e497

SCHWAB STRATEGIC TRUST
(the “Trust”)

SCHWAB U.S. ETFs

Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF ^TMSchwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF ^TMSchwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF ^TMSchwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF ^TM(the “Funds”)

Supplement dated June 14, 2010 to the
Prospectus dated November 3, 2009

This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in
the Prospectus and should be read in conjunction with the Prospectus.

The Prospectus is being revised to reflect the following changes:

REDUCTION OF MANAGEMENT FEES

Effective June 14, 2010, the management fees of the Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF, Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF, Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF, and the Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF have been reduced. Please see the new fee tables and examples below.

CHANGES TO SCHWAB U.S. BROAD MARKET ETF — UPDATED FEE TABLE AND EXAMPLE NUMBERS

As a result of the change discussed above, the “Fund fees and expenses” Section and “Example” Section on Page 5 of the Prospectus are hereby deleted and replaced in their entirety with the following:

Fund fees and expenses

The following table describes what you could expect to pay as a fund investor. “Shareholder fees” are charged to you directly by the fund. “Annual operating expenses” are paid out of fund assets, so their effect is included in the fund’s total return. You may also incur customary brokerage charges when buying or selling fund shares.

Fee table (%)


Shareholder fees*		Shares

		None


Annual operating expenses**
Management fees***		0.06
Other expenses****		None

Total annual operating expenses		0.06

Fees paid directly from your investment, but the fund may impose creation and redemption transaction fees to offset transaction costs associated with the issuance and redemption of Creation Units. A standard transaction fee of $1,500 is charged in connection with the creation or redemption of a Creation Unit on the day of the transaction. Cash purchases and redemptions of Creation Units are subject to an additional variable charge of up to four times the Additional Creation/Redemption Transaction Fee per Creation Unit. See the “Creation and redemption transaction fees for creation units” section further in this prospectus.


**	Expressed as a percentage of average net assets.


***	Restated to reflect the current management fees for the fund.


****	The fund’s Investment Advisory Agreement provides that the Adviser will pay the operating expenses of the fund, excluding interest expense, taxes, any brokerage expenses, and extraordinary or non-routine expenses.

Example

Designed to help you compare expenses, the example below uses the same assumptions as other fund prospectuses: a $10,000 investment, 5% return each year and that the fund’s operating expenses remain the same. The expenses would be the same whether you stayed in the fund or sold your shares at the end of each period. Your actual costs may be higher or lower.


1 year		3 years
$6		$19

CHANGES TO SCHWAB U.S. LARGE-CAP GROWTH ETF — UPDATED FEE TABLE AND EXAMPLE NUMBERS

As a result of the change discussed above, the “Fund fees and expenses” Section and “Example” Section on Page 13 of the Prospectus are hereby deleted and replaced in their entirety with the following:

Fund fees and expenses

Fee table (%)


Shareholder fees*		Shares

		None


Annual operating expenses**
Management fees***		0.13
Other expenses****		None

Total annual operating expenses		0.13

Fees paid directly from your investment, but the fund may impose creation and redemption transaction fees to offset transaction costs associated with the issuance and redemption of Creation Units. A standard transaction fee of $500 is charged in connection with the creation or redemption of a Creation Unit on the day of the transaction. Cash purchases and redemptions of Creation Units are subject to an additional variable charge of up to four times the Additional Creation/Redemption Transaction Fee per Creation Unit. See the “Creation and redemption transaction fees for creation units” section further in this prospectus.


**	Expressed as a percentage of average net assets.


***	Restated to reflect the current management fees for the fund.


****	The fund’s Investment Advisory Agreement provides that the Adviser will pay the operating expenses of the fund, excluding interest expense, taxes, any brokerage expenses, and extraordinary or non-routine expenses.

Example


1 year		3 years
$13		$42

CHANGES TO SCHWAB U.S. LARGE-CAP VALUE ETF — UPDATED FEE TABLE AND EXAMPLE NUMBERS

As a result of the change discussed above, the “Fund fees and expenses” Section and “Example” Section on Page 17 of the Prospectus are hereby deleted and replaced in their entirety with the following:

Fund fees and expenses

Fee table (%)


Shareholder fees*		Shares

		None


Annual operating expenses**
Management fees***		0.13
Other expenses****		None

Total annual operating expenses		0.13

Fees paid directly from your investment, but the fund may impose creation and redemption transaction fees to offset transaction costs associated with the issuance and redemption of Creation Units. A standard transaction fee of $500 is charged in connection with the creation or redemption of a Creation Unit on the day of the transaction. Cash purchases and redemptions of Creation Units are subject to an additional variable charge of up to four times the Additional Creation/Redemption Transaction Fee per Creation Unit. See the “Creation and redemption transaction fees for creation units” section further in this prospectus.


**	Expressed as a percentage of average net assets.


***	Restated to reflect the current management fees for the fund.


****	The fund’s Investment Advisory Agreement provides that the Adviser will pay the operating expenses of the fund, excluding interest expense, taxes, any brokerage expenses, and extraordinary or non-routine expenses.

Example


1 year		3 years
$13		$42

CHANGES TO SCHWAB U.S. SMALL-CAP ETF — UPDATED FEE TABLE AND EXAMPLE NUMBERS

As a result of the change discussed above, the “Fund fees and expenses” Section and “Example” Section on Page 21 of the Prospectus are hereby deleted and replaced in their entirety with the following:

Fund fees and expenses

Fee table (%)


Shareholder fees*		Shares

		None


Annual operating expenses**
Management fees***		0.13
Other expenses****		None

Total annual operating expenses		0.13

SCHWAB STRATEGIC TRUST
(the “Trust”)

SCHWAB INTERNATIONAL ETFs

Schwab International Equity ETF ^TMSchwab Emerging Markets Equity ETF ^TM(the “Funds”)

Supplement dated June 14, 2010 to the
Prospectus dated November 3, 2009

This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in
the Prospectus and should be read in conjunction with the Prospectus.

The Prospectus is being revised to reflect the following changes:

REDUCTION OF MANAGEMENT FEES

Effective June 14, 2010, the management fees of the Schwab International Equity ETF and Schwab Emerging Markets Equity ETF have been reduced. Please see the new fee tables and examples below.

CHANGES TO SCHWAB INTERNATIONAL EQUITY ETF — UPDATED FEE TABLE AND EXAMPLE NUMBERS

As a result of the change discussed above, the “Fund fees and expenses” Section on Page 5 of the Prospectus and “Example” Section on Page 6 of the Prospectus are hereby deleted and replaced in their entirety with the following:

Fund fees and expenses

Fee table (%)


Shareholder fees*		Shares

		None


Annual operating expenses**
Management fees***		0.13
Other expenses****		None

Total annual operating expenses		0.13


*	Fees paid directly from your investment, but the fund may impose creation and redemption transaction fees to offset transaction costs associated with the issuance and redemption of Creation Units. A standard transaction fee of $15,000 is charged in connection with the creation or redemption of a Creation Unit on the day of the transaction. Cash purchases and redemptions of Creation Units are subject to an additional variable charge of up to four times the Additional Creation/Redemption Transaction Fee per Creation Unit. See the “Creation and redemption transaction fees for creation units” section further in this prospectus.
**	Expressed as a percentage of average net assets.
***	Restated to reflect the current management fees for the fund.
****	The fund’s Investment Advisory Agreement provides that the Adviser will pay the operating expenses of the fund, excluding interest expense, taxes, any brokerage expenses, and extraordinary or non-routine expenses.

Example


1 year		3 years
$13		$42

CHANGES TO SCHWAB EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY ETF — UPDATED FEE TABLE AND EXAMPLE NUMBERS

As a result of the change discussed above, the “Fund fees and expenses” Section and “Example” Section on Page 16 of the Prospectus are hereby deleted and replaced in their entirety with the following:

Fund fees and expenses

Fee table (%)


Shareholder fees*		Shares

		None


Annual operating expenses**
Management fees***		0.25
Other expenses****		None

Total annual operating expenses		0.25


*	Fees paid directly from your investment, but the fund may impose creation and redemption transaction fees to offset transaction costs associated with the issuance and redemption of Creation Units. A standard transaction fee of $8,000 is charged in connection with the creation or redemption of a Creation Unit on the day of the transaction. Cash purchases and redemptions of Creation Units are subject to an additional variable charge of up to four times the Additional Creation/Redemption Transaction Fee per Creation Unit. See the “Creation and redemption transaction fees for creation units” section further in this prospectus.
**	Expressed as a percentage of average net assets.
***	Restated to reflect the current management fees for the fund.
****	The fund’s Investment Advisory Agreement provides that the Adviser will pay the operating expenses of the fund, excluding interest expense, taxes, any brokerage expenses, and extraordinary or non-routine expenses.

Example


1 year		3 years
$26		$80

PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

REG56173-01 (06/10)

STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Schwab ETFs

Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF™
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap ETF™
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF™
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF™
Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF™

Schwab International Equity ETF™
Schwab International Small-Cap Equity ETF™
Schwab Emerging Markets Equity ETF™

November 3, 2009
As Amended January 8, 2010,
As Amended January 11, 2010,

As Amended March 5, 2010, As Amended May 25, 2010 and As Amended June 14, 2010

The Statement of Additional Information (SAI) is not a prospectus. It should be read in conjunction with the funds’ prospectuses, each dated November 3, 2009 (as amended from time to time). To obtain a free copy of any of the prospectuses, please contact Schwab ETFs at 1-800-435-4000. For TDD service call 1-800-345-2550. The prospectus also may be available on the Internet at: http://www.schwab.com/SchwabETFProspectus.

Each fund is a series of the Schwab Strategic Trust (the trust). The funds are part of the Schwab complex of funds.


INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES, STRATEGIES, RISKS AND LIMITATIONS			2
CONTINUOUS OFFERING			21
MANAGEMENT OF THE FUNDS			22
CONTROL PERSONS AND PRINCIPAL HOLDERS OF SECURITIES			25
INVESTMENT ADVISORY AND OTHER SERVICES			25
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS			27
BROKERAGE ALLOCATION AND OTHER PRACTICES			29
PROXY VOTING			32
DESCRIPTION OF THE TRUST			32
PURCHASE, REDEMPTION, DELIVERY OF SHAREHOLDER DOCUMENTS AND PRICING OF SHARES			33
TAXATION			36
APPENDIX A- RATINGS OF INVESTMENT SECURITIES
APPENDIX B- DESCRIPTION OF PROXY VOTING POLICY AND PROCEDURES

REG50329-05

INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES, STRATEGIES, RISKS AND LIMITATIONS

Investment Objectives

Each fund’s investment objective is not fundamental and therefore may be changed by the funds’ board of trustees without shareholder approval.

The Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF™ seeks to track as closely as possible, before fees and expenses, the total return of the Dow Jones U.S. Broad Stock Market Index.

The Schwab U.S. Large-Cap ETF™ seeks to track as closely as possible, before fees and expenses, the total return of the Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Total Stock Market Index.

The Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF™ seeks to track as closely as possible, before fees and expenses, the total return of the Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Growth Total Stock Market Index.

The Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF™ seeks to track as closely as possible, before fees and expenses, the total return of the Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Value Total Stock Market Index.

The Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF™ seeks to track as closely as possible, before fees and expenses, the total return of the Dow Jones U.S. Small-Cap Total Stock Market Index.

The Schwab International Equity ETF™ seeks to track as closely as possible, before fees and expenses, the total return of the FTSE Developed ex-US Index.

The Schwab International Small-Cap Equity ETF™ seeks to track as closely as possible, before fees and expenses, the total return of the FTSE Developed Small Cap ex-US Liquid Index.

The Schwab Emerging Markets Equity ETF™ seeks to track as closely as possible, before fees and expenses, the total return of the FTSE All-Emerging Index.

There is no guarantee the funds will achieve their investment objectives.

Description of Benchmark Indices

The Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF’s benchmark index, Dow Jones U.S. Broad Stock Market Index^SM, includes the largest 2,500 publicly traded U.S. companies for which pricing information is readily available. The index is a float-adjusted market capitalization weighted index that reflects the shares of securities actually available to investors in the marketplace. As of June 30, 2009, the index was composed of 2,493 stocks.

The Schwab U.S. Large-Cap ETF’s benchmark index, Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Total Stock Market Index^SM, includes the large-cap portion of the Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Index actually available to investors in the marketplace. The Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Total Stock Market Index includes the components ranked 1-750 by full market capitalization. The index is a float-adjusted market capitalization weighted index. As of June 30, 2009, the index was composed of 743 stocks.

The Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF’s benchmark index, Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Growth Total Stock Market Index^SM, includes the large-cap portion of the Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Index actually available to investors in the marketplace. The Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Growth Total Stock Market Index includes the components ranked 1-750 by full market capitalization and that are classified as “growth” based on a number of factors. The index is a float-adjusted market capitalization weighted index. As of June 30, 2009, the index was composed of 433 stocks.

The Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF’s benchmark index, Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Value Total Stock Market Index^SM, includes the large-cap portion of the Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Index actually available to investors in the marketplace. The Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Value Total Stock Market Index includes the components ranked 1-750 by full market capitalization and that are classified as “value” based on a number of factors. The index is a float-adjusted market capitalization weighted index. As of June 30, 2009, the index was composed of 310 stocks.

The Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF’s benchmark index, Dow Jones U.S. Small-Cap Total Stock Market Index^SM, includes the small-cap portion of the Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Index actually available to investors in the marketplace. The Dow Jones U.S. Small-Cap Total Stock Market Index includes the components ranked 751-2500 by full market capitalization. The index is a float-adjusted market capitalization weighted index. As of June 30, 2009, the index was composed of 1,750 stocks.

The Schwab International Equity ETF’s benchmark, the FTSE Developed ex-US Index, is comprised of large and mid capitalization companies in developed countries outside the United States, as defined by the index provider. The index defines the large and mid capitalization universe as approximately the top 90% of the eligible universe. As of June 30, 2009, the index was composed of 1,325 stocks in 23 developed market countries.

The Schwab International Small-Cap Equity ETF’s benchmark, the FTSE Developed Small Cap ex-US Liquid Index, is comprised of small capitalization companies in developed countries outside the United States, as defined by the index provider. The index defines the small capitalization universe as approximately the bottom 10% of the eligible universe with a minimum free float capitalization of $150 million. As of June 30, 2009, the index was composed of 1820 stocks in 23 developed market countries.

The Schwab Emerging Markets Equity ETF’s benchmark, the FTSE All-Emerging Index, is comprised of large and mid capitalization companies in emerging market countries, as defined by the index provider. The index defines the large and mid capitalization universe as approximately the top 90% of the eligible universe. As of June 30, 2009, the index was composed of 824 stocks in 23 emerging market countries.

Index Providers and Disclaimers

Dow Jones Indexes, a business unit of Dow Jones & Company, Inc., is a full service index provider which develops, maintains and licenses indexes for use as benchmarks and as the basis of investment products. Dow Jones & Company, Inc. is a News Corporation company (NYSE: NWS). Dow Jones is a leading provider of global business news and information services. Dow Jones’ only relationship to the funds and CSIM (as defined herein) is the licensing of certain trademarks and trade names of Dow Jones and of the Dow Jones U.S. Broad Stock Market Index^SM, Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Total Stock Market Index^SM, Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Growth Total Stock Market Index^SM, Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Value Total Stock Market Index^SM, and Dow Jones U.S. Small-Cap Total Stock Market Index^SM (the “Dow Jones Indexes”). The funds are not sponsored, endorsed, sold or promoted by Dow Jones.

Dow Jones does not guarantee the accuracy and/or the completeness of the Dow Jones indexes or any data included therein and Dow Jones shall have no liability for any errors, omissions, or interruptions therein. Dow Jones makes no warranty, express or implied, as to results to be obtained by CSIM, owners of the shares of the funds, or any other person or entity from the use of Dow Jones indexes or any data included therein. Dow Jones makes no express or implied warranties, and expressly disclaims all warranties, of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or use with respect to the Dow Jones indexes or any data included therein, without limiting any of the foregoing, in no event shall Dow Jones have any liability for any lost profits or indirect, punitive, special or consequential damages (including lost profits), even if notified of the possibility of such damages. There are no third party beneficiaries of any agreements or arrangements between Dow Jones and CSIM.

FTSE International Limited (“FTSE”) is an independent company whose sole business is the creation and management of indexes and associated data services. FTSE is a joint venture between The Financial Times Limited (“FT”) and the London Stock Exchange Plc (the “Exchange”). FTSE calculates more than 60,000 indexes daily, including more than 600 real-time indexes. “FTSE^tm” is a trademark jointly owned by the Exchange and FT and is used by FTSE under license. FTSE is not affiliated with the funds, CSIM (as defined herein), the Distributor (as defined herein) or any of their respective affiliates. The funds are not sponsored, endorsed, sold or promoted by FTSE, FT or the Exchange. FTSE, FT and the Exchange make no representation or warranty, express or implied, to the owners of shares of the funds or any member of the public regarding the advisability of trading in the funds, and make no warranty or representation whatsoever, expressly or impliedly, either as to the results to be obtained from the use of the FTSE Indexes and/or the figure at which the said FTSE Index stands at any particular time on any particular day or otherwise.

Shares of the funds are not sponsored, endorsed or promoted by NYSE Arca Inc. NYSE Arca makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, to the owners of the shares of the funds or any member of the public regarding the ability of the funds to track the total return performance of any underlying index or the ability of the underlying index to track stock market performance. NYSE Arca is not responsible for, nor has it participated in, the determination of the compilation or the calculation of an underlying index, nor in the determination of the timing of, prices of, or quantities of shares of the funds to be issued, nor in the determination or calculation of the equation by which the shares are redeemable. NYSE Arca has no obligation or liability to owners of the shares of the funds in connection with the administration, marketing or trading of the shares of the funds.

NYSE Arca shall have no liability for damages, claims, losses or expenses caused by any errors, omissions, or delays in calculating or disseminating any current index or portfolio value the current value of the portfolio of securities required to be deposited to the funds; the amount of any dividend equivalent payment or cash distribution to holders of shares of the funds; net asset value; or other information relating to the creation, redemption or trading of shares of the funds, resulting from any negligent act or omission by NYSE Arca, or any act, condition or cause beyond the reasonable control of NYSE Arca, including, but not limited to, an act of God; fire; flood; extraordinary weather conditions; war; insurrection; riot; strike; accident; action of government; communications or power failure; equipment or software malfunction; or any error, omission or delay in the reporting of transactions in one or more underlying securities. NYSE Arca makes no warranty, express or implied, as to results to be obtained by any person or entity from the use of any underlying index or data included therein and NYSE Arca makes no express or implied warranties, and disclaims all warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose with respect to shares of the funds or any underlying index or data included therein.

Fund Investment Policies

The Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF™ will, under normal circumstances, invest at least 90% of its net assets in the stocks of its benchmark index. The fund will notify its shareholders at least 60 days before changing this policy. For purposes of this policy, net assets mean net assets plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes.

The Schwab U.S. Large-Cap ETF™ will, under normal circumstances, invest at least 90% of its net assets in the stocks of its benchmark index. The fund will notify its shareholders at least 60 days before changing this policy. For purposes of this policy, net assets mean net assets plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes.

The Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF™ will, under normal circumstances, invest at least 90% of its net assets in the stocks of its benchmark index. The fund will notify its shareholders at least 60 days before changing this policy. For purposes of this policy, net assets mean net assets plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes.

The Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF™ will, under normal circumstances, invest at least 90% of its net assets in the stocks of its benchmark index. The fund will notify its shareholders at least 60 days before changing this policy. For purposes of this policy, net assets mean net assets plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes.

The Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF™ will, under normal circumstances, invest at least 90% of its net assets in the stocks of its benchmark index. The fund will notify its shareholders at least 60 days before changing this policy. For purposes of this policy, net assets mean net assets plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes.

The Schwab International Equity ETF™ will, under normal circumstances, invest at least 90% of its net assets in the stocks of its benchmark index, including depositary receipts representing securities of the index; which may be in the form of American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”), Global Depositary Receipts (“GDRs”) and European Depositary Receipts (“EDRs”). The fund will notify its shareholders at least 60 days before changing this policy. For purposes of this policy, net assets mean net assets plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes.

The Schwab International Small-Cap Equity ETF™ will, under normal circumstances, invest at least 90% of its net assets in the stocks of its benchmark index, including depositary receipts representing securities of the index; which may be in the form of ADRs, GDRs and EDRs. The fund will notify its shareholders at least 60 days before changing this policy. For purposes of this policy, net assets mean net assets plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes.

The Schwab Emerging Markets Equity ETF™ will, under normal circumstances, invest at least 90% of its net assets in the stocks of its benchmark index, including depositary receipts representing securities of the index; which may be in the form of ADRs, GDRs and EDRs. The fund will notify its shareholders at least 60 days before changing this policy. For purposes of this policy, net assets mean net assets plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes.

Investments, Risks and Limitations

The following investment strategies, risks and limitations supplement those set forth in the prospectus and may be changed without shareholder approval unless otherwise noted. Also, policies and limitations that state a maximum percentage of assets that may be invested in a security or other asset, or that set forth a quality standard, shall be measured immediately after and as a result of a fund’s acquisition of such security or asset unless otherwise noted. Thus, except with respect to limitations on borrowing and futures and option contracts, any subsequent change in values, net assets or other circumstances does not require a fund to sell an investment if it could not then make the same investment.

Principal Investment Strategy Investments

Unless otherwise indicated, the following investments may be used as part of each fund’s principal investment strategy.

Concentration means that substantial amounts of assets are invested in a particular industry or group of industries. Concentration increases investment exposure to industry risk. For example, the automobile industry may have a greater exposure to a single factor, such as an increase in the price of oil, which may adversely affect the sale of automobiles and, as a result, the value of the industry’s securities. As part of each fund’s principal investment strategy, each fund will not concentrate its investments in a particular industry or group of industries, except that each fund will concentrate to approximately the same extent that its benchmark index concentrates in the securities of such particular industry or group of industries.

Depositary Receipts (Principal investments for Schwab International Equity ETF, Schwab International Small-Cap Equity ETF and Schwab Emerging Markets Equity ETF. Permissible non-principal investments for each other fund). Depositary receipts include American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) as well as other “hybrid” forms of ADRs, such as European Depositary Receipts (EDRs) and Global Depositary Receipts (GDRs), are certificates evidencing ownership of shares of a foreign issuer. Depositary receipts may be sponsored or unsponsored. 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.

Investments in the securities of foreign issuers may subject a fund to investment risks that differ in some respects from those related to investments in securities of U.S. issuers. Such risks include future adverse political and economic developments, possible imposition of withholding taxes on income, possible seizure, nationalization or expropriation of foreign deposits, possible establishment of exchange controls or taxation at the source or greater fluctuation in value due to changes in exchange rates. Foreign issuers of securities often engage in business practices different from those of domestic issuers of similar securities, and there may be less information publicly available about foreign issuers. In addition, foreign issuers are, generally speaking, subject to less government supervision and regulation and different accounting treatment than are those in the United States.

Although the two types of depositary receipt facilities (unsponsored or sponsored) are similar, there are differences regarding a holder’s rights and obligations and the practices of market participants. A depository may establish an unsponsored facility without participation by (or acquiescence of) the underlying issuer; typically, however, the depository requests a letter of non-objection from the underlying issuer prior to establishing the facility. Holders of unsponsored depositary receipts generally bear all the costs of the facility. The depository usually charges fees upon the deposit and withdrawal of the underlying securities, the conversion of dividends into U.S. dollars or other currency, the disposition of non-cash distributions, and the performance of other services. The depository of an unsponsored facility frequently is under no obligation to distribute shareholder communications received from the underlying issuer or to pass through voting rights to depositary receipt holders with respect to the underlying securities.

Sponsored depositary receipt facilities are created in generally the same manner as unsponsored facilities, except that sponsored depositary receipts are established jointly by a depository and the underlying issuer through a deposit agreement. The deposit agreement sets out the rights and responsibilities of the underlying issuer, the depository, and the depositary receipt holders. With sponsored facilities, the underlying issuer typically bears some of the costs of the depositary receipts (such as dividend payment fees of the depository), although most sponsored depositary receipts holders may bear costs such as deposit and withdrawal fees. Depositories of most sponsored depositary receipts agree to distribute notices of shareholder meetings, voting instructions, and other shareholder communications and information to the depositary receipt holders at the underlying issuer’s request.

Derivative Instruments are commonly defined to include securities or contracts whose values depend on (or “derive” from) the value of one or more other assets such as securities, currencies, or commodities. These “other assets” are commonly referred to as “underlying assets.” The principal types of derivatives used by the funds are swaps, options, futures, options on futures and, with respect to the Schwab International Equity ETF, Schwab International Small-Cap Equity ETF and Schwab Emerging Markets Equity ETF, forward foreign currency contracts.

A derivative instrument generally consists of, is based upon, or exhibits characteristics similar to options or forward contracts. Options and forward contracts are considered to be the basic “building blocks” of derivatives. For example, forward-based derivatives include forward contracts, as well as exchange-traded futures. Option-based derivatives include privately negotiated, over-the-counter (OTC) options (including caps, floors, collars, and options on forward and swap contracts) and exchange-traded options on futures. Diverse types of derivatives may be created by combining options or forward contracts in different ways, and applying these structures to a wide range of underlying assets. Risk management strategies include investment techniques designed to facilitate the sale of portfolio securities, manage the average duration of the portfolio or create or alter exposure to certain asset classes, such as equity, other debt or foreign securities.

Each fund may allocate up to 10% of its net assets to derivatives investments.

Diversification involves investing in a wide range of securities and thereby spreading and reducing the risks of investment. Each fund is a series of an open-end investment management company with limited redeemability. The funds are diversified exchange traded funds. Diversification does not eliminate the risk of market loss.

Emerging or Developing Markets (Principal investment for Schwab Emerging Markets Equity ETF only. Permissible non-principal investment for all other funds.) Emerging or developing markets exist in countries that are considered to be in the initial stages of industrialization. The risks of investing in these markets are similar to the risks of international investing in general, although the risks are greater in emerging and developing markets. Countries with emerging or developing securities markets tend to have economic structures that are less stable than countries with developed securities markets. This is because their economies may be based on only a few industries and their securities markets may trade a small number of securities. Prices on these exchanges tend to be volatile, and securities in these countries historically have offered greater potential for gain (as well as loss) than securities of companies located in developed countries.

Equity Securities represent ownership interests in a company, and are commonly called “stocks.” Equity securities historically have outperformed most other securities, although their prices can fluctuate based on changes in a company’s financial condition, market conditions and political, economic or even company-specific news. When a stock’s price declines, its market value is lowered even though the intrinsic value of the company may not have changed. Sometimes factors, such as economic conditions or political events, affect the value of stocks of companies of the same or similar industry or group of industries, and may affect the entire stock market.

Types of equity securities include common stocks, preferred stocks, convertible securities, warrants, ADRs, EDRs, and interests in real estate investment trusts, (for more information on real estate investment trusts, “REITs”, see the section entitled “Real Estate Investment Trusts”).

Common stocks, which are probably the most recognized type of equity security, represent an equity or ownership interest in an issuer and usually entitle the owner to voting rights in the election of the corporation’s directors and any other matters submitted to the corporation’s shareholders for voting, as well as to receive dividends on such stock. The market value of common stock can fluctuate widely, as it reflects increases and decreases in an issuer’s earnings. In the event an issuer is liquidated or declares bankruptcy, the claims of bond owners, other debt holders and owners of preferred stock take precedence over the claims of common stock owners.

Preferred stocks are a permissible non-principal investment for each fund. Preferred stocks represent an equity or ownership interest in an issuer but do not ordinarily carry voting rights, though they may carry limited voting rights. Preferred stocks normally have preference over the corporation’s assets and earnings, however. For example, preferred stocks have preference over common stock in the payment of dividends. Preferred stocks normally pay dividends at a specified rate. However, preferred stock may be purchased where the issuer has omitted, or is in danger of omitting, payment of its dividend. Such investments would be made primarily for their capital appreciation potential. In the event an issuer is liquidated or declares bankruptcy, the claims of bond owners take precedence over the claims of preferred and common stock owners. Certain classes of preferred stock are convertible into shares of common stock of the issuer. By holding convertible preferred stock, a fund can receive a steady stream of dividends and still have the option to convert the preferred stock to common stock. Preferred stock is subject to many of the same risks as common stock and debt securities.

Convertible securities are a permissible non-principal investment for each fund. Convertible securities are typically preferred stocks or bonds that are exchangeable for a specific number of another form of security (usually the issuer’s common stock) at a specified price or ratio. A convertible security generally entitles the holder to receive interest paid or accrued on bonds or the dividend paid on preferred stock until the convertible security matures or is redeemed, converted or exchanged. A corporation may issue a convertible security that is subject to redemption after a specified date, and usually under certain circumstances. A holder of a convertible security that is called for redemption would be required to tender it for redemption to the issuer, convert it to the underlying common stock or sell it to a third party. The convertible structure allows the holder of the convertible bond to participate in share price movements in the company’s common stock. The actual return on a convertible bond may exceed its stated yield if the company’s common stock appreciates in value and the option to convert to common stocks becomes more valuable.

Convertible securities typically pay a lower interest rate than nonconvertible bonds of the same quality and maturity because of the convertible feature. Convertible securities are also rated below investment grade (“high yield”) or are not rated, and are subject to credit risk.

Prior to conversion, convertible securities have characteristics and risks similar to nonconvertible debt and equity securities. In addition, convertible securities are often concentrated in economic sectors, which, like the stock market in general, may experience unpredictable declines in value, as well as periods of poor performance, which may last for several years. There may be a small trading market for a particular convertible security at any given time, which may adversely impact market price and a fund’s ability to liquidate a particular security or respond to an economic event, including deterioration of an issuer’s creditworthiness.

Convertible preferred stocks are nonvoting equity securities that pay a fixed dividend. These securities have a convertible feature similar to convertible bonds, but do not have a maturity date. Due to their fixed income features, convertible securities provide higher income potential than the issuer’s common stock, but typically are more sensitive to interest rate changes than the underlying common stock. In the event of a company’s liquidation, bondholders have claims on company assets senior to those of shareholders; preferred shareholders have claims senior to those of common shareholders.

Convertible securities typically trade at prices above their conversion value, which is the current market value of the common stock received upon conversion, because of their higher yield potential than the underlying common stock. The difference between the conversion value and the price of a convertible security will vary depending on the value of the underlying common stock and interest rates. When the underlying value of the common stocks declines, the price of the issuer’s convertible securities will tend not to fall as much because the convertible security’s income potential will act as a price support. While the value of a convertible security also tends to rise when the underlying common stock value rises, it will not rise as much because their conversion value is more narrow. The value of convertible securities also is affected by changes in interest rates. For example, when interest rates fall, the value of convertible securities may rise because of their fixed income component.

Warrants are a permissible non-principal investment for each fund. Warrants are types of securities usually issued with bonds and preferred stock that entitle the holder to purchase a proportionate amount of common stock at a specified price for a specific period of time. The prices of warrants do not necessarily move parallel to the prices of the underlying common stock. Warrants have no voting rights, receive no dividends and have no rights with respect to the assets of the issuer. If a warrant is not exercised within the specified time period, it will become worthless and a fund will lose the purchase price it paid for the warrant and the right to purchase the underlying security.

Initial Public Offering. As part of its non-principal investment strategy, each fund may purchase shares issued as part of, or a short period after, a company’s initial public offering (“IPOs”), and may at times dispose of those shares shortly after their acquisition. A fund’s purchase of shares issued in IPOs exposes it to the risks associated with companies that have little operating history as public companies, as well as to the risks inherent in those sectors of the market where these new issuers operate. The market for IPO issuers has been volatile, and share prices of newly-public companies have fluctuated significantly over short periods of time.

Master Limited Partnerships (“MLPs”). As part of its non-principal investment strategy, each fund may purchase units of MLPs. MLPs are limited partnerships or limited liability companies, whose partnership units or limited liability interests are listed and traded on a U.S. securities exchange, and are treated as publicly traded partnerships for federal income tax purposes. To qualify to be treated as a partnership for tax purposes, an MLP must receive at least 90% of its income from qualifying sources as set forth in Section 7704(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). These qualifying sources include activities such as the exploration, development, mining, production, processing, refining, transportation, storage and marketing of mineral or natural resources. MLPs generally have two classes of owners, the general partner and limited partners. MLPs that are formed as limited liability companies generally have two analogous classes of owners, the managing member and the members. For purposes of this section, references to general partners also apply to managing members and references to limited partners also apply to members. The general partner is typically owned by a major energy company, an investment fund, the direct management of the MLP or is an entity owned by one or more of such parties. The general partner may be structured as a private or publicly traded corporation or other entity. The general partner typically controls the operations and management of the MLP through an equity interest of as much as 2% in the MLP plus, in many cases, ownership of common units and subordinated units. Limited partners own the remainder of the MLP through ownership of common units and have a limited role in the MLP’s operations and management.

MLPs are typically structured such that common units and general partner interests have first priority to receive quarterly cash distributions up to an established minimum amount (“minimum quarterly distributions” or “MQD”). Common and general partner interests also accrue arrearages in distributions to the extent the MQD is not paid. Once common and general partner interests have been paid, subordinated units receive distributions of up to the MQD; however, subordinated units do not accrue arrearages. Distributable cash in excess of the MQD paid to both common and subordinated units is distributed to both common and subordinated units generally on a pro rata basis. The general partner is also eligible to receive incentive distributions if the general partner operates the business in a manner which results in distributions paid per common unit surpassing specified target levels. As the general partner increases cash distributions to the limited partners, the general partner receives an increasingly higher percentage of the incremental cash distributions. A common arrangement provides that the general partner can reach a tier where it receives 50% of every incremental dollar paid to common and subordinated unit holders. These incentive distributions encourage the general partner to streamline costs, increase capital expenditures and acquire assets in order to increase the partnership’s cash flow and raise the quarterly cash distribution in order to reach higher tiers. Such results benefit all security holders of the MLP.

General partner interests of MLPs are typically retained by an MLP’s original sponsors, such as its founders, corporate partners, entities that sell assets to the MLP and investors such as us. A holder of general partner interests can be liable under certain circumstances for amounts greater than the amount of the holder’s investment in the general partner interest. General partner interests often confer direct board participation rights and in many cases, operating control, over the MLP. These interests themselves are not publicly traded, although they may be owned by publicly traded entities. General partner interests receive cash distributions, typically 2% of the MLP’s aggregate cash distributions, which are contractually defined in the partnership agreement. In addition, holders of general partner interests typically hold incentive distribution rights, which provide them with a larger share of the aggregate MLP cash distributions as the distributions to limited partner unit holders are increased to prescribed levels. General partner interests generally cannot be converted into common units. The general partner interest can be redeemed by the MLP if the MLP unitholders choose to remove the general partner, typically with a supermajority vote by limited partner unitholders.

Exchange Traded Funds (“ETFs”) such as the funds or Standard and Poor’s Depositary Receipts (“SPDRs”) Trust, are investment companies that typically are registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“1940 Act”) as open-end fund as is the funds’ case or unit investment trusts (“UITs”). ETFs are actively traded on national securities exchanges and are generally based on specific domestic and foreign market indices. Shares of an ETF may be bought and sold through the day at market prices, which may be higher or lower than the shares’ net asset value. An “index-based ETF” seeks to track the performance of an index holding in its portfolio either the contents of the index or a representative sample of the securities in the index. Because ETFs are based on an underlying basket of stocks or an index, they are subject to the same market fluctuations as these types of securities in volatile market swings. ETFs, like mutual funds, have expenses associated with their operation, including advisory fees. When a fund invests in an ETF, in addition to directly bearing expenses associated with its own operations, it will bear a pro rata portion of the ETF’s expenses. As with any exchange listed security, ETF shares purchased in the secondary market are subject to customary brokerage charges.

Foreign Securities (Principal investment of the Schwab International Equity ETF, Schwab International Small-Cap Equity ETF and Schwab Emerging Markets Equity ETF only. Permissible non-principal investment for all other funds). Foreign securities involve additional risks, including foreign currency exchange rate risks, because they are issued by foreign entities, including foreign governments, banks and corporations or because they are traded principally overseas. Foreign securities in which a fund may invest include foreign entities that are not subject to uniform accounting, auditing and financial reporting standards, practices and requirements comparable to those applicable to U.S. corporations. In addition, there may be less publicly available information about foreign entities. Foreign economic, political and legal developments, as well as fluctuating foreign currency exchange rates and withholding taxes, could have more dramatic effects on the value of foreign securities. For example, conditions within and around foreign countries, such as the possibility of expropriation or confiscatory taxation, political or social instability, diplomatic developments, change of government or war could affect the value of foreign investments. Moreover, individual foreign economies may differ favorably or unfavorably from the U.S. economy in such respects as growth of gross national product, rate of inflation, capital reinvestment, resource self-sufficiency and balance of payments position.

