497 1 gstrust-497_122117.htm DEFINITIVE MATERIALS

GRANITESHARES FUNDS

Prospectus

December 18, 2017

GRANITESHARES FUNDS	NYSE ARCA, INC. TICKER SYMBOL
GraniteShares HIPS US High Income ETF	HIPS

As with all mutual funds, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) has not approved or disapproved of the fund, nor has it passed upon the adequacy or accuracy of this prospectus. It is a criminal offense to state otherwise.

GraniteShares Fund is advised by GraniteShares Advisors LLC.

Table of Contents

	Page
GRANITESHARES HIPS US HIGH INCOME ETF – SUMMARY	3
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE INDEX	11
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE FUND’S INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES, STRATEGIES AND RISKS	12
PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS	24
FUND MANAGEMENT	25
BUYING AND SELLING SHARES	25
DIVIDENDS, DISTRIBUTIONS, AND TAXES	27
DISTRIBUTION OF FUND SHARES	29
PREMIUM/DISCOUNT INFORMATION	30
FUND SERVICE PROVIDERS	30
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS	30

GRANITESHARES HIPS US HIGH INCOME ETF – SUMMARY

INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE

The GraniteShares HIPS US High Income ETF (the “Fund”) seeks to track the performance, before fees and expenses, of the TFMS HIPS 300 Index (the “Index”).

FEES AND FUND EXPENSES

This table describes the fees and expenses that you may pay if you buy and hold shares of the Fund. The fees are expressed as a percentage of the Fund’s average daily net assets. Investors may pay brokerage commissions on their purchases and sales of Fund shares, which are not reflected in the table.

Annual Fund Operating Expenses (expenses that you pay each year as a percentage of the value of your investment)
Management Fee	0.70	%
Distribution (12b-1) Fees	None
Other Expenses ⁽¹⁾	0.13	%
Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses ^(1),(2)	0.72	%
Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses	1.55	%
Less Fee Waiver/Expense Reimbursement ⁽³⁾	(0.13	)%
Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses After Fee Waiver/Expense Reimbursement	1.42	%

⁽¹⁾

Based on estimated amounts for the current fiscal year. The Fund is newly formed and will commence operations following the completion of the reorganization of the Master Income ETF (the “Predecessor Fund”), a series of ETF Series Solutions, into the Fund, which is expected to occur on or about December 18, 2017 (the “Reorganization”).

⁽²⁾

Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses are the indirect costs of investing in other investment companies. Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses reflect Fund expenses paid indirectly and do not correlate to the expense ratios in the Fund’s Financial Highlights because the Financial Highlights include only the direct operating expenses incurred by the Fund and exclude Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses.

⁽³⁾

GraniteShares has contractually agreed to waive or reduce its fees and to reimburse the Fund for its expenses for at least two years from the date of the Reorganization, so that the total annual operating expenses after fee waiver/expense reimbursement (excluding interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, acquired fund fees and expenses, expenses related to short sales, other expenditures which are capitalized in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of the Fund’s business, and amounts, if any, payable pursuant to a plan adopted in accordance with Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act) of the Fund are limited to 0.70% (the “Expense Limit”). This contractual arrangement may only be changed or eliminated by or with the consent of the Fund’s Board of Trustees.

EXAMPLE

This Example is intended to help you compare the cost of investing in the Fund with the cost of investing in other funds.

The Example assumes that you invest $10,000 in the Fund for the time periods indicated and then sell all of your shares at the end of those periods. The Example also assumes that your investment has a 5% return each year and that the Fund’s operating expenses remain the same. The figures shown would be the same whether or not you sold your shares at the end of each period.

This Example does not include the brokerage commissions that investors may pay on their purchases and sales of Fund shares. Although your actual costs may be higher or lower, based on these assumptions your cost would be:


1 Year			3 Years		5 Years		10 Years
$	145	$	463	$	819	$	1,823

PORTFOLIO TURNOVER

The Fund pays transaction costs, such as commissions, when it buys and sells securities (or “turns over” its portfolio). A higher portfolio turnover rate may indicate higher transaction costs and may result in higher taxes when Fund shares are held in a taxable account. These costs, which are not reflected in annual fund operating expenses or in the Example, affect the Fund’s performance. For the fiscal year ended November 30, 2016, the Predecessor Fund’s portfolio turnover rate was 54% of the average value of its portfolio.

PRINCIPAL INVESTMENT STRATEGIES

The Fund employs a “passive management”—or indexing—investment approach designed to track the performance of the Index. The rules-based Index measures the performance of up to 300 high income U.S.-listed securities that typically have “pass-through” structures that require them to distribute substantially all of their earnings to shareholders as cash distributions. This “high income, pass-through” strategy is known as HIPS.

The Index

The Index is constructed to capture up to 300 high income securities, typically with pass-through structures, across the following sectors: (i) closed-end funds (“CEFs”), (ii) mortgage real estate investment trusts (“REITs”), (iii) commercial equity REITs, (iv) residential/diversified REITs, (v) asset management and business development companies (“BDCs”), and (vi) energy production and energy transportation and processing companies. Energy-related companies included in the Index are expected to primarily be structured as master limited partnerships (“MLPs”). The instruments in which such CEFs invest may include debt securities of any maturity or quality. CEFs included in the Index are limited to taxable, debt-based funds and may include CEFs that invest primarily in bank loans, high-yield securities (also known as “junk bonds”), foreign securities (including those in emerging markets), and mortgage- or asset-backed securities.

The Index applies a quantitative screen to the securities in such sectors for minimum sector-specific yields relative to the yield of the S&P 500® Index, minimum market capitalizations and minimum liquidity thresholds. The Index may include small-, mid-, and large-capitalization companies meeting the screening criteria.

The Index is rebalanced semi-annually, and securities in the Index are market capitalization weighted at the time of each rebalance. The Index’s exposure to each of the above sectors is capped at 25% of the total Index at the time of each rebalance. Additionally, at the time of each rebalance, the Index’s exposure to an individual security is capped at 20% of the Index’s exposure to that security’s sector.

The Fund’s Investment Strategy

The Fund attempts to invest all, or substantially all, of its assets in the securities that make up the Index. The Fund will generally use a “replication” strategy to achieve its investment objective, meaning it generally will invest in all of the component securities of the Index, but may, when the adviser believes it is in the best interests of the Fund, use a “representative sampling” strategy, meaning it may invest in a sample of the securities in the Index whose risk, return and other characteristics are expected to closely resemble the risk, return and other characteristics of the Index as a whole.

Under normal circumstances, at least 80% of the Fund’s total assets (exclusive of collateral held from securities lending) will be invested in the component securities of the Index and investments that have economic characteristics that are substantially identical to the economic characteristics of such component securities. GraniteShares Advisors LLC (“GraniteShares” or the “Adviser”), the Fund’s investment adviser, expects that, over time, the correlation between the Fund’s performance and that of the Index, before fees and expenses, will be 95% or better.

CONCENTRATION POLICY

To the extent the Index concentrates (i.e., holds 25% or more of its total assets) in the securities of a particular industry or group of related industries, the Fund will concentrate its investments to approximately the same extent as the Index.

PRINCIPAL RISKS OF INVESTING IN THE FUND

You could lose money by investing in the Fund.

Principal risk factors for the Fund are discussed below. The Fund may be subject to other risks in addition to those identified as principal risks. Loss of money is a risk of investing in the Fund. There can be no assurance that the investment objective of the Fund will be achieved.

Investments in the Fund are not bank deposits and are not insured or guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or any other government agency.

AUTHORIZED PARTICIPANT CONCENTRATION RISK

Only an authorized participant that has entered into an agreement with the Fund’s distributor (an “Authorized Participant”) may engage in creation or redemption transactions directly with the Fund. The Fund may have a limited number of Authorized Participants.

BANK DEBT RISK

The Fund may invest in CEFs that primarily invest in bank loans and participations. Risks associated with these obligations include, but are not limited to, risks involving the enforceability of security interests and loan transactions, inadequate collateral, liabilities relating to collateral securing obligations, and the liquidity of these loans. The market for corporate loans may be subject to irregular trading activity, wide bid/ask spreads and extended trade settlement periods. The corporate loans in which such CEFs invest may be rated below investment grade.

