related products, and other brokerage services on a soft dollar commission basis. River Road’s policy is to operate only within the Section 28(e) safe harbor, which requires an adviser to make a good faith determination of the value of the research or services in relation to the commissions paid and to ensure that the research or service provides lawful and appropriate assistance to River Road in the performance of its investment decision-making responsibilities. River Road periodically reviews the firm’s soft dollar arrangements, budget, and allocations and monitors the firm’s policy.

River Road may cause the fund and other client accounts to pay commissions higher than those charged by other broker-dealers in return for Soft Dollar Benefits (known as paying-up) if River Road makes a good faith determination that such a commission is reasonable in relation to the value of the Soft Dollar Benefits provided by such broker-dealer.

River Road uses Soft Dollar Benefits to service all River Road client accounts and not just accounts that generate the soft dollar credits. Soft Dollar Benefits are not allocated proportionately to the fund or other client accounts based on the soft dollar credits the fund/other client accounts generate. Some client accounts do not generate soft dollar credits at all.

River Road acquires the following types of Soft Dollar Benefits:

Individual security, industry, and macro-economic analysis

For individual security analysis, River Road received quantitative and qualitative fundamental analysis and research including but not limited to:

• Current and historical financial data on companies

• Detailed financial results

• Price and earnings projections

• Charts

• Rankings

• Forward-looking commentaries

• Corporate demergers (i.e. spin-offs)

• Quality of earnings analysis, such as return on capital ratios and operating earnings momentum

• Qualify of financial strength, such as balance sheet/cash flow ratios

• Corporate credit ratings and data on fixed income securities

• Insiders, buybacks, and institutional ownership information

• Corporate governance and management practices information

• Information on a company’s executives and management teams

• Information and metrics on a company’s practices as it relates to ESG and categories of socially responsible investing

• Company carbon data and metrics

• Newsletters relating to potential new stock ideas and to specific industry issues

For macro and industry economic analysis, River Road received quantitative and qualitative analysis including but not limited to:

• Analysis of global issues across disciplines, regions, and assets classes

• Analysis of fiscal, monetary, trade, and government policy

• Analysis of performance of various indices across market capitalizations and investing styles

• Energy company and transaction valuation and other independent energy research

• Historical and current commodity prices

River Road also receives access to attend investor conferences and access to analysts for discussions and presentations directly to River Road.

Additionally, River Road receives trading research from some broker-dealers, such as information related to liquidity, market structure, trade analytics, and stock execution.

FactSet and Bloomberg

FactSet is an interactive interface that is a primary tool in River Road’s investment research workflow. It houses internal investment research and provides a consolidated place where external research can be accessed by portfolio managers, analysts, and other River Road employees. Bloomberg is also an interactive interface where real-time research and trading information can be accessed in a consolidated place.

Data Feeds

River Road also used client brokerage commissions to pay for some data feed services. The data received includes, but is not limited to, security pricing, other security data, and benchmark data.

William Blair Investment Management, LLC (William Blair).

Decisions on portfolio transactions (including the decision to buy or sell, the appropriate price, allocation of brokerage, use of a broker as agent or dealer as principal and negotiation of commissions) normally are made by William Blair. In purchasing and selling portfolio securities, William Blair seeks to obtain the most favorable overall result, taking into account the net price, the method of execution and services provided by the broker. Such research services include economic forecasts and analytical, narrative and statistical reports on industries and companies for consideration by William Blair’s other clients. Portfolio transactions may increase or decrease the return of a fund depending upon William Blair’s ability to correctly time and execute such transactions.

Selection of a broker for a particular portfolio transaction depends on many factors, some of which are subjective and that include the net price, confidentiality, reliability, integrity, size and nature of the transaction and the market in which it is to occur and any other services that the broker has provided. William Blair does not consider the sale of fund shares in selecting brokers. William Blair determines the overall reasonableness of brokerage commissions and of premiums and discounts on principal transactions (which do not involve commissions) by review of comparable trades for William Blair’s other clients and in the market generally. If more than one broker is believed to be equally qualified to effect a portfolio transaction, William Blair may assign the transaction to a broker that has furnished research services, but William Blair has no agreement, formula or policy as to allocation of brokerage with any broker.

William Blair uses broker-dealers that provide research to execute client transactions or generate commission sharing credits to pay for research under commission sharing arrangements. These kind of arrangements are known as “soft dollar” arrangements. Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 permits William Blair to pay higher commissions if it can demonstrate the commissions are reasonable in relation to the research or brokerage services received. William Blair receives research products and services from broker/dealers and third parties in the form of written reports on individual companies and industries of particular interest to William Blair, general economic conditions, pertinent federal and state legislative developments and changes in accounting practices; direct access by telephone or meetings with leading research analysts throughout the financial community, and industry experts; comparative performance and evaluation and technical measurement services for issuers, industries and the market as a whole; access to and monitoring of equity valuation models; and services from recognized experts on investment matters of particular interest to William Blair.

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.

The following table shows the fund’s portfolio turnover rate for the fiscal period(s) ended February 28, 2023 and 2022. 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	2023	2022
Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund	80%	61%

During the fiscal year ended February 28, 2023, the following fund(s) 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 February 28, 2023.

Fund	Regular Broker or Dealer		Aggregate Value of Securities Held
Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund	Stifel Financial Corp.	$	9,921,582

 

 

The following table shows the total amount of brokerage commissions paid by the following fund(s), comprising commissions paid on securities and/or futures transactions, as applicable, for the fiscal year(s) ended February 28, 2023, 2022, and 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 Ended		Dollar Amount	Percentage of Average Net Assets
Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund	2023	$	8,698,882	0.11%
	2022	$	7,916,101	0.08%
	2021	$	10,059,037	0.13%

 

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. During the fiscal year(s) ended February 28, 2023, 2022, and 2021, the following brokerage commissions were paid to affiliated brokers: 

Fiscal Year End	Broker	Affiliated With	Transaction Initiated By		Commissions	Percentage of Aggregate Brokerage Commissions	Percentage of Aggregate Dollar Amount of Brokerage Transactions
2023	FCM	FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers	FIAM LLC	$	1,581	0.02%	0.12%
2023	Luminex	FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers	FIAM LLC	$	2	0.00%	0.00%
2023	Luminex	FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers	Boston Partners Global Investors, Inc.	$	274	0.00%	0.03%
2023	FCM	FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers	AllianceBernstein L.P.	$	298	0.00%	0.03%
2023	Luminex	FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers	AllianceBernstein L.P.	$	149	0.00%	0.01%
2023	Luminex	FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers	GW&K Investment Management, LLC	$	601	0.01%	0.02%
2023	Luminex	FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers	River Road Asset Management, LLC	$	89	0.00%	0.01%
2023	Luminex	FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers	J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc.	$	126	0.00%	0.01%
2023	FCM	FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers	Strategic Advisers LLC	$	8,628	0.10%	0.81%
2023	Luminex	FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers	Strategic Advisers LLC	$	1,168	0.01%	0.12%
2022	Luminex	FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers	Boston Partners Global Investors, Inc.	$	786
2022	Luminex	FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers	River Road Asset Management, LLC	$	10
2022	Luminex	FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers	J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc.	$	100
2022	FCM	FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers	FIAM LLC	$	2,081
2022	Luminex	FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers	FIAM LLC	$	181
2022	FCM	FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers	AllianceBernstein L.P.	$	287
2022	Luminex	FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers	AllianceBernstein L.P.	$	124
2021	Luminex	FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers	Boston Partners Global Investors, Inc.	$	220
2021	FCM	FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers	AllianceBernstein L.P.	$	1,486
2021	Luminex	FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers	AllianceBernstein L.P.	$	419
2021	FCM	FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers	FIAM LLC	$	423
2021	Luminex	FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers	FIAM LLC	$	17
2021	Luminex	FMR LLC / Strategic Advisers	J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc.	$	194

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 February 28, 2023. 

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended		$ Amount of Commissions Paid to Firms for Providing Research or Brokerage Services		$ Amount of Brokerage Transactions Involved
Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund	2023	$	7,346,511	$	5,860,928,242

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 designated the fund’s investment adviser as the valuation designee responsible for the fair valuation function and performing fair value determinations as needed. The adviser has established a Fair Value Committee (the Committee) to carry out the day-to-day fair valuation responsibilities and has adopted policies and procedures to govern the fair valuation process and the activities of the Committee. 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. The Board of Trustees of each underlying Fidelity® fund has designated the underlying fund’s investment adviser as the valuation designee responsible for that fund’s fair valuation function and performing fair value determinations as needed. References below to the Committee refer to the Fair Value Committee of the fund’s adviser or an underlying Fidelity® fund’s adviser, as applicable. 

Generally, other portfolio securities and assets held by a fund, as well as portfolio securities and assets held by an underlying Fidelity® 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 Committee. A number of pricing services are available and a fund may use more than one of these services. A fund may also discontinue the use of any pricing service at any time. Strategic Advisers through the Committee 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.

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 Committee, are deemed unreliable will be fair valued in good faith by the Committee in accordance with applicable fair value pricing policies. For example, if, in the opinion of 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 Committee in accordance with applicable fair value pricing policies. In fair valuing a security, the Committee may consider factors including, but not limited to, price movements in futures contracts and ADRs, market and trading trends, the bid/ask quotes of brokers, and off-exchange institutional trading. The frequency that portfolio securities or assets are fair valued cannot be predicted and may be significant.

Portfolio securities and assets held by an underlying Fidelity® 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® 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 information regarding the fair valuation process and related material matters.

 

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 LLC 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 LLC 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 NAV of a fund or class, as applicable. 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.

 

Dividends. 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).

Capital Gain Distributions. 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.

Returns of Capital. 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.

Foreign Tax Credit or Deduction. 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.

Tax Status of the Fund. 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.

Fund of Funds. 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.

Other Tax Information. 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.

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® 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 14 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 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. 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.

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® funds are overseen by different Boards of Trustees. The fund’s Board oversees asset allocation funds. Other Boards oversee Fidelity’s alternative investment, investment-grade bond, money market, and asset allocation funds, and Fidelity’s equity and high income funds. The fund may invest in Fidelity®; 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® 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), Secretary of the Ad Council, Inc. (2022-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® 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 University (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 Chair of the Board of Directors and Chair of the Compensation Committee of Live Current Media, Inc. (2022-present). 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).

Heather Bonner (1977)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2023

President and Treasurer

Ms. Bonner also serves as an officer of other funds. Ms. Bonner serves as Senior Vice President (2022-present), and is an employee of Fidelity Investments. Ms. Bonner serves as Assistant Treasurer of Fidelity CRET Trustee LLC (2022-present). Prior to joining Fidelity, Ms. Bonner served as Managing Director at AQR Capital Management (2013-2022) and was the Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer of the AQR Funds (2013-2022).     

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). Previously, Mr. Brown served as Assistant Treasurer of certain Fidelity® funds (2019-2022).     

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).     

Margaret Carey (1973)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2023

Assistant Secretary

Ms. Carey also serves as an officer of other funds and as CLO of certain other Fidelity entities. 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.     

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 Vice President Assistant Treasurer and is an employee of Fidelity Investments. Mr. Davis serves as Assistant Treasurer of certain Fidelity entities.      

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® 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® funds (2016-2020) and Assistant Treasurer of certain Fidelity® 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).     

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: 2023

Assistant Treasurer

Ms. Smith also serves as an officer of other funds. Ms. Smith serves as Assistant Treasurer of certain Fidelity entities, is an employee of Fidelity Investments, and has served in other fund officer roles.

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).     

Standing Committees of the Trustees. 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.

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 February 28, 2023, each committee held the number of meetings shown in the table below:

COMMITTEE	NUMBER OF MEETINGS HELD
Audit Committee	5
Governance and Nominating Committee	3

 

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, 2022.

Interested Trustees

DOLLAR RANGE OF FUND SHARES	Charles S Morrison	Kathleen Murphy
Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund	over $100,000	over $100,000
AGGREGATE DOLLAR RANGE OF FUND SHARES IN ALL FUNDS OVERSEEN WITHIN FUND FAMILY	over $100,000	over $100,000

 

Independent Trustees

DOLLAR RANGE OF FUND SHARES	Peter C Aldrich	Mary C Farrell	Karen Kaplan	Christine Marcks
Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund	over $100,000	none	over $100,000	none
AGGREGATE DOLLAR RANGE OF FUND SHARES IN ALL FUNDS OVERSEEN WITHIN FUND FAMILY	over $100,000	none	over $100,000	none

 

DOLLAR RANGE OF FUND SHARES	Heidi L Steiger
Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund	$1-$10,000
AGGREGATE DOLLAR RANGE OF FUND SHARES IN ALL FUNDS 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 February 28, 2023, or calendar year ended December 31, 2022, as applicable.

Compensation Table(A)

AGGREGATE COMPENSATION FROM A FUND		Peter C Aldrich		Mary C Farrell		Karen Kaplan		Christine Marcks
Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund	$	8,143	$	9,371	$	8,143	$	8,143
TOTAL COMPENSATION FROM THE FUND COMPLEX(B)	$	297,500	$	342,500	$	297,500	$	297,500

 

AGGREGATE COMPENSATION FROM A FUND		Heidi L Steiger
Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund	$	9,506
TOTAL COMPENSATION FROM THE FUND COMPLEX(B)	$	347,500

 

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

(B) Reflects compensation received for the calendar year ended December 31, 2022, for 14 funds of one trust. Compensation figures include cash and may include amounts elected to be deferred.

As of February 28, 2023, 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.

 

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, 2023, Equitable Holdings, Inc. (“EQH”) owns approximately 3.5% 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, 2023, 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, 60.0%; AB Holding, 39.3%; 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 61.4% economic interest in AllianceBernstein as of March 31, 2023.

ArrowMark is a 100% employee owned SEC-registered investment adviser. ArrowMark’s executive team and control persons include; David Corkins, Founding Partner, Karen Reidy, Founding Partner, Kaelyn Abrell, Partner, Sanjai Bhonsle, Partner, Brian Schaub, Partner, Chad Meade, Partner, Rick Grove, Chief Compliance Officer, Kirk Reid, Chief Operating Officer, and Blake Rice, General Counsel.

 BlackRock Investment Management, LLC (BlackRock) is a registered investment adviser and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of BlackRock, Inc.

Boston Partners Global Investors, Inc. (Boston Partners) is an SEC-registered Investment Advisor which is a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of ORIX Corporation of Japan.

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.

FIL Limited, a Bermuda company formed in 1968, is the ultimate parent company of FIA and FIA(UK). Abigail P. Johnson, other Johnson family members, and various trusts for the benefit of the Johnson family own, directly or indirectly, more than 25% of the voting common stock of FIL Limited. At present, the primary business activities of FIL Limited and its subsidiaries are the provision of investment advisory services to non-U.S. investment companies and private accounts investing in securities throughout the world.

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.

GW&K is a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission registered investment adviser. GW&K is an affiliate of Affiliated Managers Group, Inc., a publicly traded global asset management company (NYSE:AMG). GW&K operates independently and autonomously, with AMG holding a majority interest in the firm as GW&K’s institutional partner. The balance of the firm is owned by GW&K’s partners, who are responsible for the day-to-day management and operation of GW&K.

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 277 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10172.

LSV, a registered investment adviser, has its principal office at 155 North Wacker Drive, Suite 4600, Chicago, Illinois 60606. LSV is a Delaware general partnership between its management team and current and retired employee and non-active partners, owners of a majority position, and SEI Funds, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of SEI Investments Company and the owner of a minority position.

Portolan is an SEC-registered investment adviser located in Boston, Massachusetts and was founded by George McCabe, the portfolio manager, in November, 2004. George McCabe is the principal owner of Portolan.

River Road is a registered investment adviser and Affiliated Managers Group, Inc. holds an indirect, majority equity interest in River Road, and members of River Road’s senior management team hold a substantial minority equity interest in the firm.

William Blair is a limited liability company that is 100% owned by WBC Holdings, L.P., a limited partnership. The affairs of William Blair are controlled by the general partner of WBC Holdings, L.P., WBC GP, L.L.C., which in turn, is controlled by the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee is composed of Brent W. Gledhill, Stephanie Braming, Cissie Citardi, Peter Dalrymple, Ryan J. DeVore, Matt Zimmer, Jon W. Zindel, Anurag Sharma and Beth Satterfield.

Strategic Advisers, the sub-adviser(s), the sub-subadviser(s) (if any), (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.

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 L.P., ArrowMark Colorado Holdings, LLC, BlackRock Investment Management, LLC, Boston Partners Global Investors, Inc., FIAM LLC, FIL Investment Advisors, GW&K Investment Management, LLC, Geode Capital Management, LLC, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc., LSV Asset Management, Portolan Capital Management, LLC, River Road Asset Management, LLC, and William Blair Investment Management, LLC to serve as sub-advisers for the fund.

FIAM, in turn, has retained FMR UK, FMR H.K., and FMR Japan to serve as sub-subadvisers for the fund.

FIA, in turn, has retained FIA(UK) to serve as a sub-subadviser 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.

Management and Sub-Advisory Services. 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.

Management-Related Expenses. 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.

Management Fee.

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 1.10% 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, 2025. The fee waiver will increase returns.

The following table shows the amount of management fees paid by the fund to Strategic Advisers for the fiscal year(s) ended February 28, 2023, 2022, and 2021. In addition, the table shows the amount of waivers reducing management fees.

Fund(s)	Fiscal Years Ended		Amount of Waivers Reducing Management Fees		Management Fees Paid to Investment Adviser	Management Fees Paid as a % of Average Net Assets of the Fund
Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund	2023	$	20,615,715	$	26,660,592	0.32%
	2022	$	23,966,741	$	32,753,557	0.34%
	2021	$	19,229,921	$	27,505,402	0.36%

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.

Sub-Adviser – AllianceBernstein. 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.

Sub-Adviser – ArrowMark. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with ArrowMark pursuant to which ArrowMark 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 ArrowMark fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by ArrowMark pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by ArrowMark 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 ArrowMark pursuant to that Strategy.

Sub-Adviser – BlackRock. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with BlackRock pursuant to which BlackRock 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 BlackRock fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by BlackRock pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by BlackRock 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 BlackRock pursuant to that Strategy.

Sub-Adviser – Boston Partners. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with Boston Partners pursuant to which Boston Partners 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 Boston Partners fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by Boston Partners pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by Boston Partners 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 Boston Partners pursuant to that Strategy.

Sub-Adviser – FIAM. 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. 

Small Cap Core: 0.35% on all assets

Small Company: 0.35% on all assets

U.S. Equity Small Cap Plus: 0.28% on the first $100 million in assets; 0.24% on 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 agreement(s) 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-subadviser(s). 

Sub-Adviser – FIA. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with FIA pursuant to which FIA 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 FIA fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by FIA pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by FIA 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 FIA pursuant to that Strategy.

The following fee rate schedule applies to the mandate below. 

Small Cap America: 0.65% on the first $100 million in assets; 0.60% on the next $100 million in assets; and 0.50% above $200 million in assets.

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

Sub-Adviser – Geode. 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 schedules apply to the mandates below. 

Small Cap Put Spread: 0.15% of the first $500 million in assets; 0.125% of the next $500 million in assets; and 0.10% on any amount in excess of $1 billion in assets.

U.S. Small-Mid Cap Quality Focus Index: 0.035% on all assets.

Sub-Adviser – GW&K. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with GW&K pursuant to which GW&K 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 GW&K fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by GW&K pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by GW&K 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 GW&K pursuant to that Strategy.

