Fund	Ticker
Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund	FSCFX

Fund of Fidelity Rutland Square Trust II

STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

April 28, 2018

As Revised September 27, 2018

Offered exclusively to certain clients of Strategic Advisers LLC (Strategic Advisers) - not available for sale to the general public.

This statement of additional information (SAI) is not a prospectus. Portions of the fund's annual report are incorporated herein. The annual report is supplied with this SAI.

To obtain a free additional copy of the prospectus, dated April 28, 2018, As Revised September 27, 2018, or SAI, dated April 28, 2018, As Revised September 27, 2018, or an annual report, please call Fidelity at 1-800-544-3455 or visit Fidelity’s web site at www.fidelity.com.

SMC-PTB-0418-02
1.912864.132

245 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02210

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INVESTMENT POLICIES AND LIMITATIONS
PORTFOLIO TRANSACTIONS
VALUATION
BUYING AND SELLING INFORMATION
DISTRIBUTIONS AND TAXES
TRUSTEES AND OFFICERS
CONTROL OF INVESTMENT ADVISERS
MANAGEMENT CONTRACT
PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES
TRANSFER AND SERVICE AGENT AGREEMENTS
SECURITIES LENDING
DESCRIPTION OF THE TRUST
FUND HOLDINGS INFORMATION
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
APPENDIX

INVESTMENT POLICIES AND LIMITATIONS

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

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

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

Diversification

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

Senior Securities

The fund may not issue senior securities, except in connection with the insurance program established by the fund pursuant to an exemptive order issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission or as otherwise permitted under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

Borrowing

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

Underwriting

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

Concentration

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

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

Real Estate

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

Commodities

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

Loans

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

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

The following investment limitations are not fundamental and may be changed without shareholder approval.

Short Sales

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

Margin Purchases

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

Borrowing

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

Illiquid Securities

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

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

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

Loans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ETF shares are redeemable only in large blocks (typically, 50,000 shares) often called "creation units" by persons other than a fund, and are redeemed principally in-kind at each day's next calculated net asset value per share (NAV). ETFs typically incur fees that are separate from those fees incurred directly by a fund. A fund's purchase of ETFs results in the layering of expenses, such that the fund would indirectly bear a proportionate share of any ETF's operating expenses. Further, while traditional investment companies are continuously offered at NAV, ETFs are traded in the secondary market (e.g., on a stock exchange) on an intra-day basis at prices that may be above or below the value of their underlying portfolios.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Writing a call option obligates the writer to sell or deliver the option's underlying instrument or make a net cash settlement payment, as applicable, in return for the strike price, upon exercise of the option. The characteristics of writing call options are similar to those of writing put options, except that writing calls generally is a profitable strategy if prices remain the same or fall. Through receipt of the option premium, a call writer should mitigate the effects of a price increase. At the same time, because a call writer must be prepared to deliver the underlying instrument or make a net cash settlement payment, as applicable, in return for the strike price, even if its current value is greater, a call writer gives up some ability to participate in security price increases.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illiquid Securities cannot be sold or disposed of in the ordinary course of business at approximately the prices at which they are valued. Difficulty in selling securities may result in a loss or may be costly to a fund.

Under the supervision of the Board of Trustees, a Fidelity^® fund's adviser determines the liquidity of the fund's investments and, through reports from the fund's adviser, the Board monitors investments in illiquid securities.

Various factors may be considered in determining the liquidity of a fund's investments, including (1) the frequency and volume of trades and quotations, (2) the number of dealers and prospective purchasers in the marketplace, (3) dealer undertakings to make a market, and (4) the nature of the security and the market in which it trades (including any demand, put or tender features, the mechanics and other requirements for transfer, any letters of credit or other credit enhancement features, any ratings, the number of holders, the method of soliciting offers, the time required to dispose of the security, and the ability to assign or offset the rights and obligations of the security).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Direct lending and investments in loans through direct assignment of a financial institution's interests with respect to a loan may involve additional risks. For example, if a loan is foreclosed, the lender/purchaser could become part owner of any collateral, and would bear the costs and liabilities associated with owning and disposing of the collateral. In addition, it is conceivable that under emerging legal theories of lender liability, a purchaser could be held liable as a co-lender. Direct debt instruments may also involve a risk of insolvency of the lending bank or other intermediary.

A loan is often administered by a bank or other financial institution that acts as agent for all holders. The agent administers the terms of the loan, as specified in the loan agreement. Unless, under the terms of the loan or other indebtedness, the purchaser has direct recourse against the borrower, the purchaser may have to rely on the agent to apply appropriate credit remedies against a borrower. If assets held by the agent for the benefit of a purchaser were determined to be subject to the claims of the agent's general creditors, the purchaser might incur certain costs and delays in realizing payment on the loan or loan participation and could suffer a loss of principal or interest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The extent to which a fund can invest in securities of other investment companies may be limited by federal securities laws.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Temporary Defensive Policies. In response to market, economic, political, or other conditions, a fund may temporarily use a different investment strategy for defensive purposes. If a fund does so, different factors could affect the fund's performance and the fund may not achieve its investment objective.Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund reserves the right to invest without limitation in preferred stocks and investment-grade debt instruments for temporary, defensive purposes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PORTFOLIO TRANSACTIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategic Advisers.

The Selection of Securities Brokers and Dealers

Strategic Advisers or its affiliates generally have authority to select securities brokers (whether acting as a broker or a dealer) with which to place the fund's portfolio securities transactions. In selecting securities brokers, including affiliates of Strategic Advisers, to execute the fund's portfolio securities transactions, Strategic Advisers or its affiliates consider the factors they deem relevant in the context of a particular trade and in regard to Strategic Advisers' or its affiliates' overall responsibilities with respect to the fund and other investment accounts, including any instructions from the fund's portfolio manager, which may emphasize, for example, speed of execution over other factors. Based on the factors considered, Strategic Advisers or its affiliates may choose to execute an order using ECNs or venues, including algorithmic trading, crossing networks, direct market access and program trading, or by actively working an order. Other possibly relevant factors may include, but are not limited to, the following: price; the size and type of the securities transaction; the reasonableness of compensation to be paid, including spreads and commission rates; the speed and certainty of trade executions, including broker willingness to commit capital; the nature and characteristics of the markets for the security to be purchased or sold, including the degree of specialization of the broker in such markets or securities; the availability of liquidity in the security, including the liquidity and depth afforded by a market center or market-maker; the reliability of a market center or broker; the broker's overall trading relationship with Strategic Advisers or its affiliates; the trader's assessment of whether and how closely the broker likely will follow the trader's instructions to the broker; the degree of anonymity that a particular broker or market can provide; the potential for avoiding or lessening market impact; the execution services rendered on a continuing basis; the execution efficiency, settlement capability, and financial condition of the firm; arrangements for payment of fund expenses, if applicable; and the provision of additional brokerage and research products and services, if applicable.

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

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

The Acquisition of Brokerage and Research Products and Services

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

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

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

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

Benefit to Strategic Advisers. Strategic Advisers' or its affiliates' expenses likely would be increased if they attempted to generate these additional brokerage and research products and services through their own efforts, or if they paid for these brokerage and research products or services with their own resources. To minimize the potential for conflicts of interest, the trading desks through which Strategic Advisers or its affiliates may execute trades are instructed to execute portfolio transactions on behalf of the fund based on the quality of execution without any consideration of brokerage and research products and services the broker or dealer may provide. The administration of brokerage and research products and services is managed separately from the trading desks, which means that traders have no responsibility for administering soft dollar activities. Furthermore, certain of the brokerage and research products and services Strategic Advisers or its affiliates receive are furnished by brokers on their own initiative, either in connection with a particular transaction or as part of their overall services. Some of these brokerage and research products or services may be provided at no additional cost to Strategic Advisers or its affiliates or have no explicit cost associated with them. In addition, Strategic Advisers or its affiliates may request that a broker provide a specific proprietary or third-party product or service, certain of which third-party products or services may be provided by a broker that is not a party to a particular transaction and is not connected with the transacting broker's overall services.

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

Research Contracts. Strategic Advisers or its affiliates have arrangements with certain third-party research providers and brokers through whom Strategic Advisers or its affiliates effect fund trades, whereby Strategic Advisers or its affiliates may pay with fund commissions or hard dollars for all or a portion of the cost of research products and services purchased from such research providers or brokers. If hard dollar payments are used, Strategic Advisers or its affiliates may still cause the fund to pay more for execution than the lowest commission rate available from the broker providing research products and services to Strategic Advisers or its affiliates, or that may be available from another broker. Strategic Advisers or its affiliates view hard dollar payments for research products and services as likely to reduce the fund's total commission costs even though it is expected that in such hard dollar arrangements the commissions available for recapture and used to pay fund expenses, as described below, will decrease. Strategic Advisers' or its affiliates' determination to pay for research products and services separately is wholly voluntary on Strategic Advisers' or its affiliates' part and may be extended to additional brokers or discontinued with any broker participating in this arrangement.

Commission Recapture

Strategic Advisers or its affiliates may allocate brokerage transactions to brokers (who are not affiliates of Strategic Advisers) who have entered into arrangements with Strategic Advisers or its affiliates under which the broker may rebate a portion of the compensation paid by a fund. Not all brokers with whom the fund trades have been asked to participate in brokerage commission recapture.

Affiliated Transactions

Strategic Advisers or its affiliates may place trades with certain brokers, including National Financial Services LLC (NFS) and Luminex Trading & Analytics LLC (Luminex), with whom they are under common control or affiliated, provided Strategic Advisers or its affiliates determine that these affiliates' trade-execution abilities and costs are comparable to those of non-affiliated, qualified brokerage firms. In addition, Strategic Advisers or its affiliates may place trades with brokers that use NFS or Fidelity Clearing Canada ULC (FCC) as a clearing agent.

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

Non-U.S. Transactions

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

Trade Allocation

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

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

FIAM LLC (FIAM).

The Selection of Securities Brokers and Dealers

FIAM or its affiliates generally have authority to select securities brokers (whether acting as a broker or a dealer) with which to place the fund's portfolio securities transactions. In selecting securities brokers, including affiliates of FIAM, to execute the fund's portfolio securities transactions, FIAM or its affiliates consider the factors they deem relevant in the context of a particular trade and in regard to FIAM's or its affiliates' overall responsibilities with respect to the fund and other investment accounts, including any instructions from the fund's portfolio manager, which may emphasize, for example, speed of execution over other factors. Based on the factors considered, FIAM or its affiliates may choose to execute an order using electronic channels, including broker-sponsored algorithms, internal crossing, or by actively working an order. Other possibly relevant factors may include, but are not limited to: price; the size and type of the securities transaction; the reasonableness of compensation to be paid, including spreads and commission rates; the speed and certainty of trade executions, including broker willingness to commit capital; the nature and character of the markets for the security to be purchased or sold, including the degree of specialization of the broker in such markets or securities; the availability of liquidity in the security, including the liquidity and depth afforded by a market center or market-maker; the reliability of a market center or broker; the broker's overall trading relationship with FIAM and/or its affiliates; the trader's assessment of whether and how closely the broker likely will follow the trader's instructions to the broker; the degree of anonymity that a particular broker or market can provide; the potential for lessening or avoiding market impact; the execution services rendered on a continuing basis; the execution efficiency, settlement capability, and financial condition of the firm; arrangements for payment of fund expenses, if applicable; and the provision of additional brokerage and research products and services, if applicable and where allowed by law.

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

The Acquisition of Brokerage and Research Products and Services

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

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

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

Benefits to FIAM. FIAM's or its affiliates' expenses likely would be increased if they attempted to generate these additional brokerage and research products and services through their own efforts, or if they paid for these products or services with their own resources. To minimize the potential conflicts of interest, the trading desks through which FIAM or its affiliates may execute trades are instructed to execute portfolio transactions on behalf of the fund based on the quality of execution without any consideration of brokerage and research products and services the broker or dealer may provide. The administration of brokerage and research products and services is managed separately from the trading desks, which means that traders have no responsibility for administering soft dollar activities. Furthermore, certain of the brokerage and research products and services that FIAM or its affiliates receive are furnished by brokers on their own initiative, either in connection with a particular transaction or as part of their overall services. Some of these brokerage and research products or services may be provided at no additional cost to FIAM or its affiliates or might not have an explicit cost associated with them. In addition, FIAM or its affiliates may request that a broker provide a specific proprietary or third-party product or service, certain of which third-party products or services may be provided by a broker that is not a party to a particular transaction and is not connected with the transacting broker's overall services.

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

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

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

Funds, or portions thereof, that are managed within the European Union by FIAM or an affiliate will use research payment accounts (RPAs) to cover costs associated with high yield and equity external research that is consumed by those accounts in accordance with MiFID II and FCA regulations. With RPAs, funds pay for external research through a separate research charge that is generally assessed and collected alongside the execution commission¹. For funds that use an RPA, FIAM or its affiliates will establish a research budget. The budget will be set by first grouping accounts by strategy (e.g., asset allocation, blend, growth, etc.), and then determining what external research is consumed to support the strategies and portfolio management services provided within the European Union. In this regard, research budgets are set by research need and are not otherwise linked to the volume or value of transactions executed on behalf of the account. For funds where portions are managed both within and outside of the European Union, external research may be paid using both soft dollars and an RPA. Determinations as to what is eligible research and how costs are allocated will be made in accordance with FIAM’s and its affiliates’ policies and procedures. Costs for research consumed by funds that use an RPA will be allocated among the accounts within defined strategies pro rata based on the assets under management for each account. While the research charge paid on behalf of any one fund that uses an RPA may vary over time, the overall research charge determined at the fund level on an annual basis will not be exceeded.

If the costs of paying for external research exceed the amount collected from funds in a given strategy, FIAM or its affiliates may continue to charge those accounts beyond the agreed amount in accordance with the requirements of MiFID II, continue to acquire external research for the accounts using its own resources (referred to as “hard dollars”), or cease to purchase external research for those accounts until the next annual research budget. In the event that assets for specific funds remain in the RPA at the end of a period, they may be rolled over to the next period to offset next year’s research charges for those funds or rebated to those funds.

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

¹The staff of the SEC addressed concerns that reliance on an RPA mechanism to pay for research would not be deemed a “commission” for purposes of Section 28(e) by indicating that they would not recommend enforcement against investment advisers who used an RPA to pay for research and brokerage services so long as certain conditions were met. Therefore, references to “research charges” as part of the RPA mechanism to satisfy MiFID II requirements can be considered commissions for Section 28(e) purposes.

Commission Recapture

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

Affiliated Transactions

FIAM or its affiliates may place trades with certain brokers, including National Financial Services LLC (NFS) and Luminex Trading & Analytics LLC (Luminex), with whom they are under common control or affiliated, provided FIAM or its affiliates determine that these affiliates' trade execution abilities and costs are comparable to those of non-affiliated, qualified brokerage firms, and that such transactions be executed in accordance with applicable rules under the 1940 Act and procedures adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Fund and subject to other applicable law. In addition, FIAM or its affiliates may place trades with brokers that use NFS or Fidelity Clearing Canada ULC (FCC) as a clearing agent.

Non-U.S. Securities Transactions

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

Trade Allocation

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

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

Geode.

The Selection of Brokers

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

The Acquisition of Brokerage and Research Products and Services

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

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

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

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

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

Affiliated Transactions

Geode may place trades with certain brokers, including National Financial Services LLC (NFS) and Luminex Trading & Analytics LLC (Luminex), with whom Strategic Advisers is under common control, provided it determines that these affiliates' trade execution abilities and costs are comparable to those of non-affiliated, qualified brokerage firms.

Trade Allocation

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

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

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

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

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

AllianceBernstein L.P. (AllianceBernstein).

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

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

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

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

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

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

ArrowMark Partners (ArrowMark).

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

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

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

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

BNY Mellon Asset Management North America Corporation (AMNA).

BNY Mellon Asset Management North America Corporation (AMNA), as an SEC registered investment adviser, has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of its clients and to place the interests of its clients before its own, including seeking to obtain “best execution” for client transactions. AMNA must execute securities transactions for client accounts in such a way that each client’s total costs or proceeds in each transaction is the most favorable under the circumstances prevailing at the time of execution.

AMNA has implemented a series of policies, procedures, and disclosures which together, form a systemic, repeatable, and demonstrable approach to seeking best execution of our clients’ transactions.

There are three Trading Desks within AMNA: Active Equity, Active Fixed Income and Multi- Asset. Each Trading Desk supports a dedicated product line and currently employs independent distinct order management systems that are not integrated. Therefore, bunched trades, order aggregation and coordination is not possible across the three Trading Desks. Trading intentions and pending and active orders may not be shared among the Trading Desks or the investment teams that they support. Trading Desk specific procedures govern the manner in which each trading desk operates. This policy provides an overview of the principles that each trading desk adheres to in executing orders for client accounts subject to the duty to seek best execution.

Best Execution

The primary objective of the Trading Desk in executing client orders is to seek best execution. AMNA interprets best execution as seeking the most favorable execution terms reasonably available given the circumstances of a particular trade. Execution costs include explicit fees (commissions) and implicit costs (spread, market impact and opportunity costs). Consistent with the understanding that best execution is a process and not a result, all traders shall adhere to the practices described herein in order to ensure that AMNA is both seeking best execution for its clients and can demonstrate the consistency of this approach.

The Brokerage and Counterparty Oversight Committee has been established to ensure that the firm operates in a manner consistent with regulations, industry best practices and client expectations as it relates to matters of brokerage, including the duty to seek best execution.

Broker Selection

AMNA’s basis for broker selection is to seek best execution and to deal exclusively with brokers who exhibit a general ability to perform effectively and meet sufficient financial, liquidity and creditworthiness standards to be an approved broker.

Any broker selected to execute an order must be an approved broker. For these purposes, AMNA has adopted The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation’s ("BNY Mellon") Approved Broker List. However, AMNA reserves the right to use brokers not included on the BNY Mellon Approved Broker List for legitimate business reasons, subject to a preapproval process. In such instances, AMNA will employ an equivalent evaluation process to the due diligence process implemented by BNY Mellon Corporate Risk. AMNA maintains documented procedures for these purposes. Additionally, any such AMNA specific broker list shall be submitted to BNY Mellon Corporate Risk.

In dealing with brokers and their related organizations, it is AMNA’s policy to avoid conflicts of interest between AMNA and such broker-dealers (or their related organizations) as conflicts might affect the exercise of its best judgment in effecting such dealings. In general, AMNA policy is to not engage in transactions (principal or agency) with any broker-dealer affiliated with BNY Mellon or its affiliates. In certain circumstances AMNA may engage in transactions with an affiliate broker-dealer if instructed to do so as part of a client’s directed brokerage arrangement. In no event will the fact that an executing broker may clear through a BNY Mellon affiliate or have a clearing arrangement with a BNY Mellon affiliate be considered as part of the broker selection process. Additionally, AMNA will not trade with particular broker-dealers for certain accounts where the transaction may be deemed a non-exempt “prohibited transaction” pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”).

Trade Aggregation and Allocation

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has indicated that firms must establish clear written policies and procedures for fair and equitable trade allocation and order aggregation, and must provide appropriate disclosure to clients. No client will be favored over any other client in terms of trade execution, quality of investment advice or portfolio construction.

In seeking the best possible execution cost for clients, traders will seek to aggregate orders that are received concurrently for more than one account. These aggregated orders include an order placed by a portfolio manager on behalf of more than one account and orders placed on behalf of one or more accounts by multiple portfolio managers.

While it is expected that in the normal course of business pre-trade allocation among participating accounts will occur, it is understood that there may be instances in which it is not practicable (e.g. due to market conditions, press of business, etc.) for such a pre-trade allocation to be made.

If a pre-trade allocation is not possible, post-trade allocation shall occur as soon as is practicable under the circumstances. Any such post-trade allocations must be approved by the portfolio manager, head trader and the Chief Compliance Officer or their designee(s).

Each Trading Desk shall maintain written procedures describing how partially filled orders will be allocated and the manner in which orders that have been substantially completed prior to receipt of any subsequent order(s) in the same security will be handled.

IPOs/New Issues

Allocation of IPOs and new issues shall in all cases be made on a fair and equitable basis. Any deviation from pro rata allocation must be pre-approved in writing by the relevant Chief Investment Officer and Chief Compliance Officer.

Cross Trades

AMNA shall not engage in any internal, agency or principal cross trades other than for certain accounts in reliance on Prohibited Transaction Exemption 95-56 that the United States Department of Labor granted to The Bank of New York Mellon and its affiliates. Any exception to this policy must be approved by the Chief Compliance Officer.

Trade Evaluation and Transaction Cost Monitoring

Each Trading Desk is responsible for the daily oversight of the trade evaluation process, including but not limited to evaluating broker performance and the quality of service

In an effort to assist the traders, the Brokerage and Counterparty Oversight Committee and management in monitoring the quality of brokerage and executions, AMNA retains at least one independent vendor to measure implicit and explicit transaction costs for applicable asset classes.

Directed Brokerage

Client-directed brokerage shall be affected on a best-efforts basis only when it does not interfere with the trader’s ability to seek best execution, unless disclosed accordingly to the client. Client-directed brokerage must be authorized in writing by the client prior to the arrangement taking effect, and a copy of the authorization letter must be provided to the Trading and Compliance departments. As the primary objective of the Trading Desk in executing client orders is to seek best execution, AMNA has set limits on the maximum percentage of commissions that can be directed for each asset class and/or product group. Each Trading Desk shall maintain written procedures that document such limits.

Equity:

Orders may be directed for execution to a broker designated by the client, provided the broker’s execution capabilities are competitive in the designated security. Alternatively, directed orders may be aggregated and executed in coordination with non-directed orders and ‘stepped out’ to the client’s directed broker. A step out occurs when AMNA directs the executing broker to give up a portion of the execution to another broker, allowing the directed account(s) to receive the same average price as the non-directed account(s). Generally, step-outs are only permitted for U.S. equities traded on U.S. exchanges. Conversely, client directed orders may be excluded from coordinated execution when, in the judgment of Trading, it is appropriate to do so. The trader shall evaluate each incoming order to determine whether the aggregation of directed and non-directed orders will compromise his/her ability to seek best execution. In these instances, the directed order(s) may be delayed until execution of non-directed orders has been completed.

Fixed Income:

For a given order, AMNA, as a matter of policy, places trades for directed brokerage accounts after all trades for non-directed accounts have been placed. Directed brokerage accounts may therefore likely realize price impacts and/or order delay costs larger than those associated with the non-directed portion of an order.

Soft Dollars

Consistent with Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Section 28(e)") and Interpretative Guidance statements issued by the SEC, client commissions may be used to pay for eligible brokerage and research, including proprietary, independent, and third party contracted for services (collectively “Research Services”).

Each Research Service paid for with client commissions is subject to a three step analysis which:

• Defines the product or service;

• Determines the usage of the product or service; and

• Determines if the product or service is for mixed-use.

AMNA may enter into client commission arrangements ("CCA’s" or "CSA’s") with brokers to facilitate the payment for Research Services. Parties to a CCA agree in advance on the portion of commissions paid that will be for execution and the portion of commissions paid that will be allocated for research. AMNA may subsequently use the commissions accrued for research to pay for any combination of proprietary research, independent research or third party contracted for services. CCAs effectively allow for the separation of the execution decision from the research decision in furtherance of the duty to seek best execution.

As part of the broker selection process, the traders may consider brokers that provide proprietary research to the portfolio managers or research analysts. However, trades will only be executed with such brokers subject to the duty to seek best execution.

Refer to the Soft Dollar Policy for further information.

Wrap Programs and Non-Discretionary Accounts

Where AMNA provides securities recommendations as a non-discretionary investment manager (model accounts or UMA Programs; collectively "Model Programs") or participates in Wrap Programs, there is a possibility that such accounts will trade behind fully discretionary accounts (sequenced trading), trade alongside fully discretionary accounts (simultaneous trading) or be traded in a coordinated manner across the respective trading desks. The methodology employed will depend upon certain factors, including but not limited to, the liquidity profile of the investment strategy and total AUM of the relevant investment strategy.

Wrap Programs

Where AMNA participates in wrap programs and is permitted to effect transactions through other broker-dealers subject to its duty to seek best execution, MergeCO. has found that trading-away from the wrap program broker via step-out arrangements or otherwise generally allows it to obtain better execution overall for wrap clients than executing trades with the wrap program broker. Step-out arrangements allow the wrap client accounts to trade as part of an aggregated block order and clear the transaction with the wrap program broker. As a result, all or nearly all of the transactions in wrap client accounts will be traded away from the wrap program broker.

Where AMNA is not permitted to trade with other brokers, wrap client accounts will trade behind full discretionary accounts (sequenced trading). AMNA will execute trades for wrap client accounts with the wrap program broker after AMNA has completed trading activity in that security on behalf of clients for whom AMNA has full trading discretion. Therefore, wrap account clients may not obtain the same price or as timely an execution as if AMNA had full trading discretion. As a result, such programs may experience performance or other differences from similarly managed accounts advised by AMNA.

Non-Discretionary Accounts

Where AMNA participates as an investment manager in Model Programs and is not responsible for trading, such accounts will either be subject to a rotation methodology with like accounts/programs, trade behind fully discretionary accounts (sequenced trading), or trade in the market alongside fully discretionary accounts with similar order instructions (simultaneous trading). To the extent that model accounts are part of a rotation methodology or sequenced it is possible that such accounts may suffer adverse effects on trade execution prices depending upon market conditions. When simultaneous trading occurs, given the potential market perception of supply (or demand) imbalance associated with multiple sellers (or buyers), it is possible that performance for both types of accounts could be affected, depending upon market conditions.

Each Trading Desk that participates in a wrap program or manages non-discretionary accounts shall maintain written procedures detailing the manner in which such accounts are traded and or recommendations provided in the case of non-discretionary accounts.

Avoid Conflicts of Interest

Under no circumstances should brokerage attributable to a fiduciary or advisory account be rewarded to a broker in consideration for or in respect to such broker's efforts at directing business to AMNA. Any requests received by the Trading Desks to do so should be promptly reported to the Compliance Department.

In no event shall any trading strategy be employed for the purpose of "marking the close". Portfolio managers shall be cognizant of this prohibition when sending orders to the Trading Desks during the last day of a reporting period (generally, month end or quarter end).

Appropriate disciplinary action will be taken for failure to comply with the requirements of this policy, up to and including termination of employment.

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

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

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

Fisher Investments.

Aggregation

Trading will aggregate orders as outlined below:

IPC Directed Orders

All Investment Policy Committee (IPC) directed orders are aggregated with any existing IPC block by internal custodian designation (“alt-broker code”). If a block does not exist, one will be created.

Cancels/modifications to pre-existing orders are only to be completed by Implementation which must notify Trading of the update. Trading is responsible for updating the current order block within the order management system (OMS). Updates, as well as original order blocks, are exported from the Portfolio Accounting System (PAS) via electronic files into proprietary software to create/modify/cancel aggregate share quantities for every order block. The proprietary software exports orders to the OMS for trade routing and execution.

Once orders have been received into the OMS, the following procedures are performed:

• Aggregate all individual order blocks by assigned alt-broker code for trade routing and execution to receive the same average price executions by ticket, except as indicated below.

• If a block is being executed with a broker and then trading commences with a different broker for that block, the initial ticket is closed. If the remaining block is returned to the initial broker after partial execution elsewhere, a new ticket is created and executions will receive a separate average price. For example, a block trade of 100 shares of XYZ at Broker A, a block trade of 200 shares of XYZ at Broker B, and a block trade of 150 shares of XYZ at Broker A will be treated as three separate tickets with three separate average prices, assuming the executions with Broker B occurred in between the two separate tickets with Broker A. This process maintains fairness with respect to the chronology of allocation executions in that the rotation allocation order and method (A-Z or Z-A) is not tainted by price averaging block 1 with block 3.

Client Mandated Orders

Client mandated orders are segregated and executed separately from existing blocks, typically at the market.

Unwinding Options Orders

Orders to unwind option positions associated with equity positions will be segregated from existing blocks. The equity and option orders will be executed as close together as possible.

Trade Error Correction

Trades placed to correct errors in client accounts will be executed at the market separately from any existing blocks and will not be aggregated with any IPC block trades. If it is deemed that executing the order at the market may have significant market impact, the order will be executed with discretion.

Shortened Settlement

Due to occasional cash management issues, certain orders may require execution with a shortened settlement cycle. Trades that require shortened settlement will be segregated from existing blocks.

Institutional Program Trades

Trades placed as part of an account specific trading program will typically be executed and allocated separately from existing IPC order blocks given the program rate is pre-negotiated with the broker, and the program strategy is managed specific to the trading requirements of the given account.

Institutional Cash-Add/Raise

Institutional clients often make intra-day requests to withdraw cash as soon as possible. Similarly, when Institutional clients make cash additions to their accounts, custodians confirm receipt intra-day. In both of these scenarios, orders are entered immediately after notification from the Institutional Group/custodian to either spend or raise cash that day. If a set of orders associated with one account is entered during the day, and existing Institutional orders for the same side and symbols were executed earlier in the day for a different reason or at materially different average prices, the new set of orders can be executed separately with a different broker at the discretion of the Trading Team.

Institutional Broker Restrictions

Institutional accounts may request that FI not execute orders with specific brokers and/or direct a specified percentage of commissions over a given period of time to certain brokers to which step-outs are not allowed. In order to ensure best execution for all Institutional accounts without such restrictions, FI may block such orders separately in order to comply with clients’ requests, particularly when the benefits of executing with such brokers are unique to those given Institutional clients.

Large PCG IPC-Driven Orders

Orders of material size entered in individual accounts as compared to other accounts within an existing block may be segregated and executed separately for the purpose of saving such clients explicit cost (commission). Additionally, if a sizeable order is entered within 30 minutes of the market close, and blocking with existing orders may significantly change the average price of the block, the order may be segregated and executed separately at the Trading Team Leader’s or Head Trader’s discretion.

Custodian/Broker Limitation

If the custodian/broker receives multiple orders for the same side and symbol at different times and is unable to average price all executions due to system limitations, it is permissible to book such trades at their different, respective prices.

Allocation

Full Execution

When transactions are aggregated:

• The actual execution prices applicable to the aggregated transaction will be averaged by brokerage ticket, and each client account participating in the aggregated transaction will be deemed to have purchased or sold its share of the security, instrument or obligation involved at that average price.

• All transaction costs incurred when executing a ticket shall be shared on a pro rata basis among all accounts participating in such aggregated transaction, except to the extent that certain broker-dealers that also furnish custody services may impose minimum transaction charges applicable to some of the participating accounts. Client direction and account specific brokerage restrictions may result in different costs for a particular client.