BDC RISK

BDCs may carry risks similar to those of a private equity or venture capital fund. BDC company securities are not redeemable at the option of the shareholder and they may trade in the market at a discount to their net asset value (“NAV”). BDCs usually trade at a discount to their NAV because they invest in unlisted securities and have limited access to capital markets. BDCs are subject to management and other expenses, which will be indirectly paid by the Fund.

BELOW INVESTMENT-GRADE INSTRUMENTS RISK

The Fund may invest in CEFs that primarily invest in below-investment grade debt (also known as “junk bonds”). Although junk bonds generally pay higher rates of interest than investment grade bonds, junk bonds are speculative, high risk investments that may cause income and principal losses for such CEFs and consequently, negatively affect the value of the Fund’s investment in such CEFs.

CASH REDEMPTION RISK

The Fund’s investment strategy may require it to redeem its shares for cash or to otherwise include cash as part of its redemption proceeds. The Fund may be required to sell or unwind portfolio investments to obtain the cash needed to distribute redemption proceeds. This may cause the Fund to recognize a capital gain that it might not have recognized if it had made a redemption in-kind. As a result, the Fund may pay out higher annual capital gain distributions than if the in-kind redemption process was used.

CONCENTRATION RISK

CYBER SECURITY RISK

Failures or breaches of the electronic systems of the Fund, the Adviser, and the Fund’s other service providers, market makers, Authorized Participants, or the issuers of securities in which the Fund invests have the ability to cause disruptions and negatively impact the Fund’s business operations, potentially resulting in financial losses to the Fund and its shareholders.

DEBT SECURITIES RISK

The Fund may invest in CEFs that invest primarily in debt securities. Debt securities, such as bonds and certain asset-backed securities, involve certain risks, which include:

●

Credit Risk. Credit risk refers to the possibility that the issuer of a security will not be able to make payments of interest and principal when due. Changes in an issuer’s credit rating or the market’s perception of an issuer’s creditworthiness may also affect the value of the Fund’s investment in that issuer.

●

Event Risk. Event risk is the risk that corporate issuers may undergo restructurings, such as mergers, leveraged buyouts, takeovers, or similar events financed by increased debt. As a result of the added debt, the credit quality and market value of a company’s bonds and/or other debt securities may decline significantly.

●

Extension Risk. When interest rates rise, certain obligations will be paid off by the obligor more slowly than anticipated, causing the value of these securities to fall.

●

Interest Rate Risk. Generally, the value of fixed income securities will change inversely with changes in interest rates. As interest rates rise, the market value of fixed income securities tends to decrease. Conversely, as interest rates fall, the market value of fixed income securities tends to increase. This risk will be greater for long-term securities than for short-term securities. In recent periods, governmental financial regulators, including the U.S. Federal Reserve, have taken steps to maintain historically low interest rates, which may increase interest rate risk. Changes in government intervention may have adverse effects on investments, volatility, and illiquidity in debt markets.

●

Prepayment Risk. When interest rates fall, certain obligations will be paid off by the obligor more quickly than originally anticipated, and the proceeds may have to be invested in securities with lower yields.

●

Variable and Floating Rate Instrument Risk. The absence of an active market for these securities could make it difficult to dispose of them if the issuer defaults.

EQUITY MARKET RISK

Common stocks are generally exposed to greater risk than other types of securities, such as preferred stock and debt obligations, because common stockholders generally have inferior rights to receive payment from specific issuers. In addition, the equity securities held in the Fund’s portfolio may experience sudden, unpredictable drops in value or long periods of decline in value. This may occur because of factors that affect securities markets generally or factors affecting specific industries, sectors or companies in which the Fund invests.

FOREIGN SECURITIES RISK

The Fund may invest in CEFs that invest primarily in foreign securities. Investments in non-U.S. securities involve certain risks that may not be present with investments in U.S. securities. For example, investments in non-U.S. securities may be subject to risk of loss due to foreign currency fluctuations or to political or economic instability. Investments in non-U.S. securities also may be subject to withholding or other taxes and may be subject to additional trading, settlement, custodial, and operational risks. These and other factors can make investments in the Fund more volatile and potentially less liquid than other types of investments. These risks may be even greater for securities of companies organized in emerging market nations.

INDEX-RELATED RISK

Errors in index data, index computations and/or the construction of the Index in accordance with its methodology may occur from time to time and may not be identified and corrected the Index Provider for a period of time or at all, which may have an adverse impact on the Fund and its shareholders.

INVESTMENT COMPANY RISK

The risks of investment in investment companies, such as CEFs and BDCs, typically reflect the risks of the types of instruments in which the investment companies invest. By investing in another investment company, the Fund becomes a shareholder of that investment company and bears its proportionate share of the fees and expenses of the other investment company. The Fund may be subject to statutory limits with respect to the amount it can invest in other investment companies, which may adversely affect the Fund’s ability to achieve its investment objective. Investments in exchange-listed investment companies (“ETPs”) are also subject to the following risks: (i) the market price of an ETP’s shares may trade above or below their NAV; (ii) an active trading market for an ETP’s shares may not develop or be maintained; and (iii) trading of an ETP’s shares may be halted for a number of reasons.

LARGE-SIZED COMPANY RISK

Larger, more established companies may be unable to respond quickly to new competitive challenges such as changes in technology and consumer tastes. Many larger companies also may not be able to attain the high growth rate of successful smaller companies, especially during extended periods of economic expansion.

LIQUIDITY RISK

Liquidity risk exists when particular investments are difficult to purchase or sell. This can reduce the Fund's returns because the Fund may be unable to transact at advantageous times or prices.

MLP RISK

MLP investment returns are enhanced during periods of declining or low interest rates and tend to be negatively influenced when interest rates are rising. In addition, most MLPs are leveraged and typically carry a portion of a “floating” rate debt. As such, a significant upward swing in interest rates would also drive interest expense higher. Furthermore, most MLPs grow by acquisitions partly financed by debt, and higher interest rates could make it more difficult to make acquisitions. MLP investments also entail many of the general tax risks of investing in a partnership. Limited partners in an MLP typically have limited control and limited rights to vote on matters affecting the partnership. Additionally, there is the risk that an MLP will fail to qualify for favorable tax treatment.

MORTGAGE- AND ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES RISK

Mortgage- and asset-backed securities are subject to credit, interest rate, prepayment and extension risks (see “Debt Securities Risk” above). These securities also are subject to risk of default on the underlying mortgage or asset, particularly during periods of economic downturn. Small movements in interest rates may quickly and significantly reduce the value of certain mortgage-backed securities.

OPERATIONAL RISK

The Fund is exposed to various operational risks, including human error, information technology failures and failure to comply with formal procedures intended to mitigate these risks, and is particularly dependent on electronic means of communicating, record-keeping and otherwise conducting business.

PASSIVE INVESTMENT RISK

REGULATORY RISK

The Fund is subject to the risk that a change in U.S. law and related regulations will impact the way the Fund operates, increase the particular costs of the Fund’s operations and/or change the competitive landscape.

REIT INVESTMENT RISK

Investments in REITs involve unique risks. REITs may have limited financial resources, may trade less frequently and in limited volume, and may be more volatile than other securities. The risks of investing in REITs include certain risks associated with the direct ownership of real estate and the real estate industry in general. REITs are also subject to heavy cash flow dependency, defaults by borrowers and self-liquidation.

SECONDARY MARKET TRADING RISK

An investment in the Fund faces risks from its shares being traded in the secondary market, including the potential lack of an active market for Fund shares, losses from trading in secondary markets, periods of high volatility and disruption in the creation/redemption process of Fund shares. Any of these factors, among others, may lead to the Fund’s shares trading at a premium or discount to net asset value.

●

Trading Issues. Although Fund shares are listed for trading on the NYSE Arca, Inc. (the “Exchange”), there can be no assurance that an active trading market for such shares will develop or be maintained. Trading in Fund shares may be halted due to market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in shares inadvisable. There can be no assurance that the requirements of the Exchange necessary to maintain the listing of the Fund will continue to be met or will remain unchanged or that the shares will trade with any volume, or at all.

In times of market stress, market makers or Authorized Participants may step away from their respective roles in making a market in Fund shares and in executing purchase or redemption orders. This could lead to variances between the market price of the Fund’s shares and their underlying value.