Sub-Adviser – JPMorgan. 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.

Sub-Adviser – LSV. 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.

Sub-Adviser – Portolan. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with Portolan pursuant to which Portolan 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 Portolan fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by Portolan pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by Portolan 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 Portolan pursuant to that Strategy.

Sub-Adviser – River Road. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with River Road pursuant to which River Road 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 River Road fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by River Road pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by River Road 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 River Road pursuant to that Strategy.

Sub-Adviser – William Blair. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with William Blair pursuant to which William Blair 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 William Blair fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by William Blair pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by William Blair 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 William Blair 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(s) ended February 28, 2023, 2022, and 2021. 

Fund	Fiscal Years Ended		Sub-Advisory Fees Paid to FIAM	Sub-Advisory Fees Paid to FIAM as a % of Average Net Assets of the Fund
Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund	2023	$	972,901	0.01%
	2022	$	502,922	0.01%
	2021	$	509,591	0.01%

The following table shows the amount of sub-advisory fees paid by Strategic Advisers LLC, on behalf of the fund, to Geode for the fiscal year(s) ended February 28, 2023, 2022, and 2021. 

Fund	Fiscal Years Ended		Sub-Advisory Fees Paid to Geode	Sub-Advisory Fees Paid to Geode as a % of Average Net Assets of the Fund
Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund	2023	$	198,415	0.00%
	2022	$	117,325	0.00%
	2021	$	79,832	0.00%

No sub-advisory fees were paid by Strategic Advisers, on behalf of the fund, to FIA for the fiscal years ended February 28, 2023, 2022, and 2021.

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 LLC, Geode Capital Management, LLC, and FIL Investment Advisors for the fiscal year(s) ended February 28, 2023, 2022, and 2021. 

Fund	Fiscal Years Ended		Aggregate Sub-Advisory Fees Paid to Unaffiliated Sub-Adviser(s)	Aggregate Sub-Advisory Fees Paid to Unaffiliated Sub-Adviser(s) as a % of Average Net Assets of the Fund
Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund	2023	$	25,449,982	0.31%
	2022	$	32,129,993	0.34%
	2021	$	26,869,116	0.35%

Expense estimates, which are accrued in the period to which they relate and adjusted when actual amounts are known, will cause 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).

Barry Golden and Mark Mahoney are employees of Strategic Advisers, a subsidiary of FMR LLC and an affiliate of FMR. Strategic Advisers is the adviser to the fund.  

Mr. Golden is Lead Portfolio Manager of the fund and receives compensation for those services. Mr. Mahoney is Co-Portfolio Manager of the fund and does not receive compensation for those services to this fund. As of February 28, 2023, 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.  

Mr. Golden’s base salary is determined by level of responsibility and tenure at Strategic Advisers or its affiliates. The primary components of the 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® 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 the 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 the portfolio manager’s overall contribution to management of Strategic Advisers. The portion of Mr. Golden’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 Russell 2500™ Index, and the pre-tax investment performance of the fund measured against the Custom Lipper℠ R2500 Peer Universe Funds. The 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.  

Mr. Mahoney’s base salary is determined by level of responsibility and tenure at Strategic Advisers or its affiliates. The components of the 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® 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 the 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 subjective component of the bonus is based on the portfolio manager’s overall contribution to management of Strategic Advisers. The 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 Barry Golden as of February 28, 2023:

	Registered Investment Companies*		Other Pooled Investment Vehicles		Other Accounts**
Number of Accounts Managed	2		none		25
Number of Accounts Managed with Performance-Based Advisory Fees	none		none		none
Assets Managed (in millions)	$77,343		none		$77,442
Assets Managed with Performance-Based Advisory Fees (in millions)	none		none		none

* Includes Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund ($8,011 (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 February 28, 2023, the dollar range of shares of Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund beneficially owned by 

Mr. Golden was $100,001 – $500,000.

The following table provides information relating to other accounts managed by Mark Mahoney as of February 28, 2023:

	Registered Investment Companies*		Other Pooled Investment Vehicles		Other Accounts**
Number of Accounts Managed	1		none		none
Number of Accounts Managed with Performance-Based Advisory Fees	none		none		none
Assets Managed (in millions)	$8,011		none		none
Assets Managed with Performance-Based Advisory Fees (in millions)	none		none		none

* Includes Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund ($8,011 (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 February 28, 2023, the dollar range of shares of Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund beneficially owned by Mr. Mahoney was $50,001 – $100,000.

 

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. Introduction  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 75 years. Our core principles sit at the heart of our voting philosophy; putting our customers’ and fund shareholders’ long-term interests first and investing in companies that share our approach to creating value over the long-term guides everything we do. 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, Fidelity considers factors that are financially material to individual companies and investing funds’ investment objectives and strategies in support of maximizing long-term shareholder value. This includes considering the company’s approach to financial and operational, human, and natural capital and the impact of that approach on the potential future value of the business. 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. Board of Directors and Corporate Governance  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. There are no racially or ethnically diverse directors. 4. The director is a public company CEO who sits on more than two unaffiliated public company boards. 5. The director, other than a CEO, sits on more than five 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. Compensation  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. Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Say on Pay) and Frequency of Say on Pay Vote  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 committee if: 1.The compensation appears misaligned with shareholder interests or is otherwise problematic and results in concerns with: a)The alignment of executive compensation and company performance relative to peers; and b)The structure of the compensation program, including factors outlined above under the section entitled Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Say on Pay) and Frequency of Say on Pay Vote. 2. The company has not adequately addressed concerns communicated by Fidelity in the process of discussing executive compensation. 3. 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. Environmental and Social Issues  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 consideration of human and natural capital 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 human and natural capital 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. Fidelity evaluates shareholder proposals concerning natural and human capital topics. To engage and vote more effectively on the growing number of submitted proposals on these topics, we developed a four-point decision-making framework. In general, Fidelity will more likely support proposals that: •Address a topic that our research has identified as financially material; •Provide disclosure of new or additional information to investors, improving transparency; •Provide value to the business or investors by improving the landscape of investment-decision relevant information or contributing to our understanding of a company’s processes and governance of the topic in question; and •Are realistic or practical for the company to comply with. VI. Anti-Takeover Provisions and Shareholders Rights Plans  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. Anti-Takeover Provisions and Director Elections  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. Capital Structure and Incorporation  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 real estate investment trusts (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. Shares of Fidelity Funds or other non-Fidelity Funds  When a Fidelity fund invests in an underlying Fidelity fund with public shareholders or a non-Fidelity investment company or business development company, Fidelity will generally 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, except where not permitted under applicable laws and regulations. X. Foreign Markets  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. Securities on Loan  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. Avoiding Conflicts of Interest  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. Conclusion  Since its founding more than 75 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® 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® 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 AllianceBernstein L.P.’s (“AB,” “we,” “us,” “our” and similar terms) mission is to work in our clients’ best interests to deliver better investment outcomes through differentiated research insights  and innovative portfolio solutions. As a fiduciary and investment adviser, we place the interests of our clients first and treat all our clients fairly and equitably, and we have an obligation to responsibly allocate, manage and oversee their investments to seek sustainable, long-term shareholder value. AB has authority to vote proxies relating to securities in certain client portfolios and, accordingly, AB’s fiduciary obligations extend to AB’s exercise of such proxy voting authority for each client AB has agreed to exercise that duty. AB’s general policy is to vote proxy  proposals, amendments, consents or resolutions relating to client securities, including interests in private investment funds, if any (collectively, “proxies”), in a manner that serves the best interests of each respective client as determined by AB in its discretion, after consideration of the relevant  clients’ investment strategies, and in accordance with this Proxy Voting and Governance Policy (“Proxy Voting and Governance Policy” or “Policy“) and the operative agreements governing the relationship with each respective client. This 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 the Responsible Investing team“), in order to ensure that this Policy and its procedures are implemented consistently. To be effective stewards of our client’s investments and maximize shareholder value, we need to vote proxies on behalf of our clients responsibly. This Policy forms part of a suite of policies and  frameworks beginning with AB’s Stewardship Statement that outline our approach to responsibility, responsible investing, stewardship, engagement, climate change, human rights, global slavery and human trafficking, and controversial investments. Proxy voting is an integral part of this process, enabling us to support strong corporate governance structures, shareholder rights, transparency and disclosure, and encourage corporate action on material environmental, social and governance and climate issues. 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 the 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 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.   Research Services We subscribe to the corporate governance and proxy research services of vendors such as Institutional Shareholder Services (“ISS“) and Glass Lewis at different levels. All our investment professionals can access these materials via the members of the Responsible Investing team and/or the Proxy Voting and Governance Committee.   Engagement  In evaluating proxy issues and determining our votes, we welcome and seek out points of view from various parties. Internally, the members of the Responsible Investing team may consult the Proxy Voting and Governance Committee, Chief Investment Officers, Directors of Research, and/or Research Analysts across our Equities platforms, and Portfolio Managers in whose managed 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 that we believe will drive shareholder value. Also, these meetings often are joint efforts between the investment professionals, who are best positioned to comment on company-specific details, and the members of the Responsible Investing team, who offer a more holistic view of governance 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 Proxy Voting and Governance 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 environmental, social related proposals. The following are examples of specific issues within each of these broad categories:     Board and Director Proposals: Election of Directors 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 local market best practice code 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 to be a poor governance practice and vote on a case-by-case basis considering the amount of information available and an assessment of the group’s qualifications.   Capital Changes and Anti-Takeover Proposals: Authorize Share Repurchase 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.   Auditor Proposals: Appointment of Auditors 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 auditor performs 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 U.K. 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.   Shareholder Access and Voting Proposals: Proxy Access for Annual Meetings   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 D.C. 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 implementing 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, more strict, proposals on the same ballot.   We will evaluate on a case-by-case basis proposals with less stringent requirements than the vacated SEC framework. Occasionally, 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.   Environmental, Social Related Disclosure Proposals Including Lobbying and Political Spending 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.   We generally vote proposals in accordance with these guidelines but, consistent with our “principles-based” approach to proxy voting, we may deviate from the guidelines if warranted by the specific facts and circumstances of the situation (i.e., if, under the circumstances, we believe that deviating from our stated policy is necessary to help maximize long-term shareholder value). In addition, these guidelines are not intended to address all issues that may appear on all proxy ballots. Proposals not specifically addressed by these guidelines, whether submitted by management or shareholders, will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, always keeping in mind our fiduciary duty to make voting decisions that, by maximizing long-term shareholder value, are  in our clients’ best interests. 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.   We recognize that there may be a potential material conflict of interest when we 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 we 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 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, we have established procedures for use when we encounter a potential conflict to ensure that our voting decisions are based on our clients’ best interests and are not the product of a conflict. These procedures include compiling a list of companies and organizations whose proxies may pose potential conflicts of interest (e.g., if such company is our client) and reviewing our proposed votes for these companies and organizations in light of the Policy and proxy advisors’ recommendations. If our proposed vote is contrary to, or not contemplated in, the Policy, we refer to proposed vote to our Conflicts Officer for his determination. In addition, our Proxy Voting and Governance Committee takes reasonable steps to verify that our primary proxy advisor, 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   We publish our voting records on our Internet site (www.alliancebernstein.com) one business day after the company’s shareholder meeting date. 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.  Alternatively, clients may make a written request to the Chief Compliance Officer.   Pre-Disclosure of Vote Intentions on Select Proposals  As part of our engagement and stewardship efforts, AB publishes our vote intentions on certain proposals in advance of select shareholder meetings, with an emphasis on issuers where our discretionary managed accounts have significant economic exposure. The selected proposals are chosen because they impact a range of key topics where AB may have expressed our viewpoints publicly, through prior engagement or proxy voting. We do not pre-disclose our vote intentions on mergers and acquisition activity. The published vote intentions are available on our RI webpage. Recordkeeping All of the records referenced in our Policy will be kept in an easily accessible place for at least the timeframe required by local regulation and custom, with the minimum timeframe being the U.S. record retention requirement of six-plus years. We maintain the vast majority of these records electronically. Loaned Securities Many of our clients have entered into securities lending arrangements with agent lenders to generate additional revenue. We will not be able to vote securities that are on loan under these types of arrangements. However, for AB managed funds, the agent lenders have standing instructions to recall all securities on loan systematically in a timely manner on a best effort basis in order for AB to vote the proxies on those previously loaned shares.

Proxy Voting – ArrowMark.  Issue Rule 206(4)-6 under the Advisers Act requires every investment adviser who exercises voting authority with respect to client securities to adopt and implement written policies and procedures, reasonably designed to ensure that the adviser votes proxies in the best interest of its clients. The procedures must address material conflicts that may arise in connection with proxy voting. The Rule further requires the adviser to provide a concise summary of the adviser’s proxy voting process and offer to provide copies of the complete proxy voting policy and procedures to clients upon request. Lastly, the Rule requires that the adviser disclose to clients how they may obtain information on how the adviser voted their proxies. ArrowMark votes proxies for all of its Clients, and therefore has adopted and implemented this Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures. Risks In developing this policy and procedures, ArrowMark considered numerous risks associated with its voting of Client proxies. This analysis includes risks such as: ArrowMark does not maintain a written proxy voting policy as required by Rule 206(4)-6. Proxies are not voted in Clients’ best interests. Proxies are not identified and voted in a timely manner. Conflicts between ArrowMark’s interests and the Client are not identified; therefore, proxies are not voted appropriately. Third-party proxy voting services do not vote proxies according to ArrowMark’s instructions and in Clients’ best interests. Proxy voting records and Client requests to review proxy votes are not maintained. ArrowMark has established the following guidelines to effectuate and monitor its proxy voting policy and procedures. Policy   It is the policy of ArrowMark to vote proxies in the best interest of its Clients. Proxies are an asset of a Client, which should be treated with the same care, diligence, and loyalty as any asset belonging to a Client. To that end, ArrowMark will vote in a way that it believes, consistent with its fiduciary duty, will cause the value of the issue to increase the most or decline the least. Consideration will be given to both the short and long term implications of the proposal to be voted on when considering the optimal vote. ArrowMark may abstain from voting if it deems that abstaining is in its Clients’ best interests. For example, ArrowMark may be unable to vote securities that have been lent by the custodian. Also, proxy voting in certain countries involves “share blocking,” which limits ArrowMark’s ability to sell the affected security during a blocking period that can last for several weeks. ArrowMark believes that the potential consequences of being unable to sell a security usually outweigh the benefits of participating in a proxy vote, so ArrowMark generally abstains from voting when share blocking is required. To assist ArrowMark in executing its voting responsibilities, we’ve engaged a third party proxy voting specialist, Glass Lewis & Co., LLC (“Glass Lewis” or the “Proxy Manager”). The services provided by Glass Lewis include in-depth research and voting recommendations intended to create shareholder value. ArrowMark has reviewed the Proxy Manager’s Guidelines, and has determined that such Guidelines are consistent with its fiduciary responsibilities with respect to its Clients. ArrowMark will review any material amendments to such Guidelines. Any general or specific proxy voting guidelines provided by an advisory Client or its designated agent in writing will supersede this policy. Procedures for Identification and Voting of Proxies The Proxy Manager is responsible for ensuring that all proxies received are voted in a timely manner and voted consistently across all portfolios. Although many proxy proposals can be voted in accordance with the Proxy Manager’s established guidelines (the “Guidelines”), ArrowMark retains the right to vote any proposal in a manner differing from the Guidelines. Such deviations from the Guidelines must be approved by the CCO with a written explanation of the rationale for the deviation. ArrowMark, in conjunction with the custodian, is responsible for ensuring that all corporate actions received are addressed in a timely manner and consistent action is taken across all portfolios. ArrowMark’s authority to vote proxies or act with respect to other corporate actions is established through the delegation of discretionary authority under its investment advisory agreements. Therefore, unless a Client specifically reserves the right, in writing, to vote its own proxies or to take shareholder action with respect to other corporate actions requiring shareholder actions, ArrowMark will vote all proxies and act on all other actions in a timely manner as part of its full discretionary authority over Clients in accordance with established policies and procedures. Procedures for Glass Lewis Reconciliation ArrowMark provides Glass Lewis with a daily holdings file representing all accounts in which ArrowMark has proxy voting authority. ArrowMark’s account master file is reconciled with Glass Lewis’ account master file at least quarterly. The daily reconciliation process performed by Glass Lewis is as follows: 1. ArrowMark’s holdings files from Northern Trust are automatically uploaded daily into the Glass Lewis’ ViewPoint system (“ViewPoint”). 2. If ViewPoint doesn’t recognize security IDs contained in the holdings files, the rejected holdings are sent to Glass Lewis’ securities processing group to be investigated. If there are other errors in the holdings file, the securities processing group will alert the client service manager who will contact ArrowMark. 3. New Meeting Notices and Agendas are automatically uploaded into the ViewPoint system. Each meeting contains one or more security identifiers associated with it. 4. The ViewPoint reconciliation engine determines if there are matches between holdings and meetings for which Glass Lewis has not received ballots. These matches are displayed on the Ballot Reconciliation workbench for ViewPoint client service managers and audit team members. 5. The reconciliation tool can be used for the creation of ballots based on holdings information and the meeting and agenda information. This is a service Glass Lewis offers to clients with accounts that are not contracted with a proxy distribution service, such as Broadridge (“BFS”) or GPD, for the delivery of ballots electronically. The ballots created by Glass Lewis are transmitted directly via email or fax to the custodians once investors’ vote execution instructions are carried out. 6. If reconciliation records are generated for positions in U.S. companies and/or positions in global companies held in accounts custodied at banks that do contract with a proxy distribution service for the delivery of proxy materials, Glass Lewis will consider these records as “missing ballots” if a ballot has not been received by 10 business days prior to meeting date. 7. Multiple times a week Glass Lewis sends an automated reconciliation file to BFS with all of our clients’ “open records.” 24 hours later BFS provides us with a response file containing control numbers or further account setup and/or reconciliation instructions. Control numbers are uploaded immediately into VP by the Ballot Reconciliation team. All remaining open records are researched by individual client service managers (i.e., ballot reconciliation and account setup requests/inquiries are sent by email to the custodian). 8. Once a ballot is created, the corresponding reconciliation record is automatically closed. A record can be closed manually if no ballot is created when the investigation of the issue determines that no ballot will be delivered. Proxy Review Procedures On a monthly basis, Glass Lewis provides ArrowMark with two reports: the Proxy Voting Report (“PVR”) and Analyze Voting Activity Report (“AVA”). The CCO or designee will review these reports monthly. A PVR provides a snapshot of each meeting voted in a given time period and includes but isn’t limited to the following: Agenda Items Management Recommendations Glass Lewis Recommendations ArrowMark’s Policy Recommendations Vote Cast The AVA can be used to get a broad look at ballot data or can be narrowed down very specifically to only include certain data points. These include: Meeting Types Voting Decisions (with or against management/policy/Glass Lewis) Country of Issue Specific Meeting Issues Proposal Categories Both the PVR and AVA are able to show the vote recommendations generated by ArrowMark’s Policy, as well as the final vote decision. Conflicts of Interest   ArrowMark is responsible for monitoring situations where the voting of proxies may present actual or perceived conflicts of interest between itself and Clients. The following is a non-exhaustive list of potential conflicts of interests that could influence the proxy voting process: Conflict: ArrowMark retains an institutional Client, or is in the process of retaining an institutional Client that is affiliated with an issuer that is held in ArrowMark’s Client portfolios. For example, ArrowMark may be retained to manage Company A’s pension fund. Company A is a public company and ArrowMark Client accounts hold shares of Company A. This type of relationship may influence ArrowMark to vote with management on proxies to gain favor with management. Such favor may influence Company A’s decision to continue its advisory relationship with ArrowMark. Conflict: ArrowMark retains a Client, or is in the process of retaining a Client that is an officer or director of an issuer that is held in ArrowMark’s Client portfolios. The similar conflicts of interest exist in this relationship as discussed above. Conflict: ArrowMark’s Employees maintain a personal and/or business relationship (not an advisory relationship) with issuers or individuals that serve as officers or directors of issuers. For example, the spouse of an Employee may be a high-level executive of an issuer that is held in ArrowMark’s Client portfolios. The spouse could attempt to influence ArrowMark to vote in favor of management. Conflict: ArrowMark or an Employee(s) personally owns a significant number of an issuer’s securities that are also held in ArrowMark’s Client portfolios. For any number of reasons, an Employee(s) may seek to vote proxies in a different direction for his/her personal holdings than would otherwise be warranted by the proxy voting policy. The Employee(s) could oppose voting the proxies according to the policy and successfully influence ArrowMark to vote proxies in contradiction to the policy. Where a proxy proposal raises a material conflict of interest between ArrowMark’s interests and that of one or more its Clients, including a mutual fund client, the Glass Lewis recommendations will be followed. Glass Lewis Oversight In addition to oversight elements included in the Review of Third-Party Service Providers Section, ArrowMark will routinely review Glass Lewis’ Conflict of Interest disclosures including their Conflict of Interest Disclosure list and Conflict Avoidance Procedures. See website for conflict information (http://www.glasslewis.com/about-glass-lewis/disclosure-of-conflict/). Procedures for ArrowMark’s Receipt of Class Actions ArrowMark recognizes that as a fiduciary it has a duty to act with the highest obligation of good faith, loyalty, fair dealing and due care. When a recovery is achieved in a class action, investors who owned shares in the company subject to the action have the option to either: (1) opt out of the class action and pursue their own remedy; or (2) participate in the recovery achieved via the class action. Collecting the recovery involves the completion of a Proof of Claim form which is submitted to the Claims Administrator. After the Claims Administrator receives all Proof of Claims, it dispenses the money from the settlement fund to those persons and entities with valid claims. ArrowMark has engaged an independent class action service, Battea, to handle all class action proceedings. Recordkeeping   In accordance with Rule 204-2 under the Advisers Act, ArrowMark will maintain for the time periods set forth in the Rule: These proxy voting procedures and policies, and all amendments thereto; (i) All proxy statements received regarding Client securities (provided however, that ArrowMark may rely on the proxy statement filed on EDGAR as its records); (ii) A record of all votes cast on behalf of Clients; (iii) Records of all Client requests and subsequent responses regarding proxy voting information; (iv) Any documents prepared by ArrowMark that were material to making a decision how to vote or that memorialized the basis for the decision; and (v) All records relating to requests made to Clients regarding conflicts of interest in voting the proxy. Such records will be maintained in a readily accessible manner for a period of at least seven years. Proxy statements on file with EDGAR or maintained by the Proxy Manager are not subject to these retention requirements. Disclosure ArrowMark will ensure that Part 2 of Form ADV and/or the Fund documents are updated as necessary to reflect: (i) all material changes to the Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures; and (ii) information about how Clients may obtain information on how ArrowMark voted their securities. ArrowMark will enter into arrangements with all mutual fund clients to provide any information required to be filed by such mutual fund on Form N-PX 60 days after June 30 of each year, and will provide information as requested by the client mutual funds’ board of directors. Proxy Solicitation As a matter of practice, it is ArrowMark’s policy to not reveal or disclose to any Client how ArrowMark may have voted (or intends to vote) on a particular proxy until after such proxies have been counted at a shareholder’s meeting. ArrowMark will never disclose such information to unrelated third parties. The CCO are to be promptly informed of the receipt of any solicitation from any person to vote proxies on behalf of Clients. At no time may any Employee accept any remuneration in the solicitation of proxies. The CCO should handle all responses to such solicitations.