Partial Execution

Institutional Trades

All discretionary institutional trades are allocated on a pure prorated order size basis. Each account is allocated executed shares in direct proportion to its percentage of the overall block order to the nearest round lot (generally 100 shares). Aggregated orders receive one average price per broker unless multiple tickets were created with any one broker during a rotational trade in which case aggregated orders would receive one average price per brokerage ticket. Should there be multiple brokerage tickets, each would be prorated individually across participant accounts. The Trading team may, at its discretion, make small adjustments to the allocation procedure for accounts with relatively small share counts (generally less than 1,000 shares) to avoid excessive transaction costs.

Orders will be allocated on a basis different from the above only if all clients receive fair treatment and the reason for the different allocation is approved by the PM EVP or an IPC member in writing. Common reasons for deviations include, but are not limited to, cash balance differences and relative position sizes.

Private Client Group Trades

Trades will be allocated alphabetically by account short name, broken up by custodian on a rotational basis. These selections are tracked and reversed with the next block allocation.

An example of partial execution for Institutional and Private Client Group trades is set forth below:

Order 1

Block 1: A - Z

Block 2: A - Z

Block 3: Prorated

Order 2

Block 2: A - Z

Block 3: Prorated

Block 1: A - Z

Order 3

Block 3: Prorated

Block 1: A - Z

Block 2: A - Z

Order 4

Block 1: Z - A

Block 2: Z - A

Block 3: Prorated

Block 3 represents an Institutional block.

In cases where single order rotation is not effective, orders may be grouped into “super blocks”, or groups of multiple orders. This grouping pairs off buy and sell orders for more efficient cash management. Super blocks are treated the same as normal blocks, and rotate through as outlined above.

Individual custodian blocks determined to be insignificant in size relative to the overall order, may be executed at the discretion of the Trading team and, in situations where a rotation is being utilized, may result in individual blocks trading outside the rotation.

Reviews

Weekly Reviews

The IO GVP will review management exception reports and exception approvals on a weekly basis. These management exception reports are: Directed Brokerage Percentages; “No Soft” Accounts Traded Appropriately; Allocation Deviations; Partial Allocations Exceptions; Affirmation Log; Trading Restriction Tracking; Bid Deficiencies (daily); and TCA Outliers.

The Trading Team Leader uploads the reports to a sharepoint site for IO GVP review and electronic approval. Copies of these reports are archived electronically.

Quarterly Reviews

The TPC will review the trade aggregation and allocation exception reports and approvals from the prior quarter during the quarterly TPC meeting for any deviations that are not approved exceptions (listed below) or a result of orders placed for accounts where FI does not maintain trading discretion. Copies of these quarterly TPC reviews will be maintained by the LCD.

Reporting

The Trading team will complete an exception approval memorandum for all deviations from this Trade Aggregation and Allocation policy and procedure. All intentional deviations must be preapproved by the PM EVP or IPC and are reviewed by the TPC during the quarterly meeting. Exceptions to the approval process are described below:

Approved Exceptions

In certain situations, an intentional deviation may occur that is not considered a true exception and therefore does not require prior PM EVP and/or IPC approval, including:

• Accounts within the ‘European’ bucket that cannot be executed at the appropriate time due to the absence of trading personnel at the local foreign offices

• Accounts trading ordinary or ADR shares that cannot be executed at the appropriate time due to the respective market being closed.

• Accounts that restrict FI from executing trades through a particular broker that is being utilized for other accounts’ orders for the same side, symbol, alt-broker code and trade date.

Reporting - Rotation

When trades are to be aggregated and allocated (as described in section above) the Trading team will run an exception report after the final day of the trade to identify any deviations from this policy and procedure. These deviation reports will be reviewed by the Trading TL and provided to the CCO. All instances of deviation from this policy and procedure during the quarter will be reviewed during the quarterly TPC meeting.

Best Execution

Fisher Investments (FI) has adopted procedures to implement the firm’s requirement on best execution to monitor and ensure it is observed, implemented properly and amended or updated, as appropriate, which may be summarized below.

Responsibility

The Portfolio Management Executive Vice President (PM EVP) and the Investment Operations Group Vice President (IO GVP) have the responsibility for monitoring and ensuring team adherence to this policy and procedure. The Trading Team Leader (TL) has the responsibility for monitoring and ensuring team adherence to this policy and procedure. The Law and Compliance Department (LCD) is responsible for testing the adherence to this policy and procedure.

Procedure

1 Review

As part of FI's brokerage and best execution practices, a Trading Practices Committee (TPC) has been established. The TPC has responsibility for monitoring our firm’s trading practices, gathering relevant information, periodically reviewing and evaluating the services provided by broker-dealers, the quality of executions, commission rates, research and overall brokerage relationships, among other things.

Quarterly Review

The TPC shall meet at least quarterly and otherwise as needed to review FI’s best execution requirement, target objectives and practices. Overall trends, outliers and broker performance are discussed. The TPC shall maintain a written record of its meetings, which shall be maintained by LCD at FI’s primary place of business for not less than five years.

Weekly Review

The Trading TL reviews TCA reports on a regular basis and brings trends or individual outlying issues to the Investment Operations GVP accordingly. Depending on the severity of an outlier, the issue is addressed with the broker and/or trader. The traders hold a weekly meeting to review TCA reports from the prior week and discuss both positive and negative contributing outliers, broker performance, and trends as a means for continuing education.

Form ADV 2

The language in Form ADV 2 regarding best execution shall be reviewed on an annual basis prior to the fourth quarter TPC meeting on an annual basis. The Trading TL will submit suggested edits to LCD prior to the meeting.

2 Reports

Rebalance Update Reports - Equity Trades

FI uses a proprietary real time/post trade metrics spreadsheet that provides the members of Trading, Research, the IPC and the Investment Operations GVP with operational and trading timing and impact costs for each unique set of rebalance trades by portfolio categorization.

Trade Evaluation Process - Equity Trades

FI uses Instinet’s Insight product for U.S. domestic and foreign equity Trade Cost Analysis (TCA).

3 Target Objectives

Trading Practices

FI maintains multiple brokerage relationships allowing for a variety of trading venues to utilize for our clients. Where a client authorizes FI to select the brokers and/or dealers through whom transactions for the client’s account are executed, FI allocates such transactions to such brokers and/or dealers for execution on such markets at such prices and at such commission rates (which may be in excess of the prices or commission rates that might have been charged for execution on other markets or by other brokers or dealers) which, in the good faith judgment of FI, are appropriate. FI takes into consideration, in the selection of such brokers and/or dealers, not only the available prices and rates of brokerage commissions, but other relevant factors which may include (without limitation):

• Execution capability

• Transaction size

• Difficulty of execution

• Operational facilities of the brokers and/or dealers

• Risk in positioning a block of securities

• Quality of the overall brokerage and research services provided

• Custodial relationship

• Research provided

A Broker Ranking spreadsheet is maintained and updated quarterly by the traders to monitor broker performance with the above factors. The ranking spreadsheet is reviewed by the TPC on a quarterly basis.

FI may cause a client’s account to pay a broker or dealer an amount of commission for effecting a transaction for the client’s account in excess of the amount of commission another firm would have charged for effecting the same transaction if FI determines, in good faith, that the commission is reasonable in relation to the value of the brokerage and research services provided by the broker or dealer, viewed in terms of either the particular transaction or overall responsibilities with respect to accounts where FI exercises investment discretion.

Fixed Income Trading

When possible, FI distributes all municipal, mortgage-backed, corporate, and convertible fixed income securities to the account’s custodian and three other outside bond dealers for bids or offers in an effort to ensure an accurate market is being made. All orders for bonds with identifiers that are not recognized by FI’s Primary Security Master source (IDC) or Bloomberg are traded directly with the account custodian to avoid any risk of selling the incorrect security. Additionally, smaller treasury bonds/notes/bills/strips (generally fewer than 150 bonds in quantity) are traded directly with clients’ respective custodian since such securities are extremely liquid and there is no advantage to trading outside of the custodians. For larger treasury orders, FI may solicit bids/offers from any of its third party fixed income brokers.

For fixed income orders that are sent to multiple counterparties for bids/offers, each fixed income order is awarded to the counterparty that provides the highest bid/lowest offer, accounting for the custodian’s trade away fee, if applicable. All bonds maturing within six months and bids/offers that do not meet “Bid/Offer Deficiency” criteria defined below are not immediately awarded to counterparties. Instead, they are sent to Research to review and decide the proper course of action (accept bid/offer, do not accept bid/offer, cancel the order and hold the bond(s) in the client account). “Bid/Offer Deficiency” criteria can be any of the following:

• Winning bid/offer values the position more than $2,500 worse than FI’s valuation based on pricing in the security master

• For corporates with only one bid in total is provided and it is more than 1% worse than FI’s Security Master price

• For corporates with 2 or more bids are provided, but the winning bid is more than 4% worse than FI’s Security Master price

• For municipals, if the bid is lower than the price in FI’ Security Master

• At least 1/3 of the client account is held in fixed income and the dollar weighted average deviation of the bids for all issues is at least 3%

• More than 15 calendar days since a bond’s price has been updated in FI’s Security Master

Non-Sellable Securities

When FI is unable to sell a security, every effort is made to ensure the client receives options (i.e., tax benefits, proceeds from future maturity) on the disposition of the non-sellable security.

Foreign Exchange

A foreign exchange (FX) transaction is necessary when a stock is traded in an account in a currency that differs from the account’s operating or base currency. Where possible, FI trades such foreign exchange orders with third party brokers via the FX Connect platform, a product owned by State Street Global Markets. Prior to transacting in FX Connect, the FI trader is shown an indicative FX rate by the third party broker and the trader can either approve or reject the quote. Before approving or rejecting, FI traders compare FX quotes by third party brokers to the prevailing market rates displayed by the pricing source available within FX Connect and externally in Bloomberg. On a post-trade basis, FI reviews periodic FX transaction cost analysis reports produced by FX Connect.

To note, certain currencies are not eligible to be traded via third party broker and must be executed by custodians. Also, certain accounts or custodians may not allow or have the capacity to allow third party broker foreign exchange transactions. For any foreign exchange transaction executed by a custodian, FI compares the rate on the transaction to the last published rate in Bloomberg as of US market close for the given trade date. Discrepancies of 3.5% or greater are considered exceptions and are investigated by FI’s Trading Operations Team.

Approved Brokers

The Trading TL maintains a list of approved brokers, which is updated as needed and reviewed periodically throughout the year. The TPC, as well as other members of senior management, must approve the addition or removal of any broker from this list. The TPC formally reviews the most current approved broker list, as well as any changes approved during the period, on a quarterly basis.

Disclosures

A summary of brokerage and best execution practices is disclosed in Form ADV 2. The disclosures will be reviewed by the TPC annually, at a minimum, and more frequently if necessary. The Trading TL will also inform the Institutional Operations Team of any material changes to FI’s “Best Execution” policy after the annual review.

Documentation

The TPC quarterly meeting notes and supportive documentation are kept on file for a minimum of six years.

Soft Dollars Policy

Policy

Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, requires a money manager to: determine whether the proposed product or service constitutes eligible research and brokerage services; determine whether the research and brokerage services actually provide assistance in the performance of the money manager’s investment decision making and/or trade execution responsibilities; and make a good faith determination that the value of research and brokerage services is reasonable in relation to the amount of commissions paid.

In accordance with regulatory requirements, Fisher Investments (FI) has adopted a policy and procedure to disclose and review its soft dollar dealings. FI is also required to properly implement, monitor adherence to, as well as amend or update, its soft-dollar procedures on a regular basis or as changes occur.

Responsibility

The Portfolio Management Executive Vice President (PM EVP) and the Investment Operations Group Vice President (IO GVP) have the responsibility for monitoring and ensuring team adherence to this policy and procedure. The Trading Team Leader (TL) has the overall responsibility for developing, implementing, and enforcing this written procedure.

Procedure

Soft Dollar Agreement Approval

The review and approval of each of FI’s soft dollar arrangements is completed using the Soft Dollar Use Description Form (UDF) and Product Checklist. The Trading TL, along with appropriate representatives from the business, coordinates completion of these forms. The UDF contains a detailed description of the proposed product and its use in order to determine if it is eligible for soft dollar payment. Both forms and any related documents must be reviewed and approved by the PM EVP, IO GVP, Research GVP, Trading TL, the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) and FI Legal Counsel prior to signing a soft dollar agreement. Internal approval is noted by signing the Soft Dollar New Product Checklist form. The UDF must also be approved by outside counsel. Separately, incidental services provided by brokers are documented using the Broker Service Description and Use Form. The Trading TL coordinates completion of these forms and they must be approved by the IO GVP, CCO, FI Legal Counsel and outside counsel.

A list of Third Party Soft Dollar arrangements is maintained by the Trading TL, including the name of the product or service, the name of the third-party provider, the amount of the annual soft dollar commitment, and the mixed-use ratio, if appropriate. This list serves as the control document for all third-party soft dollar arrangements entered into by FI. Current descriptions for each existing arrangement are reviewed annually to determine if the details are still accurate.

If a product or service is determined to be a mixed-use item, a good faith determination is made as to the reasonable allocation of cost between hard and soft dollars and is described on the UDF or Product Checklist when the arrangement is submitted for approval. Approval is contingent upon review by Senior Management, the Chief Compliance Officer, as well as both internal and external legal counsel.

Review of soft dollar compliance is performed at multiple levels, including the Trading Practices Committee (TPC), Senior Management, the IO GVP, and the Law & Compliance Department (LCD).

New Soft Broker Approval

If a broker has not already been approved for trade execution, request for approval is submitted by the Trading TL to the PM EVP, IO GVP, and CCO on a memorandum, including a description of why the proposed broker should be added to the list of approved brokers for trade execution. The aforementioned individuals review and note approval by signing the memo. The TPC reviews any new brokers on a quarterly basis as well.

Once the broker is approved for trade execution, the Trading TL is required to obtain secondary approval from the aforementioned individuals to initiate a soft dollar brokerage relationship with the counterparty. Any addition or deletion to the current list of soft dollar counterparty relationships is reviewed on a quarterly basis by the TPC.

Vendor and Broker-Dealer Reconciliations

The Trading TL is responsible for confirming FI’s soft dollar records are reconciled with all third party vendors where payments are made using soft dollars and the soft dollar broker-dealers. Any discrepancies must be addressed with the broker or vendor. If a disagreement arises, it must be forwarded to the TPC for review and resolution. Members of the Trading team may assist the Trading TL with this process; however the Trading TL maintains ultimate responsibility for ensuring accuracy.

Third Party Vendor Invoices - The Trading TL, or a designated member of the trading team, receives copies of all soft dollar invoices sent to the appropriate broker. The Trading TL verifies the invoices agree with the Soft Dollar Brokerage Allocation Budget and reconciles any discrepancies. Members of the Trading team may assist in verifying details from vendors and confirming that vendors’ user lists are accurate. Either the Trading TL or designated members or the Trading team shall authorize the appropriate broker-dealer to pay the invoices. If designated members of the Trading team assist with authorizing invoice payment, they are required to elevate any material differences between the itemized charges on the invoice and expected amounts to the Trading TL prior to payment instruction. The Trading TL approval may be either written or verbal. Invoice payments that do not materially deviate from expected charges may be applied without direct approval. As a secondary review, the Trading TL will also log-in to each broker website periodically to verify that all approved payments to vendors are correct. A copy of each approved invoice is saved in the appropriate soft dollar vendor file (hard copies were saved prior to 1/1/2014; electronic copies saved thereafter). If a product has a mixed-use ratio, the Trading TL will also verify the invoice (i.e. the hard dollar portion) to ensure the proper split is being applied and will subsequently approve payment through the Finance team.

Soft Dollar Broker Statements - Monthly statements are received from broker-dealers showing all proprietary and third-party research and non-research services provided to FI. The Trading TL and designated members of the Trading Team reconcile each statement to the soft dollar invoices approved for payment.

Broker Commission Statements- Monthly statements are received from broker-dealers showing the amount of commission received from FI. The Trading TL and designated members of the Trading team reconcile each statement to FI’s internal records and to the Soft Dollar Status by Broker report.

Note: It is FI’s policy that seminars or conferences sponsored by industry organizations or specific vendors of FI generally should be paid for in hard dollars. Exceptions to this policy must be approved by Senior Management, FI Legal Counsel, and the CCO.

Quarterly Review

On a quarterly basis the TPC will review the following reports prepared by the Trading TL:

• The Soft Dollar Summary shows each broker-dealer providing third-party products or services to FI and includes: the name of the broker-dealer; the name of the product or service; the annual commitment; any soft dollar debit or credit balance carryover from a previous period; the hard dollar commissions paid, the soft dollar credit expected for the current calendar year; the amount of commissions paid year-to-date; and, the remaining soft dollar commitment for the year. The Summary also shows an evaluation of incidental services provided by brokers and an assessment of soft dollar benefit for each service.

• The Soft Dollar Arrangements Spreadsheet shows the current soft dollar status of each product.

• The Discretionary Commission Report shows each broker-dealer that received commissions on advisory client trades for the quarter and year-to-date as well as the total from the prior year. Each total is then split between hard, soft, and directed trades.

• Soft Dollar Reconciliation Sign off memorandums to document that the Trading TL reconciled the soft dollar statements provided by the broker-dealers for each month are stored on the network as of Q4 2013. These were previously reviewed quarterly by the TPC.

The TPC’s review and any changes to the budget are documented and kept in the Committee’s records.

Annual Review

At its fourth quarter review meeting held during the first quarter of each calendar year, the TPC will review the Soft Dollar Summary Budget and analyze FI’s brokerage allocation and use of soft dollars. The budget includes a list of all broker-dealers to which FI plans to give soft dollar commission business that year. It lists targeted commission amounts per broker and the purpose for the allocations. Purpose categories may include proprietary research or third-party soft dollar arrangements. The TPC’s findings are documented and kept in the TPC’s records.

The Trading TL is also responsible for coordinating an annual Section 28(e) eligibility review for all soft dollar products. Respective team managers within Research and Trading are responsible for the actual confirmation of usage, and FI Legal Counsel is consulted if there are any material changes to assist in determining eligibility. The review is typically initiated in December to coincide with the annual Soft Dollar Summary Budget review described above. In addition to soft dollar products, the Trading TL performs a review of all incidental services provided by brokers to re-evaluate benefit and soft dollar status.

Sanctions and Remedial Actions

The TPC shall be responsible for implementing appropriate sanctions and remedial actions in cases of unauthorized receipt of soft dollar benefits or other material deviation from this policy and procedure. The TPC shall immediately report any material or willful deviation to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO).

Disclosures

The disclosures included in FI’s Form ADV regarding the soft dollar policy and practices are reviewed by Senior Management annually as part of the ADV update by the LCD. Ad hoc updates that may be required are reviewed by Senior Management as well prior to distribution. The TPC shall review the Form ADV concerning brokerage allocation and use of soft dollars annually and document each such review.

Employee Training

The Trading TL will be responsible for ensuring appropriate training occurs if any employee is to participate in soft dollar administration. New team members will be briefed about the general industry usage of soft dollars for information purposes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LSV Asset Management (LSV).

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

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

LSV may be in the position of buying or selling the same security for a number of its clients at roughly the same time. LSV will aggregate such transactions if it believes such aggregation is consistent with its duty to seek best execution for its clients and is consistent with the terms of LSV's investment advisory agreement with each client for which trades are being aggregated.

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

Portolan Capital Management, LLC (Portolan).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the event Portolan aggregates purchase and sale orders for accounts under its management, all client accounts that participate in an aggregated trade receive the average share price for all transactions executed for the aggregated trade order during that trading day and all accounts share in the commissions and other transaction costs relating to such trade order on a pro rata basis.

Rice Hall James & Associates, LLC (RHJ).

RHJ has a Brokerage Committee, consisting of members from portfolio management, trading and compliance, who evaluate the quality and cost of services received from broker/dealers on a periodic and systematic basis. As part of the evaluations, the Brokerage Committee will consider the quality and cost of services available from alternative broker/dealers, market makers, and market centers. RHJ recognizes that the analysis of execution quality involves a number of factors, both qualitative and quantitative. To consider all of these factors, the Brokerage Committee will follow a process in an attempt to ensure that RHJ is seeking to obtain the most favorable execution when placing client trades. When necessary, RHJ shall address all conflicts of interests by disclosure or other appropriate action. The Brokerage Committee shall summarize each of its reviews in a written format and maintain such documentation, along with any back up information, in accordance with the firm's books and records requirements.

Broker Selection Process

Rice Hall James & Associates, LLC executes client transactions through both traditional brokers and ECN’s (Electronic Crossing Networks). Brokers are selected on a best execution basis, taking into consideration the efficiency of execution, value of research, settlement and service.

Qualitative Analysis

The following qualitative factors, among others, are considered when performing RHJ periodic and systematic evaluation of its brokerage arrangements and the execution quality of client trades: ability to maintain the confidentiality of trading intentions, timeliness of execution, timeliness and accuracy of trade confirmations, liquidity of the securities traded, willingness to commit capital, ability to place trades in difficult market environments, research services provided, ability to provide investment ideas, execution facilitation services provided, record keeping services provided, custody services provided, frequency and correction of trading errors, ability to access a variety of market venues, expertise as it relates to specific securities, financial condition and business reputation.

RHJ has successfully incorporated ITG's TCA and Alpha Capture Reports into our broker analysis. The ITG-TCA Report contents include order and trade level detail as well as cost calculations. The ITG-TCA report provides a number of items including: weighted average commission, weighted average net cost and VWAP. ITG-TCA allows RHJ to measure and analyze cost that may affect trading performance. RHJ's Brokerage Committee reviews the TCA report semi-annually. The ITG Alpha Capture report measures cost at every point of the investment process from portfolio management to trading. ITG Alpha Capture provides written semi-annual reviews, written interpretations and on-site consultant recommendations. RHJ's Brokerage Committee reviews the Alpha Capture report semi-annually.

Summary Analysis

The Brokerage Committee reviews a sample of all transactions and incorporates the quantitative factors discussed above into the review. They also consider the qualitative factors. Finally, the Brokerage Committee recognizes areas that represent potential conflicts of interests when considering its duty to obtain best execution.

Rice Hall James & Associates, LLC only enters into soft dollar arrangements that meet the requirements of the Section 28(e) safe harbor. RHJ receives the following research products under a soft dollar arrangement with WRA/ConvergeEX: Glass Lewis Proxy Research, FactSet and William O’Neil & Co.

Consistent with its policy of obtaining best execution for its advisory clients when selecting broker-dealers, RHJ may receive research products or services that fall within the "safe harbor" established by Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with its allocation of portfolio brokerage. RHJ will not enter into any soft dollar arrangement that falls outside the safe harbor of Section 28(e). Importantly, as a fiduciary RHJ must at all times act for the benefit of its clients and place clients' interests before its own. RHJ has established the following guidelines to effectuate and monitor such soft dollar arrangements:

Prior Approval

No soft dollar arrangement may be entered into by any personnel on behalf of advisory clients without the prior approval of the Brokerage Committee. In the case of research products or services provided by a broker where a specific cost (either in dollars or commissions) is attributed to the product or service by the broker (e.g., non-proprietary research), such approval will be submitted on Schwab Compliance Technologies Soft Dollar Expense Request Form", which may be modified from time to time as the Compliance Officer determines.

Brokerage or Research-Related Products and Services

The product or service obtained through any soft dollar arrangement or transaction must be a brokerage or research product or service. Determinations as to the status of particular products or services will be made by the Chief Compliance Officer.

Mixed Use Research Products and Services

If a research product or service has both a research and non-research use, an allocation must be made between the research and non-research functions, with the portion allocable to research being paid with commission dollars, and the non-research portion being paid by RHJ. An allocation of the cost of the product or service will be made according to its use (i.e., the component that provides assistance to RHJ in the investment decision-making process vs. the component that relates to non-research activities) and disclosure of the mixed-use allocation shall be included in Part 2 of RHJ's Form ADV. The allocation will generally be made on the basis of the percentage of time devoted to RHJ's use of the product for research vs. non-research applications, or such other appropriate measure of the value of the product for each use as the Brokerage Committee determines to be appropriate, both initially and upon subsequent periodic review.

The Broker Must Provide the Service

In all cases, any brokerage or research product or service that RHJ obtains for soft dollars must be "provided by" a broker-dealer. To satisfy this standard in the context of brokerage or research supplied by other than the executing broker, the broker must assume a direct obligation to purchase the product or service from the third party vendor without regard to the manner, amount and timing of any compensation received by the broker from RHJ or its advisory clients. The broker may arrange to have the third party deliver research directly to RHJ as long as it is clearly documented, through vendor contracts or invoices or other appropriate documentation, that the broker alone remains responsible for the payment to the third party. All vendors of products or services will be instructed by the Chief Compliance Officer (or designee) to send the related invoices to the paying broker rather than to RHJ. RHJ may receive a copy of such invoices.

Reasonable Commissions

The commissions paid must be reasonable in relation to the value of the brokerage or research products or services provided. This will be determined based upon a periodic assessment (at a minimum on an annual basis) of products and services received for soft dollars to ascertain whether they have a value that is reasonable in view of the commissions RHJ is allocating for them. Among other things, this analysis will include a comparison of the soft dollar cost charged by other brokers for a similar product or service to provide reasonable assurance that the amount being paid by RHJ is competitive. In addition, if the product is available for hard dollars, then consideration will be given to whether the execution plus the product or service could be obtained for an overall lower cost on an unbundled basis (if available), if paid in hard dollars. Finally, RHJ shall avoid maintaining an overabundance of outstanding soft dollar credits at brokers, as doing so could call into question whether RHJ is causing its clients to unnecessarily "pay up" for brokerage executions. Conversely, RHJ shall avoid maintaining large deficit balances, which could raise issues related to RHJ's financial solvency and create conflicts of interests by obligating RHJ to trade through the broker that must receive commissions in order to reduce the deficit. At no time is RHJ allowed to allocate a client's brokerage transactions to a broker based on the amount of client referrals RHJ receives from the broker.

The Brokerage Committee will perform periodic reviews of the firm's soft dollar arrangements to ensure that the value of the brokerage or research products remain reasonable in relation to the commissions being paid. All such reviews will be documented, along with the Brokerage Committee’s overall best execution reviews.

Permissible Transactions

(a) Agency Transactions: Section 28(e) expressly provides a safe harbor for "commissions" in excess of the lowest available. The Section 28(e) safe harbor does not encompass transactions in securities executed by a broker-dealer on a principal basis (excluding riskless principal transactions). (b) Commodity Futures: The safe harbor of Section 28(e) is available only for securities transactions. Accordingly, RHJ will not enter into soft dollar arrangements in connection with commodity transactions.

Error Correction

The SEC staff has taken the position that an investment adviser cannot use soft dollars to correct errors it makes while placing trades for a client's account. Accordingly, RHJ does not allow trade errors to be corrected through soft dollar commissions. Refer to RHJ’s Trading Error Policy for additional information.

Reporting

All soft dollar arrangements will be disclosed in RHJ's Part 2 of Form ADV. In addition, the RHJ CCO will be responsible for reporting all soft dollar arrangements to the affiliated mutual funds' Board of Trustees at least annually and upon request.

Recordkeeping

Appropriate records shall be maintained concerning soft dollar transactions including records of all soft dollar approval forms and supporting documentation (including a description of the service or product and payback ratio) provided in exchange for soft dollars, a list of all brokers through which soft dollar services have been obtained, non-binding agreements received from broker-dealers that document soft dollar arrangements, all invoices and brokers' statements reporting on soft dollar arrangements, records that document the basis of allocation in the case of mixed-use products or services, records of all brokerage allocation "targets" and progress towards those targets and copies of all client disclosures and authorizations related to soft dollar arrangements.

Pre-Commitments of Brokerage

RHJ has a policy of not pre-committing a specific amount of business to any broker or dealer over a specific time period, although it may take into consideration in selecting brokers the value of brokerage and research provided by brokers. RHJ may agree only to a non-binding expectation of future commissions. A majority of RHJ’s brokerage placement will be dictated by the needs of a specific transaction such as market making, availability of a buyer or seller of a particular security, or specialized execution skills. Absent special circumstances, RHJ will allocate brokerage based upon its semi-annual assessment of the brokerage and research services provided by brokers, and attempt to allocate its brokerage business in response to this assessment.

RHJ claims compliance with the CFA Soft Dollar Standards. Any brokerage arrangement with respect to the funds comports with the mandatory provisions of these Standards.

Victory Capital Management Inc. (Victory Capital).

It is the policy of Victory Capital to obtain the “best execution” of its clients’ securities transactions. Victory Capital strives to execute each client’s securities transactions in such a manner that the client’s total costs or proceeds in each transaction are the most favorable under the circumstances. Commission rates paid on securities transactions for client accounts must reflect comparative market rates.

In seeking best execution, Victory Capital will generally solicit bids and offers from more than one broker-dealer. Victory Capital’s traders have the discretion to determine which broker-dealer will be used. The trading desk also negotiates any broker commissions, which are reviewed periodically for cost competitiveness and execution quality. “Commissions” includes a markup, markdown, commission equivalent, or any other fee that is charged by a broker-dealer for executing transactions, and any amounts received from riskless principal transactions that are eligible for soft dollar credits under Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“1934 Act”).

Victory Capital may also use an Electronic Communications Network (“ECN”) or Alternative Trading System (“ATS”) to effect certain trades such as over-the-counter trades when Victory Capital believes it will result in equal or more favorable execution overall. Victory Capital will pay a commission to an ECN or ATS that, when added to the price, is lower than the overall execution price that might have been attained trading with a traditional broker-dealer.

Subject to the consideration of obtaining best execution, Victory Capital may use brokerage commissions generated from client transactions to obtain services and/or research from broker-dealers to assist in Victory Capital’s investment management decision-making process. These services and research are in addition to and do not replace the services and research that Victory Capital is required to perform and do not reduce the investment advisory fees payable to Victory Capital by the fund.

Victory Capital may pay the broker-dealer with commission dollars (“soft dollars”) in exchange for access to statistical information and research, which is offered without any commitment to engage in any specific business or transactions. Soft dollar transactions generally cause clients to pay a commission rate higher than would be charged for execution only.

The products and services received through soft dollar transactions include investment advice (either directly or through publications or writings) as to the value of the securities, the advisability of investing in, purchasing or selling securities, the availability of securities or purchasers or sellers of securities, analyses and reports concerning issues, industries, economic factors and trends, portfolio strategy and the performance of accounts and access to company management. Victory Capital may use soft dollars to acquire proprietary or third-party research. Proprietary research is created and provided by the broker-dealer; third-party research is created by a third-party but provided by a broker-dealer. All products and services Victory Capital obtains with soft dollars must be consistent with the safe harbor provided by Section 28(e) of the 1934 Act.