●

Fluctuation of Net Asset Value. The net asset value of Fund shares will generally fluctuate with changes in the market value of the Fund’s portfolio holdings. The market prices of shares will generally fluctuate in accordance with changes in the Fund’s net asset value and supply and demand of shares on the Exchange. The market price of Fund shares may deviate from the value of the Fund’s underlying portfolio holdings, particularly in times of market stress, with the result that investors may pay significantly more or receive significantly less than the underlying value of the Fund shares bought or sold. This may be reflected as a spread between the bid and ask prices for Fund shares quoted during a trading day or a premium or discount in the closing price of Fund shares from the Fund’s net asset value. It cannot be predicted whether Fund shares will trade below, at or above their net asset value.

●

Costs of Buying or Selling Shares. Investors buying or selling Fund shares in the secondary market will pay brokerage commissions or other charges imposed by brokers as determined by each broker. Brokerage commissions are often a fixed amount and may be a significant proportional cost for investors seeking to buy or sell relatively small amounts of shares.

SECTOR RISK

To the extent the Fund invests more heavily in particular sectors of the economy, its performance will be especially sensitive to developments that significantly affect those sectors.

●

Energy Sector Risk. The Fund will invest significantly in securities, particularly MLPs, tied to the energy sector and energy infrastructure. Companies operating in the energy sector are subject to significant governmental regulation and may be affected by fluctuations in the prices of energy commodities, the depletion of natural resources, and changes in the supply or demand for energy commodities. Rising interest rates can also adversely impact the financial performance of these companies by increasing their costs of capital. Extreme weather or other natural disasters, threats of or actual attacks by terrorists, and significant accidents or similar events may adversely affect the securities issued by the company.

●

Finance and Insurance Sector Risk. The Fund may invest in companies in the finance and insurance sector, and therefore the performance of the Fund could be negatively impacted by events affecting this sector. This sector can be significantly affected by changes in interest rates, government regulation, the rate of defaults on corporate, consumer and government debt, the availability and cost of capital, and fallout from the housing and sub-prime mortgage crisis. This sector has experienced significant losses in the recent past, and the impact of more stringent capital requirements and of recent or future regulation on any individual financial company or on the sector as a whole cannot be predicted. In recent years, cyber attacks and technology malfunctions and failures have become increasingly frequent in this sector and have caused significant losses.

●

Real Estate Sector Risk. Securities in the real estate sector are subject to the risk that the value of their underlying real estate may go down. Many factors may affect real estate values, including the general and local economies, the amount of new construction in a particular area, the laws and regulations (including zoning and tax laws) affecting real estate, and the costs of owning, maintaining and improving real estate. The availability of mortgages and changes in interest rates may also affect real estate values.

SMALL AND MID-SIZED COMPANY RISK

Small to mid-sized company stocks have historically been subject to greater investment risk than large company stocks. The prices of small- to mid-sized company stocks tend to be more volatile and less liquid than large company stocks.

TAX RISK

The Fund intends to qualify for treatment as a “regulated investment company” (a “RIC”) under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), by meeting certain source-of-income, asset diversification and annual distribution requirements. RICs are generally subject to favorable tax treatment under the Code. To meet the diversification requirements, the Fund must generally limit its investments in MLPs to no more than 25% of the Fund’s total assets. If the Fund fails to qualify for treatment as a RIC, the Fund may be subject to tax on its income at corporate rates, distributions from the Fund may be taxable to shareholders, and shareholders’ returns on their investments in the Fund could be significantly reduced.

Depreciation or other cost recovery deductions passed through to the Fund from investments in MLPs in a given year will generally reduce the Fund’s taxable income, but those deductions may be recaptured in the Fund’s income in one or more subsequent years. When recognized and distributed, recapture income will generally be taxable to shareholders at the time of the distribution at ordinary income tax rates, even though those shareholders might not have held shares in the Fund at the time the deductions were taken by the Fund, and even though those shareholders will not have corresponding economic gain on their shares at the time of the recapture. To distribute recapture income or to fund redemption requests, the Fund may need to liquidate investments.

MLPs taxed as partnerships have historically made cash distributions to limited partners that exceed the amount of taxable income allocable to limited partners or members, due to a variety of factors, including significant non-cash deductions such as depreciation and depletion. These excess cash distributions would not be treated as income to the Fund but rather would be treated as a return of capital to the extent of the Fund’s basis in the MLP. As a consquence, the Fund may make distributions that exceed its earnings and profits, which would be recharacterized as a return of capital to shareholders. A return of capital distribution will generally not be taxable, but will reduce each shareholder’s cost basis in Shares and result in a higher capital gain or lower capital loss when the shares are sold. After a shareholder’s basis in shares has been reduced to zero, distributions in excess of earnings and profits in respect of those shares will be treated as gain from the sale of the shares.

TRACKING ERROR RISK

As with all index funds, the performance of the Fund and its Index may differ from each other for a variety of reasons. For example, the Fund incurs operating expenses and portfolio transaction costs not incurred by the Index. In addition, the Fund may not be fully invested in the securities of the Index at all times or may hold securities not included in the Index.

VALUATION RISK

During periods of reduced market liquidity or readily available market quotations, the Fund’s ability to obtain reliable, objective pricing data and to value its holdings becomes more difficult. Consequently, while valuation determinations made by the Adviser (using fair value procedures adopted by the Board of Trustees of the GraniteShares ETF Trust) may be done in good faith, it may be difficult for the Fund to accurately assign a daily value to its holdings.

The trading prices of the Fund’s shares in the secondary market generally differ from the Fund’s daily net asset value and are affected by market forces such as supply and demand, economic conditions and other factors. Information regarding the intraday value of shares of the Fund, also known as the “Intraday Interim Value” (“IIV”), is disseminated every 15 seconds throughout the trading day by the national securities exchange on which the Fund’s shares are listed or by market data vendors or other information providers. The IIV based on the current market value of the financial instruments and/or cash required to be deposited in exchange for a Creation Unit (as defined below). The IIV does not necessarily reflect the precise composition of the current portfolio of investments held by the Fund at a particular point in time or the best possible valuation of the current portfolio. Therefore, the IIV should not be viewed as a “real-time” update of the Fund’s net asset value, which is computed only once a day. The IIV is generally determined by using both current market quotations and/or price quotations obtained from broker-dealers that may trade in the portfolio investments held by the Fund. The quotations of certain Fund holdings may not be updated during U.S. trading hours if such holdings do not trade in the United States. The Fund is not involved in, or responsible for, the calculation or dissemination of the IIV and makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy.

PERFORMANCE

The Fund is a new series of GraniteShares ETF Trust (the “Trust”) and has no performance history. As a result of the Reorganization, the performance and accounting history of the Predecessor Fund will be assumed by the Fund. Financial and performance information included herein is that of the Predecessor Fund.

The following performance information indicates some of the risks of investing in the Fund. The bar chart shows the Predecessor Fund’s performance for the calendar year ended December 31, 2016. The table illustrates how the Fund’s average annual returns for the 1-year and since inception periods compare with those of the Index and a broad measure of market performance. The Fund’s past performance, before and after taxes, does not necessarily indicate how it will perform in the future. Updated performance information is also available on the Fund’s website at www.graniteshares.com or by calling the Fund toll free at 844-476-8747.

Calendar Year Total Return

During the period of time shown in the bar chart, the Fund’s highest quarterly return was 9.24% for the quarter ended June 30, 2016, and the lowest quarterly return was 1.63% for the quarter ended March 31, 2016. The calendar year-to-date total return of the Fund as of September 30, 2017 was 6.11%.

Average Annual Total Returns for the Period Ended December 31, 2016

	1 Year			Since Inception (1/6/2015)
Target Fund
Return Before Taxes		21.12	%		1.37	%
Return After Taxes on Distributions		17.04	%		-1.09	%
Return After Taxes on Distributions and Sale of Shares		11.68	%		-0.10	%
TFMS HIPS 300 Index (reflects no deduction for fees, expenses, or taxes)		22.07	%		1.85	%
S&P 500 Total Return Index (reflects no deduction for fees, expenses, or taxes)		11.96	%		8.09	%

After-tax returns are calculated using the historical highest individual federal marginal income tax rates during the period covered by the table above and do not reflect the impact of state and local taxes. Actual after-tax returns depend on an investor’s tax situation and may differ from those shown. After-tax returns shown are not relevant to investors who hold their shares through tax-deferred arrangements such as an individual retirement account (“IRA”) or other tax-advantaged accounts.

PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT

Investment adviser: GraniteShares Advisors LLC

Portfolio managers: Benoit Autier and Jeff Klearman have been the Fund’s portfolio managers since inception.

PURCHASE AND SALE OF FUND SHARES

The Fund issues and redeems shares at net asset value only in a large specified number of shares each called a “Creation Unit,” or multiples thereof. A Creation Unit consists of 50,000 shares. Individual shares of the Fund may only be purchased and sold on a national securities exchange through a broker-dealer. Shares of the Fund are listed on NYSE Arca, Inc. The price of Fund shares is based on the market price, and because ETF shares trade at market prices rather than net asset value, shares may trade at a price greater than net asset value (premium) or less than net asset value (discount).

TAX INFORMATION

Fund distributions are generally taxable as ordinary income, qualified dividend income, or capital gains (or a combination), unless your investment is in an individual retirement account (“IRA”) or other tax-advantaged account. Distributions on investments made through tax-deferred arrangements may be taxed later upon withdrawal of assets from those accounts. A portion of the Fund’s distributions is also expected to be treated as a return of capital for tax purposes. Return of capital distributions are not taxable to you, but reduce your tax basis in your fund shares. Distributions by the Fund may be significantly higher than those of other exchange-traded funds.

PAYMENTS TO BROKER-DEALERS AND OTHER FINANCIAL INTERMEDIARIES

If you purchase the Fund through a broker-dealer or other financial intermediary (such as a bank) (an “Intermediary”), the Fund and its related companies may pay the Intermediary for the sale of Fund shares and related services. These payments may create a conflict of interest by influencing the broker-dealer or other Intermediary and your salesperson to recommend the Fund over another investment. Any such arrangements do not result in increased Fund expenses. Ask your salesperson or visit the Intermediary’s website for more information.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE INDEX

The Index Provider is Trust & Fiduciary Management Services, Inc. (“TFMS” or the “Index Provider”). TFMS is not affiliated with the Fund, the Adviser, the Fund’s administrator, custodian, transfer agent or distributor, or any of their respective affiliates. The Index Provider provides information to the Fund about the constituents of the Index and does not provide investment advice with respect to the desirability of investing in, purchasing or selling securities. GraniteShares Inc., the parent company of the Adviser, has entered into a licensing agreement with TFMS pursuant to which TFMS is entitled to a fee for the Adviser’s use the Index. GraniteShares Inc. is sub-licensing rights to the Index to the Fund at no charge.

The Index is calculated by S&P Opco, LLC (a subsidiary of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC (“S&P Dow Jones Indices”)), which is not affiliated with the Trust, the Adviser, the Fund’s administrator, custodian, transfer agent or distributor, or any of their respective affiliates.

Index/Trademark Licenses/Disclaimers

The Index is the exclusive property of TFMS, which has contracted with S&P Opco, LLC (a subsidiary of S&P Dow Jones Indices) to calculate and maintain the Index. The Index is not sponsored by S&P Dow Jones Indices or its affiliates or its third party licensors. Neither S&P Dow Jones Indices, nor any of their affiliates or third party licensors will be liable for any errors or omissions in calculating the Index. “Calculated by S&P Dow Jones Indices” and the related stylized mark(s) are service marks of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services, LLC (“SPFS”) and have been licensed for use by S&P Dow Jones Indices and sublicensed for certain purposes by TWM.

The Fund is not sponsored, endorsed, sold or promoted by S&P Dow Jones Indices, SPFS, or any of their affiliates or third party licensors (collectively, “S&P Dow Jones Indices Entities”). S&P Dow Jones Indices Entities do not make any representation or warranty, express or implied, to the owners of the Fund or any member of the public regarding the advisability of investing in securities generally or in the Fund particularly or the ability of the Index to track general market performance. S&P Dow Jones Indices Entities’ only relationship to TFMS with respect to the Index is the licensing of the S&P 500, certain trademarks, service marks and trade names of S&P Dow Jones Indices Entities, and the provision of the calculation and maintenance services related to the Index. S&P Dow Jones Indices Entities are not responsible for and have not participated in the determination of the prices and amount of the Fund or the timing of the issuance or sale of the Fund or in the determination or calculation of the equation by which the Fund may be converted into cash or other redemption mechanics. S&P Dow Jones Indices Entities have no obligation or liability in connection with the administration, marketing or trading of the Fund. S&P Dow Jones Indices, LLC is not an investment advisor. Inclusion of a security within the Index is not a recommendation by S&P Dow Jones Indices Entities to buy, sell, or hold such security, nor is it investment advice.

S&P DOW JONES INDICES ENTITIES DO NOT GUARANTEE THE ADEQUACY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS AND/OR THE COMPLETENESS OF THE INDEX OR ANY DATA RELATED THERETO OR ANY COMMUNICATION WITH RESPECT THERETO, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ORAL, WRITTEN OR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS. S&P DOW JONES INDICES ENTITIES SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO ANY DAMAGES OR LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DELAYS THEREIN. S&P DOW JONES INDICES ENTITIES MAKE NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, AND EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE OR AS TO RESULTS TO BE OBTAINED BY TWM, OWNERS OF THE FUND, OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY FROM THE USE OF THE INDEX OR WITH RESPECT TO ANY DATA RELATED THERETO. WITHOUT LIMITING ANY OF THE FOREGOING, IN NO EVENT WHATSOEVER SHALL S&P DOW JONES INDICES ENTITIES BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOSS OF PROFITS, TRADING LOSSES, LOST TIME OR GOODWILL, EVEN IF THEY HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR OTHERWISE.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE FUND’S
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES, STRATEGIES AND RISKS

INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE

The GraniteShares US High Income ETF (the “Fund”) seeks to track the performance, before fees and expenses, of the TFMS HIPS 300 Index (the “Index”).

The Fund’s investment objective can be changed by the Board of Trustees of GraniteShares ETF Trust without shareholder approval.

PRINCIPAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY

The Fund attempts to invest all, or substantially all, of its assets in the securities that make up the Index. The Fund will generally use a “replication” strategy to achieve its investment objective, meaning it generally will invest in all of the component securities of the Index, but may, when the Adviser believes it is in the best interests of the Fund, use a “representative sampling” strategy, meaning it may invest in a sample of the securities in the Index whose risk, return and other characteristics are expected to closely resemble the risk, return and other characteristics of the Index as a whole.

The Fund generally may invest up to 20% of its total assets in securities not included in the Index, but which the Fund believes will help it track the Index. For example, the Fund may invest in securities that are not components of the Index to reflect various corporate actions and other changes to the Index (such as reconstitutions, additions and deletions). Under normal circumstances, as long as the Fund invests at least 80% of its assets (exclusive of collateral held from securities lending) in the component securities of the Index, it also may invest its other assets in cash and cash equivalents, as well as in shares of other investment companies, futures contracts, and swaps.

PRINCIPAL RISKS OF INVESTING IN THE FUND

Loss of money is a risk of investing in the Funds. The principal risks of the Funds are discussed in the summary sections of this prospectus. The following section provides additional information on the risks that apply to the Fund, which may result in a loss of your investment. An investment in the Fund is not a bank deposit and is not insured or guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or any other governmental agency. Investors should carefully consider these risks before investing. None of the Funds should be relied upon as a complete investment program. There can be no assurance that the Fund will achieve its investment objective.

The investment programs of the Funds are speculative, entail substantial risks and include alternative investment techniques not employed by traditional mutual funds. A Fund’s investment techniques (if they do not perform as designed) may increase the volatility of performance and the risk of investment loss, including the loss of the entire amount that is invested. Moreover, certain investment techniques which the Fund may employ in its investment program can substantially increase the adverse impact to which the Fund’s investments may be subject. There is no assurance that the investment processes of the Fund will be successful, or that the techniques utilized therein will be implemented successfully or that they are adequate for their intended uses.

