VanEckEthereumStrategyETF485A(August2023)

485APOS 1 vaneckethereumstrategyetf4.htm 485APOS VanEckEthereumStrategyETF485A(August2023)

As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2023


Securities Act File No. 333-123257
Investment Company Act File No. 811-10325

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM N-1A


			Registration Statement Under the Securities Act of 1933			ý
			Pre-Effective Amendment No.			o
			Post Effective Amendment No. 2,857			ý
			and/or
			Registration Statement Under the Investment Company Act of 1940			ý
			Amendment No. 2,861			ý

VANECK ETF TRUST

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)


666 Third Avenue, 9th Floor
New York, New York 10017
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
(212) 293-2000
Registrant’s Telephone Number
Jonathan R. Simon, Esq.
Senior Vice President and General Counsel
Van Eck Associates Corporation
666 Third Avenue, 9th Floor
New York, New York 10017
(Name and Address of Agent for Service)


Copy to:
Allison M. Fumai, Esq.
Dechert LLP
1095 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036

Approximate Date of Proposed Public Offering: As soon as practicable after the effective date of this registration statement.

IT IS PROPOSED THAT THIS FILING WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE (CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX)


			Immediately upon filing pursuant to paragraph (b)
			On [date] pursuant to paragraph (b)
			60 days after filing pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)
			On [date] pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)
X			75 days after filing pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)
			On [date] pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of rule 485

The information in this Prospectus is not complete and may be changed. The Trust may not sell these securities

until the registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission is effective. This Prospectus

is not an offer to sell these securities and is not soliciting an offer to buy these securities in any jurisdiction

where the offer or sale is not permitted.

Subject to Completion

Preliminary Prospectus dated August 1, 2023


						PROSPECTUS [ ]

Ethereum Strategy ETF [ ]


Principal U.S. Listing Exchange for the Fund: [ ]
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) has not approved or disapproved these securities or passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of this Prospectus. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offense.

800.826.2333 vaneck.com


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary Information			1
Summary Information About Purchases and Sales of Fund Shares, Taxes and Payments to Broker-Dealers and Other Financial Intermediaries			11
Additional Information About the Fund’s Investment Strategies and Risks			12
Portfolio Holdings			29
Management of the Fund			29
Portfolio Manager			30
Shareholder Information			30
Financial Highlights			35
Premium/Discount Information			36
General Information			36


VANECK® ETHEREUM STRATEGY ETF

SUMMARY INFORMATION

INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE

VanEck® Ethereum Strategy ETF (the “Fund”) seeks capital appreciation.

FUND FEES AND EXPENSES

The following tables describe the fees and expenses that you may pay if you buy, hold and sell shares of the Fund (“Shares”). You may pay other fees, such as brokerage commissions and other fees to financial intermediaries, which are not reflected in the tables and examples below.


Shareholder Fees (fees paid directly from your investment)			None

Annual Fund Operating Expenses

(expenses that you pay each year as a percentage of the value of your investment)



			Management Fee			[ ]%

			Current Income Tax Expense(a)			[ ]%

			Deferred Income Tax Expense(a)			[ ]%
			Other Expenses(b)(c)			[ ]%
			Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses(c)			[ ]%

(a)The Fund is classified for federal income tax purposes as a taxable regular corporation or Subchapter “C” corporation. As a “C” corporation, the Fund accrues a current and deferred tax expense. The deferred tax expense represents the future tax liability associated with the capital appreciation of its investments. The Fund’s accrued current and deferred tax liabilities, if any, will be reflected in its net assets value per share. An estimate of current and deferred income tax expenses/(benefit) is dependent upon the Fund’s net investment income/(loss) and realized and unrealized gains/(losses) on investments, and such expenses/(benefits) may vary greatly from year to year and from day to day depending on the performance of the Fund’s investments and general market conditions. Therefore, any estimate of current and deferred income tax expenses/(benefit) cannot be reliably predicted from year to year. Future actual income tax expense (if any) will be incurred over many years depending on if and when investment gains are realized, the then-current tax basis of assets and federal income tax rates, the level of net loss carryforwards and other factors. The above table assumes no current and deferred tax expenses as the Fund has not commenced operations and thus does not have sufficient operating history to accurately estimate anticipated current and deferred tax expenses.

(b)“Other Expenses” are based on estimated amounts for the current fiscal year.

(c) Van Eck Absolute Return Advisers Corporation (the “Adviser”) will pay all expenses of the Fund, except for the fee payment under the investment management agreement, acquired fund fees and expenses, interest expense, offering costs, trading expenses, taxes and extraordinary expenses. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Adviser has agreed to pay the offering costs [and trading expenses that are net account or similar fees charged by futures commission merchants (“FCMs”)] until at least [ ].

EXPENSE EXAMPLE

This example is intended to help you compare the cost of investing in the Fund with the cost of investing in other funds. This example does not take into account brokerage commissions that you pay when purchasing or selling Shares of the Fund.

The example assumes that you invest $10,000 in the Fund for the time periods indicated and then sell or hold all of your Shares at the end of those periods. The example also assumes that your investment has a 5% annual return and that the Fund’s operating expenses remain the same [(except that the example incorporates the Adviser’s agreement to pay certain costs and fees for only the first year)]. Although your actual costs may be higher or lower, based on these assumptions, your costs would be:



			YEAR			EXPENSES
			1			[ ]
			3			[ ]

PORTFOLIO TURNOVER

The Fund will pay transaction costs, such as commissions, when it purchases and sells securities (or “turns over” its portfolio). A higher portfolio turnover will cause the Fund to incur additional transaction costs and may result in higher taxes at the Fund level and may increase the Fund’s current and accumulated earnings and profits, which will result in a greater portion of Fund’s distributions being treated as dividends. These taxes and costs, which are not reflected in annual fund operating expenses or in the example, may affect the Fund’s performance. Because the Fund is newly organized, no portfolio turnover figures are available.


1

PRINCIPAL INVESTMENT STRATEGIES

The Fund is an actively managed exchange-traded fund (“ETF”) that seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing, under normal circumstances, in standardized, cash-settled Ether (“ETH”) futures contracts (“ETH Futures”) traded on commodity exchanges registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”). Currently, the only commodity exchange registered with the CFTC on which ETH Futures are traded is the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (the “CME”). The Fund does not invest in ETH or other digital assets directly.

The Fund seeks to invest in ETH Futures so that the total value of the ETH to which the Fund has economic exposure is approximately 100% of the total assets of the Fund (the “Target Exposure”). If the Fund reaches the Target Exposure, based on current estimates, approximately [ ]% of the Fund’s net assets (which are the total assets of the Fund less the sum of the Fund’s accrued liabilities) will have economic exposure to ETH. To the extent that the Fund’s economic exposure to ETH exceeds 100% of the net assets of the Fund, the Fund will generally have leveraged exposure to the value of ETH. This means that any changes in the value of ETH will generally result in proportionally larger changes in the Fund’s net asset value (“NAV”), including the potential for greater losses than if the Fund’s exposure to the value of ETH were unleveraged.There can be no assurance that the Fund will be able to achieve or maintain the Target Exposure.

The Fund seeks to achieve and maintain the Target Exposure by using leverage inherent in ETH Futures, and may also obtain leverage in the form of borrowings, which would typically be in the form of loans from banks, and may be on a secured or unsecured basis and at fixed or variable rates of interest. Therefore, the Fund is subject to leverage risk as described further below.

The Fund expects to invest its remaining assets in any one or more of the following to provide liquidity, serve as margin or collateralize the Fund’s investments in ETH Futures: U.S. Treasuries, other U.S. government obligations, money market funds and funds that invest in short-term bonds, cash and cash-like equivalents (e.g., high quality commercial paper and similar instruments that are rated investment grade or, if unrated, of comparable quality, as the Adviser determines), mortgage-backed securities issued or guaranteed by U.S. government agencies, instrumentalities or sponsored enterprises of the U.S. government (whether or not the securities are U.S. government securities) (together, "Agency MBS"), municipal debt securities, Treasury inflation-protected securities, sovereign debt obligations of non-U.S. countries, and repurchase agreements (the "Cash and Fixed Income Investments").

The Fund is classified as a non-diversified fund under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), and, therefore, may invest a greater percentage of its assets in a particular issuer.

ETH and ETH Futures are relatively new asset classes and therefore the Fund’s investments in ETH Futures are subject to unique and substantial risks, including the risk that the value of the Fund’s investments could decline rapidly, including to zero. ETH and ETH Futures have historically been more volatile than traditional asset classes. You should be prepared to lose your entire investment.

If the Fund is unable to achieve the Target Exposure because it is approaching or has exceeded position limits or because of liquidity or other constraints, the Fund may invest in equity securities of “ETH-related companies.” For these purposes, ETH-related companies are companies listed on a U.S. stock exchange that the Adviser believes provide returns that generally correspond, or are closely related, to the performance of ETH or ETH Futures. For example, the Fund may invest in U.S. listed companies offering digital asset trading platforms.

The Fund may engage in active and frequent trading of portfolio holdings.

Ether

ETH is a digital asset that is created and transmitted through the operations of the peer-to-peer Ethereum network, a dispersed network of computers that operates on cryptographic software protocols based on open source code. It is widely understood that no single intermediary or entity operates or controls the Ethereum network (referred to as “decentralization”), the transaction validation and recordkeeping infrastructure of which is collectively maintained by a disparate user base. The Ethereum network allows people to exchange tokens of value, or ETH, which are recorded on a distributed public recordkeeping system or ledger known as a blockchain (the “Ethereum Blockchain”), and which can be used to pay for goods and services, including computational power on the Ethereum network, or converted to fiat currencies, such as the U.S. dollar, at rates determined on digital asset exchanges or in individual peer-to-peer transactions. Furthermore, by combining the recordkeeping system of the Ethereum Blockchain with a flexible scripting language that is programmable and can be used to implement sophisticated logic and execute a wide variety of instructions, the Ethereum network is intended to act as a foundational infrastructure layer that users can build their own custom software programs on top of (instead of using centralized web servers), with users paying fees in ETH for the computational resources consumed by running their programs. In theory, anyone can build their own custom software programs on the Ethereum network. In this way, the Ethereum network represents a project to expand blockchain deployment beyond just a limited-purpose, peer-to-peer private money system into a flexible, distributed alternative computing infrastructure that is resistant to censorship and available to all.


2

ETH Futures

Futures contracts are financial contracts the value of which depends on, or is derived from, the underlying reference asset. In the case of ETH Futures, the underlying reference asset is ETH. Futures contracts may be physically-settled or cash-settled. The only futures contracts in which the Fund invests are cash-settled ETH Futures traded on commodity exchanges registered with the CFTC. Currently, the only commodity exchange registered with the CFTC on which ETH Futures are traded is the CME. “Cash-settled” means that when the relevant futures contract expires, if the value of the underlying asset exceeds the futures contract price, the seller pays to the purchaser cash in the amount of that excess, and if the futures contract price exceeds the value of the underlying asset, the purchaser pays to the seller cash in the amount of that excess. In a cash-settled futures contract on ETH, the amount of cash to be paid is equal to the difference between the value of the ETH underlying the futures contract at the close of the last trading day of the contract and the futures contract price specified in the agreement. The CME has specified that the value of ETH underlying ETH Futures traded on the CME will be determined by reference to a volume-weighted average of ETH trading prices on multiple ETH trading venues, as discussed below.

Futures contracts exhibit “futures basis,” which refers to the difference between the current market value of the underlying ETH (the “spot” price) and the price of the cash-settled futures contracts. A negative futures basis exists when cash-settled ETH Futures generally trade at a premium to the current market value of ETH. If a negative futures basis exists, the Fund’s investments in ETH Futures will generally underperform a direct investment in ETH, and, therefore, it may be more difficult for the Fund to maintain the Target Exposure.

Futures contracts expire on a designated date, referred to as the “expiration date.” The Fund generally seeks to invest in “front month” ETH Futures. “Front month” contracts are the monthly contracts with the nearest expiration date. ETH Futures are cash-settled on their expiration date unless they are “rolled” prior to expiration. The Fund intends to “roll” its ETH Futures prior to expiration. Typically, the Fund will roll to the next “nearby” ETH Futures. The “nearby” contracts are those contracts with the next closest expiration date.

Cash and Fixed Income Investments

In addition to the Fund’s ETH Futures, the Fund expects to have significant holdings of Cash and Fixed Income Investments. The Cash and Fixed Income Investments are intended to provide liquidity and to serve as collateral for the Fund’s ETH Futures. The amount of Cash and Fixed Income Investments held by the Fund may change over time and will be determined primarily by the amount needed to seek to achieve or maintain the Target Exposure.

PRINCIPAL RISKS OF INVESTING IN THE FUND

Investors in the Fund should be willing to accept a high degree of volatility in the price of the Fund’s Shares and the possibility of significant losses. An investment in the Fund involves a substantial degree of risk. An investment in the Fund is not a deposit with a bank and is not insured or guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or any other government agency. Therefore, you should consider carefully the following risks before investing in the Fund, each of which could significantly and adversely affect the value of an investment in the Fund.

Market and Volatility Risk. The value of the Fund’s investments, including ETH Futures, is subject to market risk. Market risk is the risk that the value of the investments to which the Fund is exposed will fall, which could occur due to general market or economic conditions or other factors.

The value of ETH and, therefore, of the Fund’s ETH Futures, could decline rapidly, including to zero. You should be prepared to lose your entire investment.

Investment Risk. The Fund will generally hold its ETH Futures during periods in which the value of ETH is flat or declining as well as during periods in which the value of ETH is rising, and the Adviser will generally not seek to change the Fund’s exposure based on daily price changes.

Risks Related to ETH and ETH Futures. Digital assets such as ETH were only introduced recently, and the medium-to-long term value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors relating to the capabilities and development of blockchain technologies and to the fundamental investment characteristics of digital assets that are uncertain and difficult to evaluate, such as the infancy of the Ethereum network’s development, the Ethereum network’s dependence on relatively new technologies such as cryptographic software protocols, the Ethereum network’s dependence on the role played by validators and core developers, the future success (or lack thereof) of the Ethereum network and its core developers in continuing to upgrading the Ethereum network’s source code to improve transaction processing speed and overall efficiency, and generally to expand the network’s capabilities, and the potential for malicious activity. Moreover, because blockchain technology and digital assets, including ETH, have been in existence for a short period of time and are continuing to develop, there may be additional risks in the future that are impossible to predict or evaluate.On September 15, 2022, the Ethereum network implemented a change from a proof-of work model, whereby transactions are validated and newly created ETH is issued by network participants expending specialized computational power, to a proof-of-stake model, whereby transactions are validated by network participants that “stake” ETH to compete to be randomly selected to validate transactions and are generally rewarded in proportion to the amount of ETH staked. The proof-of-stake consensus mechanism provides lower energy consumption in the validation of the network and facilitates future upgrades intended to provide, among other goals, potentially faster transaction times. It is not clear how all elements of the


3

Ethereum network will unfold over time. Futures networks changes to implement these upgrades are currently planned and may introduce unknown or unanticipated risks to the network.

The value of the Shares relates closely to the value of the ETH and fluctuations in the price of ETH will adversely affect the value of the Shares. Due to the nature of private keys, ETH transactions are irrevocable and stolen or incorrectly transferred ETH may be irretrievable. As a result, any incorrectly executed ETH transaction, to the extent it effects the market price of ETH, could adversely affect an investment in the Fund. ETH accounts are subject to security threats that could results in a loss of assets. The Ethereum network’s decentralized governance structure may negatively affect its ability to grow and respond to challenges. A temporary or permanent “fork” of the Ethereum Blockchain could adversely affect the short-, medium-, or long-term value of ETH and an investment in the Fund. A “hard fork” of the Ethereum network, where less than a substantial majority of users and miners (under the former proof-of-work model) or validators (under the current proof-of-stake model) consent to a proposed modification, and the modification is not compatible with the software prior to its modification, could result in one group of users running the pre-modified software and the other running the modified software. If miners or validators expend fewer resources on the Ethereum network, it could increase the likelihood of a malicious actor obtaining control. The Ethereum network has forked in the past. In 2016, a fork resulted in the creation of Ethereum and Ethereum Classic networks. Recently, in connection with the network upgrade on September 15, 2022, a group of miners wishing to continue the proof-of-work model forked the network to create a new blockchain that continues to use proof-or-work consensus. Following a fork, holders of one asset such as ETH will hold equal amounts of assets resulting from the fork, in this case, assets on the Ethereum proof-of-work blockchain. The ETH Futures in which the Fund will invest do not grant rights to any assets resulting from a fork; therefore, the Fund and its shareholders will not receive assets resulting from the fork in the case of any such event.

The price of ETH on the ETH market has exhibited periods of extreme volatility, which could have a negative impact on the performance of the Fund. ETH exchanges on which ETH trades are relatively new and, in some cases, unregulated, and, therefore, may be more exposed to fraud and security breaches than established, regulated exchanges for other financial assets or instruments, which could have a negative impact on the performance of the Fund.

Competition from the emergence or growth of other digital assets could have a negative impact on the price of ETH and adversely affect the value of the Shares. Smart contracts, including those relating to decentralized finance applications, are a new technology and their ongoing development and operation may result in problems, which could reduce the demand for ETH or cause a wider loss of confidence in the Ethereum network, either of which could have an adverse impact on the value of ETH.

The regulation of ETH and related products and services continues to evolve and will impact ETH and its usage in a variety of manners. There is a possibility of future regulatory change altering, perhaps to a material extent, the nature of an investment in the Fund or the ability of the Fund to continue to operate. Additionally, if in the future ETH is determined to be a security, or actions are taken by the United States or foreign government or quasi-governmental agency to exert regulatory authority over ETH, the Ethereum network, ETH trading, or related activities impacting other parts of the digital asset market, these developments may adversely impact ETH and therefore may have an adverse effect on the value of an investment in the Fund.

All networked systems are vulnerable to various kinds of attacks. As with any computer network, the ETH network contains certain flaws. For example, the ETH network is currently vulnerable to a “51% attack” where, if a validator were to gain control of more than 50% of the staked ETH, a malicious actor would be able to gain full control of the network and the ability to manipulate the blockchain. Further, smart contracts on the network may create systemic risk for the price of ETH in the event of an exploit. A significant portion of ETH is held by a small number of holders sometimes referred to as “whales.” These holders have the ability to manipulate the price of ETH. As a digital asset, ETH is subject to cybersecurity risks, including the risk that malicious actors will exploit flaws in its code or structure that will allow them to, among other things, steal ETH held by others, control the blockchain, steal personally identifying information, or issue significant amounts of ETH in contravention of the ETH protocols. The occurrence of any of these events is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the price and liquidity of ETH and ETH Futures and therefore the value of an investment in the Fund. Additionally, the ETH network’s functionality relies on the Internet. A significant disruption of Internet connectivity affecting large numbers of users or geographic areas could impede the functionality of the ETH network. Any technical disruptions or regulatory limitations that affect Internet access may have an adverse effect on the ETH network, the price of ETH and ETH Futures, and the value of an investment in the Fund.

Futures Contract Risk. The use of futures contracts involves risks that are in addition to, and potentially greater than, the risks of investing directly in securities and other more traditional assets. The market for ETH Futures may be less developed, and potentially less liquid and more volatile, than more established futures markets. While the ETH Futures market has grown substantially since ETH Futures commenced trading, there can be no assurance that this growth will continue. ETH Futures are subject to collateral requirements and daily limits that may limit the Fund's ability to achieve the Target Exposure. Margin requirements for ETH Futures traded on the CME may be substantially higher than margin requirements for many other types of futures contracts. If the Fund is unable to meet its investment objective, the Fund's returns may be lower than expected. Additionally, these collateral requirements may require the Fund to liquidate its position when it otherwise would not do so. Futures contracts exhibit “futures basis,” which refers to the difference between the current market value of the underlying ETH (the “spot” price) and the price of the cash-settled futures contracts. A negative futures basis exists when cash-settled ETH Futures generally trade at a premium to the current market value of ETH. If a negative futures basis exists, the Fund’s investments in ETH Futures will generally underperform a direct investment in ETH, and, therefore, it may be more difficult for the Fund to maintain the Target Exposure. If the Fund’s ability to achieve the Target Exposure is disrupted for any reason, including limited liquidity in the ETH Futures market, a disruption to the ETH Futures, or as a result of margin requirements or position limits


4

imposed by the Fund’s FCM, the CME or the CFTC, the Fund may not be able to achieve its investment objective and may experience significant losses.

This risk may be adversely affected by “negative roll yields” in “contango” markets. The Fund will “roll” out of one futures contract as the expiration date approaches and into another futures contract on ETH with a later expiration date. The "rolling" feature creates the potential for a significant negative effect on the Fund's performance that is independent of the performance of the spot prices of the ETH. The "spot price" of a commodity is the price of that commodity for immediate delivery, as opposed to a futures price, which represents the price for delivery on a specified date in the future. The Fund would be expected to experience negative roll yield if the futures prices of ETH tend to be greater than the spot price of ETH. A market where futures prices are generally greater than spot prices is referred to as a "contango" market. Therefore, if the futures market for a given commodity is in contango, then the value of a futures contract on that commodity would tend to decline over time (assuming the spot price remains unchanged), because the higher futures price would fall as it converges to the lower spot price by expiration. Extended period of contango may cause significant and sustained losses. Additionally, because of the frequency with which the Fund may roll ETH Futures, the impact of contango on Fund performance may be greater than it would have been if the Fund rolled ETH Futures less frequently.

Derivatives Risk. The only derivatives in which the Fund currently intends to invest are ETH Futures traded on commodity exchanges registered with the CFTC. Currently, the only commodity exchange registered with the CFTC on which ETH Futures are traded is the CME. The use of derivatives presents risks different from, and possibly greater than, the risks associated with investing directly in traditional securities. The use of derivatives by the Fund can lead to losses because of adverse movements in the price or value of the underlying reference asset, which may be magnified by certain features of the derivatives. Derivative strategies often involve leverage, which may exaggerate a loss, potentially causing the Fund to lose more money than it originally committed to initial margin, and more money than it would have lost had it invested in the underlying reference asset. The values of derivatives may move in unexpected ways, especially in unusual market conditions, and may result in increased volatility, among other consequences. There may be imperfect correlation between changes in the market value of a derivative and the value of its underlying reference asset, and this may be exaggerated in times of market stress or volatility. ETH Futures require the Fund to post margin or collateral or otherwise maintain liquid assets in a manner that satisfies contractual undertakings and regulatory requirements. In order to satisfy margin or other requirements, the Fund may need to sell securities from its portfolio or exit positions at a time when it may be disadvantageous to do so. All of this could, in turn, affect the Fund’s ability to fully execute its investment strategies and/or achieve its investment objective. The use of derivatives may also increase the amount of taxes payable by shareholders because changes in government regulation of derivatives could affect the character, timing and amount of the Fund’s taxable income or gains. Other risks arise from the Fund’s potential inability to terminate or sell derivative positions. A liquid secondary market may not always exist for the Fund’s derivative positions at times when the Fund might wish to terminate or sell such positions. The use of derivatives also involves the risk of mispricing or improper valuation and that changes in the value of the derivative may not correlate perfectly with the underlying reference rate. Derivatives may be subject to changing government regulation that could impact the Fund’s ability to use certain derivatives and their cost.

Counterparty Risk. Investing in derivatives and repurchase agreements involves entering into contracts with third parties (i.e., counterparties). The use of derivatives and repurchase agreements involves risks that are different from those associated with ordinary portfolio securities transactions. The Fund will be subject to credit risk (i.e., the risk that a counterparty is or is perceived to be unwilling or unable to make timely payments or otherwise meet its contractual obligations) with respect to the amount it expects to receive from counterparties to derivatives and repurchase agreements entered into by the Fund. If a counterparty becomes bankrupt or fails to perform its obligations, or if any collateral posted by the counterparty for the benefit of the Fund is insufficient or there are delays in the Fund's ability to access such collateral, the value of an investment in the Fund may decline. The counterparty to a listed futures contract is the derivatives clearing organization for the listed future. The listed future is held through a FCM acting on behalf of the Fund. Consequently, the counterparty risk on a listed futures contract is the creditworthiness of the FCM and the exchange's clearing corporation. From time to time, the Fund may only have one FCM with which it transacts ETH Futures, which may heighten such risk.

Investment Capacity Risk. The Adviser may determine to modify the Fund’s exposure to ETH in response to extreme market conditions, as determined in the sole discretion of the Adviser, and to avoid exceeding any position limits applicable to ETH Futures established by the CME or the CFTC. The position limits by the CME prevent any single investor, such as the Fund (together with all other accounts managed by the Adviser required to be aggregated), from holding more than a specified number of ETH Futures. These position limits may prevent the Fund from entering into the desired amount of ETH Futures at times. Because the Fund is new, it does not anticipate that the CME’s position limits will adversely affect the Fund’s ability to achieve the Target Exposure until the Fund’s assets under management grow significantly. FCMs utilized by the Fund may also impose limits on the amount of exposure to ETH Futures the Fund can obtain through such FCMs. As a result, the Fund may need to transact through a number of FCMs to achieve the Target Exposure. If not enough FCMs are willing to transact with the Fund, or if exposure limits imposed by such FCMs do not provide sufficient exposure, the Fund may not be able to achieve the Target Exposure. Any modification to the Fund’s exposure to ETH may cause the Fund to exit its ETH Futures at disadvantageous times or prices. The Fund may not succeed in achieving or maintaining its Target Exposure, possibly maintaining substantially lower exposure for extended periods of time. If the Fund’s ability to achieve the Target Exposure is disrupted for any reason including,


5

for example, limited liquidity in the ETH Futures market, a disruption to the ETH Futures market, or as a result of margin requirements or position limits imposed by the Fund's FCMs, the CME or the CFTC, the Fund may not be able to achieve its investment objective and may experience significant losses.

If the Fund is unable for any reason to achieve the Target Exposure, the Adviser, in its sole discretion, may invest the Fund's assets in Cash and Fixed Income Investments. To the extent that the Fund invests in Cash and Fixed Income Investments, the Fund’s performance should be expected to differ from the performance of ETH Futures and its returns may be lower than expected.

Target Exposure and Rebalancing Risk. Although the Fund seeks to achieve and maintain the Target Exposure to ETH, it is possible in certain circumstances that the Fund may not succeed in achieving or maintaining its target exposure, possibly maintaining substantially lower exposure for extended periods of time.

Borrowing and Leverage Risk. The Fund seeks to achieve and maintain the Target Exposure by using leverage inherent in ETH Futures, and may also obtain leverage in the form of borrowings, which would typically be in the form of loans from banks, and may be on a secured or unsecured basis and at fixed or variable rates of interest. Therefore, the Fund is subject to leverage risk. Leverage can have the effect of magnifying the Fund’s exposure to changes in the value of its assets and may also result in increased volatility in the Fund’s NAV. This means the Fund will have the potential for greater gains, as well as the potential for greater losses, than if the Fund owned its assets on an unleveraged basis.

Indirect Investment Risk. There are several factors, such as deviations between the price of ETH Futures and the price of ETH and the potential for “negative roll yields” in “contango” markets, that may cause the returns of the Fund to differ substantially from the returns from holding an amount of ETH directly.

Credit Risk. Credit risk refers to the possibility that the issuer or guarantor of a debt security or a counterparty to exchange-traded ETH Futures, such as an FCM or an exchange’s clearing corporation, will be unable and/or unwilling to make timely interest payments and/or repay the principal on its debt or to otherwise honor its obligations and/or default completely. Bonds are subject to varying degrees of credit risk, depending on the issuer’s financial condition and on the terms of the securities, which may be reflected in credit ratings. There is a possibility that the credit rating of a bond may be downgraded after purchase or the perception of an issuer’s credit worthiness may decline, which may adversely affect the value of the security.

Interest Rate Risk. Debt securities, such as bonds, are also subject to interest rate risk. Interest rate risk refers to fluctuations in the value of a bond resulting from changes in the general level of interest rates. When the general level of interest rates goes up, the prices of most debt securities go down. When the general level of interest rates goes down, the prices of most debt securities go up. The prevailing historically low interest rate environment increases the risks associated with rising interest rates, including the potential for periods of volatility and increased redemptions. In addition, debt securities, such as bonds, with longer durations tend to be more sensitive to interest rate changes, usually making them more volatile than debt securities with shorter durations. In addition, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, as with other serious economic disruptions, governmental authorities and regulators are enacting significant fiscal and monetary policy changes, including providing direct capital infusions into companies, creating new monetary programs and lowering interest rates . These actions present heightened risks to debt instruments, and such risks could be even further heightened if these actions are unexpectedly or suddenly reversed or are ineffective in achieving their desired outcomes.

Illiquidity Risk. Illiquidity risk is the risk that the investments held by the Fund may be difficult or impossible to sell at the time that the Fund would like without significantly changing the market value of the investment. The Fund may invest at the time of purchase up to 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities. The market for ETH Futures is still developing and may experience periods of significant illiquidity. During such times it may be difficult or impossible for the Fund to buy or sell a position at the desired price. Market disruptions or volatility can also make it difficult to transact a position at a reasonable price and sufficient size. Illiquid markets may cause losses, which could be significant. The large size of the positions which the Fund and other similar funds may acquire may increase the risk of illiquidity by making positions more difficult to liquidate or by increasing the losses incurred while trying to do so.

Investing in Other Investment Companies Risk. The Fund’s investment in another investment company which is limited to money market funds or funds that invest in short-term bonds, may subject the Fund indirectly to the underlying risks of the investment company. The Fund also will bear its share of the underlying investment company’s fees and expenses, which are in addition to the Fund’s own fees and expenses.

Management Risk. The Fund is subject to management risk because it is an actively managed ETF. In managing the Fund’s portfolio, the Adviser will apply investment techniques and risk analyses in making investment decisions for the Fund, but there can be no guarantee that these will produce the desired results.


6

not grow to or maintain a viable size, it may be liquidated, and the expenses, timing and tax consequences of such liquidation may not be favorable to some shareholders.

Non-Diversified Risk. The Fund is a separate investment portfolio of VanEck ETF Trust (the “Trust”), which is an open-end investment company registered under the 1940 Act. The Fund is classified as a “non-diversified” fund under the 1940 Act. Moreover, the Fund is subject to the risk that it will be more volatile than a diversified fund because the Fund may invest its assets in a smaller number of issuers or may invest a larger proportion of its assets in a single issuer. Moreover, the gains and losses on a single investment may have a greater impact on the Fund’s NAV and may make the Fund more volatile than more diversified funds.

Operational Risk. The Fund is exposed to operational risk arising from a number of factors, including, but not limited to, human error, processing and communication errors, errors of the Fund’s service providers, counterparties or other third parties, failed or inadequate processes and technology or system failures.

Portfolio Turnover Risk. The Fund’s portfolio turnover and frequent trading of ETH Futures may result in higher transaction costs than if the Fund traded less frequently. High portfolio turnover may result in increased transaction costs to the Fund, including brokerage commissions, dealer mark-ups and other transaction costs on the sale of the ETH Futures and on reinvestment of the Fund’s assets. High portfolio turnover may also result in higher taxes at the Fund level and may increase the Fund’s current and

accumulated earnings and profits, which will result in a greater portion of Fund’s distributions being treated as dividends.

Regulatory Risk. Changes in the laws or regulations of the United States, including any changes to applicable tax laws and regulations, could impair the ability of the Fund to achieve its investment objective and could increase the operating expenses of the Fund. The Adviser is registered as a "commodity pool operator" ("CPO") under the U.S. Commodity Exchange Act of 1936, as amended ("CEA") and the rules of the CFTC and is subject to CFTC regulation with respect to the Fund. The CFTC has adopted rules regarding the disclosure, reporting and recordkeeping requirements that will apply with respect to the Fund as a result of the Adviser's registration as a CPO. Generally, these rules allow for substituted compliance with CFTC disclosure and shareholder reporting requirements, based on the Adviser's compliance with comparable SEC requirements. This means that for most of the CFTC's disclosure and shareholder reporting applicable to the Adviser as the Fund's CPO, the Adviser's compliance with SEC disclosure and shareholder reporting will be deemed to fulfill the Adviser's CFTC compliance obligations. However, as a result of CFTC regulation with respect to the Fund, the Fund may incur additional compliance and other expenses. The Adviser is also registered as a "commodity trading advisor" ("CTA") but relies on an exemption with respect to the Fund from CTA regulations available for a CTA that also serves as the Fund's CPO. The CFTC has neither reviewed nor approved the Fund, their investment strategies, or this Prospectus.

Repurchase Agreements Risk. A repurchase agreement exposes the Fund to the risk that the party that sells the security may default on its obligation to repurchase it. The Fund may lose money if it cannot sell the security at the agreed-upon time and price or the security loses value before it can be sold.

Tax Risk. Unlike traditional mutual funds that are structured as regulated investment companies for U.S. federal income tax purposes, the Fund has not elected and has no current intention to elect to be treated as a regulated investment company under the Code because the extent of our direct investments in ETH Futures would generally prevent the Fund from meeting the qualification requirements under the Code for regulated investment companies. The Code generally provides that a regulated investment company does not pay an entity level income tax provided that it distributes all or substantially all of its income and satisfies certain source of income and asset diversification requirements. The regulated investment company taxation rules have no current application to the Fund or to the Fund’s shareholders. The Fund will be taxable as a regular corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. As a result, the Fund will be subject to corporate income tax (currently at a rate of 21%, but subject to legislative change) to the extent the Fund recognizes taxable income, and the Fund will also be subject to state and local income taxes.

In calculating the Fund’s daily NAV, the Fund will, among other things, account for its current taxes and deferred tax liability and/or asset balances. The Fund will accrue a deferred income tax liability balance, at the effective statutory U.S. federal income tax rate (currently at a rate of 21%, but subject to legislative change) plus an estimated state and local income tax rate, for its future tax liability associated with the capital appreciation of its investments and the distributions received by the Fund (if any) and for any net operating gains. Any deferred tax liability balance will reduce the Fund’s NAV. The Fund may also accrue a deferred tax asset balance, which reflects an estimate of the Fund’s future tax benefit associated with net operating losses and unrealized losses. Any deferred tax asset balance will increase the Fund’s NAV. To the extent the Fund has a deferred tax asset balance, consideration is given as to whether or not a valuation allowance, which would offset the value of some or all of the deferred tax asset balance, is required. The daily estimate of the Fund’s current taxes and deferred tax liability and/or asset balances used to calculate the Fund’s NAV could vary significantly from the Fund’s actual tax liability or benefit, and, as a result, the determination of the Fund’s actual tax liability or benefit may have a material impact on the Fund’s NAV. From time to time, the Fund may modify its estimates or assumptions regarding its current taxes and deferred tax liability and/or asset balances as new information becomes available, which modifications in estimates or assumptions may have a material impact on the Fund’s NAV and trading price. Shareholders, including authorized participants (“APs”), who sell their shares or who redeem their shares at a NAV that is based on


7

estimates of the Fund’s current taxes and deferred tax liability and/or asset balances may benefit at the expense of remaining shareholders (or remaining shareholders may benefit at the expense of redeeming shareholders) if the estimates are later

revised or ultimately differ from the Fund’s actual tax liability and/or asset balances.

The rules dealing with U.S. federal income taxation and the rates themselves are constantly under review in the legislative process and by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and the U.S. Treasury Department. Changes in tax laws or regulations or future interpretations of such laws or regulations, or changes in accounting, tax and valuation practices, could adversely affect the Fund and/or the Fund’s shareholders, potentially retroactively.

Risk of Cash Transactions. Because the Fund currently intends to effect redemptions for cash, rather than for in-kind distributions, it may be required to sell portfolio securities in order to obtain the cash needed to distribute redemption proceeds, which involves transaction costs that the Fund may not have incurred had it effected redemptions entirely in kind. These costs may include brokerage costs and/or taxable gains or losses, which may be imposed on the Fund and decrease the Fund’s NAV to the extent such costs are not offset by a transaction fee payable to an AP. Taxable gains may result in higher taxes at the Fund level and may increase the Fund’s current and accumulated earnings and profits, which will result in a greater portion of Fund’s distributions, if any, being treated as dividends. In addition, the Fund will not be taxable as a RIC. As a result, an investment in the Fund may be less tax-efficient than an investment in a more conventional ETF. Other ETFs generally are RICs and are able to make in-kind redemptions and avoid realizing gains in connection with transactions designed to raise cash to meet redemption requests. Additionally, transactions may have to be carried out over several days if the futures market in which the Fund operates is relatively illiquid and may involve considerable transaction fees and taxes.

Authorized Participant Concentration Risk. The Fund may have a limited number of financial institutions that act as APs, none of which are obligated to engage in creation and/or redemption transactions. To the extent that those APs exit the business, or are unable to or choose not to process creation and/or redemption orders, and no other AP is able to step forward to create and redeem, there may be a significantly diminished trading market for Shares or Shares may trade like closed-end funds at a greater discount (or premium) to NAV and possibly face trading halts and/or de-listing. The AP concentration risk may be heightened in scenarios where APs have limited or diminished access to the capital required to post collateral.

Trading Issues. Trading in Shares on the Exchange may be halted due to market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in Shares inadvisable. In addition, trading in Shares on the Exchange is subject to trading halts caused by extraordinary market volatility pursuant to the Exchange’s “circuit breaker” rules. There can be no assurance that the requirements of the Exchange necessary to maintain the listing of the Fund will continue to be met or will remain unchanged.

Fund Shares Trading, Premium/Discount Risk and Liquidity of Fund Shares. The market price of the Shares may fluctuate in response to the Fund’s NAV, the intraday value of the Fund’s holdings and supply and demand for Shares. The Adviser cannot predict whether Shares will trade above, below, or at their most recent NAV. Disruptions to creations and redemptions, the existence of market volatility or potential lack of an active trading market for Shares (including through a trading halt), as well as other factors, may result in Shares trading at a significant premium or discount to NAV or to the intraday value of the Fund’s holdings. If a shareholder purchases Shares at a time when the market price is at a premium to the NAV or sells Shares at a time when the market price is at a discount to the NAV, the shareholder may pay significantly more or receive significantly less than the underlying value of the Shares that were bought or sold or the shareholder may be unable to sell his or her Shares. The securities held by the Fund may be traded in markets that close at a different time than the Exchange. Liquidity in those securities may be reduced after the applicable closing times. Accordingly, during the time when the Exchange is open but after the applicable market closing, fixing or settlement times, bid-ask spreads on the Exchange and the resulting premium or discount to the Shares’ NAV may widen. Additionally, in stressed market conditions, the market for the Fund’s Shares may become less liquid in response to deteriorating liquidity in the markets for the Fund’s underlying portfolio holdings. There are various methods by which investors can purchase and sell Shares. Investors should consult their financial intermediaries before purchasing or selling Shares of the Fund.

U.S. Government Securities. Different U.S. government securities are subject to different levels of credit risk depending on the nature of the particular government support for that security. The market value of U.S. government securities may fluctuate and are subject to investment risks, and the value of U.S. government securities may be adversely affected by changes in interest rates. In addition, it is possible that the issuers of some U.S. government securities will not be able to timely meet their payment obligations in the future, and there is a risk of default.

Debt Securities Risk. Debt securities are subject to credit risk and interest rate risk. Credit risk refers to the possibility that the issuer of a debt security will be unable to make interest payments or repay principal when it becomes due. Various factors could affect the issuer’s ability to make timely interest or principal payments, including changes in the issuer’s financial condition or in


8

general economic conditions. Interest rate risk refers to fluctuations in the value of a debt security resulting from changes in the general level of interest rates. When the general level of interest rates rises, the value of debt securities will tend to fall, and if interest rates fall, the values of debt securities will tend to rise.

Certain financial instruments in which the Fund may invest may pay interest based on, or otherwise have payments tied to, the London Inter-bank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”), Euro Interbank Offered Rate and other similar types of reference rates (each, a “Reference Rate”). Due to the uncertainty regarding the future utilization of LIBOR and certain other Reference Rates, and the nature of any replacement rate, the potential effect of a transition away from LIBOR and certain other Reference Rates could, among other negative consequences, adversely impact the pricing, liquidity, value of, return on and trading for a broad array of financial products, including any Reference Rate-linked securities, loans and derivatives in which the Fund may invest; require extensive negotiations of and/or amendments to agreements and other documentation governing Reference Rate-linked investments products; lead to disputes, litigation or other actions with counterparties or portfolio companies regarding the interpretation and enforceability of “fallback” provisions that provide for an alternative reference rate in the event of Reference Rate unavailability; or cause the Fund to incur additional costs in relation to any of the above factors.

Municipal Securities Risk. Municipal securities are subject to the risk that litigation, legislation or other political events, local business or economic conditions, credit rating downgrades, or the bankruptcy of the issuer could have a significant effect on an issuer’s ability to make payments of principal and/or interest or otherwise affect the value of such securities. Certain municipalities may have difficulty meeting their obligations due to, among other reasons, changes in underlying demographics. Municipal securities can be significantly affected by political changes as well as uncertainties in the municipal market related to government regulation, taxation, legislative changes or the rights of municipal security holders. Because many municipal securities are issued to finance similar projects, especially those relating to education, health care, transportation, utilities and water and sewer, conditions in those sectors can affect the overall municipal market. Municipal securities include general obligation bonds, which are backed by the “full faith and credit” of the issuer, which has the power to tax residents to pay bondholders. Timely payments depend on the issuer’s credit quality, ability to raise tax revenues and ability to maintain an adequate tax base. General obligation bonds generally are not backed by revenues from a specific project or source. Municipal securities also include revenue bonds, which are generally backed by revenue from a specific project or tax. The issuer of a revenue bond makes interest and principal payments from revenues generated from a particular source or facility, such as a tax on particular property or revenues generated from a municipal water or sewer utility or an airport. Revenue bonds generally are not backed by the full faith and credit and general taxing power of the issuer. The market for municipal bonds may be less liquid than for taxable bonds. There may be less information available on the financial condition of issuers of municipal securities than for public corporations. Municipal instruments may be susceptible to periods of economic stress, which could affect the market values and marketability of many or all municipal obligations of issuers in a state, U.S. territory, or possession. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly stressed the financial resources of many municipal issuers, which may impair a municipal issuer’s ability to meet its financial obligations when due and could adversely impact the value of its bonds, which could negatively impact the performance of the Fund.

Money Market Funds Risk. An investment in a money market fund is not a bank deposit and is not insured or guaranteed by any bank, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) or any other government agency. Although money market funds seek to preserve the value of investments at $1.00 per share, it is possible for the Fund to lose money if shares of money market funds in which it invests fall below $1.00 per share.

Securitized/Mortgage-Backed Securities Risk. Investments in mortgage-backed securities are subject to the risk of significant credit downgrades, dramatic changes in liquidity, and defaults to a greater extent than many other types of fixed-income investments. During periods of falling interest rates, mortgage-backed securities may be called or prepaid, which may result in the Fund having to reinvest proceeds in other investments at a lower interest rate. During periods of rising interest rates, the average life of mortgage-backed securities may extend, which may lock in a below-market interest rate, increase the security’s duration and interest rate sensitivity, and reduce the value of the security. The Fund may invest in mortgage-backed securities issued or backed by federal agencies or government sponsored enterprises or that are part of a government-sponsored program, which may subject the Fund to the risks noted above. The values of assets or collateral underlying mortgage-backed securities may decline and, therefore, may not be adequate to cover underlying obligations. Enforcing rights against the underlying assets or collateral may be difficult, and the underlying assets or collateral may be insufficient if the issuer defaults.

Sovereign Bond Risk. Investments in sovereign bonds involve special risks not present in corporate bonds. The governmental authority that controls the repayment of the bonds may be unable or unwilling to make interest payments and/or repay the principal on its bonds or to otherwise honor its obligations. If an issuer of sovereign bonds defaults on payments of principal and/or interest, the Fund may have limited recourse against the issuer. During periods of economic uncertainty, the market prices of sovereign bonds, and the Fund’s NAV, may be more volatile than prices of corporate bonds, which may result in losses. In the past, certain governments of emerging market countries have declared themselves unable to meet their financial obligations on a timely basis, which has resulted in losses for holders of sovereign bonds.


9

of ETH or ETH Futures. ETH-related companies face rapid changes in technology, intense competition including the development and acceptance of competing platforms or technologies, loss or impairment of intellectual property rights, cyclical economic patterns, shifting consumer preferences, evolving industry standards, adverse effects of changes to a network’s or software’s protocols, a rapidly changing regulatory environment, and dependency on certain key personnel (including highly skilled financial services professionals and software engineers). ETH-related companies may be susceptible to operational and information security risks including those associated with hardware or software failures, interruptions, or delays in service by third party vendors, and security breaches. Certain ETH-related companies may be subject to the risks associated with investing directly in digital assets, including cryptocurrencies and crypto tokens.

Equity Securities Risk. The value of the equity securities held by the Fund may fall due to general market and economic conditions, perceptions regarding the markets in which the issuers of securities held by the Fund participate, or factors relating to specific issuers in which the Fund invests. Equity securities are subordinated to preferred securities and debt in a company’s capital structure with respect to priority in right to a share of corporate income, and therefore will be subject to greater dividend risk than preferred securities or debt instruments. In addition, while broad market measures of equity securities have historically generated higher average returns than fixed income securities, equity securities have generally also experienced significantly more volatility in those returns, although under certain market conditions fixed income securities may have comparable or greater price volatility.

PERFORMANCE

The Fund has not yet commenced operations and therefore does not have a performance history. Once available, the Fund’s performance information will be accessible on the Fund’s website at www.vaneck.com.

PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT

Investment Adviser. Van Eck Absolute Return Advisers Corporation.

Portfolio Manager. The following individual is primarily responsible for the day-to-day management of the Fund’s portfolio:

Name

Title with Adviser

Date Began Managing the Fund

[ ]

Portfolio Manager

[ ]

PURCHASE AND SALE OF FUND SHARES

For important information about the purchase and sale of Fund Shares, tax information and payments to broker-dealers and other financial intermediaries, please turn to the “Summary Information About Purchases and Sales of Fund Shares, Taxes and Payments to Broker-Dealers and Other Financial Intermediaries” section of this Prospectus.


10


SUMMARY INFORMATION ABOUT PURCHASES AND SALES OF FUND SHARES, TAXES AND PAYMENTS TO BROKER-DEALERS AND OTHER FINANCIAL INTERMEDIARIES

PURCHASE AND SALE OF FUND SHARES

Individual Shares of the Fund may only be purchased and sold in secondary market transactions through a broker or dealer at a market price. Shares of the Fund are listed on the Exchange, and because Shares trade at market prices rather than NAV, Shares of the Fund may trade at a price greater than NAV (i.e., a “premium”) or less than NAV (i.e., a “discount”).

An investor may incur costs attributable to the difference between the highest price a buyer is willing to pay to purchase Shares of the Fund (bid) and the lowest price a seller is willing to accept for Shares (ask) when buying or selling Shares in the secondary market (the “bid-ask spread”).

Recent information, including information about the Fund’s NAV, market price, premiums and discounts, and bid-ask spreads, is included on the Fund’s website at www.vaneck.com.

TAX INFORMATION

The Fund is treated as a regular corporation, or “C” corporation, for U.S. federal, state and local income tax purposes. Distributions by the Fund of cash or property in respect of the Shares will be treated as dividends for U.S. federal income tax purposes to the extent paid from the Fund’s current or accumulated earnings and profits (as determined under U.S. federal income tax principles). Subject to certain holding period and other requirements, any such dividend will be eligible (i) to be treated as “qualified dividend income” taxable at long term capital gain rates (subject to certain holding period requirements) in the case of shareholders taxed as individuals and (ii) for the dividends received deduction (subject to certain holding period requirements) in the case of corporate shareholders. If the Fund’s distributions exceed the Fund’s current and accumulated earnings and profits, such excess will be treated first as a tax-free return of capital to the extent of the shareholder’s tax basis in the Shares (thus reducing a shareholder’s adjusted tax basis in the Shares), and thereafter as capital gain assuming the Shares are held as a capital asset. There can be no assurance as to what portion of any future distribution will consist of return of capital (as opposed to taxable dividend income). Unlike a regulated investment company, the Fund will not be able to pass-through the character of its recognized net capital gain by paying “capital gain dividends.” Upon the sale of Shares, a shareholder generally will recognize capital gain or loss equal to the difference between the amount realized on the sale and the shareholder’s adjusted tax basis in the Shares sold. See “U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations.”

PAYMENTS TO BROKER-DEALERS AND OTHER FINANCIAL INTERMEDIARIES

The Adviser and its related companies may pay broker-dealers or other financial intermediaries (such as a bank) for the sale of the Fund Shares and related services. These payments may create a conflict of interest by influencing your broker-dealer or other intermediary or its employees or associated persons to recommend the Fund over another investment. Ask your financial adviser or visit your financial intermediary’s website for more information.


11


ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE FUND’S INVESTMENT STRATEGIES AND RISKS

PRINCIPAL INVESTMENT STRATEGIES

The Fund pursues its investment strategy primarily by investing in ETH Futures. In addition, the Fund expects to have significant holdings of Cash and Fixed Income Investments. The Cash and Fixed Income Investments are intended to provide liquidity and to serve as collateral for the Fund’s ETH Futures. The Fund does not invest in ETH or other digital assets directly.

The Fund seeks to invest in ETH Futures until it reaches the Target Exposure. If the Fund reaches the Target Exposure, based on current estimates, approximately [ ]% of the Fund’s net assets (which are the total assets of the Fund less the sum of the Fund’s accrued liabilities) will have economic exposure to ETH. To the extent that the Fund’s economic exposure to ETH exceeds 100% of the net assets of the Fund (which are the total assets of the Fund less the sum of the Fund’s accrued liabilities), the Fund will generally have leveraged exposure to the value of ETH. This means that any changes in the value of ETH will generally result in proportionally larger changes in the Fund’s NAV, including the potential for greater losses than if the Fund’s exposure to the value of ETH were unleveraged. There can be no assurance that the Fund will be able to achieve or maintain the Target Exposure.

The Fund is subject to the position limits and position accountability levels established by the CME or the CFTC, which may be changed at any time. The position limits by the CME prevent any single investor, such as the Fund (together with all other accounts managed by the Adviser required to be aggregated), from holding more than a specified number of ETH Futures. The CME’s current ETH Futures spot-month net position limit is 8,000 contracts, and the position accountability level is 20,000 contracts. A “spot month” is the month in which a futures contract matures and becomes deliverable. “Net position” refers to the difference between open long contracts by a market participant and open short contracts by such participant in any one commodity. “Position accountability level” refers to levels which a market participant may exceed and not be in violation of the rules of the CME but such participant may be required to provide the CME with information regarding its positions.

For cash management or temporary defensive purposes in times of adverse or unstable market, economic or political conditions, the Fund can invest up to 100% of its assets in investments that may be inconsistent with its principal investment strategy. Generally, the Fund would invest in money market instruments or in other short-term U.S. or foreign government securities. The Fund might also hold these types of securities as interim investments pending the investment of proceeds from the sale of its shares or the sale of its portfolio investments or to meet anticipated redemptions of its shares.

The Fund may engage in active and frequent trading of portfolio holdings.

Overview of the ETH Industry and Market

ETH and the Ethereum Network

ETH is the digital asset that powers the Ethereum network, which is a peer-to-peer, open-source network that no single intermediary or entity operates or controls (referred to as “decentralization”). ETH is not issued by governments, banks or any other centralized authority.

Unlike the Bitcoin network, the Ethereum network is not intended to be effectively a limited-purpose payment platform dedicated to recording transfers of bitcoin. Instead, by combining the Ethereum Blockchain with a flexible scripting language that could be used to implement sophisticated logic and execute a wide variety of instructions, the Ethereum network was designed to act as a foundational infrastructure layer that would enable users to create their own rules for ownership, transaction formats and state transition functions that they could build into custom software programs of their own creation. On top of the Ethereum network’s foundational layer, users can write and deploy “smart contracts”, which are general-purpose code that executes on every computer in the Ethereum network and which govern the transmission of information and value based on a set of logical conditions. Smart contract operations are executed on the Ethereum Blockchain in exchange for payment of ETH. Users can also build complex applications, or “decentralized applications”, which employ the Ethereum Blockchain as a back-end infrastructure instead of centralized web servers, and which may also have an online interface or “front end” through which their own users interact with the decentralized application. Decentralized applications execute operations on the Ethereum Blockchain through associated smart contracts. Using smart contracts and decentralized applications built on top of the Ethereum Blockchain, users can create markets, vote in elections, store data files or registries of debts or promises, represent the ownership of property, play games, and even issue their own digital assets and tokens (other than ETH) inside decentralized applications and transfer them in accordance with sophisticated sets of conditional instructions embedded into smart contracts, allowing decentralized economies to develop.

The infrastructure of the Ethereum network is collectively maintained on a distributed basis by the network’s self-selected participants, consisting of “validators”, who run special software to validate transactions; developers of the Ethereum protocol, who maintain and contribute updates to the Ethereum network’s source code; developers of decentralized applications and smart contracts, which run on top of the Ethereum network; and users, who download and maintain on their individual computer a full or partial copy of the blockchain and related software. There is currently no maximum cap on the total number of ETH that can be issued or outstanding. The value of ETH is determined by the supply of and demand for ETH on the digital asset exchanges or in peer-to-peer transactions.


12

Among other things, ETH is used to pay for transaction fees, or “gas fees,” associated with the computational services required to process transactions or run smart contracts on the Ethereum network. This model is designed to increase the efficiency of the Ethereum network by making wasteful code more costly to execute, to prevent accidental or malicious infinite loops, as well as to promote the economic viability of the Ethereum network by compensating network participants who contribute computational resources for their contributions. Decentralized applications and smart contracts must obtain ETH to pay gas fees in order to operate, creating one source of demand for ETH, alongside speculation and other sources.

ETH Mining, Transaction Validation and Staking – Creation of New ETH

Initial Creation of ETH

Unlike other digital assets such as ETH, which are solely created through a progressive mining process, 72.0 million ETH were created in connection with the launch of the Ethereum network. Following the launch of the Ethereum network, ETH supply increased through a progressive mining process until a recent upgrade on September 15, 2022, referred to as the “Merge”, eliminated the mining process and transitioned the network to a proof-of-stake consensus model.

Proof-of-Stake Validator Rewards

The Ethereum network is kept running by computers all over the world. In order to incentivize those who incur the opportunity costs of staking ETH to secure the network by validating transactions, there is a reward that is given to the validators approximately every 6.4 minutes based on validator performance. Every 15 seconds, on average, a new block is added to the Ethereum Blockchain with the latest transactions processed by the network. Prior to the Merge, the miner that generated this block was awarded 2.0 ETH, with approximately 13,000 ETH in mining rewards created per day. Following the Merge, mining rewards no longer occur; ETH is created only as staking rewards in an amount of approximately 1,600 ETH per day. This amount will vary with the number of amount of ETH staked.

This reward system is the method by which new ETH enter into circulation.

Proof-of-Stake Mining Process

Unlike proof-of-work, in which miners expend computational resources to compete to validate transactions and are rewarded ETH in proportion to the amount of computational resources expended, in proof-of-stake, miners (sometimes called validators) risk or “stake” ETH to compete to be randomly selected to validate transactions and are rewarded ETH in proportion to the amount of ETH staked. Any malicious activity by a miner, such as mining multiple blocks, disagreeing with the eventual consensus or otherwise violating protocol rules, results in the forfeiture or “slashing” of a portion of the staked ETH. Proof-of-stake is viewed as more energy efficient and scalable than proof-of-work and is sometimes referred to as “virtual mining.”

Limits on ETH Supply

The rate at which new ETH are mined and put into circulation is expected to vary. ETH issuances are currently capped by the Ethereum network to ETH issued via staking rewards (expected to be approximately 1,600 ETH per day), but there is no maximum cap on the total number of ETH outstanding.

Target Exposure, Borrowing and Leverage

Although the Fund seeks to maintain the Target Exposure to ETH, the maximum exposure to ETH that the Fund is able to achieve will be primarily determined by: the amount of exposure to ETH provided by the ETH Futures held by the Fund. In addition, the Fund expects to periodically rebalance its positions in ETH Futures in order to seek to achieve or maintain the Target Exposure and may carry out any such rebalancing over a period of time in order to allow the Fund to rebalance its positions in a manner intended to reduce transaction costs.

In addition, the Fund’s actual exposure to ETH at any particular point in time may be less than the Target Exposure, and may be materially less. At any time at which the Fund’s exposure to ETH is less than 100% of the Fund’s net assets (assets (which are the total assets of the Fund less the sum of the Fund’s accrued liabilities), any changes in the value of ETH will generally result in proportionally smaller changes in the Fund’s NAV. At any time at which the Fund’s exposure to ETH is greater than 100% of the Fund’s net assets, any changes in the value of ETH will generally result in proportionally larger changes in the Fund’s NAV. In addition, because the Fund does not invest directly in ETH, the Fund is exposed to futures basis and to deviations between the price of ETH Futures and the price of ETH, and any changes in the value of ETH may result in proportionally smaller or larger changes in the value of the Fund’s ETH Futures. As a result, there can be no assurance that changes in the value of the Fund resulting from the Fund’s investments will track changes in the value of ETH.

The Fund seeks to achieve and maintain the Target Exposure by using leverage inherent in ETH Futures and may also obtain leverage in the form of borrowings, which would typically be in the form of loans from banks, may be on a secured or unsecured basis and at fixed or variable rates of interest. The Fund’s ETH Futures will provide leverage to the extent they give the Fund exposure to an amount of underlying ETH with a greater value than the amount of collateral the Fund is required to post to its FCM. An FCM is a brokerage firm that solicits or accepts orders to buy or sell futures contracts and accepts money or other


13

assets from customers to support such orders. FCMs are required to be registered with the CFTC and to be members of the NFA. From time to time, the Fund may only have one FCM with which it transacts ETH Futures, which may heighten such risk.

The Fund’s investments in ETH Futures will be treated as “derivatives” under Rule 18f-4 (“Rule 18f-4”) under the 1940 Act. Rule 18f-4 regulates the use of derivative instruments and certain related transactions by funds. Pursuant to Rule 18f-4, the Fund will in the future adopt and implement a derivatives risk management program to govern its use of derivatives, and the Fund’s derivatives exposure (including its use of ETH Futures) is limited through a value-at-risk (“VaR”) test. Very generally, VaR is an estimate of an instrument’s or portfolio’s potential losses over a given time horizon and at a specified confidence level. Rule 18f-4 may restrict the Fund’s ability to engage in certain derivatives transactions and/or increase the costs of such derivatives transactions.

The 1940 Act requires the Fund to maintain continuous asset coverage of not less than 300% with respect to all borrowings. This means that the value of the Fund’s total indebtedness may not exceed one-third of the value of its total assets (including such indebtedness). The Fund also may borrow money from banks or other lenders for temporary purposes in an amount not to exceed 5% of the Fund’s assets. Such temporary borrowings are not subject to the asset coverage requirements discussed above. Investments or trading practices that involve contractual obligations to pay in the future may be subject to the same requirements unless the Fund designates liquid assets in an amount the Fund believes to be equal to the Fund’s contractual obligations (marked-to-market on a daily basis) or, for certain instruments, appropriately “covers” such obligations with offsetting positions.

Forms of Attack Against the ETH Network

In addition, many digital asset networks have been subjected to a number of denial of service attacks, which has led to temporary delays in block creation and in the transfer of ETH. Any similar attacks on the ETH Network that impact the ability to transfer ETH could have a material adverse effect on the price of ETH.

ETH Market and ETH Trading Platforms

In addition to using ETH to engage in transactions, investors may purchase and sell ETH to speculate as to the value of ETH in the ETH market, or as a long term investment to diversify their portfolio. The value of ETH within the market is determined, in part, by the supply of and demand for ETH in the ETH market, market expectations for the adoption of ETH by individuals, the number of merchants that accept ETH as a form of payment and the volume of private end user to end user transactions.

The most common means of determining a reference value is by surveying trading platforms where secondary markets for ETH exist. The most prominent ETH trading platforms are often referred to as “exchanges”, although they are not regulated and do not report trade information in the same way as a national securities exchange. As such, there is some difference in the form, transparency and reliability of trading data from ETH trading platforms. Generally speaking, ETH data is available from these trading platforms with publicly disclosed valuations for each executed trade, measured by one or more fiat currencies such as the U.S. dollar or Euro or another digital asset such as ether or tether. Over-the-counter ("OTC") dealers or market makers do not typically disclose their trade data.

Competition

ETH is second largest digital asset by market capitalization of the more than approximately 12,000 digital assets. In addition, many consortiums and financial institutions are also researching and investing resources into private or permissioned smart contracts platforms rather than open platforms like the ETH network. Competition from the emergence or growth of alternative digital assets and smart contracts platforms, such as Solana, Binance Smart Chain, Cosmos, Polkadot, and numerous others, could have a negative impact on the demand for, and price of, ETH and thereby adversely affect the value of ETH Futures and an investment in the Fund.

Regulation of ETH

ETH and other digital assets have increasingly attracted attention from U.S. and foreign regulators. Such regulatory attention has included enforcement actions for violations of securities and commodities laws, as well as the release of regulatory guidance explaining how existing regulatory regimes apply to digital assets, and orders approving certain digital asset related products. In more limited cases, new legislation or regulations have been proposed or adopted to govern the use of digital assets and their networks.

U.S. federal and state agencies have been examining the operations of digital asset networks, digital asset users and the digital asset trading platforms, with particular focus on the extent to which digital assets can be used to launder the proceeds of illegal activities or fund criminal or terrorist enterprises and the safety and soundness of trading platforms or other service providers that


14

hold digital assets for users. Many of these state and federal agencies have issued consumer advisories regarding the risks posed by digital assets to investors. In addition, federal and state agencies, and other countries have issued rules or guidance about the treatment of digital asset transactions or requirements for businesses engaged in digital asset activity. For example, on February 26, 2021, the SEC’s Division of Examinations issued a risk alert entitled “Continued Focus on Digital Asset Securities” discussing observations made by its staff during examinations of investment advisers, broker-dealers, and transfer agents regarding digital asset securities.

Various U.S. federal and state and foreign jurisdictions have, and may continue to, in the near future, adopt laws, regulations or directives that affect the ETH Network, the ETH markets, and their users, particularly digital asset trading platforms and service providers that fall within such jurisdictions’ regulatory scope. There remains significant uncertainty regarding the US and foreign government and quasi-governmental regulatory actions with respect to digital assets and digital asset exchanges. Foreign laws, regulations or directives may conflict with those of the U.S. and may negatively impact the acceptance of ETH by users, merchants and service providers and may therefore impede the growth or sustainability of the ETH economy in the European Union, China, South Korea, India and the U.S. and globally, or otherwise negatively affect the value of ETH.

The effect of any future regulatory change on the Fund or ETH is impossible to predict, but such change could be substantial and adverse to the Fund and the value of the Fund’s shares.

ETH Reference Rate. The MVIS® CryptoCompare Ethereum Benchmark Rate is a U.S. dollar-denominated composite reference rate for the price of ETH. The index is calculated daily between 00:00 and 24:00 (CET) and the index values are disseminated to data vendors. The index is disseminated in USD and the closing value is calculated based on one hour volume weighted average price.