The research products and services provided by broker-dealers through soft dollar arrangements benefit other Victory Capital clients and may be used in formulating investment advice for any and all Victory Capital clients, including accounts other than those that paid commissions to the broker-dealer on a particular transaction. Nonetheless, not all research generated by a particular client’s trade will benefit that particular client’s account. In some instances, the other accounts benefited may include accounts for which the accounts’ owners have directed their portion of brokerage commissions to go to a particular broker-dealer other than those that provided the research products or services. However, research services obtained through soft dollar transactions may be used in advising all accounts, and not all such services would necessarily be used by Victory Capital in connection with the specific account that paid commissions to the broker-dealer that provided such services.

Brokerage commissions may never be used to compensate a third party for client referrals unless the client has directed such an arrangement. In addition, brokerage commissions may never be used to obtain research and/or services for the benefit of any employee or non-client entity.

Victory Capital will consider the full range and quality of a broker’s services in placing brokerage including, but not limited to, the value of research provided, execution capability, commission rate, willingness and ability to commit capital and responsiveness. The lowest possible commission cost alone does not determine broker selection. The transaction that represents the best quality execution for a client account will be executed. Commission ranges and the actual commission paid for trades of listed stocks and over-the-counter stocks may vary depending on, but not limited to, the liquidity and volatility of the stock and services provided to Victory Capital by the broker.

Victory Capital will make a good faith determination that the commissions paid are reasonable in relationship to the value of the services received. The continuous review of commissions is the responsibility of the head of equity trading. Quarterly, Victory Capital’s research analysts and portfolio managers will participate in a broker vote, the results of which are used by the firm’s equity trading desk during the broker selection process.

Investment decisions for the fund are made independently from those made for the other client accounts or any other investment company or account managed by Victory Capital. Such other investment companies or accounts may also invest in the same securities and may follow similar investment strategies as the fund. Victory Capital may combine transaction orders (“bunching” or “blocking” trades) for more than one client account where such action appears to be equitable and potentially advantageous for each account (e.g., for the purpose of reducing brokerage commissions or obtaining a more favorable transaction price.) Victory Capital will aggregate transaction orders only if it believes that the aggregation is consistent with its duty to seek best execution for its clients and is consistent with the terms of investment advisory agreements with each client for whom trades are being aggregated. Both equity and fixed-income securities may be aggregated. When making such a combination of transaction orders for a new issue or secondary market trade in an equity security, Victory Capital adheres to the following objectives:

• Fairness to clients both in the participation of execution of orders for their account, and in the allocation of orders for the accounts of more than one client.

• Allocation of all orders in a timely and efficient manner.

In some cases, “bunching” or “blocking” trades may affect the price paid or received by a fund or the size of the position obtained by the fund in an adverse manner relative to the result that would have been obtained if only that particular fund had participated in or been allocated such trades.

The aggregation of transactions for advisory accounts and proprietary accounts (including partnerships and other accounts in which Victory Capital or its associated persons are partners or participants, and managed employee accounts) is permissible. No proprietary account may be favored over any other participating account and such practice must be consistent with Victory Capital’s Code of Ethics.

Equity trade orders are executed based only on trade instructions received from portfolio managers by the trading desk. Portfolio managers may enter trades to meet the full target allocation immediately or may meet the allocation through moves in incremental blocks. Orders are processed on a “first-come, first-served” basis. At times, a rotation system may determine “first-come, first-served” treatment when the equity trading desk receives the same order for multiple accounts simultaneously. Victory Capital will utilize a rotation whereby the fund, even if aggregated with other orders, is in the first block(s) to trade within the rotation. To aggregate orders, the equity trading desk must determine that all accounts in the order will benefit. Any new trade that can be blocked with an existing open order may be added to the open order to form a larger block. Victory Capital receives no additional compensation or remuneration of any kind as a result of the aggregation of trades. All accounts participating in a block execution receive the same execution price, an average share price, for securities purchased or sold on a trading day. Execution prices may not be carried overnight. Any portion of an order that remains unfilled at the end of a given day shall be rewritten (absent contrary instructions) on the following day as a new order. Accounts with trades executed the next day will receive a new daily average price to be determined at the end of the following day.

If the order is filled in its entirety, securities purchased in the aggregate transaction will be allocated among accounts participating in the trade in accordance with an Allocation Statement prepared at the time of order entry. If the order is partially filled, the securities will be allocated pro rata based on the Allocation Statement. Portfolio managers may allocate executed trades in a different manner than indicated on the Allocation Statement (e.g., non-pro rata) only if all client accounts receive fair and equitable treatment.

In some instances, it may not be practical to complete the Allocation Statement prior to the placement of the order. In that case, the trading desk will complete the Allocation Statement as soon as practicable, but no later than the end of the same business day on which the securities have been allocated to the trading desk by the broker. Where the full amount of a block execution is not executed, the partial amount actually executed will be allocated on a pro rata basis whenever possible. The following execution methods maybe used in place of a pro rata procedure: relative size allocations, security position weighting, priority for specialized accounts, or a special allocation based on compliance approval. After the proper allocation has been completed, excess shares must be sold in the secondary market, and may not be reallocated to another managed account.

In making investment decisions for the fund, Victory Capital will not inquire or take into consideration whether an issuer of securities proposed for purchase or sale by the fund is a customer of Victory Capital, its parents, subsidiaries or affiliates, and, in dealing with their commercial customers, Victory Capital, its parents, subsidiaries and affiliates will not inquire or take into consideration whether securities of such customers are held by the fund.

Voya Investment Management Co. LLC (Voya).

Purchases and sales of securities on a securities exchange (which include most equity securities) are effected through brokers who charge a commission for their services. In transactions on securities exchanges in the United States, these commissions are negotiated, while on many foreign securities exchanges commissions are fixed. Securities traded in the OTC markets (such as fixed-income securities and some equity securities) are generally traded on a “net” basis with market makers acting as dealers; in these transactions, the dealers act as principal for their own accounts without a stated commission, although the price of the security usually includes a profit to the dealer. Transactions in certain OTC securities also may be effected on an agency basis when, in the Sub-Adviser’s opinion, the total price paid (including commission) is equal to or better than the best total price available from a market maker. In underwritten offerings, securities are usually purchased at a fixed price, which includes an amount of compensation to the underwriter, generally referred to as the underwriter’s concession or discount. On occasion, certain money market instruments may be purchased directly from an issuer, in which case no commissions or discounts are paid. The Sub-Adviser may also place trades using an ECN or ATS.

The Sub-Adviser has a duty to seek to obtain best execution of each Fund’s orders, taking into consideration a full range of factors designed to produce the most favorable overall terms reasonably available under the circumstances. In selecting brokers and dealers to execute trades, the Sub-Adviser may consider both the characteristics of the trade and the full range and quality of the brokerage services available from eligible broker-dealers. This consideration often involves qualitative as well as quantitative judgments. Factors relevant to the nature of the trade may include, among others, price (including the applicable brokerage commission or dollar spread), the size of the order, the nature and characteristics (including liquidity) of the market for the security, the difficulty of execution, the timing of the order, potential market impact, and the need for confidentiality, speed, and certainty of execution. Factors relevant to the range and quality of brokerage services available from eligible brokers and dealers may include, among others, each firm’s execution, clearance, settlement, and other operational facilities; willingness and ability to commit capital or take risk in positioning a block of securities, where necessary; special expertise in particular securities or markets; ability to provide liquidity, speed and anonymity; the nature and quality of other brokerage and research services provided to the Sub-Adviser (consistent with the “safe harbor” described below); and each firm’s general reputation, financial condition and responsiveness to the Sub-Adviser, as demonstrated in the particular transaction or other transactions. Subject to its duty to seek best execution of each Fund’s orders, the Sub-Adviser may select broker-dealers that participate in commission recapture programs that have been established for the benefit of each Fund. Under these programs, the participating broker-dealers will return to each Fund (in the form of a credit to the Fund) a portion of the brokerage commissions paid to the broker-dealers by the Fund. These credits are used to pay certain expenses of the Fund. These commission recapture payments benefit the Fund, and not the Sub-Adviser.

In selecting broker-dealers to execute a trade for each Fund, the Sub-Adviser may consider the nature and quality of brokerage and research services provided to the Sub-Adviser as a factor in evaluating the most favorable overall terms reasonably available under the circumstances. The practice of using a portion of a Fund’s commission dollars to pay for brokerage and research services provided to the Sub-Adviser is sometimes referred to as “soft dollars.” Section 28(e) is sometimes referred to as a “safe harbor,” because it permits this practice, subject to a number of restrictions, including the Sub-Adviser’s compliance with certain procedural requirements and limitations on the type of brokerage and research services that qualify for the safe harbor.

Brokerage and Research Products and Services Under the Safe Harbor – Research products and services may include, but are not limited to, general economic, political, business and market information and reviews, industry and company information and reviews, evaluations of securities and recommendations as to the purchase and sale of securities, financial data on a company or companies, performance and risk measuring services and analysis, stock price quotation services, computerized historical financial databases and related software, credit rating services, analysis of corporate responsibility issues, brokerage analysts’ earnings estimates, computerized links to current market data, software dedicated to research, and portfolio modeling. Research services may be provided in the form of reports, computer-generated data feeds and other services, telephone contacts, and personal meetings with securities analysts, as well as in the form of meetings arranged with corporate officers and industry spokespersons, economists, academics, and governmental representatives. Brokerage products and services assist in the execution, clearance and settlement of securities transactions, as well as functions incidental thereto including, but not limited to, related communication and connectivity services and equipment, software related to order routing, market access, algorithmic trading, and other trading activities. On occasion, a broker-dealer may furnish the Sub-Adviser with a service that has a mixed use (that is, the service is used both for brokerage and research activities that are within the safe harbor and for other activities). In this case, the Sub-Adviser is required to reasonably allocate the cost of the service, so that any portion of the service that does not qualify for the safe harbor is paid for by the Sub-Adviser from its own funds, and not by portfolio commissions paid by a Fund.

As permitted by Section 28(e) of the 1934 Act, as amended, the Sub-Adviser may cause a Fund to pay a broker-dealer a commission for effecting a securities transaction for a Fund that is in excess of the commission which another broker-dealer would have charged for effecting the transaction, as long as the services provided to the Sub-Adviser by the broker-dealer: (i) are limited to “research” or “brokerage” services, (ii) constitute lawful and appropriate assistance to the Sub-Adviser in the performance of its investment decision-making responsibilities, and (iii) the Sub-Adviser makes a good faith determination that the broker’s commission paid by the Fund is reasonable in relation to the value of the brokerage and research services provided by the broker-dealer, viewed in terms of either the particular transaction or the Sub-Adviser’s overall responsibilities to the Fund and its other investment advisory clients. In making such a determination, the Sub-Adviser might consider, in addition to the commission rate, the range and quality of a broker’s services, including the value of the research provided, execution capability, financial responsibility and responsiveness.

Research products and services provided to the Sub-Adviser by broker-dealers that effect securities transactions for a Fund may be used by the Sub-Adviser in servicing all of its accounts. Accordingly, not all of these services may be used by the Sub-Adviser in connection with each Fund. Some of these products and services are also available to the Sub-Adviser for cash, and some do not have an explicit cost or determinable value. The research received does not reduce the management fees payable the sub-advisory fees payable to a Sub-Adviser for services provided to each Fund. The Adviser’s or a Sub-Adviser’s expenses would likely increase if the Sub-Adviser had to generate these research products and services through its own efforts, or if it paid for these products or services itself.

Commissions Paid

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

The following table shows the fund's portfolio turnover rate for the fiscal periods ended February 28, 2018 and 2017. Variations in turnover rate may be due to a fluctuating volume of shareholder purchase and redemption orders, market conditions, and/or changes in Strategic Advisers' investment outlook.

Turnover Rates	2018	2017
Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund	75%	82%

The following table shows the total amount of brokerage commissions paid by the fund, comprising commissions paid on securities and/or futures transactions, as applicable, for the fiscal years ended February 28, 2018, February 28, 2017, and February 29, 2016. The total amount of brokerage commissions paid is stated as a dollar amount and a percentage of the fund's average net assets.

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended	Dollar Amount	Percentage of Average Net Assets
Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund	February 28
	2018	$7,657,195	0.11%
	2017	$7,950,863	0.12%
	2016⁽¹⁾	$6,306,392	0.09%

(1) Fiscal year ended February 29.

During the fiscal year ended February 28, 2018, the following brokerage commissions were paid to affiliated brokers:

Broker	Affiliate	Transactions Initiated By	Commissions	Percentage of Aggregate Brokerage Commissions	Percentage of Aggregate Dollar Amount of Brokerage Transactions
Fidelity Capital Markets	FMR LLC/Strategic Advisers	Strategic Advisers	$5,496	0.07%	0.27%
Luminex	FMR LLC/Strategic Advisers	Strategic Advisers	$722	0.01%	0.08%
Luminex	FMR LLC/Strategic Advisers	Invesco⁽¹⁾	$702	0.01%	0.07%
Fidelity Capital Markets	FMR LLC/Strategic Advisers	AMNA	$3,362	0.04%	0.05%
Luminex	FMR LLC/Strategic Advisers	AMNA	$2,848	0.04%	0.23%
Fidelity Capital Markets	FMR LLC/Strategic Advisers	AllianceBernstein	$905	0.01%	0.02%
Luminex	FMR LLC/Strategic Advisers	AllianceBernstein	$44	0.00%	0.01%
Luminex	FMR LLC/Strategic Advisers	JPMorgan	$145	0.00%	0.02%
Luminex	FMR LLC/Strategic Advisers	Boston Partners	$2	0.00%	0.00%
Luminex	FMR LLC/Strategic Advisers	Voya	$4	0.00%	0.00%
ITG	Invesco Advisers, Inc.	Invesco⁽¹⁾	$1,503	0.02%	0.02%
Virtu Financial	Invesco Advisers, Inc.	Invesco⁽¹⁾	$4,960	0.06%	0.20%

(1) As of May 19, 2018, Invesco no longer serves as a sub-adviser to the fund.

During the fiscal year ended February 28, 2017, the following brokerage commissions were paid to affiliated brokers:

Broker	Affiliate	Transactions Initiated By	Commissions
Luminex	FMR LLC/Strategic Advisers	Invesco⁽¹⁾	$744
Fidelity Capital Markets	FMR LLC/Strategic Advisers	AMNA⁽²⁾	$3,062
Luminex	FMR LLC/Strategic Advisers	AMNA⁽²⁾	$824
Fidelity Capital Markets	FMR LLC/Strategic Advisers	AllianceBernstein	$3,419
Luminex	FMR LLC/Strategic Advisers	AllianceBernstein	$33
Luminex	FMR LLC/Strategic Advisers	JPMorgan	$132
ICMI/KCG	Invesco Advisers, Inc.	Invesco⁽¹⁾	$114
ICMI/KCG	Invesco Advisers, Inc.	Invesco⁽¹⁾	$2,749

(1) As of May 19, 2018, Invesco no longer serves as a sub-adviser to the fund.

(2) Formerly known as The Boston Company Asset Management, LLC.

During the fiscal year ended February 29, 2016, the following brokerage commissions were paid to affiliated brokers:

Broker	Affiliate	Transactions Initiated By	Commissions
ICMI/ITG	Invesco	Invesco⁽¹⁾	$1,172
Luminex	FMR LLC/Strategic Advisers	Invesco⁽¹⁾	$60
Fidelity Capital Markets	FMR LLC/Strategic Advisers	Kennedy Capital⁽²⁾	$979
Fidelity Capital Markets	FMR LLC/Strategic Advisers	AMNA⁽³⁾	$14,304
Luminex	FMR LLC/Strategic Advisers	AMNA⁽³⁾	$178
Fidelity Capital Markets	FMR LLC/Strategic Advisers	AllianceBernstein	$6,759
Luminex	FMR LLC/Strategic Advisers	AllianceBernstein	$10

(1) As of May 19, 2018, Invesco no longer serves as a sub-adviser to the fund.

(2) As of October 1, 2017, Kennedy Capital no longer serves as a sub-adviser to the fund.

(3) Formerly known as The Boston Company Asset Management, LLC.

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

The following table shows the dollar amount of brokerage commissions paid to firms that may have provided research or brokerage services and the approximate dollar amount of the transactions involved for the fiscal year ended 2018.

Fund	Fiscal Year Ended	$ Amount of Commissions Paid to Firms for Providing Research or Brokerage Services	$ Amount of Brokerage Transactions Involved
Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund	February 28, 2018	$3,564,144	$5,118,572,646

VALUATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BUYING AND SELLING INFORMATION

Shares of the fund are offered only to certain clients of Strategic Advisers that have granted Strategic Advisers discretionary investment authority. If you are not currently a Strategic Advisers client, please call 1-800-544-3455 for more information.

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

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

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

DISTRIBUTIONS AND TAXES

Dividends. A portion of the fund's income may qualify for the dividends-received deduction available to corporate shareholders, but it is unlikely that all of the fund's income will qualify for the deduction. A portion of the fund's dividends, when distributed to individual shareholders, may qualify for taxation at long-term capital gains rates (provided certain holding period requirements are met). Distributions by the fund to tax-advantaged retirement plan accounts are not taxable currently.

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

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

Foreign Tax Credit or Deduction. Foreign governments may impose withholding taxes on dividends and interest earned by the fund with respect to foreign securities held directly by the fund. Foreign governments may also impose taxes on other payments or gains with respect to foreign securities held directly by the fund. As a general matter, if, at the close of its fiscal year, more than 50% of the fund's total assets is invested in securities of foreign issuers, the fund may elect to pass through eligible foreign taxes paid and thereby allow shareholders to take a deduction or, if they meet certain holding period requirements with respect to fund shares, a credit on their individual tax returns. In addition, if at the close of each quarter of its fiscal year at least 50% of the fund's total assets is represented by interests in other regulated investment companies, the same rules will apply to any foreign tax credits that underlying funds pass through to the fund. The amount of foreign taxes paid by the fund will be reduced to the extent that the fund lends securities over the dividend record date. Special rules may apply to the credit for individuals who receive dividends qualifying for the long-term capital gains tax rate.

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

Under recent tax legislation, individuals (and certain other non-corporate entities) are generally eligible for a 20% deduction with respect to taxable ordinary dividends from real estate investment trusts and certain taxable income from publicly traded partnerships. Currently, there is not a regulatory mechanism for regulated investment companies to pass through the 20% deduction to shareholders. As a result, in comparison, investors investing directly in real estate investment trusts or publicly traded partnerships would generally be eligible for the 20% deduction for such taxable income from these investments while investors investing in real estate investment trusts or publicly traded partnerships indirectly through a fund would not be eligible for the 20% deduction for their share of such taxable income.

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

TRUSTEES AND OFFICERS

The Trustees, Members of the Advisory Board (if any), and officers of the trust and fund, as applicable, are listed below. The Board of Trustees governs the fund and is responsible for protecting the interests of shareholders. The Trustees are experienced executives who meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the fund's activities, review contractual arrangements with companies that provide services to the fund, oversee management of the risks associated with such activities and contractual arrangements, and review the fund's performance. If the interests of the fund and an underlying Fidelity^® fund were to diverge, a conflict of interest could arise and affect how the Trustees and Members of the Advisory Board fulfill their fiduciary duties to the affected funds. Strategic Advisers has structured the fund to avoid these potential conflicts, although there may be situations where a conflict of interest is unavoidable. In such instances, Strategic Advisers, the Trustees, and Members of the Advisory Board would take reasonable steps to minimize and, if possible, eliminate the conflict. Each of the Trustees oversees 20 funds.

The Trustees hold office without limit in time except that (a) any Trustee may resign; (b) any Trustee may be removed by written instrument, signed by at least two-thirds of the number of Trustees prior to such removal; (c) any Trustee who requests to be retired or who has become incapacitated by illness or injury may be retired by written instrument signed by a majority of the other Trustees; and (d) any Trustee may be removed at any special meeting of shareholders by a two-thirds vote of the outstanding voting securities of the trust. Officers and Advisory Board Members hold office without limit in time, except that any officer or Advisory Board Member may resign or may be removed by a vote of a majority of the Trustees at any regular meeting or any special meeting of the Trustees. Except as indicated, each individual has held the office shown or other offices in the same company for the past five years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interested Trustees*:

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

Name, Year of Birth; Principal Occupations and Other Relevant Experience+

Brian B. Hogan (1964)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2018

Trustee

Mr. Hogan also serves as Trustee or Vice President of other funds. Mr. Hogan serves as Head of Fidelity Investments’ Investment Solutions and Innovation organization (2018-present), and as a Director of FMR Investment Management (UK) Limited (investment adviser firm, 2015-present) and Fidelity SelectCo, LLC (investment adviser firm, 2014-present). Previously, Mr. Hogan served as Trustee of certain Fidelity^®funds (2014-2018), President of the Equity Division of FMR (investment adviser firm, 2009-2018), Senior Vice President, Equity Research of FMR (2006-2009), and as a portfolio manager. Mr. Brian B. Hogan is not related to Mr. Colm A. Hogan.

Robert A. Lawrence (1952)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2016

Trustee

Chairman of the Board of Trustees

Mr. Lawrence also serves as Trustee of other funds. Previously, Mr. Lawrence served as a Member of the Advisory Board of certain funds. Prior to his retirement in 2008, Mr. Lawrence served as Vice President of certain Fidelity^® funds (2006-2008), Senior Vice President, Head of High Income Division of Fidelity Management & Research Company (investment adviser firm, 2006-2008), and President of Fidelity Strategic Investments (investment adviser firm, 2002-2005).

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

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

Independent Trustees:

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

Name, Year of Birth; Principal Occupations and Other Relevant Experience+

Peter C. Aldrich (1944)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2006

Trustee

Mr. Aldrich also serves as Trustee of other funds. Mr. Aldrich is a Director of the National Bureau of Economic Research, a Director of the funds of BlackRock Realty Group (2006-present), and a Director of LivelyHood, Inc. (private corporation, 2013-present). Previously, Mr. Aldrich served as a Trustee for the Fidelity Rutland Square Trust (2005-2010), a Managing Member of Poseidon, LLC (foreign private investment, 1998-2004), and Chairman and Managing Member of AEGIS, LLC (foreign private investment, 1997-2004). Mr. Aldrich previously was a founder, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of AEW Capital Management, L.P. (then “Aldrich, Eastman and Waltch, L.P.”). Mr. Aldrich also served as a Director of Zipcar, Inc. (car sharing services, 2001-2009) and as Faculty Chairman of The Research Council on Global Investment of The Conference Board (business and professional education non-profit, 1999-2004). Mr. Aldrich is a Member Emeritus of the Board of Trustees of the Museum of Fine Arts Boston and an Overseer of the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary.

Ralph F. Cox (1932)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2006

Trustee

Mr. Cox also serves as Trustee of other funds. Mr. Cox is President of RABAR Enterprises (management consulting for the petroleum industry). Mr. Cox is a Director of Abraxas Petroleum (exploration and production, 1999-present). Mr. Cox is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Business and Engineering Schools of Texas A&M University and the Engineering School of University of Texas at Austin. Previously, Mr. Cox served as a Trustee for the Fidelity Rutland Square Trust (2005-2010) and as an Advisory Director of CH2M Hill Companies (engineering, 1981-2011). Mr. Ralph F. Cox and Mr. Howard E. Cox, Jr. are not related.

Mary C. Farrell (1949)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2013

Trustee

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

Karen Kaplan (1960)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2006

Trustee

Ms. Kaplan also serves as Trustee of other funds. Ms. Kaplan is Chairman (2014-present), Chief Executive Officer (2013-present), and President (2007-2013) of Hill Holliday (advertising and specialized marketing). Ms. Kaplan is a Director of The Michaels Companies, Inc. (specialty retailer, 2015-present), Member of the Board of Governors of the Chief Executives’ Club of Boston (2010-present), Member of the Executive Committee of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce (2006-present), Advisory Board Member of the National Association of Corporate Directors Chapter (2012-present), Member of the Board of Trustees of the Post Office Square Trust (2012-present), Trustee of the Brigham and Women’s Hospital (2016-present), and Overseer of the Boston Symphony Orchestra (2014-present). Previously, Ms. Kaplan served as an Advisory Board Member of Fidelity Rutland Square Trust (2006-2010), a member of the Clinton Global Initiative (2010-2015), Director of DSM (dba Delta Dental and DentaQuest) (2004-2014), Formal Appointee of the 2015 Baker-Polito Economic Development Council, Director of Vera Bradley Inc. (designer of women’s accessories, 2012-2015), Member of the Board of Directors of the Massachusetts Conference for Women (2008-2015), Member of the Board of Directors of Jobs for Massachusetts (2012-2015), President of the Massachusetts Women’s Forum (2008-2010), Treasurer of the Massachusetts Women’s Forum (2002-2006), and Vice Chair of the Board of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (2003-2010).

Heidi L. Steiger (1953)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2017

Trustee

Ms. Steiger also serves as Trustee of other funds. Ms. Steiger serves as a Non-Executive Director of Kin Group Plc (formerly, Fitbug Holdings) (health and technology, 2016-present), Managing Partner of Topridge Associates, LLC (consulting, 2005-present), and a member of the Board of Directors (2013-present) and Chair of the Audit Committee and member of the Membership and Executive Committees (2017-present) of Business Executives for National Security (nonprofit). Previously, Ms. Steiger served as Eastern Region President of The Private Client Reserve of U.S. Bancorp (banking and financial services, 2010-2015), Advisory Director of Berkshire Capital Securities, LLC (financial services, 2009-2010), President and Senior Advisor of Lowenhaupt Global Advisors, LLC (financial services, 2005-2007), and President and Contributing Editor of Worth Magazine (2004-2005) and held a variety of positions at Neuberger Berman Group, LLC (financial services, 1986-2004), including Partner and Executive Vice President and Global Head of Private Asset Management at Neuberger Berman (1999-2004). Ms. Steiger also served as a member of the Board of Directors of Nuclear Electric Insurance Ltd (insurer of nuclear utilities, 2006-2017), a member of the Board of Trustees and Audit Committee of the Eaton Vance Funds (2007-2010), a member of the Board of Directors of Aviva USA (formerly AmerUs) (insurance, 2004-2014), and a member of the Board of Trustees and Audit Committee and Chair of the Investment Committee of CIFG (financial guaranty insurance, 2009-2012).

Advisory Board Members and Officers:

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

Name, Year of Birth; Principal Occupation

Howard E. Cox, Jr. (1944)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2009

Member of the Advisory Board

Mr. Cox also serves as Member of the Advisory Board of other funds. Mr. Cox is a Partner of Greylock (venture capital, 1971-present) and a Director of Stryker Corporation (medical products and services, 1974-present). Previously, Mr. Cox served as an Advisory Board Member of Fidelity Rutland Square Trust (2006-2010). Mr. Cox also serves as a Member of the Secretary of Defense's Business Board of Directors (2008-present), a Director of Business Executives for National Security (1997-present), a Director of the Brookings Institution (2010-present), a Director of the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders Foundation (2009-present), and is a Member of the Harvard Medical School Board of Fellows (2002-present). Mr. Howard E. Cox, Jr. and Mr. Ralph F. Cox are not related.

Elizabeth Paige Baumann (1968)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2017

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Officer

Ms. Baumann also serves as AML Officer of other funds. She is Chief AML Officer (2012-present) and Senior Vice President (2014-present) of FMR LLC (diversified financial services company) and is an employee of Fidelity Investments. Previously, Ms. Baumann served as AML Officer of the funds (2012-2016), and Vice President (2007-2014) and Deputy Anti-Money Laundering Officer (2007-2012) of FMR LLC.

Brian J. Blackburn (1975)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2014

Assistant Secretary

Mr. Blackburn also serves as an officer of other funds. Mr. Blackburn serves as Vice President & Associate General Counsel (2013-present) and is an employee of Fidelity Investments (2007-present).

Jonathan Davis (1968)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2010

Assistant Treasurer

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

Adrien E. Deberghes (1967)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2016

President and Treasurer

Mr. Deberghes also serves as an officer of other funds. He serves as Assistant Treasurer of FMR Capital, Inc. (2017-present), Executive Vice President of Fidelity Investments Money Management, Inc. (FIMM) (investment adviser firm, 2016-present), and is an employee of Fidelity Investments (2008-present). Previously, Mr. Deberghes served as President and Treasurer of certain Fidelity^® funds (2013-2018). Prior to joining Fidelity Investments, Mr. Deberghes was Senior Vice President of Mutual Fund Administration at State Street Corporation (2007-2008), Senior Director of Mutual Fund Administration at Investors Bank & Trust (2005-2007), and Director of Finance for Dunkin' Brands (2000-2005). Previously, Mr. Deberghes served in other fund officer roles.

Stephanie J. Dorsey (1969)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2012

Assistant Treasurer

Ms. Dorsey also serves as an officer of other funds. Ms. Dorsey serves as Assistant Treasurer of FMR Capital, Inc. (2017-present), is an employee of Fidelity Investments (2008-present), and has served in other fund officer roles. Prior to joining Fidelity Investments, Ms. Dorsey served as Treasurer (2004-2008) of the JPMorgan Mutual Funds and Vice President (2004-2008) of JPMorgan Chase Bank.

Howard J. Galligan III (1966)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2015

Chief Financial Officer

Mr. Galligan also serves as Chief Financial Officer of other funds. Mr. Galligan serves as President of Fidelity Pricing and Cash Management Services (FPCMS) (2014-present) and as a Director of Strategic Advisers LLC (investment adviser firm, 2008-present). Previously, Mr. Galligan served as Chief Administrative Officer of Asset Management (2011-2014) and Chief Operating Officer and Senior Vice President of Investment Support for Strategic Advisers, Inc. (2003-2011).

James D. Gryglewicz (1972)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2015

Chief Compliance Officer

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

John Hitt (1967)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2014

Secretary and Chief Legal Officer

Mr. Hitt also serves as an officer of other funds. Mr. Hitt serves as Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel in Fidelity's Asset Management Group (2010-present) and is an employee of Fidelity Investments.

Colm A. Hogan (1973)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2016

Assistant Treasurer

Mr. Hogan also serves as an officer of other funds. Mr. Hogan serves as Assistant Treasurer of FMR Capital, Inc. (2017-present) and is an employee of Fidelity Investments (2005-present). Previously, Mr. Hogan served as Assistant Treasurer of certain Fidelity^® funds (2016-2018).

Chris Maher (1972)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2016

Assistant Treasurer

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

Rieco E. Mello (1969)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2017

Assistant Treasurer

Mr. Mello also serves as Assistant Treasurer of other funds. Mr. Mello serves as Assistant Treasurer of FMR Capital, Inc. (2017-present) and is an employee of Fidelity Investments (1995-present).