Proxy Voting – BlackRock. These guidelines should be read in conjunction with the BlackRock Investment Stewardship Global Principles. Introduction As stewards of our clients’ investments, BlackRock believes it has a responsibility to engage with management teams and/or board members on material business issues and, for those clients who have given us authority, to vote proxies in the best long-term economic interests of their assets. The following issue-specific proxy voting guidelines (the “Guidelines”) summarize BlackRock Investment Stewardship’s (“BIS”) philosophy and approach to engagement and voting, as well as our view of governance best practices and the roles and responsibilities of boards and directors for publicly listed U.S. companies. These Guidelines are not intended to limit the analysis of individual issues at specific companies or provide a guide to how BIS will engage and/or vote in every instance. They are to be applied with discretion, taking into consideration the range of issues and facts specific to the company, as well as individual ballot items at shareholder meetings. Voting guidelines These guidelines are divided into eight key themes, which group together the issues that frequently appear on the agenda of shareholder meetings: Boards and directors Auditors and audit-related issues Capital structure Mergers, acquisitions, asset sales, and other special transactions Executive compensation Material sustainability-related risks and opportunities General corporate governance matters Shareholder protections Boards and directors An effective and well-functioning board is critical to the economic success of the company and the protection of shareholders’ interests, inducting the establishment of appropriate governance structures that facilitate oversight of management and the company’s strategic initiatives. As part of their responsibilities, board members owe fiduciary duties to shareholders in overseeing the strategic direction, operations, and risk management of the company. For this reason, BIS sees engagement with and the election of directors as one of our most critical responsibilities. Disclosure of material issues that affect the company’s long-term strategy and value creation, including, when relevant, material sustainability-related factors, is essential for shareholders to appropriately understand and assess how effectively the board is identifying, managing, and mitigating risks. Where a company has not adequately demonstrated, through actions and/or disclosures, how material issues are appropriately identified, managed, and overseen, we will consider voting against the re-election of those directors responsible for the oversight of such issues, as indicated below. Independence It is our view that a majority of the directors on the board should be independent to ensure objectivity in the decision-making of the board and its ability to oversee management. In addition, all members of audit, compensation, and nominating/governance committees should be independent. Our view of independence may vary from listing standards. Common impediments to independence may include: Employment as a senior executive by the company or a subsidiary within the past five years An equity ownership in the company in excess of 20% Having any other interest, business, or relationship (professional or personal) which could, or could reasonably be perceived to, materially interfere with the director’s ability to act in the best interests of the company and its shareholders  We may vote against directors who we do not consider to be independent, including at controlled companies, when we believe oversight could be enhanced with greater independent director representation. To signal our concerns, we may also vote against the chair of the nominating/governance committee, or where no chair exists, the nominating/governance committee member with the longest tenure. Oversight role of the board The board should exercise appropriate oversight of management and the business activities of the company. Where we determine that a board has failed to do so in a way that may impede a company’s long-term value, we may vote against the responsible committees and/or individual directors. Common circumstances are illustrated below: Where the board has failed to facilitate quality, independent auditing or accounting practices, we may vote against members of the audit committee Where the company has failed to provide shareholders with adequate disclosure to conclude that appropriate strategic consideration is given to material risk factors (including, where relevant, sustainability factors), we may vote against members of the responsible committee, or the most relevant director Where it appears that a director has acted (at the company or at other companies) in a manner that compromises their ability to represent the best long-term economic interests of shareholders, we may vote against that individual  Where a director has a multi-year pattern of poor attendance at combined board and applicable committee meetings, or a director has poor attendance in a single year with no disclosed rationale, we may vote against that individual. Excluding exigent circumstances, BIS generally considers attendance at less than 75% of the combined board and applicable committee meetings to be poor attendance Where a director serves on an excessive number of boards, which may limit their capacity to focus on each board’s needs, we may vote against that individual.  In addition, we recognize that board leadership roles may vary in responsibility and time requirements in different markets around the world. In particular, where a director maintains a Chair role of a publicly listed company in European markets, we may consider that responsibility as equal to two board commitments, consistent with our EMEA Proxy Voting Guidelines. We will take the total number of board commitments across our global policies into account for director elections. Risk oversight Companies should have an established process for identifying, monitoring, and managing business and material risks. Independent directors should have access to relevant management information and outside advice, as appropriate, to ensure they can properly oversee risk. We encourage companies to provide transparency around risk management, mitigation, and reporting to the board. We are particularly interested in understanding how risk oversight processes evolve in response to changes in corporate strategy and/or shifts in the business and related risk environment. Comprehensive disclosures provide investors with a sense of the company’s long-term risk management practices and, more broadly, the quality of the board’s oversight. In the absence of robust disclosures, we may reasonably conclude that companies are not adequately managing risk. Board Structure Classified board of directors/staggered terms Directors should be re-elected annually; classification of the board generally limits shareholders’ rights to regularly evaluate a board’s performance and select directors. While we will typically support proposals requesting board de-classification, we may make exceptions, should the board articulate an appropriate strategic rationale for a classified board structure. This may include when a company needs consistency and stability during a time of transition, e.g., newly public companies or companies undergoing a strategic restructuring. A classified board structure may also be justified at non-operating companies, e.g., closed-end funds or business development companies (“BDC”),1 in certain circumstances. However, in these instances, boards should periodically review the rationale for a classified structure and consider when annual elections might be more appropriate. Without a voting mechanism to immediately address concerns about a specific director, we may choose to vote against the directors up for election at the time (see “Shareholder rights” for additional detail). Independent leadership There are two commonly accepted structures for independent leadership to balance the CEO role in the boardroom: 1) an independent Chair; or 2) a Lead Independent director when the roles of Chair and CEO are combined, or when the Chair is otherwise not independent. In the absence of a significant governance concern, we defer to boards to designate the most appropriate leadership structure to ensure adequate balance and independence.2 However, BIS may vote against the most senior non-executive member of the board when appropriate independence is lacking in designated leadership roles. In the event that the board chooses to have a combined Chair/CEO or a non-independent Chair, we support the designation of a Lead Independent director, with the ability to: 1) provide formal input into board meeting agendas; 2) call meetings of the independent directors; and 3) preside at meetings of independent directors. These roles and responsibilities should be disclosed and easily accessible. CEO and management succession planning Companies should have a robust CEO and senior management succession plan in place at the board level that is reviewed and updated on a regular basis. Succession planning should cover scenarios over both the long-term, consistent with the strategic direction of the company and identified leadership needs over time, as well as the short-term, in the event of an unanticipated executive departure. We encourage the company to explain their executive succession planning process, including where accountability lies within the boardroom for this task, without prematurely divulging sensitive information commonly associated with this exercise. During a CEO transition, companies may elect for the departing CEO to maintain a role in the boardroom. We ask for disclosures to understand the timeframe and responsibilities of this role. In such instances, we typically look for the board to have appropriate independent leadership structures in place. (See chart above.) Director compensation and equity programs Compensation for directors should generally be structured to attract and retain directors, while also aligning their interests with those of shareholders. In our view, director compensation packages that are based on the company’s long-term value creation and include some form of long-term equity compensation are more likely to meet this goal. Board composition and effectiveness Director qualifications and skills We encourage boards to periodically review director qualifications and skills to ensure relevant experience and diverse perspectives are represented in the boardroom. To this end, performance reviews and skills assessments should be conducted by the nominating/governance committee or the Lead Independent Director. This process may include internal board evaluations; however, boards may also find it useful to periodically conduct an assessment with a third party. We encourage boards to disclose their approach to evaluations, including objectives of the evaluation; if an external party conducts the evaluation; the frequency of the evaluations; and, whether that evaluation occurs on an individual director basis. Board term limits and director tenure Where boards find that age limits or term limits are the most efficient and objective mechanism for ensuring periodic board refreshment, we generally defer to the board’s determination in setting such limits. BIS will also consider the average board tenure to evaluate processes for board renewal. We may oppose boards that appear to have an insufficient mix of short-, medium-, and long-tenured directors. Board diversity As noted above, highly qualified, engaged directors with professional characteristics relevant to a company’s business enhance the ability of the board to add value and be the voice of shareholders in board discussions. In our view, a strong board provides a competitive advantage to a company, providing valuable oversight and contributing to the most important management decisions that support long-term financial performance. It is in this context that we are interested in diversity in the boardroom. We see it as a means to promoting diversity of thought and avoiding ‘group think’ in the board’s exercise of its responsibilities to advise and oversee management. It allows boards to have deeper discussions and make more resilient decisions. We ask boards to disclose how diversity is considered in board composition, including professional characteristics, such as a director’s industry experience, specialist areas of expertise and geographic location; as well as demographic characteristics such as gender, race/ethnicity, and age. We look to understand a board’s diversity in the context of a company’s domicile, market capitalization, business model, and strategy. Increasingly, we see leading boards adding members whose experience deepens the board’s understanding of the company’s customers, employees, and communities. Self-identified board demographic diversity can usefully be disclosed in aggregate, consistent with local law. We believe boards should aspire to meaningful diversity of membership, at least consistent with local regulatory requirements and best practices, while recognizing that building a strong, diverse board can take time. This position is based on our view that diversity of perspective and thought-in the boardroom, in the management team and throughout the company-leads to better long-term economic outcomes for companies. Academic and other research reveals correlations between specific dimensions of diversity and effects on decision-making processes and outcomes.3 In our experience, greater diversity in the boardroom contributes to more robust discussions and more innovative and resilient decisions. Over time, greater diversity in the boardroom can also promote greater diversity and resilience in the leadership team, and the workforce more broadly. That diversity can enable companies to develop businesses that more closely reflect and resonate with the customers and communities they serve. In the U.S., we believe that boards should aspire to at least 30% diversity of membership,4 and we encourage large companies, such as those in the S&P 500, to lead in achieving this standard. In our view, an informative indicator of diversity for such companies is having at least two women and a director who identifies as a member of an underrepresented group.5 We recognize that it may take time and that companies with smaller market capitalizations and in certain sectors may face more challenges in pursuing diversity. Among these smaller companies, we look for the presence of diversity and take into consideration the progress that companies are making. In order to help investors understand overall diversity, we look to boards to disclose: How diversity, including demographic factors and professional characteristics, is considered in board composition, given the company’s long-term strategy and business model How directors’ professional characteristics, which may include domain expertise such as finance or technology, and sector- or market-specific experience, are complementary and link to the company’s long-term strategy The process by which candidates for board positions are identified, including whether professional firms or other resources outside of incumbent directors’ networks are engaged to identify and/or assess candidates, and whether a diverse slate of nominees is considered for all available board nominations To the extent that, based on our assessment of corporate disclosures, a company has not adequately explained their approach to diversity in their board composition, we may vote against members of the nominating/governance committee. Our publicly available commentary provides more information on our approach to board diversity. Board size We typically defer to the board in setting the appropriate size and believe that directors are generally in the best position to assess the optimal board size to ensure effectiveness. However, we may vote against the appropriate committees and/or individual directors if, in our view, the board is ineffective in its oversight, either because it is too small to allow for the necessary range of skills and experience or too large to function efficiently. Board responsiveness and shareholder rights Shareholder rights Where we determine that a board has not acted in the best interests of the company’s shareholders, or takes action to unreasonably limit shareholder rights, we may vote against the appropriate committees and/or individual directors. Common circumstances are illustrated below: The Independent Chair or Lead Independent Director and members of the nominating/governance committee, where a board implements or renews a poison pill without shareholder approval The Independent Chair or Lead Independent Director and members of the nominating/governance committee, where a board amends the charter/articles/bylaws and where the effect may be to entrench directors or to unreasonably reduce shareholder rights Members of the compensation committee where the company has repriced options without shareholder approval If a board maintains a classified structure, it is possible that the director(s) or committee members with whom we have a particular concern may not be subject to election in the year that the concern arises. In such situations, we may register our concern by voting against the most relevant director(s) up for election. Responsiveness to shareholders A board should be engaged and responsive to the company’s shareholders, including acknowledging voting outcomes for director elections, compensation, shareholder proposals, and other ballot items. Where we determine that a board has not substantially addressed shareholder concerns that we deem material to the business, we may vote against the responsible committees and/or individual directors. Common circumstances are illustrated below: The Independent Chair or Lead Independent Director, members of the nominating/governance committee, and/or the longest tenured director(s), where we observe a lack of board responsiveness to shareholders, evidence of board entrenchment, and/or failure to plan for adequate board member succession The chair of the nominating/governance committee, or where no chair exists, the nominating/governance committee member with the longest tenure, where board member(s) at the most recent election of directors have received against votes from more than 25% of shares voted, and the board has not taken appropriate action to respond to shareholder concerns. This may not apply in cases where BIS did not support the initial vote against such board member(s) The Independent Chair or Lead Independent Director and/or members of the nominating/governance committee, where a board fails to consider shareholder proposals that (1) receive substantial support, and (2) in our view, have a material impact on the business, shareholder rights, or the potential for long-term value creation Majority vote requirements Directors should generally be elected by a majority of the shares voted. We will normally support proposals seeking to introduce bylaws requiring a majority vote standard for director elections. Majority vote standards generally assist in ensuring that directors who are not broadly supported by shareholders are not elected to serve as their representatives. As a best practice, companies with either a majority vote standard or a plurality vote standard should adopt a resignation policy for directors who do not receive support from at least a majority of votes cast. Where the company already has a sufficiently robust majority voting process in place, we may not support a shareholder proposal seeking an alternative mechanism. We note that majority voting may not be appropriate in all circumstances, for example, in the context of a contested election, or for majority-controlled companies or those with concentrated ownership structures. Cumulative voting As stated above, a majority vote standard is generally in the best long-term interests of shareholders, as it ensures director accountability through the requirement to be elected by more than half of the votes cast. As such, we will generally oppose proposals requesting the adoption of cumulative voting, which may disproportionately aggregate votes on certain issues or director candidates. Auditors and audit-related issues BIS recognizes the critical importance of financial statements to provide a complete and accurate portrayal of a company’s financial condition. Consistent with our approach to voting on directors, we seek to hold the audit committee of the board responsible for overseeing the management of the independent auditor and the internal audit function at a company. We may vote against the audit committee members where the board has failed to facilitate quality, independent auditing. We look to public disclosures for insight into the scope of the audit committee responsibilities, including an overview of audit committee processes, issues on the audit committee agenda, and key decisions taken by the audit committee. We take particular note of cases involving significant financial restatements or material weakness disclosures, and we look for timely disclosure and remediation of accounting irregularities. The integrity of financial statements depends on the auditor effectively fulfilling its role. To that end, we favor an independent auditor. In addition, to the extent that an auditor fails to reasonably identify and address issues that eventually lead to a significant financial restatement, or the audit firm has violated standards of practice, we may also vote against ratification. From time to time, shareholder proposals may be presented to promote auditor independence or the rotation of audit firms. We may support these proposals when they are consistent with our views as described above. Capital structure proposals Equal voting rights In our view, shareholders should be entitled to voting rights in proportion to their economic interests. In addition, companies that have implemented dual or multiple class share structures should review these structures on a regular basis, or as company circumstances change. Companies with multiple share classes should receive shareholder approval of their capital structure on a periodic basis via a management proposal on the company’s proxy. The proposal should give unaffiliated shareholders the opportunity to affirm the current structure or establish mechanisms to end or phase out controlling structures at the appropriate time, while minimizing costs to shareholders. Where companies are unwilling to voluntarily implement “one share, one vote” within a specified timeframe, or are unresponsive to shareholder feedback for change over time, we generally support shareholder proposals to recapitalize stock into a single voting class. Blank check preferred stock We frequently oppose proposals requesting authorization of a class of preferred stock with unspecified voting, conversion, dividend distribution, and other rights (“blank check” preferred stock) because they may serve as a transfer of authority from shareholders to the board and as a possible entrenchment device. We generally view the board’s discretion to establish voting rights on a when-issued basis as a potential anti-takeover device, as it affords the board the ability to place a block of stock with an investor sympathetic to management, thereby foiling a takeover bid without a shareholder vote. Nonetheless, we may support the proposal where the company: Appears to have a legitimate financing motive for requesting blank check authority Has committed publicly that blank check preferred shares will not be used for anti-takeover purposes Has a history of using blank check preferred stock for financings Has blank check preferred stock previously outstanding such that an increase would not necessarily provide further anti-takeover protection but may provide greater financing flexibility Increase in authorized common shares BIS will evaluate requests to increase authorized shares on a case-by-case basis, in conjunction with industry-specific norms and potential dilution, as well as a company’s history with respect to the use of its common shares. Increase or issuance of preferred stock We generally support proposals to increase or issue preferred stock in cases where the company specifies the voting, dividend, conversion, and other rights of such stock and where the terms of the preferred stock appear reasonable. Stock splits We generally support stock splits that are not likely to negatively affect the ability to trade shares or the economic value of a share. We generally support reverse stock splits that are designed to avoid delisting or to facilitate trading in the stock, where the reverse split will not have a negative impact on share value (e.g., one class is reduced while others remain at pre-split levels). In the event of a proposal for a reverse split that would not proportionately reduce the company’s authorized stock, we apply the same analysis we would use for a proposal to increase authorized stock. Mergers, acquisitions, transactions, and other special situations Mergers, acquisitions, and transactions In assessing mergers, acquisitions, or other transactions – including business combinations involving Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (“SPACs”) – BIS’ primary consideration is the long-term economic interests of our clients as shareholders. Boards should clearly explain the economic and strategic rationale for any proposed transactions or material changes to the business. We will review a proposed transaction to determine the degree to which it has the potential to enhance long-term shareholder value. While mergers, acquisitions, asset sales, business combinations, and other special transaction proposals vary widely in scope and substance, we closely examine certain salient features in our analyses, such as: The degree to which the proposed transaction represents a premium to the company’s trading price. We consider the share price over multiple time periods prior to the date of the merger announcement. We may consider comparable transaction analyses provided by the parties’ financial advisors and our own valuation assessments. For companies facing insolvency or bankruptcy, a premium may not apply There should be clear strategic, operational, and/or financial rationale for the combination Unanimous board approval and arm’s-length negotiations are preferred. We will consider whether the transaction involves a dissenting board or does not appear to be the result of an arm’s-length bidding process. We may also consider whether executive and/or board members’ financial interests appear likely to affect their ability to place shareholders’ interests before their own, as well as measures taken to address conflicts of interest We prefer transaction proposals that include the fairness opinion of a reputable financial advisor assessing the value of the transaction to shareholders in comparison to recent similar transactions Contested director elections and special situations Contested elections and other special situations6 are assessed on a case-by-case basis. We evaluate a number of factors, which may include: the qualifications and past performance of the dissident and management candidates; the validity of the concerns identified by the dissident; the viability of both the dissident’s and management’s plans; the ownership stake and holding period of the dissident; the likelihood that the dissident’s strategy will produce the desired change; and whether the dissident represents the best option for enhancing long-term shareholder value. We will evaluate the actions that the company has taken to limit shareholders’ ability to exercise the right to nominate dissident director candidates, including those actions taken absent the immediate threat of a contested situation. BIS may take voting action against directors (up to and including the full board) where those actions are viewed as egregiously infringing on shareholder rights. We will consider a variety of possible voting outcomes in contested situations, including the ability to support a mix of management and dissident nominees. Poison pill plans Where a poison pill is put to a shareholder vote by management, our policy is to examine these plans individually. Although we have historically opposed most plans, we may support plans that include a reasonable “qualifying offer clause.” Such clauses typically require shareholder ratification of the pill and stipulate a sunset provision whereby the pill expires unless it is renewed. These clauses also tend to specify that an all-cash bid for all shares that includes a fairness opinion and evidence of financing does not trigger the pill, but forces either a special meeting at which the offer is put to a shareholder vote or requires the board to seek the written consent of shareholders, where shareholders could rescind the pill at their discretion. We may also support a pill where it is the only effective method for protecting tax or other economic benefits that may be associated with limiting the ownership changes of individual shareholders. Lastly, we look for shareholder approval of poison pill plans within one year of adoption of implementation. Reimbursement of expense for successful shareholder campaigns We generally do not support shareholder proposals seeking the reimbursement of proxy contest expenses, even in situations where we support the shareholder campaign. Introducing the possibility of such reimbursement may incentivize disruptive and unnecessary shareholder campaigns. Executive compensation A company’s board of directors should put in place a compensation structure that balances incentivizing, rewarding, and retaining executives appropriately across a wide range of business outcomes. This structure should be aligned with shareholder interests, particularly the generation of sustainable, long-term value. The compensation committee should carefully consider the specific circumstances of the company and the key individuals the board is focused on incentivizing. We encourage companies to ensure that their compensation plans incorporate appropriate and rigorous performance metrics, consistent with corporate strategy and market practice. Performance-based compensation should include metrics that are relevant to the business and stated strategy and/or risk mitigation efforts. Goals, and the processes used to set these goals, should be clearly articulated and appropriately rigorous. We use third party research, in addition to our own analysis, to evaluate existing and proposed compensation structures. We hold members of the compensation committee, or equivalent board members, accountable for poor compensation practices and/or structures. There should be a clear link between variable pay and company performance that drives sustained value creation for our clients as shareholders. Where compensation structures provide for a front-loaded7 award, we look for appropriate structures (including vesting and/or holding periods) that motivate sustained performance for shareholders over a number of years. We generally do not favor programs focused on awards that require performance levels to be met and maintained for a relatively short time period for payouts to be earned, unless there are extended vesting and/or holding requirements. Compensation structures should generally drive outcomes that align the pay of the executives with performance of the company and the value received by shareholders. When evaluating performance, we examine both executive teams’ efforts, as well as outcomes realized by shareholders. Payouts to executives should reflect both the executive’s contributions to the company’s ongoing success, as well as exogenous factors that impacted shareholder value. Where discretion has been used by the compensation committee, we look for disclosures relating to how and why the discretion was used and how the adjusted outcome is aligned with the interests of shareholders. While we believe special awards8 should be used sparingly, we acknowledge that there may be instances when such awards are appropriate. When evaluating these awards, we consider a variety of factors, including the magnitude and structure of the award, the scope of award recipients, the alignment of the grant with shareholder value, and the company’s historical use of such awards, in addition to other company-specific circumstances. We acknowledge that the use of peer group evaluation by compensation committees can help calibrate competitive pay; however, we are concerned when the rationale for increases in total compensation is solely based on peer benchmarking. We support incentive plans that foster the sustainable achievement of results – both financial and non-financial – consistent with the company’s strategic initiatives. Compensation committees should guard against contractual arrangements that would entitle executives to material compensation for early termination of their contract. Finally, pension contributions and other deferred compensation arrangements should be reasonable in light of market practices. Our publicly available commentary provides more information on our approach to executive compensation. Where executive compensation appears excessive relative to the performance of the company and/or compensation paid by peers, or where an equity compensation plan is not aligned with shareholders’ interests, we may vote against members of the compensation committee. “Say on Pay” advisory resolutions In cases where there is a “Say on Pay” vote, BIS will respond to the proposal as informed by our evaluation of compensation practices at that particular company and in a manner that appropriately addresses the specific question posed to shareholders. Where we conclude that a company has failed to align pay with performance, we will vote against the management compensation proposal and relevant compensation committee members. Frequency of “Say on Pay” advisory resolutions BIS will generally support annual advisory votes on executive compensation. It is our view that shareholders should have the opportunity to express feedback on annual incentive programs and changes to long-term compensation before multiple cycles are issued. Where a company has failed to implement a “Say on Pay” advisory vote within the frequency period that received the most support from shareholders or a “Say on Pay” resolution is omitted without explanation, BIS may vote against members of the compensation committee. Clawback proposals We generally favor prompt recoupment from any senior executive whose compensation was based on faulty financial reporting or deceptive business practices. We also favor prompt recoupment from any senior executive whose behavior caused material financial harm to shareholders, material reputational risk to the company, or resulted in a criminal proceeding, even if such actions did not ultimately result in a material restatement of past results. This includes, but is not limited to, settlement agreements arising from such behavior and paid for directly by the company. We typically support shareholder proposals on these matters unless the company already has a robust clawback policy that sufficiently addresses our concerns. Employee stock purchase plans Employee stock purchase plans (“ESPP”) are an important part of a company’s overall human capital management strategy and can provide performance incentives to help align employees’ interests with those of shareholders. The most common form of ESPP qualifies for favorable tax treatment under Section 423 of the Internal Revenue Code. We will typically support qualified ESPP proposals. Equity compensation plans BIS supports equity plans that align the economic interests of directors, managers, and other employees with those of shareholders. Boards should establish policies prohibiting the use of equity awards in a manner that could disrupt the intended alignment with shareholder interests, such as the excessive pledging or hedging of stock. We may support shareholder proposals requesting the establishment of such policies. Our evaluation of equity compensation plans is based on a company’s executive pay and performance relative to peers and whether the plan plays a significant role in a pay-for-performance disconnect. We generally oppose plans that contain “evergreen” provisions, which allow for automatic annual increases of shares available for grant without requiring further shareholder approval; we note that the aggregate impacts of such increases are difficult to predict and may lead to significant dilution. We also generally oppose plans that allow for repricing without shareholder approval. We may oppose plans that provide for the acceleration of vesting of equity awards even in situations where an actual change of control may not occur. We encourage companies to structure their change of control provisions to require the termination of the covered employee before acceleration or special payments are triggered (commonly referred to as “double trigger” change of control provisions). Golden parachutes We generally view golden parachutes as encouragement to management to consider transactions that might be beneficial to shareholders. However, a large potential payout under a golden parachute arrangement also presents the risk of motivating a management team to support a sub-optimal sale price for a company. When determining whether to support or oppose an advisory vote on a golden parachute plan, BIS may consider several factors, including: Whether we determine that the triggering event is in the best interests of shareholders Whether management attempted to maximize shareholder value in the triggering event The percentage of total premium or transaction value that will be transferred to the management team, rather than shareholders, as a result of the golden parachute payment Whether excessively large excise tax gross-up payments are part of the pay-out Whether the pay package that serves as the basis for calculating the golden parachute payment was reasonable in light of performance and peers Whether the golden parachute payment will have the effect of rewarding a management team that has failed to effectively manage the company It may be difficult to anticipate the results of a plan until after it has been triggered; as a result, BIS may vote against a golden parachute proposal even if the golden parachute plan under review was approved by shareholders when it was implemented. We may support shareholder proposals requesting that implementation of such arrangements require shareholder approval. Option exchanges There may be legitimate instances where underwater options create an overhang on a company’s capital structure and a repricing or option exchange may be warranted. We will evaluate these instances on a case-by-case basis. BIS may support a request to reprice or exchange underwater options under the following circumstances: The company has experienced significant stock price decline as a result of macroeconomic trends, not individual company performance Directors and executive officers are excluded; the exchange is value neutral or value creative to shareholders; tax, accounting, and other technical considerations have been fully contemplated There is clear evidence that absent repricing, employee incentives, retention, and/or recruiting may be impacted BIS may also support a request to exchange underwater options in other circumstances, if we determine that the exchange is in the best interests of shareholders. Supplemental executive retirement plans BIS may support shareholder proposals requesting to put extraordinary benefits contained in supplemental executive retirement plans (“SERP”) to a shareholder vote unless the company’s executive pension plans do not contain excessive benefits beyond what is offered under employee-wide plans. Material sustainability-related risks and opportunities It is our view that well-run companies, where appropriate, effectively evaluate and manage material sustainability-related risks and opportunities9 as a core component of their long-term value creation for shareholder and business strategy. At the board level, appropriate governance structures and responsibilities allow for effective oversight of the strategic implementation of material sustainability issues. When assessing how to vote – including on the election of directors and relevant shareholder proposals – robust disclosures are essential for investors to understand, where appropriate, how companies are integrating material sustainability risks and opportunities across their business and strategic, long-term planning. Where a company has failed to appropriately provide robust disclosures and evidence of effective business practices, BIS may express concerns through our engagement and voting. As part of this consideration, we encourage companies to produce sustainability-related disclosures sufficiently in advance of their annual meeting so that the disclosures can be considered in relevant vote decisions. We encourage disclosures aligned with the reporting framework developed by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), supported by industry-specific metrics, such as those identified by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), now part of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) under the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation.10 While the TCFD framework was developed to support climate-related risk disclosures, the four pillars of the TCFD – governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets – are a useful way for companies to disclose how they identify, assess, manage, and oversee a variety of sustainability-related risks and opportunities. SASB’s11 industry-specific metrics are beneficial in helping companies identify key performance indicators (“KPIs”) across various dimensions of sustainability that are considered to be financially material. We recognize that some companies may report using different standards, which may be required by regulation, or one of a number of private standards. In such cases, we ask that companies highlight the metrics that are industry- or company-specific. We look to companies to: Disclose the identification, assessment, management, and oversight of material sustainability-related risks and opportunities in accordance with the four pillars of TCFD Publish material, investor-relevant, industry-specific metrics and rigorous targets, aligned with SASB (ISSB) or comparable sustainability reporting standards Companies should also disclose any material supranational standards adopted, the industry initiatives in which they participate, any peer group benchmarking undertaken, and any assurance processes to help investors understand their approach to sustainable and responsible business conduct. Climate risk It is our view that climate change has become a key factor in many companies’ long-term prospects. As such, as long-term investors, we are interested in understanding how companies may be impacted by material climate-related risks and opportunities-just as we seek to understand other business-relevant risks and opportunities-and how these factors are considered within their strategy in a manner that is consistent with the company’s business model and sector. Specifically, we look for companies to disclose strategies that they have in place that mitigate and are resilient to any material risks to their long-term business model associated with a range of climate-related scenarios, including a scenario in which global warming is limited to well below 2°C, and considering global ambitions to achieve a limit of 1.5°C.12 It is, of course, up to each company to define their own strategy: that is not the role of BlackRock or other investors. BIS recognizes that climate change can be challenging for many companies, as they seek to drive long-term value by mitigating risks and capturing opportunities. A growing number of companies, financial institutions, as well as governments, have committed to advancing decarbonization in line with the Paris Agreement. There is growing consensus that companies can benefit from the more favorable macro-economic environment under an orderly, timely, and equitable global energy transition.13 Yet, the path ahead is deeply uncertain and uneven, with different parts of the economy moving at different speeds.14 Many companies are asking what their role should be in contributing to an orderly and equitable transition-in ensuring a reliable energy supply and energy security and in protecting the most vulnerable from energy price shocks and economic dislocation. In this context, we encourage companies to include in their disclosures a business plan for how they intend to deliver long-term financial performance through a transition to global net zero carbon emissions, consistent with their business model and sector. We look to companies to disclose short-, medium-, and long-term targets, ideally science-based targets where these are available for their sector, for Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) reductions and to demonstrate how their targets are consistent with the long-term economic interests of their shareholders. Many companies have an opportunity to use and contribute to the development of low carbon energy sources and technologies that will be essential to decarbonizing the global economy over time. We also recognize that continued investment in traditional energy sources, including oil and gas, is required to maintain an orderly and equitable transition-and that divestiture of carbon-intensive assets is unlikely to contribute to global emissions reductions. We encourage companies to disclose how their capital allocation to various energy sources is consistent with their strategy. At this stage, we view Scope 3 emissions differently from Scopes 1 and 2, given methodological complexity, regulatory uncertainty, concerns about double-counting, and lack of direct control by companies. While we welcome any disclosures and commitments companies choose to make regarding Scope 3 emissions, we recognize that these are provided on a good-faith basis as methodology develops. Our publicly available commentary provides more information on our approach to climate risk and the global energy transition. Natural capital The management of nature-related factors is increasingly a core component of some companies’ ability to generate sustainable, long-term financial returns for shareholders, particularly where a company’s strategy is heavily reliant on the availability of natural capital, or whose supply chains are exposed to locations with nature-related risks. We look for such companies to disclose15 how they consider their reliance on and use of natural capital, including appropriate risk oversight and relevant metrics and targets, to understand how these factors are integrated into strategy. We will evaluate these disclosures to inform our view of how a company is managing material nature-related risks and opportunities, as well as in our assessment of relevant shareholder proposals. Our publicly available commentary provides more information on our approach to natural capital. Key stakeholder interests In order to deliver long-term value for shareholders, companies should also consider the interests of their key stakeholders. While stakeholder groups may vary across industries, they are likely to include employees; business partners (such as suppliers and distributors); clients and consumers; government and regulators; and the constituents of the communities in which a company operates. Companies that build strong relationships with their key stakeholders are more likely to meet their own strategic objectives, while poor relationships may create adverse impacts that expose a company to legal, regulatory, operational, and reputational risks. Companies should effectively oversee and mitigate material risks related to stakeholders with appropriate due diligence processes and board oversight. Where we determine that company is not appropriately considering their key stakeholder interests in a way that poses material financial risk to the company and its shareholders, we may vote against relevant directors or support shareholder proposals related to these topics. Our publicly available commentary provides more information on our approach. Conversely, we note that some shareholder proposals seek to address topics that are clearly within the purview of certain stakeholders. For example, we recognize that topics around taxation and tax reporting are within the domain of local, state, and federal authorities. BIS will generally not support these proposals. Human capital management A company’s approach to human capital management (“HCM”) is a critical factor in fostering an inclusive, diverse, and engaged workforce, which contributes to business continuity, innovation, and long-term value creation. Consequently, we ask companies to demonstrate a robust approach to HCM and provide shareholders with disclosures to understand how their approach aligns with their stated strategy and business model. Clear and consistent disclosures on these matters are critical for investors to make an informed assessment of a company’s HCM practices. Companies should disclose the steps they are taking to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion; job categories and workforce demographics; and their responses to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s EEO-1 Survey. Where we believe a company’s disclosures or practices fall short relative to the market or peers, or we are unable to ascertain the board and management’s effectiveness in overseeing related risks and opportunities, we may vote against members of the appropriate committee or support relevant shareholder proposals. Our publicly available commentary provides more information on our approach to HCM. Corporate political activities Companies may engage in certain political activities, within legal and regulatory limits, in order to support public policy matters material to the companies’ long-term strategies. These activities can also create risks, including: the potential for allegations of corruption; certain reputational risks; and risks that arise from the complex legal, regulatory, and compliance considerations associated with corporate political spending and lobbying activity. Companies that engage in political activities should develop and maintain robust processes to guide these activities and mitigate risks, including board oversight. We depend on companies to provide accessible and clear disclosures so that investors can easily understand how their political activities support their long-term strategy, including on stated public policy priorities. When presented with shareholder proposals requesting increased disclosure on corporate political activities, BIS will evaluate publicly available information to consider how a company’s lobbying and political activities may impact the company. We will also evaluate whether there is general consistency between a company’s stated positions on policy matters material to their strategy and the material positions taken by significant industry groups of which they are a member. We may decide to support a shareholder proposal requesting additional disclosures if we identify a material inconsistency or feel that further transparency may clarify how the company’s political activities support its long-term strategy. Our publicly available commentary provides more information on our approach to corporate political activities. General corporate governance matters IPO governance Boards should disclose how the corporate governance structures adopted upon a company’s initial public offering (“IPO”) are in shareholders’ best long-term interests. We also ask boards to conduct a regular review of corporate governance and control structures, such that boards might evolve foundational corporate governance structures as company circumstances change, without undue costs and disruption to shareholders. In our view, a “one vote for one share” structure is preferred for publicly-traded companies. We also recognize the potential benefits of dual class shares to newly public companies as they establish themselves; however, these structures should have a specific and limited duration. We will generally engage new companies on topics such as classified boards and supermajority vote provisions to amend bylaws, as we think that such arrangements may not be in the best interests of shareholders over the long-term. We may apply a one-year grace period for the application of certain director-related guidelines (including, but not limited to, responsibilities on other public company boards and board composition concerns), during which we ask boards to take steps to bring corporate governance standards in line with our policies. Further, if a company qualifies as an emerging growth company (an “EGC”) under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012 (the “JOBS Act”), we will give consideration to the NYSE and NASDAQ governance exemptions granted under the JOBS Act for the duration such a company is categorized as an EGC. An EGC should have an independent audit committee by the first anniversary of its IPO, with our standard approach to voting on auditors and audit-related issues applicable in full for an EGC on the first anniversary of its IPO. Corporate form Proposals to change a corporation’s form, including those to convert to a public benefit corporation (“PBC”) structure, should clearly articulate the stakeholder groups the company seeks to benefit and provide detail on how the interests of shareholders would be augmented or adversely affected with the change to a PBC. These disclosures should also include the accountability and voting mechanisms that would be available to shareholders. We generally support management proposals to convert to a PBC if our analysis indicates that shareholders’ interests are adequately protected. Corporate form shareholder proposals are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Exclusive forum provisions BIS generally supports proposals to seek exclusive forum for certain shareholder litigation. In cases where a board unilaterally adopts exclusive forum provisions that we consider unfavorable to the interests of shareholders, we will vote against the Independent Chair or Lead Independent director and members of the nominating/governance committee. Reincorporation We will evaluate the economic and strategic rationale behind the company’s proposal to reincorporate on a case-by-case basis. In all instances, we will evaluate the changes to shareholder protections under the new charter/articles/bylaws to assess whether the move increases or decreases shareholder protections. Where we find that shareholder protections are diminished, we may support reincorporation if we determine that the overall benefits outweigh the diminished rights. Multi-jurisdictional companies Where a company is listed on multiple exchanges or incorporated in a country different from their primary listing, we will seek to apply the most relevant market guideline(s) to our analysis of the company’s governance structure and specific proposals on the shareholder meeting agenda. In doing so, we typically consider the governance standards of the company’s primary listing, the market standards by which the company governs themselves, and the market context of each specific proposal on the agenda. If the relevant standards are silent on the issue under consideration, we will use our professional judgment as to what voting outcome would best protect the long-term economic interests of investors. Companies should disclose the rationale for their selection of primary listing, country of incorporation, and choice of governance structures, particularly where there is conflict between relevant market governance practices. Adjourn meeting to solicit additional votes We generally support such proposals unless the agenda contains items that we judge to be detrimental to shareholders’ best long-term economic interests. Bundled proposals Shareholders should have the opportunity to review substantial governance changes individually without having to accept bundled proposals. Where several measures are grouped into one proposal, BIS may reject certain positive changes when linked with proposals that generally contradict or impede the rights and economic interests of shareholders. Other business We oppose voting on matters where we are not given the opportunity to review and understand those measures and carry out an appropriate level of shareholder oversight. Shareholder protections Amendment to charter/articles/bylaws Shareholders should have the right to vote on key corporate governance matters, including changes to governance mechanisms and amendments to the charter/articles/bylaws. We may vote against certain directors where changes to governing documents are not put to a shareholder vote within a reasonable period of time, particularly if those changes have the potential to impact shareholder rights (see “Director elections”). In cases where a board’s unilateral adoption of changes to the charter/articles/bylaws promotes cost and operational efficiency benefits for the company and its shareholders, we may support such action if it does not have a negative effect on shareholder rights or the company’s corporate governance structure. When voting on a management or shareholder proposal to make changes to the charter/articles/bylaws, we will consider in part the company’s and/or proponent’s publicly stated rationale for the changes; the company’s governance profile and history; relevant jurisdictional laws; and situational or contextual circumstances which may have motivated the proposed changes, among other factors. We will typically support amendments to the charter/articles/bylaws where the benefits to shareholders outweigh the costs of failing to make such changes. Proxy access It is our view that long-term shareholders should have the opportunity, when necessary and under reasonable conditions, to nominate directors on the company’s proxy card.16 Securing the right of shareholders to nominate directors without engaging in a control contest can enhance shareholders’ ability to meaningfully participate in the director election process, encourage board attention to shareholder interests, and provide shareholders an effective means of directing that attention where it is lacking. Proxy access mechanisms should provide shareholders with a reasonable opportunity to use this right without stipulating overly restrictive or onerous parameters for use, and also provide assurances that the mechanism will not be subject to abuse by short-term investors, investors without a substantial investment in the company, or investors seeking to take control of the board. In general, we support market-standardized proxy access proposals, which allow a shareholder (or group of up to 20 shareholders) holding three percent of a company’s outstanding shares for at least three years the right to nominate the greater of up to two directors or 20% of the board. Where a standardized proxy access provision exists, we will generally oppose shareholder proposals requesting outlier thresholds. Right to act by written consent In exceptional circumstances and with sufficiently broad support, shareholders should have the opportunity to raise issues of substantial importance without having to wait for management to schedule a meeting. Accordingly, shareholders should have the right to solicit votes by written consent provided that: 1) there are reasonable requirements to initiate the consent solicitation process (in order to avoid the waste of corporate resources in addressing narrowly supported interests); and 2) shareholders receive a minimum of 50% of outstanding shares to effectuate the action by written consent. We may oppose shareholder proposals requesting the right to act by written consent in cases where the proposal is structured for the benefit of a dominant shareholder to the exclusion of others, or if the proposal is written to discourage the board from incorporating appropriate mechanisms to avoid the waste of corporate resources when establishing a right to act by written consent. Additionally, we may oppose shareholder proposals requesting the right to act by written consent if the company already provides a shareholder right to call a special meeting that offers shareholders a reasonable opportunity to raise issues of substantial importance without having to wait for management to schedule a meeting. Right to call a special meeting In exceptional circumstances and with sufficiently broad support, shareholders should have the opportunity to raise issues of substantial importance without having to wait for management to schedule a meeting. Accordingly, shareholders should have the right to call a special meeting in cases where a reasonably high proportion of shareholders (typically a minimum of 15% but no higher than 25%) are required to agree to such a meeting before it is called. However, we may oppose this right in cases where the proposal is structured for the benefit of a dominant shareholder, or where a lower threshold may lead to an ineffective use of corporate resources. We generally think that a right to act via written consent is not a sufficient alternative to the right to call a special meeting. Consent solicitation While BlackRock is supportive of the shareholder rights to act by written consent and call a special meeting, BlackRock is subject to certain regulations and laws that place restrictions and limitations on how BlackRock can interact with the companies in which we invest on behalf of our clients, including our ability to participate in consent solicitations. As a result, BlackRock will generally not participate in consent solicitations or related processes. However, once an item comes to a shareholder vote, we uphold our fiduciary duty to vote in the best long-term interests of our clients, where we are authorized to do so. Simple majority voting We generally favor a simple majority voting requirement to pass proposals. Therefore, we will generally support the reduction or the elimination of supermajority voting requirements to the extent that we determine shareholders’ ability to protect their economic interests is improved. Nonetheless, in situations where there is a substantial or dominant shareholder, supermajority voting may be protective of minority shareholder interests, and we may support supermajority voting requirements in those situations. Virtual meetings Shareholders should have the opportunity to participate in the annual and special meetings for the companies in which they are invested, as these meetings facilitate an opportunity for shareholders to provide feedback and hear from the board and management. While these meetings have traditionally been conducted in-person, virtual meetings are an increasingly viable way for companies to utilize technology to facilitate shareholder accessibility, inclusiveness, and cost efficiencies. Shareholders should have a meaningful opportunity to participate in the meeting and interact with the board and management in these virtual settings; companies should facilitate open dialogue and allow shareholders to voice concerns and provide feedback without undue censorship. Relevant shareholder proposals are assessed on a case-by-case basis.   1 A BDC is a special investment vehicle under the Investment Company Act of 1940 that is designed to facilitate capital formation for small and middle-market companies. 2 To this end, we do not view shareholder proposals asking for the separation of Chair and CEO to be a proxy for other concerns we may have at the company for which a vote against directors would be more appropriate. Rather, support for such a proposal might arise in the case of overarching and sustained governance concerns such as lack of independence or failure to oversee a material risk over consecutive years. 3 For a discussion on the different impacts of diversity see: McKinsey, “Diversity Wins: How Inclusion Matters”, May 2022; Harvard Business Review, Diverse Teams Feel Less Comfortable – and That’s Why They Perform Better, September 2016; “Do Diverse Directors Influence DEI Outcomes“, September 2022 4 We take a case-by-case approach and consider the size of the board in our evaluation of overall composition and diversity. Business model, strategy, location, and company size may also impact our analysis of board diversity. We acknowledge that these factors may also play into the various elements of diversity that a board may attract. We look for disclosures from companies to help us understand their approach and do not prescribe any particular board composition. 5 Including, but not limited to, individuals who identify as Black or African American, Hispanic or Latinx, Asian, Native American or Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander; individuals who identify as LGBTQ+; individuals who identify as underrepresented based on national, Indigenous, religious, or cultural identity; individuals with disabilities; and veterans. 6 Special situations are broadly defined as events that are non-routine and differ from the normal course of business for a company’s shareholder meeting, involving a solicitation other than by management with respect to the exercise of voting rights in a manner inconsistent with management’s recommendation. These may include instances where shareholders nominate director candidates, oppose the view of management and/or the board on mergers, acquisitions, or other transactions, etc. 7 Front-loaded awards are generally those that accelerate the grant of multiple years’ worth of compensation in a single year. 8 “Special awards” refers to awards granted outside the company’s typical compensation program. 9 By material sustainability-related risks and opportunities, we mean the drivers of risk and value creation in a company’s business model that have an environmental or social dependency or impact. Examples of environmental issues include, but are not limited to, water use, land use, waste management, and climate risk. Examples of social issues include, but are not limited to, human capital management, impacts on the communities in which a company operates, customer loyalty, and relationships with regulators. It is our view that well-run companies will effectively evaluate and manage material sustainability-related risks and opportunities relevant to their businesses. Governance is the core means by which boards can oversee the creation of durable, long-term value. Appropriate risk oversight of business-relevant and material sustainability-related considerations is a component of a sound governance framework. 10 The International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation announced in November 2021 the formation of an International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) to develop a comprehensive global baseline of high-quality sustainability disclosure standards to meet investors’ information needs. SASB standards will over time be adapted to ISSB standards but are the reference reporting tool in the meantime. 11 The ISSB has committed to build upon the SASB standards, which identify material, sustainability-related disclosures across sectors. SASB Standards can be used to provide a baseline of investor-focused sustainability disclosure and to implement the principles-based framework recommended by the TCFD, which is also incorporated into the ISSB’s Climate Exposure Draft. Similarly, SASB Standards enable robust implementation of the Integrated Reporting Framework, providing the comparability sought by investors. 12  The global aspiration to achieve a net-zero global economy by 2050 is reflective of aggregated efforts; governments representing over 90% of GDP have committed to move to net-zero over the coming decades. In determining how to vote on behalf of clients who have authorized us to do so, we look to companies only to address issues within their control and do not anticipate that they will address matters that are the domain of public policy. 13  For example, BlackRock’s Capital Markets Assumptions anticipate 25 points of cumulative economic gains over a 20-year period in an orderly transition as compared to the alternative. This better macro environment will support better economic growth, financial stability, job growth, productivity, as well as ecosystem stability and health outcomes. 14  https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/literature/whitepaper/bii-managing-the-net-zero-transition-february-2022.pdf 15 While guidance is still under development for a unified disclosure framework related to natural capital, the emerging recommendations of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), may prove useful to some companies. 16 BlackRock is subject to certain regulations and laws in the United States that place restrictions and limitations on how BlackRock can interact with the companies in which we invest on behalf of our clients, including our ability to submit shareholder proposals or elect directors to the board.