The MVIS® CryptoCompare Ethereum Benchmark Rate is designed to be a robust price for ETH in USD. There is no component other than ETH in the index. The underlying exchanges are sourced from the industry leading CryptoCompare Exchange Benchmark review report. CryptoCompare Exchange Benchmark was established in 2019 as a tool designed to bring clarity to the digital asset exchange sector by providing a framework for assessing risk and in turn bringing transparency and accountability to a complex and rapidly evolving market. The CryptoCompare Exchange Benchmark methodology utilizes a combination of qualitative and quantitative metrics to analyze a comprehensive data set, covering more than 165 exchanges across eight categories of evaluation. The CryptoCompare Exchange Benchmark review report assigns a grade to each exchange which helps identify what it believes to be the lowest risk exchanges in the industry. Based on the CryptoCompare Exchange Benchmark, MVIS initially selects the top five exchanges by rank for inclusion in the MVIS® CryptoCompare Ethereum Benchmark Rate. If an eligible exchange is in the top five by rank for two consecutive semi-annual reviews, it replaces the lowest ranked exchange. If an eligible exchange is downgraded by two or more notches in a semi-annual review and is no longer in the top five by rank, it is replaced by the highest ranked non-component exchange. Adjustments to exchange coverage are announced four business days prior to the first business day of each of March and September at 23:00 CET. The MVIS® CryptoCompare Ethereum Benchmark Rate is rebalanced at 16:00:00 ET on the last business day of each of February and August. The current exchange composition of the MVIS® CryptoCompare Ethereum Benchmark Rate is Bitstamp, Coinbase, Gemini, itBit and Kraken.

FUNDAMENTAL AND NON-FUNDAMENTAL POLICIES

The Fund’s investment objective and each of its other investment policies are non-fundamental policies that may be changed by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board of Trustees”) without shareholder approval, except as noted in this Prospectus or the Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) under the section entitled “Investment Policies and Restrictions— Investment Restrictions.”

RISKS OF INVESTING IN THE FUND

The following section provides additional information regarding the principal risks identified under “Principal Risks of Investing in the Fund” in the Fund’s “Summary Information” section followed by additional risk information.

The value of ETH and, therefore, of the Fund’s ETH Futures, could decline rapidly, including to zero. You should be prepared to lose your entire investment.


15

Risk Related to ETH. The Fund may be subject to the following risks as a result of its investments in ETH Futures:

Digital Asset Risk. Digital assets such as ETH were only introduced recently, and the medium-to-long term value of the Shares is influenced by a wide variety of factors affecting the Ethereum network that are uncertain and difficult to evaluate, such as the infancy of the Ethereum network’s development, the Ethereum network’s dependence on relatively new technologies such as cryptographic software protocols, the Ethereum network’s dependence on the role played by validators and core developers, the continued success (or lack thereof) of the Ethereum network and its core developers in upgrading the Ethereum network’s source code to improve transaction processing speed and overall efficiency, and generally to expand the network’s capabilities, and the potential for malicious activity. For example, the following are some of the Ethereum network risks that could materially adversely affect the value of the Shares:

•The trading prices of many digital assets associated with blockchain protocols, including ETH, have experienced extreme volatility in recent periods and may continue to do so. The ETH markets may be experiencing a bubble or may experience a bubble again in the future. Extreme volatility in the future, including further declines in the trading prices of ETH, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares and the Shares could lose all or substantially all of their value.

•Blockchain protocols and the software used to operate them are in the early stages of development. Given the infancy of the development of blockchain protocols, parties may be unwilling to transact in digital assets, which would dampen the growth, if any, of such blockchain protocols, including the Ethereum network, and lead to the decline in value of their associated digital assets, including ETH.

•Digital asset networks are dependent upon the internet. A disruption of the internet or a blockchain network, such as the Ethereum network, would affect the ability to transfer digital assets, including ETH, and, consequently, adversely affect their value.

•The Ethereum network is in the process of implementing software upgrades and other changes to its protocol, which may be unsuccessful or introduce new vulnerabilities to the network.

•The Ethereum network has no central decision-making body or clear manner in which participants can come to an agreement other than through widespread, voluntary consensus. If key constituencies such as validators, core developers, or users of the Ethereum network, or sub-groups within such constituencies, are unable to reach consensus among themselves and the wider Ethereum community about proposed changes, it may negatively impact the Ethereum network’s utility, operations, and ability to adapt and face challenges, including technical and scaling challenges. In extreme cases, it could (and has) lead to a hard fork, with different network participants supporting different versions of the Ethereum network that lack interchangeability. Governance issues and divisions within the Ethereum community could lead to a decline in the price of ETH.

•The open-source nature of many blockchain protocols, such as the Ethereum network, means that core developers are generally not directly compensated for their contributions in maintaining and developing such protocols and the related source code. As a result, the core developers and other contributors may lack a financial incentive to maintain or develop the network, or may lack the resources to adequately address emerging issues or to execute planned changes to such source code. Alternatively, some developers may be funded by companies whose interests are at odds with other participants in the Ethereum network. If the Ethereum network is unable to retain the services of core developers who maintain the Ethereum protocol, there may not be sufficient network level support for the Ethereum protocol, and it will have difficulty solving its scaling challenges or implementing other futures upgrades, which could lead to a decline in the price of ETH.

•Validators, the Ethereum protocol’s core developers, developers of decentralized applications and smart contracts, and users may switch to or adopt other blockchain or digital asset networks at the expense of their engagement with the Ethereum network, which may negatively impact the Ethereum network and could lead to a decline in the price of ETH.

•Decentralized application and smart contract developers depend on being able to obtain ETH to be able to run their programs and operate their businesses. In particular, decentralized applications and smart contracts require ETH in order to pay the gas fees needed to power such applications and smart contracts and execute transactions. As such, they represent a significant source of demand for ETH. ETH’s price volatility (particularly where ETH prices increase), or the Ethereum network’s wider inability to meet the demands of decentralized applications and smart contracts in terms of inexpensive, reliable, and prompt transaction execution (including during congested periods), or to solve its scaling challenges or increase its throughput, may discourage such decentralized application and smart contract developers from using the Ethereum network as the foundational infrastructure layer for building their applications and smart contracts. If decentralized application and smart contract developers abandon the Ethereum Blockchain for other blockchain or digital asset networks or protocols for whatever reason, the value of ETH could be negatively affected.

•To the extent that any validators cease to record transactions that do not include the payment of a transaction fee in solved blocks or do not record a transaction because the transaction fee is too low, such transactions will not be recorded on the Ethereum Blockchain until a block is solved by a validator who does not require the


16

payment of transaction fees or is willing to accept a lower fee, if there is one. Any widespread delays in the recording of transactions could result in a loss of confidence in the Ethereum network, resulting in a decline in ETH prices.

•In the past, flaws in the source code for digital asset networks have been exposed and exploited, including flaws that resulted in the theft of users’ digital assets. The cryptography underlying the Ethereum Blockchain or the source code for ETH or the Ethereum network could prove to be flawed or ineffective, the process of implementing hard forks could result in vulnerabilities in either the old or the new network developing or being exposed, or developments in mathematics and/or technology, such as advances in quantum computing, could result in such cryptography becoming ineffective. Even if another digital asset other than ETH were affected by similar circumstances, any reduction in confidence in the robustness of the source code or cryptography underlying digital assets generally could negatively affect the demand for all digital assets, including ETH, and therefore adversely affect the value of the Shares.

•As a result of the Merge, the Ethereum Blockchain now uses proof-of-stake consensus model, which may subject the network and ETH to new and unexpected vulnerabilities not applicable to proof-of-work consensus models.

Moreover, because blockchain technology and digital assets, including ETH, have been in existence for a short period of time and are continuing to develop, there may be additional risks in the future that are impossible to predict or evaluate as of the date of this prospectus. It is not clear how all elements of the Ethereum network will unfold over time, specifically with regard to governance between validators, developers and users, including with respect to future network upgrades, as well as the long-term security of the Ethereum network.

“51% Attack” Risk. If the majority of the staked ETH dedicated to validating transactions on the Ethereum network is controlled by a bad actor (often referred to as a “51% attack”), it may be able to alter the Ethereum Blockchain on which the Ethereum network and ETH transactions rely. This could occur if the bad actor were to construct fraudulent blocks or prevent certain transactions from completing in a timely manner, or at all. It could be possible for the malicious actor to control, exclude or modify the ordering of transactions, though it could not generate new ETH or transactions. Further, a bad actor could “double-spend” its own ETH (i.e., spend the same ETH in more than one transaction) and prevent the confirmation of other users’ transactions for so long as it maintained control. Reversing any changes made to the Ethereum Blockchain may be impossible. Further, a malicious actor could create a flood of transactions in order to slow down confirmations of transactions on the Ethereum network. If a bad actor gains control of a majority of the processing power on the Ethereum network, or the feasibility of such an occurrence increases, there may be a negative effect on an investment in the Fund.

Extreme Volatility Risk. The price of ETH as determined by the ETH market has experienced periods of extreme volatility and may be influenced by a wide variety of factors. Speculators and investors who seek to profit from trading and holding ETH generate a significant portion of ETH demand. Such speculation regarding the potential future appreciation in the value of ETH may cause the price of ETH to increase. Conversely, a decrease in demand for or speculative interest regarding ETH may cause the price to decline. The volatility of the price of ETH, particularly arising from speculative activity, may have a negative impact on the performance of the Fund.

ETH Exchanges Risk. Over the past several years, a number of ETH exchanges have been closed or faced issues due to fraud, failure, security breaches or governmental regulations. The nature of the assets held at ETH exchanges makes them appealing targets for hackers and a number of ETH exchanges have been victims of cybercrimes. In many of these instances, the customers of such ETH exchanges were not compensated or made whole for the partial or complete losses of their account balances in such ETH exchanges. No ETH exchange is immune from these risks. While the Fund itself does not buy or sell ETH on ETH exchanges, the closure or temporary shutdown of ETH exchanges due to fraud, business failure, hackers or malware, or government-mandated regulation may reduce confidence in the Ethereum network and can slow down the mass adoption of ETH. Further, such ETH exchange failures or that of any other major component of the overall ETH ecosystem can have an adverse effect on ETH markets and the price of ETH and could therefore have a negative impact on the performance of the Fund.

Scaling Risk. Many digital asset networks face significant scaling challenges due to the fact that public blockchains generally face a tradeoff between security and scalability. If increases in throughput on the Ethereum network lag behind growth in usage of ETH, average fees and settlement times may increase considerably. The Ethereum network has been, at times, at capacity, which has led to increased transaction fees and decreased settlement speeds. Increased fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude certain uses for ETH, and could reduce demand for, and the price of, ETH, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares. Many developers are actively researching and testing scalability solutions for public blockchains that do not necessarily result in lower levels of security or decentralization. However, there is no guarantee that any of the mechanisms in place or being explored for increasing the scale of settlement of the Ethereum network transactions will be effective, or how long these mechanisms will take to become effective, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares.


17

Ethereum Upgrade Risk. The Ethereum community implements upgrades to the Ethereum network from time to time. The most recent upgrade, the Merge, transitioned the network from proof-of-work to proof of stake. As a result of the Merge, new ETH are only issued as staking rewards, but these rewards will not be accessible until a planned future upgrade which will allow for their withdrawal. Any or all of the planned future upgrades may fail to work as intended or to deliver the expected functionality, may never occur or may be cancelled, postponed, delayed, or otherwise stymied by governance or technical challenges or other causes, may introduce bugs, exploitable flaws, software defects, vulnerabilities or cybersecurity issues into the source code of the Ethereum network, may cause speculative sentiment to turn negative, or may have other deleterious effects. It is possible that these upgrades will never occur, that the transition will be only partially implemented. Lack of successful implementation of these planned and other future network upgrades may have a negative effect on the market value of ETH.

Smart Contracts Risk. Smart contracts are programs that run on the Ethereum Blockchain that execute automatically when certain conditions are met. Since smart contracts typically cannot be stopped or reversed, vulnerabilities in their programming can have damaging effects. In some cases, smart contracts can be controlled by one or more “admin keys” or users with special privileges, or “super users”. These users may have the ability to unilaterally make changes to the smart contract, enable or disable features on the smart contract, change how the smart contract receives external inputs and data, and make other changes to the smart contract.

Many decentralized finance applications are currently deployed on the Ethereum network, and smart contracts relating to decentralized finance applications currently represent a significant source of demand for ETH. Decentralized finance applications may achieve their investment purposes through self-executing smart contracts that may allow users to invest digital assets in a pool from which other users can borrow without requiring an intermediate party to facilitate these transactions. These investments may earn interest to the investor based on the rates at which borrowers repay the loan, and can generally be withdrawn by the investor. For smart contracts that hold a pool of digital asset reserves, smart contract super users or admin key holders may be able to extract funds from the pool, liquidate assets held in the pool, or take other actions that decrease the value of the digital assets held by the smart contract in reserves. Even for digital assets that have adopted a decentralized governance mechanism, such as smart contracts that are governed by the holders of a governance token, such governance tokens can be concentrated in the hands of a small group of core community members, who would be able to make similar changes unilaterally to the smart contract. If any such super user or group of core members unilaterally make adverse changes to a smart contract, the design, functionality, features and value of the smart contract, its related digital assets may be harmed. In addition, assets held by the smart contract in reserves may be stolen, misused, burnt, locked up or otherwise become unusable and irrecoverable. Super users can also become targets of hackers and malicious attackers. Furthermore, the underlying smart contracts may be insecure, contain bugs or other vulnerabilities, or otherwise may not work as intended. Any of the foregoing could cause users of the decentralized finance application to be negatively affected, or could cause the decentralized finance application to be the subject of negative publicity. Because decentralized finance applications to date are primarily built on the Ethereum network and represent a significant source of demand for ETH, public confidence in the Ethereum network itself could be negatively affected as a result of a smart contract exploit, and the value of ETH could decrease.

Stablecoin Risk. While the Fund does not invest in stablecoins, it may nonetheless be exposed to the risks that stablecoins pose for the ETH market through its exposure to ETH. Stablecoins are digital assets designed to have a stable value over time as compared to typically volatile digital assets, and are typically marketed as being pegged to a fiat currency, such as the U.S. dollar. Although the prices of stablecoins are intended to be stable, in many cases their prices fluctuate, sometimes significantly. This volatility has in the past apparently impacted the price of ETH. Stablecoins are a relatively new phenomenon, and it is impossible to know all of the risks that they could pose to participants in the ETH market. In addition, some have argued that some stablecoins, particularly Tether, are improperly issued without sufficient backing in a way that could cause artificial rather than genuine demand for ETH, raising its price. The New York Attorney General filed suit against Tether’s operators and its affiliates in 2019 in connection with some of these allegations. In February 2021, the New York Attorney General entered into a settlement agreement with Tether requiring Tether to, among other things, pay a penalty and discontinue trading activity with any New York person or entity. On October 15, 2021, the CFTC settled similar charges against Tether and required Tether to pay a civil penalty and to cease and desist from any further violations of the CEA and CFTC regulations. Volatility in stablecoins, operational issues with stablecoins (for example, technical issues that prevent settlement), issues relating to the quality and liquidity of reserves of stablecoins (such as whether the stablecoin issuer is able to liquidate reserves quickly enough to meet redemption requestions) or regulatory concerns about stablecoin issuers or intermediaries, such as exchanges, that support stablecoins, could impact individuals’ willingness to trade on trading venues that rely on stablecoins and could impact the price of ETH, and in turn, the Fund’s ETH Futures.

ETH Cybersecurity Risk. If the source code or cryptography underlying ETH proves to be flawed or ineffective, malicious actors may be able to steal ETH held by others, which could negatively impact the demand for ETH and therefore adversely impact the price of ETH. In the past, flaws in the source code for ETH have been discovered, including those that resulted in the loss of users’ ETH. Several errors and defects have been publicly found and


18

corrected, including those that disabled some functionality for users and exposed users’ personal information. Discovery of flaws in or exploitations of the source code that allow malicious actors to take or create money in contravention of known network rules have occurred. In addition, the cryptography underlying ETH could prove to be flawed or ineffective, or developments in mathematics and/or technology, including advances in digital computing, algebraic geometry and quantum computing, could result in such cryptography becoming ineffective. In any of these circumstances, a malicious actor may be able to steal ETH held by others, which could adversely affect the demand for ETH and therefore adversely impact the price of ETH. Even if the affected digital asset is not ETH, any reduction in confidence in the source code or cryptography underlying digital assets generally could negatively impact the demand for ETH and therefore adversely affect the Fund’s ETH Futures.

If an exploitation or attack on the ETH network occurs, it could result in a loss of public confidence in ETH and a decline in the value of ETH and, as a result, adversely impact the Fund’s ETH Futures.

Internet Disruption Risk. ETH is dependent upon the internet. A significant disruption in internet connectivity could disrupt the ETH network’s operations until the disruption is resolved and have an adverse effect on the price of ETH. In particular, some variants of digital assets have been subjected to a number of denial-of-service attacks, which have led to temporary delays in block creation and in the transfer of the digital assets. While in certain cases in response to an attack, an additional hard fork has been introduced to increase the cost of certain network functions, the relevant network has continued to be the subject of additional attacks. Moreover, it is possible that if ETH increases in value, it may become a bigger target for hackers and subject to more frequent hacking and denial-of-service attacks.

ETH is also susceptible to border gateway protocol (“BGP”) hijacking. Such an attack can be a very effective way for an attacker to intercept traffic en route to a legitimate destination. BGP hijacking impacts the way different nodes and validators are connected to one another to isolate portions of them from the remainder of the network, which could lead to a risk of the network allowing double-spending and other security issues. If BGP hijacking occurs on the ETH network, participants may lose faith in the security of ETH, which could adversely affect ETH’s value and consequently the Fund’s ETH Futures.

Any future attacks that impact the ability to transfer ETH could have a material adverse effect on the price of ETH and on the Fund’s ETH Futures.

ETH Regulatory Risk. As ETH and digital assets have grown in both popularity and market size, the U.S. Congress and a number of U.S. federal and state agencies have been examining the operations of digital asset networks, digital asset users and the digital asset exchange market. Many of these state and federal agencies have brought enforcement actions and issued advisories and rules relating to digital asset markets. Ongoing and future regulatory actions with respect to digital assets generally or any single digital asset in particular may alter, perhaps to a materially adverse extent, the nature of an investment in the ETH and/or the ability of the Fund to continue to operate.

Future Regulatory Action Risk. Current and future legislation, SEC and CFTC rulemaking, and other regulatory developments may impact the manner in which ETH is treated for classification and clearing purposes. In particular, certain transactions in ETH may be deemed to be commodity interests under the CEA or ETH may be classified by the SEC as a “security” under U.S. federal securities laws. Public statements by senior officials at the SEC, including a June 2018 speech by the director of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance, indicate that such officials do not believe that ETH is a security. Such statements are not official policy statements by the SEC and reflect only the speaker’s views, which are not binding on the SEC or any other agency or court. If ETH is determined to be a “security” under federal or state securities laws by the SEC or any other agency, or in a proceeding in a court of law or otherwise, it may have material adverse consequences for ETH as a digital asset.

ETH Tax Treatment Risk. Current IRS guidance indicates that convertible virtual currency, defined as a digital representation of value that functions as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and/or a store of value that has an equivalent value in real currency, or that acts as a substitute for real currency, should be treated and taxed as property, and that transactions involving the payment of convertible virtual currency for goods and services should be treated as barter transactions. While this treatment allows for the possibility of capital gains treatment, it creates a potential tax reporting requirement in any circumstance where the ownership of convertible virtual currency passes from one person to another, usually by means of convertible virtual currency transactions (including off-blockchain transactions), which could discourage the use of ETH as a medium of exchange, especially for a holder of ETH that has appreciated in value.

A number of states have issued their own guidance regarding the tax treatment of certain digital assets for state income or sales tax purposes. The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (“NYSDTF”), for example, has issued guidance regarding the application of state tax law to virtual currency. The agency determined that New York State would follow IRS guidance with respect to the treatment of virtual currency for state income tax purposes. Furthermore, the NYSDTF concluded that virtual currency is a form of “intangible property,” meaning that transactions using virtual currency to purchase goods or services may be subject to state sales tax under barter transaction treatment. Where a state adopts a different treatment, such treatment may have negative consequences for investors in digital assets,


19

including the potential imposition of a greater tax burden on investors in digital assets or the potential imposition of greater costs on the acquisition and disposition of digital assets. In either case, such different tax treatment may potentially have a negative effect on the price of ETH and on the Fund’s ETH Futures.

Intellectual Property Risk. Third parties may assert intellectual property claims relating to the holding and transfer of ETH and its source code. Regardless of the merit of any intellectual property or other legal action, any threatened action that reduces confidence in long-term viability or the ability of end-users to hold and transfer ETH may adversely affect the Fund’s ETH Futures. Additionally, a meritorious intellectual property claim could prevent end-users from accessing, holding, or transferring ETH. As a result, an intellectual property claim against large ETH participants could adversely affect the Fund’s ETH Futures.

ETH Trading Venues Operational Risk. Venues through which ETH trades are relatively new. ETH trading venues are generally subject to different regulatory requirements than venues for trading more traditional assets, and may be subject to limited or no regulation, especially outside the U.S. Furthermore, many such trading venues, including exchanges and over-the-counter trading venues, do not provide the public with significant information regarding their ownership structure, management teams, corporate practices or regulatory compliance. ETH trading venues may impose daily, weekly, monthly or customer-specific transaction or distribution limits or suspend withdrawals entirely, rendering the exchange of ETH for fiat currency difficult or impossible. Participation in ETH trading on some venues requires users to take on credit risk by transferring digital assets from a personal account to a third party’s account, which could discourage trading on those venues.

Over the past several years, a number of ETH exchanges have been closed due to fraud, failure or security breaches. In many of these instances, the customers of such exchanges were not compensated or made whole for the partial or complete losses of their account balances in such exchanges. While smaller trading venues are less likely to have the infrastructure and capitalization that make larger trading venues more stable, larger trading venues are more likely to be appealing targets for hackers and “malware” (i.e., software used or programmed by attackers to disrupt computer operation, gather sensitive information or gain access to private computer systems). ETH trading venues that are regulated typically must comply with minimum net worth, cybersecurity, and anti-money laundering requirements, but are not typically required to protect customers to the same extent that regulated securities exchanges or futures exchanges are required to do so.

Furthermore, many ETH trading venues lack certain safeguards put in place by exchanges for more traditional assets to enhance the stability of trading on the exchanges and prevent “flash crashes,” such as limit-down circuit breakers. As a result, the prices of ETH on trading venues may be subject to larger and/or more frequent sudden declines than assets traded on more traditional exchanges.

Operational problems or failures by ETH trading venues and fluctuations in ETH prices may reduce confidence in these venues or in ETH generally, which could adversely affect the price of ETH and therefore adversely affect the Fund’s ETH Futures.

Political or Economic Crisis Risk. As an alternative to fiat currencies that are backed by central governments, ETH is subject to supply and demand forces based upon the desirability of an alternative, decentralized means of buying and selling goods and services, and it is unclear how such supply and demand will be impacted by geopolitical events. Nevertheless, political or economic crises may motivate large-scale acquisitions or sales of ETH, either globally or locally. Large-scale sales of ETH would result in a reduction in its price and adversely affect the Fund’s ETH Futures.

Large Scale ETH Sale Risk. There is no registry showing which individuals or entities own ETH or the quantity of ETH that is owned by any particular person or entity. It is possible, and in fact, reasonably likely, that a small group of early ETH adopters hold a significant proportion of the ETH that has been created to date. There are no regulations in place that would prevent a large holder of ETH from selling ETH it holds. To the extent such large holders of ETH engage in large-scale sales or distributions, either on nonmarket terms or in the ordinary course, it could result in a reduction in the price of ETH and adversely affect an investment in the Fund.

Futures Contract Risk. The use of futures contracts involves risks that are in addition to, and potentially greater than, the risks of investing directly in securities and other more traditional assets. The market for ETH Futures may be less developed, and potentially less liquid and more volatile, than more established futures markets. While the ETH Futures market has grown substantially since ETH Futures commenced trading, there can be no assurance that this growth will continue. ETH Futures are subject to collateral requirements and daily limits that may limit the Fund’s ability to achieve the Target Exposure. Margin requirements for ETH Futures traded on the CME may be substantially higher than margin requirements for many other types of futures contracts. If the Fund is unable to meet its investment objective, the Fund’s returns may be lower than expected. Additionally, these collateral requirements may require the Fund to liquidate its position when it otherwise would not do so. Futures contracts exhibit “futures basis,” which refers to the difference between the current market value of the underlying ETH (the “spot” price) and the price of the cash-settled futures contracts. A negative futures basis exists when cash-settled ETH Futures generally trade at a premium to the current market value of ETH. If a negative futures basis exists, the Fund’s investments in ETH Futures


20

will generally underperform a direct investment in ETH, and, therefore, it may be more difficult for the Fund to maintain the Target Exposure. If the Fund’s ability to achieve the Target Exposure is disrupted for any reason including, for example, limited liquidity in the ETH Futures market, a disruption to the ETH Futures market, or as a result of margin requirements or position limits imposed by the Fund’s FCMs, the CME or the CFTC, the Fund may not be able to achieve its investment objective and may experience significant losses. If the Fund is unable for any reason to achieve the Target Exposure, the Adviser, in its sole discretion, may invest the Fund’s assets in Cash and Fixed Income Investments. To the extent the Fund invests in Cash and Fixed Income Investments, the Fund’s performance should be expected to differ from the performance of ETH Futures and its returns may be lower than expected.

This risk may be adversely affected by “negative roll yields” in “contango” markets. The Fund will “roll” out of one ETH Futures as the expiration date approaches and into another ETH Futures with a later expiration date. The "rolling" feature creates the potential for a significant negative effect on the Fund's performance that is independent of the performance of the spot prices of the ETH. The "spot price" of a commodity is the price of that commodity for immediate delivery, as opposed to a futures price, which represents the price for delivery on a specified date in the future. The Fund would be expected to experience negative roll yield if ETH Futures prices tend to be greater than the spot price of ETH. A market where futures prices are generally greater than spot prices is referred to as a "contango" market. Therefore, if the futures market for a given commodity is in contango, then the value of a futures contract on that commodity would tend to decline over time (assuming the spot price remains unchanged), because the higher futures price would fall as it converges to the lower spot price by expiration.

The use of derivatives presents risks different from, and possibly greater than, the risks associated with investing directly in traditional securities. The use of derivatives by the Fund can lead to losses because of adverse movements in the price or value of the underlying reference asset, which may be magnified by certain features of the derivatives. Derivative strategies often involve leverage, which may exaggerate a loss, potentially causing the Fund to lose more money than it originally committed to initial margin, and more money than it would have lost had it invested in the underlying reference asset. The values of derivatives may move in unexpected ways, especially in unusual market conditions, and may result in increased volatility, among other consequences. There may be imperfect correlation between changes in the market value of a derivative and the value of its underlying reference asset, and this may be exaggerated in times of market stress or volatility. ETH Futures require the Fund to post margin or collateral or otherwise maintain liquid assets in a manner that satisfies contractual undertakings and regulatory requirements. In order to satisfy margin or other requirements, the Fund may need to sell securities from its portfolio or exit positions at a time when it may be disadvantageous to do so. All of this could, in turn, affect the Fund’s ability to fully execute its investment strategies and/or achieve its investment objective. The use of derivatives may also increase the amount of taxes payable by shareholders because changes in government regulation of derivatives could affect the character, timing and amount of the Fund’s taxable income or gains. Other risks arise from the Fund’s potential inability to terminate or sell derivative positions. A liquid secondary market may not always exist for the Fund’s derivative positions at times when the Fund might wish to terminate or sell such positions. The use of derivatives also involves the risk of mispricing or improper valuation and that changes in the value of the derivative may not correlate perfectly with the underlying reference rate. Derivatives may be subject to changing government regulation that could impact the Fund’s ability to use certain derivatives and their cost.

In October 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 “derivatives rule”). The derivatives rule requires funds to trade derivatives and other transactions that create future fund payment or delivery obligations subject to a value-at-risk (“VaR”) leverage limit, and certain derivatives risk management program and reporting requirements. Generally, these requirements apply unless a fund qualifies as a “limited derivatives user,” as defined in the derivatives rule. Under the derivatives rule, when a fund trades reverse repurchase agreements or similar financing transactions, including certain tender option bonds, 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 when calculating the fund’s asset coverage ratio or treat all such transactions as derivatives transactions. Reverse repurchase agreements or similar financing transactions aggregated with other indebtedness do not need to be included in the calculation of whether a fund is a limited derivatives user, but for funds subject to the VaR testing, reverse repurchase agreements and similar financing transactions must be included for purposes of such testing whether treated as derivatives transactions or not. The SEC also provided guidance in connection with the derivatives rule regarding use of securities lending collateral that may limit a fund's securities lending activities. In addition, under the derivatives rule, the Fund is permitted to 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 under 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”). The Fund may otherwise engage in such 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 derivatives rule. Furthermore, under the derivatives rule, the Fund will


21

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.

Counterparty Risk. Investing in derivatives and repurchase agreements involves entering into contracts with third parties (i.e., counterparties). The use of derivatives and repurchase agreements involves risks that are different from those associated with ordinary portfolio securities transactions. The Fund will be subject to credit risk (i.e., the risk that a counterparty is or is perceived to be unwilling or unable to make timely payments or otherwise meet its contractual obligations) with respect to the amount it expects to receive from counterparties to derivatives and repurchase agreements entered into by the Fund. If a counterparty becomes bankrupt or fails to perform its obligations, or if any collateral posted by the counterparty for the benefit of the Fund is insufficient or there are delays in the Fund's ability to access such collateral, the value of an investment in the Fund may decline. The counterparty to a listed futures contract is the derivatives clearing organization for the listed future. The listed future is held through an FCM acting on behalf of the Fund. Consequently, the counterparty risk on a listed futures contract is the creditworthiness of the FCM and the exchange's clearing corporation. From time to time, the Fund may only have one FCM with which it transacts ETH Futures, which may heighten such risk.

Investment Capacity Risk. The Adviser may determine to modify the Fund’s exposure to ETH in response to extreme market conditions, as determined in the sole discretion of the Adviser, and to avoid exceeding any position limits applicable to ETH Futures established by the CME or the CFTC. The position limits by the CME prevent any single investor, such as the Fund (together with all other accounts managed by the Adviser required to be aggregated), from holding more than a specified number of ETH Futures. These position limits may prevent the Fund from entering into the desired amount of ETH Futures at times. The Fund does not anticipate that the CME’s position limits will adversely affect the Fund’s ability to achieve the Target Exposure until the Fund’s assets under management grow significantly. FCMs utilized by the Fund may also impose limits on the amount of exposure to ETH Futures the Fund can obtain through such FCMs. As a result, the Fund may need to transact through a number of FCMs to achieve the Target Exposure. If not enough FCMs are willing to transact with the Fund, or if exposure limits imposed by such FCMs do not provide sufficient exposure, the Fund may not be able to achieve the Target Exposure. Any modification to the Fund’s exposure to ETH may cause the Fund to exit its ETH Futures at disadvantageous times or prices. The Fund may not succeed in achieving or maintaining its Target Exposure, possibly maintaining substantially lower exposure for extended periods of time. If the Fund’s ability to achieve the Target Exposure is disrupted for any reason including, for example, limited liquidity in the ETH Futures market, a disruption to the ETH Futures market, or as a result of margin requirements or position limits imposed by the Fund’s FCMs, the CME or the CFTC, the Fund may not be able to achieve its investment objective and may experience significant losses.

If the Fund is unable for any reason to achieve Target Exposure, the Adviser, in its sole discretion, may invest the Fund’s assets in Cash and Fixed Income Investments. To the extent that the Fund invests in Cash and Fixed Income Investments, the Fund’s performance should be expected to differ from the performance of ETH Futures and its returns may be lower than expected.

Borrowing and Leverage Risk. The Fund seeks to achieve and maintain the Target Exposure by using leverage inherent in ETH Futures and may also obtain leverage in the form of borrowings, which would typically be in the form of loans from banks, and may be on a secured or unsecured basis and at fixed or variable rates of interest. Therefore, the Fund is subject to leverage risk. Leverage can have the effect of magnifying the Fund’s exposure to changes in the value of its assets and may also result in increased volatility in the NAV. This means the Fund will have the potential for greater gains, as well as the potential for greater losses, than if the Fund owned its assets on an unleveraged basis. The Fund is required to comply with the derivatives rule when they engage in transactions that create future Fund payment or delivery obligations.

Credit Risk. Credit risk is the risk that the issuer or guarantor of a debt security or a counterparty to exchange-traded ETH Futures, such as an FCM or an exchange’s clearing corporation, will be unable or unwilling to make timely principal, interest or settlement payments or otherwise honor its obligations. The Fund invests in debt securities that are subject to varying degrees of risk that the issuers of the securities will have their credit ratings downgraded or will default, potentially reducing the value of the securities.

Interest Rate Risk. Debt securities are subject to interest rate risk. Interest rate risk refers to fluctuations in the value of a security resulting from changes in the general level of interest rates. When the general level of interest rates goes up, the prices of most debt securities and certain Preferred Securities go down. When the general level of interest rates goes down, the prices of most debt securities go up. Many factors can cause interest rates to rise, including central bank monetary policy, rising inflation rates


22

and general economic conditions. The prevailing historically low interest rate environment increases the risk associated with rising interest rates, including the potential for periods of volatility and increased redemptions.

In addition, debt securities, such as bonds, with longer durations tend to be more sensitive to interest rate changes, usually making them more volatile than debt securities, such as bonds, with shorter durations. To the extent the Fund invests a substantial portion of its assets in debt securities with longer-term maturities, rising interest rates may cause the value of the Fund’s investments to decline significantly.

In addition, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, as with other serious economic disruptions, governmental authorities and regulators are enacting significant fiscal and monetary policy changes, including providing direct capital infusions into companies, creating new monetary programs and lowering interest rates. These actions present heightened risks to debt instruments, and such risks could be even further heightened if these actions are unexpectedly or suddenly reversed or are ineffective in achieving their desired outcomes.

Investing in Other Investment Companies Risk. The Fund’s investment in another investment company, which is limited to money market funds or funds that invest in short-term bonds, may subject the Fund indirectly to the underlying risks of the investment company. The Fund also will bear its share of the underlying investment company’s fees and expenses, which are in addition to the Fund’s own fees and expenses. Shares of underlying ETFs may trade at prices that reflect a premium above or a discount below the investment company’s NAV. If investment company securities are purchased at a premium to net asset value, the premium may not exist when those securities are sold and the Fund could incur a loss.

New Fund Risk. The Fund is a new fund, with a limited or no operating history and a small asset base. There can be no assurance that the Fund will grow to or maintain a viable size. Due to the Fund's small asset base, certain of the Fund's expenses and its portfolio transaction costs may be higher than those of a fund with a larger asset base. To the extent that the Fund does not grow to or maintain a viable size, it may be liquidated, and the expenses, timing and tax consequences of such liquidation may not be favorable to some shareholders.

Market Risk. The value of certain of the Fund’s investments, including ETH Futures, is subject to the risks associated with investing in the securities market, including general economic conditions, sudden and unpredictable drops in value, exchange trading suspensions and closures and public health risks. These risks may be magnified if certain social, political, economic and other conditions and events (such as natural disasters, epidemics and pandemics, terrorism, conflicts and social unrest) adversely interrupt the global economy; in these and other circumstances, such events or developments might affect companies world-wide. Overall securities values could decline generally or could underperform other investments. An investment in the Fund may lose money.

The “COVID-19” strain of coronavirus has resulted in instances of market closures and dislocations, extreme volatility, liquidity constraints and increased trading costs. Efforts to contain its spread have resulted in travel restrictions, disruptions of healthcare systems, business operations and supply chains, layoffs, lower consumer demand, and defaults, among other significant economic impacts that have disrupted global economic activity across many industries. Such economic impacts may exacerbate other pre-existing political, social and economic risks locally or globally. The ongoing effects of COVID-19 are unpredictable and may result in significant and prolonged effects on the Fund’s performance.

Non-Diversified Risk. A non-diversified fund may invest a larger portion of its assets in a single issuer than a “diversified” fund. A “diversified” fund is required by the 1940 Act, generally, with respect to 75% of the value of its total assets, to invest not more than 5% of such assets in the securities of a single issuer and not to hold more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of a single issuer. A non-diversified fund’s greater investment in a single issuer makes the fund more susceptible to financial, economic or market events impacting such issuer. A decline in the value of or default by a single security in the non-diversified fund’s portfolio may have a greater negative effect than a similar decline or default by a single security in a diversified portfolio.


23

Regulatory Risk. Changes in the laws or regulations of the United States, including any changes to applicable tax laws and regulations, could impair the ability of the Fund to achieve its investment objective and could increase the operating expenses of the Fund. The Adviser is registered as a CPO under CEA and the rules of the CFTC and is subject to CFTC regulation with respect to the Fund. The CFTC has adopted rules regarding the disclosure, reporting and recordkeeping requirements that will apply with respect to the Fund as a result of the Adviser’s registration as a CPO. Generally, these rules allow for substituted compliance with CFTC disclosure and shareholder reporting requirements, based on the Adviser’s compliance with comparable SEC requirements. This means that for most of the CFTC’s disclosure and shareholder reporting applicable to the Adviser as the Fund’s CPO, the Adviser’s compliance with SEC disclosure and shareholder reporting will be deemed to fulfill the Adviser’s CFTC compliance obligations. However, as a result of CFTC regulation with respect to the Fund, the Fund may incur additional compliance and other expenses. The Adviser is also registered as a CTA but relies on an exemption with respect to the Fund from CTA regulations available for a CTA that also serves as the Fund’s CPO. The CFTC has neither reviewed nor approved the Fund, their investment strategies, or this Prospectus.

Tax Risk. Unlike traditional funds that are structured as regulated investment companies for U.S. federal income tax purposes, the Fund has not elected and has no current intention to elect to be treated as a regulated investment company under the Code because the extent of our direct investments in ETH Futures would generally prevent the Fund from meeting the qualification requirements under the Code for regulated investment companies. The Code generally provides that a regulated investment company does not pay an entity level income tax provided that it distributes all or substantially all of its income and satisfies certain source of income and asset diversification requirements. The regulated investment company taxation rules have no current application to the Fund or to the Fund’s shareholders. The Fund will be taxable as a regular corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes and, as a result, the Fund will be subject to corporate income tax (currently at a rate of 21%, but subject to legislative change) to the extent the Fund recognizes taxable income, and the Fund will also be subject to state and local income taxes.

In calculating the Fund’s daily NAV, the Fund will, among other things, account for its current taxes and deferred tax liability and/or asset balances. The Fund will accrue a deferred income tax liability balance, at the effective statutory U.S. federal income tax rate (currently at a rate of 21%, but subject to legislative change) plus an estimated state and local income tax rate, for its future tax liability associated with the capital appreciation of its investments and the distributions received by the Fund (if any) and for any net operating gains. Any deferred tax liability balance will reduce the Fund’s NAV. The Fund may also accrue a deferred tax asset balance, which reflects an estimate of the Fund’s future tax benefit associated with net operating losses and unrealized losses. Any deferred tax asset balance will increase the Fund’s NAV. To the extent the Fund has a deferred tax asset balance, consideration is given as to whether or not a valuation allowance, which would offset the value of some or all of the deferred tax asset balance, is required. The daily estimate of the Fund’s current taxes and deferred tax liability and/or asset balances used to calculate the Fund’s NAV could vary significantly from the Fund’s actual tax liability or benefit, and, as a result, the determination of the Fund’s actual tax liability or benefit may have a material impact on the Fund’s NAV. From time to time, the Fund may modify its estimates or assumptions regarding its current taxes and deferred tax liability and/or asset balances as new information becomes available, which modifications in estimates or assumptions may have a material impact on the Fund’s NAV or trading price. Shareholders, including APs, who sell their shares or who redeem their shares at a NAV that is based on estimates of the Fund’s current taxes and deferred tax liability and/or asset balances may benefit at the expense of remaining shareholders (or remaining shareholders may benefit at the expense of redeeming shareholders) if the estimates are later revised or ultimately differ from the Fund’s actual tax liability and/or asset balances.

The Fund’s taxable dividends paid will be qualified dividend income eligible for taxation at long term capital gains rates in most circumstances (subject to certain holding period requirements). The Fund will not pay capital gains dividends. ETH futures are expected to be marked to market for tax purposes as of each year end. The total realized gain or loss from such ETH Futures required to be marked-to-market will be taxed to Fund as 60% long-term and 40% short-term capital gain or loss.

The rules dealing with U.S. federal income taxation and the rates themselves are constantly under review in the legislative process and by the IRS and the U.S. Treasury Department. Changes in tax laws or regulations or future interpretations of such laws or regulations, or changes in accounting, tax and valuation practices, could adversely affect the Fund and/or the Fund’s shareholders, potentially retroactively.


24

No Guarantee of Active Trading Market. While Shares are listed on the Exchange, there can be no assurance that an active trading market for the Shares will be maintained. Further, secondary markets may be subject to irregular trading activity, wide bid/ask spreads and extended trade settlement periods in times of market stress because market makers and APs may step away from making a market in the Shares and in executing creation and redemption orders, which could cause a material deviation in the Fund’s market price from its NAV. Van Eck Securities Corporation, the distributor of the Shares (the “Distributor”), does not maintain a secondary market in the Shares. Investors purchasing and selling Shares in the secondary market may not experience investment results consistent with those experienced by those APs creating and redeeming directly with the Fund.

Decisions by market makers or APs to reduce their role or “step away” from these activities in times of market stress could inhibit the effectiveness of the arbitrage process in maintaining the relationship between the underlying value of the Fund’s portfolio securities and the Fund’s market price. This reduced effectiveness could result in Fund Shares trading at a price which differs materially from NAV and also in greater than normal intraday bid/ask spreads for Fund Shares.

Fund Shares Trading, Premium/Discount Risk and Liquidity of Fund Shares. Disruptions to creations and redemptions, the existence of market volatility or potential lack of an active trading market for Shares (including through a trading halt), as well as other factors, may result in Shares trading at a significant premium or discount to NAV or to the intraday value of the Fund’s holdings. The NAV of the Shares will fluctuate with changes in the market value of the Fund’s securities holdings. The market price of Shares may fluctuate, in some cases materially, in accordance with changes in NAV and the intraday value of the Fund’s holdings, as well as supply and demand on the Exchange. The Adviser cannot predict whether Shares will trade below, at or above their NAV. Given the fact that Shares can be created and redeemed by APs in Creation Units, the Adviser believes that large discounts or premiums to the NAV of Shares should not be sustained in the long-term. While the creation/redemption feature is designed to make it likely that Shares normally will trade close to the value of the Fund’s holdings, market prices are not expected to correlate exactly to the Fund’s NAV due to timing reasons, supply and demand imbalances and other factors. The price differences may be due, in large part, to the fact that supply and demand forces at work in the secondary trading market for Shares may be closely related to, but not necessarily identical to, the same forces influencing the prices of the securities of the Fund’s portfolio of investments trading individually or in the aggregate at any point in time. If a shareholder purchases Shares at a time when the market price is at a premium to the NAV or sells Shares at a time when the market price is at a discount to the NAV, the shareholder may pay significantly more or receive significantly less than the underlying value of the Shares that were bought or sold or the shareholder may be unable to sell his or her Shares. Any of these factors, discussed above and further below, may lead to the Shares trading at a premium or discount to the Fund’s NAV. Additionally, in stressed market conditions, the market for the Fund’s Shares may become less liquid in response to deteriorating liquidity in the markets for the Fund’s underlying portfolio holdings. There are various methods by which investors can purchase and sell Shares. Investors should consult their financial intermediaries before purchasing or selling Shares of the Fund.

When you buy or sell Shares of the Fund through a broker, you will likely incur a brokerage commission or other charges imposed by brokers. In addition, the market price of Shares, like the price of any exchange-traded security, includes a bid/ask spread charged by the market makers or other participants that trade the particular security. The spread of the Fund’s Shares varies over time based on the Fund’s trading volume and market liquidity and may increase if the Fund’s trading volume, the spread of the Fund’s underlying securities, or market liquidity decrease. In times of severe market disruption, including when trading of the


25

Fund’s holdings may be halted, the bid/ask spread may increase significantly. This means that Shares may trade at a discount to the Fund’s NAV, and the discount is likely to be greatest during significant market volatility.

Debt Securities Risk. Debt securities may include bonds and other forms of debentures or obligations. When an issuer sells debt securities, it sells them for a certain price, and for a certain term. Over the term of the security, the issuer promises to pay the buyer a certain rate of interest, then to repay the principal at maturity. Debt securities are also bought and sold in the “secondary market”—that is, they are traded by people other than their original issuers.

Debt securities are subject to credit risk and interest rate risk. Credit risk refers to the possibility that the issuer of a debt security will be unable to make interest payments or repay principal when it becomes due. Various factors could affect the issuer’s ability to make timely interest or principal payments, including changes in the issuer’s financial condition or in general economic conditions. Interest rate risk refers to fluctuations in the value of a debt security resulting from changes in the general level of interest rates. When the general level of interest rates rises, the value of debt securities will tend to fall, and if interest rates fall, the values of debt securities will tend to rise. Debt securities with longer durations have higher risk and volatility. Changes in government policies, such as raising the federal funds rate and/or further tapering “quantitative easing” measures, may increase interest rates which are currently at or near historic lows. These policy changes, along with changing market conditions, may lead to periods of heightened volatility in the debt securities market, reduced liquidity for certain Fund investments and an increase in Fund redemptions. Interest rate changes and their impact on the Fund and its share price can be sudden and unpredictable. Changes in the value of a debt security usually will not affect the amount of income the Fund receives from it but may affect the value of the Fund’s shares.

Certain financial instruments in which the Fund may invest may pay interest based on, or otherwise have payments tied to LIBOR, Euro Interbank Offered Rate and other similar types of reference rates (each, a “Reference Rate”). Due to the uncertainty regarding the future utilization of LIBOR and certain other Reference Rates, and the nature of any replacement rate, the potential effect of a transition away from LIBOR and certain other Reference Rates could, among other negative consequences, adversely impact the pricing, liquidity, value of, return on and trading for a broad array of financial products, including any Reference Rate-linked securities, loans and derivatives in which the Fund may invest; require extensive negotiations of and/or amendments to agreements and other documentation governing Reference Rate-linked investments products; lead to disputes, litigation or other actions with counterparties or portfolio companies regarding the interpretation and enforceability of “fallback” provisions that provide for an alternative reference rate in the event of Reference Rate unavailability; or cause the Fund to incur additional costs in relation to any of the above factors.

Municipal securities can be significantly affected by political changes as well as uncertainties in the municipal market related to taxation, legislative changes or the rights of municipal security holders. Because many municipal securities are issued to finance similar projects, especially those relating to education, health care, transportation, utilities and water and sewer, conditions in those sectors can affect the overall municipal market. Municipal securities include general obligation bonds, which are backed by the “full faith and credit” of the issuer, which has the power to tax residents to pay bondholders. Timely payments depend on the issuer’s credit quality, ability to raise tax revenues and ability to maintain an adequate tax base. General obligation bonds generally are not backed by revenues from a specific project or source. Municipal securities also include revenue bonds, which are generally backed by revenue from a specific project or tax. The issuer of a revenue bond makes interest and principal payments from revenues generated from a particular source or facility, such as a tax on particular property or revenues generated from a municipal water or sewer utility or an airport. Revenue bonds generally are not backed by the full faith and credit and general taxing power of the issuer. Municipal securities backed by current or anticipated revenues from a specific project or specific assets can be negatively affected by the discontinuance of the taxation supporting the project or assets or the inability to collect revenues for the project or from the assets.


26

If the IRS determines that an issuer of a municipal security has not complied with applicable tax requirements, interest from the security could become taxable and the security could decline significantly in value.

The market for municipal bonds may be less liquid than for taxable bonds. There may also be less information available on the financial condition of issuers of municipal securities than for public corporations. The reorganization of a municipality’s debts may include extending debt maturities, reducing the amount of principal or interest, refinancing the debt or taking other measures, which may significantly affect the rights of creditors and the value of the securities issued by the municipality and the value of the Fund’s investments. The taxing power of any governmental entity may be limited and an entity’s credit may depend on factors which are beyond the entity’s control.

Money Market Funds Risk. An investment in a money market fund is not a bank deposit and is not insured or guaranteed by any bank, the FDIC or any other government agency. Although money market funds seek to preserve the value of investments at $1.00 per share, it is possible for the Fund to lose money if shares of money market funds in which they invest fall below $1.00 per share.

Securitized/Mortgage-Backed Securities Risk. Investments in mortgage-backed securities, including collateralized mortgage obligations, are subject to the risk of significant credit downgrades, dramatic changes in liquidity, and defaults to a greater extent than many other types of fixed-income investments. During periods of falling interest rates, mortgage-backed securities may be called or prepaid, which may result in the Fund having to reinvest proceeds in other investments at a lower interest rate. During periods of rising interest rates, the average life of mortgage-backed securities may extend, which may lock in a below-market interest rate, increase the security’s duration and interest rate sensitivity, and reduce the value of the security. The Fund may invest in mortgage-backed securities issued or backed by federal agencies or government sponsored enterprises or that are part of a government-sponsored program, which may subject the Fund to the risks noted above. The values of assets or collateral underlying mortgage-backed securities may decline and, therefore, may not be adequate to cover underlying obligations. Enforcing rights against the underlying assets or collateral may be difficult, and the underlying assets or collateral may be insufficient if the issuer defaults.

Sovereign Bond Risk. Investment in sovereign bonds involves special risks not present in corporate bonds. The governmental authority that controls the repayment of the bond may be unable or unwilling to make interest payments and/or repay the principal on its debt or to otherwise honor its obligations. If an issuer of sovereign bonds defaults on payments of principal and/or interest, the Fund may have limited recourse against the issuer. During periods of economic uncertainty, the market prices of sovereign bonds, and the Fund’s NAV, may be more volatile than prices of corporate bonds, which may result in losses. In the past, certain governments of emerging market countries have declared themselves unable to meet their financial obligations on a timely basis, which has resulted in losses for holders of sovereign bonds.

ETH-Related Company Risk. If the Fund is unable to achieve the Target Exposure because it is approaching or has exceeded position limits or because of liquidity or other constraints, the Fund may invest in equity securities of “ETH-related companies.” There can be no assurance that the returns of ETH-related companies will correspond, or be closely-related, to the performance of ETH or ETH Futures. ETH-related companies face rapid changes in technology, intense competition including the development and acceptance of competing platforms or technologies, loss or impairment of intellectual property rights, cyclical economic patterns, shifting consumer preferences, evolving industry standards, adverse effects of changes to a network’s or software’s protocols, a rapidly changing regulatory environment, and dependency on certain key personnel (including highly skilled financial services professionals and software engineers). ETH-related companies may be susceptible to operational and information security risks including those associated with hardware or software failures, interruptions, or delays in service by third party vendors, and security breaches. Certain ETH-related companies may be subject to the risks associated with investing directly in digital assets, including cryptocurrencies and crypto tokens.

ADDITIONAL NON-PRINCIPAL INVESTMENT STRATEGIES

The Fund may invest in securities issued by money market funds and funds that invest in short-term bonds, equity securities of ETH-related companies, fixed income securities, including repurchase agreements or other funds which invest exclusively in money market instruments. For temporary defensive purposes, the Fund may invest without limit in money market instruments, including repurchase agreements or other funds which invest exclusively in money market instruments. The Fund may also pursue temporary defensive positions in anticipation of or in an attempt to respond to adverse market, economic, political or other conditions. Such a position could have the effect of reducing any benefit the Fund may receive from a market increase.


27

ADDITIONAL REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS

The Adviser is registered as a CPO under the CEA and the rules of the CFTC and is subject to CFTC regulation with respect to the Fund. The CFTC has adopted rules regarding the disclosure, reporting and recordkeeping requirements that will apply with respect to the Fund as a result of the Adviser’s registration as a CPO. Generally, these rules allow for substituted compliance with CFTC disclosure and shareholder reporting requirements, based on the Adviser’s compliance with comparable SEC requirements. This means that for most of the CFTC’s disclosure and shareholder reporting applicable to the Adviser as the Fund’s CPO, the Adviser’s compliance with SEC disclosure and shareholder reporting will be deemed to fulfill the Adviser’s CFTC compliance obligations. However, as a result of CFTC regulation with respect to the Fund, the Fund may incur additional compliance and other expenses. The Adviser is also registered as a CTA but relies on an exemption with respect to the Fund from CTA regulations available for a CTA that also serves as the Fund’s CPO. The CFTC has neither reviewed nor approved the Fund, their investment strategies, or this Prospectus.

INVESTING DEFENSIVELY

The Fund may take temporary defensive positions that are inconsistent with the Fund’s principal investment strategies in anticipation of or in an attempt to respond to adverse market, economic, political or other conditions. The Fund may not achieve its investment objective while it is investing defensively.

BORROWING MONEY

The Fund may borrow money from a bank up to a limit of one-third of the market value of its assets. To the extent that the Fund borrows money, it may be leveraged. Leverage generally has the effect of increasing the amount of loss or gain the Fund might realize, and may increase volatility in the value of the Fund’s investments.

LENDING PORTFOLIO SECURITIES

The Fund may lend its investments in ETH-related companies, U.S. Treasuries and other U.S. government obligations to brokers, dealers and other financial institutions desiring to borrow securities to complete transactions and for other purposes. In connection with such loans, the Fund receives cash, U.S. government securities and stand-by letters of credit not issued by the Fund’s bank lending agent equal to at least 102% of the value of the portfolio securities being loaned. This collateral is marked-to-market on a daily basis. Although the Fund will receive collateral in connection with all loans of its securities holdings, the Fund would be exposed to a risk of loss should a borrower fail to return the borrowed securities (e.g., the Fund would have to buy replacement securities and the loaned securities may have appreciated beyond the value of the collateral held by the Fund) or become insolvent. The Fund may pay fees to the party arranging the loan of securities. In addition, the Fund will bear the risk that it may lose money because the borrower of the loaned securities fails to return the securities in a timely manner or at all. The Fund could also lose money in the event of a decline in the value of any cash collateral or in the value of investments made with the cash collateral. These events could trigger adverse tax consequences for the Fund. Substitute payments for dividends received by the Fund for securities loaned out by the Fund will not be considered qualified dividend income.

ADDITIONAL NON-PRINCIPAL RISKS

Shareholder Risk. Certain shareholders, including other funds advised by the Adviser, may from time to time own a substantial amount of the Fund’s Shares. In addition, a third party investor, the Adviser or an affiliate of the Adviser, an AP, a market maker, or another entity may invest in the Fund and hold its investment for a limited period of time. There can be no assurance that any large shareholder would not redeem its investment. Redemptions by shareholders could have a negative impact on the Fund. In addition, transactions by large shareholders may account for a large percentage of the trading volume on the Exchange and may, therefore, have a material effect on the market price of the Shares. These transactions may also accelerate the realization of taxable income to the Fund and shareholders if such sales of investments resulted in gains, and may also increase transaction costs.

CYBER SECURITY

The Fund and its service providers are susceptible to cyber security risks that include, among other things, theft, unauthorized monitoring, release, misuse, loss, destruction or corruption of confidential and highly restricted data; denial of service attacks; unauthorized access to relevant systems; compromises to networks or devices that the Fund and its service providers use to service the Fund’s operations; and operational disruption or failures in the physical infrastructure or operating systems that support the Fund and its service providers. Cyber attacks against or security breakdowns of the Fund or its service providers may adversely impact the Fund and its shareholders, potentially resulting in, among other things, financial losses; the inability of Fund shareholders to transact business and the Fund to process transactions; the inability to calculate the Fund’s net asset value; violations of applicable privacy and other laws; regulatory fines, penalties, reputational damage, reimbursement or other compensation costs; and/or additional compliance costs. The Fund may incur additional costs for cyber security risk management and remediation purposes. In addition, cyber security risks may also impact issuers of securities in which the Fund invests, which may cause the Fund’s investments in such issuers to lose value. There can be no assurance that the Fund or its service providers will not suffer losses relating to cyber attacks or other information security breaches in the future.


28


PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS

A description of the Fund’s policies and procedures with respect to the disclosure of the Fund’s portfolio securities is available in the Fund’s SAI.


MANAGEMENT OF THE FUND

Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees of the Trust has responsibility for the general oversight of the management of the Fund, including general supervision of the Adviser and other service providers, but is not involved in the day-to-day management of the Trust. A list of the Trustees and the Trust officers, and their present positions and principal occupations, is provided in the Fund’s SAI.

Investment Adviser. Under the terms of an investment management agreement between the Trust and Van Eck Absolute Return Advisers Corporation with respect to the Fund (the “Investment Management Agreement”), Van Eck Absolute Return Advisers Corporation will serve as the adviser to the Fund and, subject to the supervision of the Board of Trustees, will be responsible for the day-to-day investment management of the Fund. The Adviser has been an investment adviser since 1995 and also acts as adviser or sub-adviser to mutual funds, other ETFs, other pooled investment vehicles and separate accounts. The Adviser is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Van Eck Associates Corporation (“VEAC”). As of [ ], VEAC managed approximately $[ ] in assets. VEAC has been an investment adviser since 1955 and also acts as adviser or sub-adviser to mutual funds, other ETFs, other pooled investment vehicles and separate accounts. The Adviser’s principal business address is 666 Third Avenue, 9th Floor, New York, New York 10017. A discussion regarding the Board of Trustees’ approval of the Investment Management Agreement will be available in the Trust’s [annual] report for the period ending [ ].

Pursuant to the Investment Management Agreement, the Adviser is responsible for all expenses of the Fund, including the costs of transfer agency, custody, fund administration, legal, audit and other services, except for the fee payment under the Investment Management Agreement, acquired fund fees and expenses, interest expense, offering costs, trading expenses, taxes and extraordinary expenses. For its services to the Fund, the Fund has agreed to pay the Adviser an annual unitary management fee equal to [ ] of its average daily net assets. Offering costs excluded from the annual unitary management fee are: (a) legal fees pertaining to the Fund’s Shares offered for sale, (b) SEC and state registration fees; and (c) initial fees paid for Shares of the Fund to be listed on an exchange. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Adviser has agreed to pay all such offering costs [and trading expenses that are net account or similar fees charged by FCMs] until at least [ ].

Manager of Managers Structure. The Adviser and the Trust may rely on an exemptive order (the “Order”) from the SEC that permits the Adviser to enter into investment sub-advisory agreements with unaffiliated sub-advisers without obtaining shareholder approval. The Adviser, subject to the review and approval of the Board of Trustees, may select one or more sub-advisers for the Fund and supervise, monitor and evaluate the performance of each sub-adviser.

The Order also permits the Adviser, subject to the approval of the Board of Trustees, to replace sub-advisers and amend investment sub-advisory agreements, including applicable fee arrangements, without shareholder approval whenever the Adviser and the Board of Trustees believe such action will benefit the Fund and its shareholders. The Adviser thus would have the responsibility (subject to the oversight of the Board of Trustees) to recommend the hiring and replacement of sub-advisers as well as the discretion to terminate any sub-adviser and reallocate the Fund’s assets for management among any other sub-adviser(s) and itself. This means that the Adviser would be able to reduce the sub-advisory fees and retain a larger portion of the management fee, or increase the sub-advisory fees and retain a smaller portion of the management fee. The Adviser would compensate each sub-adviser out of its management fee.

Administrator, Custodian and Transfer Agent. Van Eck Associates Corporation is the administrator for the Fund (the “Administrator”), and State Street Bank and Trust Company is the custodian of the Fund’s assets and provides transfer agency and fund accounting services to the Fund. The Administrator is responsible for certain clerical, recordkeeping and/or bookkeeping services which are required to be provided pursuant to the Investment Management Agreement.

Distributor. Van Eck Securities Corporation is the distributor of the Shares (the “Distributor”). The Distributor will not distribute Shares in less than a specified number of Shares, each called a “Creation Unit,” and does not maintain a secondary market in the Shares. The Shares are traded in the secondary market.


29


PORTFOLIO MANAGER

The portfolio manager who is currently responsible for the day-to-day management of the Fund’s portfolio is [ ].

See the Fund’s SAI for additional information about the portfolio manager’s compensation, other accounts managed by the portfolio manager and his respective ownership of Shares.


SHAREHOLDER INFORMATION

DETERMINATION OF NAV

The NAV per Share for the Fund is computed by dividing the value of the net assets of the Fund (i.e., the value of its total assets less total liabilities) by the total number of Shares outstanding. Expenses and fees, including the management fee, are accrued daily and taken into account for purposes of determining NAV. The NAV of the Fund is determined each business day as of the close of trading (ordinarily 4:00 p.m., Eastern time) on the New York Stock Exchange.

The values of the Fund’s portfolio securities are based on the securities’ closing prices on the markets on which the securities trade, when available. In the absence of a last reported sales price, or if no sales were reported, and for other assets for which market quotes are not readily available, values may be based on quotes obtained from a quotation reporting system, established market makers or by an outside independent pricing service. Debt instruments with remaining maturities of more than 60 days are valued at the evaluated mean price provided by an outside independent pricing service. If an outside independent pricing service is unable to provide a valuation, the instrument is valued at the mean of the highest bid and the lowest asked quotes obtained from one or more brokers or dealers selected by the Adviser. Prices obtained by an outside independent pricing service may use information provided by market makers or estimates of market values obtained from yield data related to investments or securities with similar characteristics and may use a computerized grid matrix of securities and its evaluations in determining what it believes is the fair value of the portfolio securities. Short-term debt instruments having a maturity of 60 days or less are valued at amortized cost. Any assets or liabilities denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar are converted into U.S. dollars at the current market rates on the date of valuation as quoted by one or more sources. If a market quotation for a security or other asset is not readily available or the Adviser believes it does not otherwise accurately reflect the market value of the security or asset at the time the Fund calculates its NAV, the security or asset will be fair valued by the Adviser in accordance with the Trust’s valuation policies and procedures approved by the Board of Trustees. The Fund may also use fair value pricing in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to, situations when the value of a security in the Fund’s portfolio has been materially affected by events occurring after the close of the market on which the security is principally traded (such as a corporate action or other news that may materially affect the price of a security) or trading in a security has been suspended or halted. In addition, the Fund currently expects that it will fair value certain of the foreign equity securities held by the Fund, if any, each day the Fund calculates its NAV, except those securities principally traded on exchanges that close at the same time the Fund calculates its NAV.

Accordingly, the Fund’s NAV may reflect certain portfolio securities’ fair values rather than their market prices at the time the exchanges on which they principally trade close. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and it is possible that a fair value determination for a security or other asset is materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of such security or asset. With respect to securities that are principally traded on foreign exchanges, the value of the Fund’s portfolio securities may change on days when you will not be able to purchase or sell your Shares.

INTRADAY VALUE

The trading prices of the Fund’s Shares in the secondary market generally differ from the Fund’s daily NAV and are affected by market forces such as the supply of and demand for Fund Shares and underlying securities held by the Fund, economic conditions and other factors. Information regarding the intraday value of the Fund’s Shares (“IIV”) may be disseminated throughout each trading day by the Exchange or by market data vendors or other information providers. The IIV is based on the current market value of the securities and/or cash required to be deposited in exchange for a Creation Unit. The IIV does not necessarily reflect the precise composition of the current portfolio of securities held by the Fund at a particular point in time or the best possible valuation of the current portfolio. Therefore, the IIV should not be viewed as a “real-time” update of the Fund’s NAV, which is computed only once a day. The IIV is generally determined by using current market quotations and/or price quotations obtained from broker-dealers and other market intermediaries that may trade in the portfolio securities held by the Fund and valuations based on current market rates. The quotations and/or valuations of the Fund’s holdings may not be updated during U.S. trading hours if such holdings do not trade in the United States. The Fund is not involved in, or responsible for, the calculation or dissemination of the IIV and makes no warranty as to its accuracy.

RULE 144A AND OTHER UNREGISTERED SECURITIES

An AP (i.e., a person eligible to place orders with the Distributor to create or redeem Creation Units of the Fund) that is not a “qualified institutional buyer,” as such term is defined under Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), will not be able to receive, as part of a redemption, restricted securities eligible for resale under Rule 144A or other unregistered securities.