Stacie M. Smith (1974)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2016

Assistant Treasurer

Ms. Smith also serves as an officer of other funds. Ms. Smith serves as Assistant Treasurer of FMR Capital, Inc. (2017-present), is an employee of Fidelity Investments (2009-present), and has served in other fund officer roles. Prior to joining Fidelity Investments, Ms. Smith served as Senior Audit Manager of Ernst & Young LLP (accounting firm, 1996-2009). Previously, Ms. Smith served as Assistant Treasurer (2013-2018) and Deputy Treasurer (2013-2016) of certain Fidelity^® funds.

Marc L. Spector (1972)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2016

Assistant Treasurer

Mr. Spector also serves as an officer of other funds. Mr. Spector serves as Assistant Treasurer of FMR Capital, Inc. (2017-present) and is an employee of Fidelity Investments (2016-present). Prior to joining Fidelity Investments, Mr. Spector served as Director at the Siegfried Group (accounting firm, 2013-2016), and prior to Siegfried Group as audit senior manager at Deloitte & Touche (accounting firm, 2005-2013).

Renee Stagnone (1975)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2016

Assistant Treasurer

Ms. Stagnone also serves as an officer of other funds. Ms. Stagnone serves as Assistant Treasurer of FMR Capital, Inc. (2017-present) and is an employee of Fidelity Investments (1997-present). Previously, Ms. Stagnone served as Deputy Treasurer of certain Fidelity^® funds (2013-2016).

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

The Audit and Compliance Committee is composed of all of the Independent Trustees, with Ms. Steiger currently serving as Chair. All committee members must be able to read and understand fundamental financial statements, including a company's balance sheet, income statement, and cash flow statement. The committee determines whether at least one member of the committee is an "audit committee financial expert" as defined in rules promulgated by the SEC under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The committee normally meets in conjunction with in person meetings of the Board of Trustees, or more frequently as called by the Chair or a majority of committee members. The committee meets separately periodically with the fund's Treasurer, the fund's Chief Financial Officer, the fund's CCO, personnel responsible for the internal audit function of FMR LLC, and the fund's outside auditors. The committee has direct responsibility for the appointment, compensation, and oversight of the work of the outside auditors employed by the fund for the purpose of preparing or issuing an audit report or related work. The committee assists the Trustees in overseeing and monitoring: (i) the systems of internal accounting and financial controls of the fund and the fund's service providers, (ii) the financial reporting processes of the fund, (iii) the independence, objectivity and qualification of the auditors to the fund, (iv) the annual audits of the fund's financial statements, and (v) the accounting policies and disclosures of the fund. The committee considers and acts upon (i) the provision by any outside auditor of any non-audit services for any fund, and (ii) the provision by any outside auditor of certain non-audit services to fund service providers and their affiliates to the extent that such approval (in the case of this clause (ii)) is required under applicable regulations (auditor independence regulations) of the SEC. It is responsible for approving all audit engagement fees and terms for the fund and for resolving disagreements between the fund and any outside auditor regarding any fund's financial reporting, and has sole authority to hire and fire any auditor. Auditors of the fund report directly to the committee. The committee will obtain assurance of independence and objectivity from the outside auditors, including a formal written statement delineating all relationships between the auditor and the fund and any service providers consistent with Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) Ethics and Independence Rule 3526, Communication with Audit Committees Concerning Independence. The committee will discuss with the outside auditors any such disclosed relationships and their impact on the auditor's independence and objectivity. The committee will receive reports of compliance with provisions of the auditor independence regulations relating to the hiring of employees or former employees of the outside auditors. It oversees and receives reports on the fund's service providers' internal controls and reviews with management, internal audit personnel of FMR LLC, and outside auditors the adequacy and effectiveness of the fund's and service providers' accounting and financial controls, including: (i) any significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting that are reasonably likely to adversely affect the fund's ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data; (ii) any change in the fund's internal control over financial reporting that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the fund's internal control over financial reporting; and (iii) any fraud, whether material or not, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the fund's or service provider's internal controls over financial reporting. The committee will review with counsel any legal matters that may have a material impact on the fund's financial statements and any material reports or inquiries received from regulators or governmental agencies. The committee reviews at least annually a report from the outside auditor describing (i) any material issues raised by the most recent internal quality control review, peer review, or PCAOB examination of the auditing firm and (ii) any material issues raised by any inquiry or investigation by governmental or professional authorities of the auditing firm since the most recent report and in each case any steps taken to deal with such issues. The committee will oversee and receive reports on the fund's financial reporting process from the fund's Treasurer and outside auditors and will receive reports from any outside auditor relating to (i) critical accounting policies and practices used by the fund, (ii) alternative accounting treatments that the auditor has discussed with Strategic Advisers, and (iii) other material written communications between the auditor and Strategic Advisers (as determined by the auditor). The committee will discuss with Strategic Advisers, the fund's Treasurer, outside auditors and, if appropriate, internal audit personnel of FMR LLC, their qualitative judgments about the appropriateness and acceptability of accounting principles and financial disclosure practices used or proposed for adoption by the fund. The committee will review with Strategic Advisers, the fund's Treasurer, outside auditors, and internal audit personnel of FMR LLC (to the extent relevant) the results of audits of the fund's financial statements. The committee will discuss regularly and oversee the review of the fund's major internal controls exposures, the steps that have been taken to monitor and control such exposures, and any risk management programs relating to the fund. The committee also oversees the administration and operation of the compliance policies and procedures of the fund and fund's service providers as required by Rule 38a-1 of the 1940 Act. The committee is responsible for the review and approval of policies and procedures relating to (i) provisions of the Code of Ethics, (ii) anti-money laundering requirements, (iii) compliance with investment restrictions and limitations, (iv) privacy, (v) recordkeeping, and (vi) other compliance policies and procedures which are not otherwise delegated to another committee of the Board of Trustees or reserved to the Board itself. The committee has responsibility for recommending to the Board the designation of a CCO of the fund. The committee serves as the primary point of contact between the CCO and the Board, it oversees the annual performance review and compensation of the CCO and, if required, makes recommendations to the Board with respect to the removal of the appointed CCO. The committee receives reports on significant correspondence with regulators or governmental agencies, employee complaints or published reports which raise concerns regarding compliance matters, and copies of significant non-routine correspondence with the SEC. The committee receives reports from the CCO including the annual report concerning the fund's compliance policies as required by Rule 38a-1 and quarterly reports in respect of any breaches of fiduciary duty or violations of federal securities laws. During the fiscal year ended February 28, 2018, the committee held four meetings.

The Governance and Nominating Committee is composed of all of the Independent Trustees, with Ms. Farrell currently serving as Chair. The committee meets as called by the Chair. With respect to fund governance and board administration matters, the committee periodically reviews procedures of the Board of Trustees and its committees (including committee charters) and periodically reviews compensation of Independent Trustees. The committee monitors corporate governance matters and makes recommendations to the Board of Trustees on the frequency and structure of the Board of Trustee meetings and on any other aspect of Board procedures. It reviews the performance of legal counsel employed by the funds and the Independent Trustees. On behalf of the Independent Trustees, the committee will make such findings and determinations as to the independence of counsel for the Independent Trustees as may be necessary or appropriate under applicable regulations or otherwise. The committee is also responsible for Board administrative matters applicable to Independent Trustees, such as expense reimbursement policies and compensation for attendance at meetings, conferences and other events. The committee monitors compliance with, acts as the administrator of, and makes determinations in respect of, the provisions of the code of ethics and any supplemental policies regarding personal securities transactions applicable to the Independent Trustees. The committee monitors the functioning of each Board committee and makes recommendations for any changes, including the creation or elimination of standing or ad hoc Board committees. The committee monitors regulatory and other developments to determine whether to recommend modifications to the committee's responsibilities or other Trustee policies and procedures in light of rule changes, reports concerning "best practices" in corporate governance and other developments in mutual fund governance. The committee recommends that the Board establish such special or ad hoc Board committees as may be desirable or necessary from time to time in order to address ethical, legal, or other matters that may arise. The committee also oversees the annual self-evaluation of the Board of Trustees and establishes procedures to allow it to exercise this oversight function. In conducting this oversight, the committee shall address all matters that it considers relevant to the performance of the Board of Trustees and shall report the results of its evaluation to the Board of Trustees, including any recommended amendments to the principles of governance, and any recommended changes to the fund's or the Board of Trustees' policies, procedures, and structures. The committee reviews periodically the size and composition of the Board of Trustees as a whole and recommends, if necessary, measures to be taken so that the Board of Trustees reflects the appropriate balance of knowledge, experience, skills, expertise, and diversity required for the Board as a whole and contains at least the minimum number of Independent Trustees required by law. The committee makes nominations for the election or appointment of Independent Trustees and for membership on committees. The committee shall have authority to retain and terminate any third-party advisers, including authority to approve fees and other retention terms. Such advisers may include search firms to identify Independent Trustee candidates and board compensation consultants. The committee may conduct or authorize investigations into or studies of matters within the committee's scope of responsibilities, and may retain, at the fund's expense, such independent counsel or other advisers as it deems necessary. The committee will consider nominees to the Board of Trustees recommended by shareholders based upon the criteria applied to candidates presented to the committee by a search firm or other source. Recommendations, along with appropriate background material concerning the candidate that demonstrates his or her ability to serve as an Independent Trustee of the fund, should be submitted to the Chair of the committee at the address maintained for communications with Independent Trustees. If the committee retains a search firm, the Chair will generally forward all such submissions to the search firm for evaluation. During the fiscal year ended February 28, 2018, the committee held three meetings.

The following table sets forth information describing the dollar range of equity securities beneficially owned by each Trustee in the fund and in all funds in the aggregate within the same fund family overseen by the Trustee for the calendar year ended December 31, 2017.

Interested Trustees
DOLLAR RANGE OF FUND SHARES	Brian B.Hogan	Robert A.Lawrence
Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund	none	none
AGGREGATE DOLLAR RANGE OF FUND SHARES IN ALL FUNDS OVERSEEN WITHIN FUND FAMILY	none	none

Independent Trustees
DOLLAR RANGE OF FUND SHARES	Peter C.Aldrich	Ralph F.Cox	Mary C.Farrell	KarenKaplan
Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund	none	over $100,000	over $100,000	none
AGGREGATE DOLLAR RANGE OF FUND SHARES IN ALL FUNDS OVERSEEN WITHIN FUND FAMILY	over $100,000	over $100,000	over $100,000	over $100,000
DOLLAR RANGE OF FUND SHARES	Heidi L.Steiger
Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund	none
AGGREGATE DOLLAR RANGE OF FUND SHARES IN ALL FUNDS OVERSEEN WITHIN FUND FAMILY	none

The following table sets forth information describing the compensation of each Trustee and Member of the Advisory Board (if any) for his or her services for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2018, or calendar year ended December 31, 2017, as applicable.

Compensation Table⁽¹⁾
AGGREGATE COMPENSATION FROM A FUND	Peter C.Aldrich	Ralph F.Cox	Mary C.Farrell	KarenKaplan
Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund⁽²⁾	$ 15,624	$ 16,201	$ 15,053	$ 14,767
TOTAL COMPENSATION FROM THE FUND COMPLEX⁽³⁾	$272,500	$287,500	$257,500	$257,500
AGGREGATE COMPENSATION FROM A FUND	Heidi L.Steiger⁽⁴⁾
Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund⁽²⁾	$ 5,165
TOTAL COMPENSATION FROM THE FUND COMPLEX⁽³⁾	$47,500

(1) Brian B. Hogan, Robert A. Lawrence, and Howard E. Cox, Jr. are interested persons and are compensated by Strategic Advisers or an affiliate (including FMR).

(2) Compensation figures include cash and may include amounts elected to be deferred. Certain individuals' aggregate compensation from the fund includes accrued voluntary deferred compensation as follows: Mary C. Farrell, $6,096; and Karen Kaplan, $12,048.

(3) Reflects compensation received for the calendar year ended December 31, 2017, for 19 funds of one trust. Compensation figures include cash and may include amounts elected to be deferred. Certain individuals elected voluntarily to defer a portion of their compensation as follows: Mary C. Farrell, $105,000; and Karen Kaplan, $210,000.

(4) Ms. Steiger served as a Member of the Advisory Board of Fidelity Rutland Square Street Trust II from November 1, 2017 through December 6, 2017. Ms. Steiger serves as a Trustee of Fidelity Rutland Square Street Trust II effective December 7, 2017.

As of February 28, 2018, the Trustees, Members of the Advisory Board (if any), and officers of the fund owned, in the aggregate, less than 1% of each class's total outstanding shares, with respect to the fund.

CONTROL OF INVESTMENT ADVISERS

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

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

As of December 31, 2017, AXA, a société anonyme organized under the laws of France and the holding company for the AXA Group, a worldwide leader in financial protection, through certain of its subsidiaries (“AXA and its subsidiaries”) owns approximately 3.9% of the issued and outstanding units representing assignments of beneficial ownership of limited partnership interests in AllianceBernstein Holding L.P. (“AB Holding Units”).

As of December 31, 2017, the ownership structure of AllianceBernstein, expressed as a percentage of general and limited partnership interests, is as follows: AXA and its subsidiaries, 63.3%; AB Holding, 35.5%; Unaffiliated holders, 1.2%.

AllianceBernstein Corporation (an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of AXA, “General Partner”) is the general partner of both AllianceBernstein Holding L.P. (“AB Holding”) and AllianceBernstein. AllianceBernstein Corporation owns 100,000 general partnership units in AB Holding and a 1% general partnership interest in AllianceBernstein. Including both the general partnership and limited partnership interests in AB Holding and AllianceBernstein, AXA and its subsidiaries had an approximate 64.7% economic interest in AllianceBernstein as of December 31, 2017.

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

AMNA is an independently operated subsidiary of BNY Mellon (NYSE:BK).

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

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

Fisher Asset Management, LLC conducts business under the name Fisher Investments (FI) and is registered as an investment adviser with the SEC under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. FI is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Fisher Investments, Inc. Ken Fisher beneficially owns more than 75% of Fisher Investments, Inc. Ken Fisher began his investment advisory business as a sole proprietorship in 1979. The sole proprietorship registered with the SEC as an investment adviser in 1980. The firm registered as a corporation, Fisher Investments, Inc., in the state of California in 1986 and as an investment adviser with the SEC in 1987, replacing the previous registration of the sole proprietorship. FI was formed as a Delaware limited liability company and succeeded to the investment adviser registration of Fisher Investments, Inc. in 2005, at which time Fisher Investments, Inc. became a holding company for FI. No other person owns more than 25% of Fisher Investments, Inc.

Geode Capital Management, LLC ("Geode"), a registered investment adviser, is a subsidiary of Geode Capital Holdings, LLC. Geode and Geode Capital Holdings, LLC have principal offices at One Post Office Square, 20th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02109. Geode was founded in January 2001 to develop and manage quantitative and investment strategies and to provide advisory and sub-advisory services.

JPMorgan is a wholly-owned subsidiary of JP Morgan Asset Management Holdings Inc., which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPMorgan Chase), a bank holding company. JPMorgan is located at 270 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10017.

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

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

Rice Hall James & Associates, LLC (RHJ) is a 100% employee-owned, Limited Liability Company with no outside affiliates and is registered with the SEC. RHJ’s owners include: Thao Buuhoan, Lou Holtz, George Kruntchev, Yossi Lipsker, Thomas McDowell, Michael Meoli, Carl Obeck, Gary Rice, Cara Thome, Timothy Todaro and Reed Wirick.

Victory Capital Management Inc. (Victory Capital) is a New York corporation registered as an investment adviser with the SEC. Victory Capital is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Victory Capital Holdings, Inc., a publicly traded Delaware corporation. Victory Capital operates as a multi-boutique asset manager comprised of multiple investment teams, referred to as “investment franchises,” each of which utilizes an independent approach to investing. RS Investments, which Victory Capital acquired in 2016, is the investment franchise responsible for managing a portion of the fund’s assets. As of February 28, 2018, Victory Capital and its affiliates managed and advised assets totaling in excess of $61.2 billion for numerous clients including large corporate and public retirement plans, Taft-Hartley plans, foundations and endowments, high net worth individuals and mutual funds.

Voya Investment Management Co. LLC (Voya) is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Voya Financial, Inc. Voya Financial, Inc. is a U.S.-based financial institution with subsidiaries operating in the retirement, investment, and insurance industries.

Strategic Advisers, AllianceBernstein, ArrowMark, AMNA, Boston Partners, FIAM, Fisher Investments, Geode, JPMorgan, LSV, Portolan, RHJ, Victory Capital, Voya (the Investment Advisers), Fidelity Distributors Corporation (FDC), and the fund have adopted codes of ethics under Rule 17j-1 of the 1940 Act that set forth employees' fiduciary responsibilities regarding the fund, establish procedures for personal investing, and restrict certain transactions. Employees subject to the codes of ethics, including the Investment Advisers' investment personnel, may invest in securities for their own investment accounts, including securities that may be purchased or held by the fund.

MANAGEMENT CONTRACT

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

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

Strategic Advisers has retained AllianceBernstein, ArrowMark, AMNA, Boston Partners, FIAM, Fisher Investments, Geode, JPMorgan, LSV, Portolan, RHJ, Victory Capital, and Voya to serve as sub-advisers for the fund. The sub-advisers do not sponsor the fund.

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

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

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

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

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

Management Fee.

For the services of Strategic Advisers under the management contract, the fund pays Strategic Advisers a monthly management fee calculated by adding the annual rate of 0.25% of the fund's average daily net assets throughout the month plus the total fees payable monthly to the fund's sub-advisers, if any, based upon each sub-adviser's respective allocated portion of the fund's assets; provided, however, that the fund's maximum aggregate annual management fee will not exceed 1.10% of the fund's average daily net assets.

In addition, Strategic Advisers has contractually agreed to waive a portion of the fund's management fee in an amount equal to 0.25% of the average daily net assets of the fund until September 30, 2020. The fee waiver will increase returns.

The following table shows the amount of management fees paid by the fund to Strategic Advisers for the past three fiscal years. In addition, the table shows the amount of waivers reducing management fees.

Fund	Fiscal Years Ended February 28	Amount of Waivers Reducing Management Fees	Management Fees Paid to Investment Adviser	Management Fees Paid as a % of Average Net Assets of the Fund
Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund	2018	$18,148,142	$29,845,768	0.41%
	2017	$17,059,177	$28,297,431	0.41%
	2016⁽¹⁾	$17,774,194	$21,925,409	0.31%

(1) Fiscal year ended February 29.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sub-Adviser - FIAM. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with FIAM pursuant to which FIAM may provide investment advisory services for the fund.

Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays FIAM fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by FIAM pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by FIAM under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by FIAM pursuant to that Strategy.

The following fee rate schedule applies to the mandate below.

Small-Mid Cap Core: 0.35% on all assets.

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

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

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

SMID: 0.2125% of the first $500 million in assets; 0.20% of the next $500 million in assets; and 0.1875% on any amount in excess of $1 billion in assets.

Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by Geode pursuant to that Strategy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following table shows the aggregate amount of sub-advisory fees paid by Strategic Advisers, on behalf of the fund, to unaffiliated sub-advisers for the past three fiscal years.

Fund	Fiscal Years Ended February 28	Aggregate Sub-Advisory Fees Paid to Unaffiliated Sub-Adviser(s)	Aggregate Sub-Advisory Fees Paid to Unaffiliated Sub-Adviser(s) as a % of Average Net Assets of the Fund
Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund	2018	$29,845,513	0.41%
	2017	$28,294,679	0.41%
	2016⁽¹⁾	$21,927,888	0.31%

(1) Fiscal year ended February 29.

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

Barry Golden is an employee of Strategic Advisers, a subsidiary of FMR LLC and an affiliate of FMR. Strategic Advisers is the adviser to the fund.

Mr. Golden is lead portfolio manager of the fund and receives compensation for his services. As of February 28, 2018, portfolio manager compensation generally consists of a fixed base salary determined periodically (typically annually), a bonus, in certain cases, participation in several types of equity-based compensation plans, and, if applicable, relocation plan benefits. A portion of the portfolio manager's compensation may be deferred based on criteria established by Strategic Advisers or at the election of the portfolio manager.

The portfolio manager's base salary is determined by level of responsibility and tenure at Strategic Advisers or its affiliates. The primary components of the portfolio manager's bonus are based on (i) the pre-tax investment performance of the portfolio manager's fund(s) and account(s) measured against a benchmark index and a defined peer group assigned to each fund or account, and (ii) the investment performance of a broad range of Strategic Advisers^® funds and accounts, including the fund. Accounts may include model portfolios designed for asset allocation, retirement planning, or tax-sensitive goals. The pre-tax investment performance of the portfolio manager's fund(s) and account(s) is weighted according to his tenure on those fund(s) and account(s), and the average asset size of those fund(s) and account(s) over his tenure. Each component is calculated separately over a measurement period that initially is contemporaneous with the portfolio manager's tenure, but that eventually encompasses rolling periods of up to five years for the comparison to a benchmark index and peer group. A subjective component of the bonus is based on the portfolio manager's overall contribution to management of Strategic Advisers. The portion of the portfolio manager's bonus that is linked to the investment performance of his fund is based on the fund's pre-tax investment performance measured against the Russell 2500™ Index, and the pre-tax investment performance of the fund measured against the Custom Lipper℠ R2500 Peer Universe Funds. The portfolio manager may be compensated under equity-based compensation plans linked to increases or decreases in the net asset value of the stock of FMR LLC, Strategic Advisers' parent company. FMR LLC is a diverse financial services company engaged in various activities that include fund management, brokerage, retirement, and employer administrative services. If requested to relocate their primary residence, portfolio managers also may be eligible to receive benefits, such as home sale assistance and payment of certain moving expenses, under relocation plans for most full-time employees of FMR LLC and its affiliates.

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

The following table provides information relating to other accounts managed by Mr. Golden as of February 28, 2018:

	Registered Investment Companies*	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts
Number of Accounts Managed	2	23	none
Number of Accounts Managed with Performance-Based Advisory Fees	none	none	none
Assets Managed (in millions)	$7,520	$16,594	none
Assets Managed with Performance-Based Advisory Fees (in millions)	none	none	none

* Includes Strategic Advisers^® Small-Mid Cap Fund ($7,504 (in millions) assets managed). The amount of assets managed of the fund reflects trades and other assets as of the close of the business day prior to the fund’s fiscal year-end.

As of February 28, 2018, the dollar range of shares of Strategic Advisers^® Small-Mid Cap Fund beneficially owned by Mr. Golden was $100,001 - $500,000.

PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES

Proxy Voting - Strategic Advisers.

The following Proxy Voting Guidelines were established by the Board of Trustees of Fidelity Rutland Square Trust II on behalf of the fund, after consultation with Strategic Advisers. (The guidelines are reviewed periodically by Strategic Advisers and its affiliates and by the Independent Trustees of the fund, and, accordingly, are subject to change.)

I. General Principles

A. The funds in the trust generally intend to vote shares of underlying funds using echo voting procedures (that is, in the same proportion as the holders of all other shares of the particular underlying fund).

B. Any proposals not covered by paragraph A above or other special circumstances will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with input from the appropriate Strategic Advisers analyst or portfolio manager, as applicable, subject to review and approval by the General Counsel or Compliance Officer of FMR or the General Counsel of FMR LLC.

Sub-Adviser(s):

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

Proxy Voting - AllianceBernstein

Introduction

As an investment adviser, we are shareholder advocates and have a fiduciary duty to make investment decisions that are in our clients’ best interests by maximizing the value of their shares. Proxy voting is an integral part of this process, through which we support strong corporate governance structures, shareholder rights and transparency.

We have an obligation to vote proxies in a timely manner and we apply the principles in our Proxy Voting and Governance Policy (“Proxy Voting and Governance Policy” or “Policy”) and this policy statement to our proxy decisions. We believe a company’s environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) practices may have a significant effect on the value of the company, and we take these factors into consideration when voting. For additional information regarding our ESG policies and practices, please refer to our firm’s Statement of Policy Regarding Responsible Investment (“RI Policy”).

Our Policy, which outlines our policies for proxy voting and includes a wide range of issues that often appear on proxies, applies to all of AllianceBernstein’s investment management subsidiaries and investment services groups investing on behalf of clients globally. Both this Statement and the Policy are intended for use by those involved in the proxy voting decision-making process and those responsible for the administration of proxy voting (“Proxy Managers”), in order to ensure that our proxy voting policies and procedures are implemented consistently.

We sometimes manage accounts where proxy voting is directed by clients or newly-acquired subsidiary companies. In these cases, voting decisions may deviate from the Policy.

Research Underpins Decision Making

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

In addition to our firm-wide proxy voting policies, we have a Proxy Voting and Governance Committee ("Proxy Voting and Governance Committee" or "Committee"), which provides oversight and includes senior investment professionals from Equities, Legal personnel and Operations personnel. It is the responsibility of the Committee to evaluate and maintain proxy voting procedures and guidelines, to evaluate proposals and issues not covered by these guidelines, to consider changes in policy, and to review this Statement and the Policy no less frequently than annually. In addition, the Committee meets at least three times a year and as necessary to address special situations.

Research Services

We subscribe to the corporate governance and proxy research services of Institutional Shareholder Services (“ISS”). All our investment professionals can access these materials via the Proxy Manager and/or the Committee.

Engagement

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

Proxy Voting Guidelines

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

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

Board and Director Proposals: Election of Directors

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

Compensation Proposals: Executive and Employee Compensation Plans, Policies, and Reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capital Changes and Anti-Takeover Proposals: Authorize Share Repurchase

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

Auditor Proposals: Appointment of Auditors

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

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

Shareholder Access and Voting Proposals: Proxy Access for Annual Meetings

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

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

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

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

Environmental, Social and Disclosure Proposals: Lobbying and Political Spending

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

We generally vote proposals in accordance with these guidelines but, consistent with our “principles-based” approach to proxy voting, we may deviate from the guidelines if warranted by the specific facts and circumstances of the situation (i.e., if, under the circumstances, we believe that deviating from our stated policy is necessary to help maximize long-term shareholder value). In addition, these guidelines are not intended to address all issues that may appear on all proxy ballots. Proposals not specifically addressed by these guidelines, whether submitted by management or shareholders, will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, always keeping in mind our fiduciary duty to make voting decisions that, by maximizing long-term shareholder value, are in our clients’ best interests.

Conflicts of Interest

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

We recognize that there may be a potential material conflict of interest when we vote a proxy solicited by an issuer that sponsors a retirement plan we manage (or administer), that distributes AB-sponsored mutual funds, or with which we or one or more of our employees have another business or personal relationship that may affect how we vote on the issuer’s proxy. Similarly, we may have a potential material conflict of interest when deciding how to vote on a proposal sponsored or supported by a shareholder group that is a client. In order to avoid any perceived or actual conflict of interest, we have established procedures for use when we encounter a potential conflict to ensure that our voting decisions are based on our clients’ best interests and are not the product of a conflict. These procedures include compiling a list of companies and organizations whose proxies may pose potential conflicts of interest (e.g., if such company is our client) and reviewing our proposed votes for these companies and organizations in light of the Policy and ISS’s recommendations. If our proposed vote is contrary to, or not contemplated in, the Policy, is consistent with a client’s position and is contrary to ISS’s recommendation, we refer to proposed vote to our Independent Compliance Officer for his determination.

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

Voting Transparency

Many clients have requested that we provide them with periodic reports on how we voted their proxies. Clients may obtain information about how we voted proxies on their behalf by contacting their Advisor. Alternatively, clients may make a written request to the Chief Compliance Officer.

Recordkeeping

All of the records referenced in our Policy will be kept in an easily accessible place for at least the length of time required by local regulation and custom, and, if such local regulation requires that records are kept for less than five years from the end of the fiscal year during which the last entry was made on such record, we will follow the U.S. rule of five years. We maintain the vast majority of these records electronically. We will keep paper records, if any, in one of our offices for at least two years.

Proxy Voting - ArrowMark.

Issue

Rule 206(4)-6 under the Advisers Act requires every investment adviser who exercises voting authority with respect to client securities to adopt and implement written policies and procedures, reasonably designed to ensure that the adviser votes proxies in the best interest of its clients. The procedures must address material conflicts that may arise in connection with proxy voting. The Rule further requires the adviser to provide a concise summary of the adviser’s proxy voting process and offer to provide copies of the complete proxy voting policy and procedures to clients upon request. Lastly, the Rule requires that the adviser disclose to clients how they may obtain information on how the adviser voted their proxies.

ArrowMark votes proxies for all of its Clients, and therefore has adopted and implemented this Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures.

Risks

In developing this policy and procedures, ArrowMark considered numerous risks associated with its voting of Client proxies. This analysis includes risks such as:

• ArrowMark does not maintain a written proxy voting policy as required by Rule 206(4)-6.

• Proxies are not voted in Clients’ best interests.

• Proxies are not identified and voted in a timely manner.

• Conflicts between ArrowMark’s interests and the Client are not identified; therefore, proxies are not voted appropriately.

• Third-party proxy voting services do not vote proxies according to ArrowMark’s instructions and in Clients’ best interests.

• Proxy voting records and Client requests to review proxy votes are not maintained.

ArrowMark has established the following guidelines to effectuate and monitor its proxy voting policy and procedures.

Policy

It is the policy of ArrowMark to vote proxies in the best interest of its Clients. Proxies are an asset of a Client, which should be treated with the same care, diligence, and loyalty as any asset belonging to a Client. To that end, ArrowMark will vote in a way that it believes, consistent with its fiduciary duty, will cause the value of the issue to increase the most or decline the least. Consideration will be given to both the short and long term implications of the proposal to be voted on when considering the optimal vote.

ArrowMark may abstain from voting if it deems that abstaining is in its Clients’ best interests. For example, ArrowMark may be unable to vote securities that have been lent by the custodian. Also, proxy voting in certain countries involves “share blocking,” which limits ArrowMark’s ability to sell the affected security during a blocking period that can last for several weeks. ArrowMark believes that the potential consequences of being unable to sell a security usually outweigh the benefits of participating in a proxy vote, so ArrowMark generally abstains from voting when share blocking is required.

To assist ArrowMark in executing its voting responsibilities, we’ve engaged a third party proxy voting specialist, Glass Lewis & Co., LLC (“Glass Lewis” or the “Proxy Manager”). The services provided by Glass Lewis include in-depth research and voting recommendations intended to create shareholder value.

ArrowMark has reviewed the Proxy Manager’s Guidelines, and has determined that such Guidelines are consistent with its fiduciary responsibilities with respect to its Clients. ArrowMark will review any material amendments to such Guidelines.

Any general or specific proxy voting guidelines provided by an advisory Client or its designated agent in writing will supersede this policy.