Proxy Voting – Boston Partners. Boston Partners Global Investors, Inc. (“Boston Partners”) is an investment adviser comprised of two divisions, Boston Partners and Weiss, Peck & Greer Partners (“WPG”). Boston Partners’ Governance Committee (the “Committee”) is comprised of representatives from portfolio management, securities analyst, portfolio research, quantitative research, investor relations, sustainability and engagement, and legal/compliance teams. The Committee is responsible for administering and overseeing Boston Partners’ proxy voting process. The Committee makes decisions on proxy policy, establishes formal Proxy Voting Policies (the “Proxy Voting Policies”) and updates the Proxy Voting Policies as necessary, but no less frequently than annually. In addition, the Committee, in its sole discretion, delegates certain functions to internal departments and/or engages third-party vendors to assist in the proxy voting process. Finally, members of the Committee are responsible for evaluating and resolving conflicts of interest relating to Boston Partners’ proxy voting process. To assist Boston Partners in carrying out our responsibilities with respect to proxy activities, Boston Partners has engaged Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (“ISS”), a third-party corporate governance research service, which is registered as an investment adviser. ISS receives all proxy-related materials for securities held in client accounts and votes the proposals in accordance with Boston Partners’ Proxy Voting Policies. ISS assists Boston Partners with voting execution, through an electronic vote management system that allows ISS to pre-populate and automatically submit votes in accordance with Boston Partners’ Proxy Voting Policies. While Boston Partners may consider ISS’s recommendations on proxy issues, Boston Partners bears ultimate responsibility for proxy voting decisions and can change votes via ISS’ electronic voting platform at any time before a meeting’s cut-off date. ISS also provides recordkeeping and vote-reporting services. How Boston Partners Votes   For those clients who delegate proxy voting authority to Boston Partners, Boston Partners has full discretion over votes cast on behalf of clients. All proxy votes on behalf of clients are voted the same way; however, Boston Partners may refrain from voting proxies for certain clients in certain markets. These arrangements are outlined in respective client investment management agreements. Boston Partners may also refrain from voting proxies on behalf of clients when shares are out on loan; when share blocking is required to vote; where it is not possible to vote shares; where there are legal or operational difficulties; where Boston Partners believes the administrative burden and/ or associated cost exceeds the expected benefit to a client; or where not voting or abstaining produces the desired outcome. Boston Partners meets with ISS at least annually to review ISS policy changes, themes, methodology, and to review the Proxy Voting Policies. The information is taken to the Committee to discuss and decide what changes, if any, need to be made to the Proxy Voting Policies for the upcoming year. The Proxy Voting Policies provide standard positions on likely issues for the upcoming proxy season. In determining how proxies should be voted, including those proxies the Proxy Voting Policies do not address or where the Proxy Voting Policies’ application is ambiguous, Boston Partners primarily focuses on maximizing the economic value of its clients’ investments. This is accomplished through engagements with Boston Partners’ analysts and issuers, as well as independent research conducted by Boston Partners’ Sustainability and Engagement Team. In the case of social and political responsibility issues that, in its view, do not primarily involve financial considerations, it is Boston Partners’ objective to support shareholder proposals that it believes promote good corporate citizenship. If Boston Partners believes that any research provided by ISS or other sources is incorrect, that research is ignored in the proxy voting decision, which is escalated to the Committee so that all relevant facts can be discussed, and a final vote determination can be made. Boston Partners is alerted to proposals that may require more detailed analysis via daily system generated refer notification emails. These emails prompt the Committee Secretary to call a Committee meeting to discuss the items in question. Although Boston Partners has instructed ISS to vote in accordance with the Proxy Voting Policies, Boston Partners retains the right to deviate from those Proxy Voting Policies if, in its estimation, doing so would be in the best interest of clients. Conflicts   Boston Partners believes clients are sufficiently insulated from any actual or perceived conflicts Boston Partners may encounter between its interests and those of its clients because Boston Partners votes proxies based on the predetermined Proxy Voting Policies. However, as noted, Boston Partners may deviate from the Proxy Voting Policies in certain circumstances or its Proxy Voting Policies may not address certain proxy voting proposals. If a member of Boston Partners’ research or portfolio management team recommends that Boston Partners vote a particular proxy proposal in a manner inconsistent with the Proxy Voting Policies or if the Proxy Voting Policies do not address a particular proposal, Boston Partners will adhere to certain procedures designed to ensure that the decision to vote the particular proxy proposal is based on the best interest of Boston Partners’ clients. These procedures require the individual requesting a deviation from the Proxy Voting Policies to complete a Conflicts Questionnaire (the “Questionnaire”) along with written documentation of the economic rationale supporting the request. The Questionnaire seeks to identify possible relationships with the parties involved in the proxy that may not be apparent. Based on the responses to the Questionnaire, the Committee (or a subset of the Committee) will determine whether it believes a material conflict of interest is present. If a material conflict of interest is found to exist, Boston Partners will vote in accordance with client instructions, seek the recommendation of an independent third party or resolve the conflict in such other manner as Boston Partners believes is appropriate, including by making its own determination that a particular vote is, notwithstanding the conflict, in the best interest of clients. Oversight   Meetings and upcoming votes are reviewed by the Committee Secretary with a focus on votes against management. Votes on behalf of Boston Partners’ clients are reviewed and compared against ISS’ recommendations. When auditing vote instructions, which Boston Partners does at least annually, ballots voted for a specified period are requested from ISS, and a sample of those meetings are reviewed by Boston Partners’ Operations Team. The information is then forwarded to compliance/ the Committee Secretary for review. Any perceived exceptions are reviewed with ISS and an analysis of what the potential vote impact would have been is conducted. ISS’ most recent SOC-1 indicates they have their own control and audit personnel and procedures, and a sample of ballots are randomly selected on a quarterly basis. ISS compares ballots to applicable vote instructions recorded in their database. Due diligence meetings with ISS are conducted periodically. Disclosures   A copy of Boston Partners’ Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures, as updated from time to time, as well as information regarding the voting of securities for a client account are available upon request from your Boston Partners relationship manager. A copy of Boston Partners’ Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures are also available at https://www.boston-partners.com/. For general inquiries, contact (617) 832-8149.