30

BUYING AND SELLING EXCHANGE-TRADED SHARES

The Shares of the Fund are expected to be listed on the Exchange. If you buy or sell Shares in the secondary market, you will incur customary brokerage commissions and charges and may pay some or all of the “spread,” which is any difference between the bid price and the ask price. The spread varies over time for the Fund’s Shares based on the Fund’s trading volume and market liquidity, and is generally lower if the Fund has high trading volume and market liquidity, and generally higher if the Fund has little trading volume and market liquidity (which is often the case for funds that are newly launched or small in size). In times of severe market disruption or low trading volume in the Fund’s Shares, this spread can increase significantly. It is anticipated that the Shares will trade in the secondary market at prices that may differ to varying degrees from the NAV of the Shares. During periods of disruptions to creations and redemptions or the existence of extreme market volatility, the market prices of Shares are more likely to differ significantly from the Shares’ NAV.

The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) serves as securities depository for the Shares. (The Shares may be held only in book-entry form; stock certificates will not be issued.) DTC, or its nominee, is the record or registered owner of all outstanding Shares. Beneficial ownership of Shares will be shown on the records of DTC or its participants (described below). Beneficial owners of Shares are not entitled to have Shares registered in their names, will not receive or be entitled to receive physical delivery of certificates in definitive form and are not considered the registered holder thereof. Accordingly, to exercise any rights of a holder of Shares, each beneficial owner must rely on the procedures of: (i) DTC; (ii) “DTC Participants,” i.e., securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, clearing corporations and certain other organizations, some of whom (and/or their representatives) own DTC; and (iii) “Indirect Participants,” i.e., brokers, dealers, banks and trust companies that clear through or maintain a custodial relationship with a DTC Participant, either directly or indirectly, through which such beneficial owner holds its interests. The Trust understands that under existing industry practice, in the event the Trust requests any action of holders of Shares, or a beneficial owner desires to take any action that DTC, as the record owner of all outstanding Shares, is entitled to take, DTC would authorize the DTC Participants to take such action and that the DTC Participants would authorize the Indirect Participants and beneficial owners acting through such DTC Participants to take such action and would otherwise act upon the instructions of beneficial owners owning through them. As described above, the Trust recognizes DTC or its nominee as the owner of all Shares for all purposes. For more information, see the section entitled “Book Entry Only System” in the Fund’s SAI.

The Exchange is open for trading Monday through Friday and is closed on weekends and the following holidays: New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Presidents’ Day, Good Friday, Memorial Day, Juneteenth National Independence Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Because non-U.S. exchanges may be open on days when the Fund does not price its Shares, the value of the securities in the Fund’s portfolio may change on days when shareholders will not be able to purchase or sell the Fund’s Shares.

The right of redemption by an AP may be suspended or the date of payment postponed (1) for any period during which the Exchange is closed (other than customary weekend and holiday closings); (2) for any period during which trading on the Exchange is suspended or restricted; (3) for any period during which an emergency exists as a result of which disposal of the Shares of the Fund or determination of its NAV is not reasonably practicable; or (4) in such other circumstance as is permitted by the SEC.

Market Timing and Related Matters. The Fund imposes no restrictions on the frequency of purchases and redemptions. Frequent purchases and redemptions of Fund Shares may attempt to take advantage of a potential arbitrage opportunity presented by a lag between a change in the value of the Fund’s portfolio securities after the close of the primary markets for the Fund’s portfolio securities and the reflection of that change in the Fund’s NAV (“market timing”). The Board of Trustees considered the nature of the Fund (i.e., a fund whose Shares are expected to trade intraday), that the Adviser monitors the trading activity of APs for patterns of abusive trading, that the Fund reserves the right to reject orders that may be disruptive to the management of or otherwise not in the Fund’s best interests, and that the Fund may fair value certain of its securities. Given this structure, the Board of Trustees determined that it is not necessary to impose restrictions on the frequency of purchases and redemptions for the Fund at the present time.

DISTRIBUTIONS

As a shareholder of the Fund, you are entitled to your share of the Fund’s distributions.

The Fund typically earns interest from debt securities. These amounts, net of expenses, may be passed along to Fund shareholders as dividends. The Fund realizes capital gains or losses whenever it sells securities. Distributions by the Fund of cash or property in respect of the Shares will be treated as dividends for U.S. federal income tax purposes to the extent paid from the Fund’s current or accumulated earnings and profits (as determined under U.S. federal income tax principles). Subject to certain holding period and other requirements, any such dividend will be eligible (i) to be treated as “qualified dividend income” taxable at long term capital gain rates (subject to certain holding period requirements) in the case of shareholders taxed as individuals and (ii) for the dividends received deduction (subject to certain holding period requirements) in the case of corporate shareholders. If the Fund’s distributions exceed the Fund’s current and accumulated earnings and profits, such excess will be treated first as a tax-free return of capital to the extent of the shareholder’s tax basis in the Shares (thus reducing a shareholder’s adjusted tax basis in the Shares), and thereafter as capital gain assuming the Shares are held as a capital asset. There can be no assurance as to what portion of any future distribution will consist of return of capital (as opposed to taxable dividend income). Upon the sale of Shares, a shareholder generally will recognize capital gain or loss equal to the difference between the amount realized on the sale and the shareholder’s adjusted tax basis in the Shares sold. See “U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations.”


31

Distributions in cash may be reinvested automatically in additional Shares of the Fund only if the broker through which you purchased Shares makes such option available.

TAX INFORMATION

As with any investment, you should consider how your Fund investment will be taxed. The tax information in this Prospectus is provided as general information. You should consult your own tax professional about the tax consequences of an investment in the Fund, including the possible application of foreign, state and local taxes. Unless your investment in the Fund is through a tax-exempt entity or tax-deferred retirement account, such as a 401(k) plan, you need to be aware of the possible tax consequences when: (i) the Fund makes distributions, or (ii) you sell Shares.

The following is a summary of the material U.S. federal income tax considerations generally applicable to shareholders that acquire and hold Shares as capital assets (generally, for investment). The discussion is based upon the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), Treasury regulations, judicial authorities, published positions of the IRS and other applicable authorities, all as in effect on the date hereof and all of which are subject to change or differing interpretations (possibly with retroactive effect). This summary does not address all of the potential U.S. federal income tax consequences that may be applicable to the Fund or to all categories of investors, some of which may be subject to special tax rules. No ruling has been or will be sought from the IRS regarding any matter discussed herein. No assurance can be given that the IRS would not assert, or that a court would not sustain, a position contrary to any of the tax aspects set forth below. This summary of U.S. federal income tax consequences is for general information only. Prospective investors must consult their own tax advisors as to the U.S. federal income tax consequences of acquiring, holding and disposing of Shares, as well as the effects of state, local and non-U.S. tax laws.

For purposes of this summary, the term “U.S. Shareholder” means a beneficial owner of Shares that, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, is one of the following:

•an individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States;

•a corporation or other entity taxable as a corporation created in or organized under the laws of the United States, any state thereof or the District of Columbia;

•an estate the income of which is subject to U.S. federal income taxation regardless of its source; or

•a trust (i) if a U.S. court is able to exercise primary supervision over the administration of such trust and one or more U.S. persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of such trust or (ii) that has a valid election in effect under applicable U.S. Treasury regulations to be treated as a U.S. person.

A “Non-U.S. Shareholder” is a beneficial owner of Shares that is neither a U.S. Shareholder nor a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. If a partnership (including any other entity treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes) holds Shares, the U.S. federal income tax treatment of a partner in such partnership generally will depend upon the status of the partner and the activities of the partnership. Partners of partnerships that hold Shares should consult their tax advisors.

The Fund

The Fund will recognize gain or loss on the sale, exchange or other taxable disposition of its assets equal to the difference between the amount realized by the Fund on the sale, exchange or other taxable disposition and the Fund’s adjusted tax basis in such asset. Any such gain will be subject to U.S. federal income tax at regular corporate rates, regardless of how long the Fund has held such asset. The Fund will also recognize gain on redemptions in kind of appreciated positions held by the Fund. To the extent that the Fund has a net capital loss in any tax year, the net capital loss can be carried back three years and forward five years to reduce the Fund’s current taxes payable, subject to certain limitations. The use of ordinary net operating loss carryforwards is subject to limitation under the Code. In the event a capital loss carryover or net operating loss carryforward cannot be utilized in the carryover periods, the Fund’s federal income tax liability may be higher than expected which will result in less cash available to distribute to shareholders.

The Fund’s transactions in ETH Futures and certain other investments, to the extent permitted, will be subject to special provisions of the Code that, among other things, may affect the character of gains and losses recognized by the Fund (i.e., may affect whether gains or losses are ordinary versus capital or short-term versus long-term, currently taxable at the same income tax rate but netting and loss carryforward availability differ), accelerate recognition of income to the Fund and defer Fund losses. These provisions also (i) will require the Fund to mark-to-market certain types of the positions in its portfolio (i.e., treat them as if they


32

were closed out at the end of each year) including ETH Futures purchased on U.S. exchanges and (ii) may cause the Fund to recognize income without receiving the corresponding amount of cash.

U.S. Shareholders

Distributions. Distributions by the Fund of cash or property in respect of the Shares, whether taken in cash or reinvested in Shares, will be treated as dividends for U.S. federal income tax purposes to the extent paid from the Fund’s current or accumulated earnings and profits (as determined under U.S. federal income tax principles) and will be includible in gross income by a U.S. Shareholder upon receipt. Any such dividend will be eligible for the dividends received deduction if received by an otherwise qualifying corporate U.S. Shareholder that meets the holding period and other requirements for the dividends received deduction. Dividends paid by the Fund to certain non-corporate U.S. Shareholders (including individuals) are eligible for U.S. federal income taxation at the rates generally applicable to long-term capital gains for individuals, provided that the U.S. Shareholder receiving the dividend satisfies applicable holding period and other requirements.

If the amount of the Fund distribution exceeds the Fund’s current and accumulated earnings and profits, such excess will be treated first as a tax-free return of capital to the extent of the U.S. Shareholder’s tax basis in the Shares (reducing that basis accordingly), and thereafter as capital gain. Any such capital gain will be long-term capital gain if such U.S. Shareholder has held the applicable Shares for more than one year. A distribution will be wholly or partially taxable to a shareholder if the Fund has current earnings and profits (as determined for U.S. federal income tax purposes) in the taxable year of the distribution, even if the Fund has an overall deficit in the Fund’s accumulated earnings and profits and/or net operating loss or capital loss carryforwards that reduce or eliminate corporate income taxes in that taxable year.

Sales of Shares. Upon the sale, exchange or other taxable disposition of Shares, a U.S. Shareholder generally will recognize capital gain or loss equal to the difference between the amount realized on the sale, exchange or other taxable disposition and the U.S. Shareholder’s adjusted tax basis in the Shares. Any such capital gain or loss will be a long-term capital gain or loss if the U.S. Shareholder has held the Shares for more than one year at the time of disposition. Long-term capital gains of certain non-corporate U.S. Shareholders (including individuals) are currently subject to reduced U.S. federal income tax rates. The deductibility of capital losses is subject to limitations under the Code.

A U.S. Shareholder’s adjusted tax basis in its Shares may be less than the price paid for the Shares as a result of distributions by the Fund in excess of the Fund’s earnings and profits (i.e., returns of capital).

Information Reporting and Backup Withholding Requirements. In general, distributions on the Shares, and payments of the proceeds from a sale, exchange or other disposition of the Shares paid to a U.S. Shareholder are subject to information reporting and may be subject to backup withholding unless the U.S. Shareholder (i) is a corporation or other exempt recipient or (ii) provides an accurate taxpayer identification number and certifies that it is not subject to backup withholding. Backup withholding is not an additional tax. Any amounts withheld under the backup withholding rules from a payment to a U.S. Shareholder will be refunded or credited against the U.S. Shareholder’s U.S. federal income tax liability, if any, provided that the required information is furnished to the IRS.

Each shareholder will receive, if appropriate, various written notices after the close of the Fund’s taxable year describing the amount and the U.S. federal income tax status of distributions that were paid (or that are treated as having been paid) by the Fund to the shareholder, and the amount of any U.S. federal taxes withheld, during the preceding taxable year.

Taxes on Creations and Redemptions of Creation Units. A person who exchanges securities for Creation Units generally will recognize a gain or loss. The gain or loss will be equal to the difference between the market value of the Creation Units at the time of exchange and the sum of the exchanger’s aggregate basis in the securities surrendered and the amount of any cash paid for such Creation Units. A person who exchanges Creation Units for securities will generally recognize a gain or loss equal to the difference between the exchanger’s basis in the Creation Units and the sum of the aggregate market value of the securities received. The IRS, however, may assert that a loss realized upon an exchange of primarily securities for Creation Units cannot be deducted currently under the rules governing “wash sales,” or on the basis that there has been no significant change in economic position. Persons exchanging securities for Creation Units or redeeming Creation Units should consult their own tax adviser with respect to whether wash sale rules apply and when a loss might be deductible and the tax treatment of any creation or redemption transaction.

Under current U.S. federal income tax laws, any capital gain or loss realized upon a redemption (or creation) of Creation Units held as capital assets is generally treated as long-term capital gain or loss if the Shares (or securities surrendered) have been held for more than one year and as a short-term capital gain or loss if the Shares (or securities surrendered) have been held for one year or less.

If you create or redeem Creation Units, you will be sent a confirmation statement showing how many Shares you created or sold and at what price.


33

Medicare Tax. An additional 3.8% Medicare tax is imposed on certain net investment income (including ordinary dividends and capital gain distributions received from the Fund and net gains from redemptions or other taxable dispositions of Fund Shares) of U.S. individuals, estates and trusts to the extent that such person’s “modified adjusted gross income” (in the case of an individual) or “adjusted gross income” (in the case of an estate or trust) exceeds certain threshold amounts.

Non-U.S. Shareholders. The following discussion is a summary of certain United States federal income tax consequences that will apply to Non-U.S. Shareholders. Special rules may apply to certain Non-U.S. Shareholders, such as “controlled foreign corporations,” “passive foreign investment companies” and certain expatriates, among others, that are subject to special treatment under the Code. Such Non-U.S. Shareholders should consult their own tax advisors to determine the United States federal, state, local and other tax consequences that may be relevant to them.

Distribution. Distributions paid by the Fund to Non-U.S. shareholders that are treated as dividends are generally subject to withholding tax at a 30% rate, unless the tax is reduced or eliminated by an applicable income tax treaty or the distributions are effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business of the shareholder. A Non-U.S. Shareholder who wishes to claim the benefits of an applicable income tax treaty for dividends will be required (a) to complete Form W-8BEN or Form W-8BEN-E (or other applicable form) and certify under penalty of perjury that such holder is not a United States person as defined under the Code and is eligible for treaty benefits or (b) if Shares are held through certain foreign intermediaries, to satisfy the relevant certification requirements of applicable United States Treasury regulations. A Non-U.S. Shareholder eligible for a reduced rate of United States withholding tax pursuant to an income tax treaty may obtain a refund of any excess amounts withheld by filing an appropriate claim for refund with the IRS.

If the amount of a distribution to a Non-U.S. Shareholder exceeds the Fund’s current and accumulated earnings and profits, such excess will be treated first as a tax-free return of capital to the extent of the Non-U.S. Shareholder’s tax basis in the Shares, and then as capital gain. Capital gain recognized by a Non-U.S. Shareholder as a consequence of a distribution by the Fund in excess of its current and accumulated earnings and profits will generally not be subject to United States federal income tax, except as described below under the caption “Sales of Shares.”

Sales of Shares. Any capital gain realized by a Non-U.S. shareholder upon a sale of Shares of the Fund will generally not be subject to U.S. federal income or withholding tax unless (i) the gain is effectively connected with the shareholder’s trade or business in the United States, or in the case of a shareholder who is a nonresident alien individual, the shareholder is present in the United States for 183 days or more during the taxable year and certain other conditions are met or (ii) the Fund is or has been a U.S. real property holding corporation, as defined below, at any time within the five-year period preceding the date of disposition of the Fund’s Shares or, if shorter, within the period during which the Non-U.S. shareholder has held the Shares. Generally, a corporation is a U.S. real property holding corporation if the fair market value of its U.S. real property interests, as defined in the Code and applicable regulations, equals or exceeds 50% of the aggregate fair market value of its worldwide real property interests and its other assets used or held for use in a trade or business. The Fund may be, or may prior to a Non-U.S. shareholder’s disposition of Shares become, a U.S. real property holding corporation.

As part of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, (“FATCA”), the Fund may be required to withhold 30% tax on certain types of U.S. sourced income (e.g., dividends, interest, and other types of passive income) paid to (i) foreign financial institutions (“FFIs”), including non-U.S. investment funds, unless they agree to collect and disclose to the IRS information regarding their direct and indirect U.S. account holders and (ii) certain nonfinancial foreign entities (“NFFEs”), unless they certify certain information regarding their direct and indirect U.S. owners. To avoid possible withholding, FFIs will need to enter into agreements with the IRS which state that they will provide the IRS information, including the names, account numbers and balances, addresses and taxpayer identification numbers of U.S. account holders and comply with due diligence procedures with respect to the identification of U.S. accounts as well as agree to withhold tax on certain types of withholdable payments made to non-compliant foreign financial institutions or to applicable foreign account holders who fail to provide the required information to the IRS, or similar account information and required documentation to a local revenue authority, should an applicable intergovernmental agreement be implemented. NFFEs will need to provide certain information regarding each substantial U.S. owner or certifications of no substantial U.S. ownership, unless certain exceptions apply, or agree to provide certain information to the IRS.

The Fund may be subject to the FATCA withholding obligation, and also will be required to perform due diligence reviews to classify foreign entity investors for FATCA purposes. Investors are required to agree to provide information necessary to allow the Fund to comply with the FATCA rules. If the Fund is required to withhold amounts from payments pursuant to FATCA, investors will receive distributions that are reduced by such withholding amounts.

Non-U.S. shareholders are advised to consult their tax advisors with respect to the particular tax consequences to them of an investment in the Fund, including the possible applicability of the U.S. estate tax.

The foregoing discussion summarizes some of the consequences under current U.S. federal income tax law of an investment in the Fund. It is not a substitute for personal tax advice. Consult your own tax advisor about the potential tax consequences of an investment in the Fund under all applicable tax laws. Changes in applicable tax authority could materially affect the conclusions discussed above and could adversely affect the Fund, and such changes often occur.


34


FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS

The Fund has not yet commenced operations as of the date of this Prospectus and therefore does not have a financial history.


35


PREMIUM/DISCOUNT INFORMATION

The Fund has not yet commenced operations and, therefore, does not have information about the differences between the Fund’s daily market price on the Exchange and its NAV. Information regarding how often the closing trading price of the Shares of the Fund was above (i.e., at a premium) or below (i.e., at a discount) the NAV of the Fund for the most recently completed calendar year and the most recently completed calendar quarter(s) since that year (or the life of the Fund, if shorter) can be found at www.vaneck.com.


GENERAL INFORMATION

CONTINUOUS OFFERING

The method by which Creation Units are created and traded may raise certain issues under applicable securities laws. Because new Creation Units are issued and sold by the Trust on an ongoing basis, a “distribution,” as such term is used in the Securities Act may occur at any point. Broker dealers and other persons are cautioned that some activities on their part may, depending on the circumstances, result in their being deemed participants in a distribution in a manner which could render them statutory underwriters and subject them to the prospectus delivery and liability provisions of the Securities Act.

For example, a broker dealer firm or its client may be deemed a statutory underwriter if it takes Creation Units after placing an order with the Distributor, breaks them down into constituent Shares, and sells such Shares directly to customers, or if it chooses to couple the creation of a supply of new Shares with an active selling effort involving solicitation of secondary market demand for Shares. A determination of whether one is an underwriter for purposes of the Securities Act must take into account all the facts and circumstances pertaining to the activities of the broker dealer or its client in the particular case, and the examples mentioned above should not be considered a complete description of all the activities that could lead to a categorization as an underwriter.

Broker dealers who are not “underwriters” but are participating in a distribution (as contrasted to ordinary secondary trading transactions), and thus dealing with Shares that are part of an “unsold allotment” within the meaning of Section 4(a)(3)(C) of the Securities Act, would be unable to take advantage of the prospectus delivery exemption provided by Section 4(a)(3) of the Securities Act. This is because the prospectus delivery exemption in Section 4(a)(3) of the Securities Act is not available in respect of such transactions as a result of Section 24(d) of the 1940 Act. As a result, broker dealer firms should note that dealers who are not underwriters but are participating in a distribution (as contrasted with ordinary secondary market transactions) and thus dealing with the Shares that are part of an overallotment within the meaning of Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the Securities Act would be unable to take advantage of the prospectus delivery exemption provided by Section 4(a)(3) of the Securities Act. Firms that incur a prospectus delivery obligation with respect to Shares are reminded that, under Rule 153 of the Securities Act, a prospectus delivery obligation under Section 5(b)(2) of the Securities Act owed to an exchange member in connection with a sale on the Exchange is satisfied by the fact that the prospectus is available at the Exchange upon request. The prospectus delivery mechanism provided in Rule 153 is only available with respect to transactions on an exchange.

In addition, certain affiliates of the Fund and the Adviser may purchase and resell Fund shares pursuant to this Prospectus.

OTHER INFORMATION

The Trust was organized as a Delaware statutory trust on March 15, 2001. Its Declaration of Trust currently permits the Trust to issue an unlimited number of Shares of beneficial interest. If shareholders are required to vote on any matters, each Share outstanding would be entitled to one vote. Annual meetings of shareholders will not be held except as required by the 1940 Act and other applicable law. See the Fund’s SAI for more information concerning the Trust’s form of organization. Section 12(d)(1) of the 1940 Act restricts investments by investment companies in the securities of other investment companies, including Shares of the Fund. Registered investment companies are permitted to invest in the Fund beyond the limits set forth in Section 12(d)(1) subject to certain terms and conditions set forth in SEC regulations, including that such investment companies enter into an agreement with the Fund.

The Prospectus, SAI and any other Fund communication do not create any contractual obligations between the Fund’s shareholders and the Trust, the Fund, the Adviser and/or the Trustees. Further, shareholders are not intended third party beneficiaries of any contracts entered into by (or on behalf of) the Fund, including contracts with the Adviser or other parties who provide services to the Fund.

Dechert LLP serves as counsel to the Trust, including the Fund. [ ] serves as the Trust’s independent registered public accounting firm and will audit the Fund’s financial statements annually.


36

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

This Prospectus does not contain all the information included in the Registration Statement filed with the SEC with respect to the Fund’s Shares. The Fund’s Registration Statement, including this Prospectus, the Fund’s SAI and the exhibits are available on the EDGAR database at the SEC’s website (http://www.sec.gov), and copies may be obtained, after paying a duplicating fee, by electronic request at the following email address: publicinfo@sec.gov.

The SAI for the Fund, which has been filed with the SEC, provides more information about the Fund. The SAI for the Fund is incorporated herein by reference and is legally part of this Prospectus. Additional information about the Fund’s investments is available in the Fund’s annual and semi-annual reports to shareholders. In the Fund’s annual report, you will find a discussion of the market conditions and investment strategies that significantly affected the Fund’s performance during its last fiscal year. The SAI and the Fund’s annual and semi-annual reports may be obtained without charge by writing to the Fund at Van Eck Securities Corporation, the Fund’s Distributor, at 666 Third Avenue, 9th Floor, New York, New York 10017 or by calling the Distributor at the following number: Investor Information: 800.826.2333.

Shareholder inquiries may be directed to the Fund in writing to 666 Third Avenue, 9th Floor, New York, New York 10017 or by calling 800.826.2333.

The Fund’s SAI is available at www.vaneck.com.

(Investment Company Act file no. 811-10325)


37

[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]


38

For more detailed information about the Fund, see the SAI dated [ ], as may be supplemented from time to time. Additional information about the Fund’s investments is or will be available in the Fund’s annual and semi-annual reports to shareholders. In the Fund’s annual report, you will find a discussion of the market conditions and investment strategies that significantly affected the Fund’s performance during its last fiscal year.

Call VanEck at 800.826.2333 to request, free of charge, the annual or semi-annual reports, the SAI, or other information about the Fund or to make shareholder inquiries. You may also obtain the SAI or the Fund’s annual or semi-annual reports, by visiting the VanEck website at www.vaneck.com.

Reports and other information about the Fund are available on the EDGAR Database on the SEC’s internet site at http://www.sec.gov. In addition, copies of this information may be obtained, after paying a duplicating fee, by electronic request at the following email address: publicinfo@sec.gov.



Transfer Agent: State Street Bank and Trust Company SEC Registration Number: 333-123257 1940 Act Registration Number: 811-10325 [ ]PRO			800.826.2333 www.vaneck.com

The information in this Statement of Additional Information is not complete and may be changed. The Trust may not sell these securities until the registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission is effective. This Statement of Additional Information is not an offer to sell these securities and is not soliciting an offer to buy these securities in any jurisdiction where the offer or sale is not permitted.

Subject to Completion

Preliminary Statement of Additional Information dated August 1, 2023.

VANECK ETF TRUST

STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Dated August 1, 2023

This Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) is not a prospectus. It should be read in conjunction with the Prospectus dated [ ] (the “Prospectus”) for the VanEck® ETF Trust (the “Trust”), relating to the series of the Trust listed below, as it may be revised from time to time.


Fund	Principal U.S. Listing Exchange	Ticker
VanEck® Ethereum Strategy ETF	[ ]	[ ]

A copy of the Prospectus may be obtained without charge by writing to the Trust or the Distributor (defined herein). The Trust’s address is 666 Third Avenue, 9th Floor, New York, New York 10017. Capitalized terms used herein that are not defined have the same meaning as in the Prospectus, unless otherwise noted.

TABLE OF CONTENTS


			Page

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE TRUST			4
INVESTMENT POLICIES AND RESTRICTIONS			4
Repurchase Agreements			4
Reverse Repurchase Agreements			5
Futures Contracts and Options			5
SEC Regulatory Changes			5
Market Risk			5
Floating Rate LIBOR Risk			7
Futures Developments			10
Investment Restrictions			8
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND RISKS			9
Tax Risks			10
U.S. Federal Tax Treatment of Futures Contracts and Certain Option Contracts			11
Concentration Considerations			13
Cyber Security			11
Securities Lending			11
EXCHANGE LISTING AND TRADING			12
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TRUST			12
Trustees and Officers of the Trust			12
Independent Trustees			14
Interested Trustee			15
Officer Information			16
Remuneration of Trustees			18
PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS DISCLOSURE			18
QUARTERLY PORTFOLIO SCHEDULE			18
POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST			19
CODE OF ETHICS			19
PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES			19


MANAGEMENT			19
Investment Adviser			19
The Administrator			20
Custodian and Transfer Agent			20
The Distributor			20
Securities Lending			21
Other Accounts Managed by the Portfolio Managers			21
Portfolio Manager Compensation			21
Portfolio Manager Share Ownership			22
BROKERAGE TRANSACTIONS			22
BOOK ENTRY ONLY SYSTEM			22
CREATION AND REDEMPTION OF CREATION UNITS			23
General			23
Fund Deposit			23
Procedures for Creation of Creation Units			24
Placement of Creation Orders Using Clearing Process			25
Placement of Creation Orders Outside Clearing Process-Domestic Funds			25
Acceptance of Creation Orders			25
Creation Transaction Fee			26
Redemption of Creation Units			26
Redemption Transaction Fee			27
Portfolio Trading by Authorized Participants			27
Placement of Redemption Orders Using Clearing Process			27
Placement of Redemption Orders Outside Clearing Process- Domestic Funds			28
DETERMINATION OF NET ASSET VALUE			28
DIVIDENDS AND DISTRIBUTIONS			29
General Policies			29
DIVIDEND REINVESTMENT SERVICE			29
CONTROL PERSONS AND PRINCIPAL SHAREHOLDERS			29
TAXES			30
Tax Status of the Fund			30
Tax Considerations with respect to Investments			30
U.S. Shareholders			30
Non-U.S. Shareholders			31
Reportable Transactions			33
CAPITAL STOCK AND SHAREHOLDER REPORTS			33
COUNSEL AND INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM			33
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS			34
APPENDIX A VANECK PROXY VOTING POLICIES			35

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE TRUST

The Trust is an open-end management investment company. The Trust currently consists of [ ] investment portfolios. This SAI relates to one investment portfolio, VanEck Ethereum Strategy ETF (the “Fund”). The Fund is classified as a non-diversified fund under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), and, as a result, may invest a relatively high percentage of its assets in a smaller number of issuers or may invest a larger proportion of its assets in a single issuer. The Trust was organized as a Delaware statutory trust on March 15, 2001. The shares of the Fund are referred to herein as “Shares.”

The Fund will offer and issue Shares at their net asset value (“NAV”) only in aggregations of a specified number of Shares (each, a “Creation Unit”). Similarly, Shares will be redeemable by the Fund only in Creation Units. The Shares of the Fund are expected to be approved for listing, subject to notice of issuance, on [ ] or (the “Exchange”). Shares of the Fund trade in the secondary market at market prices that may differ from the Shares’ NAV. The Trust reserves the right to permit or require a “cash” option for creations and redemptions of Shares (subject to applicable legal requirements) to the extent Shares are not created and redeemed in-kind.

INVESTMENT POLICIES AND RESTRICTIONS

The Fund pursues its investment strategy primarily by investing in standardized, cash-settled ETH futures contracts (“ETH Futures”) traded on commodity exchanges registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”). Currently, the only commodity exchange registered with the CFTC on which ETH Futures are traded is the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (the “CME”). The Fund seeks to invest in ETH Futures so that the total value of the ETH to which the Fund has economic exposure is approximately 100% of the total assets of the Fund (the “Target Exposure”). In addition, the Fund expects to have significant holdings of U.S. Treasuries, other U.S. government obligations, money market funds and funds that invest in short-term bonds, cash and cash-like equivalents (e.g., high quality commercial paper and similar instruments that are rated investment grade or, if unrated, of comparable quality, as the Adviser determines), mortgage-backed securities issued or guaranteed by U.S. government agencies, instrumentalities or sponsored enterprises of the U.S. government (whether or not the securities are U.S. government securities), municipal debt securities, Treasury inflation-protected securities, sovereign debt obligations of non-U.S. countries, and repurchase agreements. If the Fund is unable to achieve the Target Exposure because it is approaching or has exceeded position limits or because of liquidity or other constraints, the Fund may invest in equity securities of “ETH-related companies.” For these purposes, ETH-related companies are companies listed on a U.S. stock exchange that the Adviser believes provide returns that generally correspond, or are closely related, to the performance of ETH or ETH Futures. For example, the Fund may invest in U.S. listed companies engaged in digital asset mining or offering digital asset trading platforms. The Fund currently only intends to invest in the securities and instruments discussed above.

Municipal Securities

The Fund may invest in securities issued by states, municipalities and other political subdivisions, agencies, authorities and instrumentalities of states and multi-state agencies or authorities. Municipal securities share the attributes of debt/fixed income securities in general, but are generally issued by states, municipalities and other political subdivisions, agencies, authorities and instrumentalities of states and multi-state agencies or authorities. The municipal securities which the Fund may purchase include general obligation bonds and limited obligation bonds (or revenue bonds), including industrial development bonds issued pursuant to former federal tax law. General obligation bonds are obligations involving the credit of an issuer possessing taxing power and are payable from such issuer’s general revenues and not from any particular source. Limited obligation bonds are payable only from the revenues derived from a particular facility or class of facilities or, in some cases, from the proceeds of a special excise or other specific revenue source. Tax-exempt industrial development bonds generally are also revenue bonds and thus are not payable from the issuer’s general revenues. The credit and quality of industrial development bonds are usually related to the credit of the corporate user of the facilities. Payment of interest on and repayment of principal of such bonds is the responsibility of the corporate user (and/or any guarantor). In addition, the Fund may invest in lease obligations. Lease obligations may take the form of a lease or an installment purchase contract issued by public authorities to acquire a wide variety of equipment and facilities. The securities of state and municipal governments and their political subdivisions are not considered to be issued by members of any industry.

Investments in municipal securities are subject to the risk that the issuer could default on its obligations. Such a default could result from the inadequacy of the sources or revenues from which interest and principal payments are to be made, including property tax collections, sales tax revenue, income tax revenue and local, state and federal government funding, or the assets collateralizing such obligations. Municipal securities and their issuers may be more susceptible to downgrade, default, and bankruptcy as a result of recent periods of economic stress. During and following the economic downturn beginning in 2008, several municipalities have filed for bankruptcy protection or have indicated that they may seek bankruptcy protection in the future. In addition, many states and municipalities have been adversely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic as a result of declines in revenues and increased expenditures required to manage and mitigate the outbreak. Revenue bonds, including

private activity bonds, are backed only by specific assets or revenue sources and not by the full faith and credit of the governmental issuer.

Repurchase Agreements

The Fund may invest in repurchase agreements with commercial banks, brokers or dealers to generate income from its excess cash balances and to invest securities lending cash collateral. A repurchase agreement is an agreement under which the Fund acquires a money market instrument (generally a security issued by the U.S. Government or an agency thereof, a banker’s acceptance or a certificate of deposit) from a seller, subject to resale to the seller at an agreed-upon price and date (normally, the next business day). A repurchase agreement may be considered a loan collateralized by securities. The resale price reflects an agreed upon interest rate effective for the period the instrument is held by the Fund and is unrelated to the interest rate on the underlying instrument.

In these repurchase agreement transactions, the securities acquired by the Fund (including accrued interest earned thereon) must have a total value at least equal to the value of the repurchase agreement and are held by the Trust’s custodian bank until repurchased. In addition, the Trust’s Board of Trustees (“Board” or “Trustees”) has established guidelines and standards for review of the creditworthiness of any bank, broker or dealer counterparty to a repurchase agreement with the Fund. No more than an aggregate of 15% of the Fund’s net assets will be invested in repurchase agreements having maturities longer than seven days.

The use of repurchase agreements involves certain risks. For example, if the other party to the agreement defaults on its obligation to repurchase the underlying security at a time when the value of the security has declined, the Fund may incur a loss upon disposition of the security. If the other party to the agreement becomes insolvent and subject to liquidation or reorganization under the Bankruptcy Code or other laws, a court may determine that the underlying security is collateral not within the control of the Fund and, therefore, the Fund may incur delays in disposing of the security and/or may not be able to substantiate its interest in the underlying security and may be deemed an unsecured creditor of the other party to the agreement.

Reverse Repurchase Agreements

The Fund may enter into reverse repurchase agreements with respect to its portfolio investments subject to the investment restrictions set forth herein. Reverse repurchase agreements involve the sale of securities held by a Fund with an agreement by the Fund to repurchase the securities at an agreed upon price, date and interest payment. The use by a Fund of reverse repurchase agreements involves the risks of leverage since the proceeds derived from such reverse repurchase agreements may be invested in additional securities. Reverse repurchase agreements involve the risk that the market value of the securities acquired in connection with the reverse repurchase agreement may decline below the price of the securities a Fund has sold but is obligated to repurchase. Also, reverse repurchase agreements involve the risk that the market value of the securities retained in lieu of sale by the Fund in connection with the reverse repurchase agreement may decline in price.

If the buyer of securities under a reverse repurchase agreement files for bankruptcy or becomes insolvent, such buyer or its trustee or receiver may receive an extension of time to determine whether to enforce a Fund's obligation to repurchase the securities, and the Fund's use of the proceeds of the reverse repurchase agreement may effectively be restricted pending such decision. Also, a Fund would bear the risk of loss to the extent that the proceeds of the reverse repurchase agreement are less than the value of the securities subject to such agreement.

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 “derivatives rule”). Under the derivatives rule, when a fund trades reverse repurchase agreements or similar financing transactions, including certain tender option bonds, 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., bank borrowings, if applicable) when calculating a fund’s asset coverage ratio or treat all such transactions as derivatives transactions. See “SEC Regulatory Matters” below.

Futures Contracts and Options

Futures contracts generally provide for the future purchase or sale of a specified instrument, index or commodity at a specified future time and at a specified price. Stock index futures contracts and other types of futures contracts are settled daily with a payment by the Fund (or exchange) to an exchange (or Fund) of a cash amount based on the difference between the level of the stock index or underlying instrument specified in the contract from one day to the next. Futures contracts are standardized as to maturity date and underlying instrument and are traded on futures exchanges. The Fund may use futures contracts and options on futures contracts based on other indices or combinations of indices that Van Eck Absolute Return Advisers Corporation (“VEARA” or the “Adviser”) believes to be appropriate.

An option is a contract that provides the holder of the option the right to buy or sell shares or other assets at a fixed price, within a specified period of time. An American call option gives the option holder the right to buy the underlying security from the option writer at the option exercise price at any time prior to the expiration of the option. A European call option gives the option holder the right to buy the underlying security from the option writer only on the option expiration date. An American put option gives the option holder the right to sell the underlying security to the option writer at the option exercise price at any time prior to the expiration of the option. A European put option gives the option holder the right to sell the underlying security to the option writer at the option exercise price only on the option expiration date.

Although futures contracts (other than cash-settled futures contracts including most stock index futures contracts) by their terms call for actual delivery or acceptance of the underlying instrument or commodity, in most cases the contracts are closed out before the maturity date without the making or taking of delivery. Closing out an open futures position is done by taking an opposite position (buying the same contract which was previously sold or selling the same contract previously purchased) in an identical contract to terminate the position. Brokerage commissions are incurred when a futures contract position is opened or closed.

Futures traders are required to make a margin deposit (typically in cash or government securities) with a broker or custodian to initiate and maintain open positions in futures contracts. A margin deposit is intended to assure completion of the contract (delivery or acceptance of the underlying instrument or commodity or payment of the cash settlement amount) if it is not terminated prior to the specified delivery date. Brokers may establish deposit requirements that are higher than the exchange minimums. Futures contracts are customarily purchased and sold on margin deposits that may vary.

After a futures contract position is opened, the value of the contract is marked-to-market daily. If the futures contract price changes to the extent that the margin on deposit does not satisfy margin requirements, payment of additional “variation” margin will be required.

Conversely, a change in the contract value may reduce the required margin, resulting in a repayment of excess margin to the contract holder. Variation margin payments are made to and from the futures broker for as long as the contract remains open. The Fund expects to earn interest income on its margin deposits in the form of cash.

The Fund may use futures contracts and options thereon, together with positions in cash and money market instruments. Positions in futures contracts and options may be closed out only on an exchange that provides a secondary market therefor. However, there can be no assurance that a liquid secondary market will exist for any particular futures contract or option at any specific time. Thus, it may not be possible to close a futures or options position. In the event of adverse price movements, the Fund would continue to be required to make daily cash payments to maintain its required margin. In such situations, if the Fund has insufficient cash, it may have to sell portfolio securities to meet daily margin requirements at a time when it may be disadvantageous to do so. In addition, the Fund may be required to make delivery of the instruments underlying futures contracts it has sold.

Positions in futures contracts and options may be closed out only on an exchange that provides a secondary market therefor. However, there can be no assurance that a liquid secondary market will exist for any particular futures contract or option at any specific time. Thus, it may not be possible to close a futures or options position. In the event of adverse price movements, the Fund would continue to be required to make daily cash payments to maintain its required margin. In such situations, if the Fund has insufficient cash, it may have to sell portfolio securities to meet daily margin requirements at a time when it may be disadvantageous to do so. In addition, the Fund may be required to make delivery of the instruments underlying futures contracts it has sold.

The Fund will seek to minimize the risk that it will be unable to close out a futures or options contract by only entering into futures and options for which there appears to be a liquid secondary market.

The risk of loss in trading futures contracts or uncovered call options in some strategies (e.g., selling uncovered stock index futures contracts) is potentially unlimited. The Fund does not plan to use futures and options contracts in this way. The risk of a futures position may still be large as traditionally measured due to the low margin deposits required. In many cases, a relatively small price movement in a futures contract may result in immediate and substantial loss or gain to the investor relative to the size of a required margin deposit.

Utilization of futures transactions by the Fund involves the risk of loss by the Fund of margin deposits in the event of the bankruptcy or other similar insolvency with respect to a broker with whom the Fund has an open position in the futures contract or option.

Certain financial futures exchanges limit the amount of fluctuation permitted in futures contract prices during a single trading day. The daily limit establishes the maximum amount that the price of a futures contract may vary either up or down from the previous day’s settlement price at the end of a trading session. Once the daily limit has been reached in a particular type of contract, no trades may be made on that day at a price beyond that limit. The daily limit governs only price movements during a particular trading day and therefore does not limit potential losses, because the limit may prevent the liquidation of

unfavorable positions. Futures contract prices have occasionally moved to the daily limit for several consecutive trading days with little or no trading, thereby preventing prompt liquidation of future positions and subjecting some futures traders to substantial losses.

Except as otherwise specified in the Fund’s Prospectus or this SAI, there are no limitations on the extent to which the Fund may engage in transactions involving futures and options thereon. The Fund is also required to comply with the derivatives rule when it engages in transactions involving futures and options thereon. See "SEC Regulatory Matters" below.

SEC Regulatory Matters

Subject to certain exceptions, the derivatives rule requires a Fund to trade derivatives and other transactions that create future payment or delivery obligations subject to a value-at-risk (“VaR”) leverage limit and certain derivatives risk management program and reporting requirements. Generally, these requirements apply unless a fund satisfies a “limited derivatives users” exception that is included in the derivatives rule. Under the derivatives rule, when a fund trades reverse repurchase agreements or similar financing transactions, including certain tender option bonds, 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., bank borrowings, if applicable) when calculating a Fund’s asset coverage ratio or treat all such transactions as derivatives transactions. Reverse repurchase agreements or similar financing transactions aggregated with other indebtedness do not need to be included in the calculation of whether a fund satisfies the limited derivatives users exception, but for funds subject to the VaR testing requirement, reverse repurchase agreements and similar financing transactions must be included for purposes of such testing whether treated as derivatives transactions or not. In addition, under the derivatives rule, a Fund is permitted to 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 under 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 such 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 derivatives rule. Furthermore, under the derivatives 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. The Advisers cannot predict the effects of these regulations on the Fund. The Advisers intend to monitor developments and seek to manage the Fund in a manner consistent with achieving the Fund’s investment objective.

In October 2020, the SEC adopted certain regulatory changes and took other actions related to the ability of an investment company to invest in another investment company. These changes include, among other things, amendments to Rule 12d1-1, the rescission of Rule 12d1-2, the adoption of Rule 12d1-4, and the rescission of certain exemptive relief issued by the SEC permitting such investments in excess of statutory limits. Compliance with these new requirements commenced in January 2022.

Market Risk

The Fund could lose money over short periods due to short-term market movements and over longer periods during more prolonged market downturns. The prices of the securities in the Fund are subject to the risks associated with investing in the securities market, including general economic conditions, sudden and unpredictable drops in value, exchange trading suspensions and closures and public health risks. Market risk arises mainly from uncertainty about future values of financial instruments and may be influenced by price, currency and interest rate movements. These risks may be magnified if certain social, political, economic and other conditions and events (such as natural disasters, epidemics and pandemics, terrorism, conflicts and social unrest) adversely interrupt the global economy; in these and other circumstances, such events or developments might affect companies world-wide. As global systems, economies and financial markets are increasingly interconnected, events that occur in one country, region or financial market will, more frequently, adversely impact issuers in other countries, regions or markets. During a general market downturn, multiple asset classes may be negatively affected. Changes in market conditions and interest rates generally do not have the same impact on all types of securities and instruments.

Economies and financial markets throughout the world have experienced periods of increased volatility, uncertainty and distress. To the extent these conditions continue, the risks associated with an investment in the Fund, including those described below, could be heightened and the Fund’s investments (and thus a shareholder’s investment in the Fund) may be particularly susceptible to sudden and substantial losses, reduced yield or income or other adverse developments.

Floating Rate LIBOR Risk

Certain financial instruments in which the Fund invests may pay interest based on, or otherwise have payments tied to, the London Inter-bank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”), Euro Interbank Offered Rate, Secured Overnight Financing Rate (“SOFR”), Sterling Overnight Interbank Average Rate (“SONIA”) and other similar types of reference rates (each, a “Reference Rate”). Due to the uncertainty regarding the future utilization of LIBOR and the nature of any replacement rate, the potential effect of a transition away from LIBOR on the Fund or the financial instruments in which the Fund invests cannot yet be fully determined.

All Sterling, Japanese Yen, Swiss Franc, Euro and certain U.S. dollar LIBOR settings ceased to be published at the end of 2021 and the remaining U.S. dollar LIBOR settings will no longer be published after June 30, 2023. Certain U.S. dollar LIBOR settings will continue to be published on a non-representative synthetic basis from July 1, 2023 and will cease on September 30, 2024. The Fund may continue to invest in instruments that reference or otherwise use such Reference Rates until they cease to be published due to favorable liquidity or pricing. These events and any additional regulatory or market changes may have an adverse impact on the Fund or its investments.

In anticipation of the transition away from LIBOR, regulators and market participants have worked to identify or develop successor Reference Rates (e.g., the SOFR, which is likely to replace U.S. dollar LIBOR and spreads (if any) to be utilized in existing contracts or instruments as part of the transition away from LIBOR. Spreads (if any) to be utilized in existing contracts or instruments may be amended through government regulations, market-wide protocols, fallback contractual provisions, bespoke negotiations or amendments or otherwise. Nonetheless, the termination of certain Reference Rates presents risks to the Fund. It is not possible to exhaustively identify or predict the effect of any such changes, any establishment of alternative Reference Rates or any other reforms to Reference Rates that may be enacted in the United States or elsewhere. The elimination of a Reference Rate or any other changes or reforms to the determination or supervision of Reference Rates may affect the value, liquidity, volatility or return on certain Fund investments and may result in costs to the Fund, including costs incurred in connection with closing out positions and entering into new trades, adversely impacting the Fund’s overall financial condition or results of operations. The impact of any successor or substitute Reference Rate, if any, will vary on an investment-by-investment basis, and any differences may be material and/or create material economic mismatches. The successor or substitute Reference Rate and any adjustments selected may negatively impact the Fund’s investments, performance or financial condition,including in ways unforeseen by the Advisers. In addition, any successor or substitute Reference Rate and any pricing adjustments imposed by a regulator or by counterparties or otherwise may adversely affect the Fund’s performance and/or NAV, and may expose the Fund to additional tax, accounting and regulatory risks.

Futures Developments

The Fund may take advantage of opportunities in the area of options, futures contracts, options on futures contracts,

warrants, swaps and any other investments which are not presently contemplated for use or which are not currently available,

but which may be developed, to the extent such investments are considered suitable for the Fund by the Adviser.

Investment Restrictions

The Trust has adopted the following investment restrictions as fundamental policies with respect to the Fund. These restrictions cannot be changed without the approval of the holders of a majority of the Fund’s outstanding voting securities. For purposes of the 1940 Act, a majority of the outstanding voting securities of the Fund means the vote, at an annual or a special meeting of the security holders of the Trust, of the lesser of (1) 67% or more of the voting securities of the Fund present at such meeting, if the holders of more than 50% of the outstanding voting securities of the Fund are present or represented by proxy, or (2) more than 50% of the outstanding voting securities of the Fund. The following investment restrictions are applicable to the Fund:

1.The Fund may not make loans, except that the Fund may (i) lend portfolio securities, (ii) enter into repurchase agreements, (iii) purchase all or a portion of an issue of debt securities, bank loan or participation interests, bank certificates of deposit, bankers’ acceptances, debentures or other securities, whether or not the purchase is made upon the original issuance of the securities and (iv) participate in an interfund lending program with other registered investment companies;

2.The Fund may not borrow money, except as permitted under the 1940 Act, and as interpreted or modified by regulation from time to time;

3.The Fund may not issue senior securities except as permitted under the 1940 Act, and as interpreted or modified by regulation from time to time;

4.The Fund may not purchase or sell real estate, except that the Fund may (i) invest in securities of issuers that invest in real estate or interests therein; (ii) invest in mortgage-related securities and other securities that are secured by real estate or interests therein; and (iii) hold and sell real estate acquired by the Fund as a result of the ownership of securities;

5.The Fund may not engage in the business of underwriting 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, as amended (the “Securities Act”), in the disposition of restricted securities or in connection with its investments in other investment companies;

6.The Fund may not purchase or sell commodities, unless acquired as a result of owning securities or other instruments, but it may purchase, sell or enter into financial options and futures, forward and spot currency contracts, swap transactions and other financial contracts or derivative instruments and may invest in securities or other instruments backed by commodities; and

7.The Fund may not purchase any security if, as a result of that purchase, 25% or more of its total assets would be invested in securities of issuers having their principal business activities in one or more industries, except that the Fund may invest more than 25% of its total assets in investments that provide exposure to ETH and/or ETH Futures. This limit does not apply to securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government, its agencies or instrumentalities.

In addition to the investment restrictions adopted as fundamental policies as set forth above, the Fund observes the following non-fundamental investment restrictions, which may be changed by the Board without a shareholder vote. Under these restrictions:

1.The Fund will not invest in securities which are “illiquid” securities if the result is that more than 15% of the Fund’s net assets would be invested in such securities.

2.The Fund will not make short sales of securities.

3.The Fund will not purchase any security on margin, except for such short-term loans as are necessary for clearance of securities transactions. The deposit or payment by the Fund or initial or variation margin in connection with futures contracts or related options thereon is not considered the purchase of a security on margin.

4.The Fund will not participate in a joint or joint-and-several basis in any trading account in securities, although transactions for the Fund and any other account under common or affiliated management may be combined or allocated between the Fund and such account.

If a percentage limitation is adhered to at the time of investment or contract, a later increase or decrease in percentage resulting from any change in value or total or net assets will not result in a violation of such restriction, except that the percentage limitation with respect to the borrowing of money described above in fundamental restriction 2 will be continuously complied with.

With respect to fundamental restriction 2, the 1940 Act permits the Fund to borrow money from banks in an amount up to one-third of its total assets (including the amount borrowed) less its liabilities (not including any borrowings but including the fair market value at the time of computation of any other senior securities then outstanding). The Fund may also borrow an additional 5% of its total assets without regard to the foregoing limitation for temporary purposes such as clearance of portfolio transactions. Practices and investments that may involve leverage but are not considered to be borrowings are not subject to the policy.

With respect to fundamental restriction 3, the 1940 Act prohibits the Fund from issuing senior securities, except that the Fund may borrow money in amounts of up to one-third of the Fund’s total assets from banks for any purpose. The Fund may also borrow money or engage in economically similar transactions if those transactions do not constitute “senior securities” under the 1940 Act. The policy above will be interpreted not to prevent collateral arrangements with respect to swaps, options, forward or futures contracts or other derivatives, or the posting of initial or variation margin.

With respect to fundamental restriction 7, investment companies are not considered to be part of an industry. Additionally, the securities of state and municipal governments and their political subdivisions are not considered to be issued by members of any industry.

The Fund expects to invest its remaining assets in any one or more of the following to provide liquidity, serve as margin or collateralize the Fund’s investments in ETH Futures: U.S. Treasuries, other U.S. government obligations, money market funds and funds that invest in short-term bonds, cash and cash-like equivalents (e.g., high quality commercial paper and similar instruments that are rated investment grade or, if unrated, of comparable quality, as the Adviser determines), mortgage-backed securities issued or guaranteed by U.S. government agencies, instrumentalities or sponsored enterprises of the U.S. government (whether or not the securities are U.S. government securities), municipal debt securities, Treasury inflation-protected securities, sovereign debt obligations of non-U.S. countries, and repurchase agreements.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND RISKS

A discussion of the risks associated with an investment in the Fund is contained in the Fund’s Prospectus under the headings “Summary Information—Principal Risks of Investing in the Fund” and “Additional Information About the Fund’s Investment Strategies and Risks—Risks of Investing in the Fund.” The discussion below supplements, and should be read in conjunction with, such sections of the Fund’s Prospectus.

Under normal circumstances, the Fund will invest in ETH Futures traded on commodity exchanges registered with the CFTC. Currently, the only commodity exchange registered with the CFTC on which ETH Futures are traded is the CME.

The Fund is an actively managed ETF that does not seek to replicate the performance of a specified index.

ETH Futures. Futures contracts are financial contracts the value of which depends on, or is derived from, the underlying reference asset. In the case of ETH Futures, the underlying reference asset is ETH. Futures contracts may be physically-settled or cash-settled. The only futures contracts in which the Fund invests are cash-settled ETH Futures. “Cash-settled” means that when the relevant futures contract expires, if the value of the underlying asset exceeds the futures contract price, the seller pays to the purchaser cash in the amount of that excess, and if the futures contract price exceeds the value of the underlying asset, the purchaser pays to the seller cash in the amount of that excess. In a cash-settled futures contract on ETH, the amount of cash to be paid is equal to the difference between the value of the ETH underlying the futures contract at the close of the last trading day of the contract and the futures contract price specified in the agreement. The CME has specified that the value of ETH underlying ETH Futures traded on the CME will be determined by reference to a volume-weighted average of ETH trading prices on multiple ETH trading venues. Margin requirements for ETH Futures traded on the CME or other futures exchanges may be substantially higher than margin requirements for many other types of futures contracts. If the Fund is unable to meet its investment objective, the Fund’s returns may be lower than expected. Additionally, these collateral requirements may require the Fund to liquidate its position when it otherwise would not do so.

Futures contracts exhibit “futures basis,” which refers to the difference between the current market value of the underlying ETH (the “spot” price) and the price of the cash-settled futures contracts. A negative futures basis exists when cash-settled ETH futures contracts generally trade at a premium to the current market value of ETH. If a negative futures basis exists, the Fund’s investments in ETH futures contracts will generally underperform a direct investment in ETH, and, therefore, it may be more difficult for the Fund to maintain the Target Exposure.

ETH Reference Rate. The MarketVector™ Ethereum Benchmark Rate is a U.S. dollar-denominated composite reference rate for the price of ETH. The index is calculated daily between 00:00 and 24:00 (CET) and the index values are disseminated to data vendors. The index is disseminated in USD and the closing value is calculated based on one hour volume weighted average price.

The MarketVector Ethereum Benchmark Rate is designed to be a robust price for Ether in USD. There is no component other than Ether in the index. The underlying exchanges are sourced from the industry leading CryptoCompare Exchange Benchmark review report. CryptoCompare Exchange Benchmark was established in 2019 as a tool designed to bring clarity to the digital asset exchange sector by providing a framework for assessing risk and in turn bringing transparency and accountability to a complex and rapidly evolving market. The CryptoCompare Exchange Benchmark methodology utilizes a combination of qualitative and quantitative metrics to analyze a comprehensive data set, covering more than 165 exchanges across eight categories of evaluation. The CryptoCompare Exchange Benchmark review report assigns a grade to each exchange which helps identify what it believes to be the lowest risk exchanges in the industry. Based on the CryptoCompare Exchange Benchmark, MarketVector initially selects the top five exchanges by rank for inclusion in the MarketVector Ethereum Benchmark Rate. If an eligible exchange is in the top five by rank for two consecutive semi-annual reviews, it replaces the lowest ranked exchange. If an eligible exchange is downgraded by two or more notches in a semi-annual review and is no longer in the top five by rank, it is replaced by the highest ranked non-component exchange. Adjustments to exchange coverage are announced four business days prior to the first business day of each of March and September at 23:00 CET. The MarketVector Ethereum Benchmark Rate is rebalanced at 16:00:00 ET on the last business day of each of February and August. The current exchange composition of the MarketVector Ethereum Benchmark Rate is Bitstamp, Coinbase, Gemini, itBit and Kraken.

Regulatory Aspects of Investments in Futures. VEARA has registered as a CPO with the CFTC. VEARA’s investment decisions may need to be modified, and commodity contract positions held by the Fund may have to be liquidated at disadvantageous times or prices, to avoid exceeding position limits established by the CFTC, potentially subjecting the Fund to substantial losses. The regulation of commodity transactions in the United States is subject to ongoing modification by government, self-regulatory and judicial action. The effect of any future regulatory change on the Fund is impossible to predict, but could be substantial and adverse to the Fund.

Asset Coverage for Futures and other Derivatives Positions. The Fund, on a consolidated basis, will comply with SEC guidance with respect to coverage of futures positions by registered investment companies. SEC guidance may require the

Fund, in certain circumstances, to segregate cash or liquid securities on its books and records, or engage in other appropriate measures to “cover” its obligations under certain futures or derivative contracts. For example, with respect to futures that are not cash settled, the Fund is required to segregate liquid assets equal to the full notional value of the futures contract. For futures and other derivatives contracts that are cash settled, the Fund is required to segregate liquid assets in an amount equal to the Fund’s daily mark-to-market (net) obligation (i.e., the Fund’s daily net liability) under the contract. Securities earmarked or held in a segregated account cannot be sold while the Fund’s futures or other derivatives position is outstanding, unless replaced with other permissible assets (or otherwise covered), and will be marked-to-market daily.

Tax Risks

As with any investment, you should consider how your investment in Shares of the Fund will be taxed. The tax information in the Prospectus and SAI is provided as general information. You should consult your own tax professional about the tax consequences of an investment in Shares of the Fund.

U.S. Federal Tax Treatment of Futures Contracts

The Fund may be required for federal income tax purposes to mark-to-market and recognize as income for each taxable year its net unrealized gains and losses on certain futures contracts as of the end of the year as well as those actually realized during the year. Gain or loss from futures contracts required to be marked-to-market will be 60% long-term and 40% short-term capital gain or loss, although all of the Fund’s income and gains will be taxed at the same rate. Application of this rule may alter the timing and character of distributions to shareholders. The Fund may be required to defer the recognition of losses on ETH Futures to the extent of any unrecognized gains on related positions held by the Fund.

Concentration Considerations

To the extent that the Fund’s investments are concentrated in a particular sector or sectors or industry or group of

industries, the Fund will be subject to the risk that economic, political or other conditions that have a negative effect on that

sector or industry will negatively impact the Fund to a greater extent than if the Fund’s assets were invested in a wider variety

of sectors or industries. The securities of state and municipal governments and their political subdivisions are not considered

to be issued by members of any industry.

Cyber Security

The Fund, its service providers, the Exchange and each Authorized Participants (defined below) are susceptible to cyber security risks that include, among other things, theft, unauthorized monitoring, release, misuse, loss, destruction or corruption of confidential and highly restricted data; denial of service attacks; unauthorized access to relevant systems, compromises to networks or devices that the Fund and its service providers use to service the Fund’s operations; or operational disruption or failures in the physical infrastructure or operating systems that support the Fund and its service providers. Cyber attacks against or security breakdowns of the Fund, its service providers, the Exchange or Authorized Participants may adversely impact the Fund and its shareholders, potentially resulting in, among other things, financial losses; the inability of Fund shareholders to transact business and the Fund to process transactions; inability to calculate the Fund’s NAV; violations of applicable privacy and other laws; regulatory fines, penalties, reputational damage, reimbursement or other compensation costs; and/or additional compliance costs. The Fund may incur additional costs for cyber security risk management and remediation purposes. In addition, cyber security risks may also impact issuers of securities in which the Fund invests, which may cause the Fund’s investment in such issuers to lose value. There can be no assurance that the Fund, its service providers, the Exchange or Authorized Participants will not suffer losses relating to cyber attacks or other information security breaches in the future.

Securities Lending

The Fund may only lend its investments in ETH-related companies, U.S. Treasuries and other U.S. government obligations. Securities lending allows the Fund to retain ownership of the securities loaned and, at the same time, earn additional income. The borrower provides cash or non-cash collateral equal to at least 102% (105% for foreign securities) of the value of the securities loaned. Collateral is maintained by State Street on behalf of the Fund. Cash received as collateral through loan transactions is generally invested in shares of a money market fund. Investing this cash subjects that investment, as well as the securities loaned, to market appreciation or depreciation. Non-cash collateral consists of securities issued or guaranteed by the United States government or one of its agencies and cannot be re-hypothecated by the Fund. The SEC provided guidance in connection with the derivatives rule discussed above regarding the use of securities lending collateral that may limit the Fund from engaging in certain uses of cash and non-cash collateral. The Fund maintains the ability 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, the 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 the Fund is not able to recover the securities loaned, the collateral may be sold and a replacement investment may be purchased 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.

EXCHANGE LISTING AND TRADING

A discussion of exchange listing and trading matters associated with an investment in the Fund is contained in the Fund’s Prospectus under the headings “Summary Information—Principal Risks of Investing in the Fund,” “Additional Information About the Fund’s Investment Strategies and Risks—Risks of Investing in the Fund,” “Shareholder Information—Determination of NAV” and “Shareholder Information—Buying and Selling Exchange-Traded Shares.” The discussion below supplements, and should be read in conjunction with, such sections of the Fund’s Prospectus.

The Shares of the Fund are expected to be approved for listing on the Exchange, subject to notice of issuance, and will trade in the secondary market at prices that may differ to some degree from their NAV. The Exchange may but is not required to remove the Shares of the Fund from listing if: (1) following the initial twelve-month period beginning upon the commencement of trading of the Fund, there are fewer than 50 beneficial holders of the Shares, (2) the Exchange becomes aware that the Fund is no longer eligible to operate in reliance on Rule 6c-11 under the 1940 Act, (3) the Fund no longer complies with certain listing exchange rules, or (4) such other event shall occur or condition exists that, in the opinion of the Exchange, makes further dealings on the Exchange inadvisable. In addition, the Exchange will remove the Shares from listing and trading upon termination of the Trust. There can be no assurance that the requirements of the Exchange necessary to maintain the listing of Shares of the Fund will continue to be met.

As in the case of other securities traded on the Exchange, brokers’ commissions on secondary market transactions in Shares of the Fund will be based on negotiated commission rates at customary levels.

In order to provide investors with a basis to gauge whether the market price of the Shares on the Exchange is approximately consistent with the current value of the assets of the Fund on a per Share basis, an “intra-day indicative value” (“IIV” and also known as the Indicative Optimized Portfolio Value) for the Fund may be disseminated through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association’s Network B. IIVs are disseminated during regular Exchange trading hours. The Fund is not involved in or responsible for the calculation or dissemination of the IIVs and makes no warranty as to the accuracy of the IIVs.

The IIV has a securities component and a cash component reflecting cash and other assets that may be held by the Fund. The securities values included in the IIV are the values of the Deposit Securities (as defined below under the heading “Creation and Redemption of Creation Units—Fund Deposit”) for the Fund. While the IIV reflects the approximate current value of the Deposit Securities required to be deposited in connection with the purchase of a Creation Unit, it does not necessarily reflect the precise composition of the current portfolio of securities held by the Fund at a particular point in time because the current portfolio of the Fund may include securities that are not a part of the current Deposit Securities. Therefore, while the Fund’s IIV may be disseminated during the Exchange trading hours, it should not be viewed as a real-time update of the Fund’s NAV, which is calculated only once a day.

The cash component included in the IIV could consist of estimated accrued interest, dividends and other income, less expenses. If applicable, the IIV also reflects changes in currency exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and the applicable currency.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TRUST

Trustees and Officers of the Trust

The Board of the Trust consists of six Trustees, five of whom are not “interested persons” (as defined in the 1940 Act), of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”). Mr. Peter J. Sidebottom, an Independent Trustee, serves as Chairperson of the Board. The Board is responsible for overseeing the management and operations of the Trust, including general supervision of the duties performed by the Adviser and other service providers to the Trust. The Adviser is responsible for the day-to-day administration and business affairs of the Trust.