Procedures for Identification and Voting of Proxies

The Proxy Manager is responsible for ensuring that all proxies received are voted in a timely manner and voted consistently across all portfolios. Although many proxy proposals can be voted in accordance with the Proxy Manager’s established guidelines (the “Guidelines”), ArrowMark retains the right to vote any proposal in a manner differing from the Guidelines. Such deviations from the Guidelines must be approved by the CCO with a written explanation of the rationale for the deviation. ArrowMark, in conjunction with the custodian, is responsible for ensuring that all corporate actions received are addressed in a timely manner and consistent action is taken across all portfolios.

ArrowMark’s authority to vote proxies or act with respect to other corporate actions is established through the delegation of discretionary authority under its investment advisory agreements. Therefore, unless a Client specifically reserves the right, in writing, to vote its own proxies or to take shareholder action with respect to other corporate actions requiring shareholder actions, ArrowMark will vote all proxies and act on all other actions in a timely manner as part of its full discretionary authority over Clients in accordance with established policies and procedures.

Procedures for Glass Lewis Reconciliation

ArrowMark provides Glass Lewis with a daily holdings file representing all accounts in which ArrowMark has proxy voting authority.

ArrowMark’s account master file is reconciled with Glass Lewis’ account master file at least quarterly.

The daily reconciliation process performed by Glass Lewis is as follows:

1. ArrowMark’s holdings files from Broadridge Financial Solutions are automatically uploaded daily into the Glass Lewis’ ViewPoint system (“ViewPoint”).

2. If ViewPoint doesn’t recognize security IDs contained in the holdings files, the rejected holdings are sent to Glass Lewis’ securities processing group to be investigated. If there are other errors in the holdings file, the securities processing group will alert the client service manager who will contact ArrowMark.

3. New Meeting Notices and Agendas are automatically uploaded into the ViewPoint system. Each meeting contains one or more security identifiers associated with it.

4. The ViewPoint reconciliation engine determines if there are matches between holdings and meetings for which Glass Lewis has not received ballots. These matches are displayed on the Ballot Reconciliation workbench for ViewPoint client service managers and audit team members.

5. The reconciliation tool can be used for the creation of ballots based on holdings information and the meeting and agenda information. This is a service Glass Lewis offers to clients with accounts that are not contracted with a proxy distribution service, such as Broadridge (“BFS”) or GPD, for the delivery of ballots electronically. The ballots created by Glass Lewis are transmitted directly via email or fax to the custodians once investors’ vote execution instructions are carried out.

6. If reconciliation records are generated for positions in U.S. companies and/or positions in global companies held in accounts custodied at banks that do contract with a proxy distribution service for the delivery of proxy materials, Glass Lewis will consider these records as “missing ballots” if a ballot has not been received by 10 business days prior to meeting date.

7. Multiple times a week Glass Lewis sends an automated reconciliation file to BFS with all of our clients’ “open records.” 24 hours later BFS provides us with a response file containing control numbers or further account setup and/or reconciliation instructions. Control numbers are uploaded immediately into VP by the Ballot Reconciliation team. All remaining open records are researched by individual client service managers (i.e., ballot reconciliation and account setup requests/inquiries are sent by email to the custodian).

8. Once a ballot is created, the corresponding reconciliation record is automatically closed. A record can be closed manually if no ballot is created when the investigation of the issue determines that no ballot will be delivered.

Proxy Review Procedures

On a monthly basis, Glass Lewis provides ArrowMark with two reports: the Proxy Voting Report (“PVR”) and Analyze Voting Activity Report (“AVA”). The CCO or designee will review these reports monthly.

A PVR provides a snapshot of each meeting voted in a given time period and includes but isn’t limited to the following:

• Agenda Items

• Management Recommendations

• Glass Lewis Recommendations

• ArrowMark’s Policy Recommendations

• Vote Cast

The AVA can be used to get a broad look at ballot data or can be narrowed down very specifically to only include certain data points.

These include:

• Meeting Types

• Voting Decisions (with or against management/policy/Glass Lewis)

• Country of Issue

• Specific Meeting Issues

• Proposal Categories

Both the PVR and AVA are able to show the vote recommendations generated by ArrowMark’s Policy, as well as the final vote decision.

Conflicts of Interest

ArrowMark is responsible for monitoring situations where the voting of proxies may present actual or perceived conflicts of interest between itself and Clients.

The following is a non-exhaustive list of potential conflicts of interests that could influence the proxy voting process:

• Conflict: ArrowMark retains an institutional Client, or is in the process of retaining an institutional Client that is affiliated with an issuer that is held in ArrowMark’s Client portfolios. For example, ArrowMark may be retained to manage Company A’s pension fund. Company A is a public company and ArrowMark Client accounts hold shares of Company A. This type of relationship may influence ArrowMark to vote with management on proxies to gain favor with management. Such favor may influence Company A’s decision to continue its advisory relationship with ArrowMark.

• Conflict: ArrowMark retains a Client, or is in the process of retaining a Client that is an officer or director of an issuer that is held in ArrowMark’s Client portfolios. The similar conflicts of interest exist in this relationship as discussed above.

• Conflict: ArrowMark’s Employees maintain a personal and/or business relationship (not an advisory relationship) with issuers or individuals that serve as officers or directors of issuers. For example, the spouse of an Employee may be a high-level executive of an issuer that is held in ArrowMark’s Client portfolios. The spouse could attempt to influence ArrowMark to vote in favor of management.

• Conflict: ArrowMark or an Employee(s) personally owns a significant number of an issuer’s securities that are also held in ArrowMark’s Client portfolios. For any number of reasons, an Employee(s) may seek to vote proxies in a different direction for his/her personal holdings than would otherwise be warranted by the proxy voting policy. The Employee(s) could oppose voting the proxies according to the policy and successfully influence ArrowMark to vote proxies in contradiction to the policy.

Where a proxy proposal raises a material conflict of interest between ArrowMark’s interests and that of one or more its Clients, including a mutual fund client, the Glass Lewis recommendations will be followed.

Glass Lewis Oversight

In addition to oversight elements included in the Review of Third-Party Service Providers Section, ArrowMark will routinely review Glass Lewis’ Conflict of Interest disclosures including their Conflict of Interest Disclosure list and Conflict Avoidance Procedures. See website for conflict information (http://www.glasslewis.com/about-glass-lewis/disclosure-of-conflict/).

Procedures for ArrowMark’s Receipt of Class Actions

ArrowMark recognizes that as a fiduciary it has a duty to act with the highest obligation of good faith, loyalty, fair dealing and due care. When a recovery is achieved in a class action, investors who owned shares in the company subject to the action have the option to either: (1) opt out of the class action and pursue their own remedy; or (2) participate in the recovery achieved via the class action. Collecting the recovery involves the completion of a Proof of Claim form which is submitted to the Claims Administrator. After the Claims Administrator receives all Proof of Claims, it dispenses the money from the settlement fund to those persons and entities with valid claims.

ArrowMark has engaged an independent class action service, Battea, to handle all class action proceedings.

Recordkeeping

In accordance with Rule 204-2 under the Advisers Act, ArrowMark will maintain for the time periods set forth in the Rule:

These proxy voting procedures and policies, and all amendments thereto;

(i) All proxy statements received regarding Client securities (provided however, that ArrowMark may rely on the proxy statement filed on EDGAR as its records);

(ii) A record of all votes cast on behalf of Clients;

(iii) Records of all Client requests and subsequent responses regarding proxy voting information;

(iv) Any documents prepared by ArrowMark that were material to making a decision how to vote or that memorialized the basis for the decision; and

(v) All records relating to requests made to Clients regarding conflicts of interest in voting the proxy.

Such records will be maintained in a readily accessible manner for a period of at least seven years. Proxy statements on file with EDGAR or maintained by the Proxy Manager are not subject to these retention requirements.

Disclosure

ArrowMark will ensure that Part 2 of Form ADV and/or the Fund documents are updated as necessary to reflect: (i) all material changes to the Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures; and (ii) information about how Clients may obtain information on how ArrowMark voted their securities.

ArrowMark will enter into arrangements with all mutual fund clients to provide any information required to be filed by such mutual fund on Form N-PX 60 days after June 30 of each year, and will provide information as requested by the client mutual funds’ board of directors.

Proxy Solicitation

As a matter of practice, it is ArrowMark’s policy to not reveal or disclose to any Client how ArrowMark may have voted (or intends to vote) on a particular proxy until after such proxies have been counted at a shareholder’s meeting. ArrowMark will never disclose such information to unrelated third parties.

The CCO are to be promptly informed of the receipt of any solicitation from any person to vote proxies on behalf of Clients. At no time may any Employee accept any remuneration in the solicitation of proxies. The CCO should handle all responses to such solicitations.

Proxy Voting - AMNA.

BNY Mellon Asset Management North America Corporation (“AMNA”) has adopted the proxy voting policy and voting guidelines of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation’s Proxy Voting and Governance Committee (the “Committee”) which are applied to those client accounts over which it has been delegated the authority to vote proxies. Under this policy, the Committee permits member firms (such as AMNA) to consider specific interests and issues and cast votes differently from the collective vote of the Committee where the member firm determines that a different vote is in the best interests of the affected account(s). In voting proxies, AMNA takes into account long-term economic value as we evaluate issues relating to corporate governance, including structures and practices, the nature of long-term business plans, including sustainability policies and practices to address environmental and social factors that are likely to have an impact on shareholder value, and other financial and non-financial measures of corporate performance.

AMNA will carefully review proposals that would limit shareholder control or could affect the value of a client’s investment. It will generally oppose proposals designed to insulate an issuer’s management unnecessarily from the wishes of a majority of shareholders. It will generally support proposals designed to provide management with short-term insulation from outside influences so as to enable management to negotiate effectively and otherwise achieve long-term goals. On questions of social responsibility where economic performance does not appear to be an issue, AMNA will attempt to ensure that management reasonably responds to the social issues. Responsiveness will be measured by management’s efforts to address the proposal including, where appropriate, assessment of the implications of the proposal to the ongoing operations of the company. AMNA will pay particular attention to repeat issues where management has failed in its commitment in the intervening period to take action on issues.

AMNA recognizes its duty to vote proxies in the best interests of its clients. AMNA seeks to avoid material conflicts of interest through its participation in the Committee, which applies detailed, predetermined proxy voting guidelines in an objective and consistent manner across client accounts, based on internal and external research and recommendations provided by a third-party vendor, and without consideration of any client relationship factors. Further, AMNA and its affiliates engage a third party as an independent fiduciary to vote all proxies for BNY Mellon securities and affiliated mutual fund securities.

Proxy voting proposals are reviewed, categorized, analyzed and voted in accordance with AMNA’s voting guidelines. These guidelines are reviewed periodically and updated as necessary to reflect new issues and any changes in policies on specific issues. Items that can be categorized under these voting guidelines will be voted in accordance with any applicable guidelines or referred to the Committee, if the applicable guidelines so require. Proposals that cannot be categorized under these voting guidelines will be referred to the Committee for discussion and vote. Additionally, the Committee may review any proposal where it has identified a particular company, industry or issue for special scrutiny. With regard to voting proxies of foreign companies, AMNA may weigh the cost of voting, and potential inability to sell the securities (which may occur during the voting process), against the benefit of voting the proxies to determine whether or not to vote.

In evaluating proposals regarding incentive plans and restricted stock plans, the Committee typically employs a shareholder value transfer model. This model seeks to assess the amount of shareholder equity flowing out of the company to executives as options are exercised. After determining the cost of the plan, the Committee evaluates whether the cost is reasonable based on a number of factors, including industry classification and historical performance information. The Committee generally votes against proposals that permit the repricing or replacement of stock options without shareholder approval.

Proxy Voting - Boston Partners.

The Boston Partners' Proxy Policy Committee (the "Committee") is responsible for administering Boston Partners' proxy voting process. The Committee makes decisions on proxy policy, establishes formal Proxy Voting Policies (the "Guidelines") and updates the Guidelines as necessary, but no less frequently than annually. In addition, the Committee, in its sole discretion, may delegate certain functions to internal departments and/or engage third-party vendors to assist in the proxy voting process. Finally, selected members of the Committee will be responsible for evaluating and resolving conflicts of interest relating to Boston Partners' proxy voting process.

To assist Boston Partners in carrying out its responsibilities with respect to proxy activities, the firm has engaged Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. ("ISS"), a third party corporate governance research service. ISS receives all proxy-related materials for securities held in client accounts and votes the proposals in accordance with the Guidelines. While Boston Partners may consider ISS's recommendations on proxy issues, Boston Partners bears ultimate responsibility for proxy voting decisions. ISS also provides recordkeeping and vote-reporting services.

How Boston Partners Votes

The Guidelines were developed in conjunction with ISS and predominantly follow a combination of their standard and PVS (Taft-Hartley) guidelines. In determining how proxies should be voted, Boston Partners primarily focuses on maximizing the economic value of its clients' investments. In the case of social and political responsibility issues that, in its view, do not primarily involve financial considerations, it is Boston Partners' objective to support shareholder proposals that it believes promote good corporate citizenship.

Boston Partners has identified for ISS certain routine issues that enable them to vote in a consistent manner with regard to those proposals. In addition, Boston Partners has outlined certain criteria for addressing non-routine issues. ISS performs in-depth research and analysis and, where required by the Guidelines, performs a case-by-case evaluation prior to casting a ballot on Boston Partners' behalf. Although Boston Partners has instructed ISS to vote in accordance with the Guidelines, Boston Partners retains the right to deviate from those Guidelines if, in its estimation, doing so would be in the best interest of clients. Boston Partners may refrain from voting proxies where it is unable or unwilling to do so because of legal or operational difficulties or because it believes the administrative burden and/or associated cost exceeds the expected benefit to a client.

Conflicts

ISS is a third-party service provider engaged to make recommendations and to vote proxies in accordance with Boston Partners' predetermined Guidelines. Because Boston Partners votes proxies based on predetermined Guidelines, Boston Partners believes clients are sufficiently insulated from any actual or perceived conflicts Boston Partners may encounter between its interests and those of its clients. However, Boston Partners may deviate from the Guidelines in certain circumstances or its Guidelines may not address certain proxy voting proposals. If a member of Boston Partners' research or portfolio management team recommends that it vote a particular proxy proposal in a manner inconsistent with the Guidelines or if its Guidelines do not address a particular proposal, Boston Partners will adhere to certain procedures designed to ensure that the decision to vote the particular proxy proposal is based on the best interest of Boston Partners' clients. In summary, these procedures require the individual requesting a deviation from the Guidelines to complete a Conflicts Questionnaire (the "Questionnaire") along with written document of the economic rationale supporting the request. The Questionnaire seeks to identify possible relationships with the parties involved in the proxy that may not be readily apparent. Based on the responses to the Questionnaire, the Committee (or a subset of the Committee) will determine whether it believes a material conflict of interest is present. If a material conflict of interest is found to exist, Boston Partners will vote in accordance with the instructions of the client, seek the recommendation of an independent third party or resolve the conflict in such other manner as Boston Partners believes is appropriate, including by making its own determination that a particular vote is, notwithstanding the conflict, in the best interest of clients.

Disclosures

A copy of Boston Partners' Proxy Voting Procedures, as updated from time to time, as well as information regarding the voting of securities for a client account is available upon request from Boston Partners' relationship manager.

Wrap Program account clients may obtain information regarding Boston Partners' policies and procedures or their voting.

Proxy Voting - FIAM

The following are FIAM's Proxy Voting Guidelines (the "Guidelines"):

I. General Principles

A. Voting of shares will be conducted in a manner consistent with the best interests of clients. In other words, securities of a portfolio company will generally be voted in a manner consistent with the Guidelines and without regard to any other FIAM or Fidelity companies' relationship, business or otherwise. In evaluating proposals, FIAM considers information from a number of sources, including management or shareholders of a company presenting a proposal and proxy voting advisory firms, and uses all this information as an input within the larger mix of information to which the Guidelines are applied.

B. Investment Proxy Research votes proxies on behalf of FIAM’s clients. Execution of FIAM Proxy Votes is delegated to Investment Proxy Research. Like other Fidelity employees, Investment Proxy Research employees have a fiduciary duty to never place their own personal interest ahead of the interests of FIAM’s clients. Fidelity employees, including Investment Proxy Research employees, are instructed to avoid situations that could present even the appearance of a conflict. In the event of a conflict of interest, Fidelity employees will follow the escalation process included in Fidelity's corporate policy on conflicts of interest.

C. For proposals not covered by the Guidelines or that involve other special circumstances, FIAM evaluates them on a case-by-case basis with input from the appropriate analyst or portfolio manager with review by a member of senior management within Investment Proxy Research or an attorney within Fidelity's General Counsel's office.

D. FIAM will vote on proposals not specifically addressed by the Guidelines based on an evaluation of a proposal's likelihood to enhance the long-term economic returns or profitability of the portfolio company or to maximize long-term shareholder value. Where information is not readily available to analyze the long-term economic impact of the proposal, FIAM will generally abstain.

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

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

G. Where a management-sponsored proposal is inconsistent with the Guidelines, FIAM may receive a company's commitment to modify the proposal or its practice to conform to the Guidelines, and FIAM will generally support management based on this commitment. If a company subsequently does not abide by its commitment, FIAM will generally withhold authority for the election of directors at the next election.

II. Definitions (as used in this document)

A. Anti-Takeover Provision - includes fair price amendments; classified boards; "blank check" preferred stock; Golden Parachutes; supermajority provisions; Poison Pills; restricting the right to call special meetings; provisions restricting the right of shareholders to set board size; and any other provision that eliminates or limits shareholder rights.

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

C. Greenmail - payment of a premium to repurchase shares from a shareholder seeking to take over a company through a proxy contest or other means.

D. Sunset Provision - a condition in a charter or plan that specifies an expiration date.

E. Poison Pill - a strategy employed by a potential take-over/target company to make its stock less attractive to an acquirer. Poison Pills are generally designed to dilute the acquirer's ownership and value in the event of a take-over.

F. Large-Capitalization Company - a company included in the Russell 1000^® Index or the Russell Global ex-U.S. Large Cap Index.

G. Small-Capitalization Company - a company not included in the Russell 1000^® Index or the Russell Global ex-U.S. Large Cap Index that is not a Micro-Capitalization Company.

H. Micro-Capitalization Company - a company with a market capitalization under US $300 million.

I. Evergreen Provision - a feature which provides for an automatic increase in the shares available for grant under an equity award plan on a regular basis.

III. Directors

A. Election of Directors

FIAM will generally vote in favor of incumbent and nominee directors except where one or more such directors clearly appear to have failed to exercise reasonable judgment. FIAM will also generally withhold authority for the election of all directors or directors on responsible committees if:

1. An Anti-Takeover Provision was introduced, an Anti-Takeover Provision was extended, or a new Anti-Takeover Provision was adopted upon the expiration of an existing Anti-Takeover Provision, without shareholder approval except as set forth below.

With respect to Poison Pills, however, FIAM will consider not withholding authority on the election of directors if all of the features outlined under the Anti-Takeover Provisions below are met when a Poison Pill is introduced, extended, or adopted.

FIAM will also consider not withholding authority on the election of directors when:

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

b. One or more of the features outlined under the Anti-Takeover Provisions below are not met if a board is willing to strongly consider seeking shareholder ratification of, or adding those features to an existing Poison Pill. In such a case, if the company does not take appropriate action prior to the next annual shareholder meeting, FIAM will withhold authority on the election of directors.

2. Within the last year and without shareholder approval, a company's board of directors or compensation committee has repriced outstanding options, exchanged outstanding options for equity, or tendered cash for outstanding options.

3. Within the last year and without shareholder approval, a company's board of directors or compensation committee has adopted or extended a Golden Parachute.

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

5. To gain FIAM's support on a proposal, the company made a commitment to modify a proposal or practice to conform to the Guidelines and the company has failed to act on that commitment.

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

7. The board is not composed of a majority of independent directors.

B. Contested Director Elections

FIAM believes that strong management creates long-term shareholder value and we generally support management of companies in which the funds' assets are invested. FIAM will vote on a case-by-case basis in contested director elections, taking into account factors such as management's track record and strategic plan for enhancing shareholder value; the long-term performance of the target company compared to its industry peers; the qualifications of the shareholder's and management's nominees; and other factors. Ultimately, FIAM will vote for the outcome it believes has the best prospects for maximizing shareholder value over the long term.

C. Indemnification

FIAM will generally vote in favor of charter and by-law amendments expanding the indemnification of directors and/or limiting their liability for breaches of care unless FIAM is otherwise dissatisfied with the performance of management or the proposal is accompanied by Anti-Takeover Provisions.

D. Independent Chairperson

FIAM will generally vote against shareholder proposals calling for or recommending the appointment of a non-executive or independent chairperson. However, FIAM will consider voting for such proposals in limited cases if, based upon particular facts and circumstances, appointment of a non-executive or independent chairperson appears likely to further the interests of shareholders and to promote effective oversight of management by the board of directors.

E. Majority Voting in Director Elections

FIAM will generally vote in favor of proposals calling for directors to be elected by an affirmative majority of votes cast in a board election, provided that the proposal allows for plurality voting standard in the case of contested elections (i.e., where there are more nominees than board seats). FIAM may consider voting against such shareholder proposals where a company's board has adopted an alternative measure, such as a director resignation policy, that provides a meaningful alternative to the majority voting standard and appropriately addresses situations where an incumbent director fails to receive the support of a majority of the votes cast in an uncontested election.

F. Proxy Access

FIAM will evaluate management and shareholder proposals to adopt proxy access on a case-by-case basis, but generally will vote in favor of proposals that include ownership thresholds of at least 3% (5% in the case of Small-Capitalization Companies); holding periods of at least three years; establish the number of directors that eligible shareholders may nominate as 20% of the board; and limit to 20 the number of shareholders that may form a nominating group.

IV. Compensation

A. Executive Compensation

1. Advisory votes on executive compensation (Say on Pay)

a. FIAM will generally vote for proposals to ratify executive compensation unless such compensation appears misaligned with shareholder interests or otherwise problematic, taking into account:

(i) The actions taken by the board or compensation committee in the previous year, including whether the company repriced or exchanged outstanding stock options without shareholder approval; adopted or extended a Golden Parachute without shareholder approval; or adequately addressed concerns communicated by FIAM in the process of discussing executive compensation;

(ii) The alignment of executive compensation and company performance relative to peers; and

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

b. FIAM will generally vote against proposals to ratify Golden Parachutes.

2. Advisory vote on frequency of Say on Pay votes

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

B. Equity compensation plans

FIAM will generally vote against equity compensation plans or amendments to authorize additional shares under such plans if:

1. (a) The company's average three year burn rate is greater than 1.5% for a Large-Capitalization Company, 2.5% for a Small-Capitalization Company or 3.5% for a Micro-Capitalization Company; and (b) there were no circumstances specific to the company or the plans that lead FIAM to conclude that the burn rate is acceptable.

2. In the case of stock option plans, (a) the offering price of options is less than 100% of fair market value on the date of grant, except that the offering price may be as low as 85% of fair market value if the discount is expressly granted in lieu of salary or cash bonus; (b) the plan's terms allow repricing of underwater options; or (c) the board/committee has repriced options outstanding under the plan in the past two years without shareholder approval.

3. The plan includes an Evergreen Provision.

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

C. Equity Exchanges and Repricing

FIAM will generally vote in favor of a management proposal to exchange, reprice or tender for cash, outstanding options if the proposed exchange, repricing, or tender offer is consistent with the interests of shareholders, taking into account such factors as:

1. Whether the proposal excludes senior management and directors;

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

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

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

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

D. Employee Stock Purchase Plans

FIAM will generally vote in favor of employee stock purchase plans if the minimum stock purchase price is equal to or greater than 85% of the stock's fair market value and the plan constitutes a reasonable effort to encourage broad based participation in the company's equity. In the case of non-U.S. company stock purchase plans, FIAM may permit a lower minimum stock purchase price equal to the prevailing "best practices" in the relevant non-U.S. market, provided that the minimum stock purchase price must be at least 75% of the stock's fair market value.

V. Anti-Takeover Provisions

FIAM will generally vote against a proposal to adopt or approve the adoption of an Anti-Takeover Provision unless:

A. In the case of a Poison Pill, it either:

1. Includes the following features:

a. A Sunset Provision of no greater than five years;

b. Links to a business strategy that is expected to result in greater value for the shareholders;

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

d. Contains a mechanism to allow shareholders to consider a bona fide takeover offer for all outstanding shares without triggering the Poison Pill; and

e. Allows Fidelity to hold an aggregate position of up to 20% of a company's total voting securities and of any class of voting securities; or

2. Is crafted only for the purpose of protecting a specific tax benefit and after evaluating the proposal based on its likelihood to enhance long-term economic returns or maximize long-term shareholder value.

FIAM will generally vote in favor of a proposal to eliminate an Anti-Takeover Provisions unless:

B. In the case of shareholder proposals regarding shareholders' right to call special meetings, FIAM generally will vote against each proposal if the threshold required to call a special meeting is less than 25% of the outstanding stock.

C. In the case of proposals regarding shareholders' right to act by written consent, FIAM will generally vote against each proposal if it does not include appropriate mechanisms for implementation including, among other things, record date requests from at least 25% of the outstanding shareholders and consents must be solicited from all shareholders.

D. In the case of proposals regarding supermajority provisions, FIAM may vote to support such a provision when FIAM determines that it may protect minority shareholder interests in companies where there is a substantial or dominant shareholder.

VI. Capital Structure/Incorporation

A. Increases in Common Stock

FIAM will generally vote against a provision to increase a company's authorized common stock if such increase will result in a total number of authorized shares greater than three times the current number of outstanding and scheduled to be issued shares, including stock options.

However, in the case of real estate investment trusts (REIT), FIAM will generally vote against a provision to increase the REIT’s authorized common stock if the increase will result in a total number of authorized shares up to five times the current number of outstanding and scheduled to be issued shares.

B. Reverse Stock Splits

FIAM will generally vote in favor of reverse stock splits as long as the post-split authorized shares is no greater than three times the post-split number of outstanding and scheduled to be issued shares, including stock awards, or in the case of real estate investment trusts the number of post-split authorized shares is not greater than five times the post-split number of outstanding and scheduled to be issued shares.

C. Multi-Class Share Structures

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

D. Cumulative Voting Rights

FIAM will generally vote against the introduction and in favor of the elimination of cumulative voting rights.

E. Acquisition or Business Combination Statutes

FIAM will generally vote in favor of proposed amendments to a company's certificate of incorporation or by-laws that enable the company to opt out of the control shares acquisition or business combination statutes.

F. Incorporation or Reincorporation in Another State or Country

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

VII. Shares of Fidelity^® Funds, ETFs, or other non-Fidelity^® Mutual Funds and ETFs

A. If applicable, when a FIAM account invests in an underlying Fidelity^® Fund with public shareholders, an exchange traded fund (ETF), or non-affiliated fund, FIAM will vote in the same proportion as all other voting shareholders of the underlying fund ("echo voting"). FIAM may choose not to vote if "echo voting" is not operationally practical.

B. Certain FIAM accounts may invest in shares of underlying Fidelity^® Funds that do not have public shareholders. For Fidelity^® Funds without public shareholders that are managed by Fidelity or an affiliate, FIAM will generally vote in favor of proposals recommended by the underlying funds' Board of Trustees.

VIII. Other

A. Voting Process

FIAM will generally vote in favor of proposals to adopt confidential voting and independent vote tabulation practices.

B. Environmental and Social Issues

FIAM generally will vote in a manner consistent with management's recommendation on shareholder proposals concerning environmental or social issues, as it generally believes that management and the board are in the best position to determine how to address these matters. In certain cases, however, Fidelity may support shareholder proposals that request additional disclosures from companies regarding environmental or social issues, where it believes that the proposed disclosures could provide meaningful information to the investment management process without unduly burdening the company.

For example, FIAM may support shareholder proposals calling for reports on sustainability, renewable energy, and environmental impact issues. FIAM also may support proposals on issues such as equal employment, and board and workforce diversity.

Proxy Voting - Fisher Investments, Inc.

Purpose

Fisher Investments (“FI”) has adopted procedures to implement the firm’s requirement on proxy voting to monitor and ensure the firm’s requirement is observed, implemented properly and amended or updated, as appropriate, which may be summarized below.

Responsibility

The Portfolio Management Executive Vice President and the Research Group Vice President has the overall responsibility for monitoring this policy and procedure. The Securities Team Leader is responsible for coordinating the development, implementation, review and update of this policy and procedure as well as for enforcing this policy and procedure. The Legal and Compliance Department is responsible for the testing adherence to this policy and procedure.

Procedure

1 Review

1.1 Proxy Voting Committee

1.1.1 Function

FI’s Proxy Voting committee (the “Committee”) oversees all aspects of FI Proxy Voting and serves as the control point for all decisions relating to Proxy Voting. The Committee must review and approve proxy voting policies and procedures annually.

1.1.2 Membership

The members of the Committee are the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO), the Executive Vice President of Portfolio Management and member of the IPC, the Research Group Vice President, the Investment Operations Group Vice President, the Securities Team Leader, and the Securities Operations Team Leader.

1.1.3 Meetings

The Committee meets quarterly during the calendar year and as needed at other times during the year to administer these Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.

1.2 Periodic Reviews

Each quarterly meeting the Committee reviews and analyzes FI’s Proxy Voting record versus the recommendations of the third party proxy voting service.

The Committee’s review findings with respect to the adequacy and effectiveness of these Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures and any proposed changes thereto are documented in the meeting minutes and kept in the Committee’s records.

2 Voting Procedures

During the new account set-up process, custodians are directed to send proxy ballots directly to Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS). ISS generally handles the operational tasks related to proxy voting, including ballot information collection and vote submissions. ISS also is utilized for recordkeeping and recording services. The Securities Operations Team reconciles any share discrepancies between FI’s internal systems and ISS to ensure accurate voting, and confirms voting success with ISS for every applicable voting ballot. In the event the proxy ballots are sent to FI, the receiving employees will forward any proxy materials received on behalf of clients to the Securities Operations Team to determine which client accounts hold the security to which the proxy relates. The Securities Operations Department receives and reconciles the proxies. Absent material conflicts, under the supervision of the Research Group Vice President or his delegate, FI should vote the proxy in accordance with applicable voting guidelines defined below, complete the proxy and mail the proxy in a timely and appropriate manner.

3 Disclosures

FI provides information in its Form ADV Part 2 summarizing the proxy voting policy and procedures, including a statement that clients may request information regarding how FI voted a client’s proxies, and that clients may request a copy of these policies and procedures.