Proxy Voting – FIAM I. Introduction   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 75 years. Our core principles sit at the heart of our voting philosophy; putting our customers’ and fund shareholders’ long-term interests first and investing in companies that share our approach to creating value over the long-term guides everything we do. 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, Fidelity considers factors that are financially material to individual companies and investing funds’ investment objectives and strategies in support of maximizing long-term shareholder value. This includes considering the company’s approach to financial and operational, human, and natural capital and the impact of that approach on the potential future value of the business. 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. Board of Directors and Corporate Governance  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. There are no racially or ethnically diverse directors. 4. The director is a public company CEO who sits on more than two unaffiliated public company boards. 5. The director, other than a CEO, sits on more than five 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. Compensation  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. Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Say on Pay) and Frequency of Say on Pay Vote  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 committee if: 1.The compensation appears misaligned with shareholder interests or is otherwise problematic and results in concerns with: a)The alignment of executive compensation and company performance relative to peers; and b)The structure of the compensation program, including factors outlined above under the section entitled Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Say on Pay) and Frequency of Say on Pay Vote. 2. The company has not adequately addressed concerns communicated by Fidelity in the process of discussing executive compensation. 3. 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. Environmental and Social Issues  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 consideration of human and natural capital 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 human and natural capital 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. Fidelity evaluates shareholder proposals concerning natural and human capital topics. To engage and vote more effectively on the growing number of submitted proposals on these topics, we developed a four-point decision-making framework. In general, Fidelity will more likely support proposals that: •Address a topic that our research has identified as financially material; •Provide disclosure of new or additional information to investors, improving transparency; •Provide value to the business or investors by improving the landscape of investment-decision relevant information or contributing to our understanding of a company’s processes and governance of the topic in question; and •Are realistic or practical for the company to comply with. VI. Anti-Takeover Provisions and Shareholders Rights Plans  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. Anti-Takeover Provisions and Director Elections  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. Capital Structure and Incorporation  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. Shares of Fidelity Funds or other non-Fidelity Funds  When a Fidelity fund invests in an underlying Fidelity fund with public shareholders or a non-Fidelity investment company or business development company, Fidelity will generally 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, except where not permitted under applicable laws and regulations. X. Foreign Markets  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. Securities on Loan  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. Avoiding Conflicts of Interest  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. Conclusion  Since its founding more than 75 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® 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® Index or the Russell Global ex-U.S. Large Cap Index that is not a Micro-Capitalization Company.