The Board believes that each Trustee’s experience, qualifications, attributes or skills on an individual basis and in combination with those of the other Trustees lead to the conclusion that the Board possesses the requisite skills and attributes to carry out its oversight responsibilities with respect to the Trust. The Board believes that the Trustees’ ability to review, critically evaluate, question and discuss information provided to them, to interact effectively with the Adviser, other service providers, counsel and independent auditors, and to exercise effective business judgment in the performance of their duties, support this conclusion. The Board also has considered the following experience, qualifications, attributes and/or skills, among others, of its members in reaching its conclusion: such person’s character and integrity; length of service as a board member of the Trust;

such person’s willingness to serve and willingness and ability to commit the time necessary to perform the duties of a Trustee; and as to each Trustee other than Mr. van Eck, his status as not being an “interested person” (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the Trust. In addition, the following specific experience, qualifications, attributes and/or skills apply as to each Trustee: Mr. Chow, significant business and financial experience, particularly in the investment management industry, experience with trading and markets through his involvement with the Pacific Stock Exchange, and service as a chief executive officer, board member, partner or executive officer of various businesses and non-profit organizations; Ms. Hesslein, business and financial experience, particularly in the investment management industry, and service as a president, board member and/or executive officer of various businesses; Mr. Short, business and financial experience, particularly in the investment management industry, and service as a president, board member or executive officer of various businesses; Mr. Sidebottom, business and financial experience, particularly in the investment management industry, and service as partner and/or executive officer of various businesses; Mr. Stamberger, extensive business and financial experience as founder, president and CEO of SmartBrief, Inc., and previous service as the Senior Vice President of B2B, Future Plc, a global media company; and Mr. van Eck, business and financial experience, particularly in the investment management industry, and service as a president, executive officer and/or board member of various businesses, including the Adviser, Van Eck Securities Corporation (“VESC” or the “Distributor”) and Van Eck Associates Corporation (“VEAC”). References to the experience, qualifications, attributes and skills of Trustees are pursuant to requirements of the SEC, do not constitute holding out of the Board or any Trustee as having any special expertise or experience, and shall not impose any greater responsibility or liability on any such person or on the Board by reason thereof.

The Trustees of the Trust, their addresses, positions with the Trust, year of birth, term of office and length of time served, principal occupations during the past five years, the number of portfolios in the Fund Complex overseen by each Trustee and other directorships, if any, held by the Trustees, are set forth below.

Independent Trustees

Name, Address1

and Year of Birth

Position(s)

Held with

the Trust

Term of Office2

and Length of

Time Served

Principal Occupation(s)

During Past Five Years

Number of

Portfolios in

Fund Complex3

Overseen

Other Directorships

Held Outside the Fund Complex3 During Past Five Years

David H. Chow, 1957*†

Trustee
Chairman

Since 2006
2008 - 2022

Founder and CEO, DanCourt Management LLC (financial/strategy consulting firm and Registered Investment Adviser),
March 1999 to present.

[ ]

Trustee, Berea College of Kentucky, May 2009 to present and currently Chairman of the Investment Committee; Trustee, MainStay Fund

Complex4, January 2016 to present and currently Chairman of the Investment Committee. Formerly, Member of the Governing Council of the Independent Directors Council, October 2012 to September 2020.

Laurie A. Hesslein, 1959*†

Trustee

Since 2019

Citigroup, Managing Director and Business Head, Local Consumer Lending North America, and CEO and President, CitiFinancial Servicing LLC (2013 - 2017).

[ ]

Formerly, Trustee, First Eagle Senior Loan Fund, March 2017 to December 2021; and Trustee, Eagle Growth and Income Opportunities Fund, March 2017 to December 2020.

R. Alastair Short, 1953*†

Trustee

Since 2006

President, Apex Capital Corporation (personal investment vehicle).

[ ]

Chairman and Independent Director, EULAV Asset Management; Lead Independent Director, Total Fund Solution; Independent Director, Contingency Capital, LLC; Trustee, Kenyon Review; Trustee, Children's Village. Formerly, Independent Director, Tremont offshore funds.

Peter J. Sidebottom, 1962*†

Chairman
Trustee

Since 2022
Since 2012

Global Lead Partner, Financial
Services Strategy, Accenture,
January 2021 to present; Lead
Partner, North America Banking
and Capital Markets Strategy,
Accenture, May 2017 to
December 2021.

[ ]

Formerly, Board Member, Special Olympics, New Jersey, November 2011 to September 2013; Director, The Charlotte Research Institute, December 2000 to 2009; Board Member, Social Capital Institute, University of North Carolina Charlotte, November 2004 to January 2012; Board Member, NJ- CAN, July 2014 to 2016.

Richard D. Stamberger, 1959*†

Trustee

Since 2006

Senior Vice President, B2B, Future Plc (a global media company), July 2020 to August 2022; President, CEO and co-founder, SmartBrief, Inc., 1999 to 2020.

[ ]

Director, Food and Friends, Inc., 2013 to present.

________________________

1The address for each Trustee and officer is 666 Third Avenue, 9th Floor, New York, New York 10017.

2Each Trustee serves until resignation, death, retirement or removal. Officers are elected yearly by the Trustees.

3The Fund Complex consists of the VanEck Funds, VanEck VIP Trust and the Trust.

4The MainStay Fund Complex consists of MainStay Funds, MainStay Funds Trust, MainStay VP Funds Trust and MainStay MacKay Defined Term Municipal Opportunities Fund.

•Member of the Audit Committee.

† Member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.

Interested Trustee

Name, Address1 and Year of Birth

Position(s)
Held with
the Trust

Term of Office2

and Length of

Time Served

Principal Occupation(s)
During Past Five Years

Number of

Portfolios in

Fund Complex3

Overseen

Other

Directorships

Held Outside the Fund Complex3

During Past Five

Years

Jan F. van Eck, 19634

Trustee, Chief Executive Officer and President

Trustee (Since 2006); Chief Executive Officer and President (Since 2009)

Director, President
and Chief Executive
Officer of VEAC,
VEARA and VESC;
Officer and/or
Director of other
companies affiliated
with VEAC and/or
the Trust.

[ ]

Director, National Committee on US-China Relations.

________________________

1The address for each Trustee and officer is 666 Third Avenue, 9th Floor, New York, New York 10017.

2Each Trustee serves until resignation, death, retirement or removal. Officers are elected yearly by the Trustees.

3The Fund Complex consists of the VanEck Funds, VanEck VIP Trust and the Trust.

4“Interested person” of the Trust within the meaning of the 1940 Act. Mr. van Eck is an officer of VEAC, VEARA and VESC.

Officer Information

The Officers of the Trust, their addresses, positions with the Trust, year of birth and principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below.


Officer’s Name, Address1 and Year of Birth	Position(s) Held with the Trust	Term of Office2 and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years
Matthew A. Babinsky, 1983	Assistant Vice President and Assistant Secretary	Since 2016	Assistant Vice President, Assistant General Counsel and Assistant Secretary of VEAC, VEARA and VESC; Officer of other investment companies advised by VEAC and VEARA.
Russell G. Brennan, 1964	Assistant Vice President and Assistant Treasurer	Since 2008	Assistant Vice President of VEAC; Officer of other investment companies advised by VEAC and VEARA.
Charles T. Cameron, 1960	Vice President	Since 2006	Portfolio Manager of VEAC; Officer and/or Portfolio Manager of other investment companies advised by VEAC and VEARA. Formerly, Director of Trading of VEAC.
John J. Crimmins, 1957	Vice President, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer	Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer (Since 2012); Treasurer (Since 2009)	Vice President of VEAC and VEARA; Officer of other investment companies advised by VEAC and VEARA. Formerly, Vice President of VESC.
Susan Curry, 1966	Assistant Vice President	Since 2022	Assistant Vice President of VEAC, VEARA and VESC; Formerly, Managing Director, Legg Mason, Inc.
Eduardo Escario, 1975	Vice President	Since 2012	Regional Director, Business Development/Sales for Southern Europe and South America of VEAC.
F. Michael Gozzillo, 1965	Chief Compliance Officer	Since 2018	Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer of VEAC and VEARA; Chief Compliance Officer of VESC; Officer of other investment companies advised by VEAC and VEARA. Formerly, Chief Compliance Officer of City National Rochdale, LLC and City National Rochdale Funds.
Laura Hamilton, 1977	Vice President	Since 2019	Assistant Vice President of VEAC and VESC; Officer of other investment companies advised by VEAC and VEARA. Formerly, Operations Manager of Royce & Associates.
Nicholas Jackson, 1974	Assistant Vice President	Since 2018	Director, Business Development of VanEck Australia Pty Ltd. Formerly, Vice President, Business Development of VanEck Australia Pty Ltd.
Laura I. Martínez, 1980	Vice President and Assistant Secretary	Vice President (Since 2016); Assistant Secretary (Since 2008)	Vice President, Associate General Counsel and Assistant Secretary of VEAC, VEARA and VESC; Officer of other investment companies advised by VEAC and VEARA. Formerly, Assistant Vice President of VEAC, VEARA and VESC.
Matthew McKinnon, 1970	Assistant Vice President	Since 2018	Head of Asia - Business Development of VanEck Australia Pty Ltd. Formerly, Director, Intermediaries and Institutions of VanEck Australia Pty Ltd.
Lisa A. Moss, 1965	Assistant Vice President and Assistant Secretary	Since 2022	Assistant Vice President of VEAC, VEARA and VESC; Formerly Senior Counsel, Perkins Coie LLP; Assistant General Counsel, Fred Alger Management, Inc.
Arian Neiron, 1979	Vice President	Since 2018	CEO (since 2021) & Managing Director and Head of Asia Pacific of VanEck Australia Pty Ltd.; Officer and/or Director of other companies affiliated with VEAC and/or the Trust.
James Parker, 1969	Assistant Treasurer	Since 2014	Assistant Vice President of VEAC and VEARA; Manager, Portfolio Administration of VEAC and VEARA. Officer of other investment companies advised by VEAC and VEARA.
Adam Phillips, 1970	Vice President	Since 2018	ETF Chief Operating Officer of VEAC; Director of other companies affiliated with VEAC.
Philipp Schlegel, 1974	Vice President	Since 2016	Managing Director of Van Eck Switzerland AG.
Jonathan R. Simon, 1974	Senior Vice President, Secretary and Chief Legal Officer	Senior Vice President (Since 2016); Secretary and Chief Legal Officer (Since 2014)	Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of VEAC, VEARA and VESC; Officer and/or Director of other companies affiliated with VEAC and/or the Trust. Formerly, Vice President of VEAC, VEARA and VESC.
Andrew Tilzer, 1972	Assistant Vice President	Since 2021	Vice President of VEAC and VEARA; Vice President of Portfolio Administration of VEAC. Formerly, Assistant Vice President, Portfolio Operations of VEAC.

________________________

1The address for each Trustee and officer is 666 Third Avenue, 9th Floor, New York, New York 10017.

2Officers are elected yearly by the Trustees.

The Board of the Trust met [ ] times during the fiscal year ended [ ].

The Board has an Audit Committee consisting of five Trustees who are Independent Trustees. Ms. Hesslein and Messrs. Chow, Short, Sidebottom and Stamberger currently serve as members of the Audit Committee and each of Ms. Hesslein and Messrs. Chow, Short, Sidebottom and Stamberger has been designated as an “audit committee financial expert” as defined under Item 407 of Regulation S-K of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Ms. Hesslein is the Chairperson of the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee has the responsibility, among other things, to: (i) oversee the accounting and financial reporting processes of the Trust and its internal control over financial reporting; (ii) oversee the quality and integrity of the Trust’s financial statements and the independent audit thereof; (iii) oversee or, as appropriate, assist the Board’s oversight of the Trust’s compliance with legal and regulatory requirements that relate to the Trust’s accounting and financial reporting, internal control over financial reporting and independent audit; (iv) approve prior to appointment the engagement of the Trust’s independent registered public accounting firm and, in connection therewith, to review and evaluate the qualifications, independence and performance of the Trust’s independent registered public accounting firm; and (v) act as a liaison between the Trust’s independent registered public accounting firm and the full Board. The Audit Committee met [ ] times during the fiscal year ended [ ].

The Board also has a Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee consisting of five Independent Trustees. Ms. Hesslein and Messrs. Chow, Short, Sidebottom and Stamberger currently serve as members of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. Mr. Stamberger is the Chairperson of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee has the responsibility, among other things, to: (i) evaluate, as necessary, the composition of the Board, its committees and sub-committees and make such recommendations to the Board as deemed appropriate by the Committee; (ii) review and define Independent Trustee qualifications; (iii) review the qualifications of individuals serving as Trustees on the Board and its committees; (iv) evaluate, recommend and nominate qualified individuals for election or appointment as members of the Board and recommend the appointment of members and chairs of each Board committee and subcommittee; and (v) review and assess, from time to time, the performance of the committees and subcommittees of the Board and report the results to the Board. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee met [ ] times during the fiscal year ended [ ].

The Board has determined that its leadership structure is appropriate given the business and nature of the Trust. In connection with its determination, the Board considered that the Chairperson of the Board is an Independent Trustee. The Chairperson of the Board can play an important role in setting the agenda of the Board and also serves as a key point person for dealings between management and the other Independent Trustees. The Independent Trustees believe that the Chairperson’s independence facilitates meaningful dialogue between the Adviser and the Independent Trustees. The Board also considered that the Chairperson of each Board committee is an Independent Trustee, which yields similar benefits with respect to the functions and activities of the various Board committees. The Independent Trustees also regularly meet outside the presence of management and are advised by independent legal counsel. The Board has determined that its committees help ensure that the Trust has effective and independent governance and oversight. The Board also believes that its leadership structure facilitates the orderly and efficient flow of information to the Independent Trustees from management of the Trust, including the Adviser. The Board reviews its structure on an annual basis.

As an integral part of its responsibility for oversight of the Trust in the interests of shareholders, the Board, as a general matter, oversees risk management of the Trust’s investment programs and business affairs. The function of the Board with respect to risk management is one of oversight and not active involvement in, or coordination of, day-to-day risk management activities for the Trust. The Board recognizes that not all risks that may affect the Trust can be identified, that it may not be practical or cost-effective to eliminate or mitigate certain risks, that it may be necessary to bear certain risks (such as investment-related risks) to achieve the Trust’s goals, and that the processes, procedures and controls employed to address certain risks may be limited in their effectiveness. Moreover, reports received by the Trustees that may relate to risk management matters are typically summaries of the relevant information.

The Board exercises oversight of the risk management process. The Trust faces a number of risks, such as investment-related and compliance risks. The Adviser’s personnel seek to identify and address risks, i.e., events or circumstances that could have material adverse effects on the business, operations, shareholder services, investment performance or reputation of the Trust. Under the overall supervision of the Board or the applicable Committee of the Board, the Trust, the Adviser, and the affiliates of the Adviser employ a variety of processes, procedures and controls to identify such possible events or circumstances, to lessen the probability of their occurrence and/or to mitigate the effects of such events or circumstances if they do occur. Different processes, procedures and controls are employed with respect to different types of risks. Various personnel, including the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer, as well as various personnel of the Adviser and other service providers such as the Trust’s independent accountants, may report to the Audit Committee and/or to the Board with respect to various aspects of risk management, as well as events and circumstances that have arisen and responses thereto.

[The officers and Trustees of the Trust, in the aggregate, owned less than 1% of the Shares of the Fund as of the date of this SAI.]

For each Trustee, the dollar range of equity securities beneficially owned (including ownership through the Trust’s Deferred Compensation Plan) by the Trustee in the Trust and in all registered investment companies advised by the Adviser (“Family of Investment Companies”) that are overseen by the Trustee is shown below.

Name of Trustee

Dollar Range of Equity
Securities in the Fund [(As
of )]

Aggregate Dollar Range of Equity
Securities in all Registered Investment
Companies Overseen By Trustee in
Family of Investment Companies
[(As of )]

David H. Chow

[ ]

[$ ]

Laurie A. Hesslein

[ ]

R. Alastair Short

[ ]

Peter J. Sidebottom

[ ]

Richard D. Stamberger

[ ]

Jan F. van Eck

[ ]

As to each Independent Trustee and his immediate family members, no person owned beneficially or of record securities in an investment manager or principal underwriter of the Fund, or a person (other than a registered investment company) directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by or under common control with the investment manager or principal underwriter of the Fund.

Remuneration of Trustees

The Trust pays each Independent Trustee an annual retainer of $140,000, a per meeting fee of $25,000 for scheduled meetings of the Board. Additionally, the Trust pays the Chairperson of the Board an annual retainer of $62,000, the Chairperson of the Audit Committee an annual retainer of $26,000 and the Chairperson of the Governance Committee an annual retainer of $26,000. The Trust also reimburses each Trustee for travel and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending such meetings. No pension or retirement benefits are accrued as part of Trustee compensation.

The table below shows the compensation paid to the Trustees by the Trust for the fiscal year ended [ ]. Annual Trustee fees may be reviewed periodically and changed by the Trust’s Board.

Name of Trustee

Aggregate
Compensation
From the Trust

Deferred
Compensation
From the Trust

Pension or

Retirement

Benefits

Accrued as Part

of the Trust’s

Expenses

Estimated
Annual Benefits Upon Retirement

Total

Compensation

From the Trust

and the Fund

Complex(1) Paid

to Trustee

David H. Chow

$ [ ]

N/A

[ ]

Laurie A. Hesslein

$ [ ]

N/A

[ ]

R. Alastair Short

$ [ ]

—

N/A

[ ]

Peter J. Sidebottom

$ [ ]

—

N/A

[ ]

Richard D. Stamberger

$ [ ]

N/A

[ ]

Jan F. van Eck(2)

—

N/A

—


(1)			The “Fund Complex” consists of VanEck Funds, VanEck VIP Trust and the Trust.
(2)			“Interested person” under the 1940 Act.

PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS DISCLOSURE

The Fund’s portfolio holdings are publicly disseminated each day the Fund is open for business through financial reporting and news services, including publicly accessible Internet web sites, such as www.vaneck.com. In addition, a basket composition file, which includes the security names and share quantities to deliver in exchange for Creation Units, together with estimates and actual cash components is publicly disseminated daily prior to the opening of the Exchange via the National Securities Clearing Corporation (the “NSCC”), a clearing agency that is registered with the SEC. The basket represents one Creation Unit of the Fund. The Trust, Adviser, Custodian (defined below) and Distributor (defined below) will not disseminate non-public information concerning the Trust.

QUARTERLY PORTFOLIO SCHEDULE

The Trust is required to disclose, after its first and third fiscal quarters, the complete schedule of the Fund’s portfolio holdings with the SEC on Form N-PORT. The Trust’s Form N-PORT filings are available on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov. You can write or email the SEC's Public Reference section and ask them to mail you information about the Fund. They will charge you a fee for this service. The Fund’s complete schedule of portfolio holdings is also available through the Fund’s website, at www.vaneck.com or by calling 800.826.2333.

POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The Adviser (and its principals, affiliates or employees) may serve as investment adviser to other client accounts and conduct investment activities for their own accounts. Such “Other Clients” may have investment objectives or may implement investment strategies similar to those of the Fund. When the Adviser implements investment strategies for Other Clients that are similar or directly contrary to the positions taken by the Fund, the prices of the Fund’s securities may be negatively affected. For example, when purchase or sales orders for the Fund are aggregated with those of other funds and/or Other Clients and allocated among them, the price that the Fund pays or receives may be more in the case of a purchase or less in a sale than if the Adviser served as adviser to only the Fund. When Other Clients are selling a security that the Fund owns, the price of that security may decline as a result of the sales. The compensation that the Adviser receives from Other Clients may be higher than the compensation paid by the Fund to the Adviser. The Adviser has implemented procedures to monitor trading across the Fund and its Other Clients. Furthermore, the Adviser may recommend the Fund purchase securities of issuers to which it, or its affiliate, acts as adviser, manager, sponsor, distributor, marketing agent, or in another capacity and for which it receives advisory or other fees. While this practice may create conflicts of interest, the Adviser has adopted procedures to minimize such conflicts.

CODE OF ETHICS

The Fund, the Adviser and the Distributor have each adopted a Code of Ethics pursuant to Rule 17j-1 under the 1940 Act (“Rule 17j-1”). Such Codes of Ethics require, among other things, that “access persons” (as defined in Rule 17j-1) conduct personal securities transactions in a manner that avoids any actual or potential conflict of interest or any abuse of a position of trust and responsibility. The Codes of Ethics allow such access persons to invest in securities or instruments that may be purchased and held by the Fund, provided such investments are done consistently with the provisions of the Codes of Ethics.

PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

The Fund’s proxy voting record will be available upon request, by calling 800.826.2333, and on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov. Proxies for the Fund’s portfolio securities are voted in accordance with the Adviser’s proxy voting policies and procedures, which are set forth in Appendix A to this SAI.

The Trust is required to disclose annually the Fund’s complete proxy voting record on Form N-PX covering the period July 1 through June 30 and file it with the SEC no later than August 31. Form N-PX for the Fund is available by calling 800.826.2333 or by writing to 666 Third Avenue, 9th Floor, New York, New York 10017. The Fund’s Form N-PX is also available on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.

MANAGEMENT

The following information supplements and should be read in conjunction with the “Management of the Fund” section of the Prospectus.

Investment Adviser

VEARA acts as investment adviser to the Fund and, subject to the general supervision of the Board, is responsible for the day-to-day investment management of the Fund. VEARA is a private company with headquarters in New York and manages numerous pooled investment vehicles and separate accounts. VEARA is a wholly owned subsidiary of VEAC and is registered with the SEC as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended, and with the CFTC as a CPO and commodity trading advisor under the CEA. VEARA serves as investment adviser to the Fund pursuant to an investment management agreement between the Trust and VEARA (the “Investment Management Agreement”). Under the Investment Management Agreement, VEARA, subject to the supervision of the Board and in conformity with the stated investment policies of the Fund, manages the investment of the Fund’s assets. VEARA is responsible for placing purchase and sale orders and providing continuous supervision of the investment portfolio of the Fund.

Indemnification. Pursuant to the Investment Management Agreement, the Trust has agreed to indemnify the Adviser for certain liabilities, including certain liabilities arising under the federal securities laws, unless such loss or liability results from willful misfeasance, bad faith or gross negligence in the performance of its duties or the reckless disregard of its obligations and duties.

Compensation. As compensation for its services under the Investment Management Agreement, the Adviser is paid a monthly fee based on a percentage of the Fund's average daily net assets at the annual rate of [ ]%. From time to time, the Adviser may waive all or a portion of its fees.

Under the Investment Management Agreement for the Fund, VEARA is responsible for all expenses of the Fund, including the costs of transfer agency, custody, fund administration, legal, audit and other services, except for the fee payment under the Investment Management Agreement, acquired fund fees and expenses, interest expense, offering costs, trading expenses, taxes (including accrued deferred tax liability) and extraordinary expenses. For its services to the Fund, the Fund has agreed to pay the Adviser an annual unitary management fee equal to [ ] of its average daily net assets. Offering costs excluded from the annual unitary management fee are: (a) legal fees pertaining to the Fund’s Shares offered for sale; (b) SEC and state registration fees; and (c) initial fees paid for Shares of the Fund to be listed on an exchange. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Adviser has agreed to pay such offering costs until at least [ ].

Term. The Investment Management Agreement is subject to annual approval by (1) the Board or (2) a vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the Fund, provided that in either event such continuance also is approved by a majority of the Board who are not interested persons (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the Trust by a vote cast in person at a meeting called for the purpose of voting on such approval. The Investment Management Agreement is terminable without penalty, on 60 days’ notice, by the Board or by a vote of the holders of a majority (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the Fund’s outstanding voting securities. The Investment Management Agreement is also terminable upon 60 days’ notice by the Adviser and will terminate automatically in the event of its assignment (as defined in the 1940 Act).

The Administrator

VEAC also serves as administrator (in such capacity, the “Administrator”) for the Trust pursuant to the Investment Management Agreement. Under the Investment Management Agreement, the Adviser is obligated on a continuous basis to provide such administrative services as the Board of the Trust reasonably deems necessary for the proper administration of the Trust and the Fund. The Adviser will generally assist in all aspects of the Trust’s and the Fund’s operations; supply and maintain office facilities, statistical and research data, data processing services, clerical, bookkeeping and record keeping services (including without limitation the maintenance of such books and records as are required under the 1940 Act and the rules thereunder, except as maintained by other agents), internal auditing, executive and administrative services, and stationery and office supplies; prepare reports to shareholders or investors; prepare and file tax returns; supply financial information and supporting data for reports to and filings with the SEC and various state Blue Sky authorities; supply supporting documentation for meetings of the Board; provide monitoring reports and assistance regarding compliance with the Declaration of Trust, by-laws, investment objectives and policies and with federal and state securities laws; arrange for appropriate insurance coverage; calculate NAV, net income and realized capital gains or losses; and negotiate arrangements with, and supervise and coordinate the activities of, agents and others to supply services. VEAC owns 100% of the common stock of VESC.

Custodian and Transfer Agent

State Street, located at One Lincoln Street, Boston, MA 02111, serves as custodian (in such capacity, the “Custodian”) for the Fund pursuant to a custodian agreement. As Custodian, State Street holds the Fund’s assets. As compensation for these custodial services, State Street receives, among other items, transaction fees, asset-based safe keeping fees and overdraft charges and may be reimbursed by the Fund for its out-of-pocket expenses. State Street serves as the Fund’s transfer agent (in such capacity, the “Transfer Agent”) pursuant to a transfer agency agreement. In addition, State Street provides various accounting services to the Fund, pursuant to a fund accounting agreement.

The Distributor

VESC is the principal underwriter and distributor of Shares. Its principal address is 666 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10017 and investor information can be obtained by calling 800.826.2333. The Distributor has entered into an agreement with the Trust which will continue from its effective date unless terminated by either party upon 60 days’ prior written notice to the other party by the Trust and the Adviser, or by the Distributor, or until termination of the Trust or the Fund offering its Shares, and which is renewable annually thereafter (the “Distribution Agreement”), pursuant to which it distributes Shares. Shares will be continuously offered for sale by the Trust through the Distributor only in Creation Units, as described below under “Creation and Redemption of Creation Units—Procedures for Creation of Creation Units.” Shares in less than Creation Units are not distributed by the Distributor. The Distributor will deliver a prospectus to persons purchasing Shares in

Creation Units and will maintain records of both orders placed with it and confirmations of acceptance furnished by it. The Distributor is a broker-dealer registered under the Exchange Act and a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”). The Distributor has no role in determining the investment policies of the Trust or which securities are to be purchased or sold by the Trust.

The Distributor may also enter into sales and investor services agreements with broker-dealers or other persons that are Participating Parties and DTC Participants (as defined below) to provide distribution assistance, including broker-dealer and shareholder support and educational and promotional services but must pay such broker-dealers or other persons, out of its own assets.

The Distribution Agreement provides that it may be terminated at any time, without the payment of any penalty: (i) by vote of a majority of the Independent Trustees or (ii) by vote of a majority (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the outstanding voting securities of the Fund, on at least 60 days’ written notice to the Distributor. The Distribution Agreement is also terminable upon 60 days’ notice by the Distributor and will terminate automatically in the event of its assignment (as defined in the 1940 Act).

Securities Lending

Pursuant to a securities lending agreement (the “Securities Lending Agreement”) between the Fund and State Street (in such capacity, the “Securities Lending Agent”), the Fund may lend its securities through the Securities Lending Agent to certain qualified borrowers. The Securities Lending Agent administers the Fund’s securities lending program. These services include arranging the securities loans with approved borrowers and collecting fees and rebates due to the Fund from each borrower. The Securities Lending Agent maintains records of loans made and income derived therefrom and makes available such records that the Fund deems necessary to monitor the securities lending program.

[For the fiscal year ended [ ], there was no securities lending activity by the Fund.]

Other Accounts Managed by the Portfolio Managers

The following table lists the number and types of other accounts (excluding the Fund) advised by the Fund’s portfolio managers and assets under management in those accounts as of [ ], 2023:

Other Accounts Managed
(As of [ ])

Accounts with respect to which
the advisory fee is based on the
performance of the account

Name of
Portfolio
Manager

Category of
Account

Number of
Accounts in
Category

Total Assets in
Accounts in
Category

Number of
Accounts in
Category

Total Assets in
Accounts in
Category

[ ]

Registered
investment
companies

[ ]

Other pooled
investment
vehicles

[ ]

Other accounts

[ ]

Registered
investment
companies

[ ]

Other pooled
investment
vehicles

[ ]

Other accounts

[ ]

None of the portfolio managers manage accounts that are subject to performance-based advisory fees.

Although the funds in the Trust that are managed by [ ] may have different investment strategies, the Adviser does not believe that management of the various accounts presents a material conflict of interest for [ ] or the Adviser.

Portfolio Manager Compensation

The portfolio managers are paid a fixed base salary and a bonus. The bonus is based upon the quality of investment analysis and the management of the funds. The quality of management of the funds includes issues of replication, rebalancing, portfolio monitoring and efficient operation, among other factors. Portfolio managers who oversee accounts with significantly different fee structures are generally compensated by discretionary bonus rather than a set formula to help reduce potential conflicts of interest. At times, the Adviser and its affiliates manage accounts with incentive fees. The portfolio managers may serve as portfolio managers to other clients. Such “Other Clients” may have investment objectives or may implement investment strategies similar to those of the Fund. When the portfolio managers implement investment strategies for Other Clients that are similar or directly contrary to the positions taken by the Fund, the prices of the Fund’s securities may be negatively affected. The compensation that the Fund’s portfolio managers receive for managing other client accounts may be higher than the compensation the portfolio managers receive for managing the Fund. The Adviser has implemented procedures to monitor trading across funds and its Other Clients.

Portfolio Manager Share Ownership

As of the date of this SAI, [ ] did not beneficially own any Shares of the Fund.

BROKERAGE TRANSACTIONS

When selecting brokers and dealers to handle the purchase and sale of portfolio securities, the Adviser looks for prompt execution of the order at a favorable price. Generally, the Adviser works with recognized dealers in these securities, except when a better price and execution of the order can be obtained elsewhere. The Fund will not deal with affiliates in principal transactions unless permitted by exemptive order or applicable rule or regulation. The Adviser owes a duty to its clients to seek best execution on trades effected. The Adviser does not intend to select brokers and dealers for the purpose of receiving research services in addition to a favorable price and prompt execution either from that broker or an unaffiliated third party.

The Adviser assumes general supervision over placing orders on behalf of the Trust for the purchase or sale of portfolio securities. If purchases or sales of portfolio securities of the Trust and one or more other investment companies or clients supervised by the Adviser are considered at or about the same time, transactions in such securities are allocated among the several investment companies and clients in a manner deemed equitable to all by the Adviser. In some cases, this procedure could have a detrimental effect on the price or volume of the security so far as the Trust is concerned. However, in other cases, it is possible that the ability to participate in volume transactions and to negotiate lower brokerage commissions will be beneficial to the Trust. The primary consideration is best execution.

Portfolio turnover may vary from year to year, as well as within a year. High turnover rates are likely to result in comparatively greater brokerage expenses, additional taxable income at the Fund level and additional taxable distributions. The overall reasonableness of brokerage commissions is evaluated by the Adviser based upon its knowledge of available information as to the general level of commissions paid by other institutional investors for comparable services.

Because the Fund commenced operations on or following the date of this SAI, there have been no payments by the Fund for brokerage commissions.

BOOK ENTRY ONLY SYSTEM

The following information supplements and should be read in conjunction with the section in the Fund’s Prospectus entitled “Shareholder Information—Buying and Selling Exchange-Traded Shares.”

The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) acts as securities depositary for the Shares. Shares of the Fund are represented by securities registered in the name of DTC or its nominee and deposited with, or on behalf of, DTC. Certificates will not be issued for Shares.

DTC, a limited-purpose trust company, was created to hold securities of its participants (the “DTC Participants”) and to facilitate the clearance and settlement of securities transactions among the DTC Participants in such securities through electronic book-entry changes in accounts of the DTC Participants, thereby eliminating the need for physical movement of securities certificates. DTC Participants include securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, clearing corporations and certain other organizations, some of whom (and/or their representatives) own DTC. More specifically, DTC is owned by a number of its DTC Participants and by the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) and FINRA. Access to the DTC system is also available to others such as banks, brokers, dealers and trust companies that clear through or maintain a custodial relationship with a DTC Participant, either directly or indirectly (the “Indirect Participants”).

Beneficial ownership of Shares is limited to DTC Participants, Indirect Participants and persons holding interests through DTC Participants and Indirect Participants. Ownership of beneficial interests in Shares (owners of such beneficial interests are referred to herein as “Beneficial Owners”) is shown on, and the transfer of ownership is effected only through, records maintained by DTC (with respect to DTC Participants) and on the records of DTC Participants (with respect to Indirect

Participants and Beneficial Owners that are not DTC Participants). Beneficial Owners will receive from or through the DTC Participant a written confirmation relating to their purchase of Shares.

Conveyance of all notices, statements and other communications to Beneficial Owners is effected as follows. Pursuant to the depositary agreement between the Trust and DTC, DTC is required to make available to the Trust upon request and for a fee to be charged to the Trust a listing of the Shares holdings of each DTC Participant. The Trust shall inquire of each such DTC Participant as to the number of Beneficial Owners holding Shares, directly or indirectly, through such DTC Participant. The Trust shall provide each such DTC Participant with copies of such notice, statement or other communication, in such form, number and at such place as such DTC Participant may reasonably request, in order that such notice, statement or communication may be transmitted by such DTC Participant, directly or indirectly, to such Beneficial Owners. In addition, the Trust shall pay to each such DTC Participant a fair and reasonable amount as reimbursement for the expenses attendant to such transmittal, all subject to applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.

Share distributions shall be made to DTC or its nominee, Cede & Co., as the registered holder of all Shares. DTC or its nominee, upon receipt of any such distributions, shall credit immediately DTC Participants’ accounts with payments in amounts proportionate to their respective beneficial interests in Shares as shown on the records of DTC or its nominee. Payments by DTC Participants to Indirect Participants and Beneficial Owners of Shares held through such DTC Participants will be governed by standing instructions and customary practices, as is now the case with securities held for the accounts of customers in bearer form or registered in a “street name,” and will be the responsibility of such DTC Participants.

The Trust has no responsibility or liability for any aspects of the records relating to or notices to Beneficial Owners, or payments made on account of beneficial ownership interests in such Shares, or for maintaining, supervising or reviewing any records relating to such beneficial ownership interests or for any other aspect of the relationship between DTC and the DTC Participants or the relationship between such DTC Participants and the Indirect Participants and Beneficial Owners owning through such DTC Participants.

DTC may determine to discontinue providing its service with respect to the Shares at any time by giving reasonable notice to the Trust and discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. Under such circumstances, the Trust shall take action either to find a replacement for DTC to perform its functions at a comparable cost or, if such a replacement is unavailable, to issue and deliver printed certificates representing ownership of Shares, unless the Trust makes other arrangements with respect thereto satisfactory to the Exchange.

CREATION AND REDEMPTION OF CREATION UNITS

General

The Fund will issue and sell Shares only in Creation Units on a continuous basis through the Distributor, without an initial sales load, at their NAV next determined after receipt, on any Business Day (as defined herein), of an order in proper form. An Authorized Participant that is not a “qualified institutional buyer,” as such term is defined under Rule 144A of the Securities Act, will not be able to receive, as part of a redemption, restricted securities eligible for resale under Rule 144A.

A “Business Day” with respect to the Fund is any day on which the NYSE is open for business. As of the date of this SAI, the NYSE observes the following holidays: New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, President’s Day (Washington’s Birthday), Good Friday, Memorial Day (observed), Juneteenth National Independence Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. The times described below may change due to certain events such as the early closing of trading on the NYSE.

Fund Deposit

The consideration for a purchase of Creation Units generally consists of the in-kind deposit of a designated portfolio of securities (the “Deposit Securities”) and an amount of cash computed as described below (the “Cash Component”).

The Cash Component together with the Deposit Securities, as applicable, are referred to as the “Fund Deposit,” which represents the minimum initial and subsequent investment amount for Shares. Due to various legal and operational constraints in certain countries in which certain Funds invest, Creation Units of these Funds as set forth in the table under the heading “Creation and Redemption Features” are issued partially or principally for cash.

The Cash Component represents the difference between the NAV of a Creation Unit and the market value of the Deposit Securities plus applicable transaction fees (as described below).

The Administrator, through the NSCC, makes available on each Business Day, prior to the opening of business on the NYSE (currently 9:30 a.m., Eastern time), the list of the names and the required amounts of each Deposit Security that the Fund would accept as Fund Deposit that day. Such Fund Deposit is applicable, subject to any adjustments as described below, until such time as the next-announced Fund Deposit composition is made available.

The Fund reserves the right to permit or require the substitution of an amount of cash—referred to as "cash in lieu" - to replace any Deposit Security. This may occur, for example, if a Deposit Security is not available in sufficient quantity for delivery, not eligible for transfer through the systems of DTC, the Federal Reserve System or the clearing process through the Continuous Net Settlement System of the NSCC, not permitted to be re-registered in the name of the Trust as a result of an in-kind purchase order pursuant to local law or market convention, restricted under the securities laws or not eligible for trading by an Authorized Participant or the investor for which it is acting. In such cases where the Trust makes Market Purchases (as defined below) because a Deposit Security may not be permitted to be re-registered in the name of the Trust as a result of an in-kind creation order pursuant to local law or market convention, or for other reasons, the Authorized Participant will reimburse the Trust for, among other things, any difference between the market value at which the securities were purchased by the Trust and the cash in lieu amount (which amount, at the Advisers’ discretion, may be capped), applicable registration fees and taxes. Brokerage commissions incurred in connection with the Trust’s acquisition of Deposit Securities may be at the expense of the Fund and, to the extent such commissions are at the expense of the Fund, will affect the value of all Shares of the Fund, but the Advisers may adjust the transaction fee to protect ongoing shareholders.

The Administrator, through the NSCC, also makes available on each Business Day, the estimated Cash Component effective through and including the previous Business Day, per outstanding Shares of the Fund.

Procedures for Creation of Creation Units

To be eligible to place orders with the Distributor to create Creation Units of the Fund, an entity or person must be an “Authorized Participant” which is a member or participant of a clearing agency registered with the SEC, which has a written agreement with the Fund that allows the Authorized Participant to place orders for the purchase and redemption of Creation Units (as it may be amended from time to time in accordance with its terms) ("Participant Agreement").

All orders to create Creation Units, whether through the Clearing Process or outside the Clearing Process, must be received by the Distributor no later than the closing time of the regular trading session on the NYSE (“Closing Time”) (ordinarily 4:00 p.m., Eastern time) on the date such order is placed in order for creation of Creation Units to be effected based on the NAV of the Fund as determined on such date. The Business Day on which a creation order (or order to redeem as discussed below) is placed is herein referred to as the “Transmittal Date.” Orders must be transmitted by telephone or other transmission method acceptable to the Distributor, as generally described below (see “—Placement of Creation Orders Using Clearing Process”). Severe economic or market disruptions or changes, or telephone or other communication failure, may impede the ability to reach the Distributor or an Authorized Participant.

In connection with all orders to create Creation Units for certain Funds that invest in markets that require prefunding, the Authorized Participant will be required to post collateral with the Trust consisting of cash in an amount up to 115% of the net asset value of the Fund’s shares included in the order. The cash collateral will be used to cover creation transaction fees and as collateral for securities which were not available for purchase. The Trust will return any unused portion of the collateral to the Authorized Participant.

Creation Units may be created in advance of the receipt by the Trust of all or a portion of the Fund Deposit. In such cases, the Authorized Participant will remain liable for the full deposit of the missing portion(s) of the Fund Deposit and will be required to post collateral with the Trust consisting of cash at least equal to a percentage of the marked-to-market value of such missing portion(s). The Trust may use such collateral to buy the missing portion(s) of the Fund Deposit at any time and will subject such Authorized Participant to liability for any shortfall between the cost to the Trust of purchasing such securities and the value of such collateral. The Trust will have no liability for any such shortfall. The Trust will return any unused portion of the collateral to the Authorized Participant once the entire Fund Deposit has been properly received by the Distributor and deposited into the Trust.

Orders to create Creation Units of the Fund shall be placed with an Authorized Participant, as applicable, in the form required by such Authorized Participant. Investors should be aware that their particular broker may not have executed a Participant Agreement, and that, therefore, orders to create Creation Units of the Fund may have to be placed by the investor’s broker through an Authorized Participant who has executed a Participant Agreement. At any given time there may be only a limited number of broker-dealers that have executed a Participant Agreement. Those placing orders to create Creation Units of the Fund through the Clearing Process should afford sufficient time to permit proper submission of the order to the Distributor prior to the Closing Time on the Transmittal Date.

Orders for creation that are effected outside the Clearing Process are likely to require transmittal by the Authorized Participant earlier on the Transmittal Date than orders effected using the Clearing Process. Those persons placing orders outside the Clearing Process should ascertain the deadlines applicable to DTC and the Federal Reserve Bank wire system by contacting the operations department of the broker or depository institution effectuating such transfer of Deposit Securities and Cash Component.

Orders to create Creation Units of the Fund may be placed through the Clearing Process utilizing procedures applicable to funds holding domestic securities (“Domestic Funds”) (see “Placement of Creation Orders Using Clearing Process”).

Placement of Creation Orders Using Clearing Process

Fund Deposits created through the Clearing Process, if available, must be delivered through an Authorized Participant that has executed a Participant Agreement.

The Participant Agreement authorizes the Distributor to transmit to NSCC on behalf of the Authorized Participant such trade instructions as are necessary to effect the Authorized Participant’s creation order. Pursuant to such trade instructions from the Distributor to NSCC, the Authorized Participant agrees to transfer the requisite Deposit Securities (or contracts to purchase such Deposit Securities that are expected to be delivered in a “regular way” manner) and the Cash Component to the Trust by the second (2nd) Business Day, together with such additional information as may be required by the Distributor. An order to create Creation Units of the Fund through the Clearing Process is deemed received by the Distributor on the Transmittal Date if (i) such order is received by the Distributor not later than the Closing Time on such Transmittal Date and (ii) all other procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement are properly followed. The delivery of Creation Units so created will occur no later than the second (2nd) Business Day following the day on which the creation order is deemed received by the Distributor (“T+2”).

Placement of Creation Orders Outside Clearing Process—Domestic Funds

Fund Deposits created outside the Clearing Process must be delivered through an Authorized Participant that has executed a Participant Agreement. An Authorized Participant who wishes to place an order creating Creation Units of the Fund to be effected outside the Clearing Process must state in such order that the Authorized Participant is not using the Clearing Process and that the creation of Creation Units will instead be effected through a transfer of securities and cash. The Fund Deposit transfer must be ordered by the Authorized Participant in a timely fashion so as to ensure the delivery of the requisite amounts of Deposit Securities through DTC to the account of the Trust by no later than 5:00 p.m., Eastern time, of the next Business Day immediately following the Transmittal Date.

All questions as to the amounts of Deposit Securities to be delivered, and the validity, form and eligibility (including time of receipt) for the deposit of any tendered securities, will be determined by the Trust, whose determination shall be final and binding. The cash equal to the Cash Component must be transferred directly to the Distributor through the Federal Reserve wire system in a timely manner so as to be received by the Distributor no later than 5:00 p.m., Eastern time, on the next Business Day immediately following the Transmittal Date. An order to create Creation Units of the Fund outside the Clearing Process is deemed received by the Distributor on the Transmittal Date if (i) such order is received by the Distributor not later than the Closing Time on such Transmittal Date; and (ii) all other procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement are properly followed. However, if the Distributor does not receive both the requisite Deposit Securities and the Cash Component in a timely fashion on the next Business Day immediately following the Transmittal Date, such order may be cancelled. Upon written notice to the Distributor, such cancelled order may be resubmitted the following Business Day using the Fund Deposit as newly constituted to reflect the current NAV of the Fund. The delivery of Creation Units so created will occur no later than the second (2nd) Business Day following the day on which the creation order is deemed received by the Distributor.

Additional transaction fees may be imposed with respect to transactions effected outside the Clearing Process (through an Authorized Participant) and in circumstances in which any cash can be used in lieu of Deposit Securities to create Creation Units. (See “Creation Transaction Fee” section below.)

Acceptance of Creation Orders

The Trust reserves the right to reject a creation order transmitted to it by the Distributor, for any reason, including but not limited to the following: (a) the order is not in proper form; (b) the creator or creators, upon obtaining the Shares, would own 80% or more of the currently outstanding Shares of the Fund; (c) the Deposit Securities delivered are not as specified by the Administrator, as described above; (d) the acceptance of the Fund Deposit would, in the opinion of counsel, be unlawful; or (e) in the event that circumstances outside the control of the Trust, the Distributor and the Adviser make it for all practical purposes impossible to process creation orders. Examples of such circumstances include, without limitation, acts of God or public service or utility problems such as earthquakes, fires, floods, extreme weather conditions and power outages resulting in telephone, telecopy and computer failures; wars; civil or military disturbances, including acts of civil or military authority or governmental actions; terrorism; sabotage; epidemics; riots; labor disputes; market conditions or activities causing trading halts; systems failures involving computer or other information systems affecting the Trust, the Adviser, the Distributor, DTC, the NSCC or any other participant in the creation process, and similar extraordinary events. The Transfer Agent will notify an Authorized Participant if an order is rejected. The Trust, the Custodian, any sub-custodian, the Distributor and the Transfer Agent are under no duty, however, to give notification of any defects or irregularities in the delivery of Fund Deposits to

Authorized Participants nor shall any of them incur any liability to Authorized Participants for the failure to give any such notification.

All questions as to the amounts of the Deposit Securities and the validity, form, eligibility and acceptance for deposit of any securities to be delivered shall be determined by the Trust, and the Trust’s determination shall be final and binding.

Creation Transaction Fee

A standard (fixed) creation transaction fee for the Fund payable to the Custodian, in the amount set forth in the table found under the “General Description of the Trust - Creation and Redemption Features” section of this SAI, is imposed on each creation transaction regardless of the number of Creation Units purchased in the transaction. However, the Custodian may increase the standard (fixed) creation transaction fee for administration and settlement of non-standard orders requiring additional administrative processing by the Custodian.

In addition, a variable charge for cash creations or for creations outside the Clearing Process may be imposed. In the case of cash creations or where the Trust permits or requires a creator to substitute cash in lieu of depositing a portion of Deposit Securities, the creator may be assessed an additional variable charge to compensate the Fund for the costs associated with purchasing the applicable securities. (See “Fund Deposit” section above.) As a result, in order to seek to replicate the in-kind creation order process, the Trust expects to purchase, in the secondary market or otherwise gain exposure to, the portfolio securities that could have been delivered as a result of an in-kind creation order pursuant to local law or market convention, or for other reasons (“Market Purchases”). In such cases where the Trust makes Market Purchases, the Authorized Participant will reimburse the Trust for, among other things, any difference between the market value at which the securities and/or financial instruments were purchased by the Trust and the cash in lieu amount (which amount, at the Adviser’s discretion, may be capped), the costs associated with certain derivative transactions, applicable registration fees, brokerage commissions and certain taxes. The Adviser may adjust the transaction fee to the extent the composition of the creation securities changes or cash in lieu is added to the Cash Component to protect ongoing shareholders. Creators of Creation Units are responsible for the costs of transferring the securities constituting the Deposit Securities to the account of the Trust. The Fund may adjust or waive all or a portion of its creation transaction fee (including both the fixed and variable components) from time to time.

Redemption of Creation Units

Shares may be redeemed only in Creation Units at their NAV next determined after receipt of a redemption request in proper form by the Distributor, only on a Business Day and only through an Authorized Participant who has executed a Participant Agreement. The Trust will not redeem Shares in amounts less than Creation Units. Beneficial Owners also may sell Shares in the secondary market, but must accumulate enough Shares to constitute a Creation Unit in order to have such Shares redeemed by the Trust. There can be no assurance, however, that there will be sufficient liquidity in the public trading market at any time to permit assembly of a Creation Unit. Investors should expect to incur brokerage and other costs in connection with assembling a sufficient number of Shares to constitute a redeemable Creation Unit. See the section entitled “Summary Information—Principal Risks of Investing in the Fund” and “Additional Information About the Fund’s Investment Strategies and Risks—Risks of Investing in the Fund” in the Prospectus.

The Fund Securities that will be applicable (subject to possible amendment or correction) to redemption requests received in proper form (as defined below) are made available by the Administrator, through NSCC, prior to the opening of business on the NYSE (currently 9:30 a.m., Eastern Time) on each day that the NYSE is open for business. An Authorized Participant submitting a redemption request is deemed to make certain representations to the Trust. The Trust reserves the right to verify these representations at its discretion, and will typically require verification with respect to a redemption request from the Fund in connection with higher levels of redemption activity and/or short interest in the Fund. If the Authorized Participant, upon receipt of a verification request, does not provide sufficient verification of its representations as determined by the Trust, the redemption request will not be considered to have been received in proper form, and may be rejected by the Trust.

The redemption proceeds for a Creation Unit generally consist of Fund Securities as announced by the Administrator on the Business Day of the request for redemption, plus cash in an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares being redeemed, as next determined after a receipt of a request in proper form, and the value of the Fund Securities, less the redemption transaction fee and variable fees described below. Should the Fund Securities have a value greater than the NAV of the Shares being redeemed, a compensating cash payment to the Trust equal to the differential plus the applicable redemption transaction fee will be required to be arranged for by or on behalf of the redeeming shareholder. The Fund reserves the right to honor a redemption request by delivering a basket of securities or cash that differs from the Fund Securities.

Redemption Transaction Fee

The standard (fixed) redemption transaction fee for the Fund payable to the Custodian, in the amount set forth in the chart found under the “General Description of the Trust - Creation and Redemption Features” section of this SAI, is imposed on each redemption transaction regardless of the number of Creation Units redeemed in the transaction. However, the Custodian may increase the standard (fixed) redemption transaction fee for administration and settlement of non-standard orders requiring additional administrative processing by the Custodian.

In addition, a variable charge for cash redemptions or redemptions outside the Clearing Process may be imposed. In the case of cash redemptions or partial cash redemptions (when cash redemptions are permitted or required for the Fund), an additional variable charge may also be imposed to compensate the Fund for the costs associated with selling the applicable securities. As a result, in order to seek to replicate the in-kind redemption order process, the Trust expects to sell, in the secondary market, the portfolio securities or settle any financial instruments that may not be permitted to be re-registered in the name of the Authorized Participant as a result of an in-kind redemption order pursuant to local law or market convention, or for other reasons (“Market Sales”). In such cases where the Trust makes Market Sales, the Authorized Participant will reimburse the Trust for, among other things, any difference between the market value at which the securities and/or financial instruments were sold or settled by the Trust and the cash in lieu amount (which amount, at the Adviser’s discretion, may be capped), the costs associated with certain derivatives transactions, applicable registration fees, brokerage commissions and certain taxes (“Transaction Costs”). The Adviser may adjust the transaction fee to the extent the composition of the redemption securities changes or cash in lieu is added to the Cash Component to protect ongoing shareholders. In no event will the variable fees charged by the Fund in connection with a redemption exceed 2% of the value of each Creation Unit. Investors who use the services of a broker or other such intermediary may be charged a fee for such services. To the extent the Fund cannot recoup the amount of Transaction Costs incurred in connection with a redemption from the redeeming shareholder because of the 2% cap or otherwise, those Transaction Costs will be borne by the Fund’s remaining shareholders and negatively affect the Fund’s performance. The Fund may adjust or waive all or a portion of its redemption transaction fee (including both the fixed and variable components) from time to time.

Portfolio Trading by Authorized Participants

When creation or redemption transactions consist of cash, the transactions may require the Fund to contemporaneously transact with broker-dealers for purchases or sales of portfolio securities, as applicable. Depending on the timing of the transactions and certain other factors, such transactions may be placed with the purchasing or redeeming Authorized Participant in its capacity as a broker-dealer or with its affiliated broker-dealer and conditioned upon an agreement with the Authorized Participant or its affiliated broker-dealer to transact at guaranteed prices in order to reduce transaction costs incurred as a consequence of settling creations or redemptions in cash rather than in-kind.

Specifically, following the Fund’s receipt of a creation or redemption order, to the extent such purchases or redemptions consist of a cash portion, the Fund may enter an order with the Authorized Participant or its affiliated broker-dealer to purchase or sell the portfolio securities, as applicable. Such Authorized Participant or its affiliated broker-dealer will be required to guarantee that the Fund will achieve execution of its order at a price at least as favorable to the Fund as the Fund’s valuation of the portfolio securities used for purposes of calculating the NAV applied to the creation or redemption transaction giving rise to the order. Whether the execution of the order is at a price at least as favorable to the Fund will depend on the results achieved by the executing firm and will vary depending on market activity, timing, and a variety of other factors.

If the broker-dealer executing the order achieves executions in market transactions at a price more favorable than the Funds’ valuation of the Deposit Securities, then the Authorized Participant generally may retain the benefit of the favorable executions, and the Fund will return to the Authorized Participant the execution performance deposit. If, however, the broker-dealer executing the order is unable to achieve executions in market transactions at a price at least equal to the Fund’s valuation of the securities, the Fund retains the portion of the execution performance deposit equal to the full amount of the execution shortfall (including any taxes, brokerage commissions or other costs) and may require the Authorized Participant to deposit any additional amount required to cover the full amount of the actual execution performance guarantee.

Placement of Redemption Orders Using Clearing Process

Orders to redeem Creation Units of the Fund through the Clearing Process, if available, must be delivered through an Authorized Participant that has executed a Participant Agreement. An order to redeem Creation Units of the Fund using the Clearing Process is deemed received on the Transmittal Date if (i) such order is received by the Transfer Agent not later than 4:00 p.m. Eastern time on such Transmittal Date; and (ii) all other procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement are properly followed; such order will be effected based on the NAV of the Fund as next determined. An order to redeem Creation Units of the Fund using the Clearing Process made in proper form but received by the Fund after 4:00 p.m. Eastern time, will be deemed received on the next Business Day immediately following the Transmittal Date. The requisite Fund Securities (or contracts to purchase such Fund Securities which are expected to be delivered in a “regular way” manner) and the applicable

cash payment will be transferred by the second (2nd) Business Day following the date on which such request for redemption is deemed received.

Placement of Redemption Orders Outside Clearing Process—Domestic Funds

Orders to redeem Creation Units of the Fund outside the Clearing Process must be delivered through an Authorized Participant that has executed a Participant Agreement. An Authorized Participant who wishes to place an order for redemption of Creation Units of the Fund to be effected outside the Clearing Process must state in such order that the Authorized Participant is not using the Clearing Process and that redemption of Creation Units of the Fund will instead be effected through transfer of Creation Units of the Fund directly through DTC. An order to redeem Creation Units of the Fund outside the Clearing Process is deemed received by the Transfer Agent on the Transmittal Date if (i) such order is received by the Transfer Agent not later than 4:00 p.m. Eastern time on such Transmittal Date; (ii) such order is preceded or accompanied by the requisite number of Shares of Creation Units specified in such order, which delivery must be made through DTC to the Transfer Agent on such Transmittal Date; and (iii) all other procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement are properly followed.

After the Transfer Agent has deemed an order for redemption outside the Clearing Process received, the Transfer Agent will initiate procedures to transfer the requisite Fund Securities (or contracts to purchase such Fund Securities) which are expected to be delivered within two Business Days and the cash redemption payment to the redeeming Beneficial Owner by the second (2nd) Business Day following the Transmittal Date on which such redemption order is deemed received by the Transfer Agent (T+2). An additional variable redemption transaction fee may also be imposed.

DETERMINATION OF NET ASSET VALUE

The following information supplements and should be read in conjunction with the section in the Fund’s Prospectus entitled “Shareholder Information—Determination of NAV.”

The values of the Fund’s portfolio securities are based on the securities’ closing prices on the markets on which the securities trade, when available. Due to the time differences between the United States and certain countries in which the Fund invests, securities on these exchanges may not trade at times when Shares of the Fund will trade. In the absence of a last reported sales price, or if no sales were reported, and for other assets for which market quotes are not readily available, values may be based on quotes obtained from a quotation reporting system, established market makers or by an outside independent pricing service. Debt instruments with remaining maturities of more than 60 days are valued at the evaluated mean price provided by an outside independent pricing service. If an outside independent pricing service is unable to provide a valuation, the instrument is valued at the mean of the highest bid and the lowest asked quotes obtained from one or more brokers or dealers selected by the Adviser. Prices obtained by an outside independent pricing service may use information provided by market makers or estimates of market values obtained from yield data related to investments or securities with similar characteristics and may use a computerized grid matrix of securities and its evaluations in determining what it believes is the fair value of the portfolio securities. Short-term debt instruments having a maturity of 60 days or less are valued at amortized cost. Any assets or liabilities denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar are converted into U.S. dollars at the current market rates on the date of valuation as quoted by one or more sources. If a market quotation for a security or other asset is not readily available or the Adviser believes it does not otherwise accurately reflect the market value of the security or asset at the time the Fund calculates its NAV, the security or asset will be fair valued by the Adviser in accordance with the Trust’s valuation policies and procedures approved by the Board of Trustees. The Fund may also use fair value pricing in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to, situations when the value of a security in the Fund’s portfolio has been materially affected by events occurring after the close of the market on which the security is principally traded (such as a corporate action or other news that may materially affect the price of a security) or trading in a security has been suspended or halted. In addition, the Fund currently expects that it will fair value certain of the foreign equity securities held by the Fund, if any, each day the Fund calculates its NAV, except those securities principally traded on exchanges that close at the same time the Fund calculates its NAV.

sale of such security or asset. With respect to securities that are principally traded on foreign exchanges, the value of the Fund’s portfolio securities may change on days when you will not be able to purchase or sell your Shares.

The Fund is treated as a regular corporation, or “C” corporation, for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Accordingly, the Fund is subject to U.S. federal income tax on its taxable income at the corporate tax rate as well as state and local income taxes. In calculating the Fund’s daily NAV, the Fund will, among other things, account for its current taxes and deferred tax liability and/or asset balances. The Fund may accrue a deferred income tax liability balance at the corporate tax rate, plus an estimated state and local income tax rate, for its future tax liability associated with the capital appreciation of its investments and the distributions received by the Fund and for any net operating gains. Any deferred tax liability balance will reduce the Fund’s NAV. The Fund may also accrue a deferred tax asset balance, which reflects an estimate of the Fund’s future tax benefit associated with net operating losses and unrealized losses. Any deferred tax asset balance will increase the Fund’s NAV. To the extent the Fund has a deferred tax asset balance, consideration is given as to whether or not a valuation allowance, which would offset the value of some or all of the deferred tax asset balance, is required. The daily estimate of the Fund’s current taxes and deferred tax liability and/or asset balances used to calculate the Fund’s NAV could vary dramatically from the Fund’s actual tax liability or benefit, and, as a result, the determination of the Fund’s actual tax liability or benefit may have a material impact on the Fund’s NAV. From time to time, the Fund may modify its estimates or assumptions regarding its current taxes and deferred tax liability and/or asset balances as new information becomes available, which modifications in estimates or assumptions may have a material impact on the Fund’s NAV.

DIVIDENDS AND DISTRIBUTIONS

The following information supplements and should be read in conjunction with the section in the Fund’s Prospectus entitled “Shareholder Information—Distributions.”

General Policies

Distributions (if any) by the Fund of cash or property in respect of the Shares, whether taken in cash or reinvested in Shares, will be treated as dividends for U.S. federal income tax purposes to the extent paid from the Fund's current or accumulated earnings and profits (as determined under U.S. federal income tax principles) and will be includible in gross income by a U.S. Shareholder upon receipt.

DIVIDEND REINVESTMENT SERVICE

No reinvestment service is provided by the Trust. Broker-dealers may make available the DTC book-entry Dividend Reinvestment Service for use by Beneficial Owners of the Fund through DTC Participants for reinvestment of their dividend distributions. If this service is used, dividend distributions of both income and realized gains will be automatically reinvested in additional whole Shares of the Fund. Beneficial Owners should contact their broker to determine the availability and costs of the service and the details of participation therein. Brokers may require Beneficial Owners to adhere to specific procedures and timetables. Distributions reinvested in additional Shares of the Fund will nevertheless be taxable to Beneficial Owners acquiring such additional Shares to the same extent as if such distributions had been received in cash.

CONTROL PERSONS AND PRINCIPAL SHAREHOLDERS

As of the date of this SAI, no entity beneficially or of record owned any voting securities of the Fund.

TAXES

The following information also supplements and should be read in conjunction with the section in the Fund’s Prospectus entitled “Shareholder Information—Tax Information” and the section in this Statement of Additional Information entitled “Special Considerations and Risks.” The following summary of certain relevant tax provisions is subject to change, and does not constitute legal or tax advice.

The following general discussion of certain U.S. federal income tax consequences is based on provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Internal Revenue Code”) and the regulations issued thereunder as in effect on the date of this SAI. New legislation, as well as administrative changes or court decisions, may significantly change the conclusions expressed herein, and may have a retroactive effect with respect to the transactions contemplated herein.

Shareholders are urged to consult their own tax advisers regarding the application of the provisions of tax law described in this SAI in light of the particular tax situations of the shareholders and regarding specific questions as to foreign, federal, state, or local taxes.

For purposes of this summary, the term “U.S. Shareholder” means a beneficial owner of Shares that, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, is one of the following:

•an individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States;

•a corporation or other entity taxable as a corporation created in or organized under the laws of the United States, any state thereof or the District of Columbia;

•an estate the income of which is subject to U.S. federal income taxation regardless of its source; or

Tax Status of the Fund

The Fund is treated as a regular corporation, or “C” corporation, for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Accordingly, the Fund generally is subject to U.S. federal income tax on its taxable income at the rates applicable to corporations (currently 21%). In addition, as a regular corporation, the Fund is subject to state and local income tax. The extent to which the Fund is required to pay U.S. corporate income tax could materially reduce the Fund’s cash available to make distributions on the Shares. The Fund will recognize gain or loss on the sale, exchange or other taxable disposition of its assets equal to the difference between the amount realized by the Fund on the sale, exchange or other taxable disposition and the Fund’s adjusted tax basis in such asset. Any such gain will be subject to U.S. federal income tax at regular corporate rates, regardless of how long the Fund has held such asset. The Fund will also recognize gain on in-kind redemptions of appreciated positions held by the Fund. To the extent that the Fund has a net capital loss in any tax year, the net capital loss can be carried back three years and forward five years to reduce the Fund’s current taxes payable, subject to certain limitations. The use of ordinary net operating loss carryforwards is subject to limitation under the Internal Revenue Code. In the event a capital loss carryover or net operating loss carryforward cannot be utilized in the carryover periods, the Fund’s federal income tax liability may be higher than expected which will result in less cash available to distribute to shareholders. The Fund’s transactions in ETH Futures and certain other investments, to the extent permitted, will be subject to special provisions of the Internal Revenue Code that, among other things, may affect the character of gains and losses recognized by the Fund (i.e., may affect whether gains or losses are ordinary versus capital or short-term versus long-term), accelerate recognition of income to the Fund and defer Fund losses. These provisions also (i) will require the Fund to mark-to-market certain types of the positions in its portfolio (i.e., treat them as if they were closed out at the end of each year) including ETH Futures purchased on U.S. exchanges and (ii) may cause the Fund to recognize income without receiving the corresponding amount of cash.

Tax Considerations with respect to Investments

Special tax rules can, among other things, affect the treatment of capital gain or loss as long‑term or short‑term and may result in ordinary income or loss rather than capital gain or loss and may accelerate when the Fund has to take these items into account for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The application of these special rules would therefore also affect the timing and character of distributions made by the Fund. See “U.S. Federal Tax Treatment of Futures Contracts and Certain Option Contracts” for certain federal income tax rules regarding futures contracts.

Under current law, the Fund may serve to block unrelated business taxable income (“UBTI”) from being realized by their tax-exempt shareholders. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a tax-exempt shareholder could realize UBTI by virtue of its investment in the Fund if shares in the Fund constitute debt-financed property in the hands of the tax-exempt shareholder within the meaning of Section 514(b) of the Internal Revenue Code.

The Fund may make investments in which it recognizes income or gain prior to receiving cash with respect to such investment. For example, under certain tax rules, the Fund may be required to accrue a portion of any discount at which certain securities are purchased as income each year even though the Fund receives no payments in cash on the security during the year.