AUTHORIZED PARTICIPANT CONCENTRATION RISK

Decisions by market makers or Authorized Participants to reduce their role or step away from these activities in time of market stress could inhibit the effectiveness of the arbitrage process in maintaining the relationship between the underlying value of the Fund’s portfolio securities and the Fund’s market price. This reduced effectiveness could result in Fund shares trading at discounts from net asset value and also in greater than normal intraday bid/ask spreads for the Fund’s shares.

BANK DEBT RISK

The Fund may invest in CEFs that primarily invest in bank loans and participations. Risks associated with these obligations include, but are not limited to: inadequate perfection of the security interest granted under the loan documents; inadequate collateral; the possible invalidation or compromise of a loan transaction as a fraudulent conveyance or preference under relevant creditors’ rights laws; the validity and seniority of bank claims and guarantees; environmental liability that may arise with respect to collateral securing the obligations; adverse consequences resulting from participating in such instruments with other institutions with lower credit quality; long and less certain settlement periods; limitations on the ability of the CEF to directly enforce its rights with respect to participations and illiquidity in the market for the resale of such loans. Leading financial institutions often act as agent for a broader group of lenders, generally referred to as a syndicate. The syndicate’s agent arranges the loan, holds collateral and accepts payments of principal and interest. If the agent develops financial problems, the CEF may not recover its investment or recovery may be delayed. By investing in a loan, the CEF may become a member of the syndicate. If a loan is acquired through an assignment, the CEF may not be able to unilaterally enforce all rights and remedies under the loan and with regard to any associated collateral. If a loan is acquired through a participation, the CEF generally will have no right to enforce compliance by the borrower with the terms of the loan agreement against the borrower, and the CEF may not directly benefit from the collateral supporting the debt obligation in which it has purchased the participation. As a result, the CEF (and to the extent the Fund invests in such CEF, the Fund) will be exposed to the credit risk of both the borrower and the institution selling the participation.

BDC RISK

BDCs may carry risks similar to those of a private equity or venture capital fund. BDC company securities are not redeemable at the option of the shareholder and they may trade in the market at a discount to their NAV. A BDC is a form of investment company that is required to invest at least 70% of its total assets in securities (typically debt) of private companies, thinly traded U.S. public companies, or short-term high-quality debt securities. BDCs usually trade at a discount to their NAV because they invest in unlisted securities and have limited access to capital markets. The BDCs held by the Fund may leverage their portfolios through borrowings or the issuance of preferred stock. While leverage often serves to increase the yield of a BDC, this leverage also subjects a BDC to increased risks, including the likelihood of increased volatility and the possibility that a BDC’s common share income will fall if the dividend rate of the preferred shares or the interest rate on any borrowings rises. BDCs are subject to management and other expenses, which will be indirectly paid by the Fund.

BELOW INVESTMENT-GRADE INSTRUMENTS RISK

The Fund may invest and transact in CEFs that primarily invest in unrated or lower-rated fixed income securities and other instruments, sometimes referred to as “high yield” or “junk” bonds. Lower-rated securities may include securities that have the lowest rating or are in default. Investing in lower-rated or unrated securities involves special risks in addition to the risks associated with investments in higher-rated fixed income securities, including a high degree of credit risk. Lower-rated or unrated securities may be regarded as predominately speculative with respect to the issuer’s continuing ability to meet principal and interest payments. Analysis of the creditworthiness of issuers/issues of lower-rated or unrated securities may be more complex than for issuers/issues of higher quality debt securities. Lower-rated or unrated securities may be more susceptible to losses and real or perceived adverse economic and competitive industry conditions than higher-grade securities. Securities that are in the lowest rating category are considered to have extremely poor prospects of ever attaining any real investment standing, to have a current identifiable vulnerability to default, and to be unlikely to have the capacity to pay interest and repay principal. The secondary markets on which lower-rated or unrated securities are traded may be less liquid than the market for higher-grade securities. Less liquidity in the secondary trading markets could adversely affect and cause large fluctuations in the value of such investments. Adverse publicity and investor perceptions, whether or not based on fundamental analysis, may decrease the values and liquidity of lower-rated or unrated securities, especially in a thinly traded market. It is possible that a major economic recession could disrupt severely the market for such securities and may have an adverse impact on the value of such securities. In addition, it is possible that any such economic downturn could adversely affect the ability of the issuers of such securities to repay principal and pay interest thereon and increase the incidence of default of such securities. Furthermore, with respect to certain residential and commercial mortgage-backed securities, it is difficult to obtain current reliable information regarding delinquency rates, prepayment rates, servicing records, as well as updated cash flows. The use of credit ratings as the sole method of evaluating lower-rated or unrated securities can involve certain risks. For example, credit ratings evaluate the safety of principal and interest payments, not the market value risk of lower-rated securities. In addition, credit rating agencies may fail to change credit ratings in a timely fashion to reflect events since the security was rated.

CASH REDEMPTION RISK

When the Fund’s investment strategy requires it to redeem shares for cash or to otherwise include cash as part of its redemption proceeds, it may be required to sell or unwind portfolio investments in order to obtain the cash needed to distribute redemption proceeds. This may cause the Fund to recognize a capital gain that it might not have recognized if it had made a redemption in-kind (i.e., distribute securities as payment of redemption proceeds). As a result, the Fund may pay out higher annual capital gain distributions than if the in-kind redemption process was used.

CYBER SECURITY RISK

With the increased use of technologies such as the internet to conduct business, the Fund, Authorized Participants, service providers and the relevant listing exchange are susceptible to operational, information security and related “cyber” risks both directly and through their service providers. Similar types of cyber security risks are also present for issuers of securities in which the Fund invests, which could result in material adverse consequences for such issuers and may cause the Fund’s investment in such portfolio companies to lose value. Unlike many other types of risks faced by the Fund, these risks typically are not covered by insurance. In general, cyber incidents can result from deliberate attacks or unintentional events. Cyber incidents include, but are not limited to, gaining unauthorized access to digital systems (e.g., through “hacking” or malicious software coding) for purposes of misappropriating assets or sensitive information, corrupting data, or causing operational disruption. Cyber attacks may also be carried out in a manner that does not require gaining unauthorized access, such as causing denial-of-service attacks on websites (i.e., efforts to make network services unavailable to intended users). Cyber security failures by or breaches of the systems of the Fund’s adviser, distributor and other service providers (including, but not limited to, index providers, fund accountants, custodians, transfer agents and administrators), market makers, Authorized Participants or the issuers of securities in which the Fund invests, have the ability to cause disruptions and impact business operations, potentially resulting in: financial losses, interference with the Fund’s ability to calculate its NAV, disclosure of confidential trading information, impediments to trading, submission of erroneous trades or erroneous creation or redemption orders, the inability of the Fund or its service providers to transact business, violations of applicable privacy and other laws, regulatory fines, penalties, reputational damage, reimbursement or other compensation costs, or additional compliance costs. In addition, cyber attacks may render records of Fund assets and transactions, shareholder ownership of Fund shares, and other data integral to the functioning of the Fund inaccessible or inaccurate or incomplete. Substantial costs may be incurred by the Fund in order to resolve or prevent cyber incidents in the future. While the Fund has established business continuity plans in the event of, and risk management systems to prevent, such cyber attacks, there are inherent limitations in such plans and systems, including the possibility that certain risks have not been identified and that prevention and remediation efforts will not be successful. Furthermore, the Fund cannot control the cyber security plans and systems put in place by service providers to the Fund, issuers in which the Fund invests, the Index Provider, market makers or Authorized Participants. The Fund and its shareholders could be negatively impacted as a result.

CONCENTRATION RISK

The Fund may be susceptible to an increased risk of loss, including losses due to adverse events that affect the Fund’s investments more than the market as a whole, to the extent that the Fund's investments are concentrated in the securities of a particular issuer or issuers, country, group of countries, region, market, industry, group of industries, sector or asset class. The Fund may be more adversely affected by the underperformance of those securities, may experience increased price volatility and may be more susceptible to adverse economic, market, political or regulatory occurrences affecting those securities than a fund that does not concentrate its investments.

DEBT SECURITIES RISK

The Fund may invest in CEFs that invest primarily in debt securities. Debt securities, such as bonds and certain asset-backed securities, involve certain risks, which include:

Credit Risk. Credit risk refers to the possibility that the issuer of a security will not be able to make principal and interest payments when due. Changes in an issuer’s credit rating or the market’s perception of an issuer’s creditworthiness may also affect the value of the CEF’s investment in that issuer. The degree of credit risk depends on both the financial condition of the issuer and the terms of the obligation.