Foreign securities typically have less volume and are generally less liquid and more volatile than securities of U.S. companies. Fixed commissions on foreign securities exchanges are generally higher than negotiated commissions on U.S. exchanges, although a fund will endeavor to achieve the most favorable overall results on portfolio transactions. There is generally less government supervision and regulation of foreign securities exchanges, brokers, dealers and listed companies than in the United States, thus increasing the risk of delayed settlements of portfolio transactions or loss of certificates for portfolio securities. There may be difficulties in obtaining or enforcing judgments against foreign issuers as well. These factors and others may increase the risks with respect to the liquidity of a fund, and its ability to meet a large number of shareholder redemption requests.

Foreign markets also have different clearance and settlement procedures and, in certain markets, there have been times when settlements have been unable to keep pace with the volume of securities transactions, making it difficult to conduct such transactions. Such delays in settlement could result in temporary periods when a portion of the assets of a fund is uninvested and no return is earned thereon. The inability to make intended security purchases due to settlement problems could cause a fund to miss attractive investment opportunities. Losses to a fund arising out of the inability to fulfill a contract to sell such securities also could result in potential liability for a fund.

Investments in the securities of foreign issuers may be made and held in foreign currencies. In addition, a fund may hold cash in foreign currencies. These investments may be affected favorably or unfavorably by changes in currency rates and in exchange control regulations, and may cause a fund to incur costs in connection with conversions between various currencies. The rate of exchange between the U.S. dollar and other currencies is determined by the forces of supply and demand in the foreign exchange market as well as by political and economic factors. Changes in the foreign currency exchange rates also may affect the value of dividends and interest earned, gains and losses realized on the sale of securities, and net investment income and gains, if any, to be distributed to shareholders by a fund.

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts (Principal investment of the Schwab International Equity ETF, Schwab International Small-Cap Equity ETF and Schwab Emerging Markets Equity ETF only) involve the purchase or sale of foreign currency at an established exchange rate, but with payment and delivery at a specified future time. Many foreign securities markets do not settle trades within a time frame that would be considered customary in the U.S. stock market. Therefore, a fund may engage in forward foreign currency exchange contracts in order to secure exchange rates for portfolio securities purchased or sold, but awaiting settlement. These transactions do not seek to eliminate any fluctuations in the underlying prices of the securities involved. Instead, the transactions simply establish a rate of exchange that can be expected when a fund settles its securities transactions in the future.

A fund may also use forward foreign currency exchange contracts to increase exposure to a foreign currency, to shift exposure to foreign currency fluctuations from one country to another or to protect the value of specific portfolio positions, which is called “position hedging.” When engaging in position hedging, a fund may enter into forward foreign currency exchange contracts to protect against a decline in the values of the foreign currencies in which portfolio securities are denominated (or against an increase in the value of currency for securities that a fund expects to purchase). A fund will earmark or segregate assets for any open positions in forwards used for non-hedging purposes and mark to market daily as may be required under the federal securities laws.

Buying and selling forward foreign currency exchange contracts involves costs and may result in losses. The ability of a fund to engage in these transactions may be limited by tax considerations. Although these techniques tend to minimize the risk of loss due to declines in the value of the hedged currency, they tend to limit any potential gain that might result from an increase in the value of such currency. Transactions in these contracts involve certain other risks. Unanticipated fluctuations in currency prices may result in a poorer overall performance for a fund than if it had not engaged in any such transactions. Moreover, there may be imperfect correlation between a fund’s holdings of securities denominated in a particular currency and forward contracts into which a fund enters. Such imperfect correlation may cause a fund to sustain losses, which will prevent it from achieving a complete hedge or expose it to risk of foreign exchange loss.

Suitable hedging transactions may not be available in all circumstances and there can be no assurance that a fund will engage in such transactions at any given time or from time to time. Also, such transactions may not be successful and may eliminate any chance for a fund to benefit from favorable fluctuations in relevant foreign currencies.

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts will be used primarily to adjust the foreign exchange exposure of a fund with a view to protecting the outlook, and a fund might be expected to enter into such contracts under the following circumstances:

Lock In. When the investment adviser desires to lock in the U.S. dollar price on the purchase or sale of a security denominated in a foreign currency.

Cross Hedge. If a particular currency is expected to decrease against another currency, a fund may sell the currency expected to decrease and purchase a currency which is expected to increase against the currency sold in an amount approximately equal to some or all of a fund’s portfolio holdings denominated in the currency sold.

Direct Hedge. If the investment adviser wants to a eliminate substantially all of the risk of owning a particular currency, it may employ a direct hedge back into the U.S. dollar. In such case, a fund would enter into a forward contract to sell the currency in which a portfolio security is denominated and purchase U.S. dollars at an exchange rate established at the time it initiated the contract. The cost of the direct hedge transaction may offset most, if not all, of the yield advantage offered by the foreign security, but a fund would benefit from an increase in value of the security.

Proxy Hedge. The investment adviser might choose to use a proxy hedge, which may be less costly than a direct hedge. In this case, a fund, having purchased a security, will sell a currency whose value is believed to be closely linked to the currency in which the security is denominated. Interest rates prevailing in the country whose currency was sold would be expected to be closer to those in the U.S. and lower than those of securities denominated in the currency of the original holding. This type of hedging entails greater risk than a direct hedge because it is dependent on a stable relationship between the two currencies paired as proxies and the relationships can be very unstable at times.

Costs of Hedging. When a fund purchases a foreign security with a higher interest rate than is available on U.S. securities, the additional yield on the foreign security could be substantially reduced or lost if a fund were to enter into a direct hedge by selling the foreign currency and purchasing the U.S. dollar. This is what is known as the “cost” of hedging. Proxy hedging attempts to reduce this cost through an indirect hedge back to the U.S. dollar. It is important to note that hedging costs are treated as capital transactions and are not, therefore, deducted from a fund’s dividend distribution and are not reflected in its yield. Instead such costs will, over time, be reflected in a fund’s net asset value per share.

Tax Consequences of Hedging. Under applicable tax law, a fund may be required to limit its gains from hedging in forward foreign currency exchange contracts. Although a fund is expected to comply with such limits, the extent to which these limits apply is subject to tax regulations as yet unissued. Hedging may also result in the application of the mark-to-market and straddle provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. Those provisions could result in 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.

Futures Contracts are instruments that represent an agreement between two parties that obligates one party to buy, and the other party to sell, specific instruments at an agreed-upon price on a stipulated future date. In the case of futures contracts relating to an index or otherwise not calling for physical delivery at the close of the transaction, the parties usually agree to deliver the final cash settlement price of the contract. A fund may purchase and sell futures contracts based on securities, securities indices and foreign currencies, interest rates, or any other futures contracts traded on U.S. exchanges or boards of trade that the Commodities Future Trading Commission (“CFTC”) licenses and regulates on foreign exchanges. Consistent with CFTC regulations, the trust has claimed an exclusion from the definition of the term “commodity pool operator” under the Commodity Exchange Act and, therefore, is not subject to registration or regulation as a pool operator under the Commodity Exchange Act.

A fund must maintain a small portion of its assets in cash to process shareholder transactions in and out of it and to pay its expenses. In order to reduce the effect this otherwise uninvested cash would have on its performance, a fund may purchase futures contracts. Such transactions allow a fund’s cash balance to produce a return similar to that of the underlying security or index on which the futures contract is based. Also, a fund may purchase or sell futures contracts on a specified foreign currency to “fix” the price in U.S. dollars of the foreign security it has acquired or sold or expects to acquire or sell. A fund may enter into futures contracts for other reasons as well.

When buying or selling futures contracts, a fund must place a deposit with its broker equal to a fraction of the contract amount. This amount is known as “initial margin” and must be in the form of liquid debt instruments, including cash, cash-equivalents and U.S. government securities. Subsequent payments to and from the broker, known as “variation margin” may be made daily, if necessary, as the value of the futures contracts fluctuate. This process is known as “marking-to-market.” The margin amount will be returned to a fund upon termination of the futures contracts assuming all contractual obligations are satisfied. Because margin requirements are normally only a fraction of the amount of the futures contracts in a given transaction, futures trading can involve a great deal of leverage. In order to avoid this, a fund will earmark or segregate assets for any outstanding futures contracts as may be required under the federal securities laws.

While a fund intends to purchase and sell futures contracts in order to simulate full investment, there are risks associated with these transactions. Adverse market movements could cause a fund to experience substantial losses when buying and selling futures contracts. Of course, barring significant market distortions, similar results would have been expected if a fund had instead transacted in the underlying securities directly. There also is the risk of losing any margin payments held by a broker in the event of its bankruptcy. Additionally, a fund incurs transaction costs (i.e. brokerage fees) when engaging in futures trading. To the extent a fund also invests in futures in order to simulate full investment, these same risks apply.

When interest rates are rising or securities prices are falling, a fund may seek, through the sale of futures contracts, to offset a decline in the value of their current portfolio securities. When rates are falling or prices are rising, a fund, through the purchase of futures contracts, may attempt to secure better rates or prices than might later be available in the market when they effect anticipated purchases. Similarly, a fund may sell futures contracts on a specified currency to protect against a decline in the value of that currency and their portfolio securities that are denominated in that currency. A fund may purchase futures contracts on a foreign currency to fix the price in U.S. dollars of a security denominated in that currency that a fund has acquired or expects to acquire.

Futures contracts normally require actual delivery or acquisition of an underlying security or cash value of an index on the expiration date of the contract. In most cases, however, the contractual obligation is fulfilled before the date of the contract by buying or selling, as the case may be, identical futures contracts. Such offsetting transactions terminate the original contracts and cancel the obligation to take or make delivery of the underlying securities or cash. There may not always be a liquid secondary market at the time a fund seeks to close out a futures position. If a fund is unable to close out its position and prices move adversely, a fund would have to continue to make daily cash payments to maintain its margin requirements. If a fund had insufficient cash to meet these requirements it may have to sell portfolio securities at a disadvantageous time or incur extra costs by borrowing the cash. Also, a fund may be required to make or take delivery and incur extra transaction costs buying or selling the underlying securities. A fund seeks to reduce the risks associated with futures transactions by buying and selling futures contracts that are traded on national exchanges or for which there appears to be a liquid secondary market.

With respect to futures contracts that are not legally required to “cash settle,” a fund may cover the open position by setting aside or earmarking liquid assets in an amount equal to the market value of the futures contracts. With respect to futures contracts that are required to “cash settle,” however, a fund is permitted to set aside or earmark liquid assets in an amount equal to the fund’s daily marked to market (net) obligation, if any, (in other words, the fund’s daily net liability, if any) rather than the market value of the futures contracts. By setting aside assets or earmarking equal to only its net obligation under cash-settled futures, a fund will have the ability to employ leverage to a greater extent than if the fund were required to set aside or earmark assets equal to the full market value of the futures contract.

Indexing Strategies involve tracking the securities represented in, and therefore the performance of, an index. Each fund normally will invest primarily in the securities of its index. Moreover, each fund seeks to invest so that its portfolio performs similarly to that of its index. Each fund will seek a correlation between its performance and that of its index of 0.95 or better. Correlation for each fund is calculated daily, according to a mathematical formula (“R-squared) which measures correlation between a fund’s portfolio and benchmark index returns. A perfect correlation of 1.0 is unlikely as the funds incur operating and trading expenses unlike their indices. The Board will monitor each fund’s correlation to its index on a periodic basis. If determined to be in the best interest of a fund and its shareholders, the Board may determine to substitute a different index for the index a fund currently tracks, such determination to be made by the Board based on its evaluation of all pertinent facts and circumstances, including the review of any period(s) of time for which a fund did not achieve its intended correlation and the reasons for such non-correlation. The Board has not established any particular time period of non-correlation that would cause the Board to automatically consider substituting a different index for the index a fund currently tracks.

Money Market Securities are high-quality, short term debt securities that may be issued by entities such as the U.S. government, corporations and financial institutions (like banks). Money market securities include commercial paper, certificates of deposit, banker’s acceptances, notes and time deposits. Certificates of deposit and time deposits are issued against funds deposited in a banking institution for a specified period of time at a specified interest rate. Banker’s acceptances are credit instruments evidencing a bank’s obligation to pay a draft drawn on it by a customer. These instruments reflect the obligation both of the bank and of the drawer to pay the full amount of the instrument upon maturity. Commercial paper consists of short term, unsecured promissory notes issued to finance short term credit needs.

Money market securities pay fixed, variable or floating rates of interest and are generally subject to credit and interest rate risks. The maturity date or price of and financial assets collateralizing a security may be structured in order to make it qualify as or act like a money market security. These securities may be subject to greater credit and interest rate risks than other money market securities because of their structure. Money market securities may be issued with puts or sold separately, sometimes called demand features or guarantees, which are agreements that allow the buyer to sell a security at a specified price and time to the seller or “put provider.” When a fund buys a put, losses could occur as a result of the costs of the put or if it exercises its rights under the put and the put provider does not perform as agreed.

A fund may keep a portion of its assets in cash for business operations. In order to reduce the effect this otherwise uninvested cash would have on its performance, a fund may invest in money market securities. A fund may also invest in money market securities to the extent it is consistent with its investment objective.

Options Contracts generally provide the right to buy or sell a security, commodity, futures contract or foreign currency in exchange for an agreed upon price. If the right is not exercised after a specified period, the option expires and the option buyer forfeits the money paid to the option seller.

A call option gives the buyer the right to buy a specified number of shares of a security at a fixed price on or before a specified date in the future. For this right, the call option buyer pays the call option seller, commonly called the call option writer, a fee called a premium. Call option buyers are usually anticipating that the price of the underlying security will rise above the price fixed with the call writer, thereby allowing them to profit. If the price of the underlying security does not rise, the call option buyer’s losses are limited to the premium paid to the call option writer. For call option writers, a rise in the price of the underlying security will be offset in part by the premium received from the call option buyer. If the call option writer does not own the underlying security, however, the losses that may ensue if the price rises could be potentially unlimited. If the call option writer owns the underlying security or commodity, this is called writing a covered call. All call and put options written by a fund will be covered, which means that a fund will own the securities subject to the option so long as the option is outstanding or a fund will earmark or segregate assets for any outstanding option contracts.

A put option is the opposite of a call option. It gives the buyer the right to sell a specified number of shares of a security at a fixed price on or before a specified date in the future. Put option buyers are usually anticipating a decline in the price of the underlying security, and wish to offset those losses when selling the security at a later date. All put options a fund writes will be covered, which means that a fund will earmark or segregate cash, U.S. government securities or other liquid securities with a value at least equal to the exercise price of the put option. The purpose of writing such options is to generate additional income for a fund. However, in return for the option premium, a fund accepts the risk that they may be required to purchase the underlying securities at a price in excess of the securities’ market value at the time of purchase.

A fund may purchase and write put and call options on any securities in which they may invest or any securities index or basket of securities based on securities in which they may invest. In addition, a fund may purchase and sell foreign currency options and foreign currency futures contracts and related options. A fund may purchase and write such options on securities that are listed on domestic or foreign securities exchanges or traded in the over-the-counter market. Like futures contracts, option contracts are rarely exercised. Option buyers usually sell the option before it expires. Option writers may terminate their obligations under a written call or put option by purchasing an option identical to the one it has written. Such purchases are referred to as “closing purchase transactions.” A fund may enter into closing sale transactions in order to realize gains or minimize losses on options they have purchased or wrote.

An exchange-traded currency option position may be closed out only on an options exchange that provides a secondary market for an option of the same series. Although a fund generally will purchase or write only those options for which there appears to be an active secondary market, there is no assurance that a liquid secondary market will exist for any particular option or at any particular time. If a fund is unable to effect a closing purchase transaction with respect to options it has written, it will not be able to sell the underlying securities or dispose of assets earmarked or held in a segregated account until the options expire or are exercised. Similarly, if a fund is unable to effect a closing sale transaction with respect to options it has purchased, it would have to exercise the options in order to realize any profit and will incur transaction costs upon the purchase or sale of underlying securities.

Reasons for the absence of a liquid secondary market on an exchange include the following: (1) there may be insufficient trading interest in certain options; (2) an exchange may impose restrictions on opening transactions or closing transactions or both; (3) trading halts, suspensions or other restrictions may be imposed with respect to particular classes or series of options; (4) unusual or unforeseen circumstances may interrupt normal operations on an exchange; (5) the facilities of an exchange or the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) may not at all times be adequate to handle current trading volume; or (6) one or more exchanges could, for economic or other reasons, decide or be compelled at some future date to discontinue the trading of options (or a particular class or series of options), although outstanding options on that exchange that had been issued by the OCC as a result of trades on that exchange would continue to be exercisable in accordance with their terms.

The ability to terminate over-the-counter options is more limited than with exchange-traded options and may involve the risk that broker-dealers participating in such transactions will not fulfill their obligations. Until such time as the staff of the SEC changes its position, a fund will treat purchased over-the-counter options and all assets used to cover written over-the-counter options as illiquid securities, except that with respect to options written with primary dealers in U.S. government securities pursuant to an agreement requiring a closing purchase transaction at a formula price, the amount of illiquid securities may be calculated with reference to a formula the staff of the SEC approves.

Additional risks are involved with options trading because of the low margin deposits required and the extremely high degree of leverage that may be involved in options trading. There may be imperfect correlation between the change in market value of the securities held by a fund and the prices of the options, possible lack of a liquid secondary market, and the resulting inability to close such positions prior to their maturity dates.

A fund may write or purchase an option only when the market value of that option, when aggregated with the market value of all other options transactions made on behalf of a fund, does not exceed 5% of its net assets.

Securities Lending of portfolio securities is a common practice in the securities industry. A fund may engage in security lending arrangements. For example, a fund may receive cash collateral, and it may invest it in short term, interest-bearing obligations, but will do so only to the extent that it will not lose the tax treatment available to regulated investment companies. Lending portfolio securities involves risks that the borrower may fail to return the securities or provide additional collateral. Also, voting rights with respect to the loaned securities may pass with the lending of the securities.

A fund may loan portfolio securities to qualified broker-dealers or other institutional investors provided: (1) the loan is secured continuously by collateral consisting of U.S. government securities, letters of credit, cash or cash equivalents or other appropriate instruments maintained on a daily marked-to-market basis in an amount at least equal to the current market value of the securities loaned; (2) a fund may at any time call the loan and obtain the return of the securities loaned; (3) a fund will receive any interest or dividends paid on the loaned securities; and (4) the aggregate market value of securities loaned will not at any time exceed one-third of the total assets of a fund, including collateral received from the loan (at market value computed at the time of the loan).

Although voting rights with respect to loaned securities pass to the borrower, the lender retains the right to recall a security (or terminate a loan) for the purpose of exercising the security’s voting rights. Efforts to recall such securities promptly may be unsuccessful, especially for foreign securities or thinly traded securities such as small-cap stocks. In addition, because recalling a security may involve expenses to a fund, it is expected that a fund will do so only where the items being voted upon are, in the judgment of the investment adviser, either material to the economic value of the security or threaten to materially impact the issuer’s corporate governance policies or structure.

Securities of Other Investment Companies. Investment companies generally offer investors the advantages of diversification and professional investment management, by combining shareholders’ money and investing it in securities such as stocks, bonds and money market instruments. Investment companies include: (1) open-end funds (commonly called mutual funds) that issue and redeem their shares on a continuous basis; (2) closed-end funds that offer a fixed number of shares, and are usually listed on an exchange; and (3) unit investment trusts that generally offer a fixed number of redeemable shares. Certain open-end funds, closed-end funds and unit investment trusts are traded on exchanges.

Investment companies may make investments and use techniques designed to enhance their performance. These may include delayed-delivery and when-issued securities transactions; swap agreements; buying and selling futures contracts, illiquid, and/or restricted securities and repurchase agreements; and borrowing or lending money and/or portfolio securities. The risks of investing in a particular investment company will generally reflect the risks of the securities in which it invests and the investment techniques it employs. Also, investment companies charge fees and incur expenses.

The funds may buy securities of other investment companies, including those of foreign issuers, in compliance with the requirements of federal law or any SEC exemptive order. A fund may invest in investment companies that are not registered with the SEC or privately placed securities of investment companies (which may or may not be registered), such as hedge funds and offshore funds. Unregistered funds are largely exempt from the regulatory requirements that apply to registered investment companies. As a result, unregistered funds may have a greater ability to make investments, or use investment techniques, that offer a higher potential investment return (for example, leveraging), but which may carry high risk. Unregistered funds, while not regulated by the SEC like registered funds, may be indirectly supervised by the financial institutions (e.g., commercial and investment banks) that may provide them with loans or other sources of capital. Investments in unregistered funds may be difficult to sell, which could cause a fund selling an interest in an unregistered fund to lose money. For example, many hedge funds require their investors to hold their investments for at least one year.

Federal law restricts the ability of one registered investment company to invest in another. As a result, the extent to which a fund may invest in another investment company may be limited. With respect to investments in other mutual funds, the SEC has granted the funds an exemption from the limitations of the 1940 Act that restrict the amount of securities of underlying mutual funds a fund may hold, provided that certain conditions are met. The conditions requested by the SEC were designed to address certain abuses perceived to be associated with funds of funds, including unnecessary costs (such as sales loads, advisory fees and administrative costs), and undue influence by a fund of funds over the underlying fund. The conditions apply only when a fund and its affiliates in the aggregate own more than 3% of the outstanding shares of any one underlying fund.

Under the terms of the exemptive order, each fund and its affiliates may not control a non-affiliated underlying fund. Under the 1940 Act, any person who owns beneficially, either directly or through one or more controlled companies, more than 25% of the voting securities of a company is assumed to control that company. This limitation is measured at the time the investment is made.

Small-Cap Stocks (Principal investment for Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF, Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF and Schwab International Small-Cap Equity ETF only. Permissible non-principal investment for each other fund.) Small-cap stocks include common stocks issued by operating companies with market capitalizations that place them at the lower end of the stock market, as well as the stocks of companies that are determined to be small based on several factors, including the capitalization of the company and the amount of revenues. Historically, small company stocks have been riskier than stocks issued by large- or mid-cap companies for a variety of reasons. Small-companies may have less certain growth prospects and are typically less diversified and less able to withstand changing economic conditions than larger capitalized companies. Small-cap companies also may have more limited product lines, markets or financial resources than companies with larger capitalizations, and may be more dependent on a relatively small management group. In addition, small-cap companies may not be well known to the investing public, may not have institutional ownership and may have only cyclical, static or moderate growth prospects. Most small company stocks pay low or no dividends.

These factors and others may cause sharp changes in the value of a small company’s stock, and even cause some small-cap companies to fail. Additionally, small-cap stocks may not be as broadly traded as large- or mid-cap stocks, and a fund’s positions in securities of such companies may be substantial in relation to the market for such securities. Accordingly, it may be difficult for a fund to dispose of securities of these small-cap companies at prevailing market prices in order to meet redemptions. This lower degree of liquidity can adversely affect the value of these securities. For these reasons and others, the value of a fund’s investments in small-cap stocks is expected to be more volatile than other types of investments, including other types of stock investments. While small-cap stocks are generally considered to offer greater growth opportunities for investors, they involve greater risks and the share price of a fund that invests in small-cap stocks may change sharply during the short term and long term.

Stock Substitution Strategy is a strategy, whereby each fund may, in certain circumstances, substitute a similar stock for a security in its index. For example, a stock issued by a foreign corporation and included in a fund’s index may not be available for purchase by a fund because the fund does not reside in the foreign country in which the stock was issued. However, the foreign corporation may have issued a series of stock that is sold only to foreign investors such as a fund. In these cases, a fund may buy that issue as a substitute for the security included in its index. Each fund may invest up to 10% of its assets in stocks that are designed to substitute for securities in its index.

Swap Agreements are privately negotiated over-the-counter derivative products in which two parties agree to exchange payment streams calculated in relation to a rate, index, instrument or certain securities (referred to as the “underlying”) and a predetermined amount (referred to as the “notional amount”). The underlying for a swap may be an interest rate (fixed or floating), a currency exchange rate, a commodity price index, a security, group of securities or a securities index, a combination of any of these, or various other rates, assets or indices. Swap agreements generally do not involve the delivery of the underlying or principal, and a party’s obligations generally are equal to only the net amount to be paid or received under the agreement based on the relative values of the positions held by each party to the swap agreement.

Swap agreements can be structured to increase or decrease a fund’s exposure to long or short term interest rates, corporate borrowing rates and other conditions, such as changing security prices and inflation rates. They also can be structured to increase or decrease a fund’s exposure to specific issuers or specific sectors of the bond market such as mortgage securities. For example, if a fund agreed to pay a longer-term fixed rate in exchange for a shorter-term floating rate while holding longer-term fixed rate bonds, the swap would tend to decrease the fund’s exposure to longer-term interest rates. Swap agreements tend to increase or decrease the overall volatility of a fund’s investments and its share price and yield. Changes in interest rates, or other factors determining the amount of payments due to and from a fund, can be the most significant factors in the performance of a swap agreement. If a swap agreement calls for payments from a fund, the fund must be prepared to make such payments when they are due. In order to help minimize risks, a fund will earmark or segregate appropriate assets for any accrued but unpaid net amounts owed under the terms of a swap agreement entered into on a net basis. All other swap agreements will require a fund to earmark or segregate assets in the amount of the accrued amounts owed under the swap. A fund could sustain losses if a counterparty does not perform as agreed under the terms of the swap. A fund will enter into swap agreements with counterparties deemed creditworthy by the investment adviser. Swap counterparties will generally be primary dealers or banks rated single A or greater or subsidiaries of entities rated A or greater. The funds do not intend to enter swap agreements with counterparties that are unrated, unless they are subsidiaries of issuers that meet the minimum rating requirement.

In addition, as a non-principal investment, a fund may invest in swaptions, which are privately-negotiated option-based derivative products that are subject to the risks of both options and swap agreements, each of which are discussed elsewhere in this SAI. Swaptions give the holder the right to enter into a swap. A fund may use a swaption in addition to or in lieu of a swap involving a similar rate or index.

For purposes of applying a fund’s investment policies and restrictions (as stated in the prospectus and this SAI) swap agreements are generally valued by the fund at market value. The manner in which certain securities or other instruments are valued by a fund for purposes of applying investment policies and restrictions may differ from the manner in which those investments are valued by other types of investors.

Each fund may allocate up to 10% of its net assets to derivatives investments, which includes swaps and swaptions.

U.S. Government Securities are issued by the U.S. Treasury or issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities. Not all U.S. government securities are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Some U.S. government securities, such as those issued by the Federal National Mortgage Association (known as Fannie Mae), Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (known as Freddie Mac), the Student Loan Marketing Association (known as Sallie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Banks, are supported by a line of credit the issuing entity has with the U.S. Treasury. Others are supported solely by the credit of the issuing agency or instrumentality such as obligations issued by the Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation. There can be no assurance that the U.S. government will provide financial support to U.S. government securities of its agencies and instrumentalities if it is not obligated to do so under law. Of course U.S. government securities, including U.S. Treasury securities, are among the safest securities, however, not unlike other debt securities, they are still sensitive to interest rate changes, which will cause their yields and prices to fluctuate.

On September 7, 2008, the U.S. Treasury announced a federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, placing the two federal instrumentalities in conservatorship. Under the takeover, the U.S. Treasury agreed to acquire $1 billion of senior preferred stock of each instrumentality and obtained warrants for the purchase of common stock of each instrumentality. Under this agreement, the U.S. Treasury has pledged to provide up to $100 billion per instrumentality as needed, including the contribution of cash capital to the instrumentalities in the event their liabilities exceed their assets. This is intended to ensure that the instrumentalities maintain a positive net worth and meet their financial obligations preventing mandatory triggering of receivership. Additionally, the U.S. Treasury has implemented a temporary program to purchase new mortgage-backed securities issued by the instrumentalities. This is intended to create more affordable mortgage rates for homeowners, enhance the liquidity of the mortgage market and potentially maintain or increase the value of existing mortgage-backed securities. The program expires in December 2009. No assurance can be given that the U.S. Treasury initiatives will be successful.

Non-Principal Investment Strategy Investments

The following investments may be used as part of each fund’s non-principal investment strategy:

Bankers’ Acceptances or notes are credit instruments evidencing a bank’s obligation to pay a draft drawn on it by a customer. These instruments reflect the obligation both of the bank and of the drawer to pay the full amount of the instrument upon maturity. A fund will invest only in bankers’ acceptances of banks that have capital, surplus and undivided profits in the aggregate in excess of $100 million.

Borrowing. A fund may borrow money from banks for any purpose in an amount up to 1/3 of the fund’s total assets. The funds also may borrow money for temporary purposes in an amount not to exceed 5% of the funds’ total assets. Provisions of the 1940 Act, as amended, require the funds to maintain continuous asset coverage (that is, total assets including borrowings, less liabilities exclusive of borrowings) of 300% of the amount borrowed, with an exception for borrowings not in excess of 5% of a fund’s total assets made for temporary purposes. Any borrowings for temporary purposes in excess of 5% of a fund’s total assets must maintain continuous asset coverage. If the 300% asset coverage should decline as a result of market fluctuations or other reasons, the funds may be required to sell some of its portfolio holdings within three days to reduce the debt and restore the 300% asset coverage, even though it may be disadvantageous from an investment standpoint to sell securities at that time.

A fund may borrow for temporary or emergency purposes; for example, a fund may borrow at times to meet redemption requests rather than sell portfolio securities to raise the necessary cash. The fund’s borrowings will be subject to interest costs. Borrowing can also involve leveraging when securities are purchased with the borrowed money. Leveraging creates interest expenses that can exceed the income from the assets purchased with the borrowed money. In addition, leveraging may magnify changes in the net asset value of a fund’s shares and in its portfolio yield. A fund will earmark or segregate assets to cover such borrowings in accordance with positions of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). If assets used to secure a borrowing decrease in value, a fund may be required to pledge additional collateral to avoid liquidation of those assets.

A fund may establish lines-of-credit (“lines”) with certain banks by which it may borrow funds for temporary or emergency purposes. A borrowing is presumed to be for temporary or emergency purposes if it is repaid by a fund within 60 days and is not extended or renewed. A fund may use the lines to meet large or unexpected redemptions that would otherwise force a fund to liquidate securities under circumstances which are unfavorable to a fund’s remaining shareholders. A fund will pay a fee to the bank for using the lines.

Certificates of Deposit or time deposits are issued against funds deposited in a banking institution for a specified period of time at a specified interest rate. A fund will invest only in certificates of deposit of banks that have capital, surplus and undivided profits in the aggregate in excess of $100 million.

Commercial Paper consists of short term, promissory notes issued by banks, corporations and other institutions to finance short term credit needs. These securities generally are discounted but sometimes may be interest bearing. Commercial paper, which also may be unsecured, is subject to credit risk.

Debt Securities are obligations issued by domestic and foreign entities, including governments and corporations, in order to raise money. They are basically “IOUs,” but are commonly referred to as bonds or money market securities. These securities normally require the issuer to pay a fixed, variable or floating rate of interest on the amount of money borrowed (“principal”) until it is paid back upon maturity.

Debt securities experience price changes when interest rates change. For example, when interest rates fall, the prices of debt securities generally rise. Also, issuers tend to pre-pay their outstanding debts and issue new ones paying lower interest rates.

Conversely, in a rising interest rate environment, prepayment on outstanding debt securities generally will not occur. This is known as extension risk and may cause the value of debt securities to depreciate as a result of the higher market interest rates. Typically, longer-maturity securities react to interest rate changes more severely than shorter-term securities (all things being equal), but generally offer greater rates of interest.

Debt securities also are subject to the risk that the issuers will not make timely interest and/or principal payments or fail to make them at all. This is called credit risk. Debt instruments also may be subject to price volatility due to market perception of future interest rates, the creditworthiness of the issuer and general market liquidity (market risk). Investment-grade debt securities are considered medium- or/and high-quality securities, although some still possess varying degrees of speculative characteristics and risks.

The funds will limit their investments in debt securities to those that are rated investment-grade, which means that the securities are rated by at least one Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (“NRSRO”), such as Standard & Poor’s Corporation, Moody’s Investors Service, Fitch, Inc. or Dominion Bond Rating Service, in one of the four highest rating categories (within which there may be sub-categories or gradations indicating relative standing). See Appendix A for a description of the ratings. The ratings of NRSROs represent their opinions as to the quality of the securities. It should be emphasized, however, that these ratings are general and are not absolute standards of quality. Consequently, obligations with the same rating, maturity and interest rate may have different market prices. Further, NRSROs may have conflicts of interest relating to the issuance of a credit rating and such conflicts may affect the integrity of the credit rating process or the methodologies used to develop credit ratings for securities. Such conflicts may include, but are not limited to, NRSROs being paid by issuers or underwriters to determine the credit ratings with respect to the securities they issue or underwrite, NRSROs being paid by issuers and underwriters for services in addition to the NRSROs determination of credit ratings; allowing persons with the NRSRO to directly own securities or money market instruments of, or having other direct ownership interests in, issuers or obligors subject to a credit rating determined by the NRSRO; and allowing persons within the NRSRO to have a business relationship that is more than an arms length ordinary course of business relationship with issuers or obligors subject to a credit rating determined by the NRSRO.

In addition, credit ratings are generally given to securities at the time of issuance. While the rating agencies may from time to time revise such ratings, they undertake no obligation to do so, and the ratings given to securities at issuance do not necessarily represent ratings which would be given to these securities on a particular subsequent date. Accordingly, investors should note that the assignment of a rating to a security by a rating service may not reflect the effect of recent developments on the issuer’s ability to make interest and principal payments.

The market for these securities has historically been less liquid than investment grade securities.

Delayed-Delivery Transactions include purchasing and selling securities on a delayed-delivery or when-issued basis. These transactions involve a commitment to buy or sell specific securities at a predetermined price or yield, with payment and delivery taking place after the customary settlement period for that type of security. When purchasing securities on a delayed-delivery basis, a fund assumes the rights and risks of ownership, including the risk of price and yield fluctuations. Typically, no interest will accrue to a fund until the security is delivered. A fund will earmark or segregate appropriate liquid assets to cover its delayed-delivery purchase obligations. When a fund sells a security on a delayed-delivery basis, a fund does not participate in further gains or losses with respect to that security. If the other party to a delayed-delivery transaction fails to deliver or pay for the securities, a fund could suffer losses.

Foreign Currency Transactions (Non-principal investments of the Schwab International Equity ETF, the Schwab International Small-Cap Equity ETF and the Schwab Emerging Markets Equity ETF only). A fund may invest in foreign currency-denominated securities, may purchase and sell foreign currency options and foreign currency futures contracts and related options and may engage in foreign currency transactions on a spot (cash) basis at the rate prevailing in the currency exchange market at the time. A fund may engage in these transactions in order to protect against uncertainty in the level of future foreign exchange rates in the purchase and sale of securities. A fund may also use foreign currency options and futures to increase exposure to a foreign currency or to shift exposure to foreign currency fluctuations from one country to another.

Buying and selling foreign currency options and foreign currency futures contracts and related options involves costs and may result in losses. The ability of a fund to engage in these transactions may be limited by tax considerations. Although these techniques tend to minimize the risk of loss due to declines in the value of the hedged currency, they tend to limit any potential gain that might result from an increase in the value of such currency. Transactions in these contracts involve certain other risks. Unanticipated fluctuations in currency prices may result in a poorer overall performance for a fund than if it had not engaged in any such transactions. Moreover, there may be imperfect correlation between a fund’s holdings of securities denominated in a particular currency and the currency transactions into which a fund enters. Such imperfect correlation may cause a fund to sustain losses, which will prevent it from achieving a complete hedge or expose it to risk of foreign exchange loss.

A fund may buy or sell foreign currency options and foreign currency futures contracts and related options under the same circumstances, and such use is subject to the same risks and costs, as those set forth in the section “Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts” with respect to the fund’s use of forward foreign currency exchange contracts.

Illiquid Securities generally are any securities that cannot be disposed of promptly and in the ordinary course of business within seven days at approximately the amount at which a fund has valued the instruments. The liquidity of a fund’s investments is monitored under the supervision and direction of the Board of Trustees. Each fund may not invest more than 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities. In the event that a subsequent change in net assets or other circumstances cause a fund to exceed this limitation, the fund will take steps to bring the aggregate amount of illiquid instruments back within the limitations as soon as reasonably practicable.

In making liquidity determinations before purchasing a particular security, the Adviser considers a number of factors including, but not limited to: the nature and size of the security; the number of dealers that make a market in the security; and data which indicates that a security’s price has not changed for a period of a week or longer. After purchase, it is the Adviser’s policy to maintain awareness of developments in the marketplace that could cause a change in a security’s liquid or illiquid status. Investments currently not considered liquid include repurchase agreements not maturing within seven days and certain restricted securities.