U.S. Shareholders

Distributions by the Fund of cash or property in respect of the Shares, whether taken in cash or reinvested in Shares, will be treated as dividends for U.S. federal income tax purposes to the extent paid from the Fund’s current or accumulated earnings and profits (as determined under U.S. federal income tax principles) and will be includible in gross income by a U.S. Shareholder upon receipt. Any such dividend will be eligible for the dividends received deduction if received by an otherwise qualifying corporate U.S. Shareholder that meets the holding period and other requirements for the dividends received deduction. Dividends paid by the Fund to certain non-corporate U.S. Shareholders (including individuals) are eligible for U.S. federal income taxation at the rates generally applicable to long-term capital gains for individuals, provided that the U.S. Shareholder receiving the dividend satisfies applicable holding period and other requirements.

has held the applicable Shares for more than one year. A distribution will be wholly or partially taxable to a shareholder if the

Fund has current earnings and profits (as determined for U.S. federal income tax purposes) in the taxable year of the

distribution, even if the Fund has an overall deficit in the Fund’s accumulated earnings and profits and/or net operating loss or

capital loss carryforwards that reduce or eliminate corporate income taxes in that taxable year.

In general, a sale of Shares results in capital gain or loss, and for individual shareholders, is taxable at a federal rate dependent upon the length of time the Shares were held. A redemption of a shareholder’s Fund Shares is normally treated as a sale for tax purposes. Fund Shares held for a period of one year or less at the time of such sale or redemption will, for tax purposes, generally result in short‑term capital gains or losses, and those held for more than one year will generally result in long‑term capital gains or losses. The maximum tax rate on long‑term capital gains available to a non‑corporate shareholder generally is 15% or 20%, depending on whether the shareholder’s income exceeds certain threshold amounts.

Gain or loss on the sale or redemption of Fund Shares is measured by the difference between the amount of cash received (or the fair market value of any property received) and the adjusted tax basis of the Shares. Shareholders should keep records of investments made (including Shares acquired through reinvestment of dividends and distributions) so they can compute the tax basis of their Fund Shares. Reporting to the IRS and to taxpayers is required with respect to adjusted cost basis information for covered securities, which generally include shares of a RIC acquired after January 1, 2012. Shareholders should contact their financial intermediaries with respect to reporting of cost basis and available elections for their accounts.

A loss realized on a sale or exchange of Shares of the Fund may be disallowed if other Fund Shares or substantially identical shares are acquired (whether through the automatic reinvestment of dividends or otherwise) within a sixty-one (61) day period beginning thirty (30) days before and ending thirty (30) days after the date that the Shares are disposed of. In such a case, the basis of the Shares acquired will be adjusted to reflect the disallowed loss. Any loss upon the sale or exchange of Shares held for six (6) months or less will be treated as long-term capital loss to the extent of any capital gain dividends received by the shareholders. Distribution of ordinary income and capital gains may also be subject to foreign, state and local taxes.

Distributions reinvested in additional Fund Shares through the means of a dividend reinvestment service (see “Dividend Reinvestment Service”) will nevertheless be taxable dividends to Beneficial Owners acquiring such additional Shares to the same extent as if such dividends had been received in cash.

An additional 3.8% Medicare tax is imposed on certain net investment income (including ordinary dividends and capital gain distributions received from the Fund and net gains from redemptions or other taxable dispositions of Fund Shares) of U.S. individuals, estates and trusts to the extent that such person’s “modified adjusted gross income” (in the case of an individual) or “adjusted gross income” (in the case of an estate or trust) exceeds certain threshold amounts.

Some shareholders may be subject to a withholding tax on distributions of ordinary income, capital gains and any cash received on redemption of Creation Units (“backup withholding”). The backup withholding rate for individuals is currently 24%. Generally, shareholders subject to backup withholding will be those for whom no certified taxpayer identification number is on file with the Fund or who, to the Fund’s knowledge, have furnished an incorrect number. When establishing an account, an investor must certify under penalty of perjury that such number is correct and that such investor is not otherwise subject to backup withholding. Backup withholding is not an additional tax. Any amounts withheld will be allowed as a credit against shareholders’ U.S. federal income tax liabilities, and may entitle them to a refund, provided that the required information is timely furnished to the IRS.

Non-U.S. Shareholders

If you are not a citizen or resident alien of the United States or if you are a non-U.S. entity (a “Non-U.S. Shareholder”), the Fund’s ordinary income dividends (which include distributions of net short-term capital gains) will generally be subject to a 30% U.S. withholding tax, unless a lower treaty rate applies or unless such income is effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business.

A Non-U.S. Shareholder who wishes to claim the benefits of an applicable income tax treaty for dividends will be required (a) to complete Form W-8BEN or Form W-8BEN-E (or other applicable form) and certify under penalty of perjury that such holder is not a United States person as defined under the Internal Revenue Code and is eligible for treaty benefits or (b) if Shares are held through certain foreign intermediaries, to satisfy the relevant certification requirements of applicable United States Treasury regulations. A Non-U.S. Shareholder eligible for a reduced rate of United States withholding tax pursuant to an income tax treaty may obtain a refund of any excess amounts withheld by filing an appropriate claim for refund with the IRS.

Any capital gain realized by a Non-U.S. Shareholder upon a sale of shares of the Fund will generally not be subject to U.S. federal income or withholding tax unless (i) the gain is effectively connected with the shareholder’s trade or business in the United States, or in the case of a shareholder who is a nonresident alien individual, the shareholder is present in the United States for 183 days or more during the taxable year and certain other conditions are met or (ii) the Fund is or has been a U.S. real property holding corporation, as defined below, at any time within the five-year period preceding the date of disposition of the Fund’s Shares or, if shorter, within the period during which the Non-U.S. Shareholder has held the Shares. Generally, a corporation is a U.S. real property holding corporation if the fair market value of its U.S. real property interests, as defined in the Internal Revenue Code and applicable regulations issued thereunder, equals or exceeds 50% of the aggregate fair market value of its worldwide real property interests and its other assets used or held for use in a trade or business. The Fund may be, or may prior to a Non-U.S. Shareholder’s disposition of Shares become, a U.S. real property holding corporation. If the Fund is or becomes a U.S. real property holding corporation, so long as the Fund’s Shares are regularly traded on an established securities market, only a Non-U.S. Shareholder who holds or held (at any time during the shorter of the five-year period preceding the date of disposition or the holder’s holding period) more than 5% (directly or indirectly as determined under applicable attribution rules of the Internal Revenue Code) of the Fund’s Shares will be subject to U.S. federal income tax on the disposition of Shares. Any Non-U.S. Shareholder who is described in one of the foregoing cases is urged to consult his, her or its own tax advisor regarding the U.S. federal income tax consequences of the redemption, sale, exchange or other disposition of Shares of the Fund.

Properly reported dividends received by a nonresident alien or foreign entity are generally exempt from U.S. federal withholding tax when they (i) are paid in respect of the Fund’s “ qualified net interest income” (generally, the Fund’s U.S. source interest income, reduced by expenses that are allocable to such income), or (ii) are paid in connection with the Fund’s “qualified short-term capital gains” (generally, the excess of the Fund’s net short-term capital gain over the Fund’s long-term capital loss for such taxable year). However, depending on the circumstances, the Fund may report all, some or none of the Fund’s potentially eligible dividends as such qualified net interest income or as qualified short-term capital gains, and a portion of the Fund’s distributions (e.g. interest from non-U.S. sources, and any foreign currency gains) would be ineligible for this potential exemption from withholding.

As part of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, (“FATCA”), the Fund may be required to withhold 30% on certain types of U.S.-sourced income (e.g., dividends, interest, and other types of passive income) paid to (i) foreign financial institutions (“FFIs”), including non-U.S. investment funds, unless they agree to collect and disclose to the IRS information regarding their direct and indirect U.S. account holders and (ii) certain nonfinancial foreign entities (“NFFEs”), unless they certify certain information regarding their direct and indirect U.S. owners. To avoid possible withholding, FFIs will need to enter into agreements with the IRS which state that they will provide the IRS information, including the names, account numbers and balances, addresses and taxpayer identification numbers of U.S. account holders and comply with due diligence procedures with respect to the identification of direct and indirect U.S. accounts as well as agree to withhold tax on certain types of withholdable payments made to non-compliant FFIs or to applicable foreign account holders who fail to provide the required information to the IRS, or similar account information and required documentation to a local revenue authority, should an applicable intergovernmental agreement be implemented. NFFEs will need to provide certain information regarding each substantial U.S. owner or certifications of no substantial U.S. ownership, unless certain exceptions apply, or agree to provide certain information to the IRS.

The Fund may be subject to the FATCA withholding obligation, and also will be required to perform extensive due diligence reviews to classify foreign entity investors for FATCA purposes. Investors are required to agree to provide information necessary to allow the Fund to comply with the FATCA rules. If the Fund is required to withhold amounts from payments pursuant to FATCA, investors will receive distributions that are reduced by such withholding amounts.

Non-U.S. Shareholders are advised to consult their tax advisors with respect to the particular tax consequences to them of an investment in the Fund, including the possible applicability of the U.S. estate tax.

The foregoing discussion is a summary only and is not intended as a substitute for careful tax planning. Purchasers of Shares of the Trust should consult their own tax advisers as to the tax consequences of investing in such Shares, including under state, local and other tax laws. Finally, the foregoing discussion is based on applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, regulations, judicial authority and administrative interpretations in effect on the date hereof. Changes in applicable authority could materially affect the conclusions discussed above and could adversely affect the Fund, and such changes often occur.

Reportable Transactions

Under promulgated Treasury regulations, if a shareholder recognizes a loss on disposition of the Fund’s Shares of $2 million or more in any one taxable year (or $4 million or more over a period of six taxable years) for an individual shareholder or $10 million or more in any taxable year (or $20 million or more over a period of six taxable years) for a corporate shareholder, the shareholder must file with the IRS a disclosure statement on Form 8886. Direct shareholders of portfolio securities are in many cases excepted from this reporting requirement. In addition, significant penalties may be imposed for the failure to comply with the reporting requirements. The fact that a loss is reportable under these regulations does not affect the legal determination of whether the taxpayer’s treatment of the loss is proper. Shareholders should consult their tax advisors to determine the applicability of these regulations in light of their individual circumstances.

CAPITAL STOCK AND SHAREHOLDER REPORTS

The Trust currently is comprised of [ ] investment portfolios. The Trust issues Shares of beneficial interest with no par value. The Board may designate additional funds of the Trust.

Each Share issued by the Trust has a pro rata interest in the assets of the Fund. Shares have no pre-emptive, exchange, subscription or conversion rights and are freely transferable. Each Share is entitled to participate equally in dividends and distributions declared by the Board with respect to the Fund, and in the net distributable assets of the Fund on liquidation. The Fund may liquidate and terminate at any time and for any reason.

Each Share has one vote with respect to matters upon which a shareholder vote is required consistent with the requirements of the 1940 Act and the rules promulgated thereunder and each fractional Share has a proportional fractional vote. Shares of all funds vote together as a single class except that if the matter being voted on affects only a particular fund it will be voted on only by that fund, and if a matter affects a particular fund differently from other funds, that fund will vote separately on such matter. Under Delaware law, the Trust is not required to hold an annual meeting of shareholders unless required to do so under the 1940 Act. The policy of the Trust is not to hold an annual meeting of shareholders unless required to do so under the 1940 Act. All Shares of the Trust have noncumulative voting rights for the election of Trustees. Under Delaware law, Trustees of the Trust may be removed by vote of the shareholders.

Under Delaware law, the shareholders of the Fund are not generally subject to liability for the debts or obligations of the Trust. Similarly, Delaware law provides that the Fund will not be liable for the debts or obligations of any other series of the Trust. However, no similar statutory or other authority limiting statutory trust shareholder liability may exist in other states. As a result, to the extent that a Delaware statutory trust or a shareholder is subject to the jurisdiction of courts of such other states, the courts may not apply Delaware law and may thereby subject the Delaware statutory trust’s shareholders to liability for the debts or obligations of the Trust. The Trust’s Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust (the “Declaration of Trust”) provides for indemnification by the Fund for all loss suffered by a shareholder as a result of an obligation of the Fund. The Declaration of Trust also provides that the 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. The Trust will issue through DTC Participants to its shareholders semi-annual reports containing unaudited financial statements and annual reports containing financial statements audited by an independent auditor approved by the Trust’s Trustees and by the shareholders when meetings are held and such other information as may be required by applicable laws, rules and regulations. Beneficial Owners also receive annually notification as to the Trust’s distributions.

Shareholder inquiries may be made by writing to the Trust, c/o Van Eck Associates Corporation, 666 Third Avenue, 9th Floor, New York, New York 10017.

COUNSEL AND INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Dechert LLP, 1095 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036, is counsel to the Trust and has passed upon the validity of the Fund’s Shares.

[ ], is the Trust’s independent registered public accounting firm and audits the Fund’s financial statements and performs other related audit services.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

[ ]

APPENDIX A

VANECK PROXY VOTING POLICIES

VEARA (the “Adviser”) has adopted the following policies and procedures which are reasonably designed to ensure that proxies are voted in a manner that is consistent with the best interests of its clients in accordance with its fiduciary duties and Rule 206(4)-6 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. When an adviser has been granted proxy voting authority by a client, the adviser owes its clients the duties of care and loyalty in performing this service on their behalf. The duty of care requires the adviser to monitor corporate actions and vote client proxies. The duty of loyalty requires the adviser to cast the proxy votes in a manner that is consistent with the best interests of the client.

Rule 206(4)-6 also requires the Adviser to disclose information about the proxy voting procedures to its clients and to inform clients how to obtain information about how their proxies were voted. Additionally, Rule 204-2 under the Advisers Act requires the Adviser to maintain certain proxy voting records.

An adviser that exercises voting authority without complying with Rule 206(4)-6 will be deemed to have engaged in a “fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative” act, practice or course of business within the meaning of Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act.

The Adviser intends to vote all proxies in accordance with applicable rules and regulations, and in the best interests of clients without influence by real or apparent conflicts of interest. To assist in its responsibility for voting proxies and the overall voting process, the Adviser has engaged an independent third party proxy voting specialist, Glass Lewis & Co., LLC. The services provided by Glass Lewis include in-depth research, global issuer analysis, and voting recommendations as well as vote execution, reporting and recordkeeping.

Resolving Material Conflicts of Interest

When a material conflict of interest exists, proxies will be voted in the following manner:


1.	Strict adherence to the Glass Lewis guidelines, or
2.	The potential conflict will be disclosed to the client:
a.		with a request that the client vote the proxy,
b.		with a recommendation that the client engage another party to determine how the proxy should be voted or
c.		if the foregoing are not acceptable to the client, disclosure of how VanEck intends to vote and a written consent to that vote by the client.

Any deviations from the foregoing voting mechanisms must be approved by the Chief Compliance Officer with a written explanation of the reason for the deviation.

A material conflict of interest means the existence of a business relationship between a portfolio company or an affiliate and the Adviser, any affiliate or subsidiary, or an “affiliated person” of a VanEck mutual fund. Examples of when a material conflict of interest exists include a situation where the adviser provides significant investment advisory, brokerage or other services to a company whose management is soliciting proxies; an officer of the Adviser serves on the board of a charitable organization that receives charitable contributions from the portfolio company and the charitable organization is a client of the Adviser; a portfolio company that is a significant selling agent of the Adviser’s products and services solicits proxies; a broker-dealer or insurance company that controls 5% or more of the Adviser’s assets solicits proxies; the Adviser serves as an investment adviser to the pension or other investment account of the portfolio company; the Adviser and the portfolio company have a lending relationship. In each of these situations voting against management may cause the Adviser a loss of revenue or other benefit.

Client Inquiries

All inquiries by clients as to how the Adviser has voted proxies must immediately be forwarded to Portfolio Administration.

Disclosure to Clients


1.	Notification of Availability of Information
a.		Client Brochure - The Client Brochure or Part II of Form ADV will inform clients that they can obtain information from the Adviser on how their proxies were voted. The Client Brochure or Part II of Form ADV will be mailed to each client annually. The Legal Department will be responsible for coordinating the mailing with Sales/Marketing Departments.
2	Availability of Proxy Voting Information
b.		At the client’s request or if the information is not available on the Adviser’s website, a hard copy of the account’s proxy votes will be mailed to each client.

Recordkeeping Requirements


1.	VanEck will retain the following documentation and information for each matter relating to a portfolio security with respect to which a client was entitled to vote:
a.		proxy statements received;
b.		identifying number for the portfolio security;
c.		shareholder meeting date;
d.		brief identification of the matter voted on;
e.		whether the vote was cast on the matter;
f.		how the vote was cast (e.g., for or against proposal, or abstain; for or withhold regarding election of directors);
g.		records of written client requests for information on how the Adviser voted proxies on behalf of the client;
h.		a copy of written responses from the Adviser to any written or oral client request for information on how the Adviser voted proxies on behalf of the client; and any documents prepared by the Adviser that were material to the decision on how to vote or that memorialized the basis for the decision, if such documents were prepared.
2.	Copies of proxy statements filed on EDGAR, and proxy statements and records of proxy votes maintained with a third party (i.e., proxy voting service) need not be maintained. The third party must agree in writing to provide a copy of the documents promptly upon request.
3.	If applicable, any document memorializing that the costs of voting a proxy exceed the benefit to the client or any other decision to refrain from voting, and that such abstention was in the client’s best interest.
4.	Proxy voting records will be maintained in an easily accessible place for five years, the first two at the office of the Adviser. Proxy statements on file with EDGAR or maintained by a third party and proxy votes maintained by a third party are not subject to these particular retention requirements.

Voting Foreign Proxies

At times the Adviser may determine that, in the best interests of its clients, a particular proxy should not be voted. This may occur, for example, when the cost of voting a foreign proxy (translation, transportation, etc.) would exceed the benefit of voting the proxy or voting the foreign proxy may cause an unacceptable limitation on the sale of the security. Any such instances will be documented by the Portfolio Manager and reviewed by the Chief Compliance Officer.

Securities Lending

Certain portfolios managed by the Adviser participate in securities lending programs to generate additional revenue. Proxy voting rights generally pass to the borrower when a security is on loan. The Adviser will use its best efforts to recall a security on loan and vote such securities if the Portfolio Manager determines that the proxy involves a material event.

Proxy Voting Policy

The Adviser has reviewed the Glass Lewis Proxy Guidelines (“Guidelines”) and has determined that the Guidelines are consistent with the Adviser’s proxy voting responsibilities and its fiduciary duty with respect to its clients. The Adviser will review any material amendments to the Guidelines.

While it is the Adviser’s policy to generally follow the Guidelines, the Adviser retains the right, on any specific proxy, to vote differently from the Guidelines, if the Adviser believes it is in the best interests of its clients. Any such exceptions will be documented by the Adviser and reviewed by the Chief Compliance Officer.

The portfolio manager or analyst covering the security is responsible for making proxy voting decisions. Portfolio Administration, in conjunction with the portfolio manager and the custodian, is responsible for monitoring corporate actions and ensuring that corporate actions are timely voted.

Table of Contents

About Glass Lewis 6

Guidelines Introduction 7

Summary of Changes for 2023 7

A Board of Directors that Serves Shareholder Interest 12

Election of Directors 12

Independence 12

Committee Independence 15

Independent Chair 16

Performance 17

Board Responsiveness 18

The Role of a Committee Chair 19

Audit Committees and Performance 20

Standards for Assessing the Audit Committee 20

Compensation Committee Performance 23

Nominating and Governance Committee Performance 25

Board-level Risk Management Oversight 28

Board Oversight of Environmental and Social Issues 29

Cyber Risk Oversight 30

Board Accountability for Environmental and Social Performance 30

Director Commitments 31

Other Considerations 32

Controlled Companies 33

Significant Shareholders 35

Governance Following an IPO, Spin-off, or Direct Listing 35

Governance Following a Business Combination with a Special Purpose Acquisition Company 36

Dual-Listed or Foreign-Incorporated Companies 37

OTC-listed Companies 37

Mutual Fund Boards 38

Declassified Boards 39

Board Composition and Refreshment 40

Board Diversity 41

Board Gender Diversity 41

Board Underrepresented Community Diversity 41


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			2

State Laws on Diversity 42

Disclosure of Director Diversity and Skills 42

Stock Exchange Diversity Disclosure Requirements 43

Proxy Access 43

Majority Vote for Election of Directors 43

The Plurality Vote Standard 44

Advantages of a Majority Vote Standard 44

Conflicting and Excluded Proposals 44

Transparency and Integrity in Financial Reporting 47

Auditor Ratification 47

Voting Recommendations on Auditor Ratification 48

Pension Accounting Issues 49

The Link Between Compensation and Performance 50

Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Say-on-Pay) 50

Say-on-Pay Voting Recommendations 51

Company Responsiveness 52

Pay for Performance 53

Short-Term Incentives 54

Long-Term Incentives 55

Grants of Front-Loaded Awards 56

Linking Executive Pay to Environmental and Social Criteria 57

One-Time Awards 58

Contractual Payments and Arrangements 59

Sign-on Awards and Severance Benefits 59

Change in Control 60

Excise Tax Gross-ups 60

Amended Employment Agreements 60

Recoupment Provisions (Clawbacks) 60

Hedging of Stock 61

Pledging of Stock 61

Compensation Consultant Independence 62

CEO Pay Ratio 62

Frequency of Say-on-Pay 63

Vote on Golden Parachute Arrangements 63

Equity-Based Compensation Plan Proposals 63


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			3

Option Exchanges and Repricing 65

Option Backdating, Spring-Loading and Bullet-Dodging 65

Director Compensation Plans 67

Employee Stock Purchase Plans 67

Executive Compensation Tax Deductibility — Amendment to IRC 162(M) 67

Governance Structure and the Shareholder Franchise 69

Anti-Takeover Measures 69

Poison Pills (Shareholder Rights Plans) 69

NOL Poison Pills 69

Fair Price Provisions 70

Quorum Requirements 71

Director and Officer Indemnification 71

Officer Exculpation 71

Reincorporation 72

Exclusive Forum and Fee-Shifting Bylaw Provisions 73

Authorized Shares 73

Advance Notice Requirements 74

Virtual Shareholder Meetings 75

Voting Structure 76

Multi-Class Share Structures 76

Cumulative Voting 76

Supermajority Vote Requirements 77

Transaction of Other Business 77

Anti-Greenmail Proposals 78

Mutual Funds: Investment Policies and Advisory Agreements 78

Real Estate Investment Trusts 78

Preferred Stock Issuances at REITs 79

Business Development Companies 79

Authorization to Sell Shares at a Price Below Net Asset Value 79

Auditor Ratification and Below-NAV Issuances 80

Special Purpose Acquisition Companies 80

Extension of Business Combination Deadline 80

SPAC Board Independence 81

Director Commitments of SPAC Executives 81


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			4

Shareholder Proposals 81

Overall Approach to Environmental, Social & Governance Issues 82

Connect with Glass Lewis 84


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			5

About Glass Lewis

Glass Lewis is the world’s choice for governance solutions. We enable institutional investors and publicly

listed companies to make sustainable decisions based on research and data. We cover 30,000+ meetings each year, across approximately 100 global markets. Our team has been providing in-depth analysis of companies since 2003, relying solely on publicly available information to inform its policies, research, and voting recommendations.

Our customers include the majority of the world’s largest pension plans, mutual funds, and asset

managers, collectively managing over $40 trillion in assets. We have teams located across the United States, Europe, and Asia-Pacific giving us global reach with a local perspective on the important governance issues.

Investors around the world depend on Glass Lewis’ Viewpoint platform to manage their proxy voting, policy implementation, recordkeeping, and reporting. Our industry leading Proxy Paper product provides comprehensive environmental, social, and governance research and voting recommendations weeks ahead of voting deadlines. Public companies can also use our innovative Report Feedback Statement to deliver their opinion on our proxy research directly to the voting decision makers at every investor client in time for voting decisions to be made or changed.

The research team engages extensively with public companies, investors, regulators, and other industry stakeholders to gain relevant context into the realities surrounding companies, sectors, and the market in general. This enables us to provide the most comprehensive and pragmatic insights to our customers.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			6

Guidelines Introduction

Summary of Changes for 2023

Glass Lewis evaluates these guidelines on an ongoing basis and formally updates them on an annual basis. This year we’ve made noteworthy revisions in the following areas, which are summarized below but discussed in greater detail in the relevant section of this document:

Update: 15 December 2022. We have clarified on pages 8 and 42 that we will generally recommend against a nominating and governance committee chair at companies in the Russell 1000 index if the company has not provided any disclosure of director diversity and skills in any of our tracked categories, rather than any disclosure in each category.

Board Diversity

Gender Diversity

We are transitioning from a fixed numerical approach to a percentage-based approach for board gender diversity, as announced in 2022.

Beginning with shareholder meetings held after January 1, 2023, we will generally recommend against the chair of the nominating committee of a board that is not at least 30 percent gender diverse at companies within the Russell 3000 index. For companies outside the Russell 3000 index, our existing policy requiring a minimum of one gender diverse director will remain in place.

Additionally, when making these voting recommendations, we will carefully review a company’s disclosure of its diversity considerations and may refrain from recommending that shareholders vote against directors when boards have provided a sufficient rationale or plan to address the lack of diversity on the board, including a timeline to appoint additional gender diverse directors (generally by the next annual meeting).

Underrepresented Community Diversity

We have expanded our policy on measures of diversity beyond gender. Beginning in 2023, we will generally recommend against the chair of the nominating committee of a board with fewer than one director from an underrepresented community on the board at companies within the Russell 1000 index.

We define “underrepresented community” as an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, North African, Middle Eastern, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaskan Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. For the purposes of this evaluation, we will rely solely on self-identified demographic information as disclosed in company proxy statements.

Additionally, when making these voting recommendations we will carefully review a company’s disclosure of its diversity considerations, and may refrain from recommending that shareholders vote against directors when boards have provided a sufficient rationale or plan to address the lack of diversity on the board, including a


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			7

timeline to appoint additional directors from an underrepresented community (generally by the next annual meeting).

State Laws on Diversity

We have revised our discussion regarding state laws on diversity following recent changes to the status of certain state laws. Over the past several years, some U.S. states have encouraged board diversity through legislation. Most notably, companies headquartered in California were subject to mandatory board composition requirements during early 2022.

Subsequently, California’s Senate Bill 826 and Assembly Bill 979 regarding board gender and “underrepresented community” diversity, respectively, were both deemed to violate the equal protection clause of the California state constitution. These laws are currently in the appeals process.

Accordingly, where we previously recommended in accordance with mandatory board composition

requirements set forth in California’s SB 826 and AB 979, we will refrain from providing recommendations pursuant to these state board composition requirements until further notice while we continue to monitor the appeals process. However, we will continue to monitor compliance with these requirements.

Disclosure of Director Diversity and Skills

We have revised our discussion on disclosure of director diversity and skills in company proxy statements. At companies in the Russell 1000 index that have not provided any disclosure in any of our tracked categories, we will generally recommend voting against the chair of the nominating and/or governance committee.

Additionally, beginning in 2023, when companies in the Russell 1000 index have not provided any disclosure of individual or aggregate racial/ethnic minority demographic information, we will generally recommend voting against the chair of the governance committee.

Board Oversight of Environmental and Social Issues

We have updated our guidelines with respect to board-level oversight of environmental and social (E&S) issues. For shareholder meetings held after January 1, 2023, we will generally recommend voting against the governance committee chair of a company in the Russell 1000 index that fails to provide explicit disclosure concerning the board’s role in overseeing environmental and social issues. While we believe that it is important that these issues are overseen at the board level and that shareholders are afforded meaningful disclosure of these oversight responsibilities, we believe that companies should determine the best structure for this oversight. In our view, this oversight can be effectively conducted by specific directors, the entire board, a separate committee, or combined with the responsibilities of a key committee. Furthermore, beginning in 2023 we will expand our tracking of board-level oversight of environmental and social issues to all companies within the Russell 3000 index.

When evaluating a board’s role in overseeing environmental and social issues, we will examine a company’s proxy statement and governing documents (such as committee charters) to determine if directors maintain a meaningful level of oversight and accountability for a company’s material environmental and social risks.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			8

Director Commitments

We have revised our discussion of director commitments. We have clarified that we will generally recommend that shareholders vote against a director who serves as an executive officer (other than executive chair) of any public company while serving on more than one external public company board, a director who serves as an executive chair of any public company while serving on more than two external public company boards, and any other director who serves on more than five public company boards.

Cyber Risk Oversight

We have included a new discussion on our approach to cyber risk oversight. Given current regulatory focus on and the potential adverse outcomes from cyber-related issues, it is our view that cyber risk is material for all companies. We, therefore, believe that it is critical that companies evaluate and mitigate these risks to the greatest extent possible. With that view, we encourage all issuers to provide clear disclosure concerning the role of the board in overseeing issues related to cybersecurity. We also believe that disclosure concerning how companies are ensuring directors are fully versed on this rapidly evolving and dynamic issue can help shareholders understand the seriousness with which companies take this issue.

We will generally not make recommendations on the basis of a company’s oversight or disclosure concerning cyber-related issues. However, we will closely evaluate a company’s disclosure in this regard in instances where cyber-attacks have caused significant harm to shareholders and may recommend against appropriate directors should we find such disclosure or oversight to be insufficient.

Board Accountability for Climate-related Issues

We have included a new discussion on director accountability for climate-related issues. In particular, we believe that clear and comprehensive disclosure regarding climate risks, including how they are being mitigated and overseen, should be provided by those companies whose own GHG emissions represent a financially material risk, such as those companies identified by groups including Climate Action 100+.

Accordingly, for companies with material exposure to climate risk stemming from their own operations, we believe they should provide thorough climate-related disclosures in line with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (“TCFD”). We also believe the boards of these companies should have explicit and clearly defined oversight responsibilities for climate-related issues. As such, in instances where we find either of these disclosures to be absent or significantly lacking, we may recommend voting against responsible directors.

Officer Exculpation

We have included a new section regarding officer exculpation. In August 2022, the Delaware General Assembly amended Section 102(b)(7) of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) to authorize corporations to adopt a provision in their certificate of incorporation to eliminate or limit monetary liability of certain corporate officers for breach of fiduciary duty of care. The amendment authorizes corporations to provide for exculpation of the following officers: (i) the corporation’s president, chief executive officer, chief operating officer, chief

financial officer, chief legal officer, controller, treasurer or chief accounting officer, (ii) “named executive


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			9

officers” identified in the corporation’s SEC filings, and (iii) individuals who have agreed to be identified as officers of the corporation.

Corporate exculpation provisions under the DGCL apply only to claims for breach of the duty of care, and not to breaches of the duty of loyalty. Exculpation provisions also do not apply to acts or omissions not in good faith or that involve intentional misconduct, knowing violations of the law, or transactions involving the receipt of any improper personal benefits. Furthermore, officers may not be exculpated from claims brought against them by, or in the right of, the corporation (i.e., derivative actions).

Under Section 102(b)(7), a corporation must affirmatively elect to include an exculpation provision in its certificate of incorporation. We will closely evaluate proposals to adopt officer exculpation provisions on a case- by-case basis. We will generally recommend voting against such proposals eliminating monetary liability for breaches of the duty of care for certain corporate officers, unless compelling rationale for the adoption is provided by the board, and the provisions are reasonable.

Long-Term Incentives

We revised our threshold for the minimum percentage of the long-term incentive grant that should be performance-based from 33% to 50%, in line with market trends. Beginning in 2023, Glass Lewis will raise concerns in our analysis with executive pay programs that provide less than half of an executive’s long-term incentive awards that are subject to performance-based vesting conditions. As with past year, we may refrain from a negative recommendation in the absence of other significant issues with the program’s design or operation, but a negative trajectory in the allocation amount may lead to an unfavorable recommendation.

Clarifying Amendments

The following clarifications of our existing policies are included this year:

Board Responsiveness

We have clarified our discussion of board responsiveness. Specifically, we have clarified that when 20% or more of shareholders vote contrary to management, we believe that boards should engage with shareholders and demonstrate some initial level of responsiveness. When a majority or more of shareholders vote contrary to management, we believe that boards should engage with shareholders and provide a more robust response to fully address shareholder concerns. Furthermore, we have clarified our approach at controlled companies and companies that have multi-class share structures with unequal voting rights, where we will carefully examine the level of disapproval attributable to unaffiliated shareholders and will generally evaluate vote results on a “one share, one vote” basis.

Compensation Committee Performance

We have clarified our approach when certain outsized awards (so called “mega-grants”) have been granted and

the awards present concerns such as excessive quantum, lack of sufficient performance conditions, and/or are


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			10

excessively dilutive, among others. We will generally recommend against the chair of the compensation committee when such outsized awards have been granted and include any of the aforementioned concerns.

Company Responsiveness (for Say-on-Pay Analysis)

With regard to our discussion of company responsiveness, we have clarified that we will also scrutinize high levels of disapproval from disinterested shareholders when assessing the support levels for previous years' say- on-pay votes. When evaluating a company's response to low support levels, we also expanded our discussion of what we consider robust disclosure, including discussion of rationale for not implementing change to pay decisions that drove low support and intentions going forward.

One-Time Awards

We have expanded our discussion regarding what we consider reasonable disclosure in terms of one-time awards. Specifically, we have included that we expect discussion surrounding the determination of quantum and structure for such awards.

Grants of Front-Loaded Awards

Adding to our discussion relating to front-loaded awards, we have included language touching on the topic of the rise in the use of "mega-grants". Furthermore, we expanded on our concerns regarding the increased restraint placed upon the board to respond to unforeseen factors when front-loaded awards are used. Finally, we provided clarification surrounding situations where front-loaded awards are intended to cover only the time- based or performance-based portion of an executive's long-term incentive awards.

Pay for Performance

We included mention of the new pay versus performance disclosure requirements announced by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in August of 2022. In our revised discussion of our Pay-for- Performance methodology, we have made clear that the methodology is not impacted by new rules. There is no change to the methodology for the 2023 Proxy Season. However, we note that the disclosure requirements from the new rule may be reviewed in our evaluation of executive pay programs on a qualitative basis.

Short- and Long-Term Incentives

We have added new discussion to codify our views on certain exercise of compensation committee discretion on incentive payouts. Glass Lewis recognizes the importance of the compensation committee’s judicious and responsible exercise of discretion over incentive pay outcomes to account for significant events that would otherwise be excluded from performance results of selected metrics of incentive programs. We believe that companies should provide thorough discussion of how such events were considered in the committee’s decisions to exercise discretion or refrain from applying discretion over incentive pay outcomes.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			11

Recoupment Provisions

We have revised our discussion on clawback policies to reflect new regulatory developments for exchange-listed companies. On October 26, 2022, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved final rules regarding clawback policies based on which the national exchanges are to create new listing requirements.

During period between the announcement of the final rules and the effective date of listing requirements, Glass Lewis will continue to raise concerns for companies that maintain clawback policies that only meet the requirements set forth by Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. However, disclosure from such companies of early effort to meet the standards of the final rules may help to mitigate concerns.

A Board of Directors that Serves Shareholder Interest

Election of Directors

The purpose of Glass Lewis’ proxy research and advice is to facilitate shareholder voting in favor of governance structures that will drive performance, create shareholder value and maintain a proper tone at the top. Glass Lewis looks for talented boards with a record of protecting shareholders and delivering value over the medium- and long-term. We believe that a board can best protect and enhance the interests of shareholders if it is sufficiently independent, has a record of positive performance, and consists of individuals with diverse backgrounds and a breadth and depth of relevant experience.

Independence

The independence of directors, or lack thereof, is ultimately demonstrated through the decisions they make. In assessing the independence of directors, we will take into consideration, when appropriate, whether a director has a track record indicative of making objective decisions. Likewise, when assessing the independence of

directors we will also examine when a director’s track record on multiple boards indicates a lack of objective decision-making. Ultimately, we believe the determination of whether a director is independent or not must take into consideration both compliance with the applicable independence listing requirements as well as judgments made by the director.

We look at each director nominee to examine the director’s relationships with the company, the company’s executives, and other directors. We do this to evaluate whether personal, familial, or financial relationships (not including director compensation) may impact the director’s decisions. We believe that such relationships make it difficult for a director to put shareholders’ interests above the director’s or the related party’s interests. We also believe that a director who owns more than 20% of a company can exert disproportionate influence on the board, and therefore believe such a director’s independence may be hampered, in particular when serving on the audit committee.

Thus, we put directors into three categories based on an examination of the type of relationship they have with the company:


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			12

Independent Director — An independent director has no material financial, familial or other current relationships with the company, its executives, or other board members, except for board service and standard fees paid for that service. Relationships that existed within three to five years1 before the

inquiry are usually considered “current” for purposes of this test. For material financial relationships with the company, we apply a three-year look back, and for former employment relationships with the company, we apply a five-year look back.

Affiliated Director — An affiliated director has, (or within the past three years, had) a material financial, familial or other relationship with the company or its executives, but is not an employee of the company.2 This includes directors whose employers have a material financial relationship with the company.3 In addition, we view a director who either owns or controls 20% or more of the company’s voting stock, or is an employee or affiliate of an entity that controls such amount, as an affiliate.4

We view 20% shareholders as affiliates because they typically have access to and involvement with the management of a company that is fundamentally different from that of ordinary shareholders. More importantly, 20% holders may have interests that diverge from those of ordinary holders, for reasons such as the liquidity (or lack thereof) of their holdings, personal tax issues, etc.

Glass Lewis applies a three-year look back period to all directors who have an affiliation with the company other than former employment, for which we apply a five-year look back.

Definition of “Material”: A material relationship is one in which the dollar value exceeds:

•$50,000 (or where no amount is disclosed) for directors who are paid for a service they have agreed to perform for the company, outside of their service as a director, including professional or other services. This threshold also applies to directors who are the majority or principal owner of a firm that receives such payments; or

•$120,000 (or where no amount is disclosed) for those directors employed by a professional services firm such as a law firm, investment bank, or consulting firm and the company pays the firm, not the

__________________________________________

1 NASDAQ originally proposed a five-year look-back period but both it and the NYSE ultimately settled on a three-year look- back prior to finalizing their rules. A five-year standard for former employment relationships is more appropriate, in our view, because we believe that the unwinding of conflicting relationships between former management and board members is more likely to be complete and final after five years. However, Glass Lewis does not apply the five-year look-back period to directors who have previously served as executives of the company on an interim basis for less than one year.

2 If a company does not consider a non-employee director to be independent, Glass Lewis will classify that director as an affiliate.

3 We allow a five-year grace period for former executives of the company or merged companies who have consulting agreements with the surviving company. (We do not automatically recommend voting against directors in such cases for the first five years.) If the consulting agreement persists after

this five-year grace period, we apply the materiality thresholds outlined in the definition of “material.”

4 This includes a director who serves on a board as a representative (as part of his or her basic responsibilities) of an investment firm with greater than 20% ownership. However, while we will generally consider him/her to be affiliated, we will not recommend voting against unless (i) the investment firm has disproportionate board representation or (ii) the director serves on the audit committee.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			13

individual, for services.5 This dollar limit would also apply to charitable contributions to schools where a board member is a professor; or charities where a director serves on the board or is an executive;6 and any aircraft and real estate dealings between the company and the director’s firm; or

•1% of either company’s consolidated gross revenue for other business relationships (e.g., where the director is an executive officer of a company that provides services or products to or receives services or products from the company).7

Definition of “Familial” — Familial relationships include a person’s spouse, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, nieces, nephews, in-laws, and anyone (other than domestic employees) who shares such person’s home. A director is an affiliate if: i) he or she has a family member who is employed by the company and receives more than $120,0008 in annual compensation; or, ii) he or she has a family member who is employed by the company and the company does not disclose this individual’s compensation.

Definition of “Company” — A company includes any parent or subsidiary in a group with the company or any entity that merged with, was acquired by, or acquired the company.

Inside Director — An inside director simultaneously serves as a director and as an employee of the company. This category may include a board chair who acts as an employee of the company or is paid as an employee of the company. In our view, an inside director who derives a greater amount of income as a result of affiliated transactions with the company rather than through compensation paid by the company (i.e., salary, bonus, etc. as a company employee) faces a conflict between making decisions that are in the best interests of the company versus those in the director’s own best interests.

Therefore, we will recommend voting against such a director.

Additionally, we believe a director who is currently serving in an interim management position should be considered an insider, while a director who previously served in an interim management position for less than one year and is no longer serving in such capacity is considered independent. Moreover, a director who previously served in an interim management position for over one year and is no longer serving in such capacity is considered an affiliate for five years following the date of the director’s resignation or departure from the interim management position.

__________________________________________

5 We may deem such a transaction to be immaterial where the amount represents less than 1% of the firm’s annual revenues and the board provides a compelling rationale as to why the director’s independence is not affected by the relationship.

6 We will generally take into consideration the size and nature of such charitable entities in relation to the company’s size and industry along with any other relevant factors such as the director’s role at the charity. However, unlike for other types of related party transactions, Glass Lewis generally does not apply a look-back period to affiliated relationships involving charitable contributions; if the relationship between the director and the school or charity ceases, or if the company discontinues its donations to the entity, we will consider the director to be independent.

7 This includes cases where a director is employed by, or closely affiliated with, a private equity firm that profits from an acquisition made by the company. Unless disclosure suggests otherwise, we presume the director is affiliated.

8 Pursuant to SEC rule Item 404 of Regulation S-K under the Securities Exchange Act, compensation exceeding $120,000 is the minimum threshold deemed material for disclosure of transactions involving family members of directors.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			14

Voting Recommendations on the Basis of Board Independence

Glass Lewis believes a board will be most effective in protecting shareholders’ interests if it is at least two-thirds independent. We note that each of the Business Roundtable, the Conference Board, and the Council of Institutional Investors advocates that two-thirds of the board be independent. Where more than one-third of the members are affiliated or inside directors, we typically8 recommend voting against some of the inside and/or affiliated directors in order to satisfy the two-thirds threshold.

In the case of a less than two-thirds independent board, Glass Lewis strongly supports the existence of a presiding or lead director with authority to set the meeting agendas and to lead sessions outside the insider chair’s presence.

In addition, we scrutinize avowedly “independent” chairs and lead directors. We believe that they should be

unquestionably independent or the company should not tout them as such.

Committee Independence

We believe that only independent directors should serve on a company’s audit, compensation, nominating, and governance committees.9 We typically recommend that shareholders vote against any affiliated or inside director seeking appointment to an audit, compensation, nominating, or governance committee, or who has served in that capacity in the past year.

Pursuant to Section 952 of the Dodd-Frank Act, as of January 11, 2013, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved new listing requirements for both the NYSE and NASDAQ which require that boards apply enhanced standards of independence when making an affirmative determination of the independence of compensation committee members. Specifically, when making this determination, in addition to the factors considered when assessing general director independence, the board’s considerations must include: (i) the source of compensation of the director, including any consulting, advisory or other compensatory fee paid by the listed company to the director (the “Fees Factor”); and (ii) whether the director is affiliated with the listing company, its subsidiaries, or affiliates of its subsidiaries (the “Affiliation Factor”).

Glass Lewis believes it is important for boards to consider these enhanced independence factors when assessing compensation committee members. However, as discussed above in the section titled Independence, we apply our own standards when assessing the independence of directors, and these standards also take into account consulting and advisory fees paid to the director, as well as the director’s affiliations with the company and its subsidiaries and affiliates. We may recommend voting against compensation committee members who are not independent based on our standards.

__________________________________________

8 With a staggered board, if the affiliates or insiders that we believe should not be on the board are not up for election, we will express our concern regarding those directors, but we will not recommend voting against the other affiliates or insiders who are up for election just to achieve two-thirds independence. However, we will consider recommending voting against the directors subject to our concern at their next election if the issue giving rise to the concern is not resolved.

9 We will recommend voting against an audit committee member who owns 20% or more of the company’s stock, and we believe that there should be a maximum of one director (or no directors if the committee is composed of less than three directors) who owns 20% or more of the company’s stock on the compensation, nominating, and governance committees.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			15

Independent Chair

Glass Lewis believes that separating the roles of CEO (or, more rarely, another executive position) and chair creates a better governance structure than a combined CEO/chair position. An executive manages the business according to a course the board charts. Executives should report to the board regarding their performance in achieving goals set by the board. This is needlessly complicated when a CEO chairs the board, since a CEO/chair presumably will have a significant influence over the board.

While many companies have an independent lead or presiding director who performs many of the same functions of an independent chair (e.g., setting the board meeting agenda), we do not believe this alternate form of independent board leadership provides as robust protection for shareholders as an independent chair.

It can become difficult for a board to fulfill its role of overseer and policy setter when a CEO/chair controls the agenda and the boardroom discussion. Such control can allow a CEO to have an entrenched position, leading to longer-than-optimal terms, fewer checks on management, less scrutiny of the business operation, and limitations on independent, shareholder-focused goal-setting by the board.

A CEO should set the strategic course for the company, with the board’s approval, and the board should enable the CEO to carry out the CEO’s vision for accomplishing the board’s objectives. Failure to achieve the board’s objectives should lead the board to replace that CEO with someone in whom the board has confidence.

Likewise, an independent chair can better oversee executives and set a pro-shareholder agenda without the management conflicts that a CEO and other executive insiders often face. Such oversight and concern for shareholders allows for a more proactive and effective board of directors that is better able to look out for the interests of shareholders.

Further, it is the board’s responsibility to select a chief executive who can best serve a company and its shareholders and to replace this person when his or her duties have not been appropriately fulfilled. Such a replacement becomes more difficult and happens less frequently when the chief executive is also in the position of overseeing the board.

Glass Lewis believes that the installation of an independent chair is almost always a positive step from a corporate governance perspective and promotes the best interests of shareholders. Further, the presence of an independent chair fosters the creation of a thoughtful and dynamic board, not dominated by the views of senior management. Encouragingly, many companies appear to be moving in this direction — one study indicates that only 10 percent of incoming CEOs in 2014 were awarded the chair title, versus 48 percent in 2002.10 Another study finds that 53 percent of S&P 500 boards now separate the CEO and chair roles, up from 37 percent in 2009, although the same study found that only 34 percent of S&P 500 boards have truly independent chairs.11

We do not recommend that shareholders vote against CEOs who chair the board. However, we typically recommend that our clients support separating the roles of chair and CEO whenever that question is posed in a

__________________________________________

10 Ken Favaro, Per-Ola Karlsson and Gary L. Nelson. “The $112 Billion CEO Succession Problem.” (Strategy+Business, Issue 79, Summer 2015).

11 Spencer Stuart Board Index, 2019, p. 6.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			16

proxy (typically in the form of a shareholder proposal), as we believe that it is in the long-term best interests of the company and its shareholders.

Further, where the company has neither an independent chair nor independent lead director, we will recommend voting against the chair of the governance committee.

Performance

The most crucial test of a board’s commitment to the company and its shareholders lies in the actions of the board and its members. We look at the performance of these individuals as directors and executives of the company and of other companies where they have served.

We find that a director’s past conduct is often indicative of future conduct and performance. We often find directors with a history of overpaying executives or of serving on boards where avoidable disasters have occurred serving on the boards of companies with similar problems. Glass Lewis has a proprietary database of directors serving at over 8,000 of the most widely held U.S. companies. We use this database to track the performance of directors across companies.

Voting Recommendations on the Basis of Performance

We typically recommend that shareholders vote against directors who have served on boards or as executives of companies with records of poor performance, inadequate risk oversight, excessive compensation, audit- or accounting-related issues, and/or other indicators of mismanagement or actions against the interests of shareholders. We will reevaluate such directors based on, among other factors, the length of time passed since the incident giving rise to the concern, shareholder support for the director, the severity of the issue, the

director’s role (e.g., committee membership), director tenure at the subject company, whether ethical lapses accompanied the oversight lapse, and evidence of strong oversight at other companies.

Likewise, we examine the backgrounds of those who serve on key board committees to ensure that they have the required skills and diverse backgrounds to make informed judgments about the subject matter for which the committee is responsible.

We believe shareholders should avoid electing directors who have a record of not fulfilling their responsibilities to shareholders at any company where they have held a board or executive position. We typically recommend voting against:

1.A director who fails to attend a minimum of 75% of board and applicable committee meetings, calculated in the aggregate.12

2.A director who belatedly filed a significant form(s) 4 or 5, or who has a pattern of late filings if the late

filing was the director’s fault (we look at these late filing situations on a case-by-case basis).

3.A director who is also the CEO of a company where a serious and material restatement has occurred after the CEO had previously certified the pre-restatement financial statements.

__________________________________________

12 However, where a director has served for less than one full year, we will typically not recommend voting against for failure to attend 75% of meetings. Rather, we will note the poor attendance with a recommendation to track this issue going forward. We will also refrain from recommending to vote against directors when the proxy discloses that the director missed the meetings due to serious illness or other extenuating circumstances.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			17

4.A director who has received two against recommendations from Glass Lewis for identical reasons within the prior year at different companies (the same situation must also apply at the company being analyzed).

Furthermore, with consideration given to the company’s overall corporate governance, pay-for-performance alignment and board responsiveness to shareholders, we may recommend voting against directors who served throughout a period in which the company performed significantly worse than peers and the directors have not taken reasonable steps to address the poor performance.

Board Responsiveness

Glass Lewis believes that boards should be responsive to shareholders when a significant percentage of shareholders vote contrary to the recommendation of management, depending on the issue.

When 20% of more of shareholders vote contrary to management, we believe that boards should engage with shareholders on the issue and demonstrate some initial level of responsiveness. These include instances when 20% or more of shareholders:

(i)withhold votes from (or vote against) a director nominee;

(ii)vote against a management-sponsored proposal; or

(iii)vote for a shareholder proposal.

In our view, a 20% threshold is significant enough to warrant a close examination of the underlying issues and an evaluation of whether the board responded appropriately following the vote, particularly in the case of a compensation or director election proposal. While the 20% threshold alone will not automatically generate a negative vote recommendation from Glass Lewis on a future proposal (e.g., to recommend against a director nominee, against a say-on-pay proposal, etc.), it may be a contributing factor to our recommendation to vote against management’s recommendation in the event we determine that the board did not respond appropriately.

When a majority of shareholders vote contrary to management, we believe that boards should engage with shareholders on the issue and provide a more robust response to fully address shareholder concerns. These include instances when a majority or more of shareholders:

(i)withhold votes from (or vote against) a director nominee;

(ii)vote against a management-sponsored proposal; or

(iii)vote for a shareholder proposal.

In the case of shareholder proposals, we believe clear action is warranted when such proposals receive support from a majority of votes cast (excluding abstentions and broker non-votes). In our view, this may include fully implementing the request of the shareholder proposal and/or engaging with shareholders on the issue and providing sufficient disclosures to address shareholder concerns.

At controlled companies and companies that have multi-class share structures with unequal voting rights, we will carefully examine the level of approval or disapproval attributed to unaffiliated shareholders when determining whether board responsiveness is warranted. In the case of companies that have multi-class share structures with unequal voting rights, we will generally examine the level of approval or disapproval attributed


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			18

to unaffiliated shareholders on a “one share, one vote” basis. At controlled and multi-class companies, when at least 20% or more of unaffiliated shareholders vote contrary to management, we believe that boards should engage with shareholders and demonstrate some initial level of responsiveness, and when a majority or more of unaffiliated shareholders vote contrary to management, we believe that boards should engage with shareholders and provide a more robust response to address shareholder concerns.

As a general framework, our evaluation of board responsiveness involves a review of publicly available disclosures (e.g., the proxy statement, annual report, 8-Ks, company website, etc.) released following the date of the company’s last annual meeting up through the publication date of our most current Proxy Paper. Depending on the specific issue, our focus typically includes, but is not limited to, the following:

•At the board level, any changes in directorships, committee memberships, disclosure of related party transactions, meeting attendance, or other responsibilities;

•Any revisions made to the company’s articles of incorporation, bylaws or other governance documents;

•Any press or news releases indicating changes in, or the adoption of, new company policies, business practices or special reports; and

•Any modifications made to the design and structure of the company’s compensation program, as well as an assessment of the company’s engagement with shareholders on compensation issues as discussed in the Compensation Discussion & Analysis (CD&A), particularly following a material vote against a company’s say-on-pay.

•Proxy statement disclosure discussing the board’s efforts to engage with shareholders and the actions

taken to address shareholder concerns.

Our Proxy Paper analysis will include a case-by-case assessment of the specific elements of board responsiveness that we examined along with an explanation of how that assessment impacts our current voting recommendations.

The Role of a Committee Chair

Glass Lewis believes that a designated committee chair maintains primary responsibility for the actions of his or her respective committee. As such, many of our committee-specific voting recommendations are against the applicable committee chair rather than the entire committee (depending on the seriousness of the issue). In cases where the committee chair is not up for election due to a staggered board, and where we have identified multiple concerns, we will generally recommend voting against other members of the committee who are up for election, on a case-by-case basis.

In cases where we would ordinarily recommend voting against a committee chair but the chair is not specified, we apply the following general rules, which apply throughout our guidelines:

•If there is no committee chair, we recommend voting against the longest-serving committee member or, if the longest-serving committee member cannot be determined, the longest-serving board member serving on the committee (i.e., in either case, the “senior director”); and

•If there is no committee chair, but multiple senior directors serving on the committee, we recommend voting against both (or all) such senior directors.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			19

In our view, companies should provide clear disclosure of which director is charged with overseeing each committee. In cases where that simple framework is ignored and a reasonable analysis cannot determine which committee member is the designated leader, we believe shareholder action against the longest serving committee member(s) is warranted. Again, this only applies if we would ordinarily recommend voting against the committee chair but there is either no such position or no designated director in such role.

Audit Committees and Performance

Audit committees play an integral role in overseeing the financial reporting process because stable capital markets depend on reliable, transparent, and objective financial information to support an efficient and effective capital market process. Audit committees play a vital role in providing this disclosure to shareholders.

When assessing an audit committee’s performance, we are aware that an audit committee does not prepare financial statements, is not responsible for making the key judgments and assumptions that affect the financial statements, and does not audit the numbers or the disclosures provided to investors. Rather, an audit committee member monitors and oversees the process and procedures that management and auditors perform. The 1999 Report and Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Committee on Improving the Effectiveness of Corporate Audit Committees stated it best:

A proper and well-functioning system exists, therefore, when the three main groups responsible for financial reporting — the full board including the audit committee, financial management including the internal auditors, and the outside auditors — form a ‘three legged stool’ that supports responsible financial disclosure and active participatory oversight. However, in the view of the Committee, the audit committee must be ‘first among equals’ in this process, since the audit committee is an extension of the full board and hence the ultimate monitor of the process.

Standards for Assessing the Audit Committee

For an audit committee to function effectively on investors’ behalf, it must include members with sufficient knowledge to diligently carry out their responsibilities. In its audit and accounting recommendations, the Conference Board Commission on Public Trust and Private Enterprise said “members of the audit committee must be independent and have both knowledge and experience in auditing financial matters.”13

We are skeptical of audit committees where there are members that lack expertise as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), Chief Financial Officer (CFO) or corporate controller, or similar experience. While we will not necessarily recommend voting against members of an audit committee when such expertise is lacking, we are more likely to recommend voting against committee members when a problem such as a restatement occurs and such expertise is lacking.

Glass Lewis generally assesses audit committees against the decisions they make with respect to their oversight and monitoring role. The quality and integrity of the financial statements and earnings reports, the completeness of disclosures necessary for investors to make informed decisions, and the effectiveness of the internal controls should provide reasonable assurance that the financial statements are materially free from

__________________________________________

13 Commission on Public Trust and Private Enterprise. The Conference Board. 2003.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			20

errors. The independence of the external auditors and the results of their work all provide useful information by which to assess the audit committee.

When assessing the decisions and actions of the audit committee, we typically defer to its judgment and generally recommend voting in favor of its members. However, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against the following:

1.All members of the audit committee when options were backdated, there is a lack of adequate controls in place, there was a resulting restatement, and disclosures indicate there was a lack of documentation with respect to the option grants.

2.The audit committee chair, if the audit committee does not have a financial expert or the committee’s financial expert does not have a demonstrable financial background sufficient to understand the financial issues unique to public companies.

3.The audit committee chair, if the audit committee did not meet at least four times during the year.

4.The audit committee chair, if the committee has less than three members.

5.Any audit committee member who sits on more than three public company audit committees, unless the audit committee member is a retired CPA, CFO, controller or has similar experience, in which case the limit shall be four committees, taking time and availability into consideration including a review of the audit committee member’s attendance at all board and committee meetings.14

6.All members of an audit committee who are up for election and who served on the committee at the time of the audit, if audit and audit-related fees total one-third or less of the total fees billed by the auditor.

7.The audit committee chair when tax and/or other fees are greater than audit and audit-related fees paid to the auditor for more than one year in a row (in which case we also recommend against ratification of the auditor).

8.The audit committee chair when fees paid to the auditor are not disclosed.

9.All members of an audit committee where non-audit fees include fees for tax services (including, but not limited to, such things as tax avoidance or shelter schemes) for senior executives of the company. Such services are prohibited by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB).

10.All members of an audit committee that reappointed an auditor that we no longer consider to be independent for reasons unrelated to fee proportions.

11.All members of an audit committee when audit fees are excessively low, especially when compared with other companies in the same industry.

12.The audit committee chair if the committee failed to put auditor ratification on the ballot for shareholder approval. However, if the non-audit fees or tax fees exceed audit plus audit-related fees in either the current or the prior year, then Glass Lewis will recommend voting against the entire audit committee.

__________________________________________

14 Glass Lewis may exempt certain audit committee members from the above threshold if, upon further analysis of relevant factors such as the director’s experience, the size, industry-mix and location of the companies involved and the director’s attendance at all the companies, we can reasonably determine that the audit committee member is likely not hindered by multiple audit committee commitments.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			21

13.All members of an audit committee where the auditor has resigned and reported that a section 10A15

letter has been issued.

14.All members of an audit committee at a time when material accounting fraud occurred at the company.16

15.All members of an audit committee at a time when annual and/or multiple quarterly financial statements had to be restated, and any of the following factors apply:17

a.The restatement involves fraud or manipulation by insiders;

b.The restatement is accompanied by an SEC inquiry or investigation;

c.The restatement involves revenue recognition;

d.The restatement results in a greater than 5% adjustment to costs of goods sold, operating expense, or operating cash flows; or

e.The restatement results in a greater than 5% adjustment to net income, 10% adjustment to assets or shareholders equity, or cash flows from financing or investing activities.

16.All members of an audit committee if the company repeatedly fails to file its financial reports in a timely fashion. For example, the company has filed two or more quarterly or annual financial statements late within the last five quarters.

17.All members of an audit committee when it has been disclosed that a law enforcement agency has charged the company and/or its employees with a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

18.All members of an audit committee when the company has aggressive accounting policies and/or poor disclosure or lack of sufficient transparency in its financial statements.

19.All members of the audit committee when there is a disagreement with the auditor and the auditor resigns or is dismissed (e.g., the company receives an adverse opinion on its financial statements from the auditor).

20.All members of the audit committee if the contract with the auditor specifically limits the auditor’s

liability to the company for damages.18

21.All members of the audit committee who served since the date of the company’s last annual meeting, and when, since the last annual meeting, the company has reported a material weakness that has not

__________________________________________

15 Auditors are required to report all potential illegal acts to management and the audit committee unless they are clearly inconsequential in nature. If the audit committee or the board fails to take appropriate action on an act that has been determined to be a violation of the law, the independent auditor is required to send a section 10A letter to the SEC. Such letters are rare and therefore we believe should be taken seriously.

16 Research indicates that revenue fraud now accounts for over 60% of SEC fraud cases, and that companies that engage in fraud experience significant negative abnormal stock price declines—facing bankruptcy, delisting, and material asset sales at much higher rates than do non-fraud firms (Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.

“Fraudulent Financial Reporting: 1998-2007.” May 2010).

17 The SEC issued guidance in March 2021 related to classification of warrants as liabilities at special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs). We will generally refrain from recommending against audit committee members when the restatement in question is solely as a result of the aforementioned SEC guidance.

18 The Council of Institutional Investors. “Corporate Governance Policies,” p. 4, April 5, 2006; and “Letter from Council of Institutional Investors to the AICPA,” November 8, 2006.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			22

yet been corrected, or, when the company has an ongoing material weakness from a prior year that has not yet been corrected.

We also take a dim view of audit committee reports that are boilerplate, and which provide little or no information or transparency to investors. When a problem such as a material weakness, restatement or late filings occurs, we take into consideration, in forming our judgment with respect to the audit committee, the transparency of the audit committee report.

Compensation Committee Performance

Compensation committees have a critical role in determining the compensation of executives. This includes deciding the basis on which compensation is determined, as well as the amounts and types of compensation to be paid. This process begins with the hiring and initial establishment of employment agreements, including the terms for such items as pay, pensions and severance arrangements. It is important in establishing compensation arrangements that compensation be consistent with, and based on the long-term economic performance of, the business’s long-term shareholders returns.

Compensation committees are also responsible for the oversight of the transparency of compensation. This oversight includes disclosure of compensation arrangements, the matrix used in assessing pay for performance, and the use of compensation consultants. In order to ensure the independence of the board’s compensation consultant, we believe the compensation committee should only engage a compensation consultant that is not also providing any services to the company or management apart from their contract with the compensation committee. It is important to investors that they have clear and complete disclosure of all the significant terms of compensation arrangements in order to make informed decisions with respect to the oversight and decisions of the compensation committee.

Finally, compensation committees are responsible for oversight of internal controls over the executive compensation process. This includes controls over gathering information used to determine compensation, establishment of equity award plans, and granting of equity awards. For example, the use of a compensation consultant who maintains a business relationship with company management may cause the committee to make decisions based on information that is compromised by the consultant’s conflict of interests. Lax controls can also contribute to improper awards of compensation such as through granting of backdated or spring- loaded options, or granting of bonuses when triggers for bonus payments have not been met.

Central to understanding the actions of compensation committee is a careful review of the CD&A report

included in each company’s proxy. We review the CD&A in our evaluation of the overall compensation practices of a company, as overseen by the compensation committee. The CD&A is also integral to the evaluation of compensation proposals at companies, such as advisory votes on executive compensation, which allow

shareholders to vote on the compensation paid to a company’s top executives.

When assessing the performance of compensation committees, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against the following:

1.All members of a compensation committee during whose tenure the committee failed to address shareholder concerns following majority shareholder rejection of the say-on-pay proposal in the previous year. Where the proposal was approved but there was a significant shareholder vote (i.e.,


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			23

greater than 20% of votes cast) against the say-on-pay proposal in the prior year, if the board did not respond sufficiently to the vote including actively engaging shareholders on this issue, we will also consider recommending voting against the chair of the compensation committee or all members of the compensation committee, depending on the severity and history of the compensation problems and the level of shareholder opposition.

2.All members of the compensation committee who are up for election and served when the company failed to align pay with performance if shareholders are not provided with an advisory vote on executive compensation at the annual meeting.19

3.Any member of the compensation committee who has served on the compensation committee of at least two other public companies that have consistently failed to align pay with performance and whose oversight of compensation at the company in question is suspect.

4.All members of the compensation committee (during the relevant time period) if the company entered into excessive employment agreements and/or severance agreements.

5.All members of the compensation committee when performance goals were changed (i.e., lowered) when employees failed or were unlikely to meet original goals, or performance-based compensation was paid despite goals not being attained.

6.All members of the compensation committee if excessive employee perquisites and benefits were allowed.

7.The compensation committee chair if the compensation committee did not meet during the year.

8.All members of the compensation committee when the company repriced options or completed a “self tender offer” without shareholder approval within the past two years.

9.All members of the compensation committee when vesting of in-the-money options is accelerated.

10.All members of the compensation committee when option exercise prices were backdated. Glass Lewis will recommend voting against an executive director who played a role in and participated in

option backdating.

11.All members of the compensation committee when option exercise prices were spring-loaded or otherwise timed around the release of material information.

12.All members of the compensation committee when a new employment contract is given to an executive that does not include a clawback provision and the company had a material restatement, especially if the restatement was due to fraud.