4 Voting Guidelines

Because many proxy issues fall into well-defined, standardized categories, FI utilizes ISS, an independent, third-party proxy voting service, as a resource to enable it to make better- informed proxy voting decisions and to limit the potential for conflicts of interest in the proxy voting process. While FI’s IPC utilizes ISS for shareholder vote recommendations, they reserve the right to override ISS recommendations as they see fit. Any IPC override is logged by the Securities Team Leader and presented to the Proxy Committee on at least a quarterly basis.

The Committee conducts an annual due diligence analysis on ISS, which includes a review of ISS’ SSA16 audit report and an annual visit with ISS to review any pertinent procedural updates or changes to their proxy voting guidelines. Furthermore, the Securities Operations and the Securities Analysis Team Leaders perform an annual review of the proxy voting recommendations of select strategies at the end of the first quarter to ensure ISS recommendations are in line with our overall voting guidelines.

5 Exceptions

There may be issues that will cause us to deviate from our standard voting policies. Our proxy voting process includes analysis and review of every proxy in order to determine how to vote an issue, including voting against our policies, on a case by case basis. The IPC reserves the right to direct a vote against any of these policies in its discretion.

In the case of unique or novel proposals, it is our policy to analyze the issues on a case by case basis, voting in favor of what we consider in the best interests of shareholders. Most often we expect to support management’s positions on such issues – but not always.

Where a case-by-case determination is required for a proxy vote, the Securities Operations Team will forward these ballot questions to the Securities Team Leader who will consult with the IPC to determine the appropriate action on the matter.

5.1 Conflicts of Interest

Where a proxy proposal raises what we regard as a material conflict of interest between our interests and the client’s, including a mutual fund client, we will resolve such a conflict in the manner described below:

5.1.1 Vote in Accordance with the Guidelines.

To the extent that we have little or no discretion to deviate from the Guidelines with respect to the proposal in question, we will vote in accordance with the Guidelines.

5.1.2 Use an Independent Third Party.

To the extent that we have discretion to make a case-by-case decision under the Guidelines or to deviate from the Guidelines with respect to the proposal in question, we will forward proxy materials in which we have a conflict of interest, as determined by the IPC, regarding a particular action to an independent third party for review and a voting recommendation. Where such independent third party’s recommendations are received on a timely basis, we will vote all such proxies in accordance with such third party’s recommendation (or allow the third party to cast the vote on our behalf). If the third party’s recommendations are not received in a timely manner, we will abstain from voting the securities held by that client’s account.

5.1.3 Obtain Consent of Clients.

Instead of relying on an independent third party we may instead, in certain circumstances where we have a material conflict of interest, disclose the conflict to the relevant clients and obtain their consent to the proposed vote prior to voting the securities. The disclosure to the client will include sufficient detail regarding the matter to be voted on and the nature of our conflict that the client would be able to make an informed decision regarding the vote. When a client does not respond to such a conflict disclosure request or denies the request, we will abstain from voting the securities held by that client’s account.

5.2 Limitations

In certain circumstances, in accordance with a client’s investment advisory contract (or other written directive) or where we have determined that it is in the client’s best interest, we will not vote proxies received. Such instances are documented and coded in FIN. The following are some circumstances where we may limit our role in voting proxies received on client securities:

5.2.1 Client Maintains Proxy Voting Authority:

Where client specifies in writing that it will maintain the authority to vote proxies itself or that it has delegated the right to vote proxies to a third party, we will not vote the securities and will direct the relevant custodian to send the proxy material directly to the client.

5.2.2 Terminated Account:

Once a client account has been terminated in accordance with its investment advisory agreement, we will not vote any proxies received after the termination. It is the client’s responsibility to direct the custodian (or a specified third party) to vote all outstanding and future ballots for action.

5.2.3 Limited Value:

If we conclude that the value of a client’s economic interest or the value of the portfolio holding is indeterminable or insignificant, we may abstain from voting a client’s proxies. We do not vote proxies received for securities which are no longer held by the client’s account. In addition, we may decline to vote securities where the economic value of the securities in the client account is less than $1,000.

5.2.4 Securities Lending Programs:

When securities are out on loan, they are transferred into the borrower’s name and are voted by the borrower, in its discretion. However, where we determine that a proxy vote is materially important to the client’s interest, we may recall the security.

5.2.5 Unjustifiable Costs:

In certain circumstances, after doing a cost-benefit analysis, we may abstain from voting where the cost of voting a client’s proxy would exceed any anticipated benefits (or disadvantages) of the proxy proposal.

5.2.6 Share Blocking

When share blocking (especially certain foreign issues) is detrimental to investment flexibility, we may abstain from voting.

5.2.7 Late Receipt of Proxies

When proxies are not received in time, especially from foreign issuers, we may not be able to vote proxies.

5.2.8 Other

In countries where the ability to vote proxies is difficult due to disclosure requirements, timing and attendance of shareholder meetings, vote preparation and execution among others, i.e. Denmark, voting efforts are done on a reasonable effort basis.

6 Response to Request

All private client requests for information regarding proxy votes, or policies and procedures, received by any employee should be elevated to the Correspondence and Resolution Team (CRT). CRT will elevate requests regarding proxy votes to Securities Operations and requests regarding policies and procedures to Compliance.

In response to any proxy related request, CRT will prepare a written response to the client with the information requested, and as applicable will include the name of the issuer, the proposal voted upon, and how FI voted the client’s proxy with respect to each proposal about which client inquired.

All requests from Institutional clients regarding proxy policies and procedures are elevated to Compliance. Requests in regard to proxy voting are elevated to Securities Operations.

7 Recordkeeping

In accordance with Rule 204-2 under the Advisers Act, we will maintain for the time periods set forth in the Rule:

(i) this Proxy Voting and Corporate Action Policy, and all amendments thereto;

(ii) all proxy statements received regarding client securities (provided, however, that we may rely instead on the proxy statement filed and retained on EDGAR );

(iii) a record of all votes cast on behalf of clients;

(iv) records of all client requests for proxy voting information as well as Fisher Investment’s response;

(v) any documents we prepared that were material to making a decision how to vote or that memorialized the basis for the decision (paper or electronic form); and

(vi) all records relating to requests made to clients regarding conflicts of interest in voting a proxy.

FI utilizes the resources of ISS to maintain many of these records, and have received a written undertaking from ISS to provide a copy of all such records promptly upon our request.

FI will enter into arrangements with all mutual fund clients to assist in the provision of all information required to be filed by such mutual fund on Form N-PX.

In certain capacities where FI acts in a sub-advisory capacity for an unaffiliated fund, FI and/or ISS may keep records in excess of Rule 204-2 time requirements as feasible upon client request.

Geode Proxy Voting Policies

As an investment adviser, Geode holds voting authority for securities in many of the client accounts that it manages. Geode takes seriously its responsibility to monitor corporate events affecting securities in those client accounts and to exercise its voting authority with respect to those securities in the best interests of its clients (including shareholders of mutual funds for which it serves as advisor or sub-advisor). The purposes of these proxy voting policies are to (1) establish a framework for Geode’s analysis and decision-making with respect to proxy voting and to (2) set forth operational procedures for Geode’s exercise of proxy voting authority.

Overview

Geode applies the same voting decision for all accounts in which it exercises voting authority, and seeks in all cases to vote in a manner that Geode believes represents the best interests of its clients (including shareholders of mutual funds for which it serves as advisor or sub-advisor). Geode anticipates that, based on its current business model, it will manage the vast majority of assets under its management using passive investment management techniques, such as indexing. Geode also manages private funds and separate accounts using active investment management techniques, primarily employing quantitative investment strategies.

Members of the Operations Committee oversee the exercise of voting authority under these proxy voting policies, consulting with Geode’s legal counsel with respect to controversial matters and for interpretive and other guidance. Geode will engage an established commercial proxy advisory service (the “Agent”) for comprehensive analysis, research and voting recommendations, particularly for matters that may be controversial, present potential conflicts of interest or require additional analysis under these guidelines.

Geode may determine to accept or reject any recommendation based on the research and analysis provided by the Agent or on any independent research and analysis obtained or generated by Geode. However, because the recommended votes are determined solely based on the customized policies established by Geode, Geode expects that the recommendations will be followed in most cases. The Agent also acts as a proxy voting agent to effect the votes and maintain records of all of Geode’s proxy votes. In all cases, the ultimate voting decision and responsibility rests with the members of the Operations Committee, which are accountable to Geode’s clients (including shareholders of mutual funds for which it serves as advisor or sub-advisor).

Due to its focused business model and the number of investments that Geode will make for its clients (particularly pursuant to its indexing strategy), Geode does not anticipate that actual or potential conflicts of interest are likely to occur in the ordinary course of its business. However, Geode believes it is essential to avoid having conflicts of interest affect its objective of voting in the best interests of its clients. Therefore, in the event that members of the Operations Committee, the Agent or any other person involved in the analysis or voting of proxies has knowledge of, or has reason to believe there may exist, any potential relationship, business or otherwise, between the portfolio company subject to the proxy vote and Geode (and any subsidiary of Geode) or their respective directors, officers, employees or agents, such person shall notify other members of the Operations Committee and may consult with outside counsel to Geode to analyze and address such potential conflict of interest. In the case of an actual conflict of interest, on the advice of counsel, Geode expects that the independent directors of Geode will consider the matter and may (1) determine that there is no conflict of interest (or that reasonable measures have been taken to remedy or avoid any conflict of interest) that would prevent Geode from voting the applicable proxy, (2) using such information as is available from the Agent, vote the applicable proxy, or (3) cause authority to be delegated to the Agent or a similar special fiduciary to vote the applicable proxy.

Geode has established the specific proxy voting policies that are summarized below to maximize the value of investments in its clients’ accounts, which it believes will be furthered through (1) accountability of a company’s management and directors to its shareholders, (2) alignment of the interests of management with those of shareholders (including through compensation, benefit and equity ownership programs), and (3) increased disclosure of a company’s business and operations. Geode reserves the right to override any of its proxy voting policies with respect to a particular shareholder vote when such an override is, in Geode’s best judgment, consistent with the overall principle of voting proxies in the best long-term economic interests of Geode’s clients.

Policies

All proxy votes shall be considered and made in a manner consistent with the best interests of Geode’s clients (including shareholders of mutual fund clients) without regard to any other relationship, business or otherwise, between the portfolio company subject to the proxy vote and Geode or its affiliates. As a general matter, (1) proxies will be voted FOR incumbent members of a board of directors and FOR routine management proposals, except as otherwise addressed under these policies;(2) shareholder and non-routine management proposals addressed by these policies will be voted as provided in these policies; and (3) shareholder and non-routine management proposals not addressed by these policies will be evaluated by members of Geode’s Operations Committee based on fundamental analysis and/or research and recommendations provided by the Agent, other third-party service providers, and the members of the Operations Committee, shall make the voting decision.

When voting the securities of non-US issuers, Geode will evaluate proposals in accordance with these policies but will also take local market standards and best practices into consideration. Geode may also limit or modify its voting at certain non-US meetings (e.g., if shares are required to be blocked or reregistered in connection with voting).

Geode’s specific policies are as follows:

I. Election of Directors

Geode will generally vote FOR incumbent members of a board of directors except:

• Attendance. The incumbent board member failed to attend at least 75% of meetings in the previous year and does not provide a reasonable explanation.

• Independent Directors. Nominee is not independent and full board comprises less than a majority of independents. Nominee is not independent and sits on the audit, compensation or nominating committee.

• Director Responsiveness. The board failed to act on shareholder proposals that received approval by Geode and a majority of the votes cast in the previous year. The board failed to act on takeover offers where the majority of shareholders tendered their shares. At the previous board election, directors received more than 50 percent withhold/against votes of the shares cast, and the company failed to address the issue(s) that caused the high withhold/against vote.

• Golden Parachutes. Incumbent members of the compensation committee adopted or renewed an excessive golden parachute within the past year.

• In Other Circumstances where a member of the board has acted in a manner inconsistent with the interests of shareholders of a company whose securities are held in client accounts.

II. Majority Election. Unless a company has a policy achieving a similar result, Geode will generally vote in favor of a proposal calling for directors to be elected by a majority of votes cast in a board election provided that the plurality vote applies when there are more nominees than board seats.

III. Say on Pay (non-binding).

• Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation. Geode will generally vote AGAINST advisory vote when: (1) there is a significant misalignment between executive pay and company performance, (2) the company maintains significant problematic pay practices; or (3) the board exhibits a significant level of poor communication and responsiveness to shareholders.

• Frequency Vote. Geode will generally vote FOR having an advisory vote on executive compensation every year.

• Advisory Vote on Golden Parachute. Geode will vote AGAINST excessive change-in-control severance payments.

IV. Vote AGAINST Anti-Takeover Proposals, including:

• Addition of Special Interest Directors to the board.

• Authorization of "Blank Check" Preferred Stock. Geode will vote FOR proposals to require shareholder approval for the distribution of preferred stock except for acquisitions and raising capital in the ordinary course of business.

• Classification of Boards. Geode will vote FOR proposals to de-classify boards.

• Fair Price Amendments, other than those that consider only a two-year price history and are not accompanied by other anti-takeover measures.

• Golden Parachutes, that Geode deems to be excessive in the event of change-in-control.

• Poison Pills. Adoption or extension of a Poison Pill without shareholder approval will result in our voting AGAINST the election of incumbents or a management slate in the concurrent or next following vote on the election of directors, provided the matter will be considered if (a) the board has adopted a Poison Pill with a sunset provision; (b) the Pill is linked to a business strategy that will result in greater value for the shareholders; (c) the term is less than three years; (d) the Pill includes a qualifying offer clause; and (e) shareholder approval is required to reinstate the expired Pill. Geode will vote FOR shareholder proposals requiring or recommending that shareholders be given an opportunity to vote on the adoption of poison pills.

• Reduction or Limitation of Shareholder Rights (e.g., action by written consent, ability to call meetings, or remove directors).

• Reincorporation in another state (when accompanied by Anti-Takeover Provisions, including increased statutory anti-takeover provisions). Geode will vote FOR reincorporation in another state when not accompanied by such anti-takeover provisions.

• Requirements that the Board Consider Non-Financial Effects of merger and acquisition proposals.

• Requirements regarding Size, Selection and Removal of the Board that are likely to have an anti-takeover effect (although changes with legitimate business purposes will be evaluated).

• Supermajority Voting Requirements (i.e., typically 2/3 or greater) for boards and shareholders. Geode will vote FOR proposals to eliminate supermajority voting requirements.

• Transfer of Authority from Shareholders to Directors.

V. Vote FOR proposed amendments to a company's certificate of incorporation or by-laws that enable the company to Opt Out of the Control Shares Acquisition Statutes.

VI. Vote AGAINST the introduction of new classes of Stock with Differential Voting Rights.

VII. Vote AGAINST introduction and FOR elimination of Cumulative Voting Rights, except in certain instances where it is determined not to enhance shareholders' interests.

VIII. Vote FOR elimination of Preemptive Rights.

IX. Vote FOR Anti-Greenmail proposals so long as they are not part of anti-takeover provisions (in which case the vote will be AGAINST).

X. Vote FOR charter and by-law amendments expanding the Indemnification of Directors to the maximum extent permitted under Delaware law (regardless of the state of incorporation) and vote AGAINST charter and by-law amendments completely Eliminating Directors' Liability for Breaches of Care.

XI. Vote FOR proposals to adopt Confidential Voting and Independent Vote Tabulation practices.

XII. Vote FOR Open-Market Stock Repurchase Programs, unless there is clear evidence of past abuse of the authority; the plan contains no safeguards against selective buybacks, or the authority can be used as an anti-takeover mechanism.

XIII. Vote FOR management proposals to implement a Reverse Stock Split when the number of authorized shares will be proportionately reduced or the Reverse Stock Split is necessary to avoid de-listing.

XIV. Vote FOR management proposals to Reduce the Par Value of common stock unless the proposal may facilitate an anti-takeover device or other negative corporate governance action.

XV. Vote FOR the Issuance of Large Blocks of Stock if such proposals have a legitimate business purpose and do not result in dilution of greater than 20%. However, a company's specific circumstances and market practices may be considered in determining whether the proposal is consistent with shareholder interests.

XVI. Vote AGAINST Excessive Increases in Common Stock. Vote AGAINST increases in authorized common stock that would result in authorized capital in excess of three times the company's shares outstanding and reserved for legitimate purposes. For non-U.S. securities with conditional capital requests, vote AGAINST issuances of shares with preemptive rights in excess of 100% of the company's current shares outstanding. Special requests will be evaluated, taking company-specific circumstances into account.

XVII. Vote AGAINST the adoption of or amendment to authorize additional shares under a Stock Option Plan if:

• The stock option plan includes evergreen provisions, which provides for an automatic allotment of equity compensation every year.

• The dilution effect of the shares authorized under the plan (including by virtue of any "evergreen" or replenishment provision), plus the shares reserved for issuance pursuant to all other option or restricted stock plans, is greater than 10%. However, dilution may be increased to 15% for small capitalization companies, and 20% for micro capitalization companies, respectively. If the plan fails this test, the dilution effect may be evaluated relative to any unusual factor involving the company.

• The offering price of options is less than 100% of fair market value on the date of grant, except that the offering price may be as low as 85% of fair market value if the discount is expressly granted in lieu of salary or cash bonus, except that a modest number of shares (limited to 5% for a large capitalization company and 10% for small and micro capitalization companies) may be available for grant to employees and directors under the plan if the grant is made by a compensation committee composed entirely of independent directors (the "De Minimis Exception").

• The plan is administered by (1) a compensation committee not comprised entirely of independent directors or (2) a board of directors not comprised of a majority of independent directors, provided that a plan is acceptable if it satisfies the De Minimis Exception.

• The plan's terms allow repricing of underwater options, or the board/committee has repriced options outstanding under the plan in the past two years without shareholder approval, unless by the express terms of the plan or a board resolution such repricing is rarely used (and then only to maintain option value due to extreme circumstances beyond management's control) and is within the limits of the De Minimis Exception.

• Liberal Definition of Change in Control: the plan provides that the vesting of equity awards may accelerate even though an actual change in control may not occur.

XVIII. Vote AGAINST the election of incumbent members of the compensation committee or a management slate in the concurrent or next following vote on the election of directors if, within the last year and without shareholder approval, the company's board of directors or compensation committee has repriced outstanding options.

XIX. Evaluate proposals to Reprice Outstanding Stock Options, taking into account such factors as: (1) whether the repricing proposal excludes senior management and directors; (2) whether the options proposed to be repriced exceeded the dilution thresholds described in these current proxy voting policies when initially granted; (3) whether the repricing proposal is value neutral to shareholders based upon an acceptable options pricing model; (4) the company's relative performance compared to other companies within the relevant industry or industries; (5) economic and other conditions affecting the relevant industry or industries in which the company competes; and (6) other facts or circumstances relevant to determining whether a repricing proposal is consistent with the interests of shareholders.

XX. Vote AGAINST adoption of or amendments to authorize additional shares for Restricted Stock Awards ("RSA") if:

• The dilution effect of the shares authorized under the plan, plus the shares reserved for issuance pursuant to all other option or restricted stock plans, is greater than 10%. However, dilution may be increased to 15% for small capitalization companies, and 20% for micro capitalization companies, respectively. If the plan fails this test, the dilution effect may be evaluated relative to any unusual factor involving the company.

XXI. Vote AGAINST Omnibus Stock Plans if one or more component violates any of the criteria applicable to Stock Option Plans or RSAs under these proxy voting policies, unless such component is de minimis. In the case of an omnibus stock plan, the dilution limits applicable to Stock Option Plans or RSAs under these proxy voting policies will be measured against the total number of shares under all components of such plan.

XXII. Vote AGAINST Employee Stock Purchase Plans if the plan violates any of the relevant criteria applicable to Stock Option Plans or RSAs under these proxy voting policies, except that (1) the minimum stock purchase price may be equal to or greater than 85% of the stock's fair market value if the plan constitutes a reasonable effort to encourage broad based participation in the company's equity, and (2) in the case of non-U.S. company stock purchase plans, the minimum stock purchase price may be equal to the prevailing "best practices," as articulated by the Agent, provided that the minimum stock purchase price must be at least 75% of the stock's fair market value.

XXIII. Vote AGAINST Stock Awards (other than stock options and RSAs) unless it is determined they are identified as being granted to officers/directors in lieu of salary or cash bonus, subject to number of shares being reasonable.

XXIV. Vote AGAINST equity vesting acceleration programs or amendments to authorize additional shares under such programs if the program provides for the acceleration of vesting of equity awards even though an actual change in control may not occur.

XXV. Vote FOR Employee Stock Ownership Plans ("ESOPs") of nonleveraged ESOPs, and in the case of leveraged ESOPs, giving consideration to the company's state of incorporation, existence of supermajority vote rules in the charter, number of shares authorized for the ESOP, and number of shares held by insiders. Geode may also examine where the ESOP shares are purchased and the dilution effect of the purchase. Geode will vote AGAINST a leveraged ESOP if all outstanding loans are due immediately upon a change in control.

XXVI. Vote AGAINST management or shareholder proposals on other Compensation Plans or Practices if such plans or practices are Inconsistent with the Interests of Shareholders. In addition, Geode may vote AGAINST the election of incumbents or a management slate in the concurrent or next following vote on the election of directors if Geode believes a board has approved executive compensation arrangements inconsistent with the interests of shareholders.

XXVII. Environmental and Social Proposals. Evaluate each proposal related to environmental and social issues. Generally, Geode expects to vote with management’s recommendation on shareholder proposals concerning environmental or social issues, as Geode believes management and the board are ordinarily in the best position to address these matters. Geode may support certain shareholder environmental and social proposals that request additional disclosures from companies which may provide material information to the investment management process, or where Geode otherwise believes support will help maximize shareholder value. Geode may take action against the re-election of board members if there are serious concerns over ESG practices or the board failed to act on related shareholder proposals that received approval by Geode and a majority of the votes cast in the previous year.

XXVIII. ABSTAIN with respect to shareholder proposals addressing Political Contributions, which Geode believes generally address ordinary business matters that are primarily the responsibility of a company's management and board, except where a proposal has substantial economic implications for the company's securities held in client accounts.

XXIX. Geode will generally vote AGAINST shareholder proposals seeking to establish proxy access. Geode will evaluate management proposals on proxy access.

XXX. Shares of Investment Companies.

• For institutional accounts, Geode will generally vote in favor of proposals recommended by the underlying funds' Board of Trustees.

• For retail managed accounts, Geode will employ echo voting when voting shares. To avoid certain potential conflicts of interest, if an investment company has a shareholder meeting, Geode would vote their shares in the investment company in the same proportion as the votes of other shareholders of the investment company.

Proxy Voting - JPMorgan.

The Board of Trustees has delegated to JPMorgan proxy voting authority with respect to the fund’s portfolio securities. To ensure that the proxies of portfolio companies are voted in the best interests of the fund, the fund’s Board of Trustees has adopted JPMorgan’s detailed proxy voting procedures (the “Procedures”) that incorporate guidelines (“Guidelines”) for voting proxies on specific types of issues.

JPMorgan and its affiliated advisers are part of a global asset management organization with the capability to invest in securities of issuers located around the globe. Because the regulatory framework and the business cultures and practices vary from region to region, the Guidelines are customized for each region to take into account such variations. Separate Guidelines cover the regions of (1) North America, (2) Europe, Middle East, Africa, Central America and South America, (3) Asia (ex-Japan) and (4) Japan, respectively.

Notwithstanding the variations among the Guidelines, all of the Guidelines have been designed with the uniform objective of encouraging corporate action that enhances shareholder value. As a general rule, in voting proxies of a particular security, JPMorgan will apply the Guidelines of the region in which the issuer of such security is organized. Except as noted below, proxy voting decisions will be made in accordance with the Guidelines covering a multitude of both routine and non-routine matters that JPMorgan has encountered globally, based on many years of collective investment management experience.

To oversee and monitor the proxy-voting process, JPMorgan has established a proxy committee and appointed a proxy administrator in each global location where proxies are voted. The primary function of each proxy committee is to review periodically general proxy-voting matters, review and approve the Guidelines annually, and provide advice and recommendations on general proxy-voting matters as well as on specific voting issues. The procedures permit an independent voting service, to perform certain services otherwise carried out or coordinated by the proxy administrator.

Although for many matters the Guidelines specify the votes to be cast, for many others, the Guidelines contemplate case-by-case determinations. In addition, there will undoubtedly be proxy matters that are not contemplated by the Guidelines. For both of these categories of matters and to override the Guidelines, the Procedures require a certification and review process to be completed before the vote is cast. That process is designed to identify actual or potential material conflicts of interest (between the fund on the one hand, and JPMorgan and its affiliates on the other hand) and ensure that the proxy vote is cast in the best interests of the fund. A conflict is deemed to exist when the proxy is for JPMorgan Chase & Co. stock or for J.P. Morgan Funds, or when the proxy administrator has actual knowledge indicating that a JPMorgan affiliate is an investment banker or rendered a fairness opinion with respect to the matter that is the subject of the proxy vote. When such conflicts are identified, the proxy will be voted by an independent third party either in accordance with JPMorgan proxy voting guidelines or by the third party using its own guidelines.

When other types of potential material conflicts of interest are identified, the proxy administrator and, as necessary, JPMorgan Asset Management’s Chief Fiduciary Officer will evaluate the potential conflict of interest and determine whether such conflict actually exists, and if so, will recommend how JPMorgan will vote the proxy. In addressing any material conflict, JPMorgan may take one or more of the following measures (or other appropriate action): removing or “walling off” from the proxy voting process certain JPMorgan personnel with knowledge of the conflict, voting in accordance with any applicable Guideline if the application of the Guideline would objectively result in the casting of a proxy vote in a predetermined manner, or deferring the vote to or obtaining a recommendation from a third independent party, in which case the proxy will be voted by, or in accordance with the recommendation of, the independent third party.

The following summarizes some of the more noteworthy types of proxy voting policies of the non-U.S. Guidelines:

• Corporate governance procedures differ among the countries. Because of time constraints and local customs, it is not always possible for JPMorgan to receive and review all proxy materials in connection with each item submitted for a vote. Many proxy statements are in foreign languages. Proxy materials are generally mailed by the issuer to the sub-custodian which holds the securities for the client in the country where the portfolio company is organized, and there may not be sufficient time for such materials to be transmitted to JPMorgan in time for a vote to be cast. In some countries, proxy statements are not mailed at all, and in some locations, the deadline for voting is two to four days after the initial announcement that a vote is to be solicited and it may not always be possible to obtain sufficient information to make an informed decision in good time to vote.

• Certain markets require that shares being tendered for voting purposes are temporarily immobilized from trading until after the shareholder meeting has taken place. Elsewhere, notably emerging markets, it may not always be possible to obtain sufficient information to make an informed decision in good time to vote. Some markets require a local representative to be hired in order to attend the meeting and vote in person on our behalf, which can result in considerable cost. JPMorgan also considers the cost of voting in light of the expected benefit of the vote. In certain instances, it may sometimes be in the Fund’s best interests to intentionally refrain from voting in certain overseas markets from time to time.

• Where proxy issues concern corporate governance, takeover defense measures, compensation plans, capital structure changes and so forth, JPMorgan pays particular attention to management’s arguments for promoting the prospective change JPMorgan’s sole criterion in determining its voting stance is whether such changes will be to the economic benefit of the beneficial owners of the shares.

• JPMorgan is in favor of a unitary board structure of the type found in the United Kingdom as opposed to tiered board structures. Thus, JPMorgan will generally vote to encourage the gradual phasing out of tiered board structures, in favor of unitary boards. However, since tiered boards are still very prevalent in markets outside of the United Kingdom, local market practice will always be taken into account.

• JPMorgan will use its voting powers to encourage appropriate levels of board independence, taking into account local market practice.

• JPMorgan will usually vote against discharging the board from responsibility in cases of pending litigation, or if there is evidence of wrongdoing for which the board must be held accountable.

• JPMorgan will vote in favor of increases in capital which enhance a company’s long-term prospects. JPMorgan will also vote in favor of the partial suspension of preemptive rights if they are for purely technical reasons (e.g., rights offers which may not be legally offered to shareholders in certain jurisdictions). However, JPMorgan will vote against increases in capital which would allow the company to adopt “poison pill” takeover defense tactics, or where the increase in authorized capital would dilute shareholder value in the long term.

• JPMorgan will vote in favor of proposals which will enhance a company’s long-term prospects. JPMorgan will vote against an increase in bank borrowing powers which would result in the company reaching an unacceptable level of financial leverage, where such borrowing is expressly intended as part of a takeover defense, or where there is a material reduction in shareholder value.

• JPMorgan will generally vote against anti-takeover devices.

• Where social or environmental issues are the subject of a proxy vote, JPMorgan will consider the issue on a case-by-case basis, keeping in mind at all times the best economic interests of its clients.

The following summarizes some of the more noteworthy types of proxy voting policies of the U.S. Guidelines:

• JPMorgan considers votes on director nominees on a case-by-case basis. Votes generally will be withheld from directors who: (a) attend less than 75% of board and committee meetings without a valid excuse; (b) adopt or renew a poison pill without shareholder approval; (c) are affiliated directors who serve on audit, compensation or nominating committees or are affiliated directors and the full board serves on such committees or the company does not have such committees; (d) ignore a shareholder proposal that is approved by a majority of either the shares outstanding or the votes cast based on a review over a consecutive two year time frame; (e) are insiders and affiliated outsiders on boards that are not at least majority independent; or (f) are CEOs of publically-traded companies who serve on more than three public boards or serve on more than four public company boards. In addition, votes are generally withheld for directors who serve on committees in certain cases. For example, the Adviser generally withholds votes from audit committee members in circumstances in which there is evidence that there exists material weaknesses in the company’s internal controls. Votes generally are also withheld from directors when there is a demonstrated history of poor performance or inadequate risk oversight or when the board adopts changes to the company’s governing documents without shareholder approval if the changes materially diminish shareholder rights.

• JPMorgan votes proposals to classify boards on a case-by-case basis, but normally will vote in favor of such proposal if the issuer’s governing documents contain each of eight enumerated safeguards (for example, a majority of the board is composed of independent directors and the nominating committee is composed solely of such directors).

• JPMorgan also considers management poison pill proposals on a case-by-case basis, looking for shareholder-friendly provisions before voting in favor.

• JPMorgan votes against proposals for a super-majority vote to approve a merger.

• JPMorgan considers proposals to increase common and/or preferred shares and to issue shares as part of a debt restructuring plan on a case-by-case basis, taking into account such factors as the extent of dilution and whether the transaction will result in a change in control.