Event Risk. Event risk is the risk that corporate issuers may undergo restructurings, such as mergers, leveraged buyouts, takeovers, or similar events financed by increased debt. As a result of the added debt, the credit quality and market value of a company’s bonds and/or other debt securities may decline significantly.

Extension Risk. When interest rates rise, certain obligations will be paid off by the obligor more slowly than anticipated, causing the value of these securities to fall. Rising interest rates tend to extend the duration of securities, making them more sensitive to future changes in interest rates. The value of longer-term securities generally changes more in response to changes in interest rates than the value of shorter-term securities. As a result, in a period of rising interest rates, securities may exhibit additional volatility and may lose value.

Interest Rate Risk. Generally, the value of fixed income securities will change inversely with changes in interest rates. As interest rates rise, the market value of fixed income securities tends to decrease. Conversely, as interest rates fall, the market value of fixed income securities tends to increase. This risk will be greater for long-term securities than for short-term securities. A CEF may take steps to attempt to reduce the exposure of its portfolio to interest rate changes; however, there can be no guarantee that the Fund will take such actions or that the Fund will be successful in reducing the impact of interest rate changes on the portfolio. In recent periods, governmental financial regulators, including the U.S. Federal Reserve, have taken steps to maintain historically low interest rates. Changes in government intervention may have adverse effects on investments, volatility, and illiquidity in debt markets.

Prepayment Risk. When interest rates fall, certain obligations will be paid off by the obligor more quickly than originally anticipated, and the Fund may have to invest the proceeds in securities with lower yields. In periods of falling interest rates, the rate of prepayments tends to increase (as does price fluctuation) as borrowers are motivated to pay off debt and refinance at new lower rates. During such periods, reinvestment of the prepayment proceeds by the management team will generally be at lower rates of return than the return on the assets that were prepaid. Prepayment reduces the yield to maturity and the average life of the security.

Variable and Floating Rate Instrument Risk. The absence of an active market for these securities could make it difficult for the CEF to dispose of them if the issuer defaults.

EQUITY MARKET RISK

Common stocks are susceptible to general stock market fluctuations and to volatile increases and decreases in value as market confidence in and perceptions of their issuers change. These investor perceptions are based on various and unpredictable factors including: expectations regarding government, economic, monetary and fiscal policies; inflation and interest rates; economic expansion or contraction; and global or regional political, economic and banking crises. If you held common stock, or common stock equivalents, of any given issuer, you would generally be exposed to greater risk than if you held preferred stocks and debt obligations of the issuer because common stockholders, or holders of equivalent interests, generally have inferior rights to receive payments from issuers in comparison with the rights of preferred stockholders, bondholders, and other creditors of such issuers.

FOREIGN SECURITIES RISK

Investments in non-U.S. securities involve certain risks that may not be present with investments in U.S. securities. For example, investments in non-U.S. securities may be subject to risk of loss due to foreign currency fluctuations or to political or economic instability. There may be less information publicly available about a non-U.S. issuer than a U.S. issuer. Non-U.S. issuers may be subject to different accounting, auditing, financial reporting and investor protection standards than U.S. issuers. Investments in non-U.S. securities may be subject to withholding or other taxes and may be subject to additional trading, settlement, custodial, and operational risks. With respect to certain countries, there is the possibility of government intervention and expropriation or nationalization of assets. Because legal systems differ, there is also the possibility that it will be difficult to obtain or enforce legal judgments in certain countries. Since foreign exchanges may be open on days when the Fund does not price its shares, the value of the securities in the Fund’s portfolio may change on days when shareholders will not be able to purchase or sell the Fund’s shares. Conversely, shares of the Fund may trade on days when foreign exchanges are close. Each of these factors can make investments in the Fund more volatile and potentially less liquid than other types of investments.

Emerging Markets Risk. Investments in securities and instruments traded in developing or emerging markets, or that provide exposure to such securities or markets may also be subject to (i) greater market volatility, (ii) lower trading volume and liquidity, (iii) greater social, political and economic uncertainty, (iv) governmental controls on foreign investments and limitations on repatriation of invested capital, (v) lower disclosure, corporate governance, auditing and financial reporting standards, (vi) fewer protections of property rights, (vii) restrictions on the transfer of securities or currency, and (viii) settlement and trading practices that differ from those in U.S. markets.

INDEX-RELATED RISK

Errors in index data, index computations and/or the construction of the Index in accordance with its methodology may occur from time to time and may not be identified and corrected by the Index Provider for a period of time or at all, which may have an adverse impact on the Fund and its shareholders.

Changes in the composition and valuation of the Index may adversely affect your Fund shares. The composition of the Index may change over time as additional instruments satisfy the eligibility criteria or instruments currently included in the Index fail to satisfy those criteria. In addition, the Index Provider may modify the method for determining the composition and weighting of the Index and for calculating its value.

The Fund is not sponsored, endorsed, sold or promoted by the Index Provider. The Index Provider makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, to the owners of Fund shares or any member of the public regarding the advisability of investing in securities generally or in the Fund particularly or the ability of the Index, including, without limitation, all sub-indices, to track the appropriate market performance. The Index Provider’s only relationship to the Fund or the Adviser is the licensing of certain trademarks, trade names of the index provider and the Fund’s Index and other intellectual property. The Index is composed by the Index Provider and calculated by S&P Opco, LLC, a subsidiary of S&P Dow Jones Indices, without regard to the Fund or the Adviser. The Index Provider and S&P have no obligation to take the needs of the Fund or the Adviser or the Fund’s shareholders into consideration in determining, composing or calculating the Index. The Index Provider and S&P are not responsible for and have not participated in the determination of the prices and the number of Fund shares or the timing of the issuance or sale of shares of the Fund.

The Index Provider does not guarantee the accuracy or the completeness of the Index or any data included therein, and the Index Provider disclaims any and all liability for any errors, omissions, or interruptions therein. The Index Provider makes no warranty, express or implied, as to the results to be obtained by the Fund, its shareholders or any other person or entity from use of the Index or any data included therein. The Index Provider 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 Index or any data included therein.

INVESTMENT COMPANY RISK

The Fund may invest in shares of investment companies, which invest in a wide range of instruments designed to track the price, performance and dividend yield of a particular commodity, security, securities market index (or sector of an index). The risks of investment in these securities typically reflect the risks of the types of instruments in which the investment company invests. When the Fund invests in investment company securities, shareholders of the Fund bear indirectly their proportionate share of their fees and expenses, as well as their share of the Fund’s fees and expenses. As a result, an investment by the Fund in an investment company could cause the Fund’s operating expenses (taking into account indirect expenses such as the fees and expenses of the investment company) to be higher and, in turn, performance to be lower than if it were to invest directly in the instruments underlying the investment company. Additionally, there may not be an active trading market available for shares of some CEFs. Shares of a CEF may also may trade in the market at a premium or discount to their NAV.

LARGE-SIZED COMPANY RISK

Larger more established companies may be unable to respond quickly to new competitive challenges such as changes in technology and consumer tastes. Many larger companies also may not be able to attain the high growth rate of successful smaller companies, especially during extended periods of economic expansion. Investing more heavily in one market capitalization category (large, medium or small) carries the risk that due to market conditions that category may be out of favor with investors.

LIQUIDITY RISK

Liquidity risk exists when particular investments are difficult to purchase or sell. To the extent the Fund invests in illiquid securities or securities that become less liquid, such investments may have a negative effect on the returns of the Fund because the Fund may be unable to sell the illiquid securities at an advantageous time or price. To the extent that the Fund invests in securities with substantial market and/or credit risk, the Fund will tend to have increased exposure to liquidity risk. Liquidity risk may be the result of, among other things, the reduced number and capacity of traditional market participants to make a market in fixed-income securities or the lack of an active market for such securities. Liquid investments may become illiquid or less liquid, particularly during periods of market turmoil or economic uncertainty. Illiquid and relatively less liquid investments may be harder to value, especially in changing or volatile markets. Although the Fund primarily seeks to redeem shares of the Fund on an in-kind basis, if the Fund is forced to sell underlying investments at reduced prices or under unfavorable conditions to meet redemption requests or for other cash needs, the Fund may suffer a loss. This risk may be magnified in a rising interest rate environment or other circumstances where redemptions from the Fund may be greater than normal. Other market participants may be attempting to liquidate fixed-income holdings at the same time as the Fund, causing increased supply of the Fund's underlying investments in the market and contributing to liquidity risk and downward pricing pressure. There can be no assurance that a security that is deemed to be liquid when purchased will continue to be liquid for as long as it is held by the Fund.