Interfund Borrowing and Lending. A fund may borrow money from and/or lend money to other funds/portfolios in the Schwab complex, including traditional mutual funds/portfolios not discussed in this SAI or in the corresponding prospectus. All loans are for temporary or emergency purposes and the interest rates to be charged will be the average of the overnight repurchase agreement rate and the short term bank loan rate. All loans are subject to numerous conditions designed to ensure fair and equitable treatment of all participating funds/portfolios. These conditions include, for example, that a fund’s participation in the credit facility must be consistent with its investment policies and limitations and organizational documents; no fund may lend to another fund through the interfund lending facility if the loan would cause the aggregate outstanding loans through the credit facility to exceed 15% of the lending fund’s current net assets at the time of the loan; and that a fund’s interfund loans to any one fund shall not exceed 5% of the lending fund’s net assets. With respect to the funds discussed in this SAI, a fund lending to another fund may forego gains which could have been made had those assets been invested in securities of its applicable underlying index. The interfund lending facility is subject to the oversight and periodic review of the Board of Trustees.

Non-Publicly Traded Securities and Private Placements. A fund may receive in securities that are neither listed on a stock exchange nor traded over-the-counter, including privately placed securities. Such unlisted securities may involve a higher degree of business and financial risk that can result in substantial losses. As a result of the absence of a public trading market for these securities, they may be less liquid than publicly traded securities. Although these securities may be sold in privately negotiated transactions, the prices realized from these sales could be less than those originally paid by a fund or less than what may be considered the fair value of such securities. Furthermore, companies whose securities are not publicly traded may not be subject to the disclosure and other investor protection requirements which might be applicable if their securities were publicly traded. If such securities are required to be registered under the securities laws of one or more jurisdictions before being sold, a fund may be required to bear the expenses of registration. Though the funds do not intend to purchase these securities, they may receive such securities as a result of another transaction, such as the spin-off of a company’s subsidiary to a separate entity.

Promissory Notes are written agreements committing the maker or issuer to pay the payee a specified amount either on demand or at a fixed date in the future, with or without interest. These are sometimes called negotiable notes or instruments and are subject to credit risk. Bank notes are notes used to represent obligations issued by banks in large denominations.

Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITS) are pooled investment vehicles, which invest primarily in income producing real estate or real estate related loans or interests and, in some cases, manage real estate. REITs are sometimes referred to as equity REITs, mortgage REITs or hybrid REITs. An equity REIT invests primarily in properties and generates income from rental and lease properties and, in some cases, from the management of real estate. Equity REITs also offer the potential for growth as a result of property appreciation and from the sale of appreciated property. Mortgage REITs invest primarily in real estate mortgages, which may secure construction, development or long term loans, and derive income for the collection of interest payments. Hybrid REITs may combine the features of equity REITs and mortgage REITs. REITs are generally organized as corporations or business trusts, but are not taxed as a corporation if they meet certain requirements of Subchapter M of the Code. To qualify, a REIT must, among other things, invest substantially all of its assets in interests in real estate (including other REITs), cash and government securities, distribute at least 95% of its taxable income to its shareholders and receive at least 75% of that income from rents, mortgages and sales of property.

Like any investment in real estate, a REIT’s performance depends on many factors, such as its ability to find tenants for its properties, to renew leases, and to finance property purchases and renovations. In general, REITs may be affected by changes in underlying real estate values, which may have an exaggerated effect to the extent a REIT concentrates its investment in certain regions or property types. For example, rental income could decline because of extended vacancies, increased competition from nearby properties, tenants’ failure to pay rent, or incompetent management. Property values could decrease because of overbuilding, environmental liabilities, uninsured damages caused by natural disasters, a general decline in the neighborhood, losses due to casualty or condemnation, increases in property taxes, or changes in zoning laws. Ultimately, a REIT’s performance depends on the types of properties it owns and how well the REIT manages its properties. Additionally, declines in the market value of a REIT may reflect not only depressed real estate prices, but may also reflect the degree of leverage utilized by the REIT.

In general, during periods of rising interest rates, REITs may lose some of their appeal for investors who may be able to obtain higher yields from other income-producing investments, such as long term bonds. Higher interest rates also mean that financing for property purchases and improvements is more costly and difficult to obtain. During periods of declining interest rates, certain mortgage REITs may hold mortgages that mortgagors elect to prepay, which can reduce the yield on securities issued by mortgage REITs. Mortgage REITs may be affected by the ability of borrowers to repay debts to the REIT when due and equity REITs may be affected by the ability of tenants to pay rent.

Like small-cap stocks in general, certain REITs have relatively small market capitalizations and their securities can be more volatile than—and at times will perform differently from—large-cap stocks. In addition, because small-cap stocks are typically less liquid than large-cap stocks, REIT stocks may sometimes experience greater share-price fluctuations than the stocks of larger companies. Further, REITs are dependent upon specialized management skills, have limited diversification, and are therefore subject to risks inherent in operating and financing a limited number of projects. By investing in REITs indirectly through a fund, a shareholder will bear indirectly a proportionate share of the REIT’s expenses in addition to their proportionate share of a fund’s expenses. Finally, REITs could possibly fail to qualify for tax-free pass-through of income under the Code or to maintain their exemptions from registration under the 1940 Act.

Repurchase Agreements are instruments under which a buyer acquires ownership of certain securities (usually U.S. government securities) from a seller who agrees to repurchase the securities at a mutually agreed-upon time and price, thereby determining the yield during the buyer’s holding period. Any repurchase agreements a fund enters into will involve a fund as the buyer and banks or broker-dealers as sellers. The period of repurchase agreements is usually short — from overnight to one week, although the securities

collateralizing a repurchase agreement may have longer maturity dates. Default by the seller might cause a fund to experience a loss or delay in the liquidation of the collateral securing the repurchase agreement. A fund also may incur disposition costs in liquidating the collateral. In the event of a bankruptcy or other default of a repurchase agreement’s seller, a fund might incur expenses in enforcing its rights, and could experience losses, including a decline in the value of the underlying securities and loss of income. A fund will make payment under a repurchase agreement only upon physical delivery or evidence of book entry transfer of the collateral to the account of its custodian bank. Repurchase agreements are the economic equivalents of loans.

Restricted Securities are securities that are subject to legal restrictions on their sale. Restricted securities may be considered to be liquid if an institutional or other market exists for these securities. In making this determination, a fund, under the direction and supervision of the Board of Trustees will take into account various factors, including: (1) the frequency of trades and quotes for the security; (2) the number of dealers willing to purchase or sell the security and the number of potential purchasers; (3) dealer undertakings to make a market in the security; and (4) the nature of the security and marketplace trades (e.g., the time needed to dispose of the security, the method of soliciting offers and the mechanics of transfer). To the extent a fund invests in restricted securities that are deemed liquid, its general level of illiquidity may be increased if qualified institutional buyers become uninterested in purchasing these securities.

Short Sales may be used by a fund as part of its overall portfolio management strategies or to offset (hedge) a potential decline in the value of a security. A fund may engage in short sales that are either “against the box” or “uncovered.” A short sale is “against the box” if at all times during which the short position is open, a fund owns at least an equal amount of the securities or securities convertible into, or has the right to acquire, at no added cost, the securities of the same issue as the securities that are sold short. A short sale against the box is a taxable transaction to a fund with respect to the securities that are sold short. “Uncovered” short sales are transactions under which a fund sells a security it does not own. To complete such transaction, a fund may borrow the security through a broker to make delivery to the buyer and, in doing so, a fund becomes obligated to replace the security borrowed by purchasing the security at the market price at the time of the replacement. A fund also may have to pay a fee to borrow particular securities, which would increase the cost of the security. In addition, a fund is often obligated to pay any accrued interest and dividends on the securities until they are replaced. The proceeds of the short sale position will be retained by the broker until a fund replaces the borrowed securities.

A fund will incur a loss if the price of the security sold short increases between the time of the short sale and the time the fund replaces the borrowed security and, conversely, the fund will realize a gain if the price declines. Any gain will be decreased, and any loss increased, by the transaction costs described above. A short sale creates the risk of an unlimited loss, as the price of the underlying securities could theoretically increase without limit, thus increasing the cost of buying those securities to cover the short position. If a fund sells securities short “against the box,” it may protect unrealized gains, but will lose the opportunity to profit on such securities if the price rises. The successful use of short selling as a hedging strategy may be adversely affected by imperfect correlation between movements in the price of the security sold short and the securities being hedged.

A fund’s obligation to replace the securities borrowed in connection with a short sale will be secured by collateral deposited with the broker that consists of cash or other liquid securities. In addition, a fund will earmark cash or liquid assets or place in a segregated account an amount of cash or other liquid assets equal to the difference, if any, between (1) the market value of the securities sold short, marked-to-market daily, and (2) any cash or other liquid securities deposited as collateral with the broker in connection with the short sale.

Investment Limitations

The investment limitations below may be changed only by vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of the applicable fund. Under the 1940 Act, a “vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities” of a fund means the affirmative vote of the lesser of (1) more than 50% of the outstanding shares of the fund or (2) 67% or more of the shares present at a shareholders meeting if more than 50% of the outstanding shares are represented at the meeting in person or by proxy.

EACH FUND MAY NOT:

	1)		Purchase securities of an issuer, except as consistent with the maintenance of its status as an open-end diversified company under the 1940 Act, the rules or regulations thereunder or any exemption therefrom, as such statute, rules or regulations may be amended or interpreted from time to time.

	2)		Concentrate investments in a particular industry or group of industries, as concentration is defined under the 1940 Act, the rules or regulations thereunder or any exemption therefrom, as such statute, rules or regulations may be amended or interpreted from time to time, except that each fund will concentrate to approximately the same extent that its benchmark index concentrates in the securities of such particular industry or group of industries.

	3)		Purchase or sell commodities, commodities contracts or real estate, lend or borrow money, issue senior securities, underwrite securities issued by others, or pledge, mortgage or hypothecate any of its assets, except as permitted by (or not prohibited by) the 1940 Act or the rules or regulations thereunder or any exemption therefrom, as such statute, rules or regulations may be amended or interpreted from time to time.

THE FOLLOWING DESCRIPTIONS OF THE 1940 ACT MAY ASSIST INVESTORS IN UNDERSTANDING THE ABOVE POLICIES AND RESTRICTIONS.

BORROWING. The 1940 Act restricts an investment company from borrowing (including pledging, mortgaging or hypothecating assets) in excess of 33 1/3% of its total assets (not including temporary borrowings not in excess of 5% of its total assets). Transactions that are fully collateralized in a manner that does not involve the prohibited issuance of a “senior security” within the meaning of Section 18(f) of the 1940 Act, shall not be regarded as borrowings for the purposes of a fund’s investment restriction.

CONCENTRATION. The SEC has defined concentration as investing 25% or more of an investment company’s total assets in an industry or group of industries, with certain exceptions such as with respect to investments in obligations issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government or its agencies and instrumentalities, or tax-exempt obligations of state or municipal governments and their political subdivisions.

DIVERSIFICATION. Under the 1940 Act and the rules, regulations and interpretations thereunder, a “diversified company,” as to 75% of its total assets, may not purchase securities of any issuer (other than obligations of, or guaranteed by, the U.S. government or its agencies, or instrumentalities or securities of other investment companies) if, as a result, more than 5% of its total assets would be invested in the securities of such issuer, or more than 10% of the issuer’s voting securities would be held by a fund.

LENDING. Under the 1940 Act, an investment company may only make loans if expressly permitted by its investment policies.

REAL ESTATE. The 1940 Act does not directly restrict an investment company’s ability to invest in real estate, but does require that every investment company have the fundamental investment policy governing such investments. Each fund has adopted the fundamental policy that would permit direct investment in real estate. However, each fund has a non-fundamental investment limitation that prohibits it from investing directly in real estate. This non-fundamental policy may be changed only by vote of a fund’s Board of Trustees.

SENIOR SECURITIES. Senior securities may include any obligation or instrument issued by an investment company evidencing indebtedness. The 1940 Act generally prohibits a fund from issuing senior securities, although it provides allowances for certain borrowings and certain other investments, such as short sales, reverse repurchase agreements, and firm commitment agreements , when such investments are “covered” or with appropriate earmarking or segregation of assets to cover such obligations.

UNDERWRITING. Under the 1940 Act, underwriting securities involves an investment company purchasing securities directly from an issuer for the purpose of selling (distributing) them or participating in any such activity either directly or indirectly. Under the 1940 Act, a diversified fund may not make any commitment as underwriter, if immediately thereafter the amount of its outstanding underwriting commitments, plus the value of its investments in securities of issuers (other than investment companies) of which it owns more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities, exceeds 25% of the value of its total assets.

THE FOLLOWING ARE NON-FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT POLICIES AND RESTRICTIONS, AND MAY BE CHANGED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES.

EACH FUND MAY NOT:

Invest more than 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities.

Sell securities short unless it owns the security or the right to obtain the security or equivalent securities, or unless it covers such short sale as required by current SEC rules and interpretations (transactions in futures contracts, options and other derivative instruments are not considered selling securities short).

Purchase securities on margin, except such short term credits as may be necessary for the clearance of purchases and sales of securities and provided that margin deposits in connection with futures contracts, options on futures or other derivative instruments shall not constitute purchasing securities on margin.

Borrow money except that a fund may (i) borrow money from banks or through an interfund lending facility, if any, only for temporary or emergency purposes (and not for leveraging) and (ii) engage in reverse repurchase agreements with any party; provided that (i) and (ii) in combination do not exceed 33 1/3% of its total assets (any borrowings that come to exceed this amount will be reduced to the extent necessary to comply with the limitation within three business days).

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 (this restriction does not apply to purchases of debt securities or repurchase agreements).

Purchase securities (other than securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government, its agencies or instrumentalities) if, as a result of such purchase, 25% or more of the value of its total assets would be invested in any industry or group of industries (except that each fund may purchase securities to the extent that the index the fund is designed to track is also so concentrated).

Purchase or sell commodities, commodity contracts or real estate, including interests in real estate limited partnerships, provided that a fund may (i) purchase securities of companies that deal in real estate or interests therein (including REITs); (ii) purchase securities of companies that deal in precious metals or interests therein; and (iii) purchase, sell and enter into futures contracts (including futures contracts on indices of securities, interest rates and currencies), options on futures contracts (including futures contracts on indices of securities, interest rates and currencies), warrants, swaps, forward contracts, foreign currency spot and forward contracts or other derivative instruments.

Policies and investment limitations that state a maximum percentage of assets that may be invested in a security or other asset, or that set forth a quality standard shall be measured immediately after and as a result of a fund’s acquisition of such security or asset, unless otherwise noted. Except with respect to limitations on borrowing and futures and option contracts, any subsequent change in net assets or other circumstances does not require a fund to sell an investment if it could not then make the same investment. With respect to the limitation on illiquid securities, in the event that a subsequent change in net assets or other circumstances cause a fund to exceed its limitation, a fund will take steps to bring the aggregate amount of illiquid instruments back within the limitations as soon as reasonably practicable.

CONTINUOUS OFFERING

The funds offer and issue shares at their net asset value per share (“NAV”) only in aggregations of a specified number of shares (“Creation Units”). The method by which Creation Units are created and trade may raise certain issues under applicable securities laws. Because new Creation Units are issued and sold by the funds on an ongoing basis, at any point a “distribution,” as such term is used in the Securities Act of 1933 the (“Securities Act”), may occur. Broker-dealers and other persons are cautioned that some activities on their part may, depending on the circumstances, result in their being deemed participants in a distribution in a manner which could render them statutory underwriters and subject them to the prospectus delivery requirement and liability provisions of the Securities Act.

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

Broker-dealer firms should also note that dealers who are not “underwriters” but are effecting transactions in shares, whether or not participating in the distribution of shares, generally are required to deliver a prospectus. This is because the prospectus delivery exemption in Section 4(3) of the Securities Act is not available in respect of such transactions as a result of Section 24(d) of the 1940 Act. Firms that incur a prospectus delivery obligation with respect to shares of the fund are reminded that, pursuant to Rule 153 under the Securities Act, a prospectus delivery obligation under Section 5(b)(2) of the Securities Act owed to an exchange member in connection with the sale on an exchange is satisfied by the fact that the prospectus is available at the exchange upon request. The prospectus delivery mechanism provided in Rule 153 is only available with respect to transactions on an exchange.

MANAGEMENT OF THE FUNDS

The funds are overseen by a Board of Trustees. The trustees are responsible for protecting shareholder interests. The trustees regularly meet to review the investment activities, contractual arrangements and the investment performance of the fund. The trustees did not meet during the most recent fiscal year.

Certain trustees are “interested persons.” A trustee is considered an interested person of the trust under the 1940 Act if he or she is an officer, director, or an employee of Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. (“CSIM”) or Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (“Schwab”). A trustee also may be considered an interested person of the trust under the 1940 Act if he or she owns stock of The Charles Schwab Corporation, a publicly traded company and the parent company of CSIM.

As used herein the term “Family of Investment Companies” collectively refers to The Charles Schwab Family of Funds, Schwab Investments, Schwab Annuity Portfolios, Schwab Capital Trust and Schwab Strategic Trust which, as of September 30, 2009, included 66 funds.

The tables below provide information about the trustees and officers for the trusts, which includes the funds, in this SAI. The “Fund Complex” includes The Charles Schwab Family of Funds, Schwab Investments, Schwab Capital Trust, Schwab Strategic Trust, Schwab Annuity Portfolios, Laudus Trust, and Laudus Institutional Trust. As of August 31, 2009, the Fund Complex included 81 funds. The address of each individual listed below is 211 Main Street, San Francisco, California 94105.


		Number
		of
Name, Address¹ and		Portfolios
Year of Birth; (Term		in Fund
of Office and Length	Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five	Complex		Other Directorships Held by
of Time Served)	Years	Overseen		Trustee
Independent Trustees:
Robert W. Burns⁴ 1959 (10/09 —present)	Retired. From 1987 – 2008: Managing Director, PIMCO (investment adviser); From 1994 – 2008: President and Trustee, PIMCO Funds (investments), and from 2007 – 2008 Chairman of PIMCO Strategic Global Government Fund, Inc (investments).		8	Board 1 — Independent Director and Chairman of Corporate Governance/Nominating Committee, PS Business Parks, Inc.

Mark A. Goldfarb⁴ 1952 (10/09 —present)	Founder and Managing Director, SS&G Financial Services (financial services firm).		8	Not Applicable.

Charles A. Ruffel⁴ 1956 (10/09 —present)	Advisor, Asset International, Inc. (provider of financial services information). Chief Executive Officer and Founder, Asset International, Inc. Until 2008, Managing Partner and Co-Founder, Kudu Advisors, LLC.		8	Not Applicable.

Interested Trustee:
Walter W. Bettinger II² 1960 Trustee (10/09 —present)	As of October 2008, President and Chief Executive Officer, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., principal underwriter to the funds, and The Charles Schwab Corporation. Since May 2008, Director, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. and Schwab Holdings, Inc. Since 2006, Director, Charles Schwab Bank.		77	Not Applicable.

	Until October 2008, President and Chief Operating Officer, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. and The Charles Schwab Corporation.

	From 2004 through 2007, Executive Vice President and President, Schwab Investor Services. From 2004 through 2005, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Individual Investor Enterprise, and from 2002 through 2004, Executive Vice President, Corporate Services.


NAME, YEAR OF BIRTH, AND
POSITION(S) WITH THE TRUST;
(TERM OF OFFICE AND LENGTH OF		PRINCIPAL OCCUPATIONS DURING THE PAST FIVE
TIME SERVED³)		YEARS
OFFICERS

Randall W. Merk 1954 President and Chief Executive Officer (Officer of Schwab Strategic Trust since 2009.)		Executive Vice President and President, Investment Management Services, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.; Executive Vice President, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (2002 — present); President and Chief Executive Officer, Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. (2007-present); Director, Charles Schwab Asset Management (Ireland) Limited and Charles Schwab Worldwide Funds PLC.

George Pereira 1964 Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer (Officer of Schwab Strategic Trust since 2009.)		Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc.; Chief Financial Officer, Laudus Trust and Laudus Institutional Trust; Director, Charles Schwab Worldwide Fund, PLC and Charles Schwab Asset Management (Ireland) Limited. Through June 2007, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer, Excelsior Funds Inc., Excelsior Tax-Exempt Funds, Inc., and Excelsior Funds Trust; Chief Financial Officer, Mutual Fund Division, UST Advisers, Inc. From December 1999 to November 2004, Sr. Vice President, Financial Reporting, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.

Koji E. Felton 1961 Secretary and Chief Legal Officer (Officer of Schwab Strategic Trust since 2009.)		Senior Vice President, Chief Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc.; Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. Until 2006, Chief Legal Officer, Laudus Trust and Laudus Institutional Trust. Through June 2007, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, Excelsior Funds Inc., Excelsior Tax-Exempt Funds, Inc., and Excelsior Funds Trust.

Jeffrey M. Mortimer 1963 Senior Vice President and Chief Investment Officer — Equities and Fixed Income (Officer of Schwab Strategic Trust since 2009.)		Senior Vice President and Chief Investment Officer — Equities & Fixed Income, Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc.; President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Investment Officer, Laudus Trust and Laudus Institutional Trust.

Catherine MacGregor 1964 Vice President (Officer of Schwab Strategic Trust since 2009		Vice President, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc., and Laudus Trust and Laudus Institutional Trust. Since 2006, Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Clerk of Laudus Trust and Laudus Institutional Trust; Vice President, Schwab Funds.

Michael Haydel 1972 Vice President (Officer of Schwab Strategic Trust since 2009		Vice President, Asset Management Client Services, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.; Vice President and AML Officer, Laudus Trust, Laudus Institutional Trust.


1		Each Trustee shall hold office until the election and qualification of his or her successor, or until he or she dies, resigns or is removed. The Trust’s retirement policy requires that independent trustees retire by December 31 of the year in which the Trustee turns 72 or the Trustee’s twentieth year of service as an independent trustee, whichever comes first. The mailing address of each of the Trustees is c/o Schwab Strategic Trust, 211 Main Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

2		Mr. Bettinger is an Interested Trustee because he is an employee of Schwab and/or the investment adviser. In addition to his employment with the investment adviser and Schwab, Mr. Bettinger also owns stock of The Charles Schwab Corporation.

3		The President, Treasurer and Secretary hold office until their respective successors are chosen and qualified or until he or she sooner dies, resigns, is removed or becomes disqualified. Each of the other officers serves at the pleasure of the Board.

4		Member of the Audit and Compliance Committee and Nominating Committee.

Trustee Committees

The Board of Trustees has established certain committees and adopted Committee charters with respect to those committees, each as described below.

The Trust has a standing Audit and Compliance Committee. The members of the Audit and Compliance Committee are identified above. The function of the Audit and Compliance Committee is to provide oversight responsibility for the integrity of the Trust’s financial reporting processes and compliance policies, procedures and processes, and for the Trust’s overall system of internal controls. The charter directs that the Audit and Compliance Committee must meet 4 times annually, with additional meetings as the Audit and Compliance Committee deems appropriate.

The Trust also has a Nominating Committee that is composed of all the Independent Trustees, which meets as often as deemed appropriate by the Nominating Committee for the primary purpose of selecting and nominating candidates to serve as members of the Board of Trustees. There are no specific procedures in place to consider nominees recommended by shareholders, but such nominees would be considered if such nominations were submitted in accordance with Rule 14a-8 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in conjunction with a shareholder meeting to consider the election of Trustees. The charter directs that the Nominating Committee meet at such times and with such frequency as is deemed necessary or appropriate by the Nominating Committee.

Trustee Compensation

The following table provides estimated trustee compensation for the fiscal year ending August 31, 2010. Certain information provided relates to the Fund Complex, which included 81 funds as of August 31, 2009.


	($)
	Estimated Aggregate Compensation from the Funds
					Schwab						Pension or
					U.S.				Schwab		Retirement
	Schwab U.S.				Large-		Schwab		U.S.		Benefits		($)
	Broad		Schwab		Cap		U.S. Large-		Small-		Accrued as		Estimated Total
	Market		U.S. Large-		Growth		Cap Value		Cap		Part of Fund		Compensation from
Name of Trustee	ETF™		Cap ETF™		ETF™		ETF™		ETF™		Expenses		Fund Complex
Interested Trustee
Walter W. Bettinger II	$	0	$	0	$	0	$	0	$	0		N/A	$	0
Independent Trustees
Robert W. Burns	$	6,250	$	6,250	$	6,250	$	6,250	$	6,250		N/A	$	50,000
Mark A. Goldfarb	$	6,250	$	6,250	$	6,250	$	6,250	$	6,250		N/A	$	50,000
Charles A Ruffel	$	6,250	$	6,250	$	6,250	$	6,250	$	6,250		N/A	$	50,000


	($)						Pension or
	Estimated Aggregate Compensation from the Fund						Retirement
			Schwab				Benefits		($)
	Schwab		International				Accrued as		Estimated Total
	International Equity		Small-Cap Equity		Schwab Emerging		Part of Fund		Compensation from
Name of Trustee	ETF™		ETF™		Markets Equity ETF™		Expenses		Fund Complex
Interested Trustee
Walter W. Bettinger II	$	0	$	0	$	0		N/A	$	0
Independent Trustees
Robert W. Burns	$	6,250	$	6,250	$	6,250		N/A	$	50,000
Mark A. Goldfarb	$	6,250	$	6,250	$	6,250		N/A	$	50,000
Charles A Ruffel	$	6,250	$	6,250	$	6,250		N/A	$	50,000

Securities Beneficially Owned By Each Trustee

The following tables provide each trustee’s equity ownership of the funds and ownership of all registered investment companies overseen by each trustee in the Family of Investment Companies as of December 31, 2008. As of December 31, 2008, the Family of Investment Companies included 69 funds.

Dollar Range of Trustee Ownership

of Equity Securities in the fund

Schwab

Aggregate Dollar

Schwab U.S.

U.S. Large-

Schwab

Range of Trustee

Broad

Schwab U.S.

Cap

U.S. Large-

Ownership in the

Market

Large-Cap

Growth

Cap Value

Schwab U.S.

Family of Investment

Name of Trustee

ETF™

Small-Cap ETF™

Companies

Interested Trustee

Walter W. Bettinger II

None

Over $100,000

Independent Trustees

Robert W. Burns

None

Mark A. Goldfarb

None

Charles A Ruffel

None


				Aggregate
	Dollar Range of Trustee Ownership			Dollar Range of
	of Equity Securities in the fund			Trustee
		Schwab	Schwab	Ownership in
	Schwab	International	Emerging	the Family of
	International	Small-Cap	Markets Equity	Investment
Name of Trustee	Equity ETF™	Equity ETF™	ETF™	Companies
Interested Trustee
Walter W. Bettinger II	None	None	None	Over $100,000
Independent Trustees
Robert W. Burns	None	None	None	None
Mark A. Goldfarb	None	None	None	None
Charles A. Ruffel	None	None	None	None

Code of Ethics

The funds, the investment adviser and the distributor have adopted Codes of Ethics as required under the 1940 Act. Subject to certain conditions or restrictions, the Codes of Ethics permit the trustees, directors, officers or advisory representatives of the funds or the investment adviser or the directors or officers of the distributor to buy or sell directly or indirectly securities for their own accounts. This includes securities that may be purchased or held by the funds. Securities transactions by some of these individuals may be subject to prior approval of each entity’s Chief Compliance Officer or alternate. Most securities transactions are subject to quarterly reporting and review requirements.

CONTROL PERSONS AND PRINCIPAL HOLDERS OF SECURITIES

As of October 26, 2009, the officers and trustees of the trust, as a group owned, of record or beneficially, less than 1% of the outstanding voting securities of the funds.

As of October 26, 2009, no persons or entities owned, of record or beneficially, more than 5% of the outstanding voting securities of any fund.

INVESTMENT ADVISORY AND OTHER SERVICES

Investment Adviser

CSIM, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Charles Schwab Corporation, 211 Main Street, San Francisco CA 94105, serves as the funds’ investment adviser pursuant to Investment Advisory Agreements (Advisory Agreement) between it and the trust. Charles R. Schwab is the founder, Chairman and Director of the Charles Schwab Corporation. As a result of his ownership and interests in The Charles Schwab Corporation, Mr. Schwab may be deemed to be a controlling person of CSIM.

Advisory Agreement

A fund’s Advisory Agreement must be specifically approved initially for a 2 year term, and after the expiration of the 2 year term, at least annually thereafter (1) by the vote of the trustees or by a vote of the shareholders of the fund, and (2) by the vote of a majority of the trustees who are not parties to the Advisory Agreement or “interested persons” of any party (the “Independent Trustees”), cast in person at a meeting called for the purpose of voting on such approval.

Each year, the Board of Trustees will call and hold a meeting to decide whether to renew the Advisory Agreement between the trust and CSIM with respect to any existing funds in the trust. In preparation for the meeting, the Board requests and reviews a wide variety of materials provided by the funds’ investment adviser, as well as extensive data provided by third parties.

As described below, the investment adviser is entitled to receive a fee from the funds, payable monthly, for its advisory and administrative services to the funds. The funds are new and have not yet paid any fees to CSIM. As compensation for these services, the firm receives a management fee from the funds expressed as a percentage of each fund’s average daily net assets.


FUND	FEE
Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF™		0.06	%

Schwab U.S. Large-Cap ETF™		0.08	%

Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF™		0.13	%

Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF™		0.13	%
Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF™		0.13	%

Schwab International Equity ETF™		0.13	%

Schwab International Small Cap Equity ETF™		0.35	%

Schwab Emerging Markets Equity ETF™		0.25	%

Pursuant to the Advisory Agreement, the Adviser is responsible for substantially all expenses of the funds, including the cost of transfer agency, custody, fund administration, legal, audit and other services, but excluding interest expense and taxes, brokerage expenses, future distribution fees or expenses (i.e., 12b-1 fees) and extraordinary or non-routine expenses.

Distributor

SEI Investments Distribution Co. (the “Distributor”) is the principal underwriter and distributor of shares of the funds. Its principal address is 1 Freedom Valley Drive, Oaks, PA 19456. The Distributor has entered into an agreement with the trust pursuant to which it distributes shares of the funds (the “Distribution Agreement”). The Distributor continually distributes shares of the funds on a best effort basis. The Distributor has no obligation to sell any specific quantity of fund shares. The Distribution Agreement will continue for two years from its effective date and is renewable annually thereafter in accordance with the 1940 Act. Shares are continuously offered for sale by the funds through the Distributor only in Creation Units, as described in the funds’ prospectuses. Shares in less than Creation Units are not distributed by the Distributor. The Distributor is a broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. The Distributor is not affiliated with the trust, CSIM, or any stock exchange.

The Distribution Agreement provides that it may be terminated at any time, without the payment of any penalty, on at least sixty (60) days prior written notice to the other party. The Distribution Agreement will terminate automatically in the event of its “assignment” (as defined in the 1940 Act).

DISTRIBUTION AND SHAREHOLDER SERVICES PLAN

The funds have adopted a Distribution and Shareholder Services (12b-1) Plan applicable to the shares. Under the Distribution and Shareholder Services Plan, the Distributor, or other firms that provide distribution and shareholder services, may receive up to 0.25% of a fund’s assets attributable to shares as compensation for distribution and shareholder services pursuant to Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act. Distribution services may include: (i) services in connection with distribution assistance, or (ii) payments to financial institutions and other financial intermediaries, such as broker-dealers, mutual fund “supermarkets” and the Distributor’s affiliates and subsidiaries, as compensation for services or reimbursement of expenses incurred in connection with distribution assistance. The Distributor also will provide one or more of the following service activities: (i) maintaining accounts relating to shareholders that invest in shares (including Creation Units) of the funds; (ii) arranging for bank wires; (iii) responding to shareholder inquiries relating to the services performed by Distributor and/or service organizations; (iv) responding to inquiries from shareholders concerning their investment in shares (including Creation Units) of the funds; (v) assisting shareholders in changing dividend options, account designations and addresses; (vi) providing information periodically to shareholders showing their position in shares (including Creation Units) of the funds; (vii) forwarding shareholder communications from the funds such as proxies, shareholder reports, annual reports, and dividend distribution and tax notices to shareholders; (viii) processing purchase, exchange and redemption requests from shareholders and placing orders with the funds or its service providers; and (ix) processing dividend payments from the funds on behalf of shareholders. The Distributor may, at its discretion, retain a portion of such payments to compensate itself for distribution and shareholder services and distribution related expenses such as the costs of preparation, printing, mailing or otherwise disseminating sales literature, advertising, and prospectuses (other than those furnished to current shareholders of the funds), promotional and incentive programs, and such other marketing expenses that the Distributor may incur.

The Board has determined that no fees under the Plan will be charged prior to November 14, 2011. Because these fees would be paid out of each fund’s assets on an on-going basis, if payments are made in the future, these fees will increase the cost of your investment and may cost you more than paying other types of sales charges.

Transfer Agent

State Street Bank and Trust Company, One Lincoln Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02111, serves as the funds’ transfer agent. As part of these services, the firm maintains records pertaining to the sale, redemption and transfer of the funds’ shares.

Custodian and Fund Accountants

State Street Bank and Trust Company, One Lincoln Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02111, serves as custodian and accountant for the funds.

The custodian is responsible for the daily safekeeping of securities and cash held or sold by the funds. The funds’ accountant maintains all books and records related to the funds’ transactions.

Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The funds’ independent registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, audits and reports on the annual financial statements of the funds and reviews certain regulatory reports and the funds’ federal income tax return. They also perform other professional, accounting, auditing, tax and advisory services when the trust engages them to do so. Their address is Three Embarcadero Center, San Francisco, CA 94111-4004.

Legal Counsel

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP represents the trust with respect to certain legal matters.

PORTFOLIO MANAGERS

Other Accounts. Each portfolio manager (collectively referred to as the “Portfolio Managers”) is responsible for the day-to-day management of certain other accounts, as listed below. The accounts listed below are not subject to a performance-based advisory fee. The information below is provided as of August 31, 2009.


	Registered Investment
	Companies
	(this amount does not include
	the funds in this Statement of				Other Pooled
	Additional Information)				Investment Vehicles				Other Accounts
	Number of				Number of		Total		Number of
Name	Accounts		Total Assets		Accounts		Assets		Accounts		Total Assets
Jeffrey Mortimer		69	$	211,423,182,546		0		0		3,719	$	562,387,755
Dustin Lewellyn		0	$	0		0		0		0	$	0
Agnes Hong		0	$	0		0		0		0	$	0
Ferian Juwono¹		0	$	0		0		0		0	$	0


¹		Mr. Juwono joined the firm May 2010.

Conflicts of Interest. A Portfolio Manager’s management of other accounts may give rise to potential conflicts of interest in connection with its management of the funds’ investments, on the one hand, and the investments of the other accounts, on the other. These other accounts include separate accounts and other mutual funds advised by CSIM (collectively, the “Other Managed Accounts”). The Other Managed Accounts might have similar investment objectives as the funds, track the same index the funds track or otherwise hold, purchase, or sell securities that are eligible to be held, purchased, or sold by the funds. While the Portfolio Managers’ management of Other Managed Accounts may give rise to the potential conflicts of interest listed below, CSIM does not believe that the conflicts, if any, are material or, to the extent any such conflicts are material, CSIM believes it has adopted policies and procedures that are designed to manage those conflicts in an appropriate way.

Knowledge of the Timing and Size of Fund Trades. A potential conflict of interest may arise as a result of the Portfolio Managers’ day-to-day management of the funds. Because of their positions with the funds, the Portfolio Managers know the size, timing, and possible market impact of fund trades. It is theoretically possible that the Portfolio Managers could use this information to the advantage of the Other Managed Accounts they manage and to the possible detriment of the funds. However, CSIM has adopted policies and procedures reasonably designed to allocate investment opportunities on a fair and equitable basis over time. Moreover, with respect to an index fund, which seeks to track its benchmark index, much of this information is publicly available. When it is determined to be in the best interest of both accounts, the Portfolio Managers may aggregate trade orders for the Other Managed

Accounts, excluding Schwab Personal Portfolio Managed Accounts, with those of the funds. All aggregated orders are subject to CSIM’s aggregation and allocation policy and procedures, which provide, among other things, that (i) a Portfolio Manager will not aggregate orders unless he or she believes such aggregation is consistent with his or her duty to seek best execution; (ii) no account will be favored over any other account; (iii) each account that participates in an aggregated order will participate at the average security price with all transaction costs shared on a pro-rata basis; and (iv) if the aggregated order cannot be executed in full, the partial execution is allocated pro-rata among the participating accounts in accordance with the size of each account’s order.

Investment Opportunities. A potential conflict of interest may arise as a result of the Portfolio Managers’ management of the funds and Other Managed Accounts which, in theory, may allow them to allocate investment opportunities in a way that favors the Other Managed Accounts over the funds, which conflict of interest may be exacerbated to the extent that CSIM or the Portfolio Managers receive, or expect to receive, greater compensation from their management of the Other Managed Accounts than the funds. Notwithstanding this theoretical conflict of interest, it is CSIM’s policy to manage each account based on its investment objectives and related restrictions and, as discussed above, CSIM has adopted policies and procedures reasonably designed to allocate investment opportunities on a fair and equitable basis over time and in a manner consistent with each account’s investment objectives and related restrictions. For example, while the Portfolio Managers may buy for an Other Managed Account securities that differ in identity or quantity from securities bought for the fund or refrain from purchasing securities for an Other Managed Account that they are otherwise buying for the fund in an effort to outperform its specific benchmark, such an approach might not be suitable for the fund given its investment objectives and related restrictions.