Fidelity International’s Proxy Voting Guidelines. 

1 General principles and application 

1.1 Voting authority and decision-making 

1.1.1 Voting execution and oversight: The Sustainable Investing Team of Fidelity International (“Fidelity”) is responsible for the execution of voting, the oversight, decision-making and application of Fidelity’s policies on voting.  

1.1.2 Non-routine investment proposals and special circumstances: Where necessary, non-routine investment proposals or other special circumstances are evaluated, in conjunction with the Sustainable Investing Team, by the appropriate Fidelity investment research analysts or portfolio managers.  

1.1.3 SIOC authority: All votes are subject to the authority of the Global Head of Stewardship and Sustainable Investing and the Sustainable Investing Operating Committee (SIOC).  

1.2 Voting approach 

1.2.1 Voting coverage: We seek to vote all equity securities where possible. In certain special situations, we may determine not to submit a vote where the costs outweigh the associated benefits. Fixed income managers are consulted on voting matters related to bondholder meetings.  

1.2.2 Routine proposals: Except as set forth in these guidelines, we will usually vote in favour of the recommendations set out by company management and routine proposals.  

1.2.3 Abstentions: We will vote to abstain on proposals if doing so is deemed to be in the best interests of investors or in some cases where the necessary information has not been provided. In certain limited circumstances, we may also vote to abstain in order to send a cautionary message to a company.  

1.2.4 Voting policy application: We make voting decisions on a case-by-case basis and take account of the specific company, sector considerations, prevailing local market standards and best practice, and our voting principles and guidelines. The application of our approach will also vary regionally based on factors including relevant agenda items, current expectations and phased implementation of policies. Where voting differently to our general approach is in the best interests of our clients, we will address these instances on a case- by-case basis. We seek to ensure that our approach to voting is aligned to our principles and in the best interests of our clients. Our voting application will also take into account our engagement strategy, focus areas and current prioritisation criteria.  

1.2.5 Issues not covered by principles or guidelines: We will assess where necessary on a case-by-case basis items or issues not clearly covered by our voting principles or guidelines.  

1.2.6 Voting application to agenda items: We will generally vote against items that directly correlate to any concern we have. Where there is no corresponding agenda item, we may vote against other proposals to signal our view and in more severe situations may vote against all agenda items to express our dissatisfaction.  

1.2.7 Engagement: We assess the merits of each proposal using company disclosure and internal as well as external research. When deemed necessary, we engage with companies to seek a better understanding of the proposal in order to make a more informed voting decision. We will also endeavour to engage with relevant stakeholders if needed to achieve a comprehensive and fair view of the item under review.  

1.3 Voting integration with sustainable investing factors 

1.3.1 Sustainability-related proposals: We evaluate proposals that relate to sustainability issues on a case-by-case basis, guided by our sustainable investing policy, our investment approach and policies, and widely accepted sustainable principles and frameworks such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We also reference standards from organisations including the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), and the CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project).  

1.3.2 Escalation of ESG concerns to voting: We seek to integrate voting as a tool to signal our concerns, and promote positive change, in relation to ESG issues that have been identified and discussed with the company but have seen no sign of improvement over a prolonged period. We will consider voting against the re- election of the chair or directors that are considered most accountable in this case.  

1.4 Conflicts of interest 

1.4.1 Conflicts of interest: In instances where there may be a conflict, we will either vote in accordance with the recommendation of our principal third-party research provider or, if no recommendation is available, we will either not vote or abstain in accordance with local regulations.  

1.4.2 Votes on our funds: Fidelity’s Sustainable Investing Team will not vote at shareholder meetings of any Fidelity funds unless specifically instructed by a client.  

2 Shareholder rights and authority 

2.1 Multiple voting rights: We support the principle of one share, one vote and will vote against the authorisation of stock with differential voting rights if the issuance of such stock would adversely affect the voting rights of existing shareholders.  

2.2 Transfer of authority from shareholders to directors: We will generally vote against any limitation on shareholder rights or the transfer of authority from shareholders to directors. Furthermore, we will typically always support proposals that enhance shareholder rights or maximise shareholder value.  

2.3 Anti-takeover measures: We will vote against anti-takeover proposals including share authorities that can be used as a control-enhancing mechanism.  

2.4 Poison pill without approval: We will consider voting against senior management if a poison pill has been implemented without shareholder approval in the last year.  

2.5 Cumulative voting: We will support cumulative voting rights when it is determined they are favourable to the interests of minority shareholders.  

2.6 Voting by poll and disclosure of results: We support proposals to adopt mandatory voting by poll and full disclosure of voting outcomes.  

2.7 Voting practice: We will support proposals to adopt confidential voting and independent vote tabulation practices.  

2.8 Detailed documentation provided in a timely manner: We expect companies to provide adequate detail in shareholder meeting materials and for these materials to be made public sufficiently in advance of the shareholder meeting to enable all investors to make informed decisions.  

2.9 Conversion of stock: We will consider conversion of stock on a case-by-case basis.  

2.10 Shareholder ownership enhanced disclosure: We generally support enhanced shareholder ownership disclosure. However, we may vote against it where, in our view, the threshold obligations are unreasonably onerous.  

2.11 Shareholder ownership disclosure thresholds: We review proposals to reduce ownership percentage disclosure thresholds on a case-by-case basis.  

2.12 Other business: We will vote against proposals that request approval of non-specific items under a request for approval of other business.  

3 Corporate culture and conduct 

3.1 Board composition and independence 

3.1.1 Board independence: We favour robust independent representation on boards and may not support proposals relating to the election of directors where we deem there is an insufficient independence level on the board.  

3.1.2 Board committee independence: We support boards establishing audit, remuneration and nomination committees to enhance the management and scrutiny of these governance areas but will vote against election of directors where we feel the objectivity of these committees is compromised.  

3.1.3 Director independence: We will vote against the election of nominees as independent directors, supervisors, and statutory auditors if, in our view, they lack sufficient independence from the company, its management or its controlling shareholders.  

3.1.4 CEO and chair separation: We favour a separation of the roles of chair and chief executive and will vote in favour of this outcome when the opportunity arises. In markets where there is established separation of the two roles, we will consider voting against nominees deviating from best practice.  

3.1.5 Nominee disclosure: We will vote against director elections in cases where the names of the nominees are not disclosed to shareholders on a timely basis.  

3.1.6 Board renewal: We support periodic and orderly board refreshment and may vote against directors where, in our view, a significant proportion of the board is comprised of directors with excessively long tenures.  

3.2 Board effectiveness, conduct, diversity, inclusion and expertise 

3.2.1 Board effectiveness: Companies should articulate how the board is undertaking its role and functions and demonstrate this by providing key information on material issues. The board should also comment on the skill set, diversity and experience of its members.  

3.2.2 Director attendance: We will vote against the re-election of directors with poor attendance records at previous board or committee meetings without clear justification for the absence.  

3.2.3 Outside directorships on public company boards: We do not support directors serving on a significant number of boards because this may compromise their capacity to fully meet their board responsibilities. The assessment will consider the type of role they undertake at the company and will take into account the positions at related companies and the nature of their business and the differences in market development.  

3.2.4 Tenure of independent directors: We recognise that the independence of directors can diminish over time and we may not support the re-election of directors to independent director roles if their tenure is excessive. Where deemed valuable to the board, we may support a candidate’s re-election to the board in a non-independent non-executive role.  

3.2.5 Board size: We will not support changes to increase a company’s board size, or the election of directors, where we deem the size of the board is excessive. We will also not support reductions in board size that could compromise board effectiveness.  

3.2.6 Contested elections: We will review contested elections on a case-by-case basis.  

3.2.7 Diversity and inclusion: We support enhancing board effectiveness through diversity and inclusion of necessary talents and skill sets on a company board. This includes our support for gender, racially and ethnically diverse boards. Companies that fall short of market or sector best practice with respect to board gender, race and ethnic diversity are expected to adopt objectives for improvement and demonstrate progress over time. In circumstances where we conclude that a board is not addressing this issue with the seriousness or urgency it deserves, additional measures may be considered, including, where appropriate, voting against the re-election of members of the board, which may include the chairman or the chairman of the nomination committee.  

3.2.8 Gender-balanced boards: We support gender diversity on a company’s board and will vote against the election of directors where boards do not have at least 30% female representation at companies in the most developed markets (including the UK, EU, USA and Australia) and 15% female representation in all other markets where standards on gender diversity are still developing. We may also take into account factors including the board size, industry and corporate structure.  

3.2.9 Racially and ethnically diverse and inclusive boards: We support racial and ethnic diversity on a company’s board and will consider voting against the election of accountable directors where there are serious concerns relating to racial or ethnic underrepresentation on the board, or the number is inadequate, based on factors including the board size, industry, and market.  

3.2.10 Mandatory retirement age: We are generally not supportive of mandatory retirement ages for directors and employees.  

3.3 Conduct and accountability 

3.3.1 Corporate culture and conduct: We believe that companies should foster a culture across their organisations of acting lawfully, ethically and responsibly, including enforcing anti-corruption and anti-bribery policies and processes, and where it is clear that there has been serious conduct to the contrary, we will vote against the election of the accountable directors.  

3.3.2 Integrity and competence: We will vote against the election of directors if, in our view, they lack the necessary integrity, competence or capacity to carry out their duties as directors. Relevant factors which may lead us to conclude that a director’s election should not be supported include but are not limited to: involvement in material failures of governance or risk oversight that call into question the nominee’s fitness to serve as a fiduciary; qualifications and experience; and abuse of minority shareholder rights.  

3.3.3 Whistleblowing and risk practice: We support companies meeting minimum legal protection standards with regard to whistleblowing and risk management practices and will vote against directors where we have been made aware that there have been clear significant breaches of expected standards.  

3.3.4 Contingency planning and accountability: We encourage companies to undertake comprehensive contingency planning, taking into account ESG factors, and we may vote against the election of directors where we assess this has been clearly inadequate.  

3.3.5 Majority shareholder abuse: We will vote against board members, where appropriate, in cases where there have been abuses to minority shareholder interests by the company’s controlling shareholder.  

3.3.6 Bundled voting items: Shareholder approval for the election of each director should be sought under individual agenda items. We will generally vote against bundled elections or bundled proposals where we are not supportive of any one or more components of the proposal.  

3.3.7 Local governance codes: We support companies following their local market corporate governance code for best practice and may vote against items where there is a material failing to meet basic local practice.  

4 Audit and financial reporting 

4.1 Audit committee independence: We will vote against members of the audit committee where the committee is not fully composed of non-executive directors and/ or a majority is not independent.  

4.2 Qualified or delayed audit: We will vote against relevant proposals where the audit report is either qualified, we have concerns about its integrity, or it is delayed without sufficient rationale.  

4.3 Auditor independence: We will vote against the appointment of an auditor where there are concerns in relation to their independence based on tenure and remuneration or controversies related to the audit firm.  

4.4 Auditor rotation: We will vote against the auditor appointment where the auditor’s tenure has, in our view, become excessive.  

4.5 Auditor fees: We will consider voting against the auditor appointment and the chairman of the audit committee where non-audit related service fees appear excessive relative to audit fees.  

4.6 Audit independence: We will vote against members of the audit committee where there are concerns in relation to the independence or quality of the audit report or the auditor.  

4.7 Financial reporting: We will vote against financial statements where we have concerns about the content or accuracy of a company’s financial position and reporting.  

4.8 Financial reporting and adherence to accounting practices: We will vote against financial statements where we believe the statements have failed to meet required levels of accounting practice.  

4.9 Financial reporting transparency: We will not support financial statements where we have concerns about the transparency of key issues including material weaknesses and fairness in the company’s tax policies.  

5 Remuneration 

5.1 Approach, alignment and outcomes 

5.1.1 Alignment of interests: We aim to vote against remuneration-related proposals or appropriate directors where we believe there is a clear misalignment between a company’s remuneration structure and the interests of shareholders. Remuneration committees must remain mindful of ensuring that variable pay outcomes broadly reflect shareholders’ experience, and appropriate discretion should be applied when this is not reflected in formulaic outcomes.  

5.1.2 Poor transparency and complexity: We support simple and clear remuneration arrangements and believe these factors help make the expectations placed on participants clearer.  

5.1.3 Votes on remuneration: We will support proposals to give shareholders the right to vote on executive pay practices.  

5.1.4 Remuneration concerns: We will generally vote against remuneration proposals when payments made to executives are considered excessive, overly short-term in nature, or not reflective of company performance.  

5.1.5 Ongoing remuneration concerns: In markets that provide shareholders with the opportunity to vote on a company’s remuneration report, we will consider voting against the re-election of the chairman of the remuneration committee if we vote against the report of the remuneration committee for the second year in a row (assuming no change in personnel in the interim).  

5.1.6 Remuneration committee independence: We do not support the presence of executive directors on the remuneration committee (or its equivalent) of the companies which employ them, and we will consider voting against directors or the remuneration report in these instances when given an opportunity to do so.  

5.1.7 Independent non-executive director pay: We will vote against remuneration granted to independent non-executive directors if the payment may compromise the directors’ objectivity, although the circumstances of individual companies and rationale for pay structure will be considered. We will generally not support arrangements where independent and non-executive directors receive significant fee increases, share options, or payments in cash or shares that are subject to performance targets.  

5.2 Practice and implementation 

5.2.1 Misalignment of remuneration outcomes: We will vote against remuneration proposals where we believe there is a clear misalignment between executive pay and the experience of shareholders, or where material negative outcomes for stakeholders are not appropriately taken into consideration for pay outcomes.  

5.2.2 Pay quantum: We will vote against remuneration proposals where the size of pay or increases in executive pay levels are in our view excessive.  

5.2.3 Aggregate compensation ceiling: We will vote against proposals that seek to make adjustment to an aggregate compensation ceiling for directors where we believe this is excessive or we believe it is not necessary.  

5.2.4 Share ownership: We strongly encourage the long-term retention of shares, and we will consider voting against remuneration proposals if the company lacks policies requiring executives to build up a significant share ownership within a reasonable timeframe. In some markets, we expect share ownership guidelines to require the retention of shares for a period after the director’s mandate has ended. We encourage the use of broad-based share incentive plans for executives and rank-and-file staff. For shares awarded to executives as part of a long-term incentive plan, we will have particular regard for minimum required retention periods. Practice in this regard differs globally but over time we expect all companies to move towards a minimum guaranteed share retention period of at least five years from the date of grant.  

5.2.5 Dilution: We will vote against incentive arrangements if the dilutive effect of shares authorised under the plan is excessive.  

5.2.6 Discounted awards: We will generally vote against options offered with an exercise price of less than 100% of fair market value at the date of grant. Employee share-save schemes may be supported provided the offering price of shares is not less than 80% of the fair market value on the date of grant.  

5.2.7 Re-pricing: We do not support the re- pricing of stock options and will vote against proposals that seek approval for this practice.  

5.2.8 Uncapped awards: We do not favour non-routine remuneration arrangements where the potential awards are uncapped or provide no clarity on the quantum of awards, such as those found in certain value creation plans.  

5.2.9 Re-testing of performance criteria: We do not support arrangements where performance re-testing is permitted. In our view, if performance targets for a given year are not met, then awards for that year should be foregone.  

5.2.10 Material changes to remuneration arrangements: We are not supportive of remuneration arrangements that provide discretion to permit material changes without shareholder approval.  

5.2.11 Holding period: We believe companies should put in place longer holding periods for share awards and our preference is for a minimum retention period of five years for shares granted to top executives. We will vote against arrangements where we deem the holding period too short.  

5.2.12 Performance hurdles reduced: We will generally vote against proposals where performance hurdles attached to remuneration arrangements have been reduced.  

5.2.13 Incentive arrangement criteria: Subject to local market standards, we will generally vote against incentive arrangements where any of the following are met:  

• No performance conditions: We will vote against proposals where there are no performance conditions attached to any of the incentive awards.  

• No disclosure of performance conditions: We will vote against proposals where there is no disclosure of the performance measures to be used.  

• Insufficiently challenging targets: We will vote against proposals where the performance targets are insufficiently challenging.  

• Inadequate proportion of award subject to targets: We will vote against proposals where the proportion of the performance targets attached to the incentive is insufficient.  

• Inadequate vesting period: We will vote against proposals where there is an inadequate vesting period attached to the awards.  

• Vesting on change of control: We will vote against proposals where there is full vesting on a change of control.

5.2.14 Non-standard incentive arrangements: We will review non-standard features relating to incentive arrangements on a case-by-case basis.  

5.2.15 No long-term incentive plan: In certain markets, based on local practices, we may vote against proposals such as the election of directors or the remuneration report, where there is no long-term incentive plan in place at the company.  

5.2.16 Severance packages: We will generally vote against severance packages that are contrary to best practice.  

5.2.17 Non-financial criteria: We will assess the use of non-financial performance criteria in long-term incentive arrangements on a case-by-case basis. Non-financial considerations, either directly linked with strategy implementation or focused on positive stakeholder outcomes, should be integrated into the remuneration policy as appropriate, either through the use of specific targets, modifiers, gateways/ underpins, or in the context of the ex- post review of formulaic remuneration outcomes by the board or remuneration committee. We will consider voting against proposals where we believe companies are not taking non-financial factors adequately into consideration.  

5.2.18 Board and management contracts: We will consider voting against the election of directors or remuneration-related proposals where executive director service contracts do not meet local market best practice.  

5.2.19 Remuneration-related employee loans: We will not support companies providing loans to facilitate participation in their remuneration plans. Employees should access required credit from banks or other third parties.  

5.2.20 Ex gratia payment: We will not generally support ex gratia payments to directors of the company.  

5.2.21 Authority to omit executive compensation disclosure: We will vote against proposals that seek to omit or reduce executive compensation disclosure.  

6 Articles and charter amendments 

6.1 Articles of association: We will vote against changes to a company’s articles of association that are not in the interests of shareholders.  

6.2 Lower quorum requirement: We will vote against amendments to reduce the quorum level for special resolutions and changes to articles of incorporation.  

6.3 Limit number of shareholder representatives at meetings: We do not support proposals that have the potential to restrict or result in a detrimental effect on shareholder rights.  

6.4 Amend provisions on number of directors (increase or decrease maximum board size): We do not support proposals seeking to make changes in board size that would result in the board being too small or too large to function effectively.  

6.5 Require supermajority vote to remove director: We do not support the introduction of provisions that increase the potential difficulty in the removal of a director.  