• JPMorgan considers vote proposals with respect to compensation plans on a case-by-case basis. The analysis of compensation plans focuses primarily on the transfer of shareholder wealth (the dollar cost of pay plans to shareholders) and includes an analysis of the structure of the plan and pay practices of other companies in the relevant industry and peer companies. Other matters included in the analysis are the amount of the company’s outstanding stock to be reserved for the award of stock options, whether the exercise price of an option is less than the stock’s fair market value at the date of the grant of the options, and whether the plan provides for the exchange of outstanding options for new ones at lower exercise prices.

• JPMorgan also considers on a case-by-case basis proposals to change an issuer’s state of incorporation, mergers and acquisitions and other corporate restructuring proposals and certain social issue proposals.

• JPMorgan generally votes for management proposals which seek shareholder approval to make the state of incorporation the exclusive forum for disputes if the company is a Delaware corporation; otherwise, JPMorgan votes on a case by case basis.

• JPMorgan generally encourages a level of reporting on environmental matters that is not unduly costly or burdensome and which does not place the company at a competitive disadvantage, but which provides meaningful information to enable shareholders to evaluate the impact of the company’s environmental policies and practices on its financial performance. In general, JPMorgan supports management disclosure practices that are overall consistent with the goals and objective expressed above. Proposals with respect to companies that have been involved in controversies, fines or litigation are expected to be subject to heightened review and consideration.

• In evaluating how to vote environmental proposals, key considerations may include but are not limited to issuer considerations such as asset profile of the company, including whether it is exposed to potentially secularly potentially declining demand for the company’s products or services due to environmental considerations; cash deployment; cost structure of the company, including its position on the cost curve, expected impact of future carbon tax and exposure to high fixed operating costs; corporate behavior of the company; demonstrated capabilities of the company, its strategic planning process, and past performance; current level of disclosure of the company and consistency of disclosure across its industry; and whether the company incorporates environmental or social issues in a risk assessment or risk reporting framework. JPMorgan may also consider whether peers have received similar proposals and if so, were the responses transparent and insightful; would adoption of the proposal inform and educate shareholders; and have companies that adopted the proposal provided insightful and meaningful information that would allow shareholders to evaluate the long-term risks and performance of the company; does the proposal require disclosure that is already addressed by existing and proposed mandated regulatory requirements or formal guidance at the local, state, or national level or the company’s existing disclosure practices; and does the proposal create the potential for unintended consequences such as a competitive disadvantage.

• With regard to social issues, among other factors, JPMorgan considers the company’s labor practices, supply chain, how the company supports and monitors those issues, what types of disclosure the company and its peers currently provide, and whether the proposal would result in a competitive disadvantage for the company.

• JPMorgan reviews Say on Pay proposals on a case by case basis with additional review of proposals where the issuer’s previous year’s proposal received a low level of support.

Proxy Voting - LSV.

Voting Responsibility. LSV's standard investment management agreement expressly authorizes LSV to vote proxies on behalf of the client's account. Therefore, unless the client expressly reserves proxy voting responsibility, it is LSV's responsibility to vote proxies relating to securities held for the client's account.

ERISA Clients. With respect to ERISA plan clients, unless proxy voting responsibility has been expressly reserved, LSV, as the investment adviser for the account, must, subject to this policy, seek to vote all proxies relating to securities held for the plan's account. If LSV is responsible for voting, LSV shall make appropriate arrangements with each account custodian to have proxies forwarded, on a timely basis to the appropriate person, and shall endeavor to correct delays or other problems relating to timely delivery of proxies and proxy materials.

Fiduciary obligations of prudence and loyalty require an investment adviser with proxy voting responsibility to vote proxies on issues that affect the value of the client's investment. Proxy voting decisions must be made solely in the best interests of the client's account. In voting proxies, LSV is required to consider those factors that may affect the value of the client's investment and may not subordinate the interests of the client to unrelated objectives.

General Policies. LSV has adopted proxy voting guidelines that provide direction in determining how various types of proxy issues are to be voted. LSV has engaged an expert independent third party to design guidelines for client accounts that are updated for current corporate governance issues, helping to ensure that clients' best interests are served by voting decisions. Clients are sent a copy of their respective guidelines on an annual basis.

LSV's quantitative investment process does not provide output or analysis that would be functional in analyzing proxy issues. LSV therefore has retained an expert independent third party to assist in proxy voting, currently Glass Lewis & Co. ("GLC"). GLC implements LSV's proxy voting process, provides assistance in developing guidelines and provides analysis of proxy issues on a case-by-case basis. LSV is responsible for monitoring GLC to seek to ensure that proxies are appropriately voted. LSV will vote issues contrary to, or issues not covered by, the guidelines only when LSV believes it is in the best interest of the client. Where the client has provided proxy voting guidelines to LSV, those guidelines will be followed. In certain circumstances, clients are permitted to direct their vote in a particular solicitation. Direction from a client on a particular proxy vote will take precedence over the guidelines. LSV's use of GLC is not a delegation of LSV's fiduciary obligation to vote proxies for clients.

Should a material conflict arise between LSV's interest and that of its clients, LSV will vote the proxies in accordance with the recommendation of the independent third party proxy voting service. A written record will be maintained describing the conflict of interest, and an explanation of how the vote made was in the client's best interest.

LSV may be unable or may choose not to vote proxies in certain situations. For example, LSV may refrain from voting a proxy if (i) the cost of voting the proxy exceeds the expected benefit to the client, (ii) LSV is not given enough time to process the vote, (iii) voting the proxy requires the security to be "blocked" or frozen from trading or (iv) it is otherwise impractical or impossible to vote the proxy, such as in the case of voting a foreign security that must be cast in person.

Clients may receive a copy of this proxy voting policy and LSV's voting record for their account by request. LSV will additionally provide any mutual fund for which LSV acts as adviser or sub-adviser, a copy of LSV's voting record for the fund so that the fund may fulfill its obligation to report proxy votes to fund shareholders.

Record Keeping.

1. Copies of its proxy voting policies and procedures.

2. A copy of each proxy statement received regarding client securities (maintained by the proxy voting service and/or available on EDGAR).

3. A record of each vote cast on behalf of a client (maintained by the proxy voting service).

4. A copy of any document created that was material to the voting decision or that memorializes the basis for that decision (maintained by the proxy voting service).

5. A copy of clients' written requests for proxy voting information and a copy of LSV's written response to a client's request for proxy voting information for the client's account.

6. LSV will ensure that it may obtain access to the proxy voting service's records promptly upon LSV's request.

The above listed information is intended to, among other things, enable clients to review LSV's proxy voting procedures and actions taken in individual proxy voting situations.

LSV will maintain required materials in an easily accessible place for not less than five years from the end of the fiscal year during which the last entry took place, the first two years in LSV's principal office.

Consideration of Environmental, Social and Governance Factors.

LSV became a signatory to the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) in April 2014. GLC is also a signatory to the PRI. The PRI provides a framework, through its six principles, for consideration of environmental, social and governance ("ESG") factors in portfolio management and investment decision-making. The six principles ask an investment manager, to the extent consistent with its fiduciary duties, to seek to: (1) incorporate ESG issues into investment analysis and decision-making processes; (2) be an active owner and incorporate ESG issues into its ownership policies and practices; (3) obtain appropriate disclosure on ESG issues by the entities in which it invests; (4) promote acceptance and implementation of the PRI principles within the investment industry; (5) work to enhance its effectiveness in implementing the PRI principles; and (6) report on its activities and progress toward implementing the PRI principles.

For clients where LSV has proxy voting authority, certain ESG factors are built into our standard proxy voting guidelines. For example, GLC views the identification, mitigation and management of environmental and social risks as integral components when evaluating a company’s overall risk exposure. In cases where the board or management has failed to sufficiently identify and manage a material environmental or social risk that did or could negatively impact shareholder value, GLC will recommend shareholders vote against directors responsible for risk oversight in consideration of the nature of the risk and the potential effect on shareholder value. In addition, GLC generally recommends supporting shareholder proposals likely to increase and/or protect shareholder value and also those that promote the furtherance of shareholder rights. In evaluating shareholder resolutions regarding environmental and social issues, GLC examines: (1) direct environmental and social risk, (2) risk due to legislation and regulation, (3) legal and reputational risk, and (4) governance risk. Finally, through GLC, LSV is able to offer additional guidelines that provide another level of analysis for clients seeking to vote consistent with widely-accepted enhanced ESG practices. These ESG-specific guidelines are available to clients with a focus on disclosing and mitigating company risk with regard to ESG issues.

Proxy Voting - Portolan.

Portolan maintains written policies and procedures that address the handling, research, and voting of proxies and reporting of proxy voting, including disclosure and management of potential conflicts of interest. In situations where Portolan has identified a potential conflict of interest with respect to voting client proxies, Portolan may determine whether it is appropriate to disclose the conflict to the affected client(s), may give the client the opportunity to vote the proxies themselves, may address the conflict through other objective means, or may take a different or additional action, as appropriate. Where Portolan has discretion to vote client proxies, Portolan has entered into a service agreement with Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. ("ISS"), an independent third party, to vote client proxies. Portolan has established proxy voting guidelines, working with ISS, and ISS votes in accordance with Portolan’s guidelines, consulting with Portolan for instruction when the guidelines do not address a circumstance or are unclear. ISS provides Portolan with research reports, vote recommendations, and vote execution. The CCO has oversight responsibilities pertaining to ISS’ services. The Compliance Team, led by the CCO, will review and monitor the voting process and notify the Portfolio Manager of any known conflicts of interest.

Portolan will adhere to the voting guidelines, as described below, when determining how to vote client proxies:

• Clients are permitted to place reasonable restrictions on Portolan's voting authority in the same manner that they may place such restrictions on the actual selection of account securities.

• In the absence of specific voting guidelines from a client, Portolan will vote proxies in what it believes to be the best interests of the client.

• Portolan’s policy is to vote all proxies from a specific issuer the same way for all clients absent specific voting guidelines from a client.

• Portolan will generally vote in favor of routine corporate housekeeping proposals, such as the election of directors and selection of auditors, absent contrary ISS voting recommendations or conflicts of interest raised by an auditor’s non-audit services.

• Portolan will generally vote against proposals that cause board members to become entrenched or that will cause unequal voting rights.

• In reviewing proposals, Portolan will further consider the opinion of the management of the issuer of such client security, the effect of such vote on management, and the effect on shareholder value and the issuer’s business practices.

• Because proxy issues and the circumstances of individual companies are varied, there may be instances when Portolan may abstain from voting on a presented proposal or may not vote in strict adherence with these guidelines. Portolan may be unable to enter an informed vote in certain circumstances due to the lack of information provided in the proxy statement or by the issuer or other resolution sponsor, and may abstain from voting in those instances. Proxy materials not delivered in a timely fashion may prevent analysis or entry of a vote by voting deadlines. If a client participates in a securities lending program, Portolan may not be able to vote a proxy if a security is out on loan. In addition, Portolan may abstain from voting a proxy in circumstances where, in a good faith determination, the costs exceed the expected benefits to clients.

Voting Procedures

All proxy materials received by prime brokers and/or custodians for securities held in a client account are forwarded to ISS by the prime broker or custodian. Absent material conflicts, ISS will recommend how Portolan should vote the proxy in accordance with applicable predetermined voting guidelines, Portolan then has an opportunity to instruct ISS as to how to vote. If Portolan instructs ISS how to vote, then ISS will complete the proxy in accordance with such instruction and vote the proxy in a timely and appropriate manner. If Portolan does not instruct ISS as to how to vote, then ISS will complete the proxy in accordance with its recommendation to Portolan and vote the proxy in a timely and appropriate manner.

Reconciliation

On a periodic basis, Portolan engages in a vote reconciliation process to determine whether proxy ballots for each meeting held during the period were voted in accordance with voting instructions and its proxy voting policy. To the extent reasonably practicable, each public security proxy received by electronic means is matched to the securities eligible to be voted through an automated process performed by ISS. In some cases, particularly for clients participating in a securities lending program, if applicable, or if proxy materials are not delivered due to error of the custodian or failure of the custodian to receive the information from the issuer, a full reconciliation of votes cast and shares held may not be possible. However, if a discrepancy is identified, Portolan shall use reasonable efforts to research the discrepancy, and if such discrepancy is due to an administrative error of ISS, Portolan shall work with ISS to minimize the risk of such errors in the future.

Portolan will provide information in its Form ADV Part 2A regarding its proxy voting policy, including a statement that clients may request information regarding how Portolan voted a proxy on behalf of a Client, and that Clients may request a copy of Portolan’s Proxy Voting Policy.

Material Conflicts of Interest

Portolan has established the following procedures when determining if there is a conflict of interest with respect to voting proxies for client securities:

• The Compliance Team and/or investment team will identify any conflicts that exist between the interests of Portolan and its client by reviewing for potential relationships between Portolan and the issuer of each client security for which a vote arises to determine if Portolan or any of its Supervised Persons has any financial, business or personal relationship with the issuer.

• Supervised Persons are obligated (i) to be aware of the potential for conflicts of interest when voting proxies on behalf of clients both as a result of a Supervised Person’s personal relationships and circumstances that may arise during the conduct of Portolan’s business; and (ii) to bring conflicts of interest of which they become aware to the attention of the Compliance Team.

If a material conflict exists, Portolan will ensure that it votes proxies in best interests of the affected client(s). In such cases, the Compliance Team may:

• determine whether it is appropriate to disclose the conflict of interest to the affected client(s);

• give the clients an opportunity to vote the proxies themselves;

• address the conflict through other objective means, such as voting in a manner consistent with the ISS recommendation; and/or

• take a different or additional action that has been approved by the Portfolio Manager and the CCO.

Depending on the circumstances, the appropriate resolution of one conflict of interest may differ from the resolution of another conflict of interest, even though the general facts underlying both conflicts may appear similar (or identical).

The Compliance Team will maintain a record of the resolution of any material conflict of interest with respect to voting client securities' proxies.

Proxy Voting - RHJ.

In General

Rule 206(4)-6 of the Advisers Act (the "Rule") requires investment advisers to adopt and implement written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that proxies voted for on behalf of its clients are in the clients' best interest. The Rule further requires advisers to disclose in Part 2 of Form ADV; a concise summary of the adviser's proxy voting process; an offer to provide a copy of the adviser's complete proxy voting policy and procedure to clients upon request; and disclosure regarding how clients may obtain the proxy voting records.

RHJ has adopted proxy voting policies and procedures, and utilizes a third party proxy voting service to administer, research, recommend, and record votes for client proxies. Under RHJ's standard investment advisory contract, RHJ will vote all shares held on behalf of its clients, unless any such client indicates intent to retain voting responsibility or designates an alternate responsible party. Additionally, RHJ is responsible for voting proxies on behalf of the RHJ Mutual Funds.

Policy

RHJ's general policy is to vote proxies on behalf of its clients and the RHJ Mutual Funds. However, RHJ may choose not to vote proxies in certain situations or for certain accounts, such as: 1) when a client has informed RHJ it wishes to retain the right to vote proxies; in which case, RHJ shall instruct the custodian to send the proxy material directly to the client; 2) when RHJ determines the voting cost exceeds any anticipated benefit to the client; 3) when a proxy is received for a terminated client account; 4) when a proxy is received for a security RHJ no longer manages (i.e., had previously sold the entire position); and/or 5) when exercising the voting rights could restrict the portfolio manager’s ability to freely trade the security in question.

The fundamental proxy voting guideline RHJ follows is to reasonably ensure the manner in which shares are voted is in the client’s best interest and considers the investment value. RHJ utilizes Glass, Lewis & Co. (GL) Proxy Voting Services for proxy voting administration and research. RHJ has adopted the Glass Lewis proxy voting guidelines, but may override GL recommendations when it is in a client’s best interest.

RHJ and/or GL could be subject to conflicts of interest when voting RHJ client proxies due to business or personal relationships with persons who the vote could impact. For example, RHJ, GL or one or more of either party's affiliates may provide services to or be an affiliate of a company whose management is soliciting proxies.

When a client elects RHJ to vote proxies for the account managed by RHJ, the client's custodian is notified to forward proxy materials to Glass Lewis. RHJ provides GL with account and custodian information for reconciliation purposes.

As voting agent, Glass Lewis will:

1. Receive all materials directly from Broadridge or the custodian

2. Open proxy mail and log proxies

3. Reconcile ballots and, as necessary, contact custodians for missing ballots

4. Distribute research with suggested vote recommendations

5. Mark, copy and mail proxy cards

6. Maintain records of all votes cast

7. Provide customized written reports and voting records upon request

8. Notify RHJ’s CCO immediately if any conflicts of interest arise due to a pending vote

9. Handle conflicts of interest in accordance with RHJ procedures

In addition, the RHJ proxy voting coordinator will notify the RHJ analyst of any contested meeting or high profile proposal. The RHJ proxy voting coordinator will ensure that the rationale for a proxy voted contrary to the GL proxy voting guidelines is documented and maintained as part of the firm's books and records.

After each calendar year-end, Glass Lewis (GL) updates their guidelines which are then reviewed by the Operations Manager, CIO, CCO, and President.

Due Diligence

The CCO or designee performs periodic due diligence reviews of GL, at least annually, to ensure GL receives and votes required RHJ’s clients’ proxies in accordance with written policies and procedures as well as maintains all required proxy voting records on behalf of RHJ.

Proxy Voting Records

RHJ will maintain the following records in accordance with these policies and procedures:

1. A copy of proxy voting policies and procedures

2. A copy of each proxy statement RHJ receives regarding client's securities

3. A record of each vote cast by RHJ on behalf of a client

4. A copy of documents created by RHJ that were material to the proxy voting decision made on behalf of a client or that memorialize the basis for that decision, along with documentation of instances where RHJ voted proxies not in accordance with GL guidelines.

5. A copy of each written client request for information regarding decisions made on behalf of the requesting client, and a copy of RHJ’s response to any (written or oral) client request for information.

The foregoing records will be retained for such period of time as is required to comply with applicable laws and regulations, but no less than 7 years from the end of the fiscal year in which the record was created. RHJ relies on one, or more, third party to create and retain the records referred to in items 2 and 3 above.

Reporting and Disclosures

A copy of these policies and procedures will be provided to the RHJ Mutual Fund’s CCO any time upon request and upon amendment. In addition, information retained for each proxy voted will be provided to the RHJ Mutual Fund's CCO or designee for purposes of completing and filing Form N-PX.

Proxy Voting - Victory Capital.

It is Victory Capital’s policy to vote the Portfolio's proxies in the best interests of the Portfolio and its shareholders. This entails voting client proxies with the objective of increasing the long-term economic value of Portfolio assets. To assist it in making proxy-voting decisions, Victory Capital has adopted a Proxy Voting Policy (“Policy”) that establishes voting guidelines (“Proxy Voting Guidelines”) with respect to certain recurring issues. The Policy is reviewed on an annual basis by Victory Capital’s Proxy Committee ("Proxy Committee") and revised when the Proxy Committee determines that a change is appropriate.

Voting under Victory Capital’s Policy may be executed through administrative screening per established guidelines with oversight by the Proxy Committee or upon vote by a quorum of the Proxy Committee. Victory Capital delegates to Institutional Shareholder Services (“ISS”), an independent service provider, the non-discretionary administration of proxy voting for its clients, subject to oversight by the Proxy Committee. In no circumstances shall ISS have the authority to vote proxies except in accordance with standing or specific instructions given to it by Victory Capital.

Victory Capital’s Proxy Committee determines how proxies are voted by following established guidelines, which are intended to assist in voting proxies and are not considered rigid rules. The Proxy Committee is directed to apply the guidelines as appropriate. On occasion, however, a contrary vote may be warranted when such action is in the best interests of the Portfolio or if required by the client. In such cases, Victory Capital may consider, among other things:

• the effect of the proposal on the underlying value of the securities

• the effect on marketability of the securities

• the effect of the proposal on future prospects of the issuer

• the composition and effectiveness of the issuer's board of directors

• the issuer’s corporate governance practices

• the quality of communications from the issuer to its shareholders

Victory Capital may also take into account independent third-party, general industry guidance or other corporate governance review sources when making decisions. It may additionally seek guidance from other senior internal sources with special expertise on a given topic where it is appropriate. The investment team’s opinion concerning the management and prospects of the issuer may be taken into account in determining whether a vote for or against a proposal is in the Portfolio’s best interests. Insufficient information, onerous requests or vague, ambiguous wording may indicate that a vote against a proposal is appropriate, even when the general principal appears to be reasonable.

The following examples illustrate the Adviser’s policy with respect to some common proxy votes. This summary is not an exhaustive list of all the issues that may arise or of all matters addressed in the Guidelines, and whether the Adviser supports or opposes a proposal will depend upon the specific facts and circumstances described in the proxy statement and other available information.

Directors

• The Adviser generally supports the election of directors in uncontested elections, except when there are issues of accountability, responsiveness, composition, and/or independence.

• The Adviser generally supports proposals for an independent chair taking into account factors such as the current board leadership structure, the company’s governance practices, and company performance.

• The Adviser generally supports proxy access proposals that are in line with the market standards regarding the ownership threshold, ownership duration, aggregation provisions, cap on nominees, and do not contain any other unreasonably restrictive guidelines.

• The Adviser reviews contested elections on a case-by-case basis taking into account such factors as the company performance, particularly the long-term performance relative to the industry; the management track record; the nominee qualifications and compensatory arrangements; the strategic plan of the dissident and its critique of the current management; the likelihood that the proposed goals and objectives can be achieved; the ownership stakes of the relevant parties; and any other context that is particular to the company and the nature of the election.

Capitalization & Restructuring

• The Adviser generally supports capitalization proposals that facilitate a corporate transaction that is also being supported and for general corporate purposes so long as the increase is not excessive and there are no issues of superior voting rights, company performance, previous abuses of capital, or insufficient justification for the need for additional capital.

Mergers and Acquisitions

• The Adviser reviews mergers and acquisitions on a case-by-case basis to balance the merits and drawbacks of the transaction and factors such as valuation, strategic rationale, negotiations and process, conflicts of interest, and the governance profile of the company post-transaction.

Compensation

• The Adviser reviews all compensation proposals for pay-for-performance alignment, with emphasis on long-term shareholder value; arrangements that risk pay for failure; independence in the setting of compensation; inappropriate pay to non-executive directors, and the quality and rationale of the compensation disclosure.

• The Adviser will generally vote FOR advisory votes on executive compensation (“say on pay”) unless there is a pay-for-performance misalignment; problematic pay practice or non-performance based element; incentive for excessive risk-taking, options backdating; or a lack of compensation committee communication and/or responsiveness to shareholder concerns.

• The Adviser will vote case-by-case on equity based compensation plans taking into account factors such as the plan cost; the plan features; and the grant practices as well as any overriding factors that may have a significant negative impact on shareholder interests.

Social and Environmental Issues

• The Adviser will vote case-by-case on topics such as consumer and product safety; environment and energy; labor standards and human rights; workplace and board diversity; and corporate and political issues, taking into account factors such as the implementation of the proposal is likely to enhance or protect shareholder value; whether the company has already responded in an appropriate and sufficient manner to the issue raised; whether the request is unduly burdensome; and whether the issue is more appropriately or effectively handled through legislation or other regulations.

The Adviser may also take into account independent third-party, general industry guidance or other corporate governance review sources when making decisions. It may additionally seek guidance from other senior internal sources with special expertise on a given topic where it is appropriate. The investment team’s opinion concerning the management and prospects of the issuer may be taken into account in determining whether a vote for or against a proposal is in a Fund’s best interests. Insufficient information, onerous requests or vague, ambiguous wording may indicate that a vote against a proposal is appropriate, even when the general principal appears to be reasonable.

Occasionally, conflicts of interest arise between Victory Capital's interests and those of the Portfolio or another client. When this occurs, the Proxy Committee must document the nature of the conflict and vote the proxy in accordance with the Proxy Voting Guidelines unless such guidelines are judged by the Proxy Committee to be inapplicable to the proxy matter at issue. In the event that the Proxy Voting Guidelines are inapplicable or do not mitigate the conflict, Victory Capital will seek the opinion of its chief compliance officer or consult with an external independent adviser. In the case of a Proxy Committee member having a personal conflict of interest (e.g. a family member is on the board of the issuer), such member will abstain from voting. Finally, Victory Capital reports to the Portfolio annually any proxy votes that took place involving a conflict, including the nature of the conflict and the basis or rationale for the voting decision made.

Proxy Voting - Voya.

Introduction:

Voya Investment Management ("Voya IM") believes that proxies must be voted in the best interest of our clients. The Voya IM Proxy Voting Guidelines (“Guidelines”) summarize various issues of concern to investors, and give a general indication of how Voya IM will vote a client’s portfolio securities on proposals dealing with particular issues.

These Guidelines:

• cover only accounts managed by Voya IM for which the client has delegated voting authority to Voya IM;

• reflect the usual voting position on certain recurring proxy issues;

• are not expected to involve unusual circumstances;

• may not anticipate every proposal that will appear before all accounts managed by Voya IM;

• are subject to change as issues arise; and,

• should not be construed as binding.

While Voya IM typically looks to vote proxies similarly across managed accounts for which it has voting authority, we may, when agreed upon in writing, vote proxies for certain clients in accordance with the client’s own proxy voting policy (e.g., clients wishing to accord a heightened focus to environmental, social, and corporate governance issues).

Responsibility of Investment Manager to Vote Proxies:

Voya IM has delegated certain administrative duties with respect to voting proxies to Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (“ISS”). ISS is an independent adviser that specializes in providing a variety of fiduciary-level proxy related services to institutional investment managers, plan sponsors, custodians, consultants, and other institutional investors. The services provided include in-depth research, global issuer analysis, and vote recommendations. While Voya IM may review and utilize the recommendations of ISS in making proxy voting decisions, we are in no way obligated to follow such recommendations. In addition to research, ISS provides vote execution, reporting, and recordkeeping services.

Adviser Procedures:

Voya IM has a Proxy Team, led by the Proxy Manager, which includes the Voya family of funds Proxy Coordinator team (“Proxy Coordinator”). The Proxy Team is responsible for the oversight of ISS and the Voya IM proxy voting process. The Proxy Team works with Voya IM’s Back Office, Senior Loan Operation Teams, and client custodians to ensure proper set-up and maintenance of all accounts with ISS. Responsibilities assigned to the Proxy Manager under these Guidelines may be performed by the Proxy Coordinator as deemed appropriate by the Proxy Manager.

Voya IM has a Proxy Committee whose primary responsibility is to ensure that proxies are voted consistent with firm policies. In so doing, the Proxy Committee reviews and evaluates the firm’s proxy policy, oversees the implementation of the policy and Guidelines, and resolves ad hoc issues that may arise. The Proxy Committee shall conduct its activities in accordance with its charter.

Procedural Items:

1. Voting Practices – Unless otherwise noted in these Guidelines, best efforts will be used to vote proxies in all instances. However, in addition to certain provisions described below, Voya IM may determine not to vote proxies under certain circumstances including, but not limited to, the following: (1) if the economic effect on a client’s interests or the value of the portfolio holding is indeterminable or insignificant, e.g., proxies in connection with fractional shares or securities no longer held in a client portfolio, or proxies being considered on behalf of an account that has been liquidated or is otherwise no longer in existence; (2) if the expenditure of resources required to vote the proxy outweighs the benefits, e.g., certain international proxies for which meeting- or market-specific restrictions are imposed or documentation is required (e.g., Powers of Attorney or share blocking practices that may impose trading restrictions (see item 5, below)); or (3) if ballots cannot be procured by ISS in time to execute the vote by the stated deadline, e.g., certain international proxies with early voting deadlines.

2. Securities Lending – When an account participates in the lending of its securities and the securities are on loan at record date, proxies related to such securities will not be forwarded to ISS by the account’s custodian and therefore will not be voted.

3. Conflicts of Interest – Voya IM shall establish and maintain procedures to identify and address conflicts that may arise from time to time, including those concerning ISS or its affiliates (each, a “Potential ISS Conflict”) and Voya IM or its affiliates, Voya IM clients, top counterparties used by Voya IM to execute trades on behalf of Voya IM clients, and/or key vendors of Voya IM (each, a “Potential Voya IM Conflict”).

a. Potential ISS Conflicts. The Proxy Manager, through the Proxy Coordinator, has adopted annual and periodic assessment procedures in which actions are taken to (1) reasonably ensure ISS’ independence, competence, and impartiality and (2) identify and address conflicts that may arise from time to time concerning ISS or its affiliates. The procedures include comprehensive due diligence regarding policies, practices, and activities of ISS and its affiliates as well as specific analysis of ISS’ services on behalf of Voya IM and its clients.

b. Potential Voya IM Conflicts. The Proxy Team maintains a Potential Proxy Conflicts List, which it uses to screen for Potential Voya IM Conflicts whenever the Proxy Committee considers voting contrary to the Guidelines (see item 3, below).

4. Investment Team Input – Members of the Investment Team (defined for purposes of these Guidelines to include Voya IM Equity Portfolio Managers, Equity Research Analysts, and Traders) may submit recommendations to the Proxy Committee, through the Proxy Manager, regarding the voting of proxies related to the portfolio securities over which they have day-to-day portfolio management responsibility. Input from the relevant member of the Investment Team will be given consideration in the determination of how the proxy will be voted. If a member of the Investment Team wishes to diverge from the Guidelines, the request shall be sent to the Proxy Manager for review and action. Before acting on any Investment Team input, the Proxy Manager shall first determine whether a Potential Voya IM Conflict is present and whether the security is held by more than one Portfolio Manager.

a. If the Proxy Manager determines that a Potential Voya IM Conflict is present, the Proxy Manager will follow the course noted in 4.d., below.

b. If the Proxy Manager determines that no Potential Voya IM Conflict is present and the security is held by only one Portfolio Manager, the Proxy Manager shall inform the Proxy Committee of the request but may instruct the Proxy Team to execute the vote as requested, provided that no member of the Proxy Committee asks that a meeting be called to further consider the vote.

c. If the Proxy Manager determines that no Potential Voya IM Conflict is present and more than one Portfolio Manager holds the security, the Proxy Manager will consult with the other relevant member(s) of the Investment Team on the voting matter. If all members of the Investment Team concur, the Proxy Manager will follow the course noted in 4.b., above. If all members of the Investment Team do not concur, the Proxy Manager will follow the course noted in 4.d., below.

d. When required to resolve a Potential Voya IM Conflict or consider multiple views from members of the Investment Team, the Proxy Manager will call a meeting of the Proxy Committee. The Proxy Committee will consider the matter and vote on the best course of action. Additional insight may be provided to the Proxy Committee from internal Analysts who cover the security. The Proxy Manager shall use best efforts to convene the Proxy Committee with respect to all matters requiring its consideration. In the event quorum requirements cannot be timely met in connection with a voting deadline, the Proxy Manager shall execute the vote in accordance with the Guidelines.