MLP RISK

MLPs involve risks related to limited control and limited rights to vote on matters affecting the MLP, risks related to potential conflicts of interest between the MLP and the MLP’s general partner, and cash flow risks. MLP common units and other equity securities can be affected by macroeconomic and other factors affecting the stock market in general, expectations of interest rates, investor sentiment towards MLPs or the energy sector, changes in a particular issuer’s financial condition or unfavorable or unanticipated poor performance of a particular issuer (in the case of MLPs, generally measured in terms of distributable cash flow). Prices of common units of individual MLPs and other equity securities also can be affected by fundamentals unique to the partnership or company, including earnings power and coverage ratios.

MLPs typically do not pay U.S. federal income tax at the partnership level. Instead, each partner is allocated a share of the partnership’s income, gains, losses, deductions and expenses. A change in current tax law or in the underlying business mix of a given MLP could result in an MLP being treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, which would result in such MLP being required to pay U.S. federal income tax on its taxable income. The classification of an MLP as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes would have the effect of reducing the amount of cash available for distribution by the MLP. Thus, if any MLP owned by the Fund were treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, the result could be a reduction of the value of your investment in the Fund and lower income, as compared to if the MLP were not taxed as a corporation.

MORTGAGE- AND ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES RISK

Mortgage-backed securities (residential and commercial) and asset-backed securities represent interests in “pools” of mortgages or other assets, including consumer loans or receivables held in trust. Although asset-backed and commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”) generally experience less prepayment risk than residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”), each of RMBS, CMBS and asset-backed securities, like traditional fixed-income securities, are subject to credit, interest rate, prepayment and extension risks. See “Debt Securities Risk” above.

Small movements in interest rates (both increases and decreases) may quickly and significantly reduce the value of certain mortgage-backed securities. The Fund’s investments in asset-backed securities are subject to risks similar to those associated with mortgage-related securities, as well as additional risks associated with the nature of the assets and the servicing of those assets. These securities also are subject to the risk of default on the underlying mortgage or assets, particularly during periods of economic downturn. Certain CMBS are issued in several classes with different levels of yield and credit protection. The Fund’s investments in CMBS with several classes may be in the lower classes that have greater risks than the higher classes, including greater interest rate, credit and prepayment risks.

Mortgage-backed securities may be either pass-through securities or collateralized mortgage obligations (“CMOs”). Pass-through securities represent a right to receive principal and interest payments collected on a pool of mortgages, which are passed through to security holders. CMOs are created by dividing the principal and interest payments collected on a pool of mortgages into several revenue streams (tranches) with different priority rights to portions of the underlying mortgage payments. Certain CMO tranches may represent a right to receive interest only (“IOs”), principal only (“POs”) or an amount that remains after floating-rate tranches are paid (an inverse floater). These securities are frequently referred to as “mortgage derivatives” and would include agency derivative indices, such as Markit IOS, and may be extremely sensitive to changes in interest rates. Interest rates on inverse floaters, for example, vary inversely with a short-term floating rate (which may be reset periodically). Interest rates on inverse floaters will decrease when short-term rates increase, and will increase when short-term rates decrease. These securities have the effect of providing a degree of investment leverage. In response to changes in market interest rates or other market conditions, the value of an inverse floater may increase or decrease at a multiple of the increase or decrease in the value of the underlying securities. If the Fund invests in CMO tranches (including CMO tranches issued by government agencies) and interest rates move in a manner not anticipated by Fund management, it is possible that the Fund could lose all or substantially all of its investment.

The mortgage market in the United States recently has experienced difficulties that may adversely affect the performance and market value of certain of the Fund’s mortgage-related investments. Delinquencies and losses on mortgage loans (including subprime and second-lien mortgage loans) generally have increased recently and may continue to increase, and a decline in or flattening of real-estate values (as has recently been experienced and may continue to be experienced in many housing markets) may exacerbate such delinquencies and losses. Also, a number of mortgage loan originators have recently experienced serious financial difficulties or bankruptcy. Reduced investor demand for mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities and increased investor yield requirements have caused limited liquidity in the secondary market for mortgage-related securities, which can adversely affect the market value of mortgage-related securities. It is possible that such limited liquidity in such secondary markets could continue or worsen.

Asset-backed securities entail certain risks not presented by mortgage-backed securities, including the risk that in certain states it may be difficult to perfect the liens securing the collateral backing certain asset-backed securities. In addition, certain asset-backed securities are based on loans that are unsecured, which means that there is no collateral to seize if the underlying borrower defaults. Certain mortgage-backed securities in which the Fund may invest may also provide a degree of investment leverage, which could cause the Fund to lose all or substantially all of its investment.

Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Risk. The Fund may invest in RMBS. Holders of RMBS bear various risks, including credit, market, interest rate, structural, and legal risks. RMBS represent interests in pools of residential mortgage loans secured by one to four family residential mortgage loans. RMBS are particularly susceptible to prepayment risks, as they generally do not contain prepayment penalties and a reduction in interest rates will increase the prepayments on the RMBS.

The rate of defaults and losses on residential mortgage loans will be affected by a number of factors, including general economic conditions and those in the geographic area where the mortgaged property is located, the terms of the mortgage loan, the borrower’s equity in the mortgaged property, and the financial circumstances of the borrower. Certain mortgage loans may be of sub-prime credit quality (i.e., do not meet the customary credit standards of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). Delinquencies and liquidation proceedings are more likely with sub-prime mortgage loans than with mortgage loans that satisfy customary credit standards. If a portfolio of RMBS is backed by loans with disproportionately large aggregate principal amounts secured by properties in only a few states or regions in the United States, residential mortgage loans may be more susceptible to geographic risks relating to such areas. Violation of laws, public policies, and principles designed to protect consumers may limit the servicer’s ability to collect all or part of the principal or interest on a residential mortgage loan, entitle the borrower to a refund of amounts previously paid by it, or subject the servicer to damages and administrative enforcement. Any such violation could also result in cash flow delays and losses on the related issue of RMBS. It is not expected that RMBS will be guaranteed or insured by any U.S. governmental agency or instrumentality or by any other person. Distributions on RMBS will depend solely upon the amount and timing of payments and other collections on the related underlying mortgage loans.

Non-Investment-Grade RMBS Risk. The Fund may invest in RMBS that are non-investment grade, which means that major rating agencies rate them below the top four investment-grade rating categories (i.e., “AAA” through “BBB”). Non-investment grade RMBS tend to be less liquid, may have a higher risk of default, and may be more difficult to value than investment grade bonds. Recessions or poor economic or pricing conditions in the markets associated with RMBS may cause defaults or losses on loans underlying such securities. Non-investment grade securities are considered speculative, and their capacity to pay principal and interest in accordance with the terms of their issue is not certain, which may impair the Fund’s performance and reduce the return on its investments.

OPERATIONAL RISK

In addition, the Fund generally exculpates, and in some cases indemnifies, its service providers and agents with respect to losses arising from unforeseen circumstances and events, which may include the interruption, suspension or restriction of trading on or the closure of the exchange on which Fund shares trade, a futures exchange, power or other mechanical or technological failures or interruptions, computer viruses, communications disruptions, work stoppages, natural disasters, fire, war, terrorism, riots, rebellions or other circumstances beyond the control of the Fund or its service providers and agents. Accordingly, the Fund generally bears the risk of loss with respect to these unforeseen circumstances and events to the extent relating to the Fund, which may limit or prevent the Fund achieving its investment objective or otherwise expose it to loss.