6.6 Extend directors’ terms: We do not support article amendments seeking to extend directors’ terms.  

6.7 Takeover defence provisions: We do not support anti-takeover devices and accordingly would vote against proposals seeking to add or change provisions to adopt control- enhancing mechanisms.  

7 Investment-related matters 

7.1 Mergers, acquisitions and disposals: We will consider mergers, acquisitions and disposals on a case-by-case basis and vote against where we are not supportive of the transactions.  

7.2 Reorganisations and restructuring: We vote on a case-by-case basis with regard to company reorganisations and restructuring.  

7.3 Takeover bids: We review takeover bids on a case- by-case basis and although usually supportive of current management, where management has failed consistently to deliver on reasonable expectations for shareholder returns and the bid fully recognises the prospects of the company, we may support the proposal.  

7.4 Management buyouts: We review management buyouts on a case-by-case basis and review the opportunity to deliver value to shareholders along with potential conflicts of interest among other factors.  

7.5 Re-incorporation and changes in listings venue: Where a company seeks to make changes to re-incorporate or change its place of listing, we will review these on a case-by-case basis and assess the rationale for the change. We will vote against where there is no merit to the change or it appears contrary to the long-term interests of shareholders.  

8 Capital management 

8.1 Capital allocation: We encourage efficient capital allocation measures but where, in our view, excess cash should be returned to shareholders, we may vote against dividend-related items, directors or in support of shareholder proposals that facilitate improvement.  

8.2 Authority to increase share capital: We will vote against unusual or excessive requests to increase share capital, particularly in respect of proposed increases for companies in jurisdictions without assured pre-emptive rights or where this is to facilitate an anti-takeover device.  

8.3 Issuances with and without pre-emptive rights: We will vote against issuance requests with or without pre-emptive rights that we believe are excessive.  

8.4 Private placements: We will consider voting against board members where private placements have been made with limited offering or contrary to the interests of minority shareholders.  

8.5 Debt issuance: We are generally supportive of companies seeking approval for the issuance of debt providing the terms are not contrary to the interests of existing shareholders.  

8.6 Borrowing powers: We evaluate proposals related to the approval of company borrowing on a case-by-case basis.  

8.7 Share repurchase plans: We are generally supportive of companies seeking to repurchase shares but evaluate these considering broader factors related to the capital allocation.  

8.8 Reissuance of repurchased shares: We consider companies reissuing repurchased shares on a case-by-case basis and may vote against relevant proposals where this is deemed unnecessary or egregious.  

8.9 Corporate guarantees and loan agreements: We evaluate proposals related to the approval of corporate guarantees and loan agreements on a case-by-case basis.  

8.10 Investment of company funds into financial products: We are generally supportive of proposals seeking approval to use idle funds to invest in financial instruments for cash management or capital preservation unless, in our view, the investment would expose shareholders to unnecessary risk.  

8.11 Pledging of assets for debt: We assess proposals seeking the pledging of assets for debt on a case-by-case basis.  

9 Related-party transactions 

9.1 Related-party transactions: We believe that all material related- party transactions should be put to a shareholder vote. We will vote against related-party transactions that are not aligned with the interests of the company’s minority shareholders.  

9.1.1 Conflicted related-party transactions: We will vote against where the terms of a related-party transaction are not equivalent to those that would prevail in an arm’s-length transaction.  

9.1.2 Transaction disclosures: We will vote against where there is inadequate disclosure of key information or supporting evidence including the review of independent directors or financial advisors.  

9.1.3 Transaction pricing: We will not support related-party transactions where there are any concerns about the pricing of the transactions.  

9.1.4 Transaction rationale and timing: We will not support a transaction if the company has not provided adequate detail on the rationale for the transaction and its timing.  

10 Governance of climate change oversight, practice and action 

10.1 Minimum standards of climate change oversight and practice: We aim to vote against the election of members of a company’s board, including the chairman and CEO, and other relevant proposals where, in our view, the company has not met our expectations of standards of climate change oversight and practice. We will take into consideration factors including the markets and industries in which the company is operating.  

10.1.1 We will vote against directors at companies that do not adequately meet our climate change-related expectations, taking into account if they are within industries most affected by climate change and the degree of urgency, where we believe they should be addressing these issues. We believe that all companies should be disclosing:  

• A stated policy on climate change

• Emissions data

• Confirmation of discussion and oversight of climate change at the board level

10.1.2 For companies we believe should be addressing climate change-related issues most urgently, including those within industries most affected by climate change, we believe that they should be undertaking and disclosing:  

• Targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions

• Description of the impacts of climate-related risks and opportunities on their businesses, strategy and financial planning

• Scenario planning including multiple scenarios

• Impact scenario referencing a 1.5°C limit  

10.2 Financing climate change: We will vote against directors where there are material concerns or failures with practices related to financing climate change.  

10.3 Climate change and engagement: In relation to ESG engagements on climate practices with company management, we will vote against the election of members of a company’s board or other appropriate agenda items where the company has not adequately addressed our concerns.  

10.4 Climate action plans (‘Say on Climate’): We support companies setting out climate action plans and improvements that result in votes at AGMs to act as accountability mechanisms for the execution of these plans.  

10.5 Climate change-related shareholder proposals: Our firm-wide positioning on climate, including support of the Paris Agreement, informs our climate voting approach both on holding boards accountable for not meeting minimum standards and on supporting shareholder proposals that improve climate-related corporate behaviours and disclosures. Climate- related shareholder proposal votes are evaluated on the merits of the proposal. In all cases however we take a holistic view of factors when determining our final decision.  

10.6 Climate change-related shareholder proposals on improved disclosure: We support shareholder proposals that call for enhanced disclosure on climate-related reporting and practice, encouraging this to be in accordance with the Task Force on Climate- related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) recommendations, and will consider supporting all shareholder proposals that promote this objective and are reasonable for the company to implement.  

10.7 Climate change-related and lobbying-related shareholder proposals: We support enhanced disclosure and best practice in relation to company practices on climate-related lobbying and will support all shareholder proposals that are reasonable for the company to implement and are aligned with their commitments and future development.  

10.8 Climate change-related shareholder proposals on the management of greenhouse gas emissions: We believe it is critical that all companies properly take into account and manage their greenhouse gas emissions and targets and will support, where reasonable, shareholder proposals seeking to improve these practices.  

11 Environmental and social responsibilities 

11.1 Environmental and social responsibility engagement: We will vote against directors that we consider accountable for major corporate failures in relation to their duties to manage relationships with stakeholders on material environmental or social concerns.  

11.2 Waste and pollution: We will vote against directors where it is clear there have been material failings by a company to minimise the negative externalities caused by its businesses or failure to monitor product quality and the chemical safety of its products for the environment and human health upon disposal.  

11.3 Water and aquaculture: We will vote against directors where a company has clearly failed to properly manage the sourcing of water, failed to mitigate potential water scarcity risks, or are accountable for failings resulting in material pollution or contamination.  

11.4 Sustainable protein: We will vote against directors where there are material concerns or failures with practices related to sustainable protein.  

11.5 Biodiversity: We will vote against directors where they have clearly failed to manage or implement the capabilities to monitor and assess material environmental risks related to biodiversity matters and reduce the ecological impact of their operations.  

11.6 Responsible palm oil: We will vote against directors where there are material concerns or failures with practices related to responsible palm oil.  

11.7 Supply chain sustainability, human rights, labour rights, and modern slavery: We will vote against the election of members of a company’s board of directors, including the chair and CEO, and other appropriate proposals where, in our view, the company has not met the minimum standards of monitoring and overseeing itself and its suppliers with regard to human rights and minimising the risk of modern slavery or human rights violations occurring within its organisation or supply chain.  

11.8 Health and safety: We will vote against directors where there are failings in the provision of safe working conditions and managing health and safety risks.  

11.9 Data privacy, cyber security and digital ethics: Where a company has failed to meet our expectations on matters of data privacy, cybersecurity or digital ethics, we will vote against directors we view as accountable.  

11.10 Political donations and lobbying: We support robust disclosures on corporate political lobbying activities. We will consider voting against management, typically on shareholder proposals, where there is a misalignment between involvement with political donations and lobbying activities and a company’s own stated strategy or commitments or such lobbying activity is in conflict with the interests of stakeholders.  

11.11 Corporate sustainability reporting: We will vote against directors where there are material issues or inaccuracies included within a company’s sustainability reporting or the reporting level is significantly below expected standards.  

12 Shareholder-sponsored proposals 

12.1 Shareholder proposals: We evaluate shareholder proposals on a case-by-case basis and our consideration includes the company’s perspective and response to the proposal, the proponents’ case and the proposal’s intention, whether the proposal is binding or advisory in nature, current market best practices, impact on shareholder value, and Fidelity’s sustainable investing policies.  

12.2 Voting in favour of reasonable shareholder proposals: We aim to support ESG shareholder proposals that address and improve issues of material importance to the company and its stakeholders. Shareholder proposals are evaluated based on the merit of the proposal.  

12.3 Shareholder proposals seeking environmental and social improvement: We will support all shareholder proposals we deem reasonable that relate to improvements in the practices, disclosure and management of environmental and social impacts of company operations which include areas of our thematic engagement and general focus areas including:  

• Climate change

• Diversity and inclusion

• Waste and pollution

• Water and aquaculture

• Sustainable protein

• Biodiversity

• Responsible palm oil

• Deforestation

• Supply chain sustainability, human rights, labour rights, and modern slavery

• Health and safety

• Data privacy, cyber security and digital ethics

• Political donations and lobbying

• Corporate sustainability reporting

12.4 Failure to implement previously approved shareholder proposals: If a shareholder proposal receives majority support but is not implemented by the company, we will consider voting against board members at subsequent shareholder meetings.

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 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 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 ESG Stewardship 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.   • Unequal Voting Rights. If the Company maintains a common stock structure with unequal voting rights. Exceptions to the policy may include, but aren’t limited to: Newly-public companies with a reasonable sunset provision, where the unequal voting rights are considered de minimis; or the company provides sufficient safeguards for minority shareholders.   • 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 Anti-Takeover Proposals, 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 Anti-Takeover 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 Out of the Control Shares Acquisition Statutes.  VI. Vote AGAINST the introduction of new classes of Stock with Differential Voting Rights.  VII. Vote AGAINST introduction and FOR elimination of Cumulative Voting Rights, except in certain instances where it is determined not to enhance shareholders’ interests.   VIII. Vote FOR elimination of Preemptive Rights.  IX. Vote FOR Anti-Greenmail 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 Indemnification of Directors to the maximum extent permitted under Delaware law (regardless of the state of incorporation) and vote AGAINST charter and by-law amendments completely Eliminating Directors’ Liability for Breaches of Care.  XI. Vote FOR proposals to adopt Confidential Voting and Independent Vote Tabulation practices.   XII. Vote FOR Open-Market Stock Repurchase Programs, 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 Reverse Stock Split 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 Reduce the Par Value of common stock unless the proposal may facilitate an anti-takeover device or other negative corporate governance action.   XV. Vote FOR the Issuance of Large Blocks of Stock 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 Excessive Increases in Common Stock. 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 Stock Option Plan 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 a 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 repriced outstanding options.   XIX. Evaluate proposals to Reprice Outstanding Stock Options, 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 Restricted Stock Awards (“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 Omnibus Stock Plans 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 Employee Stock Purchase Plans 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 Stock Awards (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 Employee Stock Ownership Plans (“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 Compensation Plans or Practices if such plans or practices are Inconsistent with the Interests of Shareholders. 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 FOR proposals seeking to establish or amend proxy access which allow a shareholder (or shareholder group) holding at least 3% of the voting power of the company’s outstanding shares continuously for a minimum of 3 years the ability to nominate no more than 25% of the board of directors. Geode will generally vote AGAINST proposals that do not meet the aforementioned criteria. 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 – GW&K. As a U.S. registered investment adviser with the Securities and Exchange Commission and fiduciary to its clients, GW&K has implemented its Proxy Voting Policy to establish and maintain internal controls and procedures governing the firm’s review and voting of proxies on behalf of client accounts. To assist in the process, GW&K leverages recognized third-party service providers to facilitate the firm’s proxy voting process. GW&K utilizes proxy voting guidelines developed by Glass Lewis & Co. (“Glass Lewis”), an independent third-party proxy voting advisory firm, which provides GW&K recommendations on ballot items for securities held in client accounts. Proxies are voted on behalf of those GW&K clients, who have delegated proxy voting authority to GW&K. GW&K generally adopts Glass Lewis’ “Investment Manager Policy” guidelines for client accounts but also may, depending on the circumstances of a client account, apply other Glass Lewis proxy voting thematic guidelines; including, Glass Lewis’ ESG Policy guidelines and Taft Hartley Policy guidelines. GW&K reserves the right to cast votes contrary to Glass Lewis guidelines if the Firm believes it to be in the best interest of its clients. GW&K has also contracted with Broadridge Investor Communication Solutions, Inc. (“Broadridge”), an independent third-party proxy voting agent business, to act as proxy voting agent and to provide certain proxy voting services. Together, Glass Lewis and Broadridge assist GW&K with various proxy related process components including in-depth proxy research, process and vote proxies in connection with securities held by GW&K clients, maintain appropriate records of proxy statement, research, and recommendations, maintain appropriate records of proxy votes cast on behalf of GW&K clients, and proxy related administrative functions. GW&K has established a Proxy Voting Committee to oversee the firm’s proxy voting process, including the firm’s Proxy Voting Policy, the firm’s service providers and the proxy voting guidelines. In addition, the Committee would address any potential conflicts of interest that are identified by GW&K with respect to voting any specific proxy ballot item. The Committee is comprised of GW&K’s Chief Compliance Officer, General Counsel, managers of GW&K’s Investment, Operations and Client Services teams, members of the Legal & Compliance team, as well as certain GW&K investment professionals. The Committee meets annually, and more frequently as needed. In adopting Glass Lewis’s proxy voting guidelines, GW&K seeks to remove potential conflicts of interest that could otherwise potentially influence the proxy voting process. In situations where Broadridge and/or Glass Lewis has a potential conflict of interest with respect to a proxy it is overseeing on behalf of GW&K’s clients, Broadridge and/or Glass Lewis is obligated to fully or partially abstain from voting the ballot as applicable and notify GW&K. GW&K’s Proxy Committee will convene and provide the voting recommendation after discussion with applicable GW&K investment professionals and a review of the measures involved. Similarly, in instances where GW&K becomes aware of a potential conflict of interest pertaining to a proxy vote for a security held in the client’s account, or where a client otherwise makes a request pertaining a specific proxy vote, GW&K’s investment management professionals will provide the voting recommendation after reviewing relevant facts and circumstances. In instances when a proxy ballot item does not fall within the Glass Lewis guidelines or where GW&K determines that voting in accordance with the Glass Lewis recommendation is not advisable or consistent with GW&K’s fiduciary duty, GW&K’s portfolio managers, with the support of GW&K’s Legal & Compliance team and other personnel, will review the relevant facts and circumstances and determine how to vote the particular proxy ballot item.

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 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 are to: (1) determine the independence of any third-party vendor which it has delegated proxy voting responsibilities and to conclude that there are no conflicts of interest that would prevent such vendor from providing such proxy voting services prior to delegating proxy responsibilities; (2) review and approve the Guidelines annually; and (3) provide 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. 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 (Ex-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 – LSV. LSV Asset Management’s (“LSV” or the “Firm”) 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 directs its voting activity solely in the interests of the participants and beneficiaries and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries and defraying reasonable expenses. 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 typically 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. Recordkeeping 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 and/or the Firm). 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. Consideration of Environmental, Social and Governance Factors 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 to drive performance and create shareholder value 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.  In each case, GLC’s guidelines emphasize assessing the financial implications of ESG issues in context of a company’s operations.  Thus, by utilizing these GLC guidelines, LSV seeks to apply the PRI and incorporate ESG issues into its proxy voting decision-making processes in a manner consistent with its fiduciary duties.  Further, LSV is able to offer to interested clients upon request, GLC’s ESG-focused guidelines that include an additional level of analysis intended to encourage outcomes that are consistent with widely-accepted enhanced ESG practices.

Proxy Voting – Portolan.  Portolan maintains written policies and procedures that address the handling, research, and voting of proxies and reporting of proxy voting, including disclosure and management of potential conflicts of interest. Where Portolan has discretion to vote client proxies, Portolan has entered into a service agreement with Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. (“ISS”), an independent third party, to vote client proxies. Portolan has established proxy voting guidelines, working with ISS, and ISS votes in accordance with Portolan’s guidelines, consulting with Portolan for instruction when the guidelines do not address a circumstance or are unclear. ISS provides Portolan with research reports, vote recommendations, and vote execution. The CCO has oversight responsibilities pertaining to ISS’ services. Oversight includes reviewing ISS’ published due diligence materials, including regulatory documents and compliance policies and procedures. Portolan evaluates the controls and processes established by ISS to gain comfort that ISS is making proxy recommendations based on accurate and current information, is adequately analyzing proxy issues, and is identifying, mitigating and disclosing conflicts of interest. The Compliance Team, led by the CCO, will review and monitor the voting process and notify the Portfolio Manager of any known conflicts of interest. Portolan will adhere to the voting guidelines, as described below, when determining how to vote client proxies: • Clients are permitted to place reasonable restrictions on Portolan’s voting authority in the same manner that they may place such restrictions on the actual selection of account securities. • In the absence of specific voting guidelines from a client, Portolan will vote proxies in what it believes to be the best interests of the client. • Portolan’s policy is to vote all proxies from a specific issuer the same way for all clients absent specific voting guidelines from a client. • Portolan will generally vote in favor of routine corporate housekeeping proposals, such as the election of directors and selection of auditors, absent contrary ISS voting recommendations or conflicts of interest raised by an auditor’s non-audit services. • Portolan will generally vote against proposals that cause board members to become entrenched or that will cause unequal voting rights. • In reviewing proposals, Portolan will further consider the opinion of the management of the issuer of such client security, the effect of such vote on management, and the effect on shareholder value and the issuer’s business practices. • Because proxy issues and the circumstances of individual companies are varied, there may be instances when Portolan may abstain from voting on a presented proposal or may not vote in strict adherence with these guidelines. Portolan may be unable to enter an informed vote in certain circumstances due to the lack of information provided in the proxy statement or by the issuer or other resolution sponsor, and may abstain from voting in those instances. Proxy materials not delivered in a timely fashion may prevent analysis or entry of a vote by voting deadlines. If a client participates in a securities lending program, Portolan may not be able to vote a proxy if a security is out on loan. In addition, Portolan may abstain from voting a proxy in circumstances where, in a good faith determination, the costs exceed the expected benefits to clients. Voting Procedures All proxy materials received by prime brokers and/or custodians for securities held in a client account are forwarded to ISS by the prime broker or custodian. Absent material conflicts, ISS will recommend how Portolan should vote the proxy in accordance with applicable predetermined voting guidelines, Portolan then has an opportunity to instruct ISS as to how to vote. If Portolan instructs ISS how to vote, then ISS will complete the proxy in accordance with such instruction and vote the proxy in a timely and appropriate manner. If Portolan does not instruct ISS as to how to vote, then ISS will complete the proxy in accordance with its recommendation to Portolan and vote the proxy in a timely and automated manner. Reconciliation On a periodic basis, Portolan engages in a vote reconciliation process to determine whether proxy ballots for each meeting held during the period were voted in accordance with voting instructions and its proxy voting policy. To the extent reasonably practicable, each public security proxy received by electronic means is matched to the securities eligible to be voted through an automated process performed by ISS. In some cases, particularly for clients participating in a securities lending program, if applicable, or if proxy materials are not delivered due to error of the custodian or failure of the custodian to receive the information from the issuer, a full reconciliation of votes cast and shares held may not be possible. However, if a discrepancy is identified, Portolan shall use reasonable efforts to research the discrepancy, and if such discrepancy is due to an administrative error of ISS, Portolan shall work with ISS to minimize the risk of such errors in the future. Portolan will provide information in its Form ADV Part 2A regarding its proxy voting policy, including a statement that clients may request information regarding how Portolan voted a proxy on behalf of a client, and that clients may request a copy of Portolan’s Proxy Voting Policy. Material Conflicts of Interest Portolan has established the following procedures when determining if there is a conflict of interest with respect to voting proxies for client securities: • The Compliance Team and/or investment team will identify any conflicts that exist between the interests of Portolan and its client by reviewing for potential relationships between Portolan and the issuer of each client security for which a vote arises to determine if Portolan or any of its Supervised Persons has any financial, business or personal relationship with the issuer. • Supervised Persons are obligated (i) to be aware of the potential for conflicts of interest when voting proxies on behalf of clients both as a result of a Supervised Person’s personal relationships and circumstances that may arise during the conduct of Portolan’s business; and (ii) to bring conflicts of interest of which they become aware to the attention of the Compliance Team. If a material conflict exists, Portolan will ensure that it votes proxies in best interests of the affected client(s). In such cases, the Compliance Team may: • determine whether it is appropriate to disclose the conflict of interest to the affected client(s); • give the clients an opportunity to vote the proxies themselves; • address the conflict through other objective means, such as voting in a manner consistent with the ISS recommendation; and/or • take a different or additional action that has been approved by the Portfolio Manager and the CCO. Depending on the circumstances, the appropriate resolution of one conflict of interest may differ from the resolution of another conflict of interest, even though the general facts underlying both conflicts may appear similar (or identical). The Compliance Team will maintain a record of the resolution of any material conflict of interest with respect to voting client securities’ proxies.