Compensation. Schwab compensates each CSIM Portfolio Manager for his or her management of the funds. Each portfolio manager’s compensation consists of a fixed annual (“base”) salary and a discretionary bonus. The base salary is determined considering compensation payable for a similar position across the investment management industry and an evaluation of the individual portfolio manager’s overall performance such as the portfolio manager’s contribution to the firm’s overall investment process, being good corporate citizens, and contributions to the firm’s asset growth and business relationships. The discretionary bonus is determined in accordance with the CSIM Equity and Fixed Income Portfolio Management Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), which is designed to reward consistent and superior investment performance relative to established benchmarks and/or industry peer groups. The Plan is an annual incentive plan that, at the discretion of Executive Management, provides quarterly advances against the corporate component of the Plan at a fixed rate that is standard for the employee’s level. Meanwhile, the portion of the incentive tied to fund performance is paid in its entirety following the end of the Plan year (i.e. the Plan does not provide advances against the portion of the Plan tied to fund performance) at management’s discretion based on their determination of whether funds are available under the Plan as well as factors such as the portfolio manager’s contribution to the firm’s overall investment process, being good corporate citizens, and contribution to the firm’s asset growth and business relationships.

The Plan consists of two independent funding components: fund investment performance and the Charles Schwab Corporation’s (“CSC”) corporate performance. For the CSIM Fixed Income and Equity Portfolio Management Plan, 75% of the funding is based on fund investment performance and 25% of the funding is based in Schwab’s corporate performance. Funding for this Plan is pooled into separate incentive pools (one for Fixed Income portfolio managers and one for Equity portfolio managers) and then allocated to the plan participants by CSIM senior management. This allocation takes into account fund performance as well as the portfolio manager’s leadership, teamwork, and contribution to CSIM goals and objectives.

•		Fund Investment Performance

		Investment Performance will be determined based on each fund’s performance relative to an established industry peer group or benchmark. The peer group or benchmark will be determined by the CSIM “Peer Group Committee” comprised of officer representation from CSIM Product Development, Fund Administration and SCIR (Schwab Center for Investment Research) and approved by CSIM’s President and CSIM’s Chief Investment Officer. The peer group is reviewed on a regular basis and is subject to change in advance of each performance period (calendar year). Any changes will be communicated to affected participants as soon as is reasonably possible following the decision to change peer group or benchmark composition.

•

At the close of the year, each fund’s performance will be determined by its 1-year and/or 1 and 3-year percentile standing within its designated peer group using standard statistical methods approved by CSIM senior management. Relative position and the respective statistical method used to determine percentile standing will result in a single performance percentile number for each fund to allow for comparisons over time and between funds. As each participant may manage and/or support a number of funds, there will be several fund performance percentiles for each participant that may be considered in arriving at the incentive compensation annual payout.

•		Schwab Corporate Performance

		CSC’s corporate plan (the “Corporate Plan”) is an annual plan, which provides for discretionary awards aligned with company and individual performance. Funding for the Corporate Plan is determined at the conclusion of the calendar year using a payout rate that is applied to the Company’s pre-tax operating margin before variable compensation expense. The exact payout rate will vary and will be determined by Executive Management and recommended to the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of CSC for final approval. Funding will be capped at 200% of the Corporate Plan.

•		Incentive Allocation

		At year-end, the full-year funding for both components of the Plan will be pooled together. This total pool will then be allocated to plan participants by CSIM senior management based on their assessment of a variety of performance factors. Factors considered in the allocation process will include, but are not limited to, fund performance relative to benchmarks, individual performance against key objectives, contribution to overall group results, team work, and collaboration between Analysts and Portfolio Managers.

The Portfolio Managers’ compensation is not based on the value of the assets held in a fund’s portfolio. Mr. Lewellyn will be compensated solely under the Corporate Plan until December 31, 2009. Effective January 1, 2010, Mr. Lewellyn will be compensated under the CSIM Equity and Fixed Income Portfolio Management Incentive Plan.

Mr. Mortimer and Ms. Hong are compensated under the CSIM Equity and Fixed Income Portfolio Management Incentive Plan.

Ownership of Fund Shares. Because the funds had not commenced operations prior to the date of this SAI, no information regarding the Portfolio Managers’ “beneficial ownership” of shares of the funds has been included. This information will appear in a future version of the SAI.

BROKERAGE ALLOCATION AND OTHER PRACTICES
Portfolio Turnover

For reporting purposes, a fund’s portfolio turnover rate is calculated by dividing the value of purchases or sales of portfolio securities for the fiscal year, whichever is less, by the monthly average value of portfolio securities the fund owned during the fiscal year. When making the calculation, all securities whose maturities at the time of acquisition were one year or less (“short-term securities”) are excluded.

A 100% portfolio turnover rate would occur, for example, if all portfolio securities (aside from short-term securities) were sold and either repurchased or replaced once during the fiscal year.

Typically, funds with high turnover (such as 100% or more) tend to generate higher capital gains and transaction costs, such as brokerage commissions. Since these are new funds there are no portfolio turnover rates.

Portfolio Holdings Disclosure

The funds’ Board of Trustees has approved policies and procedures that govern the timing and circumstances regarding the disclosure of funds’ portfolio holdings information to shareholders and third parties. These policies and procedures are designed to ensure that disclosure of information regarding the funds’ portfolio securities is in the best interests of funds’ shareholders, and include procedures to address conflicts between the interests of the funds’ shareholders, on the one hand, and those of the funds’ investment adviser, principal underwriter or any affiliated person of the fund, its investment adviser, or its principal underwriter, on the other. Pursuant to such procedures, the Board has authorized the president of the funds to authorize the release of the funds’ portfolio holdings, as necessary, in conformity with the foregoing principles.

The Board exercises on-going oversight of the disclosure of fund portfolio holdings by overseeing the implementation and enforcement of each fund’s policies and procedures by the Chief Compliance Officer and by considering reports and recommendations by the Chief Compliance Officer concerning any material compliance matters. The Board will receive periodic updates, at least annually, regarding entities who may receive portfolio holdings information not available to other current or prospective fund shareholders in connection with the dissemination of information necessary for transactions in Creation Units, as contemplated by the exemptive relief and as discussed below.

Each fund discloses its complete portfolio holdings schedule in public filings with the SEC within 60-80 days after the end of each fiscal quarter and will provide that information to shareholders as required by federal securities laws and regulations thereunder. A fund may, however, voluntarily disclose all or part of its portfolio holdings other than in connection with the creation/redemption process, as discussed above, in advance of required filings with the SEC, provided that such information is made generally available to all shareholders and other interested parties in a manner that is consistent with the above policy for disclosure of portfolio holdings information. Such information may be made available through a publicly-available website or other means that make the information available to all likely interested parties contemporaneously.

The funds may disclose portfolio holdings information to certain persons and entities prior to and more frequently than the public disclosure of such information (“early disclosure”). The president of the funds may authorize early disclosure of portfolio holdings information to such parties at differing times and/or with different lag times provided that (a) the president of the funds determines that the disclosure is in the best interests of the funds and that there are no conflicts of interest between the funds’ shareholders and funds’ adviser and distributor; and (b) the recipient is, either by contractual agreement or otherwise by law, required to maintain the confidentiality of the information.

In addition, the funds’ service providers including, without limitation, the investment adviser, distributor, the custodian, fund accountant, transfer agent, auditor, proxy voting service provider, pricing information venders, publisher, printer and mailing agent may receive early disclosure of portfolio holdings information as frequently as daily in connection with the services they perform for the funds. Service providers will be subject to a duty of confidentiality with respect to any portfolio holdings information whether imposed by the provisions of the service provider’s contract with the trust or by the nature of its relationship with the trust.

Further, each business day, each fund’s portfolio holdings information is provided to the Distributor or other agent for dissemination through the facilities of the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) and/or other fee-based subscription services to NSCC members and/or subscribers to those other fee-based subscription services, including Authorized Participants (as defined below), and to entities that publish and/or analyze such information in connection with the process of purchasing or redeeming Creation Units or trading shares of funds in the secondary market. This information typically reflects each fund’s anticipated holdings on the following business day.

In addition, each fund discloses its portfolio holdings and the percentages they represent of the fund’s net assets at least monthly, and as often as each day the fund is open for business, at www.schwab.com/SchwabETFProspectus.

Portfolio holdings information made available in connection with the creation/redemption process may be provided to other entities that provide services to the funds in the ordinary course of business after it has been disseminated to the NSCC. From time to time, information concerning portfolio holdings other than portfolio holdings information made available in connection with the creation/redemption process, as discussed above, may be provided to other entities that provide services to the funds, including rating or ranking organizations, in the ordinary course of business, no earlier than one business day following the date of the information.

The funds’ policies and procedures prohibit the fund, the funds’ investment adviser or any related party from receiving any compensation or other consideration in connection with the disclosure of portfolio holdings information.

The funds may disclose non-material information including commentary and aggregate information about the characteristics of the funds in connection with or relating to the funds or its portfolio securities to any person if such disclosure is for a legitimate business purpose, such disclosure does not effectively result in the disclosure of the complete portfolio securities of any fund (which can only be disclosed in accordance with the above requirements), and such information does not constitute material non-public information. Such disclosure does not fall within the portfolio securities disclosure requirements outlined above.

Whether the information constitutes material non-public information will be made on a good faith determination, which involves an assessment of the particular facts and circumstances. In most cases commentary or analysis would be immaterial and would not convey any advantage to a recipient in making a decision concerning the funds. Commentary and analysis includes, but is not limited to, the allocation of the funds’ portfolio securities and other investments among various asset classes, sectors, industries, and countries, the characteristics of the stock components and other investments of the funds, the attribution of fund returns by asset class, sector, industry and country, and the volatility characteristics of the funds.

Portfolio Transactions

The investment adviser makes decisions with respect to the purchase and sale of portfolio securities on behalf of the funds. The investment adviser is responsible for implementing these decisions, including the negotiation of commissions and the allocation of principal business and portfolio brokerage. Purchases and sales of securities on a stock exchange or certain riskless principal

transactions placed on NASDAQ are typically effected through brokers who charge a commission for their services. Purchases and sales of fixed income securities may be transacted with the issuer, the issuer’s underwriter, or a dealer. The funds do not usually pay brokerage commissions on purchases and sales of fixed income securities, although the price of the securities generally includes compensation, in the form of a spread or a mark-up or mark-down, which is not disclosed separately. The prices the fund pays to underwriters of newly-issued securities usually include a commission paid by the issuer to the underwriter. Transactions placed through dealers who are serving as primary market makers reflect the spread between the bid and asked prices. The money market securities in which the fund may invest are traded primarily in the over-the-counter market on a net basis and do not normally involve either brokerage commissions or transfer taxes. It is expected that the cost of executing portfolio securities transactions of the fund will primarily consist of dealer spreads and brokerage commissions.

The investment adviser seeks to obtain the best execution for the funds’ portfolio transactions. The investment adviser may take a number of factors into account in selecting brokers or dealers to execute these transactions. Such factors may include, without limitation, the following: execution price; brokerage commission or dealer spread; size or type of the transaction; nature or character of the markets; clearance or settlement capability; reputation; financial strength and stability of the broker or dealer; efficiency of execution and error resolution; block trading capabilities; willingness to execute related or unrelated difficult transactions in the future; order of call; ability to facilitate short selling; provision of additional brokerage or research services or products; whether a broker guarantees that a fund will receive, on aggregate, prices at least as favorable as the closing prices on a given day when adherence to “market-on-close” pricing aligns with fund objectives; or whether a broker guarantees that a fund will receive the volume-weighted average price (VWAP) for a security for a given trading day (or portion thereof) when the investment adviser believe that VWAP execution is in the fund’s best interest. In addition, the investment adviser has incentive sharing arrangements with certain unaffiliated brokers who guarantee market-on-close pricing: on a day when such a broker executes transactions at prices better, on aggregate, than market-on-close prices, that broker may receive, in addition to his or her standard commission, a portion of the net difference between the actual execution prices and corresponding market-on-close prices for that day.

The investment adviser may cause the funds to pay a higher commission than otherwise obtainable from other brokers or dealers in return for brokerage or research services or products if the investment adviser believes that such commission is reasonable in relation to the services provided. In addition to agency transactions, the investment adviser may receive brokerage and research services or products in connection with certain riskless principal transactions, in accordance with applicable SEC and other regulatory guidelines. In both instances, these services or products may include: economic, industry, or company research reports or investment recommendations; subscriptions to financial publications or research data compilations; compilations of securities prices, earnings, dividends, and similar data; computerized databases; quotation equipment and services; research or analytical computer software and services; products or services that assist in effecting transactions, including services of third-party computer systems developers directly related to research and brokerage activities; and effecting securities transactions and performing functions incidental thereto (such as clearance and settlement). The investment adviser may use research services furnished by brokers or dealers in servicing all fund accounts, and not all services may necessarily be used in connection with the account that paid commissions or spreads to the broker or dealer providing such services.

The investment adviser may receive a service from a broker or dealer that has both a “research” and a “non-research” use. When this occurs, the investment adviser will make a good faith allocation, under all the circumstances, between the research and non-research uses of the service. The percentage of the service that is used for research purposes may be paid for with fund commissions or spreads, while the investment adviser will use its own funds to pay for the percentage of the service that is used for non-research purposes. In making this good faith allocation, the investment adviser faces a potential conflict of interest, but the investment adviser believe that the costs of such services may be appropriately allocated to their anticipated research and non-research uses.

The investment adviser may purchase for funds, new issues of securities in a fixed price offering. In these situations, the seller may be a member of the selling group that will, in addition to selling securities, provide the investment adviser with research services, in accordance with applicable rules and regulations permitting these types of arrangements. Generally, the seller will provide research “credits” in these situations at a rate that is higher than that which is available for typical secondary market transactions. These arrangements may not fall within the safe harbor of Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The investment adviser may place orders directly with electronic communications networks or other alternative trading systems. Placing orders with electronic communications networks or other alternative trading systems may enable the funds to trade directly with other institutional holders. At times, this may allow the funds to trade larger blocks than would be possible trading through a single market maker.

The investment adviser may aggregate securities sales or purchases among two or more funds. The investment adviser will not aggregate transactions unless it believes such aggregation is consistent with its duty to seek best execution for each affected fund and is consistent with the terms of the investment advisory agreement for such fund. In any single transaction in which purchases and/or sales of securities of any issuer for the account of a fund are aggregated with other accounts managed by the investment adviser, the actual prices applicable to the transaction will be averaged among the accounts for which the transaction is effected, including the account of the fund.

In determining when and to what extent to use Schwab or any other affiliated broker-dealer as its broker for executing orders for the funds on securities exchanges, the investment adviser follows procedures, adopted by the funds’ Board of Trustees, that are designed to ensure that affiliated brokerage commissions (if relevant) are reasonable and fair in comparison to unaffiliated brokerage commissions for comparable transactions. The Board reviews the procedures annually and approves and reviews transactions involving affiliated brokers quarterly.

PROXY VOTING

The Board of Trustees of the trust has delegated the responsibility for voting proxies to CSIM through their Advisory Agreement. The Trustees have adopted CSIM’s Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures with respect to proxies voted on behalf of the various Schwab Fund portfolios. A description of CSIM’s Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures is included in Appendix B.

The trust is required to disclose annually each fund’s complete proxy voting record on Form N-PX. The fund’s proxy voting record for the most recent 12 month period ended June 30th will be available by visiting the Schwab website at www.schwab.com/SchwabETFs Prospectus. A fund’s Form N-PX will also be available on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.

Brokerage Commissions

The funds are new and, therefore, for each of the last three fiscal years, the funds paid no brokerage commissions.

Regular Broker-Dealers

Each fund’s regular broker-dealers during its most recent fiscal year are: (1) the ten broker-dealers that received the greatest dollar amount of brokerage commissions from the fund; (2) the ten broker-dealers that engaged as principal in the largest dollar amount of portfolio transactions; and (3) the ten broker-dealers that sold the largest dollar amount of the fund’s shares. The funds are new and, therefore, have not purchased securities issued by any regular broker-dealers.

DESCRIPTION OF THE TRUST

Each fund is a series of Schwab Strategic Trust, an open-end investment management company organized as a Delaware statutory trust on January 27, 2009.

The Declaration of Trust provides for the perpetual existence of the Trust. The Trust may, however, be terminated at any time by vote of at least two-thirds of the outstanding shares of each series of the Trust or by the vote of the Trustees.

Shareholders are entitled to one vote for each full share held (with fractional votes for fractional shares held) and will vote (to the extent provided on the Declaration of Trust) in the election of Trustees and the termination of the Trust and on other matters submitted to the vote of shareholders. Shareholders will vote by individual series on all matters except (i) when required by the 1940 Act, shares shall be voted in the aggregate and not by individual series and (ii) when the Trustees have determined that the matter affects only the interests of one or more series, then only shareholders of such series shall be entitled to vote thereon. Shareholders of one series shall not be entitled to vote on matters exclusively affecting another series, such matters including, without limitation, the adoption of or change in any fundamental policies or restrictions of the other series and the approval of the investment advisory contracts of the other series.

There will normally be no meetings of shareholders for the purpose of electing Trustees, except that in accordance with the 1940 Act (i) the Trust will hold a shareholders’ meeting for the election of Trustees at such time as less than a majority of the Trustees holding office have been elected by shareholders, and (ii) if, as a result of a vacancy in the Board of Trustees, less than two-thirds of the Trustees holding office have been elected by the shareholders, that vacancy may only be filled by a vote of the shareholders. In addition, Trustees may be removed from office by a written consent signed by the holders of two-thirds of the outstanding shares and

filed with the Trust’s custodian or by a vote of the holders of two-thirds of the outstanding shares at a meeting duly called for the purpose, which meeting shall be held upon the written request of the holders of not less than 10% of the outstanding shares. Except as set forth above, the Trustees shall continue to hold office and may appoint successor Trustees. Voting rights are not cumulative.

The Trust may, without shareholder vote, restate, amend or otherwise supplement the Declaration of Trust. Shareholders shall have the right to vote on any amendment that could affect their right to vote, any amendment to the Amendments section, any amendment for which shareholder vote may be required by applicable law or by the Trust’s registration statement filed with the SEC, and on any amendment submitted to them by the Trustees.

Any series of the Trust may reorganize or merge with one or more other series of the Trust or another investment company. Any such reorganization or merger shall be pursuant to the terms and conditions specified in an agreement and plan of reorganization authorized and approved by the Trustees and entered into by the relevant series in connection therewith. In addition, such reorganization or merger may be authorized by vote of a majority of the Trustees then in office and, to the extent permitted by applicable law, without the approval of shareholders of any series.

Shareholders wishing to submit proposals for inclusion in a proxy statement for a future shareholder meeting should send their written submissions to the Trust at 1 Freedom Valley Drive, Oaks, PA 19456. Proposals must be received a reasonable time in advance of a proxy solicitation to be included. Submission of a proposal does not guarantee inclusion in a proxy statement because proposals must comply with certain federal securities regulations.

PURCHASE, REDEMPTION AND PRICING OF SHARES

CREATION AND REDEMPTION OF CREATION UNITS

The funds are open each day that the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) is open (Business Days). The NYSE’s trading session is normally conducted from 9:30 a.m. Eastern time until 4:00 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday, although some days, such as in advance of and following holidays, the NYSE’s trading session closes early. The following holiday closings are currently scheduled for 2009-2010: New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Jr.’s Birthday, Presidents’ Day, Good Friday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Only orders that are received and deemed acceptable by the Distributor no later than the time specified by the Trust will be executed that day at the fund’s share price calculated that day. On any day that the NYSE closes early, the funds reserve the right to advance the time by which purchase and redemption orders must be received by the Distributor that day in order to be executed that day at that day’s share price.

Creation. The trust issues and sells shares of the funds only in Creation Units on a continuous basis through the Distributor, without a sales load, at the NAV next determined after receipt, on any Business Day, for an order received and deemed acceptable by the Distributor.

Fund Deposit. The consideration for purchase of Creation Units of the funds may consist of (i) the in-kind deposit of a designated portfolio of securities closely approximating the holdings of a fund (the “Deposit Securities”), and an amount of cash denominated in U.S. Dollars (the “Cash Component”) computed as described below. Together, the Deposit Securities and the Cash Component constitute the “Fund Deposit,” which represents the minimum initial and subsequent investment amount for a Creation Unit of a fund.

The funds may accept a basket of money market instruments, non-U.S. currency or cash denominated in U.S. dollars that differs from the composition of the published basket. The funds may permit or require the consideration for Creation Units to consist solely of cash or non-U.S. currency. The funds may permit or require the substitution of an amount of cash denominated in U.S. Dollars (i.e., a “cash in lieu” amount) to be added to the Cash Component to replace any Deposit Security. For example, the trust reserves the right to permit or require a “cash in lieu” amount where the delivery of the Deposit Security by the Authorized Participant (as described below) would be restricted under the securities laws or where the delivery of the Deposit Security to the Authorized Participant would result in the disposition of the Deposit Security by the Authorized Participant becoming restricted under the securities laws, or in certain other situations.

The Cash Component is sometimes also referred to as the “Balancing Amount.” The Cash Component serves the function of compensating for any differences between the NAV per Creation Unit and the value of the Deposit Securities. If the Cash Component is a positive number (i.e., the NAV per Creation Unit exceeds the value of the Deposit Securities), the creator will deliver the Cash Component. If the Cash Component is a negative number (i.e., the NAV per Creation Unit is less than the value of the Deposit Securities), the creator will receive the Cash Component. Computation of the Cash Component excludes any stamp duty tax or other similar fees and expenses payable upon transfer of beneficial ownership of the Deposit Securities, which shall be the sole responsibility of the Authorized Participant.

A fund or its agent, through the NSCC or otherwise, makes available on each Business Day, prior to the opening of business on the NYSE Arca, Inc. Exchange (currently 9:30 a.m., Eastern time), the current Fund Deposit for the fund. Such Deposit Securities are applicable, subject to any adjustments, in order to effect creations of Creation Units of the fund until such time as the next-announced composition of the Deposit Securities is made available.

Procedures for Creation of Creation Units. To be eligible to place orders with the Distributor and to create a Creation Unit of a fund, an entity must be a Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) participant, such as a broker-dealer, bank, trust company, clearing corporation or certain other organization, some of whom (and/or their representatives) own DTC (each a “DTC Participant”). DTC acts as securities depositary for the shares. The DTC Participant must have executed an agreement with the Distributor with respect to creations and redemptions of Creation Units (“Participant Agreement”). A DTC Participant that has executed a Participant Agreement is referred to as an “Authorized Participant.” Investors should contact the Distributor for the names of Authorized Participants that have signed a Participant Agreement. All shares of a fund, however created, will be entered on the records of DTC in the name of DTC or its nominee and deposited with, or on behalf of, DTC.

All orders to create shares must be placed for one or more Creation Units. Orders must be transmitted by an Authorized Participant pursuant to procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement. The date on which an order to create Creation Units (or an order to redeem Creation Units, as discussed below) is placed is referred to as the “Transmittal Date.” Orders must be transmitted by an Authorized Participant by telephone or other transmission method acceptable to the Distributor pursuant to procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement, as described below. Economic or market disruptions or changes, or telephone or other communication failure, may impede the ability to reach the Distributor or an Authorized Participant.

On days when the New York Stock Exchange or U.S. or non-U.S. bond markets close earlier than normal, a fund may require purchase orders to be placed earlier in the day. All questions as to the number of Deposit Securities to be delivered, and the validity, form and eligibility (including time of receipt) for the deposit of any tendered securities, will be determined by the trust, whose determination shall be final and binding.

If the Distributor does not receive both the required Deposit Securities and the Cash Component by the specified time on the settlement date, the trust may cancel or revoke acceptance of such order. Upon written notice to the Distributor, such canceled or revoked order may be resubmitted the following Business Day using the Fund Deposit as newly constituted to reflect the then current NAV of a fund. The delivery of Creation Units so created generally will occur no later than the settlement date.

Creation Units may be created in advance of receipt by the trust of all or a portion of the applicable Deposit Securities as described below. In these circumstances, the initial deposit will have a value greater than the NAV of the shares on the date the order is placed since, in addition to available Deposit Securities, U.S. cash (or an equivalent amount of non-U.S. currency) must be deposited in an amount equal to the sum of (i) the Cash Component, plus (ii) at least 110% (with respect to the Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF, Schwab U.S. Large-Cap ETF, Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF, Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF, and Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF (“Domestic Funds”)) or 115% (with respect to the Schwab International Equity ETF, Schwab International Small-Cap Equity ETF, and Schwab Emerging Markets Equity ETF (“International Funds”)), which the trust may change from time to time, of the market value of the undelivered Deposit Securities (the “Additional Cash Deposit”) with the fund pending delivery of any missing Deposit Securities. The Authorized Participant must deposit with the custodian the appropriate amount of federal funds by 10:00 a.m. New York time (or such other time as specified by the trust) on the settlement date. If the Distributor does not receive the Additional Cash Deposit in the appropriate amount by such time, then the order may be deemed to be rejected and the Authorized Participant shall be liable to a fund for losses, if any, resulting therefrom. An additional amount of U.S. cash (or an equivalent amount of non-U.S. currency) shall be required to be deposited with the Distributor, pending delivery of the missing Deposit Securities to the extent necessary to maintain the Additional Cash Deposit with the trust in an amount at least equal to 110% or 115% as required, which the trust may change from time to time, of the daily marked to market value of the missing Deposit Securities. To the extent that missing Deposit Securities are not received by the specified time on the settlement date, or in the event a marked-to-market payment is not made within one Business Day following notification by the Distributor that such a payment is required, the trust may use the cash on deposit to purchase the missing Deposit Securities. The Authorized Participant will be liable to the trust for the costs incurred by the trust in connection with any such purchases. These costs will be deemed to include the amount by which the actual purchase price of the Deposit Securities exceeds the market value of such Deposit Securities on the transmittal date plus the brokerage and related transaction costs associated with such purchases. The trust will return any unused portion of the Additional Cash Deposit once all of the missing Deposit Securities have been properly received by the Distributor or purchased by the trust and deposited into the trust. In addition, a transaction fee, as listed below, will be charged in all cases.

Acceptance of Orders for Creation Units. The trust reserves the absolute right to reject or revoke acceptance of a creation order transmitted to it by the Distributor in respect of a fund. For example, the trust may reject or revoke acceptance of an order, if (i) the order does not conform to the procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement; (ii) the investor(s), upon obtaining the shares ordered, would own 80% or more of the currently outstanding shares of a fund; (iii) the Deposit Securities delivered are not as disseminated through the facilities of the NSCC for that date by a fund as described above; (iv) acceptance of the Deposit Securities would have

certain adverse tax consequences to a fund; (v) acceptance of the Fund Deposit would, in the opinion of counsel, be unlawful; (vi) acceptance of the Fund Deposit would otherwise, in the discretion of the trust or CSIM, have an adverse effect on the trust or the rights of beneficial owners; or (vii) in the event that circumstances outside the control of the trust, the custodian, the Distributor or CSIM make it for all practical purposes impossible to process creation orders. Examples of such circumstances include natural disaster, war, revolution; public service or utility problems such as fires, floods, extreme weather conditions and power outages resulting in telephone, telecopy and computer failures; market conditions or activities causing trading halts; systems failures involving computer or other information systems affecting the trust, CSIM, the Distributor, DTC, NSCC, custodian (or sub-custodian) or any other participant in the creation process, and similar extraordinary events. The Distributor shall notify a prospective creator of a Creation Unit and/or the Authorized Participant acting on behalf of the creator of a Creation Unit of its rejection of the order of such person. The trust, custodian (or sub-custodian) and the Distributor are under no duty, however, to give notification of any defects or irregularities in the delivery of Fund Deposits nor shall any of them incur any liability for the failure to give any such notification.

Creation/Redemption Transaction Fee. The funds impose a “Transaction Fee” on investors purchasing or redeeming Creation Units. The Transaction Fee will be limited to amounts that have been determined by CSIM to be appropriate. The purpose of the Transaction Fee is to protect the existing shareholders of the funds from the dilutive costs associated with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units. Where the funds permit cash creations (or redemptions) or cash in lieu of depositing one or more Deposit Securities, the purchaser (or redeemer) may be assessed a higher Transaction Fee to offset the transaction cost to the funds of buying (or selling) those particular Deposit Securities. Transaction Fees will differ for the funds, depending on the transaction expenses related to the funds’ portfolio securities. Every purchaser of a Creation Unit will receive a prospectus that contains disclosure about the Transaction Fee, including the maximum amount of the Transaction Fee charged by the funds, which is four times the Additional Creation/Redemption Transaction Fee, per Creation Unit.

The following table sets forth the standard and additional creation/redemption transaction fee for the funds.


	Approximate Value		Standard		Additional
	of One		Creation/Redemption		Creation/Redemption
Name of Fund	Creation Unit		Transaction Fee		Transaction Fee*
Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF	$	1,250,000	$	1,500	$	10,000
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap ETF	$	1,250,000	$	500	$	10,000
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF	$	1,250,000	$	500	$	10,000
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF	$	1,250,000	$	500	$	10,000
Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF	$	1,250,000	$	1,500	$	10,000
Schwab International Equity ETF	$	2,500,000	$	15,000	$	20,000
Schwab International Small-Cap Equity ETF	$	2,500,000	$	15,000	$	20,000
Schwab Emerging Markets Equity ETF	$	2,500,000	$	8,000	$	20,000


*		Per Creation Unit

Placement of Redemption Orders. The process to redeem Creation Units works much like the process to purchase Creation Units, but in reverse. Orders to redeem Creation Units of the fund must be delivered through an Authorized Participant. Investors other than Authorized Participants are responsible for making arrangements for a redemption request to be made through an Authorized Participant. Orders must be accompanied or followed by the requisite number of shares of the funds specified in such order, which delivery must be made to the Distributor no later than 10:00 a.m. New York time on the next Business Day following the Transmittal Date. All other procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement must be properly followed.

To the extent contemplated by an Authorized Participant’s agreement, in the event the Authorized Participant has submitted a redemption request but is unable to transfer all or part of the Creation Units to be redeemed to the Distributor, the Distributor will nonetheless accept the redemption request in reliance on the undertaking by the Authorized Participant to deliver the missing shares as soon as possible. Such undertaking shall be secured by the Authorized Participant’s delivery and maintenance of collateral consisting of cash having a value (marked to market daily) at least equal to 110% for the Domestic Funds and 115% for the International Funds, which CSIM may change from time to time, of the value of the missing shares.

The current procedures for collateralization of missing shares require, among other things, that any cash collateral shall be in the form of U.S. dollars (or, at the discretion of the trust, non-U.S. currency in an equivalent amount) in immediately-available funds and shall be held by the custodian and marked to market daily. The fees of the custodian (and any sub-custodians) in respect of the delivery, maintenance and redelivery of the cash collateral shall be payable by the Authorized Participant. The trust, on behalf of the funds, is permitted to purchase the missing shares or acquire the Deposit Securities and the Cash Component underlying such shares at any time and will subject the Authorized Participant to liability for any shortfall between the cost to the trust of purchasing such shares, Deposit Securities or Cash Component and the value of the collateral.

If the requisite number of shares of the funds is not delivered on the Transmittal Date as described above the funds may reject or revoke acceptance of the redemption request. If it is not possible to effect deliveries of the Fund Securities, the trust may in its discretion exercise its option to redeem such shares in U.S. cash and the redeeming Authorized Participant will be required to receive its redemption proceeds in cash. In addition, an investor may request a redemption in cash that the fund may, in its sole discretion, permit. In either case, the investor will receive a cash payment equal to the NAV of its shares based on the NAV of shares of a fund

next determined after the redemption request is received (minus a redemption transaction fee and additional charge for requested cash redemptions specified above, to offset the trust’s brokerage and other transaction costs associated with the disposition of Fund Securities). The funds may also, in their sole discretion, upon request of a shareholder, provide such redeemer a portfolio of securities that differs from the exact composition of the Fund Securities but does not differ in NAV.

Redemptions of shares for Fund Securities will be subject to compliance with applicable federal and state securities laws and the funds (whether or not it otherwise permits cash redemptions) reserve the right to redeem Creation Units for cash to the extent that the trust could not lawfully deliver specific Fund Securities upon redemptions or could not do so without first registering the Fund Securities under such laws.

The ability of the trust to effect in-kind creations and redemptions is subject, among other things, to the condition that, within the time period from the date of the order to the date of delivery of the securities, there are no days that are holidays in the applicable foreign market. For every occurrence of one or more intervening holidays in the applicable foreign market that are not holidays observed in the U.S. equity market, the redemption settlement cycle may be extended by the number of such intervening holidays. In addition to holidays, other unforeseeable closings in a foreign market due to emergencies may also prevent the trust from delivering securities within normal settlement period. The funds will not suspend or postpone redemption beyond seven days, except as permitted under Section 22(e) of the 1940 Act or pursuant to exemptive relief obtained by the trust. Section 22(e) provides that the right of redemption may be suspended or the date of payment postponed with respect to the funds (1) for any period during which the NYSE is closed (other than customary weekend and holiday closings); (2) for any period during which trading on the NYSE is suspended or restricted; (3) for any period during which an emergency exists as a result of which disposal of the shares of a fund’s portfolio securities or determination of its net asset value is not reasonably practicable; or (4) in such other circumstance as is permitted by the SEC.

Pricing of Shares

Each business day, the funds calculate their share price, or NAV, as of the close of the NYSE (generally, 4 p.m. Eastern time). This means that NAVs are calculated using the values of a fund’s portfolio securities as of the close of the NYSE. Such values are required to be determined in one of two ways: securities for which market quotations are readily available are required to be valued at current market value; and securities for which market quotations are not readily available are required to be valued at fair value using procedures approved by the Board of Trustees.

Shareholders of funds that invest in foreign securities should be aware that because foreign markets are often open on weekends and other days when the funds are closed, the value of some of a fund’s securities may change on days when it is not possible to buy or sell shares of the fund. The funds use approved pricing services to provide values for their portfolio securities. Current market values are generally determined by the approved pricing services as follows: generally securities traded on exchanges are valued at the last-quoted sales price on the exchange on which such securities are primarily traded, or, lacking any sales, at the mean between the bid and ask prices; generally securities traded in the over-the-counter market are valued at the last reported sales price that day, or, if no sales are reported, at the mean between the bid and ask prices. Generally securities listed on the NASDAQ National Market System are valued in accordance with the NASDAQ Official Closing Price. In addition, securities that are primarily traded on foreign exchanges are generally valued at the preceding closing values of such securities on their respective exchanges with these values then translated into U.S. dollars at the current exchange rate. Fixed income securities normally are valued based on valuations provided by approved pricing services. Securities may be fair valued pursuant to procedures approved by the funds’ Board of Trustees when a security is de-listed or its trading is halted or suspended; when a security’s primary pricing source is unable or unwilling to provide a price; when a security’s primary trading market is closed during regular market hours; or when a security’s value is materially affected by events occurring after the close of the security’s primary trading market. The Board of Trustees regularly reviews fair value determinations made by the funds pursuant to the procedures.

NOTE: Transactions in fund shares will be priced at NAV only if you purchase or redeem shares directly from a fund in Creation Units. Fund shares are purchased or sold on a national securities exchange at market prices, which may be higher (premium) or lower (discount) than NAV.

TAXATION

Federal Tax Information for the Funds

This discussion of federal income tax consequences is based on the Code and the regulations issued thereunder as in effect on the date of this Statement of Additional Information. New legislation, as well as administrative changes or court decisions, may significantly change the conclusions expressed herein, and may have a retroactive effect with respect to the transactions contemplated herein.

It is each fund’s policy to qualify for taxation as a “regulated investment company” (RIC) by meeting the requirements of Subchapter M of the Code. By qualifying as a RIC, each fund expects to eliminate or reduce to a nominal amount the federal income tax to which

it is subject. If a fund does not qualify as a RIC under the Code, it will be subject to federal income tax on its net investment income and any net realized capital gains. In addition, each fund could be required to recognize unrealized gains, pay substantial taxes and interest, and make substantial distributions before requalifying as a RIC.