Although it is generally expected that the Fund’s direct service providers and agents will have disaster recovery or similar programs or safeguards in place to mitigate the effect of such unforeseen circumstances and events, there can be no assurance that these safeguards are in place for all parties whose activities may affect the performance of the Fund, or that these safeguards, even if implemented, will be successful in preventing losses associated with such unforeseen circumstances and events. Nor can there be any assurance that the systems and applications on which the Fund relies will continue to operate as intended. In addition to potentially causing performance failures at, or direct losses to, the Fund, any such unforeseen circumstances and events or operational failures may further distract the service providers, agents or personnel on which the Fund relies, reducing their ability to conduct the activities on which the Fund is dependent. These risks cannot be fully mitigated or prevented, and further efforts or expenditures to do so may not be cost effective, whether due to reduced benefits from implementing additional or redundant safeguards or due to increases in associated maintenance requirements and other expenses that may make it more costly for the Fund to operate in more typical circumstances.

PASSIVE INVESTMENT RISK

The Fund invests in the securities included in, or representative of, its Index regardless of their investment merit. The Fund does not attempt to outperform its Index or take defensive positions in declining markets. As a result, the Fund’s performance may be adversely affected by a general decline in the market segments relating to its Index. The returns from the types of securities in which the Fund invests may underperform returns from the various general securities markets or different asset classes. This may cause the Fund to underperform other investment vehicles that invest in different asset classes. Different types of securities (for example, large-, mid- and small-capitalization stocks) tend to go through cycles of doing better – or worse – than the general securities markets. In the past, these periods have lasted for as long as several years.

REIT INVESTMENT RISK

Investments in REITs involve unique risks. REITs may have limited financial resources, may trade less frequently and in limited volume, and may be more volatile than other securities. In addition, to the extent the Fund holds interests in REITs, it is expected that investors in the Fund will bear two layers of asset-based management fees and expenses (directly at the Fund level and indirectly at the REIT level). The risks of investing in REITs include certain risks associated with the direct ownership of real estate and the real estate industry in general. These include risks related to general, regional and local economic conditions; fluctuations in interest rates and property tax rates; shifts in zoning laws, environmental regulations and other governmental action such as the exercise of eminent domain; cash flow dependency; increased operating expenses; lack of availability of mortgage funds; losses due to natural disasters; overbuilding; losses due to casualty or condemnation; changes in property values and rental rates; and other factors.

In addition to these risks, residential/diversified REITs and commercial equity REITs may be affected by changes in the value of the underlying property owned by the trusts, while mortgage REITs may be affected by the quality of any credit extended. Further, REITs are dependent upon management skills and generally may not be diversified. REITs are also subject to heavy cash flow dependency, defaults by borrowers and self-liquidation. In addition, REITs could possibly fail to qualify for the beneficial tax treatment available to REITs under the Code, or to maintain their exemptions from registration under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the "1940 Act”). The Fund expects that dividends received from a REIT and distributed to Fund shareholders generally will be taxable to the shareholder as ordinary income. The above factors may also adversely affect a borrower’s or a lessee’s ability to meet its obligations to the REIT. In the event of a default by a borrower or lessee, the REIT may experience delays in enforcing its rights as a mortgagee or lessor and may incur substantial costs associated with protecting investments.

SECTOR RISK

The Fund’s investing approach may dictate an emphasis on certain sectors, industries, or sub-sectors of the market at any given time. To the extent the Fund invests more heavily in one sector, industry, or sub-sector of the market, it thereby presents a more concentrated risk and its performance will be especially sensitive to developments that significantly affect those sectors, industries, or sub-sectors. In addition, the value of the Fund’s shares may change at different rates compared to the value of shares of a fund with investments in a more diversified mix of sectors and industries. An individual sector, industry, or sub-sector of the market may have above-average performance during particular periods, but may also move up and down more than the broader market. The several industries that constitute a sector may all react in the same way to economic, political or regulatory events. The Fund’s performance could also be affected if the sectors, industries, or sub-sectors do not perform as expected. Alternatively, the lack of exposure to one or more sectors or industries may adversely affect performance.

ENERGY SECTOR RISK

The Fund will invest significantly in securities, particularly MLPs, tied to the energy sector and energy infrastructure. Energy infrastructure companies are engaged in the (i) gathering, transporting, processing, treating, terminalling, storing, refining, distributing, mining or marketing of natural gas, natural gas liquids, crude oil, refined products or coal, (ii) the acquisition, exploitation and development of crude oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids, (iii) processing, treating, and refining of natural gas liquids and crude oil, (iv) owing, managing and transporting alternative fuels such as ethanol, hydrogen and biodiesel. The energy sector is highly regulated. Companies operating in the energy sector are subject to significant regulation of virtually every aspect of their operations by federal, state and local governmental agencies, including how facilities are constructed, maintained and operated, environmental and safety controls, and the prices they may change for the products and services they provide. Companies in the energy sector may be affected by fluctuations in the prices of energy commodities, including natural gas, natural gas liquids, crude oil and coal. Companies engaged in the exploration, development, management or production of energy commodities are at risk of the natural resources depleting over time, which may cause the market value of the company to decline over time. Companies operating in the energy sector may be adversely affected by reductions in the supply or demand for energy commodities. Companies in the energy sector may be subject to various operational risks, such as disruption of operations, inability to timely and effectively integrate newly acquired assets, unanticipated operation and maintenance expenses, underestimated cost projections, and other risks arising from specific business strategies. Rising interest rates which could adversely impact the financial performance of these companies by increasing their costs of capital, which may reduce a company’s ability to execute acquisitions or expansion products in a cost-effective manner. Extreme weather or other natural disasters could adversely impact the value of the debt and equity securities of the companies operating in the energy sector in which the Fund invests. Threats of attacks by terrorists on energy assets could impact the market for companies operating in the energy sector. A significant accident or event occurs and a company is not fully insured, it could adversely affect a company’s operations and financial condition and the securities issued by the company.

FINANCE AND INSURANCE SECTOR RISK

Companies in the financial sector of an economy are often subject to extensive governmental regulation and intervention, which may adversely affect the scope of their activities, the prices they can charge and the amount of capital they must maintain. Governmental regulation may change frequently and may have significant adverse consequences for companies in the financial sector, including effects not intended by such regulation. The impact of recent or future regulation in various countries on any individual financial company or on the sector as a whole cannot be predicted.

Certain risks may impact the value of investments in the financial sector more severely than those of investments outside this sector, including the risks associated with companies that operate with substantial financial leverage. Companies in the financial sector may also be adversely affected by increases in interest rates and loan losses, decreases in the availability of money or asset valuations, credit rating downgrades and adverse conditions in other related markets.

Insurance companies, in particular, may be subject to severe price competition and/or rate regulation, which may have an adverse impact on their profitability. Insurance companies are subject to extensive government regulation in some countries and can be significantly affected by changes in interest rates, general economic conditions, price and marketing competition, the imposition of premium rate caps, or other changes in government regulation or tax law. Different segments of the insurance industry can be significantly affected by mortality and morbidity rates, environmental clean-up costs and catastrophic events such as earthquakes, hurricanes and terrorist acts.

During the financial crisis that began in 2007, the deterioration of the credit markets impacted a broad range of mortgage, asset-backed, auction rate, sovereign debt and other markets, including U.S. and non-U.S. credit and interbank money markets, thereby affecting a wide range of financial institutions and markets. A number of large financial institutions failed during that time, merged with stronger institutions or had significant government infusions of capital. Instability in the financial markets caused certain financial companies to incur large losses. Some financial companies experienced declines in the valuations of their assets, took actions to raise capital (such as the issuance of debt or equity securities), or even ceased operations. Some financial companies borrowed significant amounts of capital from government sources and may face future government-imposed restrictions on their businesses or increased government intervention. Those actions caused the securities of many financial companies to decline in value.

The financial sector is also a target for cyber attacks and may experience technology malfunctions and disruptions. In recent years, cyber attacks and technology failures have become increasingly frequent and have caused significant losses.

REGULATORY RISK

The Fund and the Adviser are generally subject to extensive government regulation and intervention. Government regulation may change frequently and may have significant adverse consequences. Moreover, government regulation may have unpredictable and unintended effects. Many of the changes required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act could materially impact the profitability of the Fund and the value of assets it holds, expose the Fund to additional costs, require changes to investment practices, and adversely affect the Fund’s ability to pay dividends. For example, the Volcker Rule’s restrictions on proprietary trading may negatively impact fixed income market making capacity and could, therefore, result in reduced liquidity in fixed income markets