13.The chair of the compensation committee where the CD&A provides insufficient or unclear information about performance metrics and goals, where the CD&A indicates that pay is not tied to performance, or where the compensation committee or management has excessive discretion to alter performance terms or increase amounts of awards in contravention of previously defined targets.

14.All members of the compensation committee during whose tenure the committee failed to implement a shareholder proposal regarding a compensation-related issue, where the proposal received the affirmative vote of a majority of the voting shares at a shareholder meeting, and when a reasonable

__________________________________________

19 If a company provides shareholders with a say-on-pay proposal, we will initially only recommend voting against the company's say-on-pay proposal and will not recommend voting against the members of the compensation committee unless there is a pattern of failing to align pay and performance and/or the company exhibits egregious compensation practices. For cases in which the disconnect between pay and performance is marginal and the company has outperformed its peers, we will consider not recommending against compensation committee members.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			24

analysis suggests that the compensation committee (rather than the governance committee) should have taken steps to implement the request.20

15.All members of the compensation committee when the board has materially decreased proxy statement disclosure regarding executive compensation policies and procedures in a manner which substantially

impacts shareholders’ ability to make an informed assessment of the company’s executive pay practices.

16.All members of the compensation committee when new excise tax gross-up provisions are adopted in employment agreements with executives, particularly in cases where the company previously committed not to provide any such entitlements in the future.

17.All members of the compensation committee when the board adopts a frequency for future advisory votes on executive compensation that differs from the frequency approved by shareholders.

18.The chair of the compensation committee when” mega-grants” have been granted and the awards present concerns such as excessive quantum, lack of sufficient performance conditions, and/or are excessively dilutive, among others.

Nominating and Governance Committee Performance

The nominating and governance committee is responsible for the governance by the board of the company and its executives. In performing this role, the committee is responsible and accountable for selection of objective and competent board members. It is also responsible for providing leadership on governance policies adopted by the company, such as decisions to implement shareholder proposals that have received a majority vote. At most companies, a single committee is charged with these oversight functions; at others, the governance and nominating responsibilities are apportioned among two separate committees.

Consistent with Glass Lewis’ philosophy that boards should have diverse backgrounds and members with a breadth and depth of relevant experience, we believe that nominating and governance committees should consider diversity when making director nominations within the context of each specific company and its industry. In our view, shareholders are best served when boards make an effort to ensure a constituency that is not only reasonably diverse on the basis of age, race, gender and ethnicity, but also on the basis of geographic knowledge, industry experience, board tenure and culture.

Regarding the committee responsible for governance, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against the following:

1.All members of the governance committee21 during whose tenure a shareholder proposal relating to important shareholder rights received support from a majority of the votes cast (excluding abstentions and broker non-votes) and the board has not begun to implement or enact the proposal’s subject

__________________________________________

20 In all other instances (i.e., a non-compensation-related shareholder proposal should have been implemented) we recommend that shareholders vote against the members of the governance committee.

21 If the board does not have a committee responsible for governance oversight and the board did not implement a shareholder proposal that received the requisite support, we will recommend voting against the entire board. If the shareholder proposal at issue requested that the board adopt a declassified structure, we will recommend voting against all director nominees up for election.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			25

matter.22 Examples of such shareholder proposals include those seeking a declassified board structure, a majority vote standard for director elections, or a right to call a special meeting. In determining whether a board has sufficiently implemented such a proposal, we will examine the quality of the right enacted or proffered by the board for any conditions that may unreasonably interfere with the shareholders’ ability to exercise the right (e.g., overly restrictive procedural requirements for calling a special meeting).

2.All members of the governance committee when a shareholder resolution is excluded from the meeting agenda but the SEC has declined to state a view on whether such resolution should be excluded, or when the SEC has verbally permitted a company to exclude a shareholder proposal but there is no written record provided by the SEC about such determination and the company has not provided any disclosure concerning this no-action relief.

3.The governance committee chair when the chair is not independent and an independent lead or presiding director has not been appointed.23

4.The governance committee chair at companies with a multi-class share structure and unequal voting rights when the company does not provide for a reasonable sunset of the multi-class share structure (generally seven years or less).

5.In the absence of a nominating committee, the governance committee chair when there are fewer than five, or the whole governance committee when there are more than 20 members on the board.

6.The governance committee chair when the committee fails to meet at all during the year.

7.The governance committee chair, when for two consecutive years the company provides what we consider to be “inadequate” related party transaction disclosure (i.e., the nature of such transactions and/or the monetary amounts involved are unclear or excessively vague, thereby preventing a share-

holder from being able to reasonably interpret the independence status of multiple directors above and beyond what the company maintains is compliant with SEC or applicable stock exchange listing requirements).

8.The governance committee chair, when during the past year the board adopted a forum selection clause (i.e., an exclusive forum provision)24 designating either a state's courts for intra-corporate disputes, and/or federal courts for matters arising under the Securities Act of 1933 without shareholder

__________________________________________

22 Where a compensation-related shareholder proposal should have been implemented, and when a reasonable analysis suggests that the members of the compensation committee (rather than the governance committee) bear the responsibility for failing to implement the request, we recommend that shareholders only vote against members of the compensation committee.

23 We believe that one independent individual should be appointed to serve as the lead or presiding director. When such a position is rotated among directors from meeting to meeting, we will recommend voting against the governance committee chair as we believe the lack of fixed lead or presiding director means that, effectively, the board does not have an independent board leader.

24 A forum selection clause is a bylaw provision stipulating that a certain state or federal jurisdiction is the exclusive forum for specified legal matters. Such a clause effectively limits a shareholder's legal remedy regarding appropriate choice of venue and related relief.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			26

approval,25 or if the board is currently seeking shareholder approval of a forum selection clause pursuant to a bundled bylaw amendment rather than as a separate proposal.

9.All members of the governance committee during whose tenure the board adopted, without shareholder approval, provisions in its charter or bylaws that, through rules on director compensation, may inhibit the ability of shareholders to nominate directors.

10.The governance committee chair when the board takes actions to limit shareholders’ ability to vote on matters material to shareholder rights (e.g., through the practice of excluding a shareholder proposal by means of ratifying a management proposal that is materially different from the shareholder proposal).

11.The governance committee chair when directors’ records for board and committee meeting attendance are not disclosed, or when it is indicated that a director attended less than 75% of board and committee meetings but disclosure is sufficiently vague that it is not possible to determine which specific director’s attendance was lacking.

12.The governance committee chair when a detailed record of proxy voting results from the prior annual meeting has not been disclosed.

13.The governance committee chair when a company does not clearly disclose the identity of a shareholder proponent (or lead proponent when there are multiple filers) in their proxy statement. For a detailed explanation of this policy, please refer to our comprehensive Proxy Paper Guidelines for Environmental, Social & Governance Initiatives, available at www.glasslewis.com/voting-policies-current/.

In addition, we may recommend that shareholders vote against the chair of the governance committee, or the entire committee, where the board has amended the company’s governing documents to reduce or remove important shareholder rights, or to otherwise impede the ability of shareholders to exercise such right, and has done so without seeking shareholder approval. Examples of board actions that may cause such a recommendation include: the elimination of the ability of shareholders to call a special meeting or to act by written consent; an increase to the ownership threshold required for shareholders to call a special meeting; an

increase to vote requirements for charter or bylaw amendments; the adoption of provisions that limit the ability of shareholders to pursue full legal recourse — such as bylaws that require arbitration of shareholder claims

or that require shareholder plaintiffs to pay the company’s legal expenses in the absence of a court victory

(i.e., “fee-shifting” or “loser pays” bylaws); the adoption of a classified board structure; and the elimination of the ability of shareholders to remove a director without cause.

Regarding the nominating committee, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against the following:

1.All members of the nominating committee, when the committee nominated or renominated

an individual who had a significant conflict of interest or whose past actions demonstrated a lack of integrity or inability to represent shareholder interests.

2.The nominating committee chair, if the nominating committee did not meet during the year.

3.In the absence of a governance committee, the nominating committee chair when the chair is not independent, and an independent lead or presiding director has not been appointed.

__________________________________________

25 Glass Lewis will evaluate the circumstances surrounding the adoption of any forum selection clause as well as the general provisions contained therein. Where it can be reasonably determined that a forum selection clause is narrowly crafted to suit the particular circumstances facing the company and/or a reasonable sunset provision is included, we may make an exception to this policy.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			27

4.The nominating committee chair, when there are fewer than five, or the whole nominating committee when there are more than 20 members on the board.

5.The nominating committee chair, when a director received a greater than 50% against vote the prior year and not only was the director not removed, but the issues that raised shareholder concern were not corrected.26

6.The chair of the nominating committee of a board that is not at least 30 percent gender diverse,27 or all members of the nominating committee of a board with no gender diverse directors, at companies within the Russell 3000 index. For companies outside of the Russell 3000 index, we will recommend voting against the chair of the nominating committee if there are no gender diverse directors.

7.The chair of the nominating committee of a board with fewer than one director from an underrepresented community on the board, at companies within the Russell 1000 index.

8.The nominating committee chair when, alongside other governance or board performance concerns, the average tenure of non-executive directors is 10 years or more and no new independent directors have joined the board in the past five years. We will not be making voting recommendations solely on this basis; rather, insufficient board refreshment may be a contributing factor in our recommendations when additional board-related concerns have been identified.

In addition, we may consider recommending shareholders vote against the chair of the nominating committee where the board’s failure to ensure the board has directors with relevant experience, either through periodic director assessment or board refreshment, has contributed to a company’s poor performance. Where these issues warrant an against vote in the absence of both a governance and a nominating committee, we will recommend voting against the board chair, unless the chair also serves as the CEO, in which case we will recommend voting against the longest-serving director.

Board-level Risk Management Oversight

Glass Lewis evaluates the risk management function of a public company board on a strictly case-by-case basis. Sound risk management, while necessary at all companies, is particularly important at financial firms which inherently maintain significant exposure to financial risk. We believe such financial firms should have a chief risk officer reporting directly to the board and a dedicated risk committee or a committee of the board charged with risk oversight. Moreover, many non-financial firms maintain strategies which involve a high level of exposure to financial risk. Similarly, since many non-financial firms have complex hedging or trading strategies, those firms should also have a chief risk officer and a risk committee.

Our views on risk oversight are consistent with those expressed by various regulatory bodies. In its December 2009 Final Rule release on Proxy Disclosure Enhancements, the SEC noted that risk oversight is a key competence of the board and that additional disclosures would improve investor and shareholder understanding of the role of the board in the organization’s risk management practices. The final rules, which

__________________________________________

26 Considering that shareholder disapproval clearly relates to the director who received a greater than 50% against vote rather than the nominating chair, we review the severity of the issue(s) that initially raised shareholder concern as well as company responsiveness to such matters, and will only recommend voting against the nominating chair if a reasonable analysis suggests that it would be most appropriate. In rare cases, we will consider recommending against the nominating chair when a director receives a substantial (i.e., 20% or more) vote against based on the same analysis.

27 Women and directors that identify with a gender other than male or female.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			28

became effective on February 28, 2010, now explicitly require companies and mutual funds to describe (while allowing for some degree of flexibility) the board’s role in the oversight of risk.

When analyzing the risk management practices of public companies, we take note of any significant losses or writedowns on financial assets and/or structured transactions. In cases where a company has disclosed a sizable loss or writedown, and where we find that the company’s board-level risk committee’s poor oversight contributed to the loss, we will recommend that shareholders vote against such committee members on that basis. In addition, in cases where a company maintains a significant level of financial risk exposure but fails to disclose any explicit form of board-level risk oversight (committee or otherwise),28 we will consider recommending to vote against the board chair on that basis. However, we generally would not recommend voting against a combined chair/CEO, except in egregious cases.

Board Oversight of Environmental and Social Issues

To that end, Glass Lewis believes that companies should ensure that boards maintain clear oversight of material risks to their operations, including those that are environmental and social in nature. These risks could include, but are not limited to, matters related to climate change, human capital management, diversity, stakeholder relations, and health, safety & environment.

For companies in the Russell 3000 index and in instances where we identify material oversight concerns, Glass Lewis will review a company’s overall governance practices and identify which directors or board-level committees have been charged with oversight of environmental and/or social issues. Furthermore, given the

importance of the board’s role in overseeing environmental and social risks, Glass Lewis will generally recommend voting against the governance committee chair of a company in the Russell 1000 index that fails to provide explicit disclosure concerning the board’s role in overseeing these issues.

While we believe that it is important that these issues are overseen at the board level and that shareholders are afforded meaningful disclosure of these oversight responsibilities, we believe that companies should determine the best structure for this oversight. In our view, this oversight can be effectively conducted by specific directors, the entire board, a separate committee, or combined with the responsibilities of a key committee.

When evaluating the board’s role in overseeing environmental and/or social issues, we will examine a

company’s proxy statement and governing documents (such as committee charters) to determine if directors

__________________________________________

28 A committee responsible for risk management could be a dedicated risk committee, the audit committee, or the finance committee, depending on a given company’s board structure and method of disclosure. At some companies, the entire board is charged with risk management.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			29

maintain a meaningful level of oversight of and accountability for a company’s material environmental and

social impacts.

Cyber Risk Oversight

Companies and consumers are exposed to a growing risk of cyber-attacks. These attacks can result in customer or employee data breaches, harm to a company’s reputation, significant fines or penalties, and interruption to a company’s operations. Further, in some instances, cyber breaches can result in national security concerns, such as those impacting companies operating as utilities, defense contractors, and energy companies.

In response to these issues, regulators have increasingly been focused on ensuring companies are providing appropriate and timely disclosures and protections to stakeholders that could have been adversely impacted by a breach in a company’s cyber infrastructure.

Given the regulatory focus on, and the potential adverse outcomes from, cyber-related issues, it is our view that cyber risk is material for all companies. We therefore believe that it is critical that companies evaluate and mitigate these risks to the greatest extent possible. With that view, we encourage all issuers to provide clear disclosure concerning the role of the board in overseeing issues related to cybersecurity.

We also believe that disclosure concerning how companies are ensuring directors are fully versed on this rapidly evolving and dynamic issue can help shareholders understand the seriousness with which companies take this issue.

We will generally not make voting recommendations on the basis of a company’s oversight or disclosure concerning cyber-related issues. However, we will closely evaluate a company’s disclosure in this regard in instances where cyber-attacks have caused significant harm to shareholders and may recommend against appropriate directors should we find such disclosure or oversight to be insufficient.

Board Accountability for Environmental and Social Performance

Glass Lewis carefully monitors companies’ performance with respect to environmental and social issues, including those related to climate and human capital management. In situations where we believe that a company has not properly managed or mitigated material environmental or social risks to the detriment of shareholder value, or when such mismanagement has threatened shareholder value, Glass Lewis may recommend that shareholders vote against the members of the board who are responsible for oversight of environmental and social risks. In the absence of explicit board oversight of environmental and social issues, Glass Lewis may recommend that shareholders vote against members of the audit committee. In making these determinations, Glass Lewis will carefully review the situation, its effect on shareholder value, as well as any corrective action or other response made by the company.

For more information on how Glass Lewis evaluates environmental and social issues, please see Glass Lewis’ Overall Approach to ESG as well as our comprehensive Proxy Paper Guidelines for Environmental, Social & Governance Initiatives available at www.glasslewis.com/voting-policies-current/.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			30

Board Accountability for Climate-related Issues

Given the exceptionally broad impacts of a changing climate on companies, the economy, and society in general, we view climate risk as a material risk for all companies. We therefore believe that boards should be considering and evaluating their operational resilience under lower-carbon scenarios. While all companies maintain exposure to climate-related risks, we believe that additional consideration should be given to, and that disclosure should be provided by those companies whose GHG emissions represent a financially material risk.

We believe that companies with this increased risk exposure, such as those companies identified by groups including Climate Action 100+, should provide clear and comprehensive disclosure regarding these risks, including how they are being mitigated and overseen. We believe such information is crucial to allow investors to understand the company’s management of this issue, as well as the impact of a lower carbon future on the company’s operations.

Accordingly, for such companies with material exposure to climate risk stemming from their own operations, we believe thorough climate-related disclosures in line with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-

related Financial Disclosures (“TCFD”) should be provided to shareholders. We also believe the boards of these companies should have explicit and clearly defined oversight responsibilities for climate-related issues. As such, in instances where we find either (or both) of these disclosures to be absent or significantly lacking, we may recommend voting against the chair of the committee (or board) charged with oversight of climate-related issues, or if no committee has been charged with such oversight, the chair of the governance committee.

Further, we may extend our recommendation on this basis to additional members of the responsible committee in cases where the committee chair is not standing for election due to a classified board, or based on other factors, including the company’s size and industry and its overall governance profile.

Director Commitments

We believe that directors should have the necessary time to fulfill their duties to shareholders. In our view, an overcommitted director can pose a material risk to a company’s shareholders, particularly during periods of crisis. In addition, recent research indicates that the time commitment associated with being a director has been on a significant upward trend in the past decade.29 As a result, we generally recommend that shareholders vote against a director who serves as an executive officer (other than executive chair) of any public company30 while serving on more than one external public company board, a director who serves as an executive chair of any public company while serving on more than two external public company boards, and any other director who serves on more than five public company boards.

__________________________________________

29 For example, the 2015-2016 NACD Public Company Governance Survey states that, on average, directors spent a total of

248.2 hours annual on board-related matters during the past year, which it describes as a “historically high level” that is significantly above the average hours recorded in 2006. Additionally, the 2020 Spencer Stuart Board Index indicates that, while 39% of S&P 500 CEOs serve on one additional public board, just 2% of S&P 500 CEOs serve on two additional public boards and only one CEO serves on three.

30 When the executive officer in question serves only as an executive at a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) we will generally apply the higher threshold of five public company directorships.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			31

Because we believe that executives will primarily devote their attention to executive duties, we generally will not recommend that shareholders vote against overcommitted directors at the companies where they serve as an executive.

When determining whether a director’s service on an excessive number of boards may limit the ability of the director to devote sufficient time to board duties, we may consider relevant factors such as the size and location of the other companies where the director serves on the board, the director’s board roles at the companies in question, whether the director serves on the board of any large privately-held companies, the director’s tenure on the boards in question, and the director’s attendance record at all companies. In the case of directors who serve in executive roles other than CEO (e.g., executive chair), we will evaluate the specific duties and responsibilities of that role in determining whether an exception is warranted.

We may also refrain from recommending against certain directors if the company provides sufficient rationale for their continued board service. The rationale should allow shareholders to evaluate the scope of the

directors’ other commitments, as well as their contributions to the board including specialized knowledge of the company’s industry, strategy or key markets, the diversity of skills, perspective and background they provide, and other relevant factors. We will also generally refrain from recommending to vote against a director who serves on an excessive number of boards within a consolidated group of companies in related industries, or a director that represents a firm whose sole purpose is to manage a portfolio of investments which include the company.

Other Considerations

In addition to the three key characteristics — independence, performance, experience — that we use to evaluate board members, we consider conflict-of-interest issues as well as the size of the board of directors when making voting recommendations.

Conflicts of Interest

We believe board members should be wholly free of identifiable and substantial conflicts of interest, regardless of the overall level of independent directors on the board. Accordingly, we recommend that shareholders vote against the following types of directors:

1.A CFO who is on the board: In our view, the CFO holds a unique position relative to financial reporting and disclosure to shareholders. Due to the critical importance of financial disclosure and reporting, we believe the CFO should report to the board and not be a member of it.

2.A director who provides — or a director who has an immediate family member who provides — material consulting or other material professional services to the company. These services may include legal, consulting,31 or financial services. We question the need for the company to have consulting relationships with its directors. We view such relationships as creating conflicts for directors, since they may be forced to weigh their own interests against shareholder interests when making board decisions. In addition, a company’s decisions regarding where to turn for the best professional

__________________________________________

31 We will generally refrain from recommending against a director who provides consulting services for the company if the director is excluded from membership on the board’s key committees and we have not identified significant governance concerns with the board.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			32

services may be compromised when doing business with the professional services firm of one of the

company’s directors.

3.A director, or a director who has an immediate family member, engaging in airplane, real estate, or similar deals, including perquisite-type grants from the company, amounting to more than $50,000. Directors who receive these sorts of payments from the company will have to make unnecessarily complicated decisions that may pit their interests against shareholder interests.

4.Interlocking directorships: CEOs or other top executives who serve on each other’s boards create an interlock that poses conflicts that should be avoided to ensure the promotion of shareholder interests above all else.32

5.All board members who served at a time when a poison pill with a term of longer than one year was adopted without shareholder approval within the prior twelve months.33 In the event a board is classified and shareholders are therefore unable to vote against all directors, we will recommend voting against the remaining directors the next year they are up for a shareholder vote. If a poison pill with a term of one year or less was adopted without shareholder approval, and without adequate justification, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against all members of the governance committee. If the board has, without seeking shareholder approval, and without adequate justification, extended the term of a poison pill by one year or less in two consecutive years, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against the entire board.

Size of the Board of Directors

While we do not believe there is a universally applicable optimal board size, we do believe boards should have at least five directors to ensure sufficient diversity in decision-making and to enable the formation of key board committees with independent directors. Conversely, we believe that boards with more than 20 members will typically suffer under the weight of “too many cooks in the kitchen” and have difficulty reaching consensus and making timely decisions. Sometimes the presence of too many voices can make it difficult to draw on the wisdom and experience in the room by virtue of the need to limit the discussion so that each voice may be heard.

To that end, we typically recommend voting against the chair of the nominating committee (or the governance committee, in the absence of a nominating committee) at a board with fewer than five directors or more than 20 directors.

Controlled Companies

We believe controlled companies warrant certain exceptions to our independence standards. The board’s function is to protect shareholder interests; however, when an individual, entity (or group of shareholders party to a formal agreement) owns more than 50% of the voting shares, the interests of the majority of shareholders

__________________________________________

32 We do not apply a look-back period for this situation. The interlock policy applies to both public and private companies. We will also evaluate multiple board interlocks among non-insiders (i.e., multiple directors serving on the same boards at other companies), for evidence of a pattern of poor oversight.

33 Refer to the “Governance Structure and the Shareholder Franchise” section for further discussion of our policies regarding anti-takeover measures, including poison pills.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			33

are the interests of that entity or individual. Consequently, Glass Lewis does not apply our usual two-thirds board independence rule and therefore we will not recommend voting against boards whose composition reflects the makeup of the shareholder population.

Independence Exceptions

The independence exceptions that we make for controlled companies are as follows:

1.We do not require that controlled companies have boards that are at least two-thirds independent. So long as the insiders and/or affiliates are connected with the controlling entity, we accept the presence of non-independent board members.

2.The compensation committee and nominating and governance committees do not need to consist solely of independent directors.

a.We believe that standing nominating and corporate governance committees at controlled companies are unnecessary. Although having a committee charged with the duties of searching for, selecting, and nominating independent directors can be beneficial, the unique composition of a controlled company’s shareholder base makes such committees weak and irrelevant.

b.Likewise, we believe that independent compensation committees at controlled companies are unnecessary. Although independent directors are the best choice for approving and monitoring senior executives’ pay, controlled companies serve a unique shareholder population whose voting power ensures the protection of its interests. As such, we believe that having affiliated directors on a controlled company’s compensation committee is acceptable. However, given that a controlled company has certain obligations to minority shareholders we feel that an insider should not serve on the compensation committee. Therefore, Glass Lewis will recommend voting against any insider (the CEO or otherwise) serving on the compensation committee.

3.Controlled companies do not need an independent chair or an independent lead or presiding director. Although an independent director in a position of authority on the board — such as chair or presiding director — can best carry out the board’s duties, controlled companies serve a unique shareholder population whose voting power ensures the protection of its interests.

Size of the Board of Directors

We have no board size requirements for controlled companies.

Audit Committee Independence

Despite a controlled company’s status, unlike for the other key committees, we nevertheless believe that audit committees should consist solely of independent directors. Regardless of a company’s controlled status, the interests of all shareholders must be protected by ensuring the integrity and accuracy of the company’s financial statements. Allowing affiliated directors to oversee the preparation of financial reports could create an insurmountable conflict of interest.

Board Responsiveness at Multi-Class Companies


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			34

structures with unequal voting rights, we will generally examine the level of approval or disapproval attributed to unaffiliated shareholders on a “one share, one vote” basis. At controlled and multi-class companies, when at least 20% or more of unaffiliated shareholders vote contrary to management, we believe that boards should engage with shareholders and demonstrate some initial level of responsiveness, and when a majority or more of unaffiliated shareholders vote contrary to management we believe that boards should engage with shareholders and provide a more robust response to fully address shareholder concerns.

Significant Shareholders

Where an individual or entity holds between 20-50% of a company’s voting power, we believe it is reasonable to allow proportional representation on the board and committees (excluding the audit committee) based on the

individual or entity’s percentage of ownership.

Governance Following an IPO, Spin-off, or Direct Listing

We believe companies that have recently completed an initial public offering (IPO), spin-off, or direct listing should be allowed adequate time to fully comply with marketplace listing requirements and meet basic corporate governance standards. Generally speaking, we refrain from making recommendations on the basis of governance standards (e.g., board independence, committee membership and structure, meeting attendance, etc.) during the one-year period following an IPO.

However, some cases warrant shareholder action against the board of a company that have completed an IPO, spin-off, or direct listing within the past year. When evaluating companies that have recently gone public, Glass Lewis will review the terms of the applicable governing documents in order to determine whether shareholder rights are being severely restricted indefinitely. We believe boards that approve highly restrictive governing documents have demonstrated that they may subvert shareholder interests following the IPO. In conducting this evaluation, Glass Lewis will consider:

1.The adoption of anti-takeover provisions such as a poison pill or classified board

2.Supermajority vote requirements to amend governing documents

3.The presence of exclusive forum or fee-shifting provisions

4.Whether shareholders can call special meetings or act by written consent

5.The voting standard provided for the election of directors

6.The ability of shareholders to remove directors without cause

7.The presence of evergreen provisions in the company’s equity compensation arrangements

8.The presence of a multi-class share structure which does not afford common shareholders voting power that is aligned with their economic interest

In cases where Glass Lewis determines that the board has approved overly restrictive governing documents, we will generally recommend voting against members of the governance committee. If there is no governance committee, or if a portion of such committee members are not standing for election due to a classified board structure, we will expand our recommendations to additional director nominees, based on who is standing for election.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			35

In cases where, preceding an IPO, the board adopts a multi-class share structure where voting rights are not aligned with economic interest, or an anti-takeover provision, such as a poison pill or classified board, we will generally recommend voting against all members of the board who served at the time of the IPO if the board: (i) did not also commit to submitting these provisions to a shareholder vote at the company’s first shareholder meeting following the IPO; or (ii) did not provide for a reasonable sunset of these provisions (generally three to five years in the case of a classified board or poison pill; or seven years or less in the case of a multi-class share structure). In the case of a multi-class share structure, if these provisions are put to a shareholder vote, we will examine the level of approval or disapproval attributed to unaffiliated shareholders when determining the vote outcome.

In our view, adopting an anti-takeover device unfairly penalizes future shareholders who (except for electing to buy or sell the stock) are unable to weigh in on a matter that could potentially negatively impact their ownership interest. This notion is strengthened when a board adopts a classified board with an infinite duration or a poison pill with a five- to ten-year term immediately prior to going public, thereby insulating management for a substantial amount of time.

In addition, shareholders should also be wary of companies that adopt supermajority voting requirements before their IPO. Absent explicit provisions in the articles or bylaws stipulating that certain policies will be phased out over a certain period of time, long-term shareholders could find themselves in the predicament of having to attain a supermajority vote to approve future proposals seeking to eliminate such policies.

Governance Following a Business Combination with a Special Purpose Acquisition Company

The business combination of a private company with a publicly traded special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) facilitates the private entity becoming a publicly traded corporation. Thus, the business combination

represents the private company’s de-facto IPO. We believe that some cases warrant shareholder action against the board of a company that have completed a business combination with a SPAC within the past year.

At meetings where shareholders vote on the business combination of a SPAC with a private company, shareholders are generally voting on a new corporate charter for the post-combination company as a condition to approval of the business combination. In many cases, shareholders are faced with the dilemma of having to approve corporate charters that severely restrict shareholder rights to facilitate the business combination.

Therefore, when shareholders are required to approve binding charters as a condition to approval of a business combination with a SPAC, we believe shareholders should also be provided with advisory votes on material charter amendments as a means to voice their opinions on such restrictive governance provisions.

When evaluating companies that have recently gone public via business combination with a SPAC, Glass Lewis will review the terms of the applicable governing documents to determine whether shareholder rights are being severely restricted indefinitely and whether these restrictive provisions were put forth for a shareholder vote on an advisory basis at the prior meeting where shareholders voted on the business combination.

In cases where, prior to the combined company becoming publicly traded, the board adopts a multi-class share structure where voting rights are not aligned with economic interest, or an anti-takeover provision, such as a poison pill or classified board, we will generally recommend voting against all members of the board who served


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			36

at the time of the combined company becoming publicly traded if the board: (i) did not also submit these provisions to a shareholder vote on an advisory basis at the prior meeting where shareholders voted on the business combination; (ii) did not also commit to submitting these provisions to a shareholder vote at the company’s first shareholder meeting following the company becoming publicly traded; or (iii) did not provide for a reasonable sunset of these provisions (generally three to five years in the case of a classified board or poison pill; or seven years or less in the case of a multi-class share structure).

Consistent with our view on IPOs, adopting an anti-takeover device unfairly penalizes future shareholders who (except for electing to buy or sell the stock) are unable to weigh in on a matter that could potentially negatively impact their ownership interest.

Dual-Listed or Foreign-Incorporated Companies

For companies that trade on multiple exchanges or are incorporated in foreign jurisdictions but trade only in the U.S., we will apply the governance standard most relevant in each situation. We will consider a number of factors in determining which Glass Lewis country-specific policy to apply, including but not limited to: (i) the corporate governance structure and features of the company including whether the board structure is unique to a particular market; (ii) the nature of the proposals; (iii) the location of the company’s primary listing, if one can be determined; (iv) the regulatory/governance regime that the board is reporting against; and (v) the availability and completeness of the company’s SEC filings.

OTC-listed Companies

Companies trading on the OTC Bulletin Board are not considered “listed companies” under SEC rules and therefore not subject to the same governance standards as listed companies. However, we believe that more stringent corporate governance standards should be applied to these companies given that their shares are still publicly traded.

When reviewing OTC companies, Glass Lewis will review the available disclosure relating to the shareholder meeting to determine whether shareholders are able to evaluate several key pieces of information, including: (i) the composition of the board’s key committees, if any; (ii) the level of share ownership of company insiders or directors; (iii) the board meeting attendance record of directors; (iv) executive and non-employee director compensation; (v) related-party transactions conducted during the past year; and (vi) the board’s leadership structure and determinations regarding director independence.

We are particularly concerned when company disclosure lacks any information regarding the board’s key committees. We believe that committees of the board are an essential tool for clarifying how the responsibilities of the board are being delegated, and specifically for indicating which directors are accountable for ensuring: (i) the independence and quality of directors, and the transparency and integrity of the nominating process; (ii) compensation programs that are fair and appropriate; (iii) proper oversight of the company’s accounting, financial reporting, and internal and external audits; and (iv) general adherence to principles of good corporate governance.

In cases where shareholders are unable to identify which board members are responsible for ensuring oversight of the above-mentioned responsibilities, we may consider recommending against certain members of the board.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			37

Ordinarily, we believe it is the responsibility of the corporate governance committee to provide thorough

disclosure of the board’s governance practices. In the absence of such a committee, we believe it is appropriate to hold the board’s chair or, if such individual is an executive of the company, the longest-serving non-executive board member accountable.

Mutual Fund Boards

Mutual funds, or investment companies, are structured differently from regular public companies (i.e., operating companies). Typically, members of a fund’s advisor are on the board and management takes on a different role from that of regular public companies. Thus, we focus on a short list of requirements, although many of our guidelines remain the same.

The following mutual fund policies are similar to the policies for regular public companies:

1.Size of the board of directors — The board should be made up of between five and twenty directors.

2.The CFO on the board — Neither the CFO of the fund nor the CFO of the fund’s registered investment

advisor should serve on the board.

3.Independence of the audit committee — The audit committee should consist solely of independent directors.

4.Audit committee financial expert — At least one member of the audit committee should be designated as the audit committee financial expert.

The following differences from regular public companies apply at mutual funds:

1.Independence of the board — We believe that three-fourths of an investment company’s board should be made up of independent directors. This is consistent with a proposed SEC rule on investment company boards. The Investment Company Act requires 40% of the board to be independent, but in 2001, the SEC amended the Exemptive Rules to require that a majority of a mutual fund board be independent. In 2005, the SEC proposed increasing the independence threshold to 75%. In 2006, a federal appeals court ordered that this rule amendment be put back out for public comment, putting it back into “proposed rule” status. Since mutual fund boards play a vital role in overseeing the relationship between the fund and its investment manager, there is greater need for independent oversight than there is for an operating company board.

2.When the auditor is not up for ratification — We do not recommend voting against the audit committee if the auditor is not up for ratification. Due to the different legal structure of an investment company compared to an operating company, the auditor for the investment company (i.e., mutual fund)

does not conduct the same level of financial review for each investment company as for an operating company.

3.Non-independent chair — The SEC has proposed that the chair of the fund board be independent. We agree that the roles of a mutual fund’s chair and CEO should be separate. Although we believe this would be best at all companies, we recommend voting against the chair of an investment company’s nominating committee as well as the board chair if the chair and CEO of a mutual fund are the same person and the fund does not have an independent lead or presiding director. Seven former SEC commissioners support the appointment of an independent chair and we agree with them that “an independent board chair would be better able to create conditions favoring the long-term interests of


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			38

fund shareholders than would a chair who is an executive of the advisor.” (See the comment letter sent

to the SEC in support of the proposed rule at http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/indchair.pdf.)

4.Multiple funds overseen by the same director — Unlike service on a public company board, mutual fund boards require much less of a time commitment. Mutual fund directors typically serve on dozens of other mutual fund boards, often within the same fund complex. The Investment Company Institute’s (ICI) Overview of Fund Governance Practices, 1994-2012, indicates that the average number of funds served by an independent director in 2012 was 53. Absent evidence that a specific director is hindered from being an effective board member at a fund due to service on other funds’ boards, we refrain from maintaining a cap on the number of outside mutual fund boards that we believe a director can serve on.

Declassified Boards

Glass Lewis favors the repeal of staggered boards and the annual election of directors. We believe staggered boards are less accountable to shareholders than boards that are elected annually. Furthermore, we feel the annual election of directors encourages board members to focus on shareholder interests.

Empirical studies have shown: (i) staggered boards are associated with a reduction in a firm’s valuation; and (ii) in the context of hostile takeovers, staggered boards operate as a takeover defense, which entrenches management, discourages potential acquirers, and delivers a lower return to target shareholders.

In our view, there is no evidence to demonstrate that staggered boards improve shareholder returns in a takeover context. Some research has indicated that shareholders are worse off when a staggered board blocks a transaction; further, when a staggered board negotiates a friendly transaction, no statistically significant difference in premium occurs.34 Additional research found that charter-based staggered boards “reduce the market value of a firm by 4% to 6% of its market capitalization” and that “staggered boards bring about and not merely reflect this reduction in market value.”35 A subsequent study reaffirmed that classified boards reduce shareholder value, finding “that the ongoing process of dismantling staggered boards, encouraged by

institutional investors, could well contribute to increasing shareholder wealth.”36

Shareholders have increasingly come to agree with this view. In 2019, 90% of S&P 500 companies had declassified boards, up from 68% in 2009.37 Management proposals to declassify boards are approved with near unanimity and shareholder proposals on the topic also receive strong shareholder support; in 2014, shareholder proposals requesting that companies declassify their boards received average support of 84% (excluding

__________________________________________

34 Lucian Bebchuk, John Coates IV, Guhan Subramanian, “The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards: Further

Findings and a Reply to Symposium Participants,” 55 Stanford Law Review 885-917 (2002).

35 Lucian Bebchuk, Alma Cohen, “The Costs of Entrenched Boards” (2004).

36 Lucian Bebchuk, Alma Cohen and Charles C.Y. Wang, “Staggered Boards and the Wealth of Shareholders: Evidence from

a Natural Experiment,”

SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1706806 (2010), p. 26.

37 Spencer Stuart Board Index, 2019, p. 15.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			39

abstentions and broker non-votes), whereas in 1987, only 16.4% of votes cast favored board declassification.38 Further, a growing number of companies, nearly half of all those targeted by shareholder proposals requesting that all directors stand for election annually, either recommended shareholders support the proposal or made no recommendation, a departure from the more traditional management recommendation to vote against shareholder proposals.

Given our belief that declassified boards promote director accountability, the empirical evidence suggesting staggered boards reduce a company’s value and the established shareholder opposition to such a structure, Glass Lewis supports the declassification of boards and the annual election of directors.

Board Composition and Refreshment

Glass Lewis strongly supports routine director evaluation, including independent external reviews, and periodic board refreshment to foster the sharing of diverse perspectives in the boardroom and the generation of new ideas and business strategies. Further, we believe the board should evaluate the need for changes to board composition based on an analysis of skills and experience necessary for the company, as well as the results of the director evaluations, as opposed to relying solely on age or tenure limits. When necessary, shareholders can address concerns regarding proper board composition through director elections.

In our view, a director’s experience can be a valuable asset to shareholders because of the complex, critical issues that boards face. This said, we recognize that in rare circumstances, a lack of refreshment can contribute to a lack of board responsiveness to poor company performance.

We will note as a potential concern instances where the average tenure of non-executive directors is 10 years or more and no new directors have joined the board in the past five years. While we will be highlighting this as a potential area of concern, we will not be making voting recommendations strictly on this basis, unless we have identified other governance or board performance concerns.

On occasion, age or term limits can be used as a means to remove a director for boards that are unwilling to police their membership and enforce turnover. Some shareholders support term limits as a way to force change in such circumstances.

While we understand that age limits can aid board succession planning, the long-term impact of age limits restricts experienced and potentially valuable board members from service through an arbitrary means. We

believe that shareholders are better off monitoring the board’s overall composition, including the diversity of its members, the alignment of the board’s areas of expertise with a company’s strategy, the board’s approach to corporate governance, and its stewardship of company performance, rather than imposing inflexible rules that don’t necessarily correlate with returns or benefits for shareholders.

However, if a board adopts term/age limits, it should follow through and not waive such limits. In cases where the board waives its term/age limits for two or more consecutive years, Glass Lewis will generally recommend that shareholders vote against the nominating and/or governance committee chair, unless a compelling

__________________________________________

38 Lucian Bebchuk, John Coates IV and Guhan Subramanian, “The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards: Theory, Evidence, and Policy”.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			40

rationale is provided for why the board is proposing to waive this rule, such as consummation of a corporate transaction.

Board Diversity

Glass Lewis recognizes the importance of ensuring that the board is composed of directors who have a diversity of skills, thought and experience, as such diversity benefits companies by providing a broad range of perspectives and insights. Glass Lewis closely reviews the composition of the board for representation of diverse director candidates.

Board Gender Diversity

Beginning in 2023, we will generally recommend voting against the chair of the nominating committee of a board that is not at least 30 percent gender diverse, or all members of the nominating committee of a board with no gender diverse directors, at companies within the Russell 3000 index. For companies outside the Russell 3000 index, our existing policy requiring a minimum of one gender diverse director will remain in place.

We may extend our gender diversity recommendations to additional members of the nominating committee in cases where the committee chair is not standing for election due to a classified board, or based on other factors, including the company’s size and industry, applicable laws in its state of headquarters, and its overall governance profile.

Additionally, when making these voting recommendations, we will carefully review a company’s disclosure of its diversity considerations and may refrain from recommending that shareholders vote against directors when boards have provided a sufficient rationale or plan to address the lack of diversity on the board, including a timeline of when the board intends to appoint additional gender diverse directors (generally by the next annual meeting).

Board Underrepresented Community Diversity

Beginning in 2023, we will generally recommend against the chair of the nominating committee of a board with fewer than one director from an underrepresented community on the board at companies within the Russell 1000 index.

We define “underrepresented community director” as an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, North African, Middle Eastern, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaskan Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. For the purposes of this evaluation, we will rely solely on self-identified demographic information as disclosed in company proxy statements.

We may extend our underrepresented community diversity recommendations to additional members of the nominating committee in cases where the committee chair is not standing for election due to a classified board, or based on other factors, including the company’s size and industry, applicable laws in its state of headquarters, and its overall governance profile.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			41

Additionally, when making these voting recommendations, we will carefully review a company’s disclosure of its diversity considerations and may refrain from recommending that shareholders vote against directors when boards have provided a sufficient rationale or plan to address the lack of diversity on the board, including a timeline to appoint additional directors from an underrepresented community (generally by the next annual meeting).

State Laws on Diversity

Several states have begun to encourage board diversity through legislation. Some state laws imposed mandatory board composition requirements, while other states have enacted or are considering legislation that encourages companies to diversify their boards but does not mandate board composition requirements.

Furthermore, several states have enacted or are considering enacting certain disclosure or reporting requirements in filings made with each respective state annually.

Glass Lewis will recommend in accordance with mandatory board composition requirements set forth in applicable state laws when they come into effect. We will generally refrain from recommending against directors when applicable state laws do not mandate board composition requirements, are non-binding, or solely impose disclosure or reporting requirements.

We note that during 2022, California’s Senate Bill 826 and Assembly Bill 979 regarding board gender and “underrepresented community” diversity, respectively, were both deemed to violate the equal protection clause of the California state constitution. These laws are currently in the appeals process.

Accordingly, where we previously recommended in accordance with mandatory board composition requirements set forth in California’s SB 826 and AB 979, we will refrain from providing recommendations pursuant to these state board composition requirements until further notice while we continue to monitor the appeals process. However, we will continue to monitor compliance with these requirements.

Disclosure of Director Diversity and Skills

Because company disclosure is critical when measuring the mix of diverse attributes and skills of directors, Glass Lewis assesses the quality of such disclosure in companies’ proxy statements. Accordingly, we reflect how a company’s proxy statement presents: (i) the board’s current percentage of racial/ethnic diversity; (ii) whether the board’s definition of diversity explicitly includes gender and/or race/ethnicity; (iii) whether the board has adopted a policy requiring women and minorities to be included in the initial pool of candidates when selecting new director nominees (aka “Rooney Rule”); and (iv) board skills disclosure. Such ratings will help inform our assessment of a company’s overall governance and may be a contributing factor in our recommendations when additional board-related concerns have been identified.

At companies in the Russell 1000 index that have not provided any disclosure in any of the above categories, we will generally recommend voting against the chair of the nominating and/or governance committee. Further, beginning in 2023, when companies in the Russell 1000 index have not provided any disclosure of individual or aggregate racial/ethnic minority board demographic information, we will generally recommend voting against the chair of the nominating and/or governance committee.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			42

Stock Exchange Diversity Disclosure Requirements

On August 6, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved new listing rules regarding board diversity and disclosure for Nasdaq-listed companies. Beginning in 2022, companies listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange are required to disclose certain board diversity statistics annually in a standardized format in the proxy statement or on the company's website. Nasdaq-listed companies are required to provide this disclosure by the later of (i) August 8, 2022, or (ii) the date the company files its proxy statement for its 2022 annual meeting. Accordingly, for annual meetings held after August 8, 2022, of applicable Nasdaq-listed companies, we will recommend voting against the chair of the governance committee when the required disclosure has not been provided.

Proxy Access

In lieu of running their own contested election, proxy access would not only allow certain shareholders to nominate directors to company boards but the shareholder nominees would be included on the company’s ballot, significantly enhancing the ability of shareholders to play a meaningful role in selecting their

representatives. Glass Lewis generally supports affording shareholders the right to nominate director candidates to management’s proxy as a means to ensure that significant, long-term shareholders have an ability to nominate candidates to the board.

Companies generally seek shareholder approval to amend company bylaws to adopt proxy access in response to shareholder engagement or pressure, usually in the form of a shareholder proposal requesting proxy access, although some companies may adopt some elements of proxy access without prompting. Glass Lewis considers several factors when evaluating whether to support proposals for companies to adopt proxy access including the specified minimum ownership and holding requirement for shareholders to nominate one or more directors, as well as company size, performance and responsiveness to shareholders.

For a discussion of recent regulatory events in this area, along with a detailed overview of the Glass Lewis approach to shareholder proposals regarding Proxy Access, refer to Glass Lewis’ Proxy Paper Guidelines for Environmental, Social & Governance Initiatives, available at www.glasslewis.com.

Majority Vote for Election of Directors

Majority voting for the election of directors is fast becoming the de facto standard in corporate board elections. In our view, the majority voting proposals are an effort to make the case for shareholder impact on director elections on a company-specific basis.

While this proposal would not give shareholders the opportunity to nominate directors or lead to elections where shareholders have a choice among director candidates, if implemented, the proposal would allow shareholders to have a voice in determining whether the nominees proposed by the board should actually serve as the overseer-representatives of shareholders in the boardroom. We believe this would be a favorable outcome for shareholders.

The number of shareholder proposals requesting that companies adopt a majority voting standard has declined significantly during the past decade, largely as a result of widespread adoption of majority voting or director


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			43

resignation policies at U.S. companies. In 2019, 89% of the S&P 500 Index had implemented a resignation policy for directors failing to receive majority shareholder support, compared to 65% in 2009.39

The Plurality Vote Standard

Today, most U.S. companies still elect directors by a plurality vote standard. Under that standard, if one shareholder holding only one share votes in favor of a nominee (including that director, if the director is a shareholder), that nominee “wins” the election and assumes a seat on the board. The common concern among companies with a plurality voting standard is the possibility that one or more directors would not receive a majority of votes, resulting in “failed elections.”

Advantages of a Majority Vote Standard

If a majority vote standard were implemented, a nominee would have to receive the support of a majority of the shares voted in order to be elected. Thus, shareholders could collectively vote to reject a director they believe will not pursue their best interests. Given that so few directors (less than 100 a year) do not receive majority support from shareholders, we think that a majority vote standard is reasonable since it will neither result in many failed director elections nor reduce the willingness of qualified, shareholder-focused directors to serve in the future. Further, most directors who fail to receive a majority shareholder vote in favor of their election do not step down, underscoring the need for true majority voting.

We believe that a majority vote standard will likely lead to more attentive directors. Although shareholders only rarely fail to support directors, the occasional majority vote against a director’s election will likely deter the election of directors with a record of ignoring shareholder interests. Glass Lewis will therefore generally support proposals calling for the election of directors by a majority vote, excepting contested director elections.

In response to the high level of support majority voting has garnered, many companies have voluntarily taken steps to implement majority voting or modified approaches to majority voting. These steps range from a modified approach requiring directors that receive a majority of withheld votes to resign (i.e., a resignation policy) to actually requiring a majority vote of outstanding shares to elect directors.

We feel that the modified approach does not go far enough because requiring a director to resign is not the same as requiring a majority vote to elect a director and does not allow shareholders a definitive voice in the election process. Further, under the modified approach, the corporate governance committee could reject a resignation and, even if it accepts the resignation, the corporate governance committee decides on the

director’s replacement. And since the modified approach is usually adopted as a policy by the board or a board

committee, it could be altered by the same board or committee at any time.

Conflicting and Excluded Proposals

SEC Rule 14a-8(i)(9) allows companies to exclude shareholder proposals “if the proposal directly conflicts with one of the company’s own proposals to be submitted to shareholders at the same meeting.” On October 22,

__________________________________________

39 Spencer Stuart Board Index, 2019, p. 15.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			44

2015, the SEC issued Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14H (SLB 14H) clarifying its rule concerning the exclusion of certain shareholder proposals when similar items are also on the ballot. SLB 14H increased the burden on companies to prove to SEC staff that a conflict exists; therefore, many companies still chose to place management proposals alongside similar shareholder proposals in many cases.

During the 2018 proxy season, a new trend in the SEC’s interpretation of this rule emerged. Upon submission of shareholder proposals requesting that companies adopt a lower special meeting threshold, several companies petitioned the SEC for no-action relief under the premise that the shareholder proposals conflicted with management’s own special meeting proposals, even though the management proposals set a higher threshold than those requested by the proponent. No-action relief was granted to these companies; however, the SEC stipulated that the companies must state in the rationale for the management proposals that a vote in favor of management’s proposal was tantamount to a vote against the adoption of a lower special meeting threshold. In certain instances, shareholder proposals to lower an existing special meeting right threshold were excluded on the basis that they conflicted with management proposals seeking to ratify the existing special meeting rights. We find the exclusion of these shareholder proposals to be especially problematic as, in these instances, shareholders are not offered any enhanced shareholder right, nor would the approval (or rejection) of the

ratification proposal initiate any type of meaningful change to shareholders’ rights.

In instances where companies have excluded shareholder proposals, such as those instances where special

meeting shareholder proposals are excluded as a result of “conflicting” management proposals, Glass Lewis will

take a case-by-case approach, taking into account the following issues:

•The threshold proposed by the shareholder resolution;

•The threshold proposed or established by management and the attendant rationale for the threshold;

•Whether management’s proposal is seeking to ratify an existing special meeting right or adopt a bylaw that would establish a special meeting right; and

•The company’s overall governance profile, including its overall responsiveness to and engagement with

shareholders.

Glass Lewis generally favors a 10-15% special meeting right. Accordingly, Glass Lewis will generally recommend voting for management or shareholder proposals that fall within this range. When faced with conflicting proposals, Glass Lewis will generally recommend in favor of the lower special meeting right and will recommend voting against the proposal with the higher threshold. However, in instances where there are conflicting management and shareholder proposals and a company has not established a special meeting right, Glass Lewis may recommend that shareholders vote in favor of the shareholder proposal and that they abstain from a management-proposed bylaw amendment seeking to establish a special meeting right. We believe that an abstention is appropriate in this instance in order to ensure that shareholders are sending a clear signal regarding their preference for the appropriate threshold for a special meeting right, while not directly opposing the establishment of such a right.

In cases where the company excludes a shareholder proposal seeking a reduced special meeting right by means of ratifying a management proposal that is materially different from the shareholder proposal, we will generally recommend voting against the chair or members of the governance committee.

In other instances of conflicting management and shareholder proposals, Glass Lewis will consider the following:


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			45

•The nature of the underlying issue;

•The benefit to shareholders of implementing the proposal;

•The materiality of the differences between the terms of the shareholder proposal and management proposal;

•The context of a company’s shareholder base, corporate structure and other relevant circumstances;

and

•A company’s overall governance profile and, specifically, its responsiveness to shareholders as

evidenced by a company’s response to previous shareholder proposals and its adoption of progressive shareholder rights provisions.

In recent years, we have seen the dynamic nature of the considerations given by the SEC when determining whether companies may exclude certain shareholder proposals. We understand that not all shareholder proposals serve the long-term interests of shareholders, and value and respect the limitations placed on shareholder proponents, as certain shareholder proposals can unduly burden companies. However, Glass Lewis believes that shareholders should be able to vote on issues of material importance.

We view the shareholder proposal process as an important part of advancing shareholder rights and encouraging responsible and financially sustainable business practices. While recognizing that certain proposals cross the line between the purview of shareholders and that of the board, we generally believe that companies should not limit investors’ ability to vote on shareholder proposals that advance certain rights or promote beneficial disclosure. Accordingly, Glass Lewis will make note of instances where a company has successfully petitioned the SEC to exclude shareholder proposals. If after review we believe that the exclusion of a shareholder proposal is detrimental to shareholders, we may, in certain very limited circumstances, recommend against members of the governance committee.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			46

Transparency and Integrity in Financial Reporting

Auditor Ratification

The auditor’s role as gatekeeper is crucial in ensuring the integrity and transparency of the financial information necessary for protecting shareholder value. Shareholders rely on the auditor to ask tough questions and to do a thorough analysis of a company’s books to ensure that the information provided to shareholders is complete, accurate, fair, and that it is a reasonable representation of a company’s financial position. The only way shareholders can make rational investment decisions is if the market is equipped with accurate information about a company’s fiscal health. As stated in the October 6, 2008 Final Report of the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession to the U.S. Department of the Treasury:

“The auditor is expected to offer critical and objective judgment on the financial matters under consideration, and actual and perceived absence of conflicts is critical to that expectation. The Committee believes that auditors, investors, public companies, and other market participants must understand the independence requirements and their objectives, and that auditors must adopt a mindset of skepticism when facing situations that may compromise their independence.”

As such, shareholders should demand an objective, competent and diligent auditor who performs at or above professional standards at every company in which the investors hold an interest. Like directors, auditors should be free from conflicts of interest and should avoid situations requiring a choice between the auditor’s interests and the public’s interests. Almost without exception, shareholders should be able to annually review an auditor’s performance and to annually ratify a board’s auditor selection. Moreover, in October 2008, the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession went even further, and recommended that “to further enhance audit committee oversight and auditor accountability ... disclosure in the company proxy statement regarding shareholder ratification [should] include the name(s) of the senior auditing partner(s) staffed on the

engagement.”40

On August 16, 2011, the PCAOB issued a Concept Release seeking public comment on ways that auditor independence, objectivity and professional skepticism could be enhanced, with a specific emphasis on mandatory audit firm rotation. The PCAOB convened several public roundtable meetings during 2012 to further discuss such matters. Glass Lewis believes auditor rotation can ensure both the independence of the auditor and the integrity of the audit; we will typically recommend supporting proposals to require auditor rotation when the proposal uses a reasonable period of time (usually not less than 5-7 years), particularly at companies with a history of accounting problems.

On June 1, 2017, the PCAOB adopted new standards to enhance auditor reports by providing additional important information to investors. For companies with fiscal year end dates on or after December 15, 2017,

__________________________________________

40 “Final Report of the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession to the U.S. Department of the Treasury.” p. VIII:20,

October 6, 2008.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			47

reports were required to include the year in which the auditor began serving consecutively as the company’s auditor. For large accelerated filers with fiscal year ends of June 30, 2019 or later, and for all other companies with fiscal year ends of December 15, 2020 or later, communication of critical audit matters (CAMs) will also be required. CAMs are matters that have been communicated to the audit committee, are related to accounts or disclosures that are material to the financial statements, and involve especially challenging, subjective, or complex auditor judgment.

Glass Lewis believes the additional reporting requirements are beneficial for investors. The additional disclosures can provide investors with information that is critical to making an informed judgment about an auditor’s independence and performance. Furthermore, we believe the additional requirements are an important step toward enhancing the relevance and usefulness of auditor reports, which too often are seen as boilerplate compliance documents that lack the relevant details to provide meaningful insight into a particular audit.

Voting Recommendations on Auditor Ratification

We generally support management’s choice of auditor except when we believe the auditor’s independence or audit integrity has been compromised. Where a board has not allowed shareholders to review and ratify an auditor, we typically recommend voting against the audit committee chair. When there have been material restatements of annual financial statements or material weaknesses in internal controls, we usually recommend voting against the entire audit committee.

Reasons why we may not recommend ratification of an auditor include:

1.When audit fees plus audit-related fees total less than the tax fees and/or other non-audit fees.

2.Recent material restatements of annual financial statements, including those resulting in the reporting of material weaknesses in internal controls and including late filings by the company where the auditor bears some responsibility for the restatement or late filing.41

3.When the auditor performs prohibited services such as tax-shelter work, tax services for the CEO or CFO, or contingent-fee work, such as a fee based on a percentage of economic benefit to the company.

4.When audit fees are excessively low, especially when compared with other companies in the same industry.

5.When the company has aggressive accounting policies.

6.When the company has poor disclosure or lack of transparency in its financial statements.

7.Where the auditor limited its liability through its contract with the company or the audit contract requires the corporation to use alternative dispute resolution procedures without adequate justification.

8.We also look for other relationships or concerns with the auditor that might suggest a conflict between

the auditor’s interests and shareholder interests.

9.In determining whether shareholders would benefit from rotating the company’s auditor, where

relevant we will consider factors that may call into question an auditor’s effectiveness, including auditor

__________________________________________

41 An auditor does not audit interim financial statements. Thus, we generally do not believe that an auditor should be opposed due to a restatement of interim financial statements unless the nature of the misstatement is clear from a reading of the incorrect financial statements.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			48

tenure, a pattern of inaccurate audits, and any ongoing litigation or significant controversies. When Glass Lewis considers ongoing litigation and significant controversies, it is mindful that such matters may involve unadjudicated allegations. Glass Lewis does not assume the truth of such allegations or that the law has been violated. Instead, Glass Lewis focuses more broadly on whether, under the particular facts and circumstances presented, the nature and number of such lawsuits or other significant controversies reflects on the risk profile of the company or suggests that appropriate risk mitigation measures may be warranted.”

Pension Accounting Issues

A pension accounting question occasionally raised in proxy proposals is what effect, if any, projected returns on employee pension assets should have on a company’s net income. This issue often arises in the executive- compensation context in a discussion of the extent to which pension accounting should be reflected in business performance for purposes of calculating payments to executives.

Glass Lewis believes that pension credits should not be included in measuring income that is used to award performance-based compensation. Because many of the assumptions used in accounting for retirement plans are subject to the company’s discretion, management would have an obvious conflict of interest if pay were tied to pension income. In our view, projected income from pensions does not truly reflect a company’s performance.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			49

The Link Between Compensation and Performance

Glass Lewis carefully reviews the compensation awarded to senior executives, as we believe that this is an important area in which the board’s priorities are revealed. Glass Lewis strongly believes executive compensation should be linked directly with the performance of the business the executive is charged with managing. We believe the most effective compensation arrangements provide for an appropriate mix of

performance-based short- and long-term incentives in addition to fixed pay elements while promoting a prudent and sustainable level of risk-taking.

Glass Lewis believes that comprehensive, timely and transparent disclosure of executive pay is critical to allowing shareholders to evaluate the extent to which pay is aligned with company performance. When reviewing proxy materials, Glass Lewis examines whether the company discloses the performance metrics used to determine executive compensation. We recognize performance metrics must necessarily vary depending on the company and industry, among other factors, and may include a wide variety of financial measures as well as industry-specific performance indicators. However, we believe companies should disclose why the specific performance metrics were selected and how the actions they are designed to incentivize will lead to better corporate performance.

Moreover, it is rarely in shareholders’ interests to disclose competitive data about individual salaries below the senior executive level. Such disclosure could create internal personnel discord that would be counterproductive for the company and its shareholders. While we favor full disclosure for senior executives and we view pay disclosure at the aggregate level (e.g., the number of employees being paid over a certain amount or in certain categories) as potentially useful, we do not believe shareholders need or will benefit from detailed reports about individual management employees other than the most senior executives. Additional company disclosure provided as a result of the recent final rules on pay versus performance from the SEC in August 2022 may be considered if they provide further insight into a company’s executive pay program.

Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Say-on-Pay)

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) required companies to hold an advisory vote on executive compensation at the first shareholder meeting that occurs six months after enactment of the bill (January 21, 2011).

This practice of allowing shareholders a non-binding vote on a company’s compensation report is standard practice in many non-U.S. countries, and has been a requirement for most companies in the United Kingdom since 2003 and in Australia since 2005. Although say-on-pay proposals are non-binding, a high level of

“against” or “abstain” votes indicates substantial shareholder concern about a company’s compensation policies

and procedures.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			50

Given the complexity of most companies’ compensation programs, Glass Lewis applies a highly nuanced approach when analyzing advisory votes on executive compensation. We review each company’s compensation on a case-by-case basis, recognizing that each company must be examined in the context of industry, size, maturity, performance, financial condition, its historic pay for performance practices, and any other relevant internal or external factors.

We believe that each company should design and apply specific compensation policies and practices that are appropriate to the circumstances of the company and, in particular, will attract and retain competent executives and other staff, while motivating them to grow the company’s long-term shareholder value.

Where we find those specific policies and practices serve to reasonably align compensation with performance, and such practices are adequately disclosed, Glass Lewis will recommend supporting the company’s approach. If, however, those specific policies and practices fail to demonstrably link compensation with performance, Glass Lewis will generally recommend voting against the say-on-pay proposal.

Glass Lewis reviews say-on-pay proposals on both a qualitative basis and a quantitative basis, with a focus on several main areas:

•The overall design and structure of the company’s executive compensation programs including selection

and challenging nature of performance metrics;

•The implementation and effectiveness of the company’s executive compensation programs including

pay mix and use of performance metrics in determining pay levels;

•The quality and content of the company’s disclosure;

•The quantum paid to executives; and

•The link between compensation and performance as indicated by the company’s current and past pay- for-performance grades.

We also review any significant changes or modifications, including post fiscal year-end changes and one-time awards, particularly where the changes touch upon issues that are material to Glass Lewis recommendations.

Say-on-Pay Voting Recommendations

In cases where we find deficiencies in a company’s compensation program’s design, implementation or management, we will recommend that shareholders vote against the say-on-pay proposal. Generally such instances include evidence of a pattern of poor pay-for-performance practices (i.e., deficient or failing pay-for- performance grades), unclear or questionable disclosure regarding the overall compensation structure (e.g., limited information regarding benchmarking processes, limited rationale for bonus performance metrics and targets, etc.), questionable adjustments to certain aspects of the overall compensation structure (e.g., limited rationale for significant changes to performance targets or metrics, the payout of guaranteed bonuses or sizable retention grants, etc.), and/or other egregious compensation practices.

Although not an exhaustive list, the following issues when weighed together may cause Glass Lewis to recommend voting against a say-on-pay vote:

•Inappropriate or outsized self-selected peer groups and/or benchmarking issues such as compensation targets set well above the median without adequate justification;


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			51

•Egregious or excessive bonuses, equity awards or severance payments, including golden handshakes and golden parachutes;

•Insufficient response to low shareholder support;

•Problematic contractual payments, such as guaranteed bonuses;

•Insufficiently challenging performance targets and/or high potential payout opportunities;

•Performance targets lowered without justification;

•Discretionary bonuses paid when short- or long-term incentive plan targets were not met;

•High executive pay relative to peers that is not justified by outstanding company performance; and

•The terms of the long-term incentive plans are inappropriate (please see “Long-Term Incentives”).

The aforementioned issues may also influence Glass Lewis’ assessment of the structure of a company’s compensation program. We evaluate structure on a “Good, Fair, Poor” rating scale whereby a “Good” rating represents a compensation program with little to no concerns, a “Fair” rating represents a compensation

program with some concerns and a “Poor” rating represents a compensation program that deviates significantly

from best practice or contains one or more egregious compensation practices.

We believe that it is important for companies to provide investors with clear and complete disclosure of all the significant terms of compensation arrangements. Similar to structure, we evaluate disclosure on a “Good, Fair, Poor” rating scale whereby a “Good” rating represents a thorough discussion of all elements of compensation, a “Fair” rating represents an adequate discussion of all or most elements of compensation and a “Poor” rating represents an incomplete or absent discussion of compensation. In instances where a company has simply failed to provide sufficient disclosure of its policies, we may recommend shareholders vote against this proposal solely on this basis, regardless of the appropriateness of compensation levels.

In general, most companies will fall within the “Fair” range for both structure and disclosure, and Glass Lewis

largely uses the “Good” and “Poor” ratings to highlight outliers.

Where we identify egregious compensation practices, we may also recommend voting against the compensation committee based on the practices or actions of its members during the year. Such practices may include: approving large one-off payments, the inappropriate, unjustified use of discretion, or sustained poor pay for performance practices. (Refer to the section on "Compensation Committee Performance" for more information.)

Company Responsiveness

When companies receive a significant level of shareholder opposition to a say-on-pay proposal, which occurs when there is more than 20% opposition to the proposal, we believe the board should demonstrate a commensurate level of engagement and responsiveness to the concerns behind the disapproval, with a particular focus on responding to shareholder feedback. When assessing the level of opposition to say-on-pay proposals, we may further examine the level of opposition among disinterested shareholders as an independent group. While we recognize that sweeping changes cannot be made to a compensation program without due consideration, and that often a majority of shareholders may have voted in favor of the proposal, given that the average approval rate for say-on-pay proposals is about 90%, we believe the compensation committee should provide some level of response to a significant vote against. In general, our expectations regarding the minimum appropriate levels of responsiveness will correspond with the level of shareholder opposition, as expressed both


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			52

through the magnitude of opposition in a single year, and through the persistence of shareholder disapproval over time.