Each fund is treated as a separate entity for federal income tax purposes and is not combined with the trust’s other funds. Each fund intends to qualify as a RIC so that it will be relieved of federal income tax on that part of its income that is distributed to shareholders. In order to qualify for treatment as a RIC, a fund must distribute annually to its shareholders at least 90% of its investment company taxable income (generally, net investment income plus the excess, if any, of net short-term capital gain over net long-term capital losses) and also must meet several additional requirements. Among these requirements are the following: (i) at least 90% of a fund’s gross income each taxable year must be derived from dividends, interest, payments with respect to securities loans, and gains from the sale or other disposition of stock, securities or foreign currencies, or other income derived with respect to its business of investing in such stock or securities or currencies and net income derived from an interest in a qualified publicly traded partnership; (ii) at the close of each quarter of a fund’s taxable year, at least 50% of the value of its total assets must be represented by cash and cash items, U.S. Government securities, securities of other RICs and other securities, with such other securities limited, in respect of any one issuer, to an amount that does not exceed 5% of the value of a fund’s assets and that does not represent more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of such issuer; and (iii) at the close of each quarter of a fund’s taxable year, not more than 25% of the value of its assets may be invested in securities (other than U.S. Government securities or the securities of other RICs) of any one issuer or of two or more issuers and which are engaged in the same, similar, or related trades or businesses if the fund owns at least 20% of the voting power of such issuers, or the securities of one or more qualified publicly traded partnerships.

Certain master limited partnerships may qualify as “qualified publicly traded partnerships” for purposes of the Subchapter M diversification rules described above. In order to do so, the master limited partnership must satisfy two requirements during the taxable year. First, the interests of such partnership either must be traded on an established securities market or must be readily tradable on a secondary market (or the substantial equivalent thereof). Second, less than 90% of the partnership’s gross income can consist of dividends, interest, payments with respect to securities loans, or gains from the sale or other disposition of stock or securities or foreign currencies, or other income derived with respect to its business of investing in such stock securities or currencies.

The Code imposes a non-deductible excise tax on RICs that do not distribute in a calendar year (regardless of whether they otherwise have a non-calendar taxable year) an amount equal to 98% of their “ordinary income” (as defined in the Code) for the calendar year plus 98% of their net capital gain for the one-year period ending on October 31 of such calendar year, plus any undistributed amounts from prior years. The non-deductible excise tax is equal to 4% of the deficiency. For the foregoing purposes, a fund is treated as having distributed any amount on which it is subject to income tax for any taxable year ending in such calendar year. A fund may in certain circumstances be required to liquidate fund investments in order to make sufficient distributions to avoid federal excise tax liability at a time when the investment adviser might not otherwise have chosen to do so, and liquidation of investments in such circumstances may affect the ability of a fund to satisfy the requirements for qualification as a RIC.

Dividends and interest received from a fund’s holding of foreign securities may give rise to withholding and other taxes imposed by foreign countries. Tax conventions between certain countries and the United States may reduce or eliminate such taxes. If the funds meet certain requirements, which include a requirement that more than 50% of the value of the funds total assets at the close of its respective taxable year consists of stocks or securities of foreign corporations, then the funds should be eligible to file an election with the Internal Revenue Service that may enable shareholders, in effect, to receive either the benefit of a foreign tax credit, or a tax deduction, with respect to any foreign and U.S. possessions income taxes paid to the funds, subject to certain limitations. Pursuant to this election, the funds will treat those taxes as dividends paid to its shareholders. Each such shareholder will be required to include a proportionate share of those taxes in gross income as income received from a foreign source and must treat the amount so included as if the shareholder had paid the foreign tax directly. The shareholder may then either deduct the taxes deemed paid by him or her in computing his or her taxable income or, alternatively, use the foregoing information in calculating any foreign tax credit the shareholder may be entitled to use against such shareholder’s federal income tax. If the funds make this election, the funds will report annually to its shareholders the respective amounts per share of the funds’ income from sources within, and taxes paid to, foreign countries and U.S. possessions.

The funds’ transactions in foreign currencies and forward foreign currency contracts will be subject to special provisions of the Internal Revenue Code that, among other things, may affect the character of gains and losses realized by the funds (i.e., may affect whether gains or losses are ordinary or capital), accelerate recognition of income to the funds and defer losses. These rules could therefore affect the character, amount and timing of distributions to shareholders. These provisions also may require the funds to mark-to-market certain types of positions in their portfolios (i.e., treat them as if they were closed out) which may cause the funds to recognize income without receiving cash with which to make distributions in amounts necessary to satisfy the RIC distribution requirements for avoiding income and excise taxes. The funds intend to monitor their transactions, intend to make the appropriate tax

elections, and intend to make the appropriate entries in their books and records when they acquire any foreign currency or forward foreign currency contract in order to mitigate the effect of these rules so as to prevent disqualification of the funds as a RIC and minimize the imposition of income and excise taxes.

If the funds own shares in certain foreign investment entities, referred to as “passive foreign investment companies” or “PFIC,” the funds will be subject to one of the following special tax regimes: (i) the funds are liable for U.S. federal income tax, and an additional interest charge, on a portion of any “excess distribution” from such foreign entity or any gain from the disposition of such shares, even if the entire distribution or gain is paid out by the funds as a dividend to its shareholders; (ii) if the funds were able and elected to treat a PFIC as a “qualifying electing fund” or “QEF,” the funds would be required each year to include in income, and distribute to shareholders in accordance with the distribution requirements set forth above, the funds’ pro rata share of the ordinary earnings and net capital gains of the passive foreign investment company, whether or not such earnings or gains are distributed to the funds; or (iii) the funds may be entitled to mark-to-market annually shares of the PFIC, and in such event would be required to distribute to shareholders any such mark-to-market gains in accordance with the distribution requirements set forth above.

A fund’s transactions in futures contracts, forward contracts, foreign currency exchange transactions, options and certain other investment and hedging activities may be restricted by the Code and are subject to special tax rules. In a given case, these rules may accelerate income to a fund, defer its losses, cause adjustments in the holding periods of a fund’s assets, convert short-term capital losses into long-term capital losses or otherwise affect the character of a fund’s income. These rules could therefore affect the amount, timing and character of distributions to shareholders. Each fund will endeavor to make any available elections pertaining to these transactions in a manner believed to be in the best interest of a fund and its shareholders.

Each fund is required for federal income tax purposes to mark-to-market and recognize as income for each taxable year its net unrealized gains and losses on certain futures contracts as of the end of the year as well as those actually realized during the year. Gain or loss from futures and options contracts on broad-based indexes required to be marked to market will be 60% long-term and 40% short-term capital gain or loss. Application of this rule may alter the timing and character of distributions to shareholders. Each fund may be required to defer the recognition of losses on futures contracts, options contracts and swaps to the extent of any unrecognized gains on offsetting positions held by the fund. It is anticipated that any net gain realized from the closing out of futures or options contracts will be considered gain from the sale of securities and therefore will be qualifying income for purposes of the 90% requirement described above. Each fund distributes to shareholders at least annually any net capital gains which have been recognized for federal income tax purposes, including unrealized gains at the end of the fund’s fiscal year on futures or options transactions. Such distributions are combined with distributions of capital gains realized on the fund’s other investments and shareholders are advised on the nature of the distributions.

With respect to investments in zero coupon securities which are sold at original issue discount and thus do not make periodic cash interest payments, a fund will be required to include as part of its current income the imputed interest on such obligations even though the fund has not received any interest payments on such obligations during that period. Because each fund distributes all of its net investment income to its shareholders, a fund may have to sell fund securities to distribute such imputed income which may occur at a time when the adviser would not have chosen to sell such securities and which may result in taxable gain or loss.

Federal Income Tax Information for Shareholders

The discussion of federal income taxation presented below supplements the discussion in each fund’s prospectus and only summarizes some of the important federal tax considerations generally affecting shareholders of the funds. Accordingly, prospective investors (particularly those not residing or domiciled in the United States) should consult their own tax advisors regarding the consequences of investing in the funds.

Any dividends declared by a fund in October, November or December and paid the following January are treated, for tax purposes, as if they were received by shareholders on December 31 of the year in which they were declared. In general, distributions by a fund of investment company taxable income (including net short-term capital gains), if any, whether received in cash or additional shares, will be taxable to you as ordinary income. A portion of these distributions may be treated as qualified dividend income (eligible for the reduced maximum rate to individuals of 15% (reduced rates apply to individuals in lower tax brackets)) to the extent that a fund receives qualified dividend income. Qualified dividend income is, in general, dividend income from taxable domestic corporations and certain foreign corporations (e.g., foreign corporations incorporated in a possession of the United States or in certain countries with a comprehensive tax treaty with the United States, or the stock of which is readily tradable on an established securities market in the United States). A dividend will not be treated as qualified dividend income to the extent that (i) the shareholder has not held the shares of the fund on which the dividend was paid for more than 60 days during the 121-day period that begins on the date that is 60 days before the date on which the shares of a fund become ex-dividend with respect to such dividend (and each fund also satisfies those holding period requirements with respect to the securities it holds that paid the dividends distributed to the shareholder), (ii) the shareholder is under an obligation (whether pursuant to a short sale or otherwise) to make related payments with respect to substantially similar or related property, or (iii) the shareholder elects to treat such dividend as investment income under section 163(d)(4)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code. Dividends received by each fund from a REIT or another RIC may be treated as qualified

dividend income only to the extent the dividend distributions are attributable to qualified dividend income received by such REIT or RIC. It is expected that dividends received by the fund from a REIT and distributed to a shareholder generally will be taxable to the shareholder as ordinary income.

Distributions from net capital gain (if any) that are designated as capital gains dividends are taxable as long-term capital gains without regard to the length of time the shareholder has held shares of a fund. However, if you receive a capital gains dividend with respect to fund shares held for six months or less, any loss on the sale or exchange of those shares shall, to the extent of the capital gains dividend, be treated as a long-term capital loss. Long-term capital gains also will be taxed at a maximum rate of 15%. Absent further legislation, the maximum 15% tax rate on qualified dividend income and long-term capital gains will cease to apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010.

A fund will inform you of the amount of your ordinary income dividends and capital gain distributions, if any, at the time they are paid and will advise you of their tax status for federal income tax purposes, including what portion of the distributions will be qualified dividend income, shortly after the close of each calendar year.

If a fund makes a distribution to a shareholder in excess of a fund’s current and accumulated earnings and profits in any taxable year, the excess distribution will be treated as a return of capital to the extent of the shareholder’s tax basis in its shares, and thereafter, as capital gain. A return of capital is not taxable, but reduces a shareholder’s tax basis in its shares, thus reducing any loss or increasing any gain on a subsequent taxable disposition by the shareholder of its shares.

For corporate investors in a fund, dividend distributions a fund designates to be from dividends received from qualifying domestic corporations will be eligible for the 70% corporate dividends-received deduction to the extent they would qualify if the fund were a regular corporation. Distributions by a fund also may be subject to state, local and foreign taxes, which may differ from the federal income tax treatment described above.

A sale of shares in a fund may give rise to a gain or loss. In general, any gain or loss realized upon a taxable disposition of shares will be treated as long-term capital gain or loss if the shares have been held for more than 12 months. Otherwise, the gain or loss on the taxable disposition of shares will be treated as short-term capital gain or loss. Under current law, the maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains available to non-corporate shareholders is generally 15% for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2011. Any loss realized upon a taxable disposition of shares held for six months or less will be treated as long-term, rather than short-term, to the extent of any long-term capital gain distributions received (or deemed received) by the shareholder with respect to the shares. All or a portion of any loss realized upon a taxable disposition of shares will be disallowed if other substantially identical shares of a fund are purchased within 30 days before or after the disposition. In such a case, the basis of the newly purchased shares will be adjusted to reflect the disallowed loss.

An Authorized Participant who exchanges securities for Creation Units generally will recognize a gain or a loss. The gain or loss will be equal to the difference between the market value of the Creation Units at the time and the sum of the exchanger’s aggregate basis in the securities surrendered plus the amount of cash paid for such Creation Units. A person who redeems Creation Units will generally recognize a gain or loss equal to the difference between the exchanger’s basis in the Creation Units and the sum of the aggregate market value of any securities received plus the amount of any cash received for such Creation Units. The Internal Revenue Service, however, may assert that a loss realized upon an exchange of securities for Creation Units cannot be deducted currently under the rules governing “wash sales,” or on the basis that there has been no significant change in economic position.

Any capital gain or loss realized upon the creation of Creation Units will generally be treated as long-term capital gain or loss if the securities exchanged for such Creation Units have been held for more than one year. Any capital gain or loss realized upon the redemption of Creation Units will generally be treated as long-term capital gain or loss if the shares comprising the Creation Units have been held for more than one year. Otherwise, such capital gains or losses will be treated as short-term capital gains or losses. In some circumstances, a redemption of Creation Units may be treated as resulting in a distribution to which section 301 of the Code applies, potentially causing amounts received by the shareholder in the redemption to be treated as dividend income rather than as a payment in exchange for Creation Units. The rules for determining when a redemption will be treated as giving rise to a distribution under section 301 of the Code and the tax consequences of Code section 301 distributions are complex. Persons purchasing or redeeming Creation Units should consult their own tax advisors with respect to the tax treatment of any creation or redemption transaction.

Certain tax-exempt shareholders, including qualified pension plans, individual retirement accounts, salary deferral arrangements, 401(k)s, and other tax-exempt entities, generally are exempt from federal income taxation except with respect to their unrelated business taxable income (“UBTI”). Under current law, each fund generally serves to block UBTI from being realized by their tax-exempt shareholders. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, tax-exempt shareholders could realize UBTI by virtue of its investment in the fund where, for example, (i) a fund invests in REITs that hold residual interests in real estate mortgage investment conduits

(“REMICs”) or (ii) share in a fund constitutes debt-financed property in the hands of the tax-exempt shareholder within the meaning of section 514(b) of the Code, a tax-exempt shareholder could realize UBTI by virtue of its investment in the Fund. Charitable remainder trusts are subject to special rules and should consult their tax advisors. There are no restrictions preventing a fund from holding investments in REITs that hold residual interests in REMICs, and a fund may do so. The Internal Revenue Service has issued recent guidance with respect to these issues and prospective shareholders, especially charitable remainder trusts, are strongly encouraged to consult with their tax advisors regarding these issues.

Each fund has the right to reject an order to for Creation Units if the purchaser (or group of purchasers) would, upon obtaining the shares so ordered, own 80% or more of the outstanding shares of the fund and if, pursuant to section 351 of the Code, the respective fund would have a basis in the deposit securities different from the market value of such securities on the date of deposit. Each fund also has the right to require information necessary to determine beneficial Share ownership for purposes of the 80% determination.

Dividends paid by the funds to shareholders who are nonresident aliens or foreign entities will be subject to a 30% United States withholding tax unless a reduced rate of withholding or a withholding exemption is provided under applicable treaty law to the extent derived from investment income and short-term capital gain (other than “qualified short-term capital gain” described below) or unless such income is effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business carried on through a permanent establishment in the United States. Nonresident shareholders are urged to consult their own tax advisors concerning the applicability of the United States withholding tax and the proper withholding form(s) to be submitted to the funds. A non-U.S. shareholder who fails to provide an appropriate Internal Revenue Service Form W-8 may be subject to backup withholding at the appropriate rate.

The funds may, under certain circumstances, designate all or a portion of a dividend as an “interest-related dividend” that if received by a nonresident alien or foreign entity generally would be exempt from the 30% U.S. withholding tax, provided that certain other requirements are met. The funds may also, under certain circumstances, designate all or a portion of a dividend as a “qualified short-term capital gain dividend” which if received by a nonresident alien or foreign entity generally would be exempt from the 30% U.S. withholding tax, unless the foreign person is a nonresident alien individual present in the United States for a period or periods aggregating 183 days or more during the taxable year. In the case of Shares held through an intermediary, the intermediary may withhold even if the funds designate the payment as qualified net interest income or qualified short-term capital gain. Non-U.S. shareholders should contact their intermediaries with respect to the application of these rules to their accounts. The provisions relating to dividends to foreign persons would apply to dividends with respect to taxable years of the funds beginning after December 31, 2004 and before January 1, 2010.

The Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act of 1980 (“FIRPTA”) makes non-U.S. persons subject to U.S. tax on disposition of a U.S. real property interest as if he or she were a U.S. person. Such gain is sometimes referred to as “FIRPTA gain”. The Internal Revenue Code provides a look-through rule for distributions of “FIRPTA gain” by a RIC if all of the following requirements are met: (i) the RIC is classified as a “qualified investment entity” (a “qualified investment entity” includes a RIC if, in general, more than 50% of the RIC’s assets consists of interests in REITs and U.S. real property holding corporations); and (ii) you are a non-U.S. shareholder that owns more than 5% of a fund’s shares at any time during the one-year period ending on the date of the distribution. If these conditions are met, fund distributions to you are treated as gain from the disposition of a U.S. real property interest (“USRPI”), causing the distribution to be subject to U.S. withholding tax at a rate of 35%, and requiring that you file a nonresident U.S. income tax return. Also, such gain may be subject to a 30% branch profits tax in the hands of a non-U.S. shareholder that is a corporation. Even if a non-U.S. shareholder does not own more than 5% of a fund’s shares, fund distributions to you that are attributable to gain from the sale or disposition of a USRPI will be taxable as ordinary dividends subject to withholding at a 30% or lower treaty rate.

Disclosure for Non-U.S. Shareholders — Each fund will be required in certain cases to withhold at the applicable withholding rate and remit to the U.S. Treasury the withheld amount of taxable dividends paid to any shareholder who (1) fails to provide a correct taxpayer identification number certified under penalty of perjury; (2) is subject to withholding by the Internal Revenue Service for failure to properly report all payments of interest or dividends; (3) fails to provide a certified statement that he or she is not subject to “backup withholding;” or (4) fails to provide a certified statement that he or she is a U.S. person (including a U.S. resident alien). Backup withholding is not an additional tax and any amounts withheld may be credited against the shareholder’s ultimate U.S. tax liability.

Foreign shareholders (i.e., nonresident alien individuals and foreign corporations, partnerships, trusts and estates) are generally subject to U.S. withholding tax at the rate of 30% (or a lower tax treaty rate) on distributions derived from net investment income and short-term capital gains; provided, however, that for a fund’s taxable year beginning after December 31, 2004 and not beginning after December 31, 2009, interest related dividends and short-term capital gain dividends generally will not be subject to U.S. withholding taxes. Distributions to foreign shareholders of such short-term capital gain dividends, of long-term capital gains and any gains from the sale or other disposition of shares of a fund generally are not subject to U.S. taxation, unless the recipient is an individual who

either (1) meets the Code’s definition of “resident alien” or (2) is physically present in the U.S. for 183 days or more per year. Different tax consequences may result if the foreign shareholder is engaged in a trade or business within the United States. In addition, the tax consequences to a foreign shareholder entitled to claim the benefits of a tax treaty may be different than those described above.

Under U.S. Treasury regulations, if a shareholder recognizes a loss of $2 million or more for an individual shareholder or $10 million or more for a corporate shareholder, the shareholder must file with the Internal Revenue Service a disclosure statement on Form 8886. Direct shareholders of portfolio securities are in many cases excepted from this reporting requirement, but under current guidance, shareholders of a RIC such as a fund are not excepted. Future guidance may extend the current exception from this reporting requirement to shareholders of most or all RICs. The fact that a loss is reportable under these regulations does not affect the legal determination of whether the taxpayer’s treatment of the loss is proper. Shareholders should consult their tax advisors to determine the applicability of these regulations in light of their individual circumstances.

Shareholders are urged to consult their tax advisors as to the state and local tax rules affecting investments in the funds.

Financial Statement

Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF
Statement of Assets and Liabilities
October 13, 2009


Assets
Cash	$	100,025

Total Assets		100,025

Net Assets	$	100,025

Net Assets by Source
Paid-in capital	$	100,025

Net Asset Value (NAV)


		Shares
Net Assets	÷	Outstanding	=	NAV
$100,025		4,001		$25.00

See Financial Notes

Financial Notes:

1. Business Structure of the Fund:

The Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF (the “fund”) is a series of the Schwab Strategic Trust, (the ‘‘trust’’) an open-end management investment company. The trust was organized as a Delaware statutory trust on January 27, 2009 and is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), as amended.

The fund has had no operations to date, other than the capital contribution of 4,000 shares in the amount of $100,000 from Charles Schwab Corporation and 1 share in the amount of $25 from Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. on October 13, 2009.

The fund is an exchange-traded fund (“ETF”). ETFs are funds that trade like other publicly-traded securities. This fund is designed to track an index. Similar to shares of an index mutual fund, each share of the fund represents a partial ownership of a fund which owns an underlying portfolio of securities intended to track a market index. The fund’s objective is to track as closely as possible, before fees and expenses, the total return of the Dow Jones U.S. Broad Stock Market IndexSM. Shares of the fund will be listed and traded at market prices on NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”).

The fund issues and redeems shares at their NAV only in large blocks of shares, typically 50,000 shares or more (“Creation Units”). These transactions are usually in exchange for a basket of securities and an amount of cash. As a practical matter, only institutions purchase or redeem Creation Units. Except when aggregated in Creation Units, shares of the fund are not redeemable securities.

Fund shares may be bought and sold in the secondary market at market prices. Although it is expected that the market price of the shares of the fund will approximate the fund’s NAV, there may be times when the market price and the NAV vary significantly.

2. Significant Accounting Policies:

The following is a summary of the significant accounting policies the fund uses in the preparation of its financial statements. The accounting policies are in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

(a) Concentration of Credit Risk:

At times, the fund’s cash may exceed federally insurable limits. The fund believes it mitigates this risk by investing in or through a major financial institution.

(b) Investment Income:

Interest income is recorded as it accrues. Dividends and distributions from portfolio securities are recorded on the date they are effective (the ex-dividend date).

(c) Expenses:

Expenses that are specific to the fund or a class within the trust are charged directly to the fund. Expenses that are common to all funds within the trust are generally allocated among the funds in proportion to their average daily net assets.

(d) Distribution to Shareholders:

The fund declares distributions from net investment income (if any) quarterly and net realized capital gains (if any) once a year.

(e) Accounting Estimates:

The accounting policies described in this report conform with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Notwithstanding this, shareholders should understand that in order to follow these principles, fund management has to make estimates and assumptions that affect the information reported in the financial statements. It’s possible that once the results are known, they may turn out to be different from these estimates.

(f) Federal Income Taxes:

The fund intends to meet federal income and excise tax requirements for regulated investment companies. Accordingly, the fund distributes substantially all of its net investment income and realized net capital gains (if any) to its respective shareholders each year. As long as the fund meets the tax requirements, it is not required to pay federal income tax.

(g) Indemnification:

Under the fund’s organizational documents, the officers and trustees are indemnified against certain liabilities arising out of the performance of their duties to the fund. In addition, in the normal course of business the fund enters into contracts with its vendors and others that provide general indemnifications. The fund’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown as this would involve future claims that may be made against the fund. However, based on experience, the fund expects the risk of loss to be remote.

3. Risk factors:

Investing in the fund may involve certain risks, as described in the fund’s prospectus, including, but not limited to those described below:

Stock markets rise and fall daily. As with any investment whose performance is tied to these markets, the value of your investment in the fund will fluctuate, this means that one could lose money.

The prices of equity securities rise and fall daily. These price movements may result from factors affecting individual companies, industries or the securities market as a whole. Individual companies may report poor results or be negatively affected by industry and/or economic trends and developments. The prices of securities issued by such companies may suffer a decline in response. In addition, the equity market tends to move in cycles which may cause stock prices to fall over short or extended periods of time.

The fund is not actively managed. Therefore, the fund follows the stocks included in the index during upturns as well as downturns. Because of its indexing strategy, the fund does not take steps to reduce market exposure or to lessen the effects of a declining market. In addition, because of the fund’s expenses, the fund’s performance is normally below that of the index.

Although the index encompasses stocks from many different sectors of the economy, its performance primarily reflects that of large- and mid-cap segments of the U.S. stock market. Both large- and mid-cap stocks tend to go in and out of favor based on market and economic conditions. However, stocks of mid-cap companies tend to be more volatile than those of large-cap companies because mid-cap companies tend to be more susceptible to adverse business or economic events than larger more established companies. During a period when large- and mid-cap U.S. stocks fall behind other types of investments — bonds or small-cap stocks, for instance — the fund’s performance also will lag those investments.

Historically, small-cap stocks have been riskier than large- and mid-cap stocks. Stock prices of smaller companies may be based in substantial part on future expectations rather than current achievements and may move sharply, especially during market upturns and downturns. Small-cap companies themselves may be more vulnerable to adverse business or economic events than larger, more established companies. During a period when small-cap stocks fall behind other types of investments — bonds or large-cap stocks, for instance — the fund’s performance also will lag those investments.

The fund does not fully replicate the index and may hold securities not included in the index. As a result, the fund is subject to the risk that the Adviser’s investment management strategy, the implementation of which is subject to a number of constraints, may not produce the intended results. Because the fund utilizes a sampling approach its return may not correlate as well with the return on its index, as would be the case if the fund purchased all of the equity securities in the index.

The fund’s return may not match the return of the index. For example, differences between the fund’s securities and those in the index, rounding of prices, changes to the index and regulatory requirements may cause tracking error, the divergence of the fund’s performance from that of its index. The fund may not be able to invest in certain securities in its benchmark index, or match the securities’ weighting to the benchmark, due to regulatory, operational or liquidity constraints, which may result in tracking error. The fund may attempt to offset the effects of not being invested in certain index securities by making substitute investments, but these efforts may not be successful. The fund also incurs fees and expenses while the index does not, which may result in tracking error.

To the extent that the fund’s or the index’s portfolio is concentrated in the securities of issuers in a particular market, industry, group of industries, sector or asset class, the fund may be adversely affected by the performance of those securities, may be subject to increased price volatility and may be more susceptible to adverse economic, market, political or regulatory occurrences affecting that market, industry, group of industries, sector or asset class.

Although fund shares are listed on national securities exchanges, there can be no assurance that an active trading market for fund shares will develop or be maintained. If an active market is not maintained, investors may find it difficult to buy or sell fund shares. Trading of shares of the fund on a stock exchange may be halted if exchange officials deem such action appropriate, if the fund is delisted, or if the activation of market wide “circuit breakers” halts stock trading generally. If the fund’s shares are delisted, the fund may seek to list its shares on another market, merge with another ETF, or redeem its shares at NAV. The Adviser believes that, under normal market conditions, large market price discounts or premiums to NAV will not be sustained because of arbitrage opportunities.

As with all ETFs, fund shares may be bought and sold in the secondary market at market prices. Although it is expected that the market price of the shares of the fund will approximate the fund’s NAV, there may be times when the market price and the NAV vary significantly. Thus, you may pay more than NAV when you buy shares of the fund in the secondary market, and you may receive less than NAV when you sell those shares in the secondary market.

The market price of fund shares during the trading day, like the price of any exchange-traded security, includes a “bid/ask” spread charged by the exchange specialist, market makers or other participants that trade the fund shares. The bid/ask spread on ETF shares is likely to be larger on ETFs that are traded less frequently. In addition, in times of severe market disruption, the bid/ask spread can increase significantly. At those times, fund shares are most likely to be traded at a discount to NAV, and the discount is likely to be greatest when the price of shares is falling fastest, which may be the time that you most want to sell your shares. The investment adviser believes that, under normal market conditions, large market price discounts or premiums to NAV will not be sustained because of arbitrage opportunities.

An investment in the fund is not a bank deposit and it is not insured or guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) or any other government agency.

Please refer to the fund’s prospectus for a complete description of the principal risks of investing in the fund.

3. Affiliates and Affiliated Transactions:

Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. (“CSIM” or the “investment adviser”), a wholly owned subsidiary of The Charles Schwab Corporation, serves as the fund’s investment adviser and administrator pursuant to Investment Advisory and Administration Agreements (“Advisory Agreements”) between it and the trust.

The investment adviser is entitled to receive an annual fee payable monthly at an annual rate of 0.08% of the average daily net assets of the fund. The investment adviser will pay the operating expenses of the fund, excluding interest expense, taxes, any brokerage expenses, distribution fees or expenses (i.e., 12b-1 fees) and extraordinary or non-routine expenses.

4. Other Shareholder Services:

SEI Investments Distribution Co. (the “Distributor”) is the principal underwriter and distributor of shares of the fund. The trust has adopted a Distribution and Shareholder Service Plan. Under the Plan, pursuant to Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act, the fund is subject to an annual 12b-1 fee of up to 0.25% of the fund’s average daily net assets. The plan allows the fund to pay distribution and shareholder services fees to the Distributor and other firms that provide distribution and shareholder services. However, the Board has determined that no such fees will be charged prior to November 14, 2011.

5. Other Service Providers:

State Street Bank and Trust Company serves as the fund’s transfer agent. As part of these services, the transfer agent maintains records pertaining to the sale, redemption and transfer of the fund’s shares.

State Street Bank and Trust Company also serves as custodian and accountant for the fund. The custodian is responsible for the daily safekeeping of securities and cash held or sold by the fund. The fund’s accountant maintains all books and records related to the fund’s transactions.

6. Board of Trustees:

Trustees may include people who are officers and/or directors of other fund families affiliated to the investment adviser. Federal securities law limits the percentage of the “interested persons” who may serve on a trust’s board, and the trust was in compliance with these limitations. The trust did not pay any of the interested persons for their services as trustees.

7. Organizational Expenses:

The organizational expenses of the fund will be paid by CSIM and will not be subject to future recoupment.

8. Subsequent Events:

As of October 20, 2009, the date the financial statements were available to be issued, no subsequent events or transactions had occurred that would have materially impacted the financial statements as presented.

APPENDIX A — RATINGS OF INVESTMENT SECURITIES

From time to time, the fund may report the percentage of its assets that fall into the rating categories set forth below.

BONDS

Moody’s Investors Service

Aaa Bonds which are rated Aaa are judged to be of the best quality. They carry the smallest degree of investment risk and are generally referred to as “gilt edged.” Interest payments are protected by a large or by an exceptionally stable margin and principal is secure. While the various protective elements are likely to change, such changes as can be visualized are most unlikely to impair the fundamentally strong position of such issues.

Aa Bonds which are rated Aa are judged to be of high quality by all standards. Together with the Aaa group they comprise what are generally known as high-grade bonds. They are rated lower than the best bonds because margins of protection may not be as large as in Aaa securities or fluctuation of protective elements may be of greater amplitude or there may be other elements present which make the long term risk appear somewhat larger than the Aaa securities.

A Bonds which are rated A possess many favorable investment attributes and are to be considered as upper-medium grade obligations. Factors giving security to principal and interest are considered adequate, but elements may be present which suggest a susceptibility to impairment some time in the future.

Baa Bonds which are rated Baa are considered as medium-grade obligations (i.e., they are neither highly protected nor poorly secured). Interest payments and principal security appear adequate for the present but certain protective elements may be lacking or may be characteristically unreliable over any great length of time. Such bonds lack outstanding investment characteristics and in fact have speculative characteristics as well.

Ba Bonds which are rated Ba are judged to have speculative elements; their future cannot be considered as well-assured. Often the protection of interest and principal payments may be very moderate and thereby not well safeguarded during both good and bad times over the future. Uncertainty of position characterizes bonds in this class.

B Bonds which are rated B generally lack characteristics of the desirable investment. Assurance of interest and principal payments or of maintenance of other terms of the contract over any long period of time may be small.

Standard & Poor’s Corporation

Investment Grade

AAA Debt rated ‘AAA’ has the highest rating assigned by S&P. Capacity to pay interest and repay principal is extremely strong.

AA Debt rated ‘AA’ has a very strong capacity to pay interest and repay principal and differs from the highest rated debt only in small degree.

A Debt rated ‘A’ has a strong capacity to pay interest and repay principal, although it is somewhat more susceptible to adverse effects of changes in circumstances and economic conditions than debt in higher-rated categories.

BBB Debt rated ‘BBB’ is regarded as having an adequate capacity to pay interest and repay principal. Whereas it normally exhibits adequate protection parameters, adverse economic conditions or changing circumstances are more likely to lead to a weakened capacity to pay interest and repay principal for debt in this category than in higher rated categories.

Speculative Grade

Debt rated ‘BB’ and ‘B’ is regarded as having predominantly speculative characteristics with respect to capacity to pay interest and repay principal. While such debt will likely have some quality and protective characteristics, these are outweighed by large uncertainties or major risk exposures to adverse conditions.

BB Debt rated ‘BB’ has less near-term vulnerability to default than other speculative grade debt. However, it faces major ongoing uncertainties or exposure to adverse business, financial, or economic conditions that could lead to inadequate capacity to meet timely interest and principal payments. The ‘BB’ rating category is also used for debt subordinated to senior debt that is assigned an actual or implied ‘BBB-’ rating.

B Debt rate ‘B’ has greater vulnerability to default but presently has the capacity to meet interest payments and principal repayments. Adverse business, financial, or economic conditions would likely impair capacity or willingness to pay interest and repay principal. The ‘B’ rating category also is used for debt subordinated to senior debt that is assigned an actual or implied ‘BB’ or ‘BB-’ rating.

Fitch, Inc.

Investment Grade Bond


AAA		Bonds considered to be investment grade and of the highest credit quality. The obligor has an exceptionally strong ability to pay interest and repay principal, which is unlikely to be affected by reasonably foreseeable events.

AA		Bonds considered to be investment grade and of very high credit quality. The obligor’s ability to pay interest and repay principal is very strong, although not quite as strong as bonds rated ‘AAA’. Because bonds rated in the ‘AAA’ and ‘AA’ categories are not significantly vulnerable to foreseeable future developments, short term debt of these issuers is generally rated ‘F1+’.

A		Bonds considered to be investment grade and of high credit quality. The obligor’s ability to pay interest and repay principal is considered to be strong, but may be more vulnerable to adverse changes in economic conditions and circumstances than bonds with higher ratings.

BBB		Bonds considered to be investment grade and of satisfactory credit quality. The obligor’s ability to pay interest and repay principal is considered to be adequate. Adverse changes in economic conditions and circumstances, however, are more likely to have adverse impact on these bonds, and therefore impair timely payment. The likelihood that the ratings of these bonds will fall below investment grade is higher than for bonds with higher ratings.

Speculative grade bond


BB		Bonds are considered speculative. The obligor’s ability to pay interest and repay principal may be affected over time by adverse economic changes. However, business and financial alternatives can be identified which could assist the obligor in satisfying its debt service requirements.

B		Bonds are considered highly speculative. While bonds in this class are currently meeting debt service requirements, the probability of continued timely payment of principal and interest reflects the obligor’s limited margin of safety and the need for reasonable business and economic activity throughout the life of the issue.

Dominion Bond Rating Service

Bond and Long Term Debt Rating Scale

As is the case with all DBRS rating scales, long term debt ratings are meant to give an indication of the risk that the borrower will not fulfill its full obligations in a timely manner with respect to both interest and principal commitments. DBRS ratings do not take factors such as pricing or market risk into consideration and are expected to be used by purchasers as one part of their investment process. Every DBRS rating is based on quantitative and qualitative considerations that are relevant for the borrowing entity.

AAA: Highest Credit Quality
AA: Superior Credit Quality
A: Satisfactory Credit Quality

BBB: Adequate Credit Quality
BB: Speculative
B: Highly Speculative

CCC: Very Highly Speculative

CC: Very Highly Speculative
C: Very Highly Speculative

“AAA” Bonds rated “AAA” are of the highest credit quality, with exceptionally strong protection for the timely repayment of principal and interest. Earnings are considered stable, the structure of the industry in which the entity operates is strong, and the outlook for future profitability is favorable. There are few qualifying factors present which would detract from the performance of the entity, the strength of liquidity and coverage ratios is unquestioned and the entity has established a creditable track record of superior performance. Given the extremely tough definition which DBRS has established for this category, few entities are able to achieve a AAA rating.

“AA” Bonds rated “AA” are of superior credit quality, and protection of interest and principal is considered high. In many cases, they differ from bonds rated AAA only to a small degree. Given the extremely tough definition which DBRS has for the AAA category (which few companies are able to achieve), entities rated AA are also considered to be strong credits which typically exemplify above-average strength in key areas of consideration and are unlikely to be significantly affected by reasonably foreseeable events.

“A” Bonds rated “A” are of satisfactory credit quality. Protection of interest and principal is still substantial, but the degree of strength is less than with AA rated entities. While a respectable rating, entities in the “A” category are considered to be more susceptible to adverse economic conditions and have greater cyclical tendencies than higher rated companies.

“BBB” Bonds rated “BBB” are of adequate credit quality. Protection of interest and principal is considered adequate, but the entity is more susceptible to adverse changes in financial and economic conditions, or there may be other adversities present which reduce the strength of the entity and its rated securities.

“BB” Bonds rated “BB” are defined to be speculative, where the degree of protection afforded interest and principal is uncertain, particularly during periods of economic recession. Entities in the BB area typically have limited access to capital markets and additional liquidity support and, in many cases, small size or lack of competitive strength may be additional negative considerations.

“B” Bonds rated “B” are highly speculative and there is a reasonably high level of uncertainty which exists as to the ability of the entity to pay interest and principal on a continuing basis in the future, especially in periods of economic recession or industry adversity.

“CCC” / “CC” / “C” Bonds rated in any of these categories are very highly speculative and are in danger of default of interest and principal. The degree of adverse elements present is more severe than bonds rated “B”. Bonds rated below “B” often have characteristics which, if not remedied, may lead to default. In practice, there is little difference between the “C” to “CCC” categories, with “CC” and “C” normally used to lower ranking debt of companies where the senior debt is rated in the “CCC” to “B” range.