A record shall be maintained regarding any determination to vote contrary to the Guidelines, including those where a Potential Voya IM Conflict is present, referencing the member(s) of the Investment Team requesting the vote and their rationale for it.

5. Share-blocking Countries – Voya IM does not generally vote proxies in countries which impose share-blocking or for which custodians may impose share-blocking. Voya IM may vote proxies in share-blocking countries if the proxy is listed as non-share-blocking by ISS.

6. Auto-release of Proxy Votes – Accounts at ISS are set up to auto-release votes as timely as practical except in share-blocking countries, which are never auto released. Certain considerations, such as conflicts of interest or Investment Team input, may require manual intervention on the Proxy Team’s part to adjust a voting instruction.

7. Unverified Accounts – From time to time, ballots may be posted by ISS to accounts designated as Voya IM accounts but not yet verified as such. Voya IM will cease voting activity for any account for which it has been verified Voya IM has not been given voting authority. Treatment of ballots during the verification process will generally be tailored to operational considerations of the business line to which the account is related:

a. Wrap business. The wrap business is subject to ongoing service provider turnover, which typically occurs without prior notification to Voya IM and may result in a high level of new account generation related to ballots being redirected from existing accounts to new ones. As such, the voting of unverified wrap accounts is an accepted industry practice, and Voya IM will generally vote ballots received for unverified accounts in the wrap business line during the account verification process.

b. Institutional business. Voya IM generally has prior notification of client or service provider changes that may impact voting accounts in the institutional line of business. Unverified accounts are more likely to be generated due to operational errors. Accordingly, ballots for unverified accounts in the institutional line of business will generally not be voted unless the account has been verified.

How Voya IM Votes Proxies:

Except where Voya IM has agreed to implement a client-specific proxy voting policy, the proxies received by accounts managed by Voya IM are generally voted using the ISS Benchmark Policy, which is designed to assist in the informed exercise of proxy voting worldwide, taking into account the differing legal, political, and economic systems existing in each country. Core to the development of the proxy voting guidelines are key theoretical underpinnings that include: enhancing shareholder value, mitigating risk, ensuring accountability of directors to shareholders, providing checks and balances, and promoting transparency and engagement. The application of these guidelines varies for different markets, with the basic principles of governance remaining evident in each region’s policies. An understanding of local market structures and practices is essential for making informed voting decisions. The exercise of an institution’s proxy voting rights is a key component in protecting the shareholder franchise.

Below is a summary of the guidelines used in the ISS Benchmark Policy. Accordingly, ISS will generally vote as summarized below.

1. Audit Items:

- Vote FOR proposals to ratify auditors unless:

a. An auditor has a financial interest in or association with the company, and is therefore not independent

b. There is reason to believe that the independent auditor has rendered an opinion which is neither accurate nor indicative of the company’s financial position; or

c. Poor accounting practices are identified that rise to a serious level of concern or fees for non-audit services are excessive.

- Vote case-by-case as to shareholder proposals asking companies to prohibit or limit their auditors from engaging in non-audit services. Non–audit fees are generally deemed excessive if they exceed audit fees plus audit related fees plus tax compliance/preparation fees.

- Vote case-by-case as to shareholder proposals asking for audit firm rotation, taking into account: the tenure of the audit firm; the length of rotation specified in the proposal; any significant audit-related issues at the company; the number of Audit Committee meetings held each year; the number of financial experts serving on the Audit Committee; and whether the company has a periodic renewal process where the auditor is evaluated for both audit quality and competitive price.

2. Board of Directors:

The ISS Benchmark Policy incorporates standards for board independence which are more stringent than listing standards.

- Withhold support from non-independent directors if:

a. The inside or affiliated director serves on any of the three key committees: audit, compensation, or nominating;

b. The company lacks an audit, compensation, or nominating committee so that the full board functions as that committee;

c. The company lacks a formal nominating committee, even if the board attests that the independent directors fulfill the functions of such a committee; or

d. The full board is comprised of less than a majority of independent directors.

- Withhold support from continuing directors if there are problematic takeover defenses, problematic audit-related practices, problematic compensation practices, or governance failures.

- Withhold support from continuing directors at companies with sustained poor performance relative to peers and problematic governance provisions.

- Vote case-by-case on continuing directors when the board is not responsive to shareholders.

- Withhold support from continuing directors for attendance issues and overboarding.

- Vote FOR proposals for majority threshold voting requirements.

- ISS’ recommendations allow for lead director and countervailing governance structure in lieu of separation of CEO and chairman roles.

- Vote FOR a CEO director unless the CEO director serves on more than 3 boards. Vote FOR a non-CEO director unless the director serves on more than 5 boards.

3. Proxy Contests:

- Vote case-by-case for director nominees in contested elections considering the following factors:

a. Long term financial performance of the target company relative to its industry;

b. Management’s track record;

c. Background to the proxy contest;

d. Qualifications of director nominees (both slates);

e. Strategic plan of dissident slate;

f. Quality of critique against management;

g. Likelihood that the proposed goals and objectives can be achieved (both slates); and

h. Stock ownership positions.

- Vote case-by-case on proposals to reimburse proxy solicitation expenses. When voting in conjunction with support of a dissident slate, vote FOR the reimbursement of all appropriate proxy solicitation expenses associated with the election.

- Vote FOR shareholder proposals calling for the reimbursement of reasonable costs incurred in connection with nominating one or more candidates in a contested election where the following apply:

a. The election of fewer than 50 percent of the directors to be elected is contested in the election;

b. One or more of the dissident’s candidates is elected;

c. Shareholders are not permitted to cumulate their votes for directors; and

d. The election occurred, and the expenses were incurred, after the adoption of this bylaw.

4. Anti-takeover Defenses and Voting Related Issues:

- Vote case-by-case supporting proposals that allow shareholders to submit proposals/nominations reasonably close to the meeting date and within the broadest window possible, recognizing the need to allow sufficient notice for company, regulatory and shareholder review. In general, support additional efforts by companies to ensure full disclosure in regard to a proponent’s economic and voting position in the company so long as the information requirements are reasonable and aimed at providing shareholders with the necessary information to review such proposal.

- Vote FOR shareholder proposals requesting that the company submit its poison pill to a shareholder vote unless the company has a shareholder approved poison pill in place or the company has adopted a policy concerning the adoption of a pill in the future specifying that the board will only adopt a shareholder rights plan if either shareholders have approved the adoption of the plan or the board determines that it is in the best interest of shareholders to adopt the pill without delay. A poison pill adopted only by the board would be put to a shareholder ratification vote within 12 months of adoption or expire.

- Vote case-by-case on management proposals on poison pill ratification, focusing on the features of the shareholder rights plan, which should contain the following attributes:

a. No lower than a 20 percent trigger, flip-in or flip-over;

b. A term of no more than three years;

c. No dead-hand, slow-hand, no-hand or similar feature that limits the ability of a future board to redeem the pill; and

d. Shareholder redemption feature (qualifying offer clause).

- For management proposals to adopt a poison pill for the stated purpose of preserving a company’s net operating losses, the following factors should be considered:

a. The trigger;

b. The value of the net operating losses;

c. The term;

d. Shareholder protection mechanisms; and

e. Other factors that may be applicable.

- Withhold support from the entire board of directors if the board adopts or renews a poison pill without shareholder approval, does not commit to putting it to a shareholder vote within 12 months of adoption, or reneges on a commitment to put the pill to a vote.

5. Mergers and Corporate Restructurings

- Vote case-by-case for mergers and acquisitions reviewing and evaluating the merits and drawbacks of the proposed transaction, balancing various and countervailing factors including:

a. Valuation;

b. Market reaction;

c. Strategic rationale;

d. Negotiations and process;

e. Conflicts of interest; and

f. Governance

6. State of Incorporation

- Vote case-by-case management or shareholder proposals to change a company’s state of incorporation, giving consideration to both financial and corporate governance concerns including:

a. Reasons for incorporation;

b. Comparison of company’s governance practices and provisions prior to and following the reincorporation; and

c. Comparison of corporate laws of original state and destination state.

- Vote FOR reincorporation when the economic factors outweigh any neutral or negative governance changes.

7. Capital Structure

- Vote case-by-case on proposals to increase the number of shares of common stock or preferred stock authorized for issuance, taking into account company-specific factors which include, at a minimum, the following:

a. Past Board Performance:

1. The company’s use of authorized shares during the last three years

b. The Current Request:

1. Disclosure in the proxy statement of the specific purposes of the proposed increase;

2. Disclosure in the proxy statement of specific and severe risks to shareholders of not approving the request; and

3. The dilutive impact of the request as determined by an allowable increase calculated by ISS (typically 100 percent of existing authorized shares) that reflects the company’s need for shares and total shareholder returns.

- Vote FOR proposals to approve increases beyond the allowable cap when a company’s shares are in danger of being de-listed or if a company’s ability to continue to operate as a going concern is uncertain.

- Vote AGAINST proposals authorizing the creation of new classes of preferred stock with unspecified voting, conversion, dividend distribution, and other rights (“blank check” preferred stock).

- Vote FOR proposals to create “de-clawed” blank check preferred stock (stock that cannot be used as a takeover defense).

- Vote FOR proposals to authorize preferred stock in cases where the company specifies the voting, dividend, conversion, and other rights of such stock and the terms of the preferred stock appear reasonable.

- Vote AGAINST proposals to increase the number of blank check preferred stock authorized for issuance when no shares have been issued or reserved for a specific purpose.

- Vote FOR proposals to increase the number of authorized common shares where the primary purpose of the increase is to issue shares in connection with a transaction on the same ballot that warrants support.

- Vote AGAINST proposals at companies with more than one class of common stock to increase the number of authorized shares of the class of common stock that has superior voting rights.

- Vote AGAINST proposals to increase the number of authorized common shares if a vote for a reverse stock split on the same ballot is warranted despite the fact that the authorized shares would not be reduced proportionally.

8. Executive and Director Compensation:

- Vote against the plan proposal if the combination of below factors indicates that the plan is not, overall, in shareholders' interests:

a. Plan Cost: The total estimated cost of the company’s equity plans relative to industry/market cap peers, measured by the company's estimated Shareholder Value Transfer (SVT) in relation to peers;

b. Plan Features: Automatic single-triggered award vesting upon a change in control, discretionary vesting authority, liberal share recycling, and lack of minimum vesting periods; or

c. Grant Practices: Excessive three year burn rate, plan duration, use of performance conditions, claw-back policy, and post-exercise/share-holding requirements.

- Vote AGAINST compensation plans if a pay-for-performance disconnect appears to exist, awards may vest in connection with a liberal change-of-control definition, or the plan would permit repricing of underwater options without shareholder approval.

- Vote to withholding support for “egregious” pay practices.

- Advisory Vote on Compensation (MSOP) – Vote case-by-case considering three key factors that may be critical to long-term shareholder value: 1) Whether there is a significant misalignment between CEO pay and company performance; 2) Whether the company maintains problematic pay practices; and, 3) Whether the board has exhibited persistent poor communication and lack of responsiveness to shareholders.

9. Corporate Social Responsibility Issues:

- Vote case-by-case l , evaluating environmental and social issues each on an industry by industry basis through a long-term risk mitigation prism in an effort to identify the impact on the firm’s immediate economic value as compared to its peers.

10. Global Proxies:

- Voya IM will generally vote in accordance with ISS’ global voting policies, which provide for varying regulatory and legal requirements, market practices, and political and economic systems existing in various global markets. ISS’ voting policies in connection with proxies of U.S. issuers may also be applied to global proxies when applicable. Unless otherwise provided for herein, it shall generally be the policy of Voya IM to withhold support from global proxy proposals in cases in which ISS recommends so doing because relevant disclosure by the issuer, or the time provided for consideration of such disclosure, is inadequate.

To view a fund's proxy voting record for the most recent 12-month period ended June 30, visit www.fidelity.com/proxyvotingresults or visit the SEC's web site at www.sec.gov.

DISTRIBUTION SERVICES

The fund has entered into a distribution agreement with FDC, an affiliate of Strategic Advisers. The principal business address of FDC is 900 Salem Street, Smithfield, Rhode Island 02917. FDC is a broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. The distribution agreement calls for FDC to use all reasonable efforts, consistent with its other business, to secure purchasers for shares of the fund, which are continuously offered at NAV. Promotional and administrative expenses in connection with the offer and sale of shares are paid by Strategic Advisers.

The Trustees have approved a Distribution and Service Plan with respect to shares of the fund (the Plan) pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act (the Rule). The Rule provides in substance that a fund may not engage directly or indirectly in financing any activity that is primarily intended to result in the sale of shares of the fund except pursuant to a plan approved on behalf of the fund under the Rule. The Plan, as approved by the Trustees, allows shares of the fund and/or Strategic Advisers to incur certain expenses that might be considered to constitute indirect payment by the fund of distribution expenses.

The Plan adopted for the fund is described in the prospectus.

Under the Plan, if the payment of management fees by the fund to Strategic Advisers is deemed to be indirect financing by the fund of the distribution of its shares, such payment is authorized by the Plan. The Plan specifically recognizes that Strategic Advisers may use its management fee revenue, as well as its past profits or its other resources, to pay FDC for expenses incurred in connection with providing services intended to result in the sale of shares of the fund and/or shareholder support services. In addition, the Plan provides that Strategic Advisers, directly or through FDC, may pay significant amounts to intermediaries that provide those services. Currently, the Board of Trustees has authorized such payments for shares of the fund.

Prior to approving the Plan, the Trustees carefully considered all pertinent factors relating to the implementation of the Plan, and determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the Plan will benefit the fund and its shareholders. In particular, the Trustees noted that the Plan does not authorize payments by shares of the fund other than those made to Strategic Advisers under its management contract with the fund. To the extent that the Plan gives Strategic Advisers and FDC greater flexibility in connection with the distribution of shares, additional sales of shares or stabilization of cash flows may result. Furthermore, certain shareholder support services may be provided more effectively under the Plan by local entities with whom shareholders have other relationships.

TRANSFER AND SERVICE AGENT AGREEMENTS

The fund has entered into a transfer agent agreement with Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations Company, Inc. (FIIOC), an affiliate of Strategic Advisers, which is located at 245 Summer Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02210. Under the terms of the agreement, FIIOC (or an agent, including an affiliate) performs transfer agency services.

For providing transfer agency services, FIIOC receives no fees from the fund; however, each underlying Fidelity^® fund pays its respective transfer agent (either FIIOC or an affiliate of FIIOC) fees based, in part, on the number of positions in and/or assets of the fund invested in such underlying Fidelity^® fund. Strategic Advisers or an affiliate of Strategic Advisers will bear the costs of the transfer agency services with respect to assets managed by one or more sub-advisers and assets invested in non-affiliated ETFs under the terms of an agreement between Strategic Advisers and FIIOC.

FIIOC may collect fees charged in connection with providing certain types of services such as exchanges, closing out fund balances, maintaining fund positions with low balances, checkwriting, wire transactions, and providing historical account research, as applicable.

FIIOC bears the expense of typesetting, printing, and mailing prospectuses, statements of additional information, and all other reports, notices, and statements to existing shareholders, with the exception of proxy statements.

The fund has entered into a service agent agreement with Fidelity Service Company, Inc. (FSC), an affiliate of Strategic Advisers (or an agent, including an affiliate). The fund has also entered into a securities lending administration agreement with FSC. Under the terms of the agreements, FSC calculates the NAV and dividends for shares, maintains the fund's portfolio and general accounting records, and administers the fund's securities lending program.

For providing pricing and bookkeeping services, FSC receives a monthly fee based on the fund's average daily net assets throughout the month.

The annual rates for pricing and bookkeeping services for the fund are 0.0389% of the first $500 million of average net assets, 0.0275% of average net assets between $500 million and $3.5 billion, 0.0041% of average net assets between $3.5 billion and $25 billion, and 0.0019% of average net assets in excess of $25 billion.

For administering the fund's securities lending program, FSC is paid based on the number and duration of individual securities loans.

Pricing and bookkeeping fees paid by the fund to FSC for the past three fiscal years are shown in the following table.

Fund	2018	2017	2016
Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund	$1,173,633	$1,155,811	$1,167,472

Payments made by the fund to FSC for securities lending for the past three fiscal years are shown in the following table.

Fund	2018	2017	2016
Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund	$67,366	$0	$--

SECURITIES LENDING

During the fiscal year, the securities lending agent, or the investment adviser (where the fund does not use a securities lending agent) monitors loan opportunities for the fund, negotiates the terms of the loans with borrowers, monitors the value of securities on loan and the value of the corresponding collateral, communicates with borrowers and the fund's custodian regarding marking to market the collateral, selects securities to be loaned and allocates those loan opportunities among lenders, and arranges for the return of the loaned securities upon the termination of the loan. Income and fees from securities lending activities for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2018, are shown in the following table:

		Fees and/or compensation for securities lending activities and related services:
Fund	Gross income from securities lending activities	Fees paid to securities lending agent from a revenue split	Administrative fees	Rebate (paid to borrower)	Aggregate fees/compensation for securities lending activities	Net income from securities lending activities
Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund	$5,572,926	$321,142	$0⁽¹⁾	$2,293,515	$2,682,023	$2,890,903

(1) Values shown as $0 reflect that the adviser or an affiliate paid the administrative fee.

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

DESCRIPTION OF THE TRUST

Trust Organization. Strategic Advisers^® Small-Mid Cap Fund is a fund of Fidelity Rutland Square Trust II, an open-end management investment company created under an initial trust instrument dated March 8, 2006. As of the fund's most recently completed fiscal year end, there are 19 funds offered in the trust: Strategic Advisers^® Core Fund, Strategic Advisers^® Core Income Fund, Strategic Advisers^® Core Income Multi-Manager Fund, Strategic Advisers^® Core Multi-Manager Fund, Strategic Advisers^® Emerging Markets Fund, Strategic Advisers^® Emerging Markets Fund of Funds, Strategic Advisers^® Growth Fund, Strategic Advisers^® Growth Multi-Manager Fund, Strategic Advisers^® Income Opportunities Fund, Strategic Advisers^® Income Opportunities Fund of Funds, Strategic Advisers^® International Fund, Strategic Advisers^® International Multi-Manager Fund, Strategic Advisers^® International II Fund, Strategic Advisers^® Short Duration Fund, Strategic Advisers^® Small-Mid Cap Fund, Strategic Advisers^® Small-Mid Cap Multi-Manager Fund, Strategic Advisers^® Tax-Sensitive Short Duration Fund, Strategic Advisers^® Value Fund, and Strategic Advisers^® Value Multi-Manager Fund. The Trustees are permitted to create additional funds in the trust and to create additional classes of the fund.

The assets of the trust received for the issue or sale of shares of each of its funds and all income, earnings, profits, and proceeds thereof, subject to the rights of creditors, are allocated to such fund, and constitute the underlying assets of such fund. The underlying assets of each fund in the trust shall be charged with the liabilities and expenses attributable to such fund. Any general expenses of the trust shall be allocated between or among any one or more of the funds.

Shareholder Liability. The trust is a statutory trust organized under Delaware law. Delaware law provides that, except to the extent otherwise provided in the Trust Instrument, shareholders shall be entitled to the same limitations of personal liability extended to stockholders of private corporations for profit organized under the general corporation law of Delaware. The courts of some states, however, may decline to apply Delaware law on this point. The Trust Instrument contains an express disclaimer of shareholder liability for the debts, liabilities, obligations, and expenses of the trust. The Trust Instrument provides that the trust shall not have any claim against shareholders except for the payment of the purchase price of shares and requires that each agreement, obligation, or instrument entered into or executed by the trust or the Trustees relating to the trust or to a fund shall include a provision limiting the obligations created thereby to the trust or to one or more funds and its or their assets. The Trust Instrument further provides that shareholders of a fund shall not have a claim on or right to any assets belonging to any other fund.

The Trust Instrument provides for indemnification out of each fund's property of any shareholder or former shareholder held personally liable for the obligations of the fund solely by reason of his or her being or having been a shareholder and not because of his or her acts or omissions or for some other reason. The Trust Instrument also provides that each fund shall, upon request, assume the defense of any claim made against any shareholder for any act or obligation of the fund and satisfy any judgment thereon. Thus, the risk of a shareholder incurring financial loss on account of shareholder liability is limited to circumstances in which Delaware law does not apply, no contractual limitation of liability was in effect, and a fund is unable to meet its obligations. Strategic Advisers believes that, in view of the above, the risk of personal liability to shareholders is extremely remote.

Voting Rights. Each fund's capital consists of shares of beneficial interest. Shareholders are entitled to one vote for each dollar of net asset value they own. The voting rights of shareholders can be changed only by a shareholder vote. Shares may be voted in the aggregate, by fund, and by class.

The shares have no preemptive or conversion rights. Shares are fully paid and nonassessable, except as set forth under the heading "Shareholder Liability" above.

The trust or a fund or a class may be terminated upon the sale of its assets to, or merger with, another open-end management investment company, series, or class thereof, or upon liquidation and distribution of its assets. The Trustees may reorganize, terminate, merge, or sell all or a portion of the assets of the trust or a fund or a class without prior shareholder approval. In the event of the dissolution or liquidation of the trust, shareholders of each of its funds are entitled to receive the underlying assets of such fund available for distribution. In the event of the dissolution or liquidation of a fund or a class, shareholders of that fund or that class are entitled to receive the underlying assets of the fund or class available for distribution.

Custodians. State Street Bank and Trust Company, 1 Lincoln Street, Boston, Massachusetts, is custodian of the assets of the fund. The custodian is responsible for the safekeeping of the fund's assets and the appointment of any subcustodian banks and clearing agencies. The Bank of New York Mellon and JPMorgan Chase Bank, each headquartered in New York, also may serve as special purpose custodians of certain assets in connection with repurchase agreement transactions.

Strategic Advisers, its officers and directors, its affiliated companies, Members of the Advisory Board (if any), and Members of the Board of Trustees may, from time to time, conduct transactions with various banks, including banks serving as custodians for certain funds advised by Strategic Advisers. Transactions that have occurred to date include mortgages and personal and general business loans. In the judgment of the fund's adviser, the terms and conditions of those transactions were not influenced by existing or potential custodial or other fund relationships.

Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 101 Seaport Boulevard, Boston, Massachusetts, independent registered public accounting firm, audits financial statements for the fund and provides other audit, tax, and related services.

FUND HOLDINGS INFORMATION

The fund views holdings information as sensitive and limits its dissemination. The Board authorized Strategic Advisers, in consultation with FMR, to establish and administer guidelines for the dissemination of fund holdings information, which may be amended at any time without prior notice. FMR's Disclosure Policy Committee (comprising executive officers of FMR) evaluates disclosure policy with the goal of serving the fund's best interests by striking an appropriate balance between providing information about the fund's portfolio and protecting the fund from potentially harmful disclosure. The Board reviews the administration and modification of these guidelines and receives reports from the fund's chief compliance officer periodically.

Other registered investment companies that are advised or sub-advised by Strategic Advisers or a sub-adviser may be subject to different portfolio holdings disclosure policies, and neither Strategic Advisers nor the Board exercises control over such policies or disclosure. In addition, separate account clients of Strategic Advisers and the sub-advisers have access to their portfolio holdings and are not subject to the fund's portfolio holdings disclosure policies. Some of the funds that are advised or sub-advised by Strategic Advisers or a sub-adviser and some of the separate accounts managed by Strategic Advisers or a sub-adviser have investment objectives and strategies that are substantially similar or identical to the fund's and, therefore, potentially substantially similar, and in certain cases nearly identical, portfolio holdings as the fund.

The fund will provide a full list of holdings, including its top mutual fund positions (if any), as of the end of the fund's fiscal quarter on www.fidelity.com 60 days after its fiscal quarter-end.

The fund will provide its top mutual fund positions (if any) as of the end of the calendar quarter on Fidelity's web site 15 or more days after the calendar quarter-end.

Unless otherwise indicated, this information will be available on the web site until updated for the next applicable period.

The fund may also from time to time provide or make available to the Board or third parties upon request specific fund level performance attribution information and statistics. Third parties may include fund shareholders or prospective fund shareholders, members of the press, consultants, and ratings and ranking organizations.

The Use of Holdings In Connection With Fund Operations. Material non-public holdings information may be provided as part of the activities associated with managing Fidelity^® funds to: entities which, by explicit agreement or by virtue of their respective duties to the fund, are required to maintain the confidentiality of the information disclosed; other parties if legally required; or persons Strategic Advisers believes will not misuse the disclosed information. These entities, parties, and persons include, but are not limited to: the fund's trustees; the fund's manager, its sub-advisers, if any, and their affiliates whose access persons are subject to a code of ethics (including portfolio managers of affiliated funds of funds); contractors who are subject to a confidentiality agreement; the fund's auditors; the fund's custodians; proxy voting service providers; financial printers; pricing service vendors; broker-dealers in connection with the purchase or sale of securities or requests for price quotations or bids on one or more securities; securities lending agents; counsel to the fund or its Independent Trustees; regulatory authorities; stock exchanges and other listing organizations; parties to litigation; third parties in connection with a bankruptcy proceeding relating to a fund holding; and third parties who have submitted a standing request to a money market fund for daily holdings information. Non-public holdings information may also be provided to an issuer regarding the number or percentage of its shares that are owned by the fund and in connection with redemptions in kind.

Other Uses Of Holdings Information. In addition, the fund may provide material non-public holdings information to (i) third parties that calculate information derived from holdings for use by Strategic Advisers or its affiliates, (ii) ratings and rankings organizations, and (iii) an investment adviser, trustee, or their agents to whom holdings are disclosed for due diligence purposes or in anticipation of a merger involving the fund. Each individual request is reviewed by the Disclosure Policy Committee which must find, in its sole discretion that, based on the specific facts and circumstances, the disclosure appears unlikely to be harmful to the fund. Entities receiving this information must have in place control mechanisms to reasonably ensure or otherwise agree that, (a) the holdings information will be kept confidential, (b) no employee shall use the information to effect trading or for their personal benefit, and (c) the nature and type of information that they, in turn, may disclose to third parties is limited. Strategic Advisers relies primarily on the existence of non-disclosure agreements and/or control mechanisms when determining that disclosure is not likely to be harmful to the fund.

At this time, the entities receiving information described in the preceding paragraph are: Factset Research Systems Inc. (full or partial holdings daily, on the next business day) and MSCI Inc. and certain affiliates (full or partial fund holdings daily, on the next business day).

Strategic Advisers, its affiliates, or the fund will not enter into any arrangements with third parties from which they derive consideration for the disclosure of material non-public holdings information. If, in the future, such an arrangement is desired, prior Board approval would be sought and any such arrangements would be disclosed in the fund's SAI.

There can be no assurance that the fund's policies and procedures with respect to disclosure of fund portfolio holdings will prevent the misuse of such information by individuals and firms that receive such information.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

The fund's financial statements and financial highlights for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2018, and report of the independent registered public accounting firm, are included in the fund's annual report and are incorporated herein by reference. Total annual operating expenses as shown in the prospectus fee table may differ from the ratios of expenses to average net assets in the financial highlights because total annual operating expenses as shown in the prospectus fee table include any acquired fund fees and expenses, whereas the ratios of expenses in the financial highlights do not, except to the extent any acquired fund fees and expenses relate to an entity, such as a wholly-owned subsidiary, with which a fund's financial statements are consolidated. Acquired funds include other investment companies in which the fund has invested, if and to the extent it is permitted to do so. Total annual operating expenses in the prospectus fee table and the financial highlights do not include any expenses associated with investments in certain structured or synthetic products that may rely on the exception from the definition of "investment company" provided by section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act.

APPENDIX

Any third-party marks that may appear above are the marks of their respective owners.

Fund Summary		Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund
Fund Basics		Investment Details
		Valuing Shares
Shareholder Information		Additional Information about the Purchase and Sale of Shares
		Dividends and Capital Gain Distributions
		Tax Consequences
Fund Services		Fund Management
		Fund Distribution
Appendix		Financial Highlights
		Additional Index Information

Management fee (fluctuates based on the fund's allocation among underlying funds and sub-advisers)^(a)		0.66%
Distribution and/or Service (12b-1) fees		None
Other expenses^(b)		0.03%
Acquired fund fees and expenses		0.07%
Total annual operating expenses^(c),^(b)		0.76%
Fee waiver and/or expense reimbursement^(a)		0.25%
Total annual operating expenses after fee waiver and/or expense reimbursement^(c),^(b)		0.51%

1 year	$52
3 years	$184
5 years	$365
10 years	$888

During the periods shown in the chart:	Returns	Quarter ended
Highest Quarter Return	22.94%	June 30, 2009
Lowest Quarter Return	(25.44)%	December 31, 2008
Year-to-Date Return	(0.13)%	March 31, 2018

For the periods ended December 31, 2017	Past 1 year	Past 5 years	Past 10 years
Strategic Advisers® Small-Mid Cap Fund
Return Before Taxes	19.28%	13.48%	8.31%
Return After Taxes on Distributions	16.82%	11.44%	7.07%
Return After Taxes on Distributions and Sale of Fund Shares	12.64%	10.34%	6.50%
Russell 2500™ Index (reflects no deduction for fees, expenses, or taxes)	16.81%	14.33%	9.22%
Strategic Advisers Small-Mid Cap Linked Index℠ (reflects no deduction for fees, expenses, or taxes)	16.81%	14.33%	9.19%

Years ended February 28,	2018	2017	2016 ^A	2015	2014
Selected Per–Share Data
Net asset value, beginning of period	$14.19	$11.12	$13.66	$14.12	$12.30
Income from Investment Operations
Net investment income (loss)^B	.08	.05	.04	.03	.02
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss)	1.88	3.29	(1.78)	.64	3.33
Total from investment operations	1.96	3.34	(1.74)	.67	3.35
Distributions from net investment income	(.07)	(.04)	(.03)	(.03)	(.02)
Distributions from net realized gain	(1.22)	(.22)	(.77)	(1.11)	(1.51)
Total distributions	(1.29)	(.27)^C	(.80)	(1.13)^D	(1.53)
Net asset value, end of period	$14.86	$14.19	$11.12	$13.66	$14.12
Total Return^E	14.04%	30.11%	(13.45)%	5.45%	28.21%
Ratios to Average Net Assets^F,^G
Expenses before reductions	.85%	.87%	.72%	.62%	.70%
Expenses net of fee waivers, if any	.60%	.62%	.46%	.37%	.45%
Expenses net of all reductions	.60%	.62%	.46%	.37%	.45%
Net investment income (loss)	.53%	.37%	.28%	.23%	.14%
Supplemental Data
Net assets, end of period (000 omitted)	$7,503,132	$7,048,707	$6,718,287	$7,202,333	$5,426,420
Portfolio turnover rate^H	75%	82%	71%	54%	84%