Responses we consider appropriate include engaging with large shareholders, especially dissenting shareholders, to identify their concerns, and, where reasonable, implementing changes and/or making

commitments that directly address those concerns within the company’s compensation program. In cases where particularly egregious pay decisions caused the say on pay proposal to fail, Glass Lewis will closely consider whether any changes were made directly relating to the pay decision that may address structural concerns that shareholders have. In the absence of any evidence in the disclosure that the board is actively engaging shareholders on these issues and responding accordingly, we may recommend holding compensation committee members accountable for failing to adequately respond to shareholder opposition. Regarding such recommendations, careful consideration will be given to the level of shareholder protest and the severity and history of compensation practices.

Pay for Performance

Glass Lewis believes an integral part of a well-structured compensation package is a successful link between pay and performance. Our proprietary pay-for-performance model was developed to better evaluate the link between pay and performance. Generally, compensation and performance are measured against a peer group of appropriate companies that may overlap, to a certain extent, with a company’s self-disclosed peers. This quantitative analysis provides a consistent framework and historical context for our clients to determine how well companies link executive compensation to relative performance. Companies that demonstrate a weaker link are more likely to receive a negative recommendation; however, other qualitative factors such as overall incentive structure, significant forthcoming changes to the compensation program or reasonable long-term payout levels may mitigate our concerns to a certain extent.

While we assign companies a letter grade of A, B, C, D or F based on the alignment between pay and performance, the grades derived from the Glass Lewis pay-for-performance analysis do not follow the traditional U.S. school letter grade system. Rather, the grades are generally interpreted as follows:

Grade of A: The company’s percentile rank for pay is significantly less than its percentile rank for performance

Grade of B: The company’s percentile rank for pay is moderately less than its percentile rank for performance

Grade of C: The company’s percentile rank for pay is approximately aligned with its percentile rank for performance

Grade of D: The company’s percentile rank for pay is higher than its percentile rank for performance

Grade of F: The company’s percentile rank for pay is significantly higher than its percentile rank for performance

For the avoidance of confusion, the above grades encompass the relationship between a company’s percentile rank for pay and its percentile rank in performance. Separately, a specific comparison between the company’s executive pay and its peers’ executive pay levels is discussed in the analysis for additional insight into the grade.

Likewise, a specific comparison between the company’s performance and its peers’ performance is reflected in the analysis for further context. Finally, Glass Lewis’ pay-for-performance analysis is currently unaffected by any additional disclosure concerning pay versus performance as mandated by an August 2022 SEC rule.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			53

We also use this analysis to inform our voting decisions on say-on-pay proposals. As such, if a company receives a “D” or “F” from our proprietary model, we are more likely to recommend that shareholders vote against the say-on-pay proposal. However, supplemental quantitative factors like realized pay levels may be considered, and other qualitative factors such as an effective overall incentive structure, the relevance of selected performance metrics, significant forthcoming enhancements or reasonable long-term payout levels may give us cause to recommend in favor of a proposal even when we have identified a disconnect between pay and performance.

In determining the peer groups used in our A-F pay-for-performance letter grades, Glass Lewis utilizes a proprietary methodology that considers both market and industry peers, along with each company’s network of self-disclosed peers. Each component is considered on a weighted basis and is subject to size-based ranking and screening. The peer groups used are provided to Glass Lewis by Diligent Intel based on Glass Lewis’ methodology and using Diligent Intel’s data.

Selecting an appropriate peer group to analyze a company’s compensation program is a subjective determination, requiring significant judgment and on which there is not a “correct” answer. Since the peer group used is based on an independent, proprietary technique, it will often differ from the one used by the company which, in turn, will affect the resulting analyses. While Glass Lewis believes that the independent, rigorous methodology it uses provides a valuable perspective on the company’s compensation program, the company’s self-selected peer group is also presented in the Proxy Paper for comparative purposes.

Short-Term Incentives

A short-term bonus or incentive (STI) should be demonstrably tied to performance. Whenever possible, we believe a mix of corporate and individual performance measures is appropriate. We would normally expect performance measures for STIs to be based on company-wide or divisional financial measures as well as non- financial, qualitative or non-formulaic factors such as those related to safety, environmental issues, and customer satisfaction. While we recognize that companies operating in different sectors or markets may seek to utilize a wide range of metrics, we expect such measures to be appropriately tied to a company’s business drivers.

Further, the threshold, target and maximum performance goals and corresponding payout levels that can be achieved under STI plans should be disclosed. Shareholders should expect stretching performance targets for the maximum award to be achieved. Any increase in the potential target and maximum award should be clearly justified to shareholders, as should any decrease in target and maximum performance levels from the previous year.

Glass Lewis recognizes that disclosure of some measures or performance targets may include commercially confidential information. Therefore, we believe it may be reasonable to exclude such information in some cases as long as the company provides sufficient justification for non-disclosure. However, where a short-term bonus has been paid, companies should disclose the extent to which performance has been achieved against relevant targets, including disclosure of the actual target achieved.

Where management has received significant short-term incentive payments but overall performance and/or the shareholder experience over the measurement year prima facie appears to be poor or negative, we believe the company should provide a clear explanation of why these significant short-term payments were made. We also believe any significant changes to the program structure should be accompanied by rationalizing disclosure.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			54

Further, where a company has applied upward discretion, which includes lowering goals mid-year, increasing calculated payouts or retroactively pro-rating performance periods, we expect a robust discussion of why the decision was necessary. In addition, we believe that where companies use non-GAAP or bespoke metrics, clear reconciliations between these figures and GAAP figures in audited financial statement should be provided.

Adjustments to GAAP figures may be considered in Glass Lewis’ assessment of the effectiveness of the incentive

at tying executive pay with performance.

Glass Lewis recognizes the importance of the compensation committee’s judicious and responsible exercise of discretion over incentive pay outcomes to account for significant, material events that would otherwise be excluded from performance results of selected metrics of incentive programs. For instance, major litigation settlement charges may be removed from non-GAAP results before the determination of formulaic incentive payouts, or health and safety failures may not be reflected in performance results where companies do not expressly include health and safety metrics in incentive plans; such events may nevertheless be consequential to corporate performance results, impact the shareholder experience, and, in some cases, may present material risks. Conversely, certain events may adversely impact formulaic payout results despite being outside executives' control. We believe that companies should provide thorough discussion of how such events were considered in the committee’s decisions to exercise discretion or refrain from applying discretion over incentive pay outcomes. The inclusion of this disclosure may be helpful when we consider concerns around the exercise or absence of committee discretion.

We do not generally recommend against a pay program due to the use of a non-formulaic plan. If a company has chosen to rely primarily on a subjective assessment or the board’s discretion in determining short-term bonuses, we believe that the proxy statement should provide a meaningful discussion of the board’s rationale in determining the bonuses paid as well as a rationale for the use of a non-formulaic mechanism. Particularly where the aforementioned disclosures are substantial and satisfactory, such a structure will not provoke serious concern in our analysis on its own. However, in conjunction with other significant issues in a program’s design or operation, such as a disconnect between pay and performance, the absence of a cap on payouts, or a lack of performance-based long-term awards, the use of a non-formulaic bonus may help drive a negative recommendation.

Long-Term Incentives

Glass Lewis recognizes the value of equity-based incentive programs, which are often the primary long-term incentive for executives. When used appropriately, they can provide a vehicle for linking an executive’s pay to company performance, thereby aligning their interests with those of shareholders. In addition, equity-based compensation can be an effective way to attract, retain and motivate key employees.

There are certain elements that Glass Lewis believes are common to most well-structured long-term incentive (LTI) plans. These include:

•No re-testing or lowering of performance conditions;

•Performance metrics that cannot be easily manipulated by management;

•Two or more performance metrics;

•At least one relative performance metric that compares the company’s performance to a relevant peer

group or index;


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			55

•Performance periods of at least three years;

•Stretching metrics that incentivize executives to strive for outstanding performance while not encouraging excessive risk-taking;

•Individual award limits expressed as a percentage of base salary; and

•Equity granting practices that are clearly disclosed.

In evaluating long-term incentive grants, Glass Lewis generally believes that at least half of the grant should consist of performance-based awards, putting a material portion of executive compensation at-risk and demonstrably linked to the performance of the company. While we will consistently raise concern with programs that do not meet this criterion, we may refrain from a negative recommendation in the absence of other significant issues with the program’s design or operation. However, in cases where performance-based awards are significantly rolled back or eliminated from a company’s long-term incentive plan, such decisions will generally be viewed negatively outside of exceptional circumstances, and may lead to a recommendation against the proposal.

As with the short-term incentive, Glass Lewis recognizes the importance of the compensation committee’s judicious and responsible exercise of discretion over incentive pay outcomes to account for significant events that would otherwise be excluded from performance results of selected metrics of incentive programs. We believe that companies should provide thorough discussion of how such events were considered in the committee’s decisions to exercise discretion or refrain from applying discretion over incentive pay outcomes.

Performance measures should be carefully selected and should relate to the specific business/industry in which the company operates and, especially, to the key value drivers of the company’s business. As with short-term incentive plans, the basis for any adjustments to metrics or results should be clearly explained, as should the company’s judgment on the use of discretion and any significant changes to the performance program structure.

While cognizant of the inherent complexity of certain performance metrics, Glass Lewis generally believes that measuring a company’s performance with multiple metrics serves to provide a more complete picture of the company’s performance than a single metric. Further, reliance on just one metric may focus too much management attention on a single target and is therefore more susceptible to manipulation. When utilized for relative measurements, external benchmarks such as a sector index or peer group should be disclosed and transparent. The rationale behind the selection of a specific index or peer group should also be disclosed.

Internal performance benchmarks should also be disclosed and transparent, unless a cogent case for confidentiality is made and fully explained. Similarly, actual performance and vesting levels for previous grants earned during the fiscal year should be disclosed.

We also believe shareholders should evaluate the relative success of a company’s compensation programs, particularly with regard to existing equity-based incentive plans, in linking pay and performance when evaluating potential changes to LTI plans and determining the impact of additional stock awards. We will therefore review the company’s pay-for-performance grade (see below for more information) and specifically the proportion of total compensation that is stock-based.

Grants of Front-Loaded Awards

Many U.S. companies have chosen to provide large grants, usually in the form of equity awards, that are intended to serve as compensation for multiple years. This practice, often called front-loading, is taken up either


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			56

in the regular course of business or as a response to specific business conditions and with a predetermined objective. The so-called “mega-grant”, an outsized award to one individual sometimes valued at over $100 million is sometimes but not always provided as a front-loaded award. We believe shareholders should generally be wary of this approach, and we accordingly weigh these grants with particular scrutiny.

While the use of front-loaded awards is intended to lock-in executive service and incentives, the same rigidity also raises the risk of effectively tying the hands of the compensation committee. As compared with a more responsive annual granting schedule program, front-loaded awards may preclude improvements or changes to reflect evolving business strategies or to respond to other unforeseen factors. Additionally, if structured poorly, early vesting of such awards may reduce or eliminate the retentive power at great cost to shareholders. The considerable emphasis on a single grant can place intense pressures on every facet of its design, amplifying any potential perverse incentives and creating greater room for unintended consequences. In particular, provisions around changes of control or separations of service must ensure that executives do not receive excessive payouts that do not reflect shareholder experience or company performance.

We consider a company’s rationale for granting awards under this structure and also expect any front-loaded awards to include a firm commitment not to grant additional awards for a defined period, as is commonly associated with this practice. Even when such a commitment is provided, unexpected circumstances may lead the board to make additional payments or awards for retention purposes, or to incentivize management towards more realistic goals or a revised strategy. If a company breaks its commitment not to grant further awards, we may recommend against the pay program unless a convincing rationale is provided. In situations where the front-loaded award was meant to cover a certain portion of the regular long-term incentive grant for each year during the covered period, our analysis of the value of the remaining portion of the regular long-term incentives granted during the period covered by the award will account for the annualized value of the front- loaded portion, and we expect no supplemental grant be awarded during the vesting period of the front-loaded portion.

The multiyear nature of these awards generally lends itself to significantly higher compensation figures in the year of grant than might otherwise be expected. In our qualitative analysis of the grants of front-loaded awards to executives, Glass Lewis considers the quantum of the award on an annualized basis and may compare this result to the prior practice and peer data, among other benchmarks. Additionally, for awards that are granted in the form of equity, Glass Lewis may consider the total potential dilutive effect of such award on shareholders.

Linking Executive Pay to Environmental and Social Criteria

Glass Lewis believes that explicit environmental and/or social (E&S) criteria in executive incentive plans, when used appropriately, can serve to provide both executives and shareholders a clear line of sight into a company’s ESG strategy, ambitions, and targets. Although we are strongly supportive of companies’ incorporation of material E&S risks and opportunities in their long-term strategic planning, we believe that the inclusion of E&S metrics in compensation programs should be predicated on each company’s unique circumstances. In order to establish a meaningful link between pay and performance, companies must consider factors including their industry, size, risk profile, maturity, performance, financial condition, and any other relevant internal or external factors.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			57

When a company is introducing E&S criteria into executive incentive plans, we believe it is important that companies provide shareholders with sufficient disclosure to allow them to understand how these criteria align with its strategy. Additionally, Glass Lewis recognizes that there may be situations where certain E&S performance criteria are reasonably viewed as prerequisites for executive performance, as opposed to behaviors and conditions that need to be incentivized. For example, we believe that shareholders should interrogate the use of metrics that award executives for ethical behavior or compliance with policies and regulations. It is our view that companies should provide shareholders with disclosures that clearly lay out the rationale for selecting specific E&S metrics, the target-setting process, and corresponding payout opportunities. Further, particularly in the case of qualitative metrics, we believe that shareholders should be provided with a clear understanding of the basis on which the criteria will be assessed. Where quantitative targets have been set, we believe that shareholders are best served when these are disclosed on an ex-ante basis, or the board should outline why it believes it is unable to do so.

While we believe that companies should generally set long-term targets for their environmental and social ambitions, we are mindful that not all compensation schemes lend themselves to the inclusion of E&S metrics. We also are of the view that companies should retain flexibility in not only choosing to incorporate E&S metrics in their compensation plans, but also in the placement of these metrics. For example, some companies may resolve that including E&S criteria in the annual bonus may help to incentivize the achievement of short-term milestones and allow for more maneuverability in strategic adjustments to long-term goals. Other companies may determine that their long-term sustainability targets are best achieved by incentivizing executives through metrics included in their long-term incentive plans.

One-Time Awards

Glass Lewis believes shareholders should generally be wary of awards granted outside of the standard incentive schemes, as such awards have the potential to undermine the integrity of a company’s regular incentive plans or the link between pay and performance, or both. We generally believe that if the existing incentive programs fail to provide adequate incentives to executives, companies should redesign their compensation programs rather than make additional grants.

However, we recognize that in certain circumstances, additional incentives may be appropriate. In these cases, companies should provide a thorough description of the awards, including a cogent and convincing explanation of their necessity and why existing awards do not provide sufficient motivation and a discussion of how the quantum of the award and its structure were determined. Further, such awards should be tied to future service and performance whenever possible.

Additionally, we believe companies making supplemental or one-time awards should also describe if and how the regular compensation arrangements will be affected by these additional grants. In reviewing a company’s use of supplemental awards, Glass Lewis will evaluate the terms and size of the grants in the context of the company’s overall incentive strategy and granting practices, as well as the current operating environment.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			58

Contractual Payments and Arrangements

Beyond the quantum of contractual payments, Glass Lewis will also consider the design of any entitlements. Certain executive employment terms may help to drive a negative recommendation, including, but not limited to:

•Excessively broad change in control triggers;

•Inappropriate severance entitlements;

•Inadequately explained or excessive sign-on arrangements;

•Guaranteed bonuses (especially as a multiyear occurrence); and

•Failure to address any concerning practices in amended employment agreements.

In general, we are wary of terms that are excessively restrictive in favor of the executive, or that could

potentially incentivize behaviors that are not in a company’s best interest.

Sign-on Awards and Severance Benefits

We acknowledge that there may be certain costs associated with transitions at the executive level. In evaluating the size of severance and sign-on arrangements, we may consider the executive’s regular target compensation level, or the sums paid to other executives (including the recipient’s predecessor, where applicable) in evaluating the appropriateness of such an arrangement.

We believe sign-on arrangements should be clearly disclosed and accompanied by a meaningful explanation of the payments and the process by which the amounts were reached. Further, the details of and basis for any “make-whole” payments (paid as compensation for awards forfeited from a previous employer) should be provided.

With respect to severance, we believe companies should abide by predetermined payouts in most circumstances. While in limited circumstances some deviations may not be inappropriate, we believe shareholders should be provided with a meaningful explanation of any additional or increased benefits agreed upon outside of regular arrangements. However, where Glass Lewis determines that such predetermined payouts are particularly problematic or unfavorable to shareholders, we may consider the execution of such payments in a negative recommendation for the advisory vote on executive compensation.

In the U.S. market, most companies maintain severance entitlements based on a multiple of salary and, in many cases, bonus. In almost all instances we see, the relevant multiple is three or less, even in the case of a change in control. We believe the basis and total value of severance should be reasonable and should not exceed the upper limit of general market practice. We consider the inclusion of long-term incentives in cash severance calculations to be inappropriate, particularly given the commonality of accelerated vesting and the proportional weight of long-term incentives as a component of total pay. Additional considerations, however, will be accounted for when reviewing atypically structured compensation approaches.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			59

Change in Control

Glass Lewis considers double-trigger change in control arrangements, which require both a change in control and termination or constructive termination, to be best practice. Any arrangement that is not explicitly double- trigger may be considered a single-trigger or modified single-trigger arrangement.

Further, we believe that excessively broad definitions of change in control are potentially problematic as they may lead to situations where executives receive additional compensation where no meaningful change in status or duties has occurred.

Excise Tax Gross-ups

Among other entitlements, Glass Lewis is strongly opposed to excise tax gross-ups related to IRC § 4999 and their expansion, especially where no consideration is given to the safe harbor limit. We believe that under no normal circumstance is the inclusion of excise tax gross-up provisions in new agreements or the addition of such provisions to amended agreements acceptable. In consideration of the fact that minor increases in change-in- control payments can lead to disproportionately large excise taxes, the potential negative impact of tax gross- ups far outweighs any retentive benefit.

Depending on the circumstances, the addition of new gross-ups around this excise tax may lead to negative

recommendations for a company’s say-on-pay proposal, the chair of the compensation committee, or the entire committee, particularly in cases where a company had committed not to provide any such entitlements in the future. For situations in which the addition of new excise tax gross ups will be provided in connection with a specific change-in-control transaction, this policy may be applied to the say-on-pay proposal, the golden parachute proposal and recommendations related to the compensation committee for all involved corporate parties, as appropriate.

Amended Employment Agreements

Any contractual arrangements providing for problematic pay practices which are not addressed in materially amended employment agreements will potentially be viewed by Glass Lewis as a missed opportunity on the part of the company to align its policies with current best practices. Such problematic pay practices include, but are not limited to, excessive change in control entitlements, modified single-trigger change in control entitlements, excise tax gross-ups, and multi-year guaranteed awards.

Recoupment Provisions (Clawbacks)

On October 26, 2022, the SEC adopted Rule 10D-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The rule mandates national securities exchanges and associations to promulgate new listing standards requiring companies to maintain recoupment policies (“clawback provisions”). While the final rules will be effective 60 days after the date of publication in the federal register, listing standards may be effective as late as one year following such publication. Affected companies are provided with another 60 days following the listing standards’ effective date to comply.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			60

Despite the above timeline, Glass Lewis believes in the importance of such risk-mitigating provisions and their alignment with shareholder interests. Whether or not a company is affected by Rule 10D-1, during the

intervening time between the final rule’s announcement and the effective date of listing standards, we believe it is prudent for boards to adopt detailed variable compensation recoupment policies that, at a minimum, provide companies the ability to recover compensation from former and current named executive officers in the event of overpayment due to erroneous data that triggered an accounting restatement. For companies that will be subject to the new listing requirements and are yet to adopt clawback policies that exceed the standards set forth by Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, providing detailed disclosure in the proxy statement evidencing the board’s proactive effort to ensure that the company will be in compliance may serve to mitigate concerns.

Notwithstanding the new rules, we are increasingly focusing attention on the specific terms of recoupment policies beyond whether a company maintains a clawback that simply satisfies the minimum legal requirements. We believe that clawbacks should be triggered, at a minimum, in the event of a restatement of financial results or similar revision of performance indicators upon which incentive awards were based. Such policies allow the board to review all performance-related bonuses and awards made to senior executives during a specified period and, to the extent feasible, allow the company to recoup such incentive pay where appropriate.

However, some recoupment policies empower companies to recover compensation without regard to a restatement, such as those triggered by actions causing reputational harm. These may inform our overall view of the compensation program in future especially as market practice continues to evolve around expanded clawback authority.

Hedging of Stock

Glass Lewis believes that the hedging of shares by executives in the shares of the companies where they are employed severs the alignment of interests of the executive with shareholders. We believe companies should adopt strict policies to prohibit executives from hedging the economic risk associated with their share ownership in the company.

Pledging of Stock

Glass Lewis believes that shareholders should examine the facts and circumstances of each company rather than apply a one-size-fits-all policy regarding employee stock pledging. Glass Lewis believes that shareholders benefit when employees, particularly senior executives, have meaningful financial interest in the success of the company under their management, and therefore we recognize the benefits of measures designed to encourage employees to both buy shares out of their own pocket and to retain shares they have been granted; blanket policies prohibiting stock pledging may discourage executives and employees from doing either.

However, we also recognize that the pledging of shares can present a risk that, depending on a host of factors, an executive with significant pledged shares and limited other assets may have an incentive to take steps to avoid a forced sale of shares in the face of a rapid stock price decline. Therefore, to avoid substantial losses from a forced sale to meet the terms of the loan, the executive may have an incentive to boost the stock price in the short term in a manner that is unsustainable, thus hurting shareholders in the long-term. We also recognize concerns regarding pledging may not apply to less senior employees, given the latter group’s significantly more


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			61

limited influence over a company’s stock price. Therefore, we believe that the issue of pledging shares should be

reviewed in that context, as should policies that distinguish between the two groups.

Glass Lewis believes that the benefits of stock ownership by executives and employees may outweigh the risks of stock pledging, depending on many factors. As such, Glass Lewis reviews all relevant factors in evaluating proposed policies, limitations and prohibitions on pledging stock, including:

•The number of shares pledged;

•The percentage executives’ pledged shares are of outstanding shares;

•The percentage executives’ pledged shares are of each executive’s shares and total assets;

•Whether the pledged shares were purchased by the employee or granted by the company;

•Whether there are different policies for purchased and granted shares;

•Whether the granted shares were time-based or performance-based;

•The overall governance profile of the company;

•The volatility of the company’s stock (in order to determine the likelihood of a sudden stock price drop);

•The nature and cyclicality, if applicable, of the company’s industry;

•The participation and eligibility of executives and employees in pledging;

•The company’s current policies regarding pledging and any waiver from these policies for employees and executives; and

•Disclosure of the extent of any pledging, particularly among senior executives.

Compensation Consultant Independence

As mandated by Section 952 of the Dodd-Frank Act, as of January 11, 2013, the SEC approved listing requirements for both the NYSE and NASDAQ which require compensation committees to consider six factors (https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2012/33-9330.pdf, p.31-32) in assessing compensation advisor independence. According to the SEC, “no one factor should be viewed as a determinative factor.” Glass Lewis believes this six- factor assessment is an important process for every compensation committee to undertake but believes companies employing a consultant for board compensation, consulting and other corporate services should provide clear disclosure beyond just a reference to examining the six points, in order to allow shareholders to review the specific aspects of the various consultant relationships.

We believe compensation consultants are engaged to provide objective, disinterested, expert advice to the compensation committee. When the consultant or its affiliates receive substantial income from providing other services to the company, we believe the potential for a conflict of interest arises and the independence of the consultant may be jeopardized. Therefore, Glass Lewis will, when relevant, note the potential for a conflict of interest when the fees paid to the advisor or its affiliates for other services exceeds those paid for compensation consulting.

CEO Pay Ratio

As mandated by Section 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Consumer and Protection Act, beginning in 2018, issuers will be required to disclose the median annual total compensation of all employees except the CEO, the total annual compensation of the CEO or equivalent position, and the ratio between the two amounts. Glass Lewis will display the pay ratio as a data point in our Proxy Papers, as available. While we recognize that the pay


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			62

ratio has the potential to provide additional insight when assessing a company’s pay practices, at this time it will

not be a determinative factor in our voting recommendations.

Frequency of Say-on-Pay

The Dodd-Frank Act also requires companies to allow shareholders a non-binding vote on the frequency of say- on-pay votes (i.e., every one, two or three years). Additionally, Dodd-Frank requires companies to hold such votes on the frequency of say-on-pay votes at least once every six years.

We believe companies should submit say-on-pay votes to shareholders every year. We believe that the time and financial burdens to a company with regard to an annual vote are relatively small and incremental and are outweighed by the benefits to shareholders through more frequent accountability. Implementing biannual or

triennial votes on executive compensation limits shareholders’ ability to hold the board accountable for its compensation practices through means other than voting against the compensation committee. Unless a company provides a compelling rationale or unique circumstances for say-on-pay votes less frequent than annually, we will generally recommend that shareholders support annual votes on compensation.

Vote on Golden Parachute Arrangements

The Dodd-Frank Act also requires companies to provide shareholders with a separate non-binding vote on approval of golden parachute compensation arrangements in connection with certain change-in-control transactions. However, if the golden parachute arrangements have previously been subject to a say-on-pay vote which shareholders approved, then this required vote is waived.

Glass Lewis believes the narrative and tabular disclosure of golden parachute arrangements benefits all shareholders. Glass Lewis analyzes each golden parachute arrangement on a case-by-case basis, taking into account, among other items: the nature of the change-in-control transaction, the ultimate value of the payments particularly compared to the value of the transaction, any excise tax gross-up obligations, the tenure and position of the executives in question before and after the transaction, any new or amended employment agreements entered into in connection with the transaction, and the type of triggers involved (i.e., single vs. double). In cases where new problematic features, such as excise tax gross-up obligations, are introduced in a golden parachute proposal, such features may contribute to a negative recommendation not only for the golden parachute proposal under review, but for the next say-on-pay proposal of any involved corporate parties, as well as recommendations against their compensation committee as appropriate.

Equity-Based Compensation Plan Proposals

We believe that equity compensation awards, when not abused, are useful for retaining employees and providing an incentive for them to act in a way that will improve company performance. Glass Lewis recognizes that equity-based compensation plans are critical components of a company’s overall compensation program, and we analyze such plans accordingly based on both quantitative and qualitative factors.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			63

Our quantitative analysis assesses the plan’s cost and the company’s pace of granting utilizing a number of different analyses, comparing the program with absolute limits we believe are key to equity value creation and with a carefully chosen peer group. In general, our model seeks to determine whether the proposed plan is either absolutely excessive or is more than one standard deviation away from the average plan for the peer group on a range of criteria, including dilution to shareholders and the projected annual cost relative to the company’s financial performance. Each of the analyses (and their constituent parts) is weighted and the plan is scored in accordance with that weight.

We compare the program’s expected annual expense with the business’s operating metrics to help determine whether the plan is excessive in light of company performance. We also compare the plan’s expected annual cost to the enterprise value of the firm rather than to market capitalization because the employees, managers and directors of the firm contribute to the creation of enterprise value but not necessarily market capitalization (the biggest difference is seen where cash represents the vast majority of market capitalization). Finally, we do not rely exclusively on relative comparisons with averages because, in addition to creeping averages serving to inflate compensation, we believe that some absolute limits are warranted.

We then consider qualitative aspects of the plan such as plan administration, the method and terms of exercise, repricing history, express or implied rights to reprice, and the presence of evergreen provisions. We also closely review the choice and use of, and difficulty in meeting, the awards’ performance metrics and targets, if any. We believe significant changes to the terms of a plan should be explained for shareholders and clearly indicated.

Other factors such as a company’s size and operating environment may also be relevant in assessing the severity of concerns or the benefits of certain changes. Finally, we may consider a company’s executive compensation practices in certain situations, as applicable.

We evaluate equity plans based on certain overarching principles:

•Companies should seek more shares only when needed;

•Requested share amounts or share reserves should be conservative in size so that companies must seek shareholder approval every three to four years (or more frequently);

•If a plan is relatively expensive, it should not grant options solely to senior executives and board members;

•Dilution of annual net share count or voting power, along with the “overhang” of incentive plans, should

be limited;

•Annual cost of the plan (especially if not shown on the income statement) should be reasonable as a percentage of financial results and should be in line with the peer group;

•The expected annual cost of the plan should be proportional to the business’s value;

•The intrinsic value that option grantees received in the past should be reasonable compared with the

business’s financial results;

•Plans should not permit re-pricing of stock options;

•Plans should not contain excessively liberal administrative or payment terms;

•Plans should not count shares in ways that understate the potential dilution, or cost, to common

shareholders. This refers to “inverse” full-value award multipliers;

•Selected performance metrics should be challenging and appropriate, and should be subject to relative performance measurements; and


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			64

•Stock grants should be subject to minimum vesting and/or holding periods sufficient to ensure sustainable performance and promote retention.

Option Exchanges and Repricing

Glass Lewis is generally opposed to the repricing of employee and director options regardless of how it is accomplished. Employees should have some downside risk in their equity-based compensation program and repricing eliminates any such risk. As shareholders have substantial risk in owning stock, we believe that the equity compensation of employees and directors should be similarly situated to align their interests with those of shareholders. We believe this will facilitate appropriate risk- and opportunity-taking for the company by employees.

We are concerned that option grantees who believe they will be “rescued” from underwater options will be more inclined to take unjustifiable risks. Moreover, a predictable pattern of repricing or exchanges substantially alters a stock option’s value because options that will practically never expire deeply out of the money are worth far more than options that carry a risk of expiration.

In short, repricings and option exchange programs change the bargain between shareholders and employees after the bargain has been struck.

There is one circumstance in which a repricing or option exchange program may be acceptable: if

macroeconomic or industry trends, rather than specific company issues, cause a stock’s value to decline dramatically and the repricing is necessary to motivate and retain employees. In viewing the company’s stock decline as part of a larger trend, we would expect the impact to approximately reflect the market or industry price decline in terms of timing and magnitude. In this circumstance, we think it fair to conclude that option grantees may be suffering from a risk that was not foreseeable when the original “bargain” was struck. In such a scenario, we may opt to support a repricing or option exchange program only if sufficient conditions are met.

We are largely concerned with the inclusion of the following features:

•Officers and board members cannot participate in the program; and

•The exchange is value-neutral or value-creative to shareholders using very conservative assumptions.

•In our evaluation of the appropriateness of the program design, we also consider the inclusion of the following features:

•The vesting requirements on exchanged or repriced options are extended beyond one year;

•Shares reserved for options that are reacquired in an option exchange will permanently retire (i.e., will not be available for future grants) so as to prevent additional shareholder dilution in the future; and

•Management and the board make a cogent case for needing to motivate and retain existing employees, such as being in a competitive employment market.

Option Backdating, Spring-Loading and Bullet-Dodging

Glass Lewis views option backdating, and the related practices of spring-loading and bullet-dodging, as egregious actions that warrant holding the appropriate management and board members responsible. These practices are similar to repricing options and eliminate much of the downside risk inherent in an option grant that is designed to induce recipients to maximize shareholder return.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			65

Backdating an option is the act of changing an option’s grant date from the actual grant date to an earlier date when the market price of the underlying stock was lower, resulting in a lower exercise price for the option. In past studies, Glass Lewis identified over 270 companies that have disclosed internal or government investigations into their past stock-option grants.

Spring-loading is granting stock options while in possession of material, positive information that has not been disclosed publicly. Bullet-dodging is delaying the grants of stock options until after the release of material, negative information. This can allow option grants to be made at a lower price either before the release of positive news or following the release of negative news, assuming the stock’s price will move up or down in response to the information. This raises a concern similar to that of insider trading, or the trading on material non-public information.

The exercise price for an option is determined on the day of grant, providing the recipient with the same market risk as an investor who bought shares on that date. However, where options were backdated, the executive or the board (or the compensation committee) changed the grant date retroactively. The new date may be at or near the lowest price for the year or period. This would be like allowing an investor to look back and select the lowest price of the year at which to buy shares.

A 2006 study of option grants made between 1996 and 2005 at 8,000 companies found that option backdating can be an indication of poor internal controls. The study found that option backdating was more likely to occur at companies without a majority independent board and with a long-serving CEO; both factors, the study concluded, were associated with greater CEO influence on the company’s compensation and governance practices.42

Where a company granted backdated options to an executive who is also a director, Glass Lewis will recommend voting against that executive/director, regardless of who decided to make the award. In addition, Glass Lewis will recommend voting against those directors who either approved or allowed the backdating. Glass Lewis feels that executives and directors who either benefited from backdated options or authorized the practice have failed to act in the best interests of shareholders.

Given the severe tax and legal liabilities to the company from backdating, Glass Lewis will consider recommending voting against members of the audit committee who served when options were backdated, a restatement occurs, material weaknesses in internal controls exist and disclosures indicate there was a lack of documentation. These committee members failed in their responsibility to ensure the integrity of the company’s financial reports.

When a company has engaged in spring-loading or bullet-dodging, Glass Lewis will consider recommending voting against the compensation committee members where there has been a pattern of granting options at or near historic lows. Glass Lewis will also recommend voting against executives serving on the board who benefited from the spring-loading or bullet-dodging.

__________________________________________

42 Lucian Bebchuk, Yaniv Grinstein and Urs Peyer. “LUCKY CEOs.” November, 2006.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			66

Director Compensation Plans

Glass Lewis believes that non-employee directors should receive reasonable and appropriate compensation for the time and effort they spend serving on the board and its committees. However, a balance is required. Fees should be competitive in order to retain and attract qualified individuals, but excessive fees represent a financial cost to the company and potentially compromise the objectivity and independence of non-employee directors. We will consider recommending support for compensation plans that include option grants or other equity- based awards that help to align the interests of outside directors with those of shareholders. However, to ensure directors are not incentivized in the same manner as executives but rather serve as a check on imprudent risk-taking in executive compensation plan design, equity grants to directors should not be performance-based. Where an equity plan exclusively or primarily covers non-employee directors as participants, we do not believe that the plan should provide for performance-based awards in any capacity.

When non-employee director equity grants are covered by the same equity plan that applies to a company’s broader employee base, we will use our proprietary model and analyst review of this model to guide our voting recommendations. If such a plan broadly allows for performance-based awards to directors or explicitly provides for such grants, we may recommend against the overall plan on this basis, particularly if the company has granted performance-based awards to directors in past.

Employee Stock Purchase Plans

Glass Lewis believes that employee stock purchase plans (ESPPs) can provide employees with a sense of ownership in their company and help strengthen the alignment between the interests of employees and shareholders. We evaluate ESPPs by assessing the expected discount, purchase period, expected purchase activity (if previous activity has been disclosed) and whether the plan has a “lookback” feature. Except for the most extreme cases, Glass Lewis will generally support these plans given the regulatory purchase limit of

$25,000 per employee per year, which we believe is reasonable. We also look at the number of shares requested to see if a ESPP will significantly contribute to overall shareholder dilution or if shareholders will not have a chance to approve the program for an excessive period of time. As such, we will generally recommend against ESPPs that contain “evergreen” provisions that automatically increase the number of shares available under the ESPP each year.

Executive Compensation Tax Deductibility —

Amendment to IRC 162(M)

The “Tax Cut and Jobs Act” had significant implications on Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, a provision that allowed companies to deduct compensation in excess of $1 million for the CEO and the next three most highly compensated executive officers, excluding the CFO, if the compensation is performance-based and is paid under shareholder-approved plans. Glass Lewis does not generally view amendments to equity plans and changes to compensation programs in response to the elimination of tax deductions under 162(m) as problematic. This specifically holds true if such modifications contribute to the maintenance of a sound performance-based compensation program.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			67

As grandfathered contracts may continue to be eligible for tax deductions under the transition rule for Section 162(m), companies may therefore submit incentive plans for shareholder approval to take of advantage of the tax deductibility afforded under 162(m) for certain types of compensation.

We believe the best practice for companies is to provide robust disclosure to shareholders so that they can make fully informed judgments about the reasonableness of the proposed compensation plan. To allow for meaningful shareholder review, we prefer that disclosure should include specific performance metrics, a maximum award pool, and a maximum award amount per employee. We also believe it is important to analyze the estimated grants to see if they are reasonable and in line with the company’s peers.

We typically recommend voting against a 162(m) proposal where: (i) a company fails to provide at least a list of performance targets; (ii) a company fails to provide one of either a total maximum or an individual maximum; or

(iii) the proposed plan or individual maximum award limit is excessive when compared with the plans of the

company’s peers.

The company’s record of aligning pay with performance (as evaluated using our proprietary pay-for- performance model) also plays a role in our recommendation. Where a company has a record of setting reasonable pay relative to business performance, we generally recommend voting in favor of a plan even if the plan caps seem large relative to peers because we recognize the value in special pay arrangements for continued exceptional performance.

As with all other issues we review, our goal is to provide consistent but contextual advice given the specifics of the company and ongoing performance. Overall, we recognize that it is generally not in shareholders’ best interests to vote against such a plan and forgo the potential tax benefit since shareholder rejection of such plans will not curtail the awards; it will only prevent the tax deduction associated with them.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			68

Governance Structure and the Shareholder Franchise

Anti-Takeover Measures

Poison Pills (Shareholder Rights Plans)

Glass Lewis believes that poison pill plans are not generally in shareholders’ best interests. They can reduce management accountability by substantially limiting opportunities for corporate takeovers. Rights plans can thus prevent shareholders from receiving a buy-out premium for their stock. Typically we recommend that shareholders vote against these plans to protect their financial interests and ensure that they have an opportunity to consider any offer for their shares, especially those at a premium.

We believe boards should be given wide latitude in directing company activities and in charting the company’s course. However, on an issue such as this, where the link between the shareholders’ financial interests and their right to consider and accept buyout offers is substantial, we believe that shareholders should be allowed to vote on whether they support such a plan’s implementation. This issue is different from other matters that are typically left to board discretion. Its potential impact on and relation to shareholders is direct and substantial. It is also an issue in which management interests may be different from those of shareholders; thus, ensuring that shareholders have a voice is the only way to safeguard their interests.

In certain circumstances, we will support a poison pill that is limited in scope to accomplish a particular objective, such as the closing of an important merger, or a pill that contains what we believe to be a reasonable qualifying offer clause. We will consider supporting a poison pill plan if the qualifying offer clause includes each of the following attributes:

•The form of offer is not required to be an all-cash transaction;

•The offer is not required to remain open for more than 90 business days;

•The offeror is permitted to amend the offer, reduce the offer, or otherwise change the terms;

•There is no fairness opinion requirement; and

•There is a low to no premium requirement.

Where these requirements are met, we typically feel comfortable that shareholders will have the opportunity to voice their opinion on any legitimate offer.

NOL Poison Pills

Similarly, Glass Lewis may consider supporting a limited poison pill in the event that a company seeks shareholder approval of a rights plan for the express purpose of preserving Net Operating Losses (NOLs). While companies with NOLs can generally carry these losses forward to offset future taxable income, Section 382


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			69

of the Internal Revenue Code limits companies’ ability to use NOLs in the event of a “change of ownership.”43 In this case, a company may adopt or amend a poison pill (NOL pill) in order to prevent an inadvertent change of ownership by multiple investors purchasing small chunks of stock at the same time, and thereby preserve the ability to carry the NOLs forward. Often such NOL pills have trigger thresholds much lower than the common 15% or 20% thresholds, with some NOL pill triggers as low as 5%.

Glass Lewis evaluates NOL pills on a strictly case-by-case basis taking into consideration, among other factors, the value of the NOLs to the company, the likelihood of a change of ownership based on the size of the holding and the nature of the larger shareholders, the trigger threshold and whether the term of the plan is limited in duration (i.e., whether it contains a reasonable “sunset” provision) or is subject to periodic board review and/or shareholder ratification. In many cases, companies will propose the adoption of bylaw amendments specifically restricting certain share transfers, in addition to proposing the adoption of a NOL pill. In general, if we support the terms of a particular NOL pill, we will generally support the additional protective amendment in the absence of significant concerns with the specific terms of that proposal.

Furthermore, we believe that shareholders should be offered the opportunity to vote on any adoption or renewal of a NOL pill regardless of any potential tax benefit that it offers a company. As such, we will consider recommending voting against those members of the board who served at the time when an NOL pill was adopted without shareholder approval within the prior twelve months and where the NOL pill is not subject to shareholder ratification.

Fair Price Provisions

Fair price provisions, which are rare, require that certain minimum price and procedural requirements be observed by any party that acquires more than a specified percentage of a corporation’s common stock. The provision is intended to protect minority shareholder value when an acquirer seeks to accomplish a merger or other transaction which would eliminate or change the interests of the minority shareholders. The provision is generally applied against the acquirer unless the takeover is approved by a majority of ”continuing directors” and holders of a majority, in some cases a supermajority as high as 80%, of the combined voting power of all stock entitled to vote to alter, amend, or repeal the above provisions.

The effect of a fair price provision is to require approval of any merger or business combination with an

“interested shareholder” by 51% of the voting stock of the company, excluding the shares held by the interested shareholder. An interested shareholder is generally considered to be a holder of 10% or more of the company’s outstanding stock, but the trigger can vary.

Generally, provisions are put in place for the ostensible purpose of preventing a back-end merger where the interested shareholder would be able to pay a lower price for the remaining shares of the company than he or she paid to gain control. The effect of a fair price provision on shareholders, however, is to limit their ability to gain a premium for their shares through a partial tender offer or open market acquisition which typically raise the share price, often significantly. A fair price provision discourages such transactions because of the potential

__________________________________________

43 Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code refers to a “change of ownership” of more than 50 percentage points by one or more 5% shareholders within a three-year period. The statute is intended to deter the “trafficking” of net operating losses.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			70

costs of seeking shareholder approval and because of the restrictions on purchase price for completing a merger or other transaction at a later time.

Glass Lewis believes that fair price provisions, while sometimes protecting shareholders from abuse in a takeover situation, more often act as an impediment to takeovers, potentially limiting gains to shareholders from a variety of transactions that could significantly increase share price. In some cases, even the independent directors of the board cannot make exceptions when such exceptions may be in the best interests of shareholders. Given the existence of state law protections for minority shareholders such as Section 203 of the Delaware Corporations Code, we believe it is in the best interests of shareholders to remove fair price provisions.

Quorum Requirements

Glass Lewis believes that a company’s quorum requirement should be set at a level high enough to ensure that a broad range of shareholders are represented in person or by proxy, but low enough that the company can transact necessary business. Companies in the U.S. are generally subject to quorum requirements under the laws of their specific state of incorporation. Additionally, those companies listed on the NASDAQ Stock Market are required to specify a quorum in their bylaws, provided however that such quorum may not be less than one- third of outstanding shares. Prior to 2013, the New York Stock Exchange required a quorum of 50% for listed companies, although this requirement was dropped in recognition of individual state requirements and potential confusion for issuers. Delaware, for example, required companies to provide for a quorum of no less than one-third of outstanding shares; otherwise such quorum shall default to a majority.

We generally believe a majority of outstanding shares entitled to vote is an appropriate quorum for the transaction of business at shareholder meetings. However, should a company seek shareholder approval of a lower quorum requirement we will generally support a reduced quorum of at least one-third of shares entitled to vote, either in person or by proxy. When evaluating such proposals, we also consider the specific facts and circumstances of the company, such as size and shareholder base.

Director and Officer Indemnification

While Glass Lewis strongly believes that directors and officers should be held to the highest standard when carrying out their duties to shareholders, some protection from liability is reasonable to protect them against certain suits so that these officers feel comfortable taking measured risks that may benefit shareholders. As such, we find it appropriate for a company to provide indemnification and/or enroll in liability insurance to cover its directors and officers so long as the terms of such agreements are reasonable.

Officer Exculpation

In August 2022, the Delaware General Assembly amended Section 102(b)(7) of the Delaware General

Corporation Law (“DGCL”) to authorize corporations to adopt a provision in their certificate of incorporation to eliminate or limit monetary liability of certain corporate officers for breach of fiduciary duty of care. Previously,


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			71

the DGCL allowed only exculpation of corporate directors from breach of fiduciary duty of care claims if the

corporation’s certificate of incorporation includes an exculpation provision.

The amendment authorizes corporations to provide for exculpation of the following officers: (i) the

corporation’s president, chief executive officer, chief operating officer, chief financial officer, chief legal officer, controller, treasurer or chief accounting officer, (ii) “named executive officers” identified in the corporation’s SEC filings, and (iii) individuals who have agreed to be identified as officers of the corporation.

Corporate exculpation provisions under the DGCL only apply to claims for breach of the duty of care, and not to breaches of the duty of loyalty. Exculpation provisions also do not apply to acts or omissions not in good faith or that involve intentional misconduct, knowing violations of the law, or transactions involving the receipt of any improper personal benefits. Furthermore, officers may not be exculpated from claims brought against them by, or in the right of, the corporation (i.e., derivative actions).

Reincorporation

In general, Glass Lewis believes that the board is in the best position to determine the appropriate jurisdiction of incorporation for the company. When examining a management proposal to reincorporate to a different state or country, we review the relevant financial benefits, generally related to improved corporate tax treatment, as well as changes in corporate governance provisions, especially those relating to shareholder rights, resulting from the change in domicile. Where the financial benefits are de minimis and there is a decrease in shareholder rights, we will recommend voting against the transaction.

However, costly, shareholder-initiated reincorporations are typically not the best route to achieve the furtherance of shareholder rights. We believe shareholders are generally better served by proposing specific shareholder resolutions addressing pertinent issues which may be implemented at a lower cost, and perhaps even with board approval. However, when shareholders propose a shift into a jurisdiction with enhanced shareholder rights, Glass Lewis examines the significant ways would the company benefit from shifting jurisdictions including the following:

•Is the board sufficiently independent?

•Does the company have anti-takeover protections such as a poison pill or classified board in place?

•Has the board been previously unresponsive to shareholders (such as failing to implement a shareholder proposal that received majority shareholder support)?

•Do shareholders have the right to call special meetings of shareholders?

•Are there other material governance issues of concern at the company?

•Has the company’s performance matched or exceeded its peers in the past one and three years?

•How has the company ranked in Glass Lewis’ pay-for-performance analysis during the last three years?

•Does the company have an independent chair?


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			72

We note, however, that we will only support shareholder proposals to change a company’s place of

incorporation in exceptional circumstances.

Exclusive Forum and Fee-Shifting Bylaw Provisions

Glass Lewis recognizes that companies may be subject to frivolous and opportunistic lawsuits, particularly in conjunction with a merger or acquisition, that are expensive and distracting. In response, companies have sought ways to prevent or limit the risk of such suits by adopting bylaws regarding where the suits must be brought or shifting the burden of the legal expenses to the plaintiff, if unsuccessful at trial.

Glass Lewis believes that charter or bylaw provisions limiting a shareholder’s choice of legal venue are not in the best interests of shareholders. Such clauses may effectively discourage the use of shareholder claims by increasing their associated costs and making them more difficult to pursue. As such, shareholders should be wary about approving any limitation on their legal recourse including limiting themselves to a single jurisdiction (e.g., Delaware or federal courts for matters arising under the Securities Act of 1933) without compelling evidence that it will benefit shareholders.

For this reason, we recommend that shareholders vote against any bylaw or charter amendment seeking to adopt an exclusive forum provision unless the company: (i) provides a compelling argument on why the provision would directly benefit shareholders; (ii) provides evidence of abuse of legal process in other, non- favored jurisdictions; (iii) narrowly tailors such provision to the risks involved; and (iv) maintains a strong record of good corporate governance practices.

Moreover, in the event a board seeks shareholder approval of a forum selection clause pursuant to a bundled bylaw amendment rather than as a separate proposal, we will weigh the importance of the other bundled provisions when determining the vote recommendation on the proposal. We will nonetheless recommend voting against the chair of the governance committee for bundling disparate proposals into a single proposal (refer to our discussion of nominating and governance committee performance in Section I of the guidelines).

Similarly, some companies have adopted bylaws requiring plaintiffs who sue the company and fail to receive a judgment in their favor pay the legal expenses of the company. These bylaws, also known as “fee-shifting” or “loser pays” bylaws, will likely have a chilling effect on even meritorious shareholder lawsuits as shareholders would face an strong financial disincentive not to sue a company. Glass Lewis therefore strongly opposes the adoption of such fee-shifting bylaws and, if adopted without shareholder approval, will recommend voting against the governance committee. While we note that in June of 2015 the State of Delaware banned the adoption of fee-shifting bylaws, such provisions could still be adopted by companies incorporated in other states.

Authorized Shares

Glass Lewis believes that adequate capital stock is important to a company’s operation. When analyzing a request for additional shares, we typically review four common reasons why a company might need additional capital stock:


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			73

1.Stock Split — We typically consider three metrics when evaluating whether we think a stock split is likely or necessary: The historical stock pre-split price, if any; the current price relative to the company’s most common trading price over the past 52 weeks; and some absolute limits on stock price that, in our view, either always make a stock split appropriate if desired by management or would almost never be a reasonable price at which to split a stock.

2.Shareholder Defenses — Additional authorized shares could be used to bolster takeover defenses such as a poison pill. Proxy filings often discuss the usefulness of additional shares in defending against or discouraging a hostile takeover as a reason for a requested increase. Glass Lewis is typically against such defenses and will oppose actions intended to bolster such defenses.

3.Financing for Acquisitions — We look at whether the company has a history of using stock for acquisitions and attempt to determine what levels of stock have typically been required to accomplish such transactions. Likewise, we look to see whether this is discussed as a reason for additional shares in the proxy.

4.Financing for Operations — We review the company’s cash position and its ability to secure financing through borrowing or other means. We look at the company’s history of capitalization and whether the company has had to use stock in the recent past as a means of raising capital.

Issuing additional shares generally dilutes existing holders in most circumstances. Further, the availability of additional shares, where the board has discretion to implement a poison pill, can often serve as a deterrent to interested suitors. Accordingly, where we find that the company has not detailed a plan for use of the proposed shares, or where the number of shares far exceeds those needed to accomplish a detailed plan, we typically recommend against the authorization of additional shares. Similar concerns may also lead us to recommend against a proposal to conduct a reverse stock split if the board does not state that it will reduce the number of authorized common shares in a ratio proportionate to the split.

With regard to authorizations and/or increases in preferred shares, Glass Lewis is generally against such authorizations, which allow the board to determine the preferences, limitations and rights of the preferred shares (known as “blank-check preferred stock”). We believe that granting such broad discretion should be of concern to common shareholders, since blank-check preferred stock could be used as an anti-takeover device or in some other fashion that adversely affects the voting power or financial interests of common shareholders.

Therefore, we will generally recommend voting against such requests, unless the company discloses a commitment to not use such shares as an anti-takeover defense or in a shareholder rights plan, or discloses a commitment to submit any shareholder rights plan to a shareholder vote prior to its adoption.

While we think that having adequate shares to allow management to make quick decisions and effectively operate the business is critical, we prefer that, for significant transactions, management come to shareholders to justify their use of additional shares rather than providing a blank check in the form of a large pool of unallocated shares available for any purpose.

Advance Notice Requirements

We typically recommend that shareholders vote against proposals that would require advance notice of shareholder proposals or of director nominees.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			74

These proposals typically attempt to require a certain amount of notice before shareholders are allowed to place proposals on the ballot. Notice requirements typically range between three to six months prior to the annual meeting. Advance notice requirements typically make it impossible for a shareholder who misses the deadline to present a shareholder proposal or a director nominee that might be in the best interests of the company and its shareholders.

We believe shareholders should be able to review and vote on all proposals and director nominees. Shareholders can always vote against proposals that appear with little prior notice. Shareholders, as owners of a business, are capable of identifying issues on which they have sufficient information and ignoring issues on which they have insufficient information. Setting arbitrary notice restrictions limits the opportunity for shareholders to raise issues that may come up after the window closes.

Virtual Shareholder Meetings

A growing contingent of companies have elected to hold shareholder meetings by virtual means only. Glass Lewis believes that virtual meeting technology can be a useful complement to a traditional, in-person shareholder meeting by expanding participation of shareholders who are unable to attend a shareholder meeting in person (i.e. a “hybrid meeting”). However, we also believe that virtual-only meetings have the potential to curb the ability of a company’s shareholders to meaningfully communicate with the company’s management.

Prominent shareholder rights advocates, including the Council of Institutional Investors, have expressed concerns that such virtual-only meetings do not approximate an in-person experience and may serve to reduce the board’s accountability to shareholders. When analyzing the governance profile of companies that choose to hold virtual-only meetings, we look for robust disclosure in a company’s proxy statement which assures shareholders that they will be afforded the same rights and opportunities to participate as they would at an in- person meeting.

Examples of effective disclosure include: (i) addressing the ability of shareholders to ask questions during the meeting, including time guidelines for shareholder questions, rules around what types of questions are allowed, and rules for how questions and comments will be recognized and disclosed to meeting participants; (ii)

procedures, if any, for posting appropriate questions received during the meeting and the company’s answers, on the investor page of their website as soon as is practical after the meeting; (iii) addressing technical and logistical issues related to accessing the virtual meeting platform; and (iv) procedures for accessing technical support to assist in the event of any difficulties accessing the virtual meeting.

We will generally recommend voting against members of the governance committee where the board is planning to hold a virtual-only shareholder meeting and the company does not provide such disclosure.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			75

Voting Structure

Multi-Class Share Structures

Glass Lewis believes multi-class voting structures are typically not in the best interests of common shareholders. Allowing one vote per share generally operates as a safeguard for common shareholders by ensuring that those who hold a significant minority of shares are able to weigh in on issues set forth by the board.

Furthermore, we believe that the economic stake of each shareholder should match their voting power and that no small group of shareholders, family or otherwise, should have voting rights different from those of other shareholders. On matters of governance and shareholder rights, we believe shareholders should have the power to speak and the opportunity to effect change. That power should not be concentrated in the hands of a few for reasons other than economic stake.

We generally consider a multi-class share structure to reflect negatively on a company’s overall corporate governance. Because we believe that companies should have share capital structures that protect the interests of non-controlling shareholders as well as any controlling entity, we typically recommend that shareholders vote in favor of recapitalization proposals to eliminate dual-class share structures. Similarly, we will generally recommend against proposals to adopt a new class of common stock. We will generally recommend voting against the chair of the governance committee at companies with a multi-class share structure and unequal voting rights when the company does not provide for a reasonable sunset of the multi-class share structure (generally seven years or less).

In the case of a board that adopts a multi-class share structure in connection with an IPO, spin-off, or direct listing within the past year, we will generally recommend voting against all members of the board who served at the time of the IPO if the board: (i) did not also commit to submitting the multi-class structure to a shareholder vote at the company’s first shareholder meeting following the IPO; or (ii) did not provide for a reasonable sunset of the multi-class structure (generally seven years or less). If the multi-class share structure is put to a shareholder vote, we will examine the level of approval or disapproval attributed to unaffiliated shareholders when determining the vote outcome.

At companies that have multi-class share structures with unequal voting rights, we will carefully examine the level of approval or disapproval attributed to unaffiliated shareholders when determining whether board responsiveness is warranted. In the case of companies that have multi-class share structures with unequal voting rights, we will generally examine the level of approval or disapproval attributed to unaffiliated

shareholders on a “one share, one vote” basis. At controlled and multi-class companies, when at least 20% or more of unaffiliated shareholders vote contrary to management, we believe that boards should engage with shareholders and demonstrate some initial level of responsiveness, and when a majority or more of unaffiliated shareholders vote contrary to management we believe that boards should engage with shareholders and provide a more robust response to fully address shareholder concerns.

Cumulative Voting

Cumulative voting increases the ability of minority shareholders to elect a director by allowing shareholders to cast as many shares of the stock they own multiplied by the number of directors to be elected. As companies


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			76

generally have multiple nominees up for election, cumulative voting allows shareholders to cast all of their votes for a single nominee, or a smaller number of nominees than up for election, thereby raising the likelihood of electing one or more of their preferred nominees to the board. It can be important when a board is controlled by insiders or affiliates and where the company’s ownership structure includes one or more shareholders who control a majority-voting block of company stock.

Glass Lewis believes that cumulative voting generally acts as a safeguard for shareholders by ensuring that those who hold a significant minority of shares can elect a candidate of their choosing to the board. This allows the creation of boards that are responsive to the interests of all shareholders rather than just a small group of

large holders.

We review cumulative voting proposals on a case-by-case basis, factoring in the independence of the board and the status of the company’s governance structure. But we typically find these proposals on ballots at companies where independence is lacking and where the appropriate checks and balances favoring shareholders are not in place. In those instances we typically recommend in favor of cumulative voting.

Where a company has adopted a true majority vote standard (i.e., where a director must receive a majority of votes cast to be elected, as opposed to a modified policy indicated by a resignation policy only), Glass Lewis will recommend voting against cumulative voting proposals due to the incompatibility of the two election methods. For companies that have not adopted a true majority voting standard but have adopted some form of majority voting, Glass Lewis will also generally recommend voting against cumulative voting proposals if the company has not adopted anti-takeover protections and has been responsive to shareholders.

Where a company has not adopted a majority voting standard and is facing both a shareholder proposal to adopt majority voting and a shareholder proposal to adopt cumulative voting, Glass Lewis will support only the majority voting proposal. When a company has both majority voting and cumulative voting in place, there is a higher likelihood of one or more directors not being elected as a result of not receiving a majority vote. This is because shareholders exercising the right to cumulate their votes could unintentionally cause the failed election of one or more directors for whom shareholders do not cumulate votes.

Supermajority Vote Requirements

Glass Lewis believes that supermajority vote requirements impede shareholder action on ballot items critical to shareholder interests. An example is in the takeover context, where supermajority vote requirements can strongly limit the voice of shareholders in making decisions on such crucial matters as selling the business. This in turn degrades share value and can limit the possibility of buyout premiums to shareholders. Moreover,

we believe that a supermajority vote requirement can enable a small group of shareholders to overrule the will of the majority shareholders. We believe that a simple majority is appropriate to approve all matters presented to shareholders.

Transaction of Other Business

We typically recommend that shareholders not give their proxy to management to vote on any other business items that may properly come before an annual or special meeting. In our opinion, granting unfettered discretion is unwise.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			77

Anti-Greenmail Proposals

Glass Lewis will support proposals to adopt a provision preventing the payment of greenmail, which would serve to prevent companies from buying back company stock at significant premiums from a certain shareholder.

Since a large or majority shareholder could attempt to compel a board into purchasing its shares at a large premium, the anti-greenmail provision would generally require that a majority of shareholders other than the majority shareholder approve the buyback.

Mutual Funds: Investment Policies and Advisory Agreements

Glass Lewis believes that decisions about a fund’s structure and/or a fund’s relationship with its investment advisor or sub-advisors are generally best left to management and the members of the board, absent a showing of egregious or illegal conduct that might threaten shareholder value. As such, we focus our analyses of such proposals on the following main areas:

•The terms of any amended advisory or sub-advisory agreement;

•Any changes in the fee structure paid to the investment advisor; and

•Any material changes to the fund’s investment objective or strategy.

We generally support amendments to a fund’s investment advisory agreement absent a material change that is not in the best interests of shareholders. A significant increase in the fees paid to an investment advisor would be reason for us to consider recommending voting against a proposed amendment to an investment advisory agreement or fund reorganization. However, in certain cases, we are more inclined to support an increase in advisory fees if such increases result from being performance-based rather than asset-based. Furthermore, we generally support sub-advisory agreements between a fund’s advisor and sub-advisor, primarily because the fees received by the sub-advisor are paid by the advisor, and not by the fund.

In matters pertaining to a fund’s investment objective or strategy, we believe shareholders are best served when a fund’s objective or strategy closely resembles the investment discipline shareholders understood and selected when they initially bought into the fund. As such, we generally recommend voting against amendments to a fund’s investment objective or strategy when the proposed changes would leave shareholders with stakes in a fund that is noticeably different than when originally purchased, and which could therefore potentially negatively impact some investors’ diversification strategies.

Real Estate Investment Trusts

The complex organizational, operational, tax and compliance requirements of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) provide for a unique shareholder evaluation. In simple terms, a REIT must have a minimum of 100 shareholders (the 100 Shareholder Test) and no more than 50% of the value of its shares can be held by five or fewer individuals (the “5/50 Test”). At least 75% of a REITs’ assets must be in real estate, it must derive 75% of its gross income from rents or mortgage interest, and it must pay out 90% of its taxable earnings as dividends. In addition, as a publicly traded security listed on a stock exchange, a REIT must comply with the same general listing requirements as a publicly traded equity.

In order to comply with such requirements, REITs typically include percentage ownership limitations in their organizational documents, usually in the range of 5% to 10% of the REITs outstanding shares. Given the complexities of REITs as an asset class, Glass Lewis applies a highly nuanced approach in our evaluation of REIT proposals, especially regarding changes in authorized share capital, including preferred stock.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			78

Preferred Stock Issuances at REITs

Glass Lewis is generally against the authorization of "blank-check preferred stock." However, given the requirement that a REIT must distribute 90% of its net income annually, it is inhibited from retaining capital to make investments in its business. As such, we recognize that equity financing likely plays a key role in a REIT’s growth and creation of shareholder value. Moreover, shareholder concern regarding the use of preferred stock as an anti-takeover mechanism may be allayed by the fact that most REITs maintain ownership limitations in their certificates of incorporation. For these reasons, along with the fact that REITs typically do not engage in private placements of preferred stock (which result in the rights of common shareholders being adversely impacted), we may support requests to authorize shares of blank-check preferred stock at REITs.

Business Development Companies

Business Development Companies (BDCs) were created by the U.S. Congress in 1980; they are regulated under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and are taxed as regulated investment companies (RICs) under the Internal Revenue Code. BDCs typically operate as publicly traded private equity firms that invest in early stage to mature private companies as well as small public companies. BDCs realize operating income when their investments are sold off, and therefore maintain complex organizational, operational, tax and compliance requirements that are similar to those of REITs—the most evident of which is that BDCs must distribute at least 90% of their taxable earnings as dividends.

Authorization to Sell Shares at a Price Below Net Asset Value

Considering that BDCs are required to distribute nearly all their earnings to shareholders, they sometimes need to offer additional shares of common stock in the public markets to finance operations and acquisitions.

However, shareholder approval is required in order for a BDC to sell shares of common stock at a price below Net Asset Value (NAV). Glass Lewis evaluates these proposals using a case-by-case approach, but will recommend supporting such requests if the following conditions are met:

•The authorization to allow share issuances below NAV has an expiration date of one year or less from the date that shareholders approve the underlying proposal (i.e. the meeting date);

•The proposed discount below NAV is minimal (ideally no greater than 20%);

•The board specifies that the issuance will have a minimal or modest dilutive effect (ideally no greater

than 25% of the company’s then-outstanding common stock prior to the issuance); and

•A majority of the company’s independent directors who do not have a financial interest in the issuance approve the sale.

In short, we believe BDCs should demonstrate a responsible approach to issuing shares below NAV, by proactively addressing shareholder concerns regarding the potential dilution of the requested share issuance, and explaining if and how the company’s past below-NAV share issuances have benefitted the company.