“D” This category indicates Bonds in default of either interest or principal.

(“high”, “low”) grades are used to indicate the relative standing of a credit within a particular rating category. The lack of one of these designations indicates a rating which is essentially in the middle of the category. Note that “high” and “low” grades are not used for the AAA category.

COMMERCIAL PAPER AND SHORT-TERM DEBT RATING SCALE

Dominion Bond Rating Service

As is the case with all DBRS rating scales, commercial paper ratings are meant to give an indication of the risk that the borrower will not fulfill its obligations in a timely manner. DBRS ratings do not take factors such as pricing or market risk into consideration and are expected to be used by purchasers as one part of their investment process. Every DBRS rating is based on quantitative and qualitative considerations which are relevant for the borrowing entity.

R-1: Prime Credit Quality

R-2: Adequate Credit Quality

R-3: Speculative

All three DBRS rating categories for short term debt use “high”, “middle” or “low” as subset grades to designate the relative standing of the credit within a particular rating category. The following comments provide separate definitions for the three grades in the Prime Credit Quality area, as this is where ratings for active borrowers in Canada continue to be heavily concentrated.

“R-1 (high)” Short term debt rated “R-1 (high)” is of the highest credit quality, and indicates an entity which possesses unquestioned ability to repay current liabilities as they fall due. Entities rated in this category normally maintain strong liquidity positions, conservative debt levels and profitability which is both stable and above average. Companies achieving an “R-1 (high)” rating are normally leaders in structurally sound industry segments with proven track records, sustainable positive future results and no substantial qualifying negative factors. Given the extremely tough definition which DBRS has established for an “R-1 (high)”, few entities are strong enough to achieve this rating.

“R-1 (middle)” Short term debt rated “R-1 (middle)” is of superior credit quality and, in most cases, ratings in this category differ from “R-1 (high)” credits to only a small degree. Given the extremely tough definition which DBRS has for the “R-1 (high)” category (which few companies are able to achieve), entities rated “R-1 (middle)” are also considered strong credits which typically exemplify above average strength in key areas of consideration for debt protection.

“R-1 (low)” Short term debt rated “R-1 (low)” is of satisfactory credit quality. The overall strength and outlook for key liquidity, debt and profitability ratios is not normally as favorable as with higher rating categories, but these considerations are still respectable. Any qualifying negative factors which exist are considered manageable, and the entity is normally of sufficient size to have some influence in its industry.

“R-2 (high)”, “R-2 (middle)”, “R-2 (low)” Short term debt rated “R-2” is of adequate credit quality and within the three subset grades, debt protection ranges from having reasonable ability for timely repayment to a level which is considered only just adequate. The liquidity and debt ratios of entities in the “R-2” classification are not as strong as those in the “R-1” category, and the past and future trend may suggest some risk of maintaining the strength of key ratios in these areas. Alternative sources of liquidity support are considered satisfactory; however, even the strongest liquidity support will not improve the commercial paper rating of the issuer. The size of the entity may restrict its flexibility, and its relative position in the industry is not typically as strong as an “R-1 credit”. Profitability trends, past and future, may be less favorable, earnings not as stable, and there are often negative qualifying factors present which could also make the entity more vulnerable to adverse changes in financial and economic conditions.

“R-3 (high)”, “R-3 (middle)”, “R-3 (low)” Short term debt rated “R-3” is speculative, and within the three subset grades, the capacity for timely payment ranges from mildly speculative to doubtful. “R-3” credits tend to have weak liquidity and debt ratios, and the future trend of these ratios is also unclear. Due to its speculative nature, companies with “R-3” ratings would normally have very limited access to alternative sources of liquidity. Earnings would typically be very unstable, and the level of overall profitability of the entity is also likely to be low. The industry environment may be weak, and strong negative qualifying factors are also likely to be present.

SHORT TERM NOTES AND VARIABLE RATE DEMAND OBLIGATIONS

Moody’s Investors Service

Short term notes/variable rate demand obligations bearing the designations MIG-1/VMIG-1 are considered to be of the best quality, enjoying strong protection from established cash flows, superior liquidity support or demonstrated broad-based access to the market for refinancing. Obligations rated MIG-2/VMIG-3 are of high quality and enjoy ample margins of protection although not as large as those of the top rated securities.

Standard & Poor’s Corporation

An S&P SP-1 rating indicates that the subject securities’ issuer has a strong capacity to pay principal and interest. Issues determined to possess very strong safety characteristics are given a plus (+) designation. S&P’s determination that an issuer has a satisfactory capacity to pay principal and interest is denoted by an SP-2 rating.

Fitch, Inc.

Obligations supported by the highest capacity for timely repayment are rated F1+. An F1 rating indicates that the obligation is supported by a very strong capacity for timely repayment. Obligations rated F2 are supported by a good capacity for timely repayment, although adverse changes in business, economic, or financial conditions may affect this capacity.

COMMERCIAL PAPER

Moody’s Investors Service

Prime-1 is the highest commercial paper rating assigned by Moody’s. Issuers (or related supporting institutions) of commercial paper with this rating are considered to have a superior ability to repay short term promissory obligations. Issuers (or related supporting institutions) of securities rated Prime-2 are viewed as having a strong capacity to repay short term promissory obligations. This capacity will normally be evidenced by many of the characteristics of issuers whose commercial paper is rated Prime-1 but to a lesser degree.

Standard & Poor’s Corporation

A Standard & Poor’s Corporation (“S&P”) A-1 commercial paper rating indicates a strong degree of safety regarding timely payment of principal and interest. Issues determined to possess overwhelming safety characteristics are denoted A-1+. Capacity for timely payment on commercial paper rated A-2 is satisfactory, but the relative degree of safety is not as high as for issues designated A-1.

Fitch, Inc.

F1+ is the highest category, and indicates the strongest degree of assurance for timely payment. Issues rated F1 reflect an assurance of timely payment only slightly less than issues rated F1+. Issues assigned an F2 rating have a satisfactory degree of assurance for timely payment, but the margin of safety is not as great as for issues in the first two rating categories.

APPENDIX B – DESCRIPTION OF PROXY VOTING POLICY AND PROCEDURES

Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc.
The Charles Schwab Family of Funds
Schwab Investments

Schwab Capital Trust
Schwab Annuity Portfolios
Laudus Trust

Laudus Institutional Trust
Schwab Strategic Trust

Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures
As of February 2010

Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. (“CSIM”), as an investment adviser, is generally responsible for voting proxies with respect to the securities held in accounts of investment companies and other clients for which it provides discretionary investment management services. CSIM’s Proxy Committee exercises and documents CSIM’s responsibility with regard to voting of client proxies (the “Proxy Committee”). The Proxy Committee is composed of representatives of CSIM’s Fund Administration, Legal, and Portfolio Management Departments, and chaired by CSIM’s Deputy Chief Investment Officer. The Proxy Committee reviews and, as necessary, may amend periodically these Procedures to address new or revised proxy voting policies or procedures. The policies stated in these Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures (the “CSIM Proxy Procedures”) pertain to all of CSIM’s clients.

The Boards of Trustees (the “Trustees”) of The Charles Schwab Family of Funds, Schwab Investments, Schwab Capital Trust, and Schwab Annuity Portfolios ( “Schwab Funds”) have delegated the responsibility for voting proxies to CSIM through their respective Investment Advisory and Administration Agreements. In addition, the Boards of Trustees (the “Trustees”) of Laudus Trust and Laudus Institutional Trust (“Laudus Funds”) and the Schwab Strategic Trust (“Schwab ETFs”; collectively, the Schwab Funds, the Laudus Funds and the Schwab ETFs are the “Funds”) have delegated the responsibility for voting proxies to CSIM through their respective Investment Advisory and Administration Agreements. The Trustees have adopted these Proxy Procedures with respect to proxies voted on behalf of the various Schwab Funds, Laudus Funds, and Schwab ETFs portfolios. CSIM will present amendments to the Trustees for approval. However, there may be circumstances where the Proxy Committee deems it advisable to amend the Proxy Procedures between regular Schwab Funds, Laudus Funds and Schwab ETFs Board meetings. In such cases, the Trustees will be asked to ratify any changes at the next regular meeting of the Board.

To assist CSIM in its responsibility for voting proxies and the overall proxy voting process, CSIM has retained Glass Lewis & Co. (“Glass Lewis”) as an expert in the proxy voting and corporate governance area. The services provided by Glass Lewis include in-depth research, global issuer analysis, and voting recommendations as well as vote execution, reporting and record keeping.

Proxy Voting Policy

For investment companies and other clients for which CSIM exercises its responsibility for voting proxies, it is CSIM’s policy to vote proxies in the manner that CSIM and the Proxy Committee determine will maximize the economic benefit to CSIM’s clients. In furtherance of this policy, the Proxy Committee has received and reviewed Glass Lewis’ written proxy voting policies and procedures (“Glass Lewis’ Proxy Procedures”) and has determined that Glass Lewis’ Proxy Procedures, with the exceptions noted below, are consistent with the CSIM Proxy Procedures and CSIM’s fiduciary duty with respect to its clients. The Proxy Committee will review any material amendments to Glass Lewis’ Proxy Procedures to determine whether such procedures continue to be consistent with the CSIM Proxy Voting Procedures, and CSIM’s fiduciary duty with respect to its clients.

Except under each of the circumstances described below, the Proxy Committee will delegate to Glass Lewis responsibility for voting proxies, including timely submission of votes, on behalf of CSIM’s clients in accordance with Glass Lewis’ Proxy Procedures.

For proxy issues, that are determined by the Proxy Committee or the applicable portfolio manager or other relevant portfolio management staff to raise significant concerns with respect to the accounts of CSIM clients, the Proxy Committee will review the analysis and recommendation of Glass Lewis. Examples of factors that could cause a matter to raise significant concerns include, but are not limited to: issues whose outcome has the potential to materially affect the company’s industry, or regional or national economy, and matters which involve broad public policy developments which may similarly materially affect the environment in which the company operates. The Proxy Committee also will solicit input from the assigned portfolio manager and other relevant portfolio management staff for the particular portfolio security. After evaluating all such recommendations, the Proxy Committee will decide how to vote the shares and will instruct Glass Lewis to vote consistent with its decision. The Proxy Committee has the ultimate responsibility for making the determination of how to vote the shares in order to maximize the value of that particular holding.

With respect to proxies of an affiliated mutual fund, the Proxy Committee will vote such proxies in the same proportion as the vote of all other shareholders of the fund (i.e., “echo vote”), unless otherwise required by law. When required by law, the Proxy Committee will also “echo vote” proxies of an unaffiliated mutual fund. For example, certain exemptive orders issued to the Schwab Funds by the Securities and Exchange Commission and Section 12(d)(1)(F) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, require the Schwab Funds, under certain circumstances, to “echo vote” proxies of registered investment companies that serve as underlying investments of the Schwab Funds. When not required to “echo vote,” the Proxy Committee will delegate to Glass Lewis responsibility for voting proxies of an unaffiliated mutual fund in accordance with Glass Lewis’ Proxy Procedures.

In addition, with respect to holdings of The Charles Schwab Corporation (“CSC”) (ticker symbol: SCHW), the Proxy Committee will vote such proxies in the same proportion as the vote of all other shareholders of the fund (i.e., “echo vote”), unless otherwise required by law.

Exceptions from Glass Lewis’ Proxy Procedures: The Proxy Committee has reviewed the particular policies set forth in Glass Lewis’ Proxy Procedures and has determined that the implementation of custom policies in the following is consistent with CSIM’s fiduciary duty with respect to its clients:

	•		Independent Chairman: With respect to shareholder proposals requiring that a company chairman’s position be filled by an independent director, the Proxy Committee has instructed Glass Lewis to vote against such proposals unless the company does not meet the applicable minimum total shareholder return threshold, as calculated below. In cases where a company fails to meet the threshold, the Proxy Committee has instructed Glass Lewis to vote the shareholder proposals requiring that the chairman’s position be filled by an independent director in accordance with Glass Lewis’ Proxy Procedures. Additionally, with respect to the election of a director who serves as the governance committee chair (or, in the absence of a governance committee, the chair of the nominating committee), the Proxy Committee has instructed Glass Lewis to vote for the director in cases where the company chairman’s position is not filled by an independent director and an independent lead or presiding director has not been appointed.

	•		Classified Boards: With respect to shareholder proposals declassifying a staggered board in favor of the annual election of directors, the Proxy Committee has instructed Glass Lewis to vote against such proposals unless the company does not meet the applicable minimum total shareholder return threshold, as calculated below. In cases where a company fails to meet the threshold, the Proxy Committee has instructed Glass Lewis to vote the shareholder proposals declassifying a staggered board in favor of the annual election of directors in accordance with Glass Lewis’ Proxy Procedures.

Glass Lewis uses a three-year total return performance methodology to calculate the applicable minimum total shareholder return threshold. For Russell 3000 Index constituents, if a company’s total annual shareholder return is in the bottom 25% of Russell 3000 constituent companies’ total annual shareholder returns for three consecutive years, the company will be deemed not to have met the threshold. For companies not in the Russell 3000 Index, the universe of companies used for the minimum total shareholder return threshold calculation is all Glass Lewis covered companies outside of the Russell 3000 Index.

There may be circumstances in which Glass Lewis does not provide an analysis or recommendation for voting a security’s proxy. In that event, and when the criteria set forth below are met, two members of the Proxy Committee, including at least one representative from equity Portfolio Management, may decide how to vote such proxy in order to maximize the value of that particular holding. The following criteria must be met: (1) For each Fund that holds the security in its portfolio, the value of the security must represent less than one tenth of one cent in the Fund’s NAV, and (2) the security’s value must equal less than $50,000 in the aggregate across all of the Funds and separate accounts that hold this security. Any voting decision made under these circumstances will be reported to the Proxy Committee at its next scheduled meeting. If the criteria are not met, the Proxy Committee may meet to decide how to vote such proxy.

Conflicts of Interest. Except as described above for proxies of mutual funds, CSC and exceptions to Glass Lewis’ Proxy Procedures, where proxy issues present material conflicts of interest between CSIM, and/or any of its affiliates, and CSIM’s clients, CSIM will delegate to Glass Lewis responsibility for voting such proxies in accordance with Glass Lewis’ Proxy Procedures,. The CSIM Legal Department is responsible for developing procedures to identify material conflicts of interest.

Voting Foreign Proxies. CSIM has arrangements with Glass Lewis for voting proxies. However, voting proxies with respect to shares of foreign securities may involve significantly greater effort and corresponding cost than voting proxies with respect to domestic securities, due to the variety of regulatory schemes and corporate practices in foreign countries with respect to proxy voting. Problems voting foreign proxies may include the following:

	o		proxy statements and ballots written in a foreign language;

	o		untimely and/or inadequate notice of shareholder meetings;

	o		restrictions of foreigner’s ability to exercise votes;

	o		requirements to vote proxies in person;

	o		requirements to provide local agents with power of attorney to facilitate CSIM’s voting instructions.

In consideration of the foregoing issues, Glass Lewis uses its best-efforts to vote foreign proxies. As part of its ongoing oversight, the Proxy Committee will monitor the voting of foreign proxies to determine whether all reasonable steps are taken to vote foreign proxies. If the Proxy Committee determines that the cost associated with the attempt to vote outweighs the potential benefits clients may derive from voting, the Proxy Committee may decide not to attempt to vote. In addition, certain foreign countries impose restrictions on the sale of securities for a period of time in proximity to the shareholder meeting. To avoid these trading restrictions, the Proxy Committee instructs Glass Lewis not to vote such foreign proxies.

Securities Lending Programs. Certain of the Funds enter into securities lending arrangements with lending agents to generate additional revenue for their portfolios. In securities lending arrangements, any voting rights that accompany the loaned securities generally pass to the borrower of the securities, but the lender retains the right to recall a security and may then exercise the security’s voting rights. In order to vote the proxies of securities out on loan, the securities must be recalled prior to the established record date. CSIM will use its best efforts to recall a Fund’s securities on loan and vote such securities’ proxies if (a) the proxy relates to a special meeting of shareholders of the issuer (as opposed to the issuer’s annual meeting of shareholders), or (b) the Fund owns more than 5% of the outstanding shares of the issuer. Further, it is CSIM’s policy to use its best efforts to recall securities on loan and vote such securities’ proxies if CSIM determines that the proxies involve a material event affecting the loaned securities. CSIM may utilize third-party service providers to assist it in identifying and evaluating whether an event is material. CSIM may also recall securities on loan and vote such securities’ proxies in its discretion.

Sub-Advisory Relationships. For investment companies or other clients that CSIM has delegated day-to-day investment management responsibilities to an investment adviser, CSIM may delegate its responsibility to vote proxies with respect to such investment companies’ or other clients’ securities. Each Sub-adviser to whom proxy voting responsibility has been delegated will be required to review all proxy solicitation material and to exercise the voting rights associated with the securities as it has been allocated in the best interest of each investment company and its shareholders, or other client. Prior to delegating the proxy voting responsibility, CSIM will review each sub-adviser’s proxy voting policy to ensure that each Sub-adviser’s proxy voting policy is generally consistent with the maximization of economic benefits to the investment company or other client.

Reporting and Record Retention

CSIM will maintain, or cause Glass Lewis to maintain, records that identify the manner in which proxies have been voted (or not voted) on behalf of CSIM clients. CSIM will comply with all applicable rules and regulations regarding disclosure of its or its clients proxy voting records and procedures.

CSIM will retain all proxy voting materials and supporting documentation as required under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and the rules and regulations thereunder.

I. A Board of Directors That Serves the Interests of Shareholders

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

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

Independence

The independence of directors, or lack thereof, is ultimately demonstrated through the decisions they make. In assessing the independence of directors, we will take into consideration, when appropriate, whether a director has a track record indicative of making objective decisions. Likewise, when assessing the independence of directors we will also examine when a director’s service track record on multiple boards indicates a lack of objective decision-making. Ultimately, we believe the determination of whether a director is independent or not must take into consideration both compliance with the applicable independence listing requirements as well as judgments made by the director.

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

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

Independent Director – An independent director has no material financial, familial or other current relationships with the company, its executives, or other board members, except for board service and standard fees paid for that service. Relationships that existed within three to five years¹ before the inquiry are usually considered “current” for purposes of this test.

In our view, a director who is currently serving in an interim management position should be considered an insider, while a director who previously served in an interim management position for less than one year and is no longer serving in such capacity is considered independent. Moreover, a director who previously served in an interim management position for over one year and is no longer serving in such capacity is considered an affiliate for five years following the date of his/her resignation or departure from the interim management position. Glass Lewis applies a


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

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

Affiliated Director – An affiliated director has a material financial, familial or other relationship with the company or its executives, but is not an employee of the company.² This includes directors whose employers have a material financial relationship with the company.³ In addition, we view a director who owns or controls 20% or more of the company’s voting stock as an affiliate.

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

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

Definition of “Material”: A material relationship is one in which the dollar value exceeds: (i) $50,000 (or where no amount is disclosed) for directors who are paid for a service they have agreed to perform for the company, outside of their service as a director, including professional or other services; or (ii) $120,000 (or where no amount is disclosed) for those directors employed by a professional services firm such as a law firm, investment bank, or consulting firm where the company pays the firm, not the individual, for services. This dollar limit would also apply to charitable contributions to schools where a board member is a professor; or charities where a director serves on the board or is an executive;⁴ and any aircraft and real estate dealings between the company and the director’s firm; or (iii) 1% of either company’s consolidated gross revenue for other business relationships (e.g., where the director is an executive officer of a company that provides services or products to or receives services or products from the company).

Definition of “Familial”: Familial relationships include a person’s spouse, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, nieces, nephews, in-laws, and anyone (other than domestic employees) who shares such person’s home. A director is an affiliate if the director has a family member who is employed by the company and who receives compensation of $120,000 or more per year or the compensation is not disclosed.

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


²		If a company classifies one of its non-employee directors as non-independent, Glass Lewis will classify that director as an affiliate.

³		We allow a five-year grace period for former executives of the company or merged companies who have consulting agreements with the surviving company. (We do not automatically recommend voting against directors in such cases for the first five years.) If the consulting agreement persists after this five-year grace period, we apply the materiality thresholds outlined in the definition of “material.”

⁴		We will generally take into consideration the size and nature of such charitable entities in relation to the company’s size and industry along with any other relevant factors such as the director’s role at the charity.

Voting Recommendations on the Basis of Board Independence

Glass Lewis believes a board will be most effective in protecting shareholders’ interests if it is at least two-thirds independent. We note that each of the Business Roundtable, the Conference Board, and the Council of Institutional Investors advocates that two-thirds of the board be independent. Where more than one-third of the members are affiliated or inside directors, we typically⁵ recommend voting against some of the inside and/or affiliated directors in order to satisfy the two-thirds threshold.⁶

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

In addition, we scrutinize avowedly “independent” chairmen and lead directors. We believe that they should be unquestionably independent or the company should not tout them as such.

Committee Independence

We believe that only independent directors should serve on a company’s audit, compensation, nominating, and governance committees.⁷ We typically recommend that shareholders vote against any affiliated or inside director seeking appointment to an audit, compensation, nominating, or governance committee, or who has served in that capacity in the past year.

Independent Chairman

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

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

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


⁵		With a staggered board, if the affiliates or insiders that we believe should not be on the board are not up for election, we will express our concern regarding those directors, but we will not recommend voting against the affiliates or insiders who are up for election just to achieve two-thirds independence.

⁶		Where a director serves on a board as a representative (as part of his or her basic responsibilities) of an investment firm with greater than 20% ownership, we will generally consider him/her to be affiliated but will not recommend voting against unless (i) the investment firm has disproportionate board representation or (ii) the director serves on the audit committee.

⁷		We will recommend voting against an audit committee member who owns 20% or more of the company’s stock, and we believe that there should be a maximum of one director (or no directors if the committee is comprised of less than three directors) who owns 20% or more of the company’s stock on the compensation, nominating, and governance committees.

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

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

We recognize that empirical evidence regarding the separation of these two roles remains inconclusive. However, Glass Lewis believes that the installation of an independent chairman is almost always a positive step from a corporate governance perspective and promotes the best interests of shareholders. Further, the presence of an independent chairman fosters the creation of a thoughtful and dynamic board, not dominated by the views of senior management.

We do not recommend that shareholders vote against CEOs who chair the board. However, we typically encourage our clients to support separating the roles of chairman and CEO whenever that question is posed in a proxy (typically in the form of a shareholder proposal), as we believe that it is in the long-term best interests of the company and its shareholders.

Performance

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

Voting Recommendations on the Basis of Performance

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

1. A director who fails to attend a minimum of 75% of the board meetings or 75% of the total of applicable committee meetings and board meetings.⁸

2. A director who belatedly filed a significant form(s) 4 or 5, or who has a pattern of late filings if the late filing was the director’s fault (we look at these late filing situations on a case-by-case basis).

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

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

5. All directors who served on the board if, for the last three years, the company’s performance has been in the bottom quartile of the sector and the directors have not taken reasonable steps to address the poor performance.


⁸		However, where a director has served for less than one full year, we will typically not recommend voting against for failure to attend 75% of meetings. Rather, we will note the poor attendance with a recommendation to track this issue going forward. We will also refrain from recommending to vote against directors when the proxy discloses that the director missed the meetings due to serious illness or other extenuating circumstances.

Audit Committees and Performance

Audit committees play an integral role in overseeing the financial reporting process because “[v]ibrant and stable capital markets depend on, among other things, reliable, transparent, and objective financial information to support an efficient and effective capital market process. The vital oversight role audit committees play in the process of producing financial information has never been more important.”⁹

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

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

Standards for Assessing the Audit Committee

For an audit committee to function effectively on investors’ behalf, it must include members with sufficient knowledge to diligently carry out their responsibilities. In its audit and accounting recommendations, the Conference Board Commission on Public Trust and Private Enterprise said “members of the audit committee must be independent and have both knowledge and experience in auditing financial matters.”¹⁰

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

Glass Lewis generally assesses audit committees against the decisions they make with respect to their oversight and monitoring role. The quality and integrity of the financial statements and earnings reports, the completeness of disclosures necessary for investors to make informed decisions, and the effectiveness of the internal controls should provide reasonable assurance that the financial statements are materially free from errors. The independence of the external auditors and the results of their work all provide useful information by which to assess the audit committee.


⁹		Audit Committee Effectiveness – What Works Best.” PricewaterhouseCoopers. The Institute of Internal Auditors Research Foundation. 2005.

¹⁰		Commission on Public Trust and Private Enterprise. The Conference Board. 2003.

When assessing the decisions and actions of the audit committee, we typically defer to its judgment and would vote in favor of its members, but we would recommend voting against the following members under the following circumstances:¹¹

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

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

3. The audit committee chair, if the audit committee did not meet at least 4 times during the year.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. The audit committee chair¹² if the committee failed to put auditor ratification on the ballot for shareholder approval. However, if the non-audit fees or tax fees exceed audit plus audit-related fees in either the current or the prior year, then Glass Lewis will recommend voting against the entire audit committee.


¹¹		Where the recommendation is to vote against the committee chair but the chair is not up for election because the board is staggered, we do not recommend voting against the members of the committee who are up for election; rather, we will simply express our concern with regard to the committee chair.

¹²		In all cases, if the chair of the committee is not specified, we recommend voting against the director who has been on the committee the longest.

12. All members of an audit committee where the auditor has resigned and reported that a section 10A¹³ letter has been issued.

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

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

• The restatement involves fraud or manipulation by insiders;

• The restatement is accompanied by an SEC inquiry or investigation;

• The restatement involves revenue recognition;

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

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

15. All members of an audit committee if the company repeatedly fails to file its financial reports in a timely fashion. For example, the company has filed two or more quarterly or annual financial statements late within the last 5 quarters.

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

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

18. All members of the audit committee when there is a disagreement with the auditor and the auditor resigns or is dismissed.

19. All members of the audit committee if the contract with the auditor specifically limits the auditor’s liability to the company for damages.¹⁴

20. All members of the audit committee who served since the date of the company’s last annual meeting, and when, since the last annual meeting, the company has reported a material weakness that has not yet been corrected, or, when the company has an ongoing material weakness from a prior year that has not yet been corrected.

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


¹³		Auditors are required to report all potential illegal acts to management and the audit committee unless they are clearly inconsequential in nature. If the audit committee or the board fails to take appropriate action on an act that has been determined to be a violation of the law, the independent auditor is required to send a section 10A letter to the SEC. Such letters are rare and therefore we believe should be taken seriously.

¹⁴		The Council of Institutional Investors. “Corporate Governance Policies,” p. 4, April 5, 2006; and “Letter from Council of Institutional Investors to the AICPA,” November 8, 2006.

Compensation Committee Performance

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

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

Finally, compensation committees are responsible for oversight of internal controls over the executive compensation process. This includes controls over gathering information used to determine compensation, establishment of equity award plans, and granting of equity awards. Lax controls can and have contributed to conflicting information being obtained, for example through the use of nonobjective consultants. Lax controls can also contribute to improper awards of compensation such as through granting of backdated or spring-loaded options, or granting of bonuses when triggers for bonus payments have not been met.

Central to understanding the actions of a compensation committee is a careful review of the Compensation Discussion and Analysis (CD&A) report included in each company’s proxy. We review the CD&A in our evaluation of the overall compensation practices of a company, as overseen by the compensation committee. The CD&A is also integral to the evaluation of compensation proposals at companies, such as management-submitted advisory compensation vote proposals, which allow shareholders to vote on the compensation paid to a company’s top executives.

In our evaluation of the CD&A, we examine, among other factors, the following:

1. The extent to which the company uses appropriate performance goals and metrics in determining overall compensation as an indication that pay is tied to performance.

2. How clearly the company discloses performance metrics and goals so that shareholders may make an independent determination that goals were met.

3. The extent to which the performance metrics, targets and goals are implemented to enhance company performance and encourage prudent risk-taking.

4. The selected peer group(s) so that shareholders can make a comparison of pay and performance across the appropriate peer group.

5. The extent to which the company benchmarks compensation levels at a specific percentile of its peer group along with the rationale for selecting such a benchmark.

6. The amount of discretion granted management or the compensation committee to deviate from defined performance metrics and goals in making awards, as well as the appropriateness of the use of such discretion.

We provide an overall evaluation of the quality and content of a company’s executive compensation policies and procedures as disclosed in a CD&A as either good, fair or poor.

We evaluate compensation committee members on the basis of their performance while serving on the compensation committee in question, not for actions taken solely by prior committee members who are not currently serving on the committee. At companies that provide shareholders with non-binding advisory votes on executive compensation (“Say-on-Pay”), we will use the Say-on-Pay proposal as the initial, primary means to express dissatisfaction with the company’s compensation polices and practices rather than recommending voting against members of the compensation committee (except in the most egregious cases).

When assessing the performance of compensation committees, we will recommend voting against for the following:¹⁵

1. All members of the compensation committee who are up for election and served at the time of poor pay-for-performance (e.g., a company receives an F grade in our pay-for-performance analysis) when shareholders are not provided with an advisory vote on executive compensation.¹⁶

2. Any member of the compensation committee who has served on the compensation committee of at least two other public companies that received F grades in our pay-for-performance model and who is also suspect at the company in question.

3. The compensation committee chair if the company received two D grades in consecutive years in our pay-for-performance analysis, and if during the past year the Company performed the same as or worse than its peers.¹⁷

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

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

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


¹⁵		Where the recommendation is to vote against the committee chair and the chair is not up for election because the board is staggered, we do not recommend voting against any members of the committee who are up for election; rather, we will simply express our concern with regard to the committee chair.

¹⁶		Where there are multiple CEOs in one year, we will consider not recommending against the compensation committee but will defer judgment on compensation policies and practices until the next year or a full year after arrival of the new CEO. In addition, if a company provides shareholders with a Say-on-Pay proposal and receives an F grade in our pay-for-performance model, we will recommend that shareholders only vote against the Say-on-Pay proposal rather than the members of the compensation committee, unless the company exhibits egregious practices. However, if the company receives successive F grades, we will then recommend against the members of the compensation committee in addition to recommending voting against the Say-on-Pay proposal.

¹⁷		In cases where the company received two D grades in consecutive years, but during the past year the company performed better than its peers or improved from a D to an F grade year over year, we refrain from recommending to vote against the compensation chair. In addition, if a company provides shareholders with a Say-on-Pay proposal in this instance, we will consider voting against the advisory vote rather than the compensation committee chair unless the company exhibits unquestionably egregious practices.

7. The compensation committee chair if the compensation committee did not meet during the year, but should have (e.g., because executive compensation was restructured or a new executive was hired).

8. All members of the compensation committee when the company repriced options within the past two years and we would not have supported the repricing (e.g., officers and directors were allowed to participate).

9. All members of the compensation committee when vesting of in-the-money options is accelerated or when fully vested options are granted.

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

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

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

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

14. All members of the compensation committee during whose tenure the committee failed to implement a shareholder proposal regarding a compensation-related issue, where the proposal received the affirmative vote of a majority of the voting shares at a shareholder meeting, and when a reasonable analysis suggests that the compensation committee (rather than the governance committee) should have taken steps to implement the request.¹⁸

Nominating and Governance Committee Performance

The nominating and governance committee, as an agency for the shareholders, is responsible for the governance by the board of the company and its executives. In performing this role, the board is responsible and accountable for selection of objective and competent board members. It is also responsible for providing leadership on governance policies adopted by the company, such as decisions to implement shareholder proposals that have received a majority vote.

Regarding the nominating and or governance committee, we will recommend voting against the following:¹⁹

1. All members of the governance committee²⁰ during whose tenure the board failed to implement a shareholder proposal with a direct and substantial impact on shareholders and


¹⁸		In all other instances (i.e. a non-compensation-related shareholder proposal should have been implemented) we recommend that shareholders vote against the members of the governance committee.

¹⁹		Where we would recommend to vote against the committee chair but the chair is not up for election because the board is staggered, we do not recommend voting against any members of the committee who are up for election; rather, we will simply express our concern regarding the committee chair.

²⁰		If the board does not have a governance committee (or a committee that serves such a purpose), we recommend voting against the entire board on this basis.

their rights — i.e., where the proposal received enough shareholder votes (at least a majority) to allow the board to implement or begin to implement that proposal.²¹ Examples of these types of shareholder proposals are majority vote to elect directors and to declassify the board.

2. The governance committee chair,²² when the chairman is not independent and an independent lead or presiding director has not been appointed.²³ We note that each of the Business Roundtable, The Conference Board, and the Council of Institutional Investors advocates that two-thirds of the board be independent.

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

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

5. The governance committee chair, when for two consecutive years the company provides what we consider to be “inadequate” related party transaction disclosure (i.e. the nature of such transactions and/or the monetary amounts involved are unclear or excessively vague, thereby preventing an average shareholder from being able to reasonably interpret the independence status of multiple directors above and beyond what the company maintains is compliant with SEC or applicable stock-exchange listing requirements).

Regarding the nominating committee, we will recommend voting against the following:²⁴

1. All members of the nominating committee, when the committee nominated or renominated an individual who had a significant conflict of interest or whose past actions demonstrated a lack of integrity or inability to represent shareholder interests.

2. The nominating committee chair, if the nominating committee did not meet during the year, but should have (i.e., because new directors were nominated or appointed since the time of the last annual meeting).

3. In the absence of a governance committee, the nominating committee chair²⁵ when the chairman is not independent, and an independent lead or presiding director has not been appointed.²⁶


²¹		Where a compensation-related shareholder proposal should have been implemented, and when a reasonable analysis suggests that the members of the compensation committee (rather than the governance committee) bear the responsibility for failing to implement the request, we recommend that shareholders only vote against members of the compensation committee.

²²		If the committee chair is not specified, we recommend voting against the director who has been on the committee the longest. If the longest-serving committee member cannot be determined, we will recommend voting against the longest-serving board member serving on the committee.

²³		We believe that one independent individual should be appointed to serve as the lead or presiding director. When such a position is rotated among directors from meeting to meeting, we will recommend voting against as if there were no lead or presiding director.

²⁴		Where we would recommend is to vote against the committee chair but the chair is not up for election because the board is staggered, we do not recommend voting against any members of the committee who are up for election; rather, we will simply express our concern regarding the committee chair.

²⁵		If the committee chair is not specified, we will recommend voting against the director who has been on the committee the longest. If the longest-serving committee member cannot be determined, we will recommend voting against the longest-serving board member on the committee.

²⁶		In the absence of both a governance and a nominating committee, we will recommend voting against the chairman of the board on this basis.

4. The nominating committee chair, when there are less than five or the whole nominating committee when there are more than 20 members on the board.²⁷

5. The nominating committee chair, when a director received a greater than 50% against vote the prior year and not only was the director not removed, but the issues that raised shareholder concern were not corrected.²⁸

Board-level Risk Management Oversight

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

When analyzing the risk management practices of public companies, we take note of any significant losses or writedowns on financial assets and/or structured transactions. In cases where a company has disclosed a sizable loss or writedown, and where we find that the company’s board-level risk committee contributed to the loss through poor oversight, we would recommend that shareholders vote against such committee members on that basis. In addition, in cases where a company maintains a significant level of financial risk exposure but fails to disclose any explicit form of board-level risk oversight (committee or otherwise)²⁹, we will consider recommending to vote against the chairman of the board on that basis. However, we generally would not recommend voting against a combined chairman/CEO except in egregious cases.

Experience

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

Voting Recommendations on the Basis of Director Experience

We typically recommend that shareholders vote against directors who have served on boards or as executives of companies with records of poor performance, inadequate risk oversight,


²⁷		In the absence of both a governance and a nominating committee, we will recommend voting against the chairman of the board on this basis.

²⁸		Considering that shareholder discontent clearly relates to the director who received a greater than 50% against vote rather than the nominating chair, we review the validity of the issue(s) that initially raised shareholder concern, follow-up on such matters, and only recommend voting against the nominating chair if a reasonable analysis suggests that it would be most appropriate. In rare cases, we will consider recommending against the nominating chair when a director receives a substantial (i.e., 25% or more) vote against based on the same analysis.

²⁹		A committee responsible for risk management could be a dedicated risk committee, or another board committee, usually the audit committee but occasionally the finance committee, depending on a given company’s board structure and method of disclosure. At some companies, the entire board is charged with risk management.

overcompensation, audit- or accounting-related issues, and/or other indicators of mismanagement or actions against the interests of shareholders.³⁰

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

Other Considerations

In addition to the three key characteristics – independence, performance, experience – that we use to evaluate board members, we consider conflict-of-interest issues in making voting recommendations.

Conflicts of Interest

We believe board members should be wholly free of identifiable and substantial conflicts of interest, regardless of the overall level of independent directors on the board. Accordingly, we recommend that shareholders vote against the following types of affiliated or inside directors:

1. A CFO who is on the board: In our view, the CFO holds a unique position relative to financial reporting and disclosure to shareholders. Because of the critical importance of financial disclosure and reporting, we believe the CFO should report to the board and not be a member of it.

2. A director who is on an excessive number of boards: We will typically recommend voting against a director who serves as an executive officer of any public company while serving on more than two other public company boards and any other director who serves on more than six public company boards typically receives an against recommendation from Glass Lewis. Academic literature suggests that one board takes up approximately 200 hours per year of each member’s time. We believe this limits the number of boards on which directors can effectively serve, especially executives at other companies.³¹ Further, we note a recent study has shown that the average number of outside board seats held by CEOs of S&P 500 companies is 0.7, down from 0.9 in 2004 and 1.6 in 1999.³²

3. A director, or a director who has an immediate family member, providing consulting or other material professional services to the company: These services may include legal, consulting, or financial services. We question the need for the company to have consulting relationships with its directors. We view such relationships as creating conflicts for directors, since they may be forced to weigh their own interests against shareholder interests when making board decisions. In addition, a company’s decisions regarding where to turn for the best professional services may be compromised when doing business with the professional services firm of one of the company’s directors.

4. A director, or a director who has an immediate family member, engaging in airplane, real estate, or similar deals, including perquisite-type grants from the company, amounting


³⁰		We typically apply a three-year look-back to such issues and also research to see whether the responsible directors have been up for election since the time of the failure, and if so, we take into account the percentage of support they received from shareholders.

³¹		Our guidelines are similar to the standards set forth by the NACD in its “Report of the NACD Blue Ribbon Commission on Director Professionalism,” 2001 Edition, pp. 14-15 (also cited approvingly by the Conference Board in its “Corporate Governance Best Practices: A Blueprint for the Post-Enron Era,” 2002, p. 17), which suggested that CEOs should not serve on more than 2 additional boards, persons with full-time work should not serve on more than 4 additional boards, and others should not serve on more than six boards.

³²		Spencer Stuart Board Index, 2009, p. 19

to more than $50,000: Directors who receive these sorts of payments from the company will have to make unnecessarily complicated decisions that may pit their interests against shareholder interests.

5. Interlocking directorships: CEOs or other top executives who serve on each other’s boards create an interlock that poses conflicts that should be avoided to ensure the promotion of shareholder interests above all else.³³

6. All board members who served at a time when a poison pill was adopted without shareholder approval within the prior twelve months.

Size of the Board of Directors

While we do not believe there is a universally applicable optimum board size, we do believe boards should have at least five directors to ensure sufficient diversity in decision-making and to enable the formation of key board committees with independent directors. Conversely, we believe that boards with more than 20 members will typically suffer under the weight of “too many cooks in the kitchen” and have difficulty reaching consensus and making timely decisions. Sometimes the presence of too many voices can make it difficult to draw on the wisdom and experience in the room by virtue of the need to limit the discussion so that each voice may be heard.

To that end, we typically recommend voting against the chairman of the nominating committee at a board with fewer than five directors. With boards consisting of more than 20 directors, we typically recommend voting against all members of the nominating committee (or the governance committee, in the absence of a nominating committee).³⁴

Controlled Companies

Controlled companies present an exception to our independence recommendations. The board’s function is to protect shareholder interests; however, when an individual or entity owns more than 50% of the voting shares, the interests of the majority of shareholders are the interests of that entity or individual. Consequently, Glass Lewis does not apply our usual two-thirds independence rule and therefore we will not recommend voting against boards whose composition reflects the makeup of the shareholder population.

Independence Exceptions

The independence exceptions that we make for controlled companies are as follows:

1. We do not require that controlled companies have boards that are at least two-thirds independent. So long as the insiders and/or affiliates are connected with the controlling entity, we accept the presence of non-independent board members.

2. The compensation committee and nominating and governance committees do not need to consist solely of independent directors.


³³		There is no look-back period for this situation. This only applies to public companies and we only footnote it for the non-insider.

³⁴		The Conference Board, at p. 23 in its report “Corporate Governance Best Practices, Id.,” quotes one of its roundtable participants as stating, “[w]hen you’ve got a 20 or 30 person corporate board, it’s one way of assuring that nothing is ever going to happen that the CEO doesn’t want to happen.”

a. We believe that standing nominating and corporate governance committees at controlled companies are unnecessary. Although having a committee charged with the duties of searching for, selecting, and nominating independent directors can be beneficial, the unique composition of a controlled company’s shareholder base makes such committees weak and irrelevant.

b. Likewise, we believe that independent compensation committees at controlled companies are unnecessary. Although independent directors are the best choice for approving and monitoring senior executives’ pay, controlled companies serve a unique shareholder population whose voting power ensures the protection of its interests. As such, we believe that having affiliated directors on a controlled company’s compensation committee is acceptable. However, given that a controlled company has certain obligations to minority shareholders we feel that an insider should not serve on the compensation committee. Therefore, Glass Lewis will recommend voting against any insider (the CEO or otherwise) serving on the compensation committee.

3. Controlled companies do not need an independent chairman or an independent lead or presiding director. Although an independent director in a position of authority on the board – such as chairman or presiding director – can best carry out the board’s duties, controlled companies serve a unique shareholder population whose voting power ensures the protection of its interests.

4. Where an individual or entity owns more than 50% of a company’s voting power but the company is not a “controlled” company as defined by relevant listing standards, we apply a lower independence requirement of a majority of the board but keep all other standards in place. Similarly, where an individual or entity holds between 20-50% of a company’s voting power, but the company is not “controlled” and there is not a “majority” owner, we will allow for proportional representation on the board based on the individual or entity’s percentage of ownership.

Size of the Board of Directors

We have no board size requirements for controlled companies.

Audit Committee Independence

We believe that audit committees should consist solely of independent directors. Regardless of a company’s controlled status, the interests of all shareholders must be protected by ensuring the integrity and accuracy of the company’s financial statements. Allowing affiliated directors to oversee the preparation of financial reports could create an insurmountable conflict of interest.

Mutual Fund Boards

Mutual funds, or investment companies, are structured differently from regular public companies (i.e., operating companies). Typically, members of a fund’s adviser are on the board and management takes on a different role from that of regular public companies. Thus, we focus on a short list of requirements, although many of our guidelines remain the same.

The following mutual fund policies are similar to the policies for regular public companies:

1. Size of the board of directors: The board should be made up of between five and twenty directors.

2. The CFO on the board: Neither the CFO of the fund nor the CFO of the fund’s registered investment adviser should serve on the board.

3. Independence of the audit committee: The audit committee should consist solely of independent directors.

4. Audit committee financial expert: At least one member of the audit committee should be designated as the audit committee financial expert.

The following differences from regular public companies apply at mutual funds:

1. Independence of the board: We believe that three-fourths of an investment company’s board should be made up of independent directors. This is consistent with a proposed SEC rule on investment company boards. The Investment Company Act requires 40% of the board to be independent, but in 2001, the SEC amended the Exemptive Rules to require that a majority of a mutual fund board be independent. In 2005, the SEC proposed increasing the independence threshold to 75%. In 2006, a federal appeals court ordered that this rule amendment be put back out for public comment, putting it back into “proposed rule” status. Since mutual fund boards play a vital role in overseeing the relationship between the fund and its investment manager, there is greater need for independent oversight than there is for an operating company board.

2. When the auditor is not up for ratification: We do not recommend voting against the audit committee if the auditor is not up for ratification because, due to the different legal structure of an investment company compared to an operating company, the auditor for the investment company (i.e., mutual fund) does not conduct the same level of financial review for each investment company as for an operating company.

3. Non-independent chairman: The SEC has proposed that the chairman of the fund board be independent. We agree that the roles of a mutual fund’s chairman and CEO should be separate. Although we believe this would be best at all companies, we recommend voting against the chairman of an investment company’s nominating committee as well as the chairman of the board if the chairman and CEO of a mutual fund are the same person and the fund does not have an independent lead or presiding director. Seven former SEC commissioners support the appointment of an independent chairman and we agree with them that “an independent board chairman would be better able to create conditions favoring the long-term interests of fund shareholders than would a chairman who is an executive of the adviser.” (See the comment letter sent to the SEC in support of the proposed rule at http://sec.gov/rules/proposed/s70304/s70304-179.pdf)

DECLASSIFIED BOARDS

Glass Lewis favors the repeal of staggered boards and the annual election of directors. We believe staggered boards are less accountable to shareholders than boards that are elected annually. Furthermore, we feel the annual election of directors encourages board members to focus on shareholder interests.

Empirical studies have shown: (i) companies with staggered boards reduce a firm’s value; and (ii) in the context of hostile takeovers, staggered boards operate as a takeover defense, which entrenches management, discourages potential acquirers, and delivers a lower return to target shareholders.

In our view, there is no evidence to demonstrate that staggered boards improve shareholder returns in a takeover context. Research shows that shareholders are worse off when a staggered board blocks a transaction. A study by a group of Harvard Law professors concluded that companies whose staggered boards prevented a takeover “reduced shareholder returns for targets ... on the order of eight to ten

percent in the nine months after a hostile bid was announced.”³⁵ When a staggered board negotiates a friendly transaction, no statistically significant difference in premiums occurs.³⁶

During a March 2004 Glass Lewis Proxy Talk on staggered boards, the proponents of staggered boards could not identify research showing that staggered boards increase shareholder value. The opponents of such a structure marshaled significant support for the proposition that, holding everything else constant, classified boards reduce shareholder value. Lucian Bebchuk, a Harvard Law professor who studies corporate governance issues, concluded that charter-based staggered boards “reduce the market value of a firm by 4% to 6% of its market capitalization” and that “staggered boards bring about and not merely reflect this reduction in market value.”³⁷

Shareholders have increasingly come to agree with this view. In 2008 only 40% of U.S. companies had a classified board structure, down from approximately 60% of companies in 2004. Clearly, more shareholders have supported the repeal of classified boards. Resolutions relating to the repeal of staggered boards garnered on average over 70% support among shareholders in 2008, whereas in 1987, only 16.4% of votes cast favored board declassification.

Given the empirical evidence suggesting staggered boards reduce a company’s value and the increasing shareholder opposition to such a structure, Glass Lewis supports the declassification of boards and the annual election of directors.

MANDATORY DIRECTOR RETIREMENT PROVISIONS

Director Term and Age Limits

Glass Lewis believes that director age and term limits typically are not in shareholders’ best interests. Too often age and term limits are used by boards as a crutch to remove board members who have served for an extended period of time. When used in that fashion, they are indicative of a board that has a difficult time making “tough decisions.”

Academic literature suggests that there is no evidence of a correlation between either length of tenure or age and director performance. On occasion, term limits can be used as a means to remove a director for boards that are unwilling to police their membership and to enforce turnover. Some shareholders support term limits as a way to force change when boards are unwilling to do so.

While we understand age limits can be a way to force change where boards are unwilling to make changes on their own, the long-term impact of age limits restricts experienced and potentially valuable board members from service through an arbitrary means. Further, age limits unfairly imply that older (or, in rare cases, younger) directors cannot contribute to company oversight. A director’s experience can be valuable to shareholders because directors navigate complex and critical issues when serving on a board.

In our view, a director’s experience can be a valuable asset to shareholders because of the complex, critical issues that boards face. However, we support periodic director rotation to ensure a fresh perspective in the boardroom and the generation of new ideas and business strategies. We believe the board should implement such rotation instead of relying on arbitrary limits. When necessary, shareholders can address the issue of director rotation through director elections.


³⁵		Lucian Bebchuk, John Coates, Guhan Subramanian, “The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards: Further Findings and a Reply to Symposium Participants,” December 2002, page 1.

³⁶		Id. at 2 (“Examining a sample of seventy-three negotiated transactions from 2000 to 2002, we find no systematic benefits in terms of higher premia to boards that have [staggered structures].”).

³⁷		Lucian Bebchuk, Alma Cohen, “The Costs of Entrenched Boards” (2004).

We believe that shareholders are better off monitoring the board’s approach to corporate governance and the board’s stewardship of company performance rather than imposing inflexible rules that don’t necessarily correlate with returns or benefits for shareholders.

However, if a board adopts term/age limits, it should follow through and not waive such limits. If the board waives its term/age limits, Glass Lewis will consider recommending shareholders vote against the nominating and/or governance committees, unless the rule was waived with sufficient explanation, such as consummation of a corporate transaction like a merger.

REQUIRING TWO OR MORE NOMINEES PER BOARD SEAT

In an attempt to address lack of access to the ballot, shareholders sometimes propose that the board give shareholders a choice of directors for each open board seat in every election. However, we feel that policies requiring a selection of multiple nominees for each board seat would discourage prospective directors from accepting nominations. A prospective director could not be confident either that he or she is the board’s clear choice or that he or she would be elected. Therefore, Glass Lewis generally will vote against such proposals.

SHAREHOLDER ACCESS

The SEC proposal: Shareholders have continuously sought a way to have a voice in director elections in recent years. Most of these efforts have centered on regulatory change at the SEC over the past several years. In July of 2007, the SEC responded by issuing two proposed rules, one to allow certain shareholders to submit director nominations for inclusion on management’s proxy and the second to disallow shareholder access proposals from being submitted by shareholders. The former rule did not pass but the latter rule was subsequently approved by the SEC in November of 2007, allowing companies to exclude shareholder access proposals from their proxy statements, in effect reverting to the SEC position prior to AFSCME’s challenge, ultimately upheld by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, of the SEC’s decision to allow AIG to exclude the group’s access proposal.

During this window of opportunity prior to the SEC’s final rulemaking in November, three companies faced access proposals in 2007. The proposals received considerable votes in favor, garnering nearly 40% support at Hewlett Packard, 42% support at UnitedHealth and passing with 51% of the votes at Cryo-Cell International.

More recently, in June 2009 the SEC released proposed Rule 14a-11, which, if adopted would require most companies to include shareholder nominees for directors in company proxy materials under certain circumstances—namely if the shareholder(s) seeking to nominate directors beneficially owned shares in the company for at least one year, as well as met an ownership threshold based on a sliding scale depending on the company’s size. Since the release of proposed Rule 14a-11, the SEC has reviewed over 500 public comment letters regarding the rule and has therefore deferred voting on the proposed rule until early 2010. As a result, it is unlikely shareholders will have the opportunity to vote on access proposals in 2010.

MAJORITY VOTE FOR THE ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

In stark contrast to the failure of shareholder access to gain acceptance, majority voting for the election of directors is fast becoming the de facto standard in corporate board elections. In our view, the majority voting proposals are an effort to make the case for shareholder impact on director elections on a company-specific basis.

While this proposal would not give shareholders the opportunity to nominate directors or lead to elections where shareholders have a choice among director candidates, if implemented, the proposal would allow shareholders to have a voice in determining whether the nominees proposed by the board should actually serve as the overseer-representatives of shareholders in the boardroom. We believe this would be a favorable outcome for shareholders.

During 2009 Glass Lewis tracked 46 proposals to require a majority vote to elect directors at annual meetings in the U.S., up from 24 such proposals in 2008, but down from 54 proposals during 2007 and 147 proposals during 2006. The general decline in the number of proposals being submitted was a result of many companies adopting some form of majority voting, including well over 2/3 of companies in the S&P 500 index. During 2009 these proposals received on average 59% shareholder support (based on for and against votes), up from 54% in 2008.

The plurality vote standard

Today, most US companies still elect directors by a plurality vote standard. Under that standard, if one shareholder holding only one share votes in favor of a nominee (including himself, if the director is a shareholder), that nominee “wins” the election and assumes a seat on the board. The common concern among companies with a plurality voting standard was the possibility that one or more directors would not receive a majority of votes, resulting in “failed elections.” This was of particular concern during the 1980s, an era of frequent takeovers and contests for control of companies.

Advantages of a majority vote standard

If a majority vote standard were implemented, a nominee would have to receive the support of a majority of the shares voted in order to be elected. Thus, shareholders could collectively vote to reject a director they believe will not pursue their best interests. We think that this minimal amount of protection for shareholders is reasonable and will not upset the corporate structure nor reduce the willingness of qualified shareholder-focused directors to serve in the future.

We believe that a majority vote standard will likely lead to more attentive directors. Occasional use of this power will likely prevent the election of directors with a record of ignoring shareholder interests in favor of other interests that conflict with those of investors. Glass Lewis will generally support proposals calling for the election of directors by a majority vote except for use in contested director elections.

In response to the high level of support majority voting has garnered, many companies have voluntarily taken steps to implement majority voting or modified approaches to majority voting. These steps range from a modified approach requiring directors that receive a majority of withheld votes to resign (e.g., Ashland Inc.) to actually requiring a majority vote of outstanding shares to elect directors (e.g., Intel).

We feel that the modified approach does not go far enough because requiring a director to resign is not the same as requiring a majority vote to elect a director and does not allow shareholders a definitive voice in the election process. Further, under the modified approach, the corporate governance committee could reject a resignation and, even if it accepts the resignation, the corporate governance committee decides on the director’s replacement. And since the modified approach is usually adopted as a policy by the board or a board committee, it could be altered by the same board or committee at any time.

II. Transparency and Integrity of Financial Reporting

AUDITOR RATIFICATION

The auditor’s role as gatekeeper is crucial in ensuring the integrity and transparency of the financial information necessary for protecting shareholder value. Shareholders rely on the auditor to ask tough questions and to do a thorough analysis of a company’s books to ensure that the information provided to shareholders is complete, accurate, fair, and that it is a reasonable representation of a company’s financial position. The only way shareholders can make rational investment decisions is if the market is equipped with accurate information about a company’s fiscal health. As stated in the October 6, 2008 Final Report of the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession to the U.S. Department of the Treasury:

“The auditor is expected to offer critical and objective judgment on the financial matters under consideration, and actual and perceived absence of conflicts is critical to that expectation. The Committee believes that auditors, investors, public companies, and other market participants must understand the independence requirements and their objectives, and that auditors must adopt a mindset of skepticism when facing situations that may compromise their independence.”

As such, shareholders should demand an objective, competent and diligent auditor who performs at or above professional standards at every company in which the investors hold an interest. Like directors, auditors should be free from conflicts of interest and should avoid situations requiring a choice between the auditor’s interests and the public’s interests. Almost without exception, shareholders should be able to annually review an auditor’s performance and to annually ratify a board’s auditor selection. Moreover, in October 2008, the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession went even further, and recommended that “to further enhance audit committee oversight and auditor accountability ... disclosure in the company proxy statement regarding shareholder ratification [should] include the name(s) of the senior auditing partner(s) staffed on the engagement.”³⁸

Voting Recommendations on Auditor Ratification

We generally support management’s choice of auditor except when we believe the auditor’s independence or audit integrity has been compromised. Where a board has not allowed shareholders to review and ratify an auditor, we typically recommend voting against the audit committee chairman. When there have been material restatements of annual financial statements or material weakness in internal controls, we usually recommend voting against the entire audit committee.

Reasons why we may not recommend ratification of an auditor include:

1. When audit fees plus audit-related fees total less than the tax fees and/or other non-audit fees.


³⁸		“Final Report of the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession to the U.S. Department of the Treasury.” p. VIII:20, October 6, 2008.

2. Recent material restatements of annual financial statements, including those resulting in the reporting of material weaknesses in internal controls and including late filings by the company where the auditor bears some responsibility for the restatement or late filing.³⁹

3. When the auditor performs prohibited services such as tax-shelter work, tax services for the CEO or CFO, or contingent-fee work, such as a fee based on a percentage of economic benefit to the company.

4. When audit fees are excessively low, especially when compared with other companies in the same industry.

5. When the company has aggressive accounting policies.

6. When the company has poor disclosure or lack of transparency in its financial statements.

7. Where the auditor limited its liability through its contract with the company or the audit contract requires the corporation to use alternative dispute resolution procedures.

8. We also look for other relationships or concerns with the auditor that might suggest a conflict between the auditor’s interests and shareholder interests.

We typically support audit-related proposals regarding mandatory auditor rotation when the proposal uses a reasonable period of time (usually not less than 5-7 years).

PENSION ACCOUNTING ISSUES

A pension accounting question often raised in proxy proposals is what effect, if any, projected returns on employee pension assets should have on a company’s net income. This issue often arises in the executive-compensation context in a discussion of the extent to which pension accounting should be reflected in business performance for purposes of calculating payments to executives.

Glass Lewis believes that pension credits should not be included in measuring income that is used to award performance-based compensation. Because many of the assumptions used in accounting for retirement plans are subject to the company’s discretion, management would have an obvious conflict of interest if pay were tied to pension income. In our view, projected income from pensions does not truly reflect a company’s performance.


³⁹		An auditor does not audit interim financial statements. Thus, we generally do not believe that an auditor should be opposed due to a restatement of interim financial statements unless the nature of the misstatement is clear from a reading of the incorrect financial statements.

III. The Link Between Compensation and Performance

Glass Lewis carefully reviews the compensation awarded to senior executives. We believe that this is an important area in which the board’s priorities are revealed. However, as a general rule, Glass Lewis does not believe shareholders should be involved in the design, negotiation, management or approval of compensation packages. Such matters should be left to the compensation committee, which can be held accountable for its decisions through their election.

However, Glass Lewis strongly believes executive compensation should be linked directly with the performance of the business the executive is charged with managing. Glass Lewis has a proprietary pay-for-performance model that evaluates the pay of the top five executives at US companies. Our model benchmarks these executives’ pay against their performance using four peer groups for each company: an industry peer group, a smaller sector peer group, a group of similar size companies and a geographic peer group. Using a forced curve and a school letter-grade system, we rank companies according to their pay-for-performance and recommend voting against compensation committees of companies failing our pay-for-performance analysis.

We use this analysis to inform our voting decisions on each of the compensation issues that arise on the ballot. Likewise, we use this analysis in our evaluation of the compensation committee’s performance.

Full Disclosure of Executive Compensation

Glass Lewis believes that comprehensive, timely and transparent disclosure of executive pay is critical to allowing shareholders to evaluate the extent to which the pay is keeping pace with company performance. When reviewing proxy materials, Glass Lewis examines whether the company discloses the performance metrics used to determine executive compensation. Performance metrics vary and may include items such as revenue growth, targets, or human resources issues.

However, we are concerned when a proposal goes too far in the level of detail that it requests for executives other than the most high-ranking leaders of the company. Shareholders are unlikely to need or be able to use compensation information for employees below the level of the most senior corporate officers.

Moreover, it is rarely in shareholders’ interests to disclose competitive data about individual salaries below the senior executive level. Such disclosure could create internal personnel discord that would be counterproductive for the company and its shareholders. While we favor full disclosure for senior executives and we view pay disclosure at the aggregate level (e.g., the number of employees being paid over a certain amount or in certain categories) as potentially useful, we do not believe shareholders need or will benefit from detailed reports about individual management employees other than the most senior executives.

Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (“Say-on-Pay”)

The practice of approving a company’s compensation reports is standard practice in many non-US countries, and has been a requirement for companies in the United Kingdom since 2002 and in Australia since 2005. More recently, such proposals have been gaining traction in the United States. Beginning with AFLAC in 2008, over a dozen US companies began to voluntarily provide shareholders with an advisory vote prior to 2009. However, in February of 2009 the U.S. government implemented the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which required all companies that participated in the

Capital Purchase Program (“CPP”) under the US Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”) to provide shareholders with a separate shareholder vote to approve executive compensation. Glass Lewis reviewed over 280 of these Say-on-Pay proposals in 2009. As the US Treasury Department, the SEC and Congress contemplate proposed federal regulation in 2010 that would mandate advisory votes at all US public companies, shareholders should anticipate Say-on-Pay becoming a routine item at annual meetings in the years ahead.

Glass Lewis applies a highly nuanced approach when analyzing advisory votes on executive compensation. Not only can the specific resolutions vary from company to company, but we believe the compensation-related disclosure must be examined in the context of each company’s distinct industry as well as its historic pay-for-performance practices. Although Say-on-Pay proposals are non-binding, a high level of “against” or “abstain” votes demonstrate a lack of shareholder confidence in a company’s compensation policies and procedures. Therefore, after determining the specific aspects of disclosure actually being voted on (i.e., the CD&A, the summary compensation tables, and/or any related material), we focus on the following main factors when reviewing Say-on-Pay proposals:

• The overall design and structure of the Company’s executive compensation program;

• The link between compensation and performance as indicated by the Company’s current and past pay-for-performance grades;

• The quality and content of the Company’s CD&A disclosure and

• Any significant changes or modifications made to the Company’s compensation structure or award amounts, including base salaries.

In cases where our analysis reveals a compensation structure in drastic need of reform, we will recommend that shareholders vote against the Say-on-Pay proposal. Generally such instances include evidence of a pattern of poor pay-for-performance practices (i.e., deficient or failing pay for performance grades), unclear or questionable disclosure regarding the overall compensation structure (i.e., limited information regarding benchmarking processes, limited rationale for bonus performance metrics and targets, etc.), questionable adjustments to certain aspects of the overall compensation structure (i.e., limited rationale for significant changes to performance targets or metrics, the payout of guaranteed bonuses or sizable retention grants, etc.), and/or other egregious compensation practices.

Limits on Executive Compensation

Generally, Glass Lewis believes shareholders should not be directly involved in setting executive pay. Such matters should be left to the compensation committee. We view the election of compensation committee members as the appropriate mechanism for shareholders to express their disapproval or support of board policy on executive pay. Further, we believe that companies whose pay-for-performance is in line with their peers should be able to pay their executives in a way that drives growth and profit, without destroying ethical values, giving consideration to their peers’ comparable size and performance.

However, Glass Lewis favors performance-based compensation as an effective way to motivate executives to act in shareholders’ best interests. Performance-based pay may be limited if CEO pay is capped at a low level rather than flexibly tied to company performance.

Limits on Executive Stock Options

Stock options are a common form of executive compensation. Making options a part of compensation may be an effective way to attract and retain experienced executives and other key employees. Tying a portion of an executive’s pay to company performance also provides a good incentive for executives to

maximize share value. Thus, we typically recommend that our clients oppose caps on executive stock options. However, stock option plans should prohibit re-pricing or vesting acceleration of the options.

Equity-Based Compensation Plans

Glass Lewis evaluates option- and other equity-based compensation plans using a detailed model and analyst review. We believe that equity compensation awards are useful, when not abused, for retaining employees and providing an incentive for them to act in a way that will improve company performance.

Equity-based compensation programs have important differences from cash compensation plans and bonus programs. Accordingly, our model and analysis takes into account factors such as plan administration, the method and terms of exercise, repricing history, express or implied rights to reprice, and the presence of evergreen provisions.

Our analysis is quantitative and focused on the plan’s cost as compared with the business’s operating metrics. We run twenty different analyses, comparing the program with absolute limits we believe are key to equity value creation and with a carefully chosen peer group. In general, our model seeks to determine whether the proposed plan is either absolutely excessive or is more than one standard deviation away from the average plan for the peer group on a range of criteria, including dilution to shareholders and the projected annual cost relative to the company’s financial performance. Each of the twenty analyses (and their constituent parts) is weighted and the plan is scored in accordance with that weight.

In our analysis, we compare the program’s expected annual expense with the business’s operating metrics to help determine whether the plan is excessive in light of company performance. We also compare the option plan’s expected annual cost to the enterprise value of the firm rather than to market capitalization because the employees, managers and directors of the firm create enterprise value and not necessarily market capitalization (the biggest difference is seen where cash represents the vast majority of market capitalization). Finally, we do not rely exclusively on relative comparisons with averages because we believe that academic literature proves that some absolute limits are warranted.

We evaluate option plans based on ten overarching principles:

1. Companies should seek more shares only when needed.

2. Plans should be small enough that companies need shareholder approval every three to four years (or more frequently).

3. If a plan is relatively expensive, it should not grant options solely to senior executives and board members.

4. Annual net share count and voting power dilution should be limited.

5. Annual cost of the plan (especially if not shown on the income statement) should be reasonable as a percentage of financial results and should be in line with the peer group.

6. The expected annual cost of the plan should be proportional to the business’s value.

7. The intrinsic value that option grantees received in the past should be reasonable compared with the business’s financial results.

8. Plans should deliver value on a per-employee basis when compared with programs at peer companies.

9. Plans should not permit re-pricing of stock options.

10. Plans should not contain excessively liberal administrative or payment terms.

Option Exchanges

Glass Lewis views option repricing plans and option exchange programs with great skepticism. Shareholders have substantial risk in owning stock and we believe that the employees, officers, and directors who receive stock options should be similarly situated to align their interests with shareholder interests.

We are concerned that option grantees who believe they will be “rescued” from underwater options will be more inclined to take unjustifiable risks. Moreover, a predictable pattern of repricing or exchanges substantially alters a stock option’s value because options that will practically never expire deeply out of the money are worth far more than options that carry a risk of expiration.

In short, repricings and option exchange programs change the bargain between shareholders and employees after the bargain has been struck. Re-pricing is tantamount to re-trading.

There is one circumstance in which a repricing or option exchange program is acceptable: if macroeconomic or industry trends cause a stock’s value to decline dramatically, rather than specific company issues, and repricing is necessary to motivate and retain employees. In this circumstance, we think it fair to conclude that option grantees may be suffering from a risk that was not foreseeable when the original “bargain” was struck. In such a circumstance, we will support a repricing only if the following conditions are true:

(i) officers and board members do not participate in the program;

(ii) the stock decline mirrors the market or industry price decline in terms of timing and approximates the decline in magnitude;

(iii) the exchange is value-neutral or value-creative to shareholders with very conservative assumptions and with a recognition of the adverse selection problems inherent in voluntary programs; and

(iv) management and the board make a cogent case for needing to motivate and retain existing employees, such as being in a competitive employment market.

Performance-Based Options

Shareholders commonly ask boards to adopt policies requiring that a significant portion of future stock option grants to senior executives be based on performance. Performance-based options are options where the exercise price is linked to an industry peer group’s stock-performance index.

Glass Lewis believes in performance-based equity compensation plans for senior executives. We feel that executives should be compensated with equity when their performance and the company’s performance warrants such rewards. While we do not believe that equity-based pay plans for all employees should be based on overall company performance, we do support such limitations for equity grants to senior executives (although some equity-based compensation of senior executives without performance criteria is acceptable, such as in the case of moderate incentive grants made in an initial offer of employment or in emerging industries).

Boards often argue that basing option grants on performance would hinder them in attracting talent. We believe that boards can develop a consistent, reliable approach to attract executives with the ability to guide the company toward its targets. If the board believes in performance-based pay for executives, then these proposals requiring the same should not hamper the board’s ability to create equity-based compensation plans.

We generally recommend that shareholders vote in favor of performance-based option requirements.

Option Backdating, Spring-Loading, and Bullet-Dodging

Glass Lewis views option backdating, and the related practices of spring-loading and bullet-dodging, as egregious actions that warrant holding the appropriate management and board members responsible. These practices are similar to re-pricing options and eliminate much of the downside risk inherent in an option grant that is designed to induce recipients to maximize shareholder return. Backdating an option is the act of changing an option’s grant date from the actual grant date to an earlier date when the market price of the underlying stock was lower, resulting in a lower exercise price for the option. Glass Lewis has identified over 270 companies that have disclosed internal or government investigations into their past stock-option grants.

Spring-loading is granting stock options while in possession of material, positive information that has not been disclosed publicly. Bullet-dodging is delaying the grants of stock options until after the release of material, negative information. This can allow option grants to be made at a lower price either before the release of positive news or following the release of negative news, assuming the stock’s price will move up or down in response to the information. This raises a concern similar to that of insider trading, or the trading on material non-public information.

The exercise price for an option is determined on the day of grant, providing the recipient with the same market risk as an investor who bought shares on that date. However, where options were backdated, the executive or the board (or the compensation committee) changed the grant date retroactively. The new date may be at or near the lowest price for the year or period. This would be like allowing an investor to look back and select the lowest price of the year at which to buy shares.

A 2006 study of option grants made between 1996 and 2005 at 8,000 companies found that option backdating can be an indication of poor internal controls. The study found that option backdating was more likely to occur at companies without a majority independent board and with a long-serving CEO; both factors, the study concluded, were associated with greater CEO influence on the company’s compensation and governance practices.⁴⁰

Where a company granted backdated options to an executive who is also a director, Glass Lewis will recommend voting against that executive/director, regardless of who decided to make the award. In addition, Glass Lewis will recommend voting against those directors who either approved or allowed the backdating. Glass Lewis feels that executives and directors who either benefited from backdated options or authorized the practice have breached their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders.

Given the severe tax and legal liabilities to the company from backdating, Glass Lewis will consider recommending voting against members of the audit committee who served when options were backdated, a restatement occurs, material weaknesses in internal controls exist and disclosures indicate there was a lack of documentation. These committee members failed in their responsibility to ensure the integrity of the company’s financial reports.

When a company has engaged in spring-loading or bullet-dodging, Glass Lewis will consider recommending voting against the compensation committee members where there has been a pattern of granting options at or near historic lows. Glass Lewis will also recommend voting against executives serving on the board who benefited from the spring-loading or bullet-dodging.

162(m) Plans

Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code allows companies to deduct compensation in excess of $1 million for the CEO and the next three most highly compensated executive officers, excluding the CFO,


⁴⁰		Lucian Bebchuk, Yaniv Grinstein and Urs Peyer. “LUCKY CEOs.” November, 2006.

upon shareholder approval of the excess compensation. Glass Lewis recognizes the value of executive incentive programs and the tax benefit of shareholder-approved incentive plans.

We believe the best practice for companies is to provide reasonable disclosure to shareholders so that they can make sound judgments about the reasonableness of the proposed compensation plan. To allow for meaningful shareholder review, we prefer that these proposals include: specific performance goals, a maximum award pool, and a maximum award amount per employee. We also believe it is important to analyze the estimated grants to see if they are reasonable and in line with the company’s peers.

We typically recommend against a 162(m) plan where: a company fails to provide at least a list of performance targets; a company fails to provide one of either a total pool or an individual maximum; or the proposed plan is excessive when compared with the plans of the company’s peers.

The company’s record of aligning pay with performance (as evaluated using our proprietary pay-for-performance model) also plays a role in our recommendation. Where a company has a record of reasonable pay relative to business performance, we are not typically inclined to recommend against a plan even if the plan caps seem large relative to peers because we recognize the value in special pay arrangements for continued exceptional performance.

As with all other issues we review, our goal is to provide consistent but contextual advice given the specifics of the company and ongoing performance. Overall, we recognize that it is generally not in shareholders’ best interests to vote against such a plan and forgo the potential tax benefit since shareholder rejection of such plans will not curtail the awards, it will only prevent the tax deduction associated with them.

Director Compensation Plans

Glass Lewis believes that non-employee directors should receive compensation for the time and effort they spend serving on the board and its committees. In particular, we support compensation plans that include option grants or other equity-based awards that help to align the interests of outside directors with those of shareholders. Director fees should be competitive in order to retain and attract qualified individuals. But excessive fees represent a financial cost to the company and threaten to compromise the objectivity and independence of non-employee directors. Therefore, a balance is required.

Glass Lewis uses a proprietary model and analyst review to evaluate the costs of those plans compared to the plans of peer companies with similar market capitalizations. We use the results of this model to assist in making our voting recommendations on director compensation plans.

IV. Governance Structure and the Shareholder Franchise

ANTI-TAKEOVER MEASURES

Poison Pills (Shareholder Rights Plans)

Glass Lewis believes that poison pill plans are not generally in shareholders’ best interests. They can reduce management accountability by substantially limiting opportunities for corporate takeovers. Rights plans can thus prevent shareholders from receiving a buy-out premium for their stock. Typically we recommend that shareholders vote against these plans to protect their financial interests and ensure that they have an opportunity to consider any offer for their shares, especially those at a premium.

We believe boards should be given wide latitude in directing company activities and in charting the company’s course. However, on an issue such as this, where the link between the shareholders’ financial interests and their right to consider and accept buyout offers is substantial, we believe that shareholders should be allowed to vote on whether they support such a plan’s implementation. This issue is different from other matters that are typically left to board discretion. Its potential impact on and relation to shareholders is direct and substantial. It is also an issue in which management interests may be different from those of shareholders; thus, ensuring that shareholders have a voice is the only way to safeguard their interests.

In certain circumstances, we will support a limited poison pill to accomplish a particular objective, such as the closing of an important merger, or a pill that contains what we believe to be a reasonable qualifying offer clause. We will consider supporting a poison pill plan if the qualifying offer clause includes the following attributes: (i) The form of offer is not required to be an all-cash transaction; (ii) the offer is not required to remain open for more than 90 business days; (iii) the offeror is permitted to amend the offer, reduce the offer, or otherwise change the terms; (iv) there is no fairness opinion requirement; and (v) there is a low to no premium requirement. Where these requirements are met, we typically feel comfortable that shareholders will have the opportunity to voice their opinion on any legitimate offer.

NOL Poison Pills

Similarly, Glass Lewis may consider supporting a limited poison pill in the unique event that a company seeks shareholder approval of a rights plan for the express purpose of preserving Net Operating Losses (NOLs). While companies with NOLs can generally carry these losses forward to offset future taxable income, Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code limits companies’ ability to use NOLs in the event of a “change of ownership.”⁴¹ In this case, a company may adopt or amend a poison pill (“NOL pill”) in order to prevent an inadvertent change of ownership by multiple investors purchasing small chunks of stock at the same time, and thereby preserve the ability to carry the NOLs forward. Often such NOL pills have trigger thresholds much lower than the common 15% or 20% thresholds, with some NOL pill triggers as low as 5%.

Glass Lewis evaluates NOL pills on a strictly case-by-case basis taking into consideration, among other factors, the value of the NOLs to the company, the likelihood of a change of ownership based on the size of the holding and the nature of the larger shareholders, the trigger threshold and whether the term of


⁴¹		Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code refers to a “change of ownership” of more than 50 percentage points by one or more 5% shareholders within a three-year period. The statute is intended to deter the “trafficking” of net operating losses.

the plan is limited in duration (i.e., whether it contains a reasonable “sunset” provision) or is subject to periodic board review and/or shareholder ratification. However, we will recommend that shareholders vote against a proposal to adopt or amend a pill to include NOL protective provisions if the company has adopted a more narrowly tailored means of preventing a change in control to preserve its NOLs. For example, a company may limit share transfers in its charter to prevent a change of ownership from occurring.

Furthermore, we believe that shareholders should be offered the opportunity to vote on any adoption or renewal of a NOL pill regardless of any potential tax benefit that it offers a company. As such, we will consider recommending voting against those members of the board who served at the time when an NOL pill was adopted without shareholder approval within the prior twelve months and where the NOL pill is not subject to shareholder ratification.

Fair Price Provisions

Fair price provisions, which are rare, require that certain minimum price and procedural requirements be observed by any party that acquires more than a specified percentage of a corporation’s common stock. The provision is intended to protect minority shareholder value when an acquirer seeks to accomplish a merger or other transaction which would eliminate or change the interests of the minority stockholders. The provision is generally applied against the acquirer unless the takeover is approved by a majority of ”continuing directors” and holders of a majority, in some cases a supermajority as high as 80%, of the combined voting power of all stock entitled to vote to alter, amend, or repeal the above provisions.

The effect of a fair price provision is to require approval of any merger or business combination with an “interested stockholder” by 51% of the voting stock of the company, excluding the shares held by the interested stockholder. An interested stockholder is generally considered to be a holder of 10% or more of the company’s outstanding stock, but the trigger can vary.

Generally, provisions are put in place for the ostensible purpose of preventing a back-end merger where the interested stockholder would be able to pay a lower price for the remaining shares of the company than he or she paid to gain control. The effect of a fair price provision on shareholders, however, is to limit their ability to gain a premium for their shares through a partial tender offer or open market acquisition which typically raise the share price, often significantly. A fair price provision discourages such transactions because of the potential costs of seeking shareholder approval and because of the restrictions on purchase price for completing a merger or other transaction at a later time.

Glass Lewis believes that fair price provisions, while sometimes protecting shareholders from abuse in a takeover situation, more often act as an impediment to takeovers, potentially limiting gains to shareholders from a variety of transactions that could significantly increase share price. In some cases, even the independent directors of the board cannot make exceptions when such exceptions may be in the best interests of shareholders. Given the existence of state law protections for minority shareholders such as Section 203 of the Delaware Corporations Code, we believe it is in the best interests of shareholders to remove fair price provisions.

REINCORPORATION

In general, Glass Lewis believes that the board is in the best position to determine the appropriate jurisdiction of incorporation for the company. When examining a management proposal to reincorporate to a different state or country, we review the relevant financial benefits, generally related to improved corporate tax treatment, as well as changes in corporate governance provisions, especially those relating to shareholder rights, resulting from the change in domicile. Where the financial benefits are de minimis and there is a decrease in shareholder rights, we will recommend voting against the transaction.

However, costly, shareholder-initiated reincorporations are typically not the best route to achieve the furtherance of shareholder rights. We believe shareholders are generally better served by proposing specific shareholder resolutions addressing pertinent issues which may be implemented at a lower cost, and perhaps even with board approval. However, when shareholders propose a shift into a jurisdiction with enhanced shareholder rights, Glass Lewis examines the significant ways would the Company benefit from shifting jurisdictions including the following:

1. Is the board sufficiently independent?

2. Does the Company have anti-takeover protections such as a poison pill or classified board in place?

3. Has the board been previously unresponsive to shareholders (such as failing to implement a shareholder proposal that received majority shareholder support)?

4. Do shareholders have the right to call special meetings of shareholders?

5. Are there other material governance issues at the Company?

6. Has the Company’s performance matched or exceeded its peers in the past one and three years?

7. How has the Company ranked in Glass Lewis’ pay-for-performance analysis during the last three years?

8. Does the company have an independent chairman?

We note, however, that we will only support shareholder proposals to change a company’s place of incorporation in exceptional circumstances.

AUTHORIZED SHARES

Glass Lewis believes that adequate capital stock is important to a company’s operation. When analyzing a request for additional shares, we typically review four common reasons why a company might need additional capital stock:

(i) Stock Split – We typically consider three metrics when evaluating whether we think a stock split is likely or necessary: The historical stock pre-split price, if any; the current price relative to the company’s most common trading price over the past 52 weeks; and some absolute limits on stock price that, in our view, either always make a stock split appropriate if desired by management or would almost never be a reasonable price at which to split a stock.

(ii) Shareholder Defenses – Additional authorized shares could be used to bolster takeover defenses such as a “poison pill.” Proxy filings often discuss the usefulness of additional shares in defending against or discouraging a hostile takeover as a reason for a requested increase. Glass Lewis is typically against such defenses and will oppose actions intended to bolster such defenses.

(iii) Financing for Acquisitions – We look at whether the company has a history of using stock for acquisitions and attempt to determine what levels of stock have typically been required to accomplish such transactions. Likewise, we look to see whether this is discussed as a reason for additional shares in the proxy.

(iv) Financing for Operations – We review the company’s cash position and its ability to secure financing through borrowing or other means. We look at the company’s history of capitalization and whether the company has had to use stock in the recent past as a means of raising capital.

Issuing additional shares can dilute existing holders in limited circumstances. Further, the availability of additional shares, where the board has discretion to implement a poison pill, can often serve as a deterrent to interested suitors. Accordingly, where we find that the company has not detailed a plan for use of the proposed shares, or where the number of shares far exceeds those needed to accomplish a detailed plan, we typically recommend against the authorization of additional shares.

While we think that having adequate shares to allow management to make quick decisions and effectively operate the business is critical, we prefer that, for significant transactions, management come to shareholders to justify their use of additional shares rather than providing a blank check in the form of a large pool of unallocated shares available for any purpose.

ADVANCE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR SHAREHOLDER BALLOT PROPOSALS

We typically recommend that shareholders vote against proposals that would require advance notice of shareholder proposals or of director nominees.

These proposals typically attempt to require a certain amount of notice before shareholders are allowed to place proposals on the ballot. Notice requirements typically range between three to six months prior to the annual meeting. Advance notice requirements typically make it impossible for a shareholder who misses the deadline to present a shareholder proposal or a director nominee that might be in the best interests of the company and its shareholders.

We believe shareholders should be able to review and vote on all proposals and director nominees. Shareholders can always vote against proposals that appear with little prior notice. Shareholders, as owners of a business, are capable of identifying issues on which they have sufficient information and ignoring issues on which they have insufficient information. Setting arbitrary notice restrictions limits the opportunity for shareholders to raise issues that may come up after the window closes.

VOTING STRUCTURE

Cumulative Voting

We review cumulative voting proposals on a case-by-case basis, factoring in the independence of the board and the status of the company’s governance structure. But we typically find these proposals on ballots at companies where independence is lacking and where the appropriate checks and balances favoring shareholders are not in place. In those instances we typically recommend in favor of cumulative voting.

Cumulative voting is a process that maximizes minority shareholders’ ability to ensure representation of their views on the board. It can be important when a board is controlled by insiders or affiliates and where the company’s ownership structure includes one or more shareholders who control a majority-voting block of company stock.

Glass Lewis believes that cumulative voting generally acts as a safeguard for shareholders by ensuring that those who hold a significant minority of shares can elect a candidate of their choosing to the board. This allows the creation of boards that are responsive to the interests of all shareholders rather than just a small group of large holders.

Academic literature indicates that where a highly independent board is in place and the company has a shareholder-friendly governance structure, shareholders may be better off without cumulative voting. The analysis underlying this literature indicates that shareholder returns at firms with good governance

structures are lower and that boards can become factionalized and prone to evaluating the needs of special interests over the general interests of shareholders collectively.

Where a company has adopted a true majority vote standard (i.e., where a director must receive a majority of votes cast to be elected, as opposed to a modified policy indicated by a resignation policy only), Glass Lewis will recommend voting against cumulative voting proposals due to the incompatibility of the two election methods. For companies that have not adopted a true majority voting standard but have adopted some form of majority voting, Glass Lewis will also generally recommend voting against cumulative voting proposals if the company has not adopted antitakeover protections and has been responsive to shareholders.

Where a company has not adopted a majority voting standard and is facing both a shareholder proposal to adopt majority voting and a shareholder proposal to adopt cumulative voting, Glass Lewis will support only the majority voting proposal. When a company has both majority voting and cumulative voting in place, there is a higher likelihood of one or more directors not being elected as a result of not receiving a majority vote. This is because shareholders exercising the right to cumulate their votes could unintentionally cause the failed election of one or more directors for whom shareholders do not cumulate votes.

Supermajority Vote Requirements

Glass Lewis believes that supermajority vote requirements impede shareholder action on ballot items critical to shareholder interests. An example is in the takeover context, where supermajority vote requirements can strongly limit the voice of shareholders in making decisions on such crucial matters as selling the business. This in turn degrades share value and can limit the possibility of buyout premiums to shareholders. Moreover, we believe that a supermajority vote requirement can enable a small group of shareholders to overrule the will of the majority shareholders. We believe that a simple majority is appropriate to approve all matters presented to shareholders.

TRANSACTION OF OTHER BUSINESS AT AN ANNUAL OR SPECIAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

We typically recommend that shareholders not give their proxy to management to vote on any other business items that may properly come before the annual meeting. In our opinion, granting unfettered discretion is unwise.

ANTI-GREENMAIL PROPOSALS

Glass Lewis will support proposals to adopt a provision preventing the payment of greenmail, which would serve to prevent companies from buying back company stock at significant premiums from a certain shareholder. Since a large or majority shareholder could attempt to compel a board into purchasing its shares at a large premium, the anti-greenmail provision would generally require that a majority of shareholders other than the majority shareholder approve the buyback.

MUTUAL FUNDS: INVESTMENT POLICIES AND ADVISORY AGREEMENTS

Glass Lewis believes that decisions about a fund’s structure and/or a fund’s relationship with its investment advisor or sub-advisors are generally best left to management and the members of the board, absent a showing of egregious or illegal conduct that might threaten shareholder value. As such, we focus our analyses of such proposals on the following main areas:

• The terms of any amended advisory or sub-advisory agreement;

• Any changes in the fee structure paid to the investment advisor; and

• Any material changes to the fund’s investment objective or strategy.

We generally support amendments to a fund’s investment advisory agreement absent a material change that is not in the best interests of shareholders. A significant increase in the fees paid to an investment advisor would be reason for us to consider recommending voting against a proposed amendment to an investment advisory agreement. However, in certain cases, we are more inclined to support an increase in advisory fees if such increases result from being performance-based rather than asset-based. Furthermore, we generally support sub-advisory agreements between a fund’s advisor and sub-advisor, primarily because the fees received by the sub-advisor are paid by the advisor, and not by the fund.

In matters pertaining to a fund’s investment objective or strategy, we believe shareholders are best served when a fund’s objective or strategy closely resembles the investment discipline shareholders understood and selected when they initially bought into the fund. As such, we generally recommend voting against amendments to a fund’s investment objective or strategy when the proposed changes would leave shareholders with stakes in a fund that is noticeably different than when originally contemplated, and which could therefore potentially negatively impact some investors’ diversification strategies.

V. Environmental, Social and Governance Shareholder Initiatives

Glass Lewis evaluates shareholder proposals on a case-by-case basis. We generally recommend supporting shareholder proposals calling for the elimination or removal of, as well as to require shareholder approval of, antitakeover devices such as poison pills and classified boards, both discussed in detail above. We generally recommend supporting proposals likely to increase or protect shareholder value and/or promote the furtherance of shareholder rights. In addition, we also generally recommend supporting proposals seeking to promote director accountability and to improve compensation practices especially those promoting a closer link between compensation and performance.

However, we typically prefer to leave decisions regarding day-to-day management and policy decisions, including those related to social, environmental or political issues, to management and the board except when there is a clear link between the proposal and economic or financial value enhancement or risk mitigation for the firm. We feel strongly that shareholders should not attempt to micromanage the company, its businesses or its executives through the shareholder initiative process.

Rather, we believe shareholders should use their influence to push for governance structures that protect shareholders and promote director accountability, including majority voting for director elections, and then put in place a board they can trust to make informed and careful decisions that are in the best interests of the business and its owners. We believe shareholders should hold directors accountable for management and policy decisions through director elections. However, we recognize that support of appropriately crafted shareholder initiatives that provide shareholders with increased information, and that allow the board sufficient flexibility can, in some cases, serve to promote or protect shareholder value. The following is a discussion of Glass Lewis’ approach to certain common shareholder resolution proposals. We note that the following is not an exhaustive list of all shareholder proposals analyzed or expected.

GOVERNANCE

Right of Shareholders to Call a Special Meeting

Glass Lewis strongly supports the right of shareholders to call special meetings. Thus we believe in certain circumstances shareholders should have the ability to call meetings of shareholders between annual meetings to consider matters that require prompt attention. However, in order to prevent abuse and waste of corporate resources by a small minority of shareholders, we believe that shareholders representing at least a sizable minority of shares must support such a meeting prior to its calling. Should the threshold be set too low, companies might frequently be subjected to meetings whose effect could be the disruption of normal business operations in order to focus on the interests of only a small minority of owners. Typically we believe this threshold should not fall below 10-15% of shares, depending on company size.

In our evaluation whether to recommend supporting such proposals, we consider the following:

• Company size

• Shareholder base in both percentage of ownership and type of shareholder (e.g., hedge fund, activist investor, mutual fund, pension fund, etc.)

• Responsiveness of board and management to shareholders evidenced by progressive shareholder rights policies (e.g., majority voting, declassifying boards, etc.) and reaction to shareholder proposals

• Company performance and steps taken to improve bad performance (e.g., new executives/directors, spin offs, etc.)

• Existence of anti-takeover protections or other entrenchment devices

• Opportunities for shareholder action (e.g., ability to act by written consent)

• Existing ability for shareholders to call a special meeting

Right of Shareholders to Act by Written Consent

Glass Lewis strongly supports shareholders’ right to act by written consent. As with the right to call special meetings, we believe such rights should be limited to, again depending on company size, a minimum of 10-15% of the shareholders requesting action by written consent, to prevent abuse and waste of corporate resources. Again, we believe a lower threshold may leave companies subject to meetings that may disrupt business operations to focus on the interests of a minority of owners. But we will support proposals to allow shareholders to act by written consent without a minimum threshold because shareholders are better off with this right than without it, and the benefit to shareholders outweighs the potential for abuse.

Board Composition

Glass Lewis believes the selection and screening process for identifying suitably qualified candidates for a company’s board of directors is one which requires the judgment of many factors, including the balance of skills and talents, as well as the breadth and diversity of experience of candidates and existing board members.

The diversity of skills, abilities and points of view can foster the development of a more creative and effective board. In general, however, we do not believe that it is in the best interests of shareholders for firms to be beholden to arbitrary rules regarding its board composition. We believe such matters should be left to a board’s nominating committee, which is generally responsible for establishing and implementing policies regarding the composition of the board, and which can be held accountable through their election.

Reimbursement of Solicitation Expenses

Glass Lewis feels that in some circumstances, replacing some or all directors on a company’s board is warranted where the incumbent director or directors have failed in their oversight of management by failing to address continuously poor performance. Where a dissident shareholder is seeking reimbursement for his or her expenses and has received the support of a majority of shareholders, Glass Lewis generally will recommend in favor of reimbursing the dissident for expenses incurred in waging the contest.

In those rare cases where a shareholder has put the shareholder’s own time and money into a successful campaign to unseat a poorly performing director, we feel that the dissident should be entitled to reimbursement of expenses by the company. In such a situation, other shareholders express their agreement by virtue of their majority vote for the dissident and will share in the improved company performance.

Since contests are expensive and distracting to the management and the board, to avoid encouraging nuisance or agenda-driven contests, we only support the reimbursement of expenses where the dissident has convinced at least a majority of shareholders to support a certain candidate(s).

COMPENSATION

Severance Agreements

As a general rule, Glass Lewis believes that shareholders should not be involved in the approval of individual severance plans. Such matters should be left to the board’s compensation committee, which can be held accountable for its decisions through the election of its director members.

However, when proposals are crafted to only require approval if the benefit exceeds 2.99 times the amount of the executive’s base salary plus bonus, Glass Lewis typically supports such requests. Above this threshold, based on the executive’s average annual compensation for the most recent five years, the company can no longer deduct severance payments as an expense, and thus shareholders are deprived of a valuable benefit. We believe that shareholders should be consulted before relinquishing such a right, and that implementing such policies would still leave companies with sufficient freedom to enter into the vast majority of severance arrangements.

Additionally, investors should monitor severance agreements when they are initially put in place. If shareholders initially approved of a severance agreement, it is inappropriate to vote against the compensation committee later on when the severance agreement goes into effect. However, in the absence of a shareholder vote on severance agreements, Glass Lewis will evaluate the role of the compensation committee when the agreement was adopted.

Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (“Say-on-Pay”)

As noted above, Glass Lewis does not believe shareholders should be involved in the design, negotiation, management or approval of compensation packages. Such matters should be left to the compensation committee, which can be held accountable for its decisions through their election.

In the case of advisory votes on compensation, however, proposals are typically crafted to allow shareholders a non-binding vote on the company’s executive officers’ compensation and policies. Glass Lewis believes that the advisory vote therefore provides an effective mechanism for enhancing transparency in setting executive pay, improving accountability to shareholders, and providing for a more effective link between pay and performance. Where shareholders believe compensation packages are inappropriately structured, a high negative vote could compel the board to reexamine its compensation practices and act accordingly. While a vote to approve the report will not directly affect the board’s ability to set compensation policy, it will allow shareholders to register their opinions regarding the company’s compensation practices.

While still somewhat nascent, empirical research regarding the effects of advisory votes in certain non-US markets paints a broadly positive picture of the impact of such votes. In particular, a 2004 study for the British Department of Trade and Industry found that the advisory voting requirement has resulted in “a number of well publicized situations where [compensation] committees have changed their policy or practice as a result of direct shareholder voting.” (“Report on the Impact of the Directors’ Remuneration Report Regulations.” Deloitte & Touche. 2004). The study also found that the extent to which companies consulted shareholders about compensation practices has greatly increased over the past two years.

Further empirical evidence suggests that CEO compensation in the UK has been more sensitive to negative operating metrics following the introduction of the remuneration report vote than in prior

periods, indicating a decrease in “rewards for failure”. (Fabrizio Ferri and David Maber. “Say on Pay Vote and CEO Compensation: Evidence from the UK.” SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1169446. June 30, 2008.)

We recognize that criticism has been raised with respect to shareholder advisory votes, such as injecting shareholders too far into compensation decisions and limiting the flexibility of companies to uniquely tailor their compensation policies as they strive to conform to external guidelines. (Laraine S. Rothenberg and Todd S. McCafferty. “’Say on Pay’: Linking Executive Pay to Performance”. New York Law Journal. September 24, 2008). However, we do not believe these arguments are persuasive since shareholders are already, and increasingly, reviewing all aspects of compensation irrespective of an opportunity to cast an advisory vote on compensation. Indeed, a growing number of institutional investors vote against compensation committee members as a means to express concern or dissatisfaction with companies’ compensation practices. As a result, some of these institutions do not feel the adoption of advisory votes is necessary since they will vote against compensation committee members directly.

Glass Lewis does, however, recognize that the use of advisory compensation votes does not necessarily reduce executive compensation. One recent study that found that executive remuneration in the UK has continued to rise at the same rate as prior to the adoption of say on pay, indicating a general failure to curb executive compensation. (Jeffrey Gordon. “’Say on Pay’: Cautionary Notes on the UK Experience and the Case for Muddling Through.” Columbia Law and Economics Working Paper No. 336. SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1262867. September 3, 2008). We, however, do not believe that the purpose of an advisory vote on compensation is to “rein in” executive pay. Rather it is to ensure that the remuneration paid to executives is firmly tied to the creation and advancement of long-term shareholder value.

Bonus Recoupments (“Clawbacks”)

Glass Lewis carefully reviews the compensation awarded to senior executives and we believe that senior executives of a company should never receive compensation for performance that was not achieved by the company.

We believe shareholders would be well-served by requiring the board to adopt a more detailed and stringent policy on recouping unearned bonuses, rather than relying on regulatory action such as requirements under Sarbanes Oxley. When examining proposals that require companies to recoup executives’ bonuses paid as a result of faulty accounting, Glass Lewis will first look to see if the company has already adopted a policy to recoup bonuses awarded to senior executives during a restatement, and whether that policy is included in the CEO’s contract. When the board has already committed to a proper course, in our opinion, and their current policy covers the major tenets of the proposal at hand while giving the board adequate flexibility to exercise discretion over these matters, we see no need for further action.

In some instances, shareholder proposals call for board action that may contravene the board’s legal obligations under existing employment agreements with executives. In addition, the board’s ability to exercise its judgment and reasonable discretion on this issue may be excessively limited under such proposals, which may not be warranted, depending on the specific situation of the company in question. We believe it is reasonable that a recoupment policy should only affect senior executives and those directly responsible for the company’s accounting errors.

Where a company is giving a new contract to an executive that does not include a clawback provision and the company has had a material restatement, especially if the restatement was due to fraud, Glass Lewis will recommend voting against the responsible members of the compensation committee. Compensation committee members have an obligation to build in reasonable controls to executive contracts to prevent payments in the case of inappropriate behavior.

Linking Executive Pay to Social Criteria

We recognize that companies’ involvement in environmentally sensitive and labor-intensive industries influences the degree to which a firm’s overall strategy must weigh environmental and social concerns. However, we also understand that the value generated by incentivizing executives to prioritize environmental and social issues is difficult to quantify and therefore measure, and necessarily varies among industries and companies.

When reviewing such proposals seeking to tie executive compensation to environmental or social practices, we will review the target firm’s compliance with (or violation of) applicable laws and regulations, and examine any history of environmental and social related concerns including those resulting in material investigations, lawsuits, fines and settlements. We will also review the firm’s current compensation policies and practice. However, with respect to executive compensation, Glass Lewis generally believes that such policies should be left to the compensation committee. We view the election of directors, specifically those who sit on the compensation committee, as the appropriate mechanism for shareholders to express their disapproval of board policy on this issue.

ENVIRONMENT

When management and the board have displayed disregard for environmental risks, have engaged in egregious or illegal conduct, or have failed to adequately respond to current or imminent environmental risks that threaten shareholder value, we believe shareholders should hold directors accountable when they face reelection. We believe it is prudent for management to assess its potential exposure to all risks, including environmental and regulations pertaining thereto and incorporate this information into its overall business risk profile.

Glass Lewis recognizes the significant financial, legal and reputational risks to companies resulting from poor environmental practices or negligent oversight thereof. We believe part of the board’s role is to ensure that management conducts a complete risk analysis of company operations, including those that have environmental implications. Further, directors should monitor management’s performance in mitigating the environmental risks attendant with relevant operations in order to eliminate or minimize the risks to the company and shareholders.

While Glass Lewis recognizes that most environmental concerns are best addressed via avenues other than proxy proposals, when a substantial environmental risk has been ignored or inadequately addressed, we may recommend voting against responsible members of the governance committee. In some cases, we may recommend voting against all directors who were on the board when the substantial risk arose, was ignored, or was not mitigated.

Climate Change and Green House Gas Emission Disclosure Proposals

Glass Lewis will consider recommending a vote in favor of a reasonable shareholder proposal to disclose a company’s climate change and/or green house gas emission approaches when (i) a company has encountered problems such as lawsuits and/or government investigations or investors have established a link to impact on shareholder value from climate change and/or green house gas emission regulations, and (ii) the company has failed to adequately disclose how it has addressed these problems. We will examine such proposals in light of requests made to the company for additional information, its response and whether there is a reasonable case as to the negative implications to shareholders and the company.

With respect to climate risk, Glass Lewis believes companies should actively consider their exposure to:

Direct environmental risk: Companies should evaluate their financial exposure to a potential rise in sea levels, increased wildfires and extreme weather, reduced air quality, water availability and public health problems brought on by higher temperatures.

Risk due to legislation/regulation: We believe companies, and particularly those operating in carbon-intensive industries, should evaluate their exposure to a potential increase or shift in environmental regulation with respect to their operations.

Legal and reputational risk: As has been seen relating to other environmental, social and governance matters, failure to take action may carry the risk of damaging negative publicity and potentially costly litigation.

As such, Glass Lewis will consider recommending a vote in favor of a reasonable proposal to disclose a company’s climate change and/or greenhouse gas emission strategies when (i) a company has suffered financial impact from reputational damage, lawsuits and/or government investigations, (ii) there is a strong link between climate change and/or its resultant regulation and shareholder value at the firm, and (iii) the company has failed to adequately disclose how it has addressed these risks.

Sustainability

With respect to shareholder proposals requesting that a firm produce a sustainability report, when evaluating these requests we will consider, among other things:

• The financial risk to the company from the firm’s environmental practices and/or regulation;

• The relevant company’s current level of disclosure;

• The level of sustainability information disclosed by the firm’s peers;

• The industry in which the firm operates;

• The level and type of sustainability concerns/controversies at the relevant firm, if any;

• The time frame within which the relevant report is to be produced; and

• The level of flexibility granted to the board in the implementation of the proposal.

Sustainable Forestry

Sustainable forestry provides for the long-term sustainable management and use of trees and other non-timber forest products. Retaining the economic viability of forests is one of the tenets of sustainable forestry, along with encouraging more responsible corporate use of forests. Sustainable land use and the effective management of land are viewed by some shareholders as important in light of the impact of climate change. Forestry certification has emerged as a way that corporations can address prudent forest management. There are currently several primary certification schemes such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (“SFI”) and the Forest Stewardship Council (“FSC”).

There are nine main principles that comprise the SFI: (i) sustainable forestry; (ii) responsible practices; (iii) reforestation and productive capacity; (iv) forest health and productivity; (v) long-term forest and soil productivity; (vi) protection of water resources; (vii) protection of special sites and biodiversity; (viii) legal compliance; and (ix) continual improvement.

The FSC adheres to ten basic principles: (i) compliance with laws and FSC principles; (ii) tenure and use rights and responsibilities; (iii) indigenous peoples’ rights; (iv) community relations and workers’ rights;

(v) benefits from the forest; (vi) environmental impact; (vii) management plan; (viii) monitoring and assessment; (ix) maintenance of high conservation value forests; and (x) plantations.

Shareholder proposals regarding sustainable forestry have typically requested that the firm comply with the above SFI or FSC principles as well as to assess the feasibility of phasing out the use of uncertified fiber and increasing the use of certified fiber. We will evaluate target firms’ current mix of certified and uncertified paper and the firms’ general approach to sustainable forestry practices, both absolutely and relative to its peers but will only support proposals of this nature when we believe that the proponent has clearly demonstrated that the implementation of this proposal is clearly linked to an increase in shareholder value.

SOCIAL ISSUES

Non-Discrimination Policies

Where there is clear evidence of employment practices resulting in significant negative economic exposure to the company, Glass Lewis will support shareholder proposals that seek to address labor policies, such as shareholder proposals calling for increased disclosure of labor policies and of steps a company has taken to mitigate the risks associated with those policies.

Glass Lewis recognizes that companies with a record of poor labor relations or treatment of its workers can face risks, such as employee lawsuits, poor employee work performance and turnover, and regulatory investigations. Glass Lewis will hold directors accountable for company decisions related to labor and employment problems.

As risk associated with sensitive issues such as EEO policies and investigations of discrimination have the potential to directly affect shareholder value, we believe shareholders should closely monitor the company’s policies regarding these issues. As an increasing number of peer companies adopt inclusive EEO policies, companies without comprehensive policies may face damaging recruitment, reputational and, potentially, legal risks. We recognize that the theoretical increase in, or protection of, shareholder value resulting from inclusive employment policies may be difficult, if not impossible, to identify or measure.

However, we believe that a pattern of making financial settlements as a result of lawsuits based on discrimination could indicate exposure to findings of discriminatory employment practices. As such, shareholders could, in some instances, benefit from codifying nondiscriminatory policies.

MacBride Principles

To promote peace, justice and equality regarding employment in Northern Ireland, Dr. Sean MacBride, founder of Amnesty International and Nobel Peace laureate, proposed the following equal opportunity employment principles:

1. Increasing the representation of individuals from underrepresented religious groups in the workforce including managerial, supervisory, administrative, clerical and technical jobs;

2. Adequate security for the protection of minority employees both at the workplace and while traveling to and from work;

3. The banning of provocative religious or political emblems from the workplace;

4. All job openings should be publicly advertised and special recruitment efforts should be made to attract applicants from underrepresented religious groups;

5. Layoff, recall, and termination procedures should not, in practice, favor particular religious groupings;

6. The abolition of job reservations, apprenticeship restrictions, and differential employment criteria, which discriminate on the basis of religion or ethnic origin;

7. The development of training programs that will prepare substantial numbers of current minority employees for skilled jobs, including the expansion of existing programs and the creation of new programs to train, upgrade, and improve the skills of minority employees;

8. The establishment of procedures to assess, identify and actively recruit minority employees with potential for further advancement; and

9. The appointment of senior management staff member to oversee the company’s affirmative action efforts and setting up of timetables to carry out affirmative action principles.

Proposals requesting the implementation of the above principles are typically proposed at firms that operate, or maintain subsidiaries that operate, in Northern Ireland. In each case, we will examine the company’s current equal employment opportunity policy and the extent to which the company has been subject to protests, fines, or litigation regarding discrimination in the workplace, if any. Further, we will examine any evidence of the firm’s specific record of labor concerns in Northern Ireland.

Human Rights

Glass Lewis believes explicit policies set out by companies’ boards of directors on human rights provides shareholders with the means to evaluate whether the company has taken steps to mitigate risks from its human rights practices. As such, we believe that it is prudent for firms to actively evaluate risks to shareholder value stemming from global activities and human rights practices along entire supply chains. Findings and investigations of human rights abuses can inflict, at a minimum, reputational damage on targeted companies and have the potential to dramatically reduce shareholder value. This is particularly true for companies operating in emerging market countries in extractive industries and in politically unstable regions.

As such, while we typically rely on the expertise of the board on these important policy issues, we recognize that, in some instances, shareholders could benefit from increased reporting or further codification of human rights policies.

Military and US Government Business Policies

Glass Lewis believes that disclosure to shareholders of information on key company endeavors is important. However, we generally do not support resolutions that call for shareholder approval of policy statements for or against government programs, most of which are subject to thorough review by the federal government and elected officials at the national level. We also do not support proposals favoring disclosure of information where such disclosure is already mandated by law, unless circumstances exist that warrant the extra disclosure.

Foreign Government Business Policies

Where a corporation operates in a foreign country, Glass Lewis believes that the company and board should maintain sufficient controls to prevent illegal or egregious conduct with the potential to decrease shareholder value, examples of which include bribery, money laundering, severe environmental violations or proven human rights violations. We believe that shareholders should hold board members, and in particular members of the audit committee and CEO, accountable for these issues when they face reelection, as these concerns may subject the company to financial risk such as fines for violating

the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. In some instances, we will support appropriately crafted shareholder proposals specifically addressing concerns with the target firm’s actions outside its home jurisdiction.

Health Care Reform Principles

Health care reform in the United States has long been a contentious political issue and Glass Lewis therefore believes firms must evaluate and mitigate the level of risk to which they may be exposed regarding potential changes in health care legislation. In 2009, Glass Lewis reviewed multiple shareholder proposals requesting that boards adopt principles for comprehensive health reform, such as the following based upon principles reported by the Institute of Medicine:

• Health care coverage should be universal;

• Health care coverage should be continuous;

• Health care coverage should be affordable to individuals and families;

• The health insurance strategy should be affordable and sustainable for society; and

• Health insurance should enhance health and well-being by promoting access to high-quality care that is effective, efficient, safe, timely, patient-centered and equitable.

Given the current national debate regarding health care, we typically believe that individual board rooms are not the appropriate forum in which to address evolving and contentious national policy issues. The adoption of a narrow set of principles could limit the board’s ability to comply with new regulation or to appropriately and flexibly respond to health care issues as they arise. As such, barring a compelling reason to the contrary, we typically do not support the implementation of national health care reform principles at the company level.

Tobacco

Glass Lewis recognizes the contentious nature of the production, procurement, marketing and selling of tobacco. However, we typically do not support proposals requesting that firms shift away from, or significantly alter, the legal production or marketing of core products. We also recognize that tobacco companies are particularly susceptible to reputational and regulatory risk due to the nature of its operations. As such, we will consider supporting uniquely tailored and appropriately crafted shareholder proposals requesting increased information or the implementation of suitably broad policies at target firms on a case-by-case basis.

Reporting Contributions and Political Spending

Glass Lewis believes that disclosure of how a company uses its funds is an important component of corporate accountability to shareholders. In our view, a rigorous oversight process can minimize a company’s exposure to legal, reputational and financial risk by ensuring that corporate assets are used to enhance shareholder value in accordance with federal and state law, consistent with a company’s stated values, and the long-term interests of the company.

While corporate contributions to national political parties and committees controlled by federal officeholders are prohibited under federal law, corporations can legally donate to state and local candidates, organizations registered under 26 USC Sec. 527 of the Internal Revenue Code and state-level political committees. There is, however, no standardized manner in which companies must disclose this information. As such, shareholders often must search through numerous campaign finance reports and detailed tax documents to ascertain even limited information. Corporations also frequently join trade associations, generally paying dues to do so, as a means for corporate political action. However,

trade associations are neither required to report funds they receive for nor spend on political activity. Therefore, the tracking of corporate expenditures to political causes through trade associations can be impossible, often leaving corporations unable to determine for themselves which causes or campaigns their dues or donations have gone to support. Since not all donations to trade organizations are used strictly for political purposes, we question how corporations are able to assess the efficacy of such donations or determine the effect of such expenditure on long-term shareholder value.

Further, the empirical evidence regarding the benefit to shareholders of corporate political contributions remains unclear. In one study of firm-level contributions to U.S. political campaigns from 1979 to 2004, researchers found that measures of support to candidates were positively and significantly correlated with a cross-section of future returns. This was especially the case when those contributions went to a large number of candidates in the same state as the contributing firm (Michael J. Cooper, Huseyin Gulen and Alexei V. Ovtchinnikov. “Corporate Political Contributions and Stock Returns.” SSRN. September 26, 2008). However, in a separate study of political contributions from 1991 to 2004, researchers found donations to be negatively correlated with future excess returns with only limited support for the contention that political donations represent an investment in political capital (Rajash K. Aggarwal, Felix Meschke and Tracy Yue Wang. “Corporate Political Contributions: Investment or Agency?” SSRN. August 11, 2008).

Given that political donations are strategic decisions intended to increase shareholder value and have the potential to negatively affect the company, we believe the board should either implement processes and procedures to ensure the proper use of the funds or closely evaluate the process and procedures used by management. At least one study found that close board oversight of lobbying strategies may minimize instances of the company contributing to causes that are not in shareholders best interests (Robert Repetto. “Best Practice in Internal Oversight of Lobbying Practice”. Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy. September 1, 2006).

When evaluating whether the report requested would benefit shareholders, Glass Lewis seeks answers to the following three key questions:

• Is the Company’s disclosure comprehensive and readily accessible?

• How does the Company’s political expenditure policy and disclosure compare to its peers?

• What is the Company’s current level of oversight?

Glass Lewis will consider supporting a proposal seeking increased disclosure of corporate political expenditure and contributions if the firm’s current disclosure is insufficient, is lacking compared to its peers, and where there is inadequate board oversight, evidenced by some evidence or credible allegation that the Company is mismanaging corporate funds through political donations or has a record of doing so. We will, in each case, consider the merits of the proposal in the context of relevant company. If Glass Lewis discovers particularly egregious actions by the company, we will consider recommending voting against the governance committee members or other responsible directors.

Animal Welfare

Glass Lewis believes that it is prudent for management to assess potential exposure to regulatory, legal and reputational risks associated with all business practices including those related to animal welfare; failure to take action on certain issues may carry the risk of fines and damaging negative publicity. A high profile campaign launched against a company could result in shareholder action, a reduced customer base, protests and potentially costly litigation.



REG50329-03 (01/10)		*Charles* Schwab