Proxy Voting – River Road. Policy. River Road exercises discretionary voting authority over proxies issued on securities held in client accounts unless the client has explicitly reserved voting authority. River Road, as a matter of policy and as a fiduciary to our clients, has responsibility for voting proxies for client securities consistent with the best economic interests of the clients. River Road maintains written policies and procedures as to the handling, research, voting and reporting of proxy voting. River Road has established the Proxy Voting Policy Committee for establishing voting guidelines and reviewing proxy related issues. River Road’s compliance department oversees the operational and procedural aspects of the proxy voting process. Additionally, to help discharge its duties, River Road uses Glass Lewis & Co. (“Glass Lewis”) as its voting agent. Glass Lewis performs the following services: • provides analysis of proxy proposals, • tracks and receives proxies for which River Road clients are entitled to vote, • votes the proxies as directed by River Road; and, • compiles and provides client voting records. Voting Process. River Road will generally instruct Glass Lewis to vote proxies pursuant to guidelines adopted by the Proxy Voting Policy Committee at the beginning of each year. If the Glass Lewis/River Road policy recommendation and the management recommendation for all votes on a ballot are the same, the compliance department will typically vote accordingly. There are limited instances where River Road has (and may in the future) vote differently from the policy and management recommendation. For each instance when the Glass Lewis recommended vote contradicts the recommendation of management, the primary analyst assigned to the stock consults with the relevant portfolio manager(s) and reviews the proposal and the respective arguments of management and Glass Lewis. The analyst and portfolio manager(s) then recommend voting the issue in the way River Road believes is most beneficial to shareholder value. If this vote decision is different than River Road’s policy recommendation (i.e., the Glass Lewis recommendation in most instances), the rationale is documented and a member of River Road’s ESG team and compliance team reviews and approves the rationale before submitting the final vote. For a period, the Proxy Voting Policy Committee has determined that ballots for non-U.S. companies will typically receive an individual voting review in all instances. This will help identify differences between Glass Lewis’ policy for various countries to identify an approach more like U.S. voting going forward. If the vote decision goes against the Glass Lewis recommendation, an ESG review is completed. Conflicts of Interest. River Road has eliminated most conflicts of interest by using an independent third party (Glass Lewis) that votes pursuant to the guidelines adopted by the Proxy Voting Policy Committee or in accordance with River Road’s direction based on the above process. Additionally, River Road’s voting process of voting with Glass Lewis/River Road policy recommendation and requiring the compliance department signoff if voting differently addresses any potential conflict of River Road voting shares for a public company that is also a River Road client or an affiliate of a River Road client. In cases where River Road believes there may be an actual or perceived conflict of interest, River Road requires additional steps that may include the following: i. documenting the potential conflict of interest; ii. obtaining the prior approval of the Chief Investment Officer and the Chief Compliance Officer; iii. obtaining Proxy Voting Policy Committee review or approval; iv. deferring to the voting recommendation of a third party; v. voting pursuant to client direction (following disclosure of the conflict); vi. abstaining from voting; vii. voting reflectively (in the same proportion and manner as other shareholders); or, viii. taking such other action as necessary to protect the interests of clients.

Proxy Voting – William Blair.  Under rule 206(4)-6, it is a fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative act, practice or course of business within the meaning of section 206(4) of the Act for an investment adviser to exercise voting authority with respect to client securities, unless: the adviser has adopted and implemented written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that the adviser votes proxies in the best interest of its clients the adviser describes its proxy voting procedures to its clients and provides copies on request, and the adviser discloses to clients how they may obtain information on how the adviser voted their proxies. This statement sets forth the proxy voting policy and procedures of William Blair Investment Management, LLC (“WBIM”). It is provided to all covered clients as described below even if WBIM currently does not have authority to vote proxies for their account. The Department of Labor (“DOL”) has stated that the fiduciary act of managing plan assets by an investment adviser generally includes the authority to vote proxies for shares held by a plan unless the plan documents reserve this authority to some other entity. ERISA section 3(38) defines an investment manager as any fiduciary who is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. WBIM is a registered investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) requires registered investment advisers to implement a proxy voting policy and procedures with respect to the voting of proxies for its advisory clients. Registered investment advisers are required to identify potential conflicts involved in the voting of proxies and meet specific recordkeeping and disclosure requirements. On June 30, 2014, the staff of the SEC Divisions of Investment Management and Corporation Finance issued Staff Legal Bulletin No. 20, which provides guidance on investment advisers’ responsibilities in voting client proxies and retaining proxy advisory firms. On August 21, 2019, the staff of the SEC Division of Investment Management issued Release Nos. IA-5325 and IC- 33605, Commission Guidance Regarding Proxy Voting Responsibilities of Investment Advisers. This policy is intended to comply with the applicable rules and guidance of the DOL and the SEC. General Policy WBIM shall vote the proxies of its clients solely in the best interest of their participants and beneficiaries and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to them and shall not place WBIM’s own interests ahead of the interests of its clients. WBIM shall act with the care, skill, prudence and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims. WBIM is not responsible for voting proxies it does not receive in a timely manner. However, WBIM will make reasonable efforts to obtain missing proxies. For clients participating in a securities lending program via their custodian, WBIM will not be eligible to vote proxies for the portion of shares on loan. WBIM has adopted the Voting Guidelines of an independent proxy advisory firm (the “Proxy Administrator”)1. All proxies are reviewed by the Proxy Administrator, subject to the requirement that all votes shall be cast solely in the best interest of the clients in their capacity as shareholders of a company. The Proxy Administrator votes the proxies according to the Voting Guidelines, which are designed to address matters typically arising in proxy votes. In instances where WBIM has implemented a client provided proxy voting policy, WBIM will vote in accordance with the client’s policy at all times even if the client’s policy is inconsistent with WBIM’s vote. In addition, if a client expressly directs in writing how an issue should be voted, William Blair will cast the vote with respect to such issue in the manner directed by the client. In the case when nominee voting is not allowed it may be impractical for WBIM to participate in those particular votes. WBIM does not intend the Voting Guidelines to be exhaustive; hundreds of issues appear on proxy ballots and it is neither practical nor productive to fashion a guideline for each. Rather, the Voting Guidelines are intended to cover the most significant and frequent proxy issues that arise. For issues not covered or to be voted on a “Case-by-Case” basis by the Voting Guidelines, the Proxy Administrator will consult the Proxy Committee. In addition, portfolio managers and analysts covering specific companies are responsible for monitoring significant corporate developments, including proxy proposals submitted to shareholders and notifying the Proxy Committee of circumstances where the interests of WBIM’s clients may warrant a vote contrary to the Voting Guidelines. In such instances, the portfolio manager or analyst will submit a written rationale to the Proxy Committee. In each case, the Proxy Committee will review the issues and will vote each proxy based on information from the company, our internal analysts and third party research sources, in the best interests of the clients in their capacity as shareholders of a company. The Proxy Committee consists of certain representatives from the Investment Management Department, including management, portfolio manager(s), analyst(s), operations, as well as a representative from the Compliance Department. The Proxy Committee reviews the Proxy Voting Policy and procedures annually and shall revise its guidelines as events warrant. Conflicts of Interest Policy WBIM is sensitive to conflicts of interest that may arise in the proxy decision-making process and has identified the following potential conflicts of interest: An affiliate of WBIM has received investment banking compensation from the company in the preceding 12 months or anticipates receiving investment banking compensation in the next three months A principal or employee of WBIM or an affiliate currently serves on the company’s Board of Directors WBIM, its principals, employees and affiliates, in the aggregate, own 1% or more of the company’s outstanding shares The Company is a client of WBIM In the event that any of the above potential conflicts of interest arise, the Proxy Committee will vote all proxies for that company in the following manner: If our Voting Guidelines indicate a vote “For” or “Against” a specific issue WBIM will continue to vote according to the Voting Guidelines  If our Voting Guidelines have no recommendation or indicate a vote on a “Case-by-Case” basis, WBIM will vote consistent with the voting recommendation provided by the Proxy Administrator Oversight of Proxy Administrator WBIM believes that contracting with the Proxy Administrator to provide services including: Providing research and analysis regarding the matters subject to a vote Promulgating general voting guidelines Making voting recommendations on specific matters subject to vote can reduce burdens for WBIM and potentially reduce costs for WBIM clients as compared to conducting them in-house. The Proxy Administrator assists WBIM with voting execution, including through an electronic vote management system that allows the Proxy Administrator to: populate WBIM’s votes shown on the Proxy Administrator’s electronic voting platform with the Proxy Administrator’s recommendations based on WBIM’s voting instructions to the firm (“pre-population”), and automatically submit WBIM’s votes to be counted (“automated voting”). WBIM shall provide reasonable oversight of the Proxy Administrator. In providing oversight, WBIM will seek to ascertain whether the Proxy Administrator has the capacity and competency to adequately analyze proxy issues. Specific oversight responsibilities will include the following: On at least an annual basis, the Proxy Committee will assess: Whether the Proxy Administrator has the competency and capacity to adequately analyze the matters for which WBIM is responsible for voting, including the adequacy and quality of the Proxy Administrator’s staffing, personnel and technology Assess whether the Proxy Administrator has adequate policies and procedures to: Enable it to make proxy voting recommendations based on current and accurate information, including whether it has an effective process for seeking timely input from issuers and its clients with respect to, for example, its proxy voting policies, methodologies, and peer group constructions, including for “say-on-pay” votes If peer group constructions are a component of the evaluation does the Proxy Administrator incorporate appropriate input in formulating its methodologies for construction of peer groups, including taking into account unique characteristics of the issuer including, to the extent available, The issuer’s size Its governance structure Its industry and any particular practices unique to that industry Its history Its financial performance Identify and address conflicts of interest relating to its voting recommendations, including: Conflicts relating to the provision of proxy voting recommendations and proxy voting services generally Conflicts relating to activities other than proxy voting recommendations and proxy voting services generally Conflicts presented by certain affiliations, including whether a third party with significant influence over the Proxy Administrator has taken a position on a particular voting issue or voting issues more generally Are the Proxy Administrator’s methodologies used in formulating recommendations adequately disclosed such that WBIM can understand the factors underlying the recommendation Identify the nature of any third-party information sources the Proxy Administrator uses as a basis for its recommendations and when and how it engages with issuers and third parties Provide adequate disclosure of the Proxy Administrator’s actual and potential conflicts of interest with respect to the services it provides to WBIM, including whether the Proxy Administrator has provided consulting services to an issuer, and, if so, any compensation paid or whether a proponent of a shareholder proposal or an affiliate of the proponent is or has been a client of the Proxy Administrator WBIM personnel responsible for the administration of proxy voting shall periodically review a sample of votes recommended by the Proxy Administrator for consistency with the Voting Guidelines and report any inconsistencies to the Proxy Committee. The sample should include proxy votes that relate to proposals that may require more issuer-specific analysis (e.g. mergers and acquisitions, dissolutions, conversions or consolidations), to assist in evaluating whether WBIM’s voting determinations are consistent with its voting policies and procedures and in its clients’ best interest. WBIM personnel shall periodically review a sample of votes before the votes are cast for consistency with these procedures and client best interest which may include: A sample of “pre-populated” votes A sample of “automated votes” Consideration of additional information that becomes available regarding a particular proposal after or around the same time that WBIM’s votes have been pre- populated but before the submission deadline for proxies to be voted at the shareholder meeting, which may include an issuer or shareholder proponent’s additional definitive proxy materials or other information conveyed to WBIM that could reasonably be expected to affect WBIM’s voting determination Matters where WBIM’s policies do not address how it should vote a particular matter, or whether the matter is highly contested or controversial WBIM personnel responsible for proxy voting shall periodically assess the extent to which potential factual errors, potential incompleteness, or potential methodological weaknesses in the Proxy Administrator’s analysis (that the investment adviser becomes aware of and deems credible and relevant to its voting determinations) materially affected the Proxy Administrator’s research or recommendations that the investment adviser utilized. WBIM personnel responsible for proxy voting shall periodically inquire whether the Proxy Administrator has learned that any recommendation was based on a factual errors, potential incompleteness, or potential methodological weaknesses in the Proxy Administrator’s analysis, and, if so, WBIM shall investigate the factual errors, potential incompleteness, or potential methodological weaknesses and evaluate whether the Proxy Administrator is taking steps to mitigate making such errors in the future and report any such errors, as well as their resolution to the Proxy committee WBIM personnel responsible for proxy voting shall consider the effectiveness of the Proxy Administrator’s policies and procedures for obtaining current and accurate information relevant to matters included in its research and on which it makes voting recommendations. As part of this assessment, WBIM should consider the following: The Proxy Administrator’s engagement with issuers, including the firm’s process for ensuring that it has complete and accurate information about the issuer and each particular matter, and the firm’s process, if any, for investment advisers to access the issuer’s views about the firm’s voting recommendations in a timely and efficient manner The Proxy Administrator’s efforts to correct any identified material deficiencies in the proxy advisory firm’s analysis The Proxy Administrator’s disclosure regarding the sources of information and methodologies used in formulating voting recommendations or executing voting instructions The Proxy Administrator’s consideration of factors unique to a specific issuer or proposal when evaluating a matter subject to a shareholder vote WBIM personnel responsible for proxy voting shall require the Proxy Administrator to update on business changes that may impact the Proxy Administrator’s capacity and competency to provide proxy voting advice or conflict of interest policies and procedures International Markets and Share Blocking Policy In some cases, proxy votes cast by WBIM for clients may be rejected in certain markets. Some non- US markets have additional requirements for custodians in order to process votes in those markets. Two specific cases include Power of Attorney documentation and Split Voting. Power of Attorney documentation authorizes a local agent to facilitate the voting instruction on behalf of the client in the local market. If the appropriate documentation is not available for use, a vote instruction may be rejected. Split Voting occurs when a custodian utilizes an omnibus account to aggregate multiple customer accounts for voting into a single voting record. If one portion of the holdings would like to vote in one manner (“FOR”) and another portion would like to vote in another manner (“AGAINST”), the custodian needs to ensure they are authorized to split the vote for an agenda item in certain markets.  In international markets where share blocking applies, WBIM typically will not, but reserve the right to, vote proxies due to liquidity constraints. Share blocking is the “freezing” of shares for trading purposes at the custodian/sub-custodian bank level in order to vote proxies. Share blocking typically takes place between 1 and 20 days before an upcoming shareholder meeting, depending on the market. While shares are frozen, they may not be traded. Therefore, the potential exists for a pending trade to fail if trade settlement falls on a date during the blocking period. WBIM shall not subordinate the interests of participants and beneficiaries to unrelated objectives. Recordkeeping and Disclosure Pursuant to this policy, WBIM will retain: 1) the Proxy Voting Policy Statement and Procedures; 2) all proxy statements received regarding client securities 3) records of all votes cast on behalf of clients; 4) records of client requests for proxy voting information, and 5) any documents prepared by WBIM that are material to making a decision how to vote, or that memorialize the basis for the decision. Upon a client’s request to the Proxy Administrator, WBIM will make available to its clients a report on proxy votes cast on their behalf. These proxy-voting reports will demonstrate WBIM’s compliance with its responsibilities and will facilitate clients’ monitoring of how their securities were voted. The Proxy Voting Policy Statement and Procedures will be provided with each advisory contract and will also be described and provided with WBIM’s Form ADV, Part 2A. With respect to the William Blair Funds, the policies and procedures used to determine how to vote proxies relating to securities held in their portfolios will be reflected in the Statement of Additional Information. 1 WBIM has engaged Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) to assist in the administration and voting of proxies. The complete Voting Guidelines (proxy voting policies) across all markets are available on ISS’s website at: https://www.issgovernance.com/file/policy/active/specialty/Sustainability -US-Voting-Guidelines.pdf and https://www.issgovernance.com/file/policy/active/specialty/Sustainability-International-Voting-Guidelines.pdf

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.

 

The fund has entered into a distribution agreement with Fidelity Distributors Company LLC (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 fund’s 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.

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 or class, as applicable, 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 or class, as applicable, 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.

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® 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® 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.

 

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 February 28, 2023, are shown in the following table:

Security Lending Activities		Fund(s)
		Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund
Gross income from securities lending activities	$	14,602,857
Fees paid to securities lending agent from a revenue split	$	0
Administrative fees	$	0
Rebate (paid to borrower)	$	11,644,282
Other fees not included in the revenue split (lending agent fees to NFS)	$	282,096
Aggregate fees/compensation for securities lending activities	$	11,926,378
Net income from securities lending activities	$	2,676,479

A fund does not pay cash collateral management fees, separate indemnification fees, or other fees not reflected above.

 

Trust Organization.

Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid 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 a fund.

The assets of the trust received for the issue or sale of shares of each fund 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.

Shareholder Liability. 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 LLC believes that, in view of the above, the risk of personal liability to shareholders is extremely remote.

Voting Rights. The 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 a trust or a fund or a class without prior shareholder approval. In the event of the dissolution or liquidation of a 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.

Custodians.

State Street Bank and Trust Company, 1 Lincoln Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 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.

The Bank of New York Mellon, headquartered in New York, also may serve as special purpose custodian of certain assets in connection with repurchase agreement transactions.

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.

Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.

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.

 

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 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.

The Use of Holdings In Connection With Fund Operations. Material non-public holdings information may be provided as part of the activities associated with managing Fidelity® 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.

Other Uses Of Holdings Information. 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.

The fund’s financial statements and financial highlights for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2023, and report of the independent registered public accounting firm, are included in the fund’s annual 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. 

Fidelity, the Fidelity Investments Logo and all other Fidelity trademarks or service marks used herein are trademarks or service marks of FMR LLC. Any third-party marks that are used herein are trademarks or service marks of their respective owners. © 2023 FMR LLC. All rights reserved.