Auditor Ratification and Below-NAV Issuances

When a BDC submits a below-NAV issuance for shareholder approval, we will refrain from recommending against the audit committee chair for not including auditor ratification on the same ballot. Because of the

unique way these proposals interact, votes may be tabulated in a manner that is not in shareholders’ interests. In cases where these proposals appear on the same ballot, auditor ratification is generally the only “routine proposal,” the presence of which triggers a scenario where broker non-votes may be counted toward shareholder quorum, with unintended consequences.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			79

Under the 1940 Act, below-NAV issuance proposals require relatively high shareholder approval. Specifically, these proposals must be approved by the lesser of: (i) 67% of votes cast if a majority of shares are represented at the meeting; or (ii) a majority of outstanding shares. Meanwhile, any broker non-votes counted toward quorum will automatically be registered as “against” votes for purposes of this proposal. The unintended result can be a case where the issuance proposal is not approved, despite sufficient voting shares being cast in favor.

Because broker non-votes result from a lack of voting instruction by the shareholder, we do not believe

shareholders’ ability to weigh in on the selection of auditor outweighs the consequences of failing to approve an

issuance proposal due to such technicality.

Special Purpose Acquisition Companies

Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs), also known as “blank check companies,” are publicly traded entities with no commercial operations and are formed specifically to pool funds in order to complete a merger or acquisition within a set time frame. In general, the acquisition target of a SPAC is either not yet identified or otherwise not explicitly disclosed to the public even when the founders of the SPAC may have at least one target in mind. Consequently, IPO investors often do not know what company they will ultimately be investing in.

SPACs are therefore very different from typical operating companies. Shareholders do not have the same expectations associated with an ordinary publicly traded company and executive officers of a SPAC typically do not continue in employment roles with an acquired company.

Extension of Business Combination Deadline

Governing documents of SPACs typically provide for the return of IPO proceeds to common shareholders if no qualifying business combination is consummated before a certain date. Because the time frames for the consummation of such transactions are relatively short, SPACs will sometimes hold special shareholder meetings at which shareholders are asked to extend the business combination deadline. In such cases, an acquisition target will typically have been identified, but additional time is required to allow management of the SPAC to finalize the terms of the deal.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			80

Glass Lewis believes management and the board are generally in the best position to determine when the extension of a business combination deadline is needed. We therefore generally defer to the recommendation of management and support reasonable extension requests.

SPAC Board Independence

The board of directors of a SPAC’s acquisition target is in many cases already established prior to the business combination. In some cases, however, the board’s composition may change in connection with the business combination, including the potential addition of individuals who served in management roles with the SPAC. The role of a SPAC executive is unlike that of a typical operating company executive. Because the SPAC’s only business is identifying and executing an acquisition deal, the interests of a former SPAC executive are also different. Glass Lewis does not automatically consider a former SPAC executive to be affiliated with the acquired operating entity when their only position on the board of the combined entity is that of an otherwise independent director. Absent any evidence of an employment relationship or continuing material financial interest in the combined entity, we will therefore consider such directors to be independent.

Director Commitments of SPAC Executives

We believe the primary role of executive officers at SPACs is identifying acquisition targets for the SPAC and consummating a business combination. Given the nature of these executive roles and the limited business operations of SPACs, when a directors’ only executive role is at a SPAC, we will generally apply our higher limit for company directorships. As a result, we generally recommend that shareholders vote against a director who serves in an executive role only at a SPAC while serving on more than five public company boards.

Shareholder Proposals

Glass Lewis believes that shareholders should seek to promote governance structures that protect shareholders, support effective ESG oversight and reporting, and encourage director accountability. Accordingly, Glass Lewis places a significant emphasis on promoting transparency, robust governance structures and companies’ responsiveness to and engagement with shareholders. We also believe that companies should be transparent on how they are mitigating material ESG risks, including those related to climate change, human capital management, and stakeholder relations.

To that end, we evaluate all shareholder proposals on a case-by-case basis with a view to promoting long-term shareholder value. While we are generally supportive of those that promote board accountability, shareholder rights, and transparency, we consider all proposals in the context of a company’s unique operations and risk profile.

For a detailed review of our policies concerning compensation, environmental, social, and governance shareholder proposals, please refer to our comprehensive Proxy Paper Guidelines for Environmental, Social & Governance Initiatives, available at www.glasslewis.com/voting-policies-current/.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			81

Overall Approach to Environmental, Social & Governance Issues

Glass Lewis evaluates all environmental and social issues through the lens of long-term shareholder value. We believe that companies should be considering material environmental and social factors in all aspects of their operations and that companies should provide shareholders with disclosures that allow them to understand how these factors are being considered and how attendant risks are being mitigated. We also are of the view that governance is a critical factor in how companies manage environmental and social risks and opportunities and that a well-governed company will be generally managing these issues better than one without a governance structure that promotes board independence and accountability.

We believe part of the board’s role is to ensure that management conducts a complete risk analysis of company operations, including those that have material environmental and social implications. We believe that directors should monitor management’s performance in both capitalizing on environmental and social opportunities and mitigating environmental and social risks related to operations in order to best serve the interests of shareholders. Companies face significant financial, legal and reputational risks resulting from poor environmental and social practices, or negligent oversight thereof. Therefore, in cases where the board or management has neglected to take action on a pressing issue that could negatively impact shareholder value, we believe that shareholders should take necessary action in order to effect changes that will safeguard their financial interests.

Given the importance of the role of the board in executing a sustainable business strategy that allows for the realization of environmental and social opportunities and the mitigation of related risks, relating to environmental risks and opportunities, we believe shareholders should seek to promote governance structures that protect shareholders and promote director accountability. When management and the board have displayed disregard for environmental or social risks, have engaged in egregious or illegal conduct, or have failed to adequately respond to current or imminent environmental and social risks that threaten shareholder value, we believe shareholders should consider holding directors accountable. In such instances, we will generally recommend against responsible members of the board that are specifically charged with oversight of the issue in question.

When evaluating environmental and social factors that may be relevant to a given company, Glass Lewis does so in the context of the financial materiality of the issue to the company’s operations. We believe that all companies face risks associated with environmental and social issues. However, we recognize that these risks manifest themselves differently at each company as a result of a company’s operations, workforce, structure, and geography, among other factors. Accordingly, we place a significant emphasis on the financial implications of a company’s actions with regard to impacts on its stakeholders and the environment.

When evaluating environmental and social issues, Glass Lewis examines companies’:

Direct environmental and social risk — Companies should evaluate financial exposure to direct environmental risks associated with their operations. Examples of direct environmental risks include those associated with oil or gas spills, contamination, hazardous leakages, explosions, or reduced water or air quality, among others.

Social risks may include non-inclusive employment policies, inadequate human rights policies, or issues that adversely affect the company’s stakeholders. Further, we believe that firms should consider their exposure to risks emanating from a broad range of issues, over which they may have no or only limited control, such as insurance


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			82

companies being affected by increased storm severity and frequency resulting from climate change or membership in trade associations with controversial political ties.

Risk due to legislation and regulation — Companies should evaluate their exposure to changes or potential changes in regulation that affect current and planned operations. Regulation should be carefully monitored in all jurisdictions in which the company operates. We look closely at relevant and proposed legislation and evaluate whether the company has responded proactively.

Legal and reputational risk — Failure to take action on important environmental or social issues may carry the risk of inciting negative publicity and potentially costly litigation. While the effect of high-profile campaigns on shareholder value may not be directly measurable, we believe it is prudent for companies to carefully evaluate the potential impacts of the public perception of their impacts on stakeholders and the environment. When considering investigations and lawsuits, Glass Lewis is mindful that such matters may involve unadjudicated allegations or other charges that have not been resolved. Glass Lewis does not assume the truth of such allegations or charges or that the law has been violated. Instead, Glass Lewis focuses more broadly on whether, under the particular facts and circumstances presented, the nature and number of such concerns, lawsuits or investigations reflects on the risk profile of the company or suggests that appropriate risk mitigation measures may be warranted.

Governance risk — Inadequate oversight of environmental and social issues carries significant risks to companies. When leadership is ineffective or fails to thoroughly consider potential risks, such risks are likely unmitigated and could thus present substantial risks to the company, ultimately leading to loss of shareholder value.

Glass Lewis believes that one of the most crucial factors in analyzing the risks presented to companies in the form of environmental and social issues is the level and quality of oversight over such issues. When management and the board have displayed disregard for environmental risks, have engaged in egregious or illegal conduct, or have failed to adequately respond to current or imminent environmental risks that threaten shareholder value, we believe shareholders should consider holding directors accountable. When companies have not provided for explicit, board-level oversight of environmental and social matters and/or when a substantial environmental or social risk has been ignored or inadequately addressed, we may recommend voting against members of the board. In addition, or alternatively, depending on the proposals presented, we may also consider recommending voting in favor of relevant shareholder proposals or against other relevant management-proposed items, such as the ratification of auditor, a company’s accounts and reports, or ratification of management and board acts.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			83

Connect with Glass Lewis

Corporate Website | www.glasslewis.com

Email | info@glasslewis.com

Social |

@glasslewis

Glass, Lewis & Co.

Global Locations


North	United States	Asia	Australia
America	Headquarters 255 California Street	Pacific	CGI Glass Lewis Suite 5.03, Level 5
	Suite 1100		255 George Street
	San Francisco, CA 94111		Sydney NSW 2000
	+1 415 678 4110		+61 2 9299 9266
	+1 888 800 7001		Japan
	New York, NY +1 646 606 2345		Shinjuku Mitsui Building
			11th floor
	2323 Grand Boulevard Suite 1125 Kansas City, MO 64108		2-1-1, Nishi-Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 163-0411, Japan
	+1 816 945 4525
Europe	Ireland 15 Henry Street
	Limerick V94 V9T4
	+353 61 292 800
	United Kingdom
	80 Coleman Street
	Suite 4.02
	London EC2R 5BJ
	+44 20 7653 8800
	Germany
	IVOX Glass Lewis
	Kaiserallee 23a
	76133 Karlsruhe
	+49 721 35 49 622


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			84

DISCLAIMER

This document is intended to provide an overview of Glass Lewis’ proxy voting guidelines. It is not intended to be exhaustive and does not address all potential voting issues. Glass Lewis’ proxy voting guidelines, as they apply to certain issues or types of proposals, are further explained in supplemental guidelines and reports that are made available on Glass Lewis’ website – http://www.glasslewis.com. These guidelines have not been set or approved by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or any other regulatory body. Additionally, none of the information contained herein is or should be relied upon as investment advice. The content of this

document has been developed based on Glass Lewis’ experience with proxy voting and corporate governance issues, engagement with clients and issuers, and review of relevant studies and surveys, and has not been tailored to any specific person or entity.

Glass Lewis’ proxy voting guidelines are grounded in corporate governance best practices, which often exceed minimum legal requirements. Accordingly, unless specifically noted otherwise, a failure to meet these guidelines should not be understood to mean that the company or individual involved has failed to meet applicable legal requirements.

No representations or warranties express or implied, are made as to the accuracy or completeness of any information included herein. In addition, Glass Lewis shall not be liable for any losses or damages arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use, reliance on, or inability to use any such information. Glass Lewis expects its subscribers possess sufficient experience and knowledge to make their own decisions entirely independent of any information contained in this document.

All information contained in this report is protected by law, including, but not limited to, copyright law, and none of such information may be copied or otherwise reproduced, repackaged, further transmitted, transferred, disseminated, redistributed or resold, or stored for subsequent use for any such purpose, in whole or in part, in any form or manner, or by any means whatsoever, by any person without Glass Lewis’ prior written consent.


2023 Policy Guidelines — United States			85

Table of Contents

About Glass Lewis 4

Introduction 5

Summary of Changes for 2023 5

Election of Directors 7

Board of Directors 7

Board Composition 7

Slate Elections 8

Board Committee Composition 8

Review of Risk Management Controls 9

Classified Boards 9

Board Tenure and Refreshment 9

Board Diversity 9

Environmental and Social Risk Oversight 10

Board Accountability for Climate-related Issues 10

Cyber Risk Oversight 10

Board Responsiveness 11

Separation of the Roles of Chair and CEO 11

Financial Reporting 12

Accounts and Reports 12

Income Allocation (Distribution of Dividends) 12

Appointment of Auditors and Authority to Set Fees 12

Compensation 13

Compensation Report/Compensation Policy 13

Long-Term Incentive Plans 13

Performance-Based Equity Compensation 14

Director Compensation 14

Retirement Benefits for Directors 14

Governance Structure 15

Amendments to the Articles of Association 15

Virtual Meetings 15


2023 International Proxy Paper Policy Guidelines			2

Anti-Takeover Measures 16

Multi-Class Share Structures 16

Poison Pills (Shareholder Rights Plans) 16

Supermajority Vote Requirements 16

Increase in Authorized Shares 17

Issuance of Shares 17

Repurchase of Shares 17

Shareholder Proposals 18

Overall Approach to Environmental, Social & Governance 19

Connect with Glass Lewis 21


2023 International Proxy Paper Policy Guidelines			3

About Glass Lewis

Glass Lewis is the world’s choice for governance solutions. We enable institutional investors and publicly

Our customers include the majority of the world’s largest pension plans, mutual funds, and asset


2023 International Proxy Paper Policy Guidelines			4

Introduction

These guidelines provide a general overview of the Glass Lewis approach to proxy advice globally. Glass Lewis publishes separate, detailed policy guidelines for all major global markets, which are publicly available on the Glass Lewis website. Glass Lewis policies are largely based on the regulations, listing rules, codes of best practice and other relevant standards set in each country. While these guidelines provide a high-level overview of our general policy approach, implementation varies in accordance with relevant requirements or best practices in each market. For detailed information on the implementation of the policy approach described below, refer to the Glass Lewis policy guidelines for the relevant country.

Summary of Changes for 2023

Board Accountability for Climate-related Issues

In a new section of these guidelines, we have outlined that where companies with increased climate risk exposure have not provided thorough TCFD-aligned climate-related disclosure and/or have not explicitly and clearly defined board oversight responsibilities for climate-related issues, we may recommend voting against a responsible member of the board or other relevant agenda item.

Please refer to the “Board Accountability for Climate-related Issues” section of these guidelines for further information.

Cyber Risk Oversight

In a new section of these guidelines, we have outlined our belief that cyber risk is material for all companies and that a company’s stakeholders would benefit from clear disclosure regarding the role of the board in overseeing issues related to cybersecurity. Further we have clarified that, while we will generally not make

recommendations on the basis of a company’s oversight or disclosure concerning cyber-related issues, we may recommend against appropriate directors in instances where cyber-attacks have caused significant harm to shareholders and we find the company’s disclosure or oversight to be insufficient.

Please refer to the “Cyber Risk Oversight” section of these guidelines for further information.

Board Responsiveness

We have clarified that, in assessing board responsiveness, we take into account a company’s shareholder and capital structure, carefully examining the level of disapproval on prior year agenda items attributable to minority shareholders.

Please refer to the “Board Responsiveness” section of these guidelines for further information.


2023 International Proxy Paper Policy Guidelines			5

Board Diversity

We have clarified that we generally expect the boards of main market companies in most major global markets to comprise at least one gender diverse director and that for boards listed on blue-chip or mid-cap indices in Europe or North America, we expect gender diverse directors to hold at least 30% of board seats. We will continue to apply a higher standard where best practice recommendations or listing regulations set a higher target.

Please refer to the “Board Diversity” section of these guidelines for further information.

Multi-Class Share Structures

We have outlined that we will generally recommend that shareholders vote against (a) certain director(s) and/or other relevant agenda items at a North American or European company that adopts a multi-class share structure with unequal voting rights in connection with an IPO, spin-off, or direct listing within the past year if the board:

(i) did not also commit to submitting the multi-class structure to a shareholder vote at the company’s first shareholder meeting following the IPO; or (ii) did not provide for a reasonable sunset of the multi-class structure (generally seven years or less).

Further, we have clarified that our approach toward companies with existing multi-class share structures with unequal voting varies between regions and is dependent on, inter alia, local market practice and legislation, as well as our assessment of whether evidence exists that the share structure is contributing to poor governance or the suppression of minority shareholder concerns.

Please refer to the “Multi-Class Share Structures” section of these guidelines for further information.


2023 International Proxy Paper Policy Guidelines			6

Election of Directors

Board of Directors

Boards are put in place to represent shareholders and protect their interests. Glass Lewis seeks boards with a proven record of protecting shareholders and delivering value over the medium- and long-term. In our view, boards working to protect and enhance the best interests of shareholders typically include some independent directors (the percentage will vary by local market practice and regulations), boast a record of positive performance, have directors with diverse backgrounds, and appoint directors with a breadth and depth of experience.

Board Composition

We look at each individual on the board and examine his or her relationships with the company, the company’s executives and with other board members. The purpose of this inquiry is to determine whether pre-existing personal, familial or financial relationships are likely to impact the decisions of that board member.

Where the company does not disclose the names or backgrounds of director nominees with sufficient time in advance of the shareholder meeting to evaluate their independence, performance or skills we will consider recommending voting against or abstaining from voting on the directors’ election.

We recommend voting in favor of governance structures that will drive positive performance and enhance shareholder value. The most crucial test of a board’s commitment to the company and to its shareholders is the performance of the board and its members. The performance of directors in their capacity as board members and as executives of the company, when applicable, and in their roles at other companies where they serve is critical to this evaluation. We generally believe that a board will be most effective in protecting shareholders' interests when a majority of shareholder representatives on the board are independent, although we set higher and lower thresholds in some markets on the basis of local best practice recommendations and prevailing market practice. We typically accept the presence of representatives of a company's major shareholder(s) on the board in line with their stake in a company's issued share capital or voting rights, so long as there is a sufficient number of independent directors to represent free-float shareholders and allow for the formation of sufficiently independent board committees.

We believe a director is independent if they have no material financial, familial or other current relationships with the company, its executives or other board members except for service on the board and standard fees paid for that service. Relationships that have existed within the three to five years, dependent on the nature of the relationship, prior to the inquiry are usually considered to be “current” for purposes of this test.

In our view, a director is affiliated if they have a material financial, familial or other relationship with the company or its executives, but are not an employee of the company. This includes directors whose employers have a material financial relationship with the Company. This also includes a director who owns or controls, directly or indirectly, 10% or more of the company’s voting stock (except where local regulations or best practice

set a different threshold).


2023 International Proxy Paper Policy Guidelines			7

We define an inside director as one who simultaneously serves as a director and as an employee of the company. This category may include a board chair who acts as an employee of the company or is paid as an employee of the company.

Although we typically recommend that shareholders support the election of independent directors, we will recommend voting against directors for the following reasons:

•A director who attends less than 75% of the board and applicable committee meetings.

•A director who is also the CEO of a company where a serious restatement has occurred after the CEO certified the pre-restatement financial statements.

•An affiliated director where the board is not sufficiently independent in accordance with market best practice standards.

•There are substantial concerns regarding the performance and/or skills and experience of a director.

We also feel that the following conflicts of interest may hinder a director’s performance and will therefore

recommend voting against a:

•Director who presently sits on an excessive number of boards.

•Director who, or a director whose immediate family member, provides material professional services to the company at any time during the past three years.

•Director who, or a director whose immediate family member, engages in airplane, real estate or other similar deals, including perquisite type grants from the company.

•Director with an interlocking directorship.

Slate Elections

In some countries, companies elect their board members as a slate, whereby shareholders are unable to vote on the election of each individual director, but rather are limited to voting for or against the board as a whole. In countries where slate elections are common market practice, we will not recommend that shareholders oppose an election on the basis of this election method alone.

We will generally recommend that shareholders support a director slate, unless we have identified independence or performance concerns. When the proposed slate raises concerns regarding board or committee independence, we will generally recommend that shareholders vote against the slate. In egregious cases where we have identified concerns regarding the performance and/or experience of the board, its committees, and/or individual directors, we will similarly recommend that shareholders vote against the director slate.

Board Committee Composition

We believe that independent directors should serve on a company’s audit, compensation, nominating and governance committees. We will support boards with such a structure and encourage change where this is not the case. We generally recommend that shareholders oppose the presence of executive directors on the audit and compensation committee given the risks for conflicts of interest. We generally believe that the majority of shareholder representatives on key board committees should be independent, although we set higher and lower thresholds in some markets on the basis of local best practice recommendations and prevailing market practice.


2023 International Proxy Paper Policy Guidelines			8

Review of Risk Management Controls

We believe companies, particularly financial firms, should have a dedicated risk committee, or a committee of the board charged with risk oversight, as well as a chief risk officer who reports directly to that committee, not to the CEO or another executive. In cases where a company has disclosed a sizable loss or writedown, and where a reasonable analysis indicates that the company’s board-level risk committee should be held accountable for poor oversight, we would recommend that shareholders vote against such committee members on that basis. In addition, in cases where a company maintains a significant level of financial risk exposure but fails to disclose any explicit form of board-level risk oversight (committee or otherwise), we will consider recommending to vote against the chairman of the board on that basis.

Classified Boards

Glass Lewis favors the repeal of staggered boards in favor of the annual election of directors. We believe that staggered boards are less accountable to shareholders than annually elected boards. Furthermore, we feel that the annual election of directors encourages board members to focus on protecting the interests of shareholders.

Board Tenure and Refreshment

ideas and business strategies. In our view, a director’s experience can be a valuable asset to shareholders because of the complex, critical issues that boards face. This said, we recognize a lack of refreshment can contribute to a lack of board responsiveness to poor company performance. We may consider recommending voting against directors with a lengthy tenure (e.g. over 12 years) when we identify significant performance or governance concerns indicating that a fresh perspective would be beneficial and we find no evidence of board refreshment.

Where a board has established an age or term limit, we believe these should generally be applied equally for all members of the board. If a board waives its age/term limits, Glass Lewis will consider recommending shareholders vote against the chair of the nominating committee or equivalent, unless compelling rationale is provided for why the board is proposing to waive this rule through an election/re-election.

Board Diversity

Glass Lewis values the importance of board diversity, believing there are a number of benefits from having individuals with a variety of backgrounds serving on boards. We consider the diversity of gender, backgrounds, skills and experience of directors when evaluating board diversity. If a board has failed to address material concerns regarding the mix of skills and experience of the non-executive directors or when it fails to meet legal requirements or the best practice standard prevalent in the market for gender quotas and has not disclosed any cogent explanation or plan regarding its approach to board diversity, we will consider recommending voting against the chair of the nominating committee. We expect boards of main market companies listed in most major global markets (e.g. Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, United Kingdom and United States), to comprise at least one gender diverse director (women, or directors that identify with a gender other than male or female).


2023 International Proxy Paper Policy Guidelines			9

For European and North American companies listed on a blue-chip or mid-cap index (e.g. Russell 3000, TSX, FTSE 350, etc.), we expect at least 30% of the board to be composed of gender diverse directors. We apply a higher standard where best practice recommendations or listing regulations set a higher target.

We also monitor company disclosure on ethnic diversity at board level. We expect large companies in markets with legal requirements or best practice recommendations in this area (e.g. United States; United Kingdom) to provide clear disclosure on the board's performance or transition plans.

Environmental and Social Risk Oversight

Glass Lewis recognizes the importance of ensuring the sustainability of companies’ operations. We believe that insufficient oversight of material environmental and social issues can present direct legal, financial, regulatory and reputational risks that could serve to harm shareholder interests. Therefore, we believe that these issues should be carefully monitored and managed by companies, and that companies should have an appropriate oversight structure in place to ensure that they are mitigating attendant risks and capitalizing on related opportunities to the best extent possible. From 2022, Glass Lewis will generally recommend that shareholders vote against the chair of the governance committee (or equivalent) of companies listed on a major blue-chip index in key global markets that do not provide clear disclosure concerning the board-level oversight afforded to material environmental and/or social issues.

Board Accountability for Climate-related Issues

We believe that companies with increased climate risk exposure, such as those companies identified by groups including Climate Action 100+, should provide clear and comprehensive disclosure regarding these risks, including how they are being mitigated and overseen. We believe such information is crucial to allow investors to understand the company’s management of this issue, as well as the impact of a lower carbon future on the company’s operations.

related Disclosures (“TCFD”) should be provided to shareholders. We also believe the boards of these companies should have explicit and clearly defined oversight responsibilities for climate-related issues. As such, in instances where we find either (or both) of these disclosures to be absent or significantly lacking, we may recommend voting against the chair of the committee (or board) charged with oversight of climate-related issues, or if no committee has been charged with such oversight, the chair of the governance committee. Further, we may extend our recommendation on this basis to additional members of the responsible committee in cases where the committee chair is not standing for election due to a classified board, or based on other factors, including the company’s size and industry and its overall governance profile. In instances where appropriate directors are not standing for election, we may instead recommend shareholders vote against other matters that are up for a vote, such as the ratification of board acts, or the accounts and reports proposal.

Cyber Risk Oversight


2023 International Proxy Paper Policy Guidelines			10

mitigate these risks to the greatest extent possible. With that view, we encourage all issuers to provide clear disclosure concerning the role of the board in overseeing issues related to cybersecurity. We also believe that disclosure concerning how companies are ensuring directors are fully versed on this rapidly evolving and dynamic issue can help shareholders understand the seriousness with which companies take this issue.

Board Responsiveness

Glass Lewis believes that any time 20% or more of shareholders vote contrary to the recommendation of management, the board should, depending on the issue, demonstrate some level of responsiveness to address the concerns of shareholders, particularly in the case of a compensation or director election proposal. While the 20% threshold alone will not automatically generate a negative vote recommendation from Glass Lewis on a future proposal (e.g., to recommend against a director nominee, against a remuneration proposal, etc.), it will be a contributing factor to recommend a vote against management's recommendation in the event we determine that the board did not respond appropriately. In the case of companies with a controlling shareholder and/or with a multi-class share structure, we will carefully examine the level of disapproval attributable to minority shareholders.

As a general framework, our evaluation of board responsiveness involves a review of the publicly available disclosures released following the date of the company's last annual meeting up through the publication date of our most current Proxy Paper.

Separation of the Roles of Chair and CEO

Glass Lewis believes that separating the roles of corporate officers and the chair of the board is a better governance structure than a combined executive/chair position. The role of executives is to manage the business on the basis of the course charted by the board. Executives should be in the position of reporting and answering to the board for their performance in achieving the goals set out by such board. This becomes much more complicated when management actually sits on, or chairs, the board.

We view an independent chair as better able to oversee the executives of the company and set a pro- shareholder agenda without the management conflicts that a CEO and other executive insiders often face. This, in turn, leads to a more proactive and effective board of directors that is looking out for the interests of shareholders above all else.

In the absence of an independent chair, we support the appointment of a presiding or lead director with authority to set the agenda for the meetings and to lead sessions outside the presence of the insider chair.

We may recommend voting against the chair of the nominating committee when the chair and CEO roles are combined and the board has not appointed an independent presiding or lead director.


2023 International Proxy Paper Policy Guidelines			11

Financial Reporting

Accounts and Reports

Many countries require companies to submit the annual financial statements, director reports and independent auditors’ reports to shareholders at a general meeting. We will usually recommend voting in favor of these proposals except when there are concerns about the integrity of the statements/reports. However, should the audited financial statements, auditor’s report and/or annual report not be published at the writing of our report, we will recommend that shareholders abstain from voting on this proposal.

Income Allocation (Distribution of Dividends)

In many countries, companies must submit the allocation of income for shareholder approval. We will generally recommend voting for such a proposal. However, we will give particular scrutiny to cases where the company’s dividend payout ratio is exceptionally low or excessively high relative to its peers, or the proposed distribution represents a substantial departure from a company's disclosed dividend policy, and the company has not provided a satisfactory explanation.

Appointment of Auditors and Authority to Set Fees

We believe that role of the auditor is crucial in protecting shareholder value. Like directors, auditors should be free from conflicts of interest and should assiduously avoid situations that require them to make choices between their own interests and the interests of the shareholders. We generally support management’s recommendation regarding the selection of an auditor and support granting the board the authority to fix auditor fees except in cases where we believe the independence of an incumbent auditor or the integrity of the audit has been compromised. However, we generally recommend voting against ratification of the auditor and/or authorizing the board to set auditor fees for the following reasons:

•When audit fees added to audit-related fees total less than one-half of total fees.

•When there have been any recent restatements or late filings by the company where the auditor bears some responsibility for the restatement or late filing (e.g., a restatement due to a reporting error).

•When the company has aggressive accounting policies.

•When the company has poor disclosure or lack of transparency in financial statements.

•When there are other relationships or issues of concern with the auditor that might suggest a conflict between the interest of the auditor and the interests of shareholders.

•When the company is changing auditors as a result of a disagreement between the company and the auditor on a matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure or auditing scope or procedures.

•Where the auditor’s tenure is lengthy (e.g. over 10 years) and when we identify any ongoing litigation or

significant controversies which call into question an auditor's effectiveness


2023 International Proxy Paper Policy Guidelines			12

Compensation

Compensation Report/Compensation Policy

We closely review companies’ remuneration practices and disclosure as outlined in company filings to evaluate management-submitted advisory compensation report and policy vote proposals. In evaluating these proposals, which can be binding or non-binding depending on the country, we examine how well the company has disclosed information pertinent to its compensation programs, the extent to which overall compensation is tied to performance, the performance metrics selected by the company and the levels of remuneration in comparison to company performance and that of its peers.

We will usually recommend voting against approval of the compensation report or policy when the following occur:

•Gross disconnect between pay and performance;

•Gross disconnect between remuneration outcomes and the experience of shareholders and other key stakeholders (in particular company employees) in the year under review;

•Performance goals and metrics are inappropriate or insufficiently challenging;

•Lack of disclosure regarding performance metrics and goals as well as the extent to which the performance metrics, targets and goals are implemented to enhance company performance and encourage prudent risk-taking;

•Excessive weighting of short-term (e.g., generally less than three year) performance measurement in incentive plans;

•Excessive discretion afforded to or exercised by management or the compensation committee to deviate from defined performance metrics and goals in making awards;

•Ex gratia or other non-contractual payments have been made and the reasons for making the payments have not been fully explained or the explanation is unconvincing;

•Guaranteed bonuses are established;

•Egregious or excessive bonuses, equity awards or severance payments;

•Excessive increases (e.g. over 10%) in fixed payments such as salary or pension entitlements that are not adequately justified

In addition, we look for the presence of other structural safeguards, such as clawback and malus policies for incentive plans. The absence of such safeguards may contribute to a negative recommendation. In particularly egregious cases where we conclude that the compensation committee has substantially failed to fulfill its duty to shareholders, we may also recommend that shareholders vote against the chair, senior members, or all members of the committee, depending on the seriousness and persistence of the issues identified.

Long-Term Incentive Plans

Glass Lewis recognizes the value of equity-based incentive programs. When used appropriately, they can

provide a vehicle for linking an employee’s pay to a company’s performance, thereby aligning their interests


2023 International Proxy Paper Policy Guidelines			13

with those of shareholders. Tying a portion of an employee’s compensation to the performance of the Company provides an incentive to maximize share value. In addition, equity-based compensation is an effective way to attract, retain and motivate key employees. In order to allow for meaningful shareholder review, we believe that incentive programs should generally include: (i) specific and appropriate performance goals; (ii) a maximum award pool; and (iii) a maximum award amount per employee. In addition, the payments made should be reasonable relative to the performance of the business and total compensation to those covered by the plan should be in line with compensation paid by the Company’s peers.

Performance-Based Equity Compensation

Glass Lewis believes in performance-based equity compensation plans for senior executives. We feel that executives should be compensated with equity when their performance and that of the company warrants such rewards. While we do not believe that equity-based compensation plans for all employees need to be based on overall company performance, we do support such limitations for grants to senior executives (although even some equity-based compensation of senior executives without performance criteria is acceptable, such as in the case of moderate incentive grants made in an initial offer of employment). Boards often argue that such a proposal would hinder them in attracting talent. We believe that boards can develop a consistent, reliable approach, as boards of many companies have, that would still attract executives who believe in their ability to guide the company to achieve its targets.

We generally recommend that shareholders vote in favor of performance-based option requirements. There should be no retesting of performance conditions for all share- and option- based incentive schemes. We will generally recommend that shareholders vote against performance-based equity compensation plans that allow for re-testing. We pay particular attention to awards to major shareholders that serve as senior executives, mindful of the natural alignment between shareholders' and the executive's interests and the potential for such grants to further consolidate the executive's ownership level.

Director Compensation

Glass Lewis believes that non-employee directors should receive appropriate types and levels of compensation for the time and effort they spend serving on the board and its committees. Director fees should be reasonable in order to retain and attract qualified individuals. We support compensation plans that include non performance-based equity awards. Glass Lewis compares the costs of these plans to the plans of peer companies with similar market capitalizations in the same country to help inform its judgment on this issue.

Retirement Benefits for Directors

We will typically recommend voting against proposals to grant retirement benefits to non-executive directors. Such extended payments can impair the objectivity and independence of these board members. Directors should receive adequate compensation for their board service through initial and annual fees.


2023 International Proxy Paper Policy Guidelines			14

Governance Structure

Amendments to the Articles of Association

We will evaluate proposed amendments to a company’s articles of association on a case-by-case basis. We are opposed to the practice of bundling several amendments under a single proposal because it prevents shareholders from evaluating each amendment on its own merits. In such cases, we will analyze each change individually and will recommend voting for the proposal only when we believe that the amendments on balance are in the best interests of shareholders.

Virtual Meetings

Glass Lewis unequivocally supports companies facilitating the virtual participation of shareholders in general meetings. We believe that virtual meeting technology can be a useful complement to a traditional, in-person shareholder meeting by expanding participation of shareholders who are unable to attend a shareholder meeting in person (i.e. a "hybrid meeting"). However, we also believe that virtual-only shareholder meetings can curb the ability of a company's shareholders to participate in the meeting and meaningfully communicate with company management and directors.

Where companies are convening a meeting at which in-person attendance of shareholders is limited, we expect companies to set and disclose clear procedures at the time of convocation regarding:

i)When, where, and how shareholders will have an opportunity to ask questions related to the subjects normally discussed at the annual meeting, including a timeline for submitting questions, types of appropriate questions, and rules for how questions and comments will be recognized and disclosed to shareholders;

ii)In particular where there are restrictions on the ability of shareholders to question the board during the meeting - the manner in which appropriate questions received during the meeting will be addressed by the board; this should include a commitment that questions which meet the board’s guidelines are answered in a format that is accessible by all shareholders, such as on the company’s AGM or investor relations website;

iii)The procedure and requirements to participate in the meeting and access the meeting platform; and

iv)Technical support that is available to shareholders prior to and during the meeting. In egregious cases where inadequate disclosure of the aforementioned has been provided to shareholders at the time of convocation, we will generally recommend that shareholders hold the board or relevant directors accountable.

Depending on a company’s governance structure, country of incorporation, and the agenda of the meeting, this may lead to recommendations that shareholders vote against members of the governance committee (or equivalent; if up for re-election); the chair of the board (if up for re-election); and/or other agenda items concerning board composition and performance as applicable (e.g. ratification of board acts). We will always take into account emerging local laws, best practices, and disclosure standards when assessing a company’s performance on this issue.


2023 International Proxy Paper Policy Guidelines			15

Anti-Takeover Measures

Multi-Class Share Structures

Glass Lewis believes multi-class voting structures are typically not in the best interests of common shareholders. We believe the economic stake of each shareholder should match their voting power and that no small group of shareholders, family or otherwise, should have voting rights different from those of other shareholders.

We generally consider a multi-class share structure to reflect negatively on a company's overall corporate governance. Because we believe that allowing one vote per share best protects the interests of shareholders, we typically recommend that shareholders vote in favor of recapitalization proposals to eliminate multi-class share structures. Similarly, we will generally recommend voting against proposals to adopt a new class of common stock.

Glass Lewis will generally recommend that shareholders vote against (a) certain director(s) and/or other relevant agenda items at a North American or European company that adopts a multi-class share structure with unequal voting rights in connection with an IPO, spin-off, or direct listing within the past year if the board: (i) did not also commit to submitting the multi-class structure to a shareholder vote at the company’s first shareholder meeting following the IPO; or (ii) did not provide for a reasonable sunset of the multi-class structure (generally seven years or less). Our approach toward companies with existing multi-class share structures with unequal voting varies between regions and is dependent on, inter alia, local market practice and legislation, as well as our assessment on whether evidence exists that the share structure is contributing to poor governance or the suppression of minority shareholder concerns.

Poison Pills (Shareholder Rights Plans)

Glass Lewis believes that poison pill plans generally are not in the best interests of shareholders. Specifically, they can reduce management accountability by substantially limiting opportunities for corporate takeovers. Rights plans can thus prevent shareholders from receiving a buy-out premium for their stock. We believe that boards should be given wide latitude in directing the activities of the company and charting the company’s course. However, on an issue such as this where the link between the financial interests of shareholders and their right to consider and accept buyout offers is so substantial, we believe that shareholders should be allowed to vote on whether or not they support such a plan’s implementation. In certain limited circumstances, we will support a limited poison pill to accomplish a particular objective, such as the closing of an important merger, or a pill that contains what we believe to be a reasonable ‘qualifying offer’ clause.

Supermajority Vote Requirements

Glass Lewis favors a simple majority voting structure except where a supermajority voting requirement is explicitly intended to protect the rights of minority shareholders in a controlled company. In the case of noncontrolled companies, supermajority vote requirements act as impediments to shareholder action on ballot items that are critical to their interests. One key example is in the takeover context where supermajority vote requirements can strongly limit shareholders’ input in making decisions on such crucial matters as selling the business.


2023 International Proxy Paper Policy Guidelines			16

Increase in Authorized Shares

Glass Lewis believes that having adequate capital stock available for issuance is important to the operation of a company. We will generally support proposals when a company could reasonably use the requested shares for financing, stock splits and stock dividends. While we believe that having adequate shares to allow management to make quick decisions and effectively operate the business is critical, we prefer that, for significant transactions, management come to shareholders to justify their use of additional shares rather than providing a blank check in the form of large pools of unallocated shares available for any purpose.

In general, we will support proposals to increase authorized shares up to 100% of the number of shares currently authorized unless, after the increase the company would be left with less than 30% of its authorized shares outstanding. In markets where such authorities typically also authorize the board to issue new shares without separate shareholder approval, we apply the policy described below on the issuance of shares.

Issuance of Shares

Issuing additional shares can dilute existing holders in some circumstances. Further, the availability of additional shares, where the board has discretion to implement a poison pill, can often serve as a deterrent to interested suitors. Accordingly, where we find that the company has not disclosed a detailed plan for use of the proposed shares, or where the number of shares requested are excessive, we typically recommend against the issuance. In the case of a private placement, we will also consider whether the company is offering a discount to its share price.

In general, we will support proposals to authorize the board to issue shares (with pre-emption rights) when the requested increase is equal to or less than the current issued share capital. This authority should generally not exceed five years. In accordance with differing market best practice, in some countries, if a proposal seeks to issue shares exceeding 33% of issued share capital, the company should explain the specific rationale, which we analyze on a case-by-case basis.

We will also generally support proposals to suspend pre-emption rights for a maximum of 5-20% of the issued ordinary share capital of the company, depending on best practice in the country in which the company is located. This authority should not exceed five years, or less for some countries.

Repurchase of Shares

We will recommend voting in favor of a proposal to repurchase shares when the plan includes the following provisions: (i) a maximum number of shares which may be purchased (typically not more than 10-20% of the issued share capital); and (ii) a maximum price which may be paid for each share (as a percentage of the market price). We may support a larger proposed repurchase program where the terms of the program stipulate that repurchased shares must be cancelled.


2023 International Proxy Paper Policy Guidelines			17

Shareholder Proposals


2023 International Proxy Paper Policy Guidelines			18

Overall Approach to

Environmental, Social & Governance

When evaluating environmental and social issues, Glass Lewis examines companies’:

Social risks may include non-inclusive employment policies, inadequate human rights policies, or issues that


2023 International Proxy Paper Policy Guidelines			19

adversely affect the company’s stakeholders. Further, we believe that firms should consider their exposure to risks emanating from a broad range of issues, over which they may have no or only limited control, such as insurance companies being affected by increased storm severity and frequency resulting from climate change or membership in trade associations with controversial political ties.


2023 International Proxy Paper Policy Guidelines			20

Connect with Glass Lewis

Corporate Website | www.glasslewis.com

Email | info@glasslewis.com

Social |

@glasslewis

Glass, Lewis & Co.

Global Locations


North America Asia Pacific			United States Headquarters 255 California Street Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94111 +1 415 678 4110 New York, NY +1 646 606 2345 2323 Grand Boulevard Suite 1125 Kansas City, MO 64108 +1 816 945 4525 Australia CGI Glass Lewis Suite 5.03, Level 5 255 George Street Sydney NSW 2000 +61 2 9299 9266 Japan Shinjuku Mitsui Building 11th floor 2-1-1, Nishi-Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 163-0411, Japan			Europe			Ireland 15 Henry Street Limerick V94 V9T4 +353 61 534 343 United Kingdom 80 Coleman Street Suite 4.02 London EC2R 5BJ +44 20 7653 8800 France Proxinvest 6 Rue d’Uzès 75002 Paris +33 ()1 45 51 50 43 Germany IVOX Glass Lewis Kaiserallee 23a 76133 Karlsruhe +49 721 35 49622


2023 International Proxy Paper Policy Guidelines			21

DISCLAIMER


2023 International Proxy Paper Policy Guidelines			22

PART C: OTHER INFORMATION


Item 28.			Exhibits:


(a)			Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust, incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,775, filed with the SEC on April 25, 2022.
(b)			Amended and Restated Bylaws of the Trust, incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,775, filed with the SEC on April 25, 2022.
(c)			Not applicable.
(d)(1)			Form of Investment Management Agreement between the Trust and Van Eck Associates Corporation (with respect to VanEck Vectors—Gold Miners ETF), incorporated by reference to Pre-Effective Amendment No. 3, filed with the SEC on April 28, 2006.
(d)(2)			Form of Investment Management Agreement between the Trust and Van Eck Associates Corporation (with respect to all non-unitary fee portfolios except for VanEck Vectors—Gold Miners ETF), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2, filed with the SEC on October 6, 2006.
(d)(3)			Form of Investment Management Agreement between the Trust and Van Eck Associates Corporation (with respect to all unitary fee portfolios), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 174, filed with the SEC on August 27, 2010.
(d)(4)			Not applicable.
(d)(5)			Form of Amended and Restated Sub-Investment Advisory Agreement between China Asset Management (Hong Kong) Limited and Van Eck Associates Corporation, incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,457, filed with the SEC on January 26, 2017.
(d)(6)			Not applicable.
(d)(7)			Not applicable.
(d)(8)			Form of Investment Management Agreement between the Trust and Van Eck Absolute Return Advisers Corporation (with respect to VanEck Vectors Dynamic Put Write ETF and VanEck Vectors Long/Flat Commodity ETF), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,457, filed with the SEC on January 26, 2017.
(d)(9)			Form of Investment Management Agreement between the Trust and Van Eck Absolute Return Advisers Corporation (with respect to VanEck Bitcoin Strategy ETF, incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,749, filed with the SEC on October 27, 2021.
(d)(10)			Form of Sub-Investment Advisory Agreement between PineBridge Investments LLC and Van Eck Associates Corporation, filed with the SEC on June 10, 2022.
(e)(1)			Form of Distribution Agreement between the Trust and Van Eck Securities Corporation, incorporated by reference to Pre-Effective Amendment No. 4, filed with the SEC on May 11, 2006.
(e)(2)			Form of Participant Agreement, incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,652, filed with the SEC on November 22, 2019.
(f)			Not applicable.
(g)			Form of Custody Agreement between the Trust and State Street Bank and Trust Company, incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,652, filed with the SEC on November 22, 2019.
(h)(1)			Form of Administration Agreement between the Trust and State Street Bank and Trust Company, incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,652, filed with the SEC on November 22, 2019.
(h)(2)			Form of Transfer Agency and Service Agreement between the Trust and State Street Bank and Trust Company, incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,652, filed with the SEC on November 22, 2019.
(h)(3)			Form of Sublicense Agreement between the Trust and the Van Eck Associates Corporation, incorporated by reference to Pre-Effective Amendment No. 3, filed with the SEC on April 28, 2006.
(h)(4)			Form of Rule 12d1-4 Fund of Funds Investment Agreement, incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,763, filed with the SEC on February 2, 2022.


(i)(1)			Opinion and Consent of Clifford Chance US LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Environmental Services ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors—Environmental Services ETF), VanEck Vectors Gold Miners ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors—Gold Miners ETF) and VanEck Vectors Steel ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors—Steel ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2, filed with the SEC on October 6, 2006.
(i)(2)			Opinion of Clifford Chance US LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Low Carbon Energy ETF (f/k/a VanEck Vectors Global Alternative Energy ETF and Market Vectors—Global Alternative Energy ETF) and VanEck Vectors Russia ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors—Russia ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 5, filed with the SEC on April 9, 2007.
(i)(3)			Opinion of Clifford Chance US LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Agribusiness ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors—Agribusiness ETF) and VanEck Vectors Uranium+Nuclear Energy ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors—Nuclear Energy ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 9, filed with the SEC on July 30, 2007.
(i)(4)			Opinion of Clifford Chance US LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors AMT-Free Intermediate Municipal Index ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors—Lehman Brothers AMT-Free Intermediate Municipal ETF), VanEck Vectors AMT-Free Long Municipal Index ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors—Lehman Brothers AMT-Free Long Municipal ETF), VanEck Vectors AMT-Free Short Municipal Index ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors—Lehman Brothers AMT-Free Short Municipal ETF), VanEck Vectors High-Yield Municipal Index ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors—Lehman Brothers High Yield Municipal ETF), VanEck Vectors California Long Municipal Index ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors—Lehman Brothers AMT-Free California Long Municipal ETF) and VanEck Vectors New York Long Municipal Index ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors—Lehman Brothers AMT-Free New York Long Municipal ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 14 filed with the SEC on November 2, 2007.
(i)(5)			Opinion of Clifford Chance US LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Coal ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors—Coal ETF) and VanEck Vectors Gaming ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors—Gaming ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 17, filed with the SEC on December 31, 2007.
(i)(6)			Opinion of Clifford Chance US LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Massachusetts Municipal Index ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors—Lehman Brothers AMT-Free Massachussets Municipal Index ETF), VanEck Vectors New Jersey Municipal Index ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors—Lehman Brothers AMT-Free New Jersey Municipal ETF), VanEck Vectors Ohio Municipal Index ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors—Lehman Brothers AMT-Free Ohio Municipal ETF), VanEck Vectors Pennsylvania Municipal Index ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors—Lehman Brothers AMT-Free Pennsylvania Municipal ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 21, filed with the SEC on February 15, 2008.
(i)(7)			Opinion of Clifford Chance US LLP (with respect to VanEck Vector Natural Resources ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors—RVE Hard Assets Producers ETF and Market Vectors—Hard Assets Producers ETF) and VanEck Vectors Solar Energy ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors—Solar Energy ETF), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 23, filed with the SEC on April 21, 2008.
(i)(8)			Opinion and Consent of Clifford Chance US LLP with respect to VanEck Vectors Africa Index ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors—Africa ETF), VanEck Vectors Emerging Europe ex-Russia ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors—Emerging Eurasia Index ETF), VanEck Vectors Global Frontier Index ETF (f/ka/ Market Vectors—Global Frontier ETF Index and VanEck Vectors Gulf States Index ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors—Gulf States Index ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 26, filed with SEC on July 8, 2008.
(i)(9)			Consent of Clifford Chance US LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors High-Yield Municipal Index ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors—Lehman Brothers High Yield Municipal Index ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 27, filed with the SEC on August 8, 2008.


(i)(10)			Opinion and Consent of Clifford Chance US LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Indonesia Index ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors Indonesia Index ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 34, filed with the SEC on November 25, 2008.
(i)(11)			Opinion and Consent of Clifford Chance US LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Vietnam ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors Vietnam ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 35, filed with the SEC on December 23, 2008.
(i)(12)			Opinion and Consent of Clifford Chance US LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Pre-Refunded Municipal Index ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors Pre-Refunded Municipal Index ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 36, filed with the SEC on January 28, 2009.
(i)(13)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Egypt Index ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors Egypt Index ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 111, filed with the SEC on February 16, 2010.
(i)(14)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC CSI 300 ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors China ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 79, filed with the SEC on September 4, 2009.
(i)(15)			Opinion and Consent of Clifford Chance US LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Brazil Small-Cap ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors Brazil Small-Cap ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 49, filed with the SEC on May 8, 2009.
(i)(16)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Junior Gold Miners ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors Junior Gold Miners ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 93, filed with the SEC on November 9, 2009.
(i)(17)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Poland ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors Poland ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 97, filed with the SEC on November 20, 2009.
(i)(18)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors India Small-Cap Index ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors India Small-Cap Index ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 129, filed with the SEC on April 5, 2010.
(i)(19)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors Emerging Markets Local Currency Bond ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 153, filed with the SEC on June 28, 2010.
(i)(20)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors Investment Grade Floating Rate Bond ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 154, filed with the SEC on June 28, 2010.
(i)(21)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Rare Earth/Strategic Metals ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors Rare Earth/Strategic Metals ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 203, filed with the SEC on October 22, 2010.
(i)(22)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Emerging Markets Aggregate Bond ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors LatAm Aggregate Bond ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 358, filed with the SEC on May 10, 2011.
(i)(23)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Russia Small-Cap ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors Russia Small-Cap ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 312, filed with the SEC on April 1, 2011.
(i)(24)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors CEF Municipal Income ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors CEF Municipal Income ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 395, filed with the SEC on July 7, 2011.


(i)(25)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Mortgage REIT Income ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors Mortgage REIT Income ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 431, filed with the SEC on August 15, 2011.
(i)(26)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors International High Yield Bond ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors International High Yield Bond ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 646, filed with the SEC on March 29, 2012.
(i)(27)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors BDC Income ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors BDC Income ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 995, filed with the SEC on February 7, 2013.
(i)(28)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Biotech ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors Biotech ETF), VanEck Vectors Oil Services ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors Oil Services ETF), VanEck Vectors Pharmaceutical ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors Pharmaceutical ETF), VanEck Vectors Retail ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors Retail ETF) and VanEck Vectors Semiconductor ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors Semiconductor ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 505, filed with the SEC on October 31, 2011.
(i)(29)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Indonesia Small-Cap ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors Indonesia Small-Cap ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 639, filed with the SEC on March 14, 2012.
(i)(30)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Unconventional Oil & Gas ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors Unconventional Oil & Gas ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 598, filed with the SEC on February 8, 2012.
(i)(31)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Morningstar Wide Moat ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors Morningstar Wide Moat Research ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 674, filed with the SEC on April 13, 2012.
(i)(32)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Emerging Markets High Yield Bond ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors Emerging Markets High Yield Bond ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 654, filed with the SEC on April 3, 2012.
(i)(33)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Fallen Angel High Yield Bond ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors Fallen Angel Bond ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 653, filed with the SEC on April 3, 2012.
(i)(34)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Preferred Securities ex Financials ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors Preferred Securities ex Financials ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 765, filed with the SEC on July 5, 2012.
(i)(35)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Saudi Arabia ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors Saudi Arabia ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 1,938, filed with the SEC on June 22, 2015.
(i)(36)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Short High-Yield Municipal Index ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors Short High-Yield Municipal Index ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 1,341, filed with the SEC on December 20, 2013.


(i)(37)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Treasury-Hedged High Yield Bond ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors Treasury-Hedged High Yield Bond ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 994, filed with the SEC on February 5, 2013.
(i)(38)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Israel ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors Israel ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 1,151, filed with the SEC on June 24, 2013.
(i)(39)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC SME-ChiNext ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors ChinaAMC SME-ChiNext ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 1,502, filed with the SEC on May 16, 2014.
(i)(40)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 1,701, filed with the SEC on November 7, 2014.
(i)(41)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Morningstar International Moat ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors Morningstar International Moat ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 1,957, filed with the SEC on July 9, 2015.
(i)(42)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Oil Refiners ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors Oil Refiners ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 1,998, filed with the SEC on August 14, 2015.
(i)(43)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Energy Income ETF (f/k/a VanEck Vectors High Income MLP ETF and Market Vectors High Income MLP ETF), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,131, filed with the SEC on December 10, 2015.
(i)(44)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Dynamic Put Write ETF), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,521, filed with the SEC on May 1, 2017.
(i)(45)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Generic Drugs ETF (f/k/a Market Vectors Generic Drugs ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,115, filed with the SEC on November 23, 2015.


(i)(46)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors AMT-Free 6-8 Year Municipal Index ETF, VanEck Vectors AMT-Free 8-12 Year Municipal Index ETF and VanEck Vectors AMT-Free 12-17 Year Municipal Index ETF), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,370, filed with the SEC on August 5, 2016.
(i)(47)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Long/Flat Commodity ETF), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,322, filed with the SEC on May 31, 2016.
(i)(48)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors NDR CMG Long/Flat Allocation ETF (f/k/a VanEck Vectors Long/Flat US Equity ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,574, filed with the SEC on September 27, 2017.
(i)(49)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Green Bond ETF), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,479, filed with the SEC on February 28, 2017.
(i)(50)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Real Asset Allocation ETF), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,598, filed with the SEC on March 9, 2018.
(i)(51)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Video Gaming and eSports ETF), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,616, filed with the SEC on August 31, 2018.
(i)(52)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Morningstar Global Wide Moat ETF), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,626, filed with the SEC on October 24, 2018.
(i)(53)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Morningstar Durable Dividend ETF (f/k/a VanEck Vectors Morningstar High Dividend ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,627, filed with the SEC on October 24, 2018.
(i)(54)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Municipal Allocation ETF), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,644, filed with the SEC on May 14, 2019.


(i)(55)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck HIP Sustainable Muni ETF(f/k/a VanEck Vectors Sustainable Muni ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,738, filed with the SEC on August 24, 2021.
(i)(56)			Opinion of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Moody's Analytics IG Corporate Bond ETF (f/k/a VanEck Vectors IG Corporate ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,704, filed with the SEC on February 25, 2021.
(i)(57)			Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Moody's Analytics IG Corporate Bond ETF (f/k/a VanEck Vectors IG Corporate ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,692, filed with the SEC on November 24, 2020.
(i)(58)			Opinion of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Moody's Analytics BBB Corporate Bond ETF (f/k/a VanEck Vectors BBB Corporate ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,704, filed with the SEC on February 25, 2021.
(i)(59)			Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Moody's Analytics BBB Corporate Bond ETF (f/k/a VanEck Vectors BBB Corporate ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,693, filed with the SEC on November 24, 2020.
(i)(60)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Social Sentiment ETF), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,704, filed with the SEC on February 25, 2021.
(i)(61)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Vectors Digital Transformation ETF (f/k/a VanEck Vectors Digital Assets ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,712, filed with the SEC on April 9, 2021.
(i)(62)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Morningstar ESG Moat ETF), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,743, filed with the SEC on October 1, 2021.
(i)(63)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Green Metals ETF), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,751, filed with the SEC on November 3, 2021.
(i)(64)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Bitcoin Strategy ETF), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,749, filed with the SEC on October 27, 2021.
(i)(65)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Future of Food ETF), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,754, filed with the SEC on November 23, 2021.
(i)(66)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Digital India ETF), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,763, filed with the SEC on February 2, 2022.
(i)(67)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Digital Assets Mining ETF (f/k/a VanEck Digital Asset Mining ETF)), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,770, filed with the SEC on March 7, 2022.


(i)(68)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Commodity Strategy ETF f/k/a VanEck Commodities and Bitcoin Strategy ETF), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,808, filed with the SEC on August 31, 2022.
(i)(69)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Dynamic High Income ETF), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,809, filed with the SEC on August 31, 2022.
(i)(70)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Muni ETF), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,830, filed with the SEC on November 28, 2022.
(i)(71)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck CLO ETF), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,787, filed with the SEC on June 10, 2022.
(i)(72)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Green Infrastructure ETF), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,823, filed with the SEC on October 14, 2022.
(i)(73)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Morningstar SMID Moat ETF), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,817, filed with the SEC on September 21, 2022.
(i)(74)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck CMCI Commodity Strategy ETF f/k/a VanEck Commodity Index ETF), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,854, filed with the SEC on July 20, 2023.


(i)(75)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Robotics ETF), incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,846, filed with the SEC on March 30, 2023.
(i)(76)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Office and Commercial REIT ETF), to be filed by amendment.
(i)(77)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat Growth ETF), to be filed by amendment.
(i)(78)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat Value ETF), to be filed by amendment.
(i)(79)			Opinion and Consent of Dechert LLP (with respect to VanEck Ethereum Strategy ETF), to be filed by amendment.
(j)(1)			Not applicable.
(j)(2)			Not applicable.
(k)			Not applicable.
(l)			Not applicable.
(m)			Not applicable.
(n)			Not applicable.
(o)			Not applicable.
(p)(1)			Code of Ethics of VanEck Vectors ETF Trust, incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,648, filed with the SEC on September 6, 2019.
(p)(2)			Code of Ethics of Van Eck Associates Corporation, Van Eck Absolute Return Advisers Corporation and Van Eck Securities Corporation, incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,808, filed with the SEC on August 31, 2022.
(p)(3)			Code of Ethics of PineBridge Investments LLC, incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment 2,787, filed with the SEC on June 10, 2022.
(q)(1)			Powers of Attorney for Messrs. John J. Crimmins, David H. Chow, R. Alastair Short, Peter J. Sidebottom, Richard D. Stamberger and Jan F. van Eck, incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,613, filed with the SEC on August 24, 2018.
(q)(2)			Power of Attorney for Ms. Laurie A. Hesslein, incorporated by reference to Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,650, filed with the SEC on September 20, 2019.

Item 29. Persons Controlled by or Under Common Control with Registrant

None.

Item 30. Indemnification

Pursuant to Section 10.2 of the Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust, every person who is, or has been, a Trustee or officer of the Trust (including persons who serve at the Trust’s request as directors, officers or trustees of another organization in which the Trust has any interest as a shareholder, creditor or otherwise) (collectively, the “Covered Persons”) shall be indemnified by the Trust to the fullest extent permitted by law against liability and against all expenses reasonably incurred or paid by him in connection with any claim, action, suit, mediation, arbitration or proceeding, whether civil or criminal, in which he or she becomes involved as a party or otherwise by virtue of his being or having been a Trustee or officer and against amounts paid or incurred by him in the settlement thereof. No indemnification shall be provided to a Covered Person who shall have been adjudicated by a court or body before which the proceeding was brought to be liable to the Trust or its shareholders by reason of willful misfeasance, bad faith, gross negligence or reckless disregard of the duties involved in the conduct of his office or not to have acted in good faith in the reasonable belief that his action was in the best interest of the Trust; or in the event of a settlement, unless there has been a determination that such Trustee or officer did not engage in willful misfeasance, bad faith, gross negligence, or reckless disregard of the duties involved in the conduct of his office (i) by the court or other body approving the settlement; (ii) by at least a majority of those Trustees who are neither interested parties of the Trust nor are parties to the matter based upon a review of readily-available facts (as opposed to a full trial-type inquiry); or (iii) by written opinion of independent legal counsel based upon a review of readily available facts (as opposed

to a full trial-type inquiry). For purposes of the determination or opinion referred to in (ii) and (iii) above, the majority of those Trustees who neither are interested persons of the Trust nor are parties to the matter or independent legal counsel, as the case may be, shall be entitled to rely on a rebuttable presumption that the Covered Person has not engaged in willful misfeasance, bad faith, gross negligence or reckless disregard of the duties involved in the conduct of such Covered Person’s office.

The Trust has agreed to indemnify and hold harmless the Trustees against any and all expenses actually and reasonably incurred by the Trustee in any proceeding arising out of or in connection with the Trustee’s service to the Trust, to the fullest extent permitted by the Amended and Restated Agreement and Declaration of Trust of the Fund and Title 12, Part V, Chapter 38 of the Delaware Code, and applicable law.

Item 31. Business and Other Connections of Investment Manager

See “Management” in the Statement of Additional Information. Information as to the directors and officers of the Adviser is included in its Form ADV filed with the SEC and is incorporated herein by reference thereto.

Item 32. Principal Underwriters

(a) Van Eck Securities Corporation is the Trust’s principal underwriter. Van Eck Securities Corporation also acts as a principal underwriter, depositor, or investment manager for the following other investment companies: each series of VanEck Funds and VanEck VIP Trust.

(b) The following is a list of the officers, directors and partners of Van Eck Securities Corporation:


Name and Principal Business Address	Positions and Offices with Underwriter	Positions and Offices with Trust
Jan F. van Eck 666 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017	Director, President and Chief Executive Officer	President, Chief Executive Officer and Trustee
Jonathan R. Simon 666 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017	Director, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary	Senior Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary
Laura I. Martinez 666 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017	Vice President, Associate General Counsel and Assistant Secretary	Vice President and Assistant Secretary
Matthew A. Babinsky 666 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017	Vice President, Assistant General Counsel and Assistant Secretary	Vice President and Assistant Secretary
Lisa A. Moss 666 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017	Assistant Vice President	Assistant Vice President and Assistant Secretary
Susan Curry 666 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017	Assistant Vice President	Assistant Vice President


Name and Principal Business Address	Positions and Offices with Underwriter	Positions and Offices with Trust
Brendan Gundersen 666 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017	Managing Director, Head of Institutional Sales	N/A
Richard Potocki 666 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017	Managing Director, Head of US Distribution	N/A
F. Michael Gozzillo 666 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017	Chief Compliance Officer	Chief Compliance Officer
Laura Hamilton 666 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017	Assistant Vice President	Vice President
Lee Rappaport 666 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017	Director, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Operations Principal (FINOP)	N/A
Matthew Bartlett 666 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017	Manager, Internal Sales Desk	N/A
Kristen Capuano 666 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017	Managing Director, Head of Marketing and Product Strategy	N/A
Joseph Giordano 666 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017	Controller	N/A

Item 33. Location of Accounts and Records

The accounts, books and other documents required to be maintained by Section 31(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, and the rules thereunder will be maintained as follows: journals, ledgers, securities records and other original records will be maintained principally at the offices of the Registrant’s Custodian and Transfer Agent, State Street Bank and Trust Company, One Lincoln Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02111 and the Registrant’s prior Custodian and Transfer Agent, The Bank of New York Mellon, 101 Barclay Street, New York, New York 10286. All other records so required to be maintained will be maintained at the offices of Van Eck Associates Corporation/Van Eck Absolute Return Advisers Corporation/Van Eck Securities Corporation, 666 Third Avenue, Floor 9, New York, New York 10017.

Item 34. Management Services

Not applicable.

Item 35. Undertakings

Not applicable.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Registrant certifies that it has duly caused this Registration Statement to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, in the City of Tampa and State of Florida on the 1st day of August, 2023.


VANECK ETF TRUST

	By:	/s/ Jonathan R. Simon
		Name: Jonathan R. Simon
		Title: Senior Vice President, Secretary and Chief Legal Officer

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, this Registration Statement has been signed below by the following person in the capacities and on the date indicated.

/s/ David H. Chow*

Trustee

August 1, 2023

David H. Chow

/s/ Laurie A. Hesslein*

Trustee

August 1, 2023

Laurie A. Hesslein

/s/ R. Alastair Short*

Trustee

August 1, 2023

R. Alastair Short

/s/ Peter J. Sidebottom*

Trustee

August 1, 2023

Peter J. Sidebottom

/s/ Richard D. Stamberger*

Trustee

August 1, 2023

Richard D. Stamberger

/s/ Jan F. van Eck*

President, Chief Executive Officer and Trustee

August 1, 2023

Jan F. van Eck

/s/ John J. Crimmins*

Vice President, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer

August 1, 2023

John J. Crimmins


*By:			/s/ Jonathan R. Simon
			Jonathan R. Simon
			Attorney-in-Fact
			August 1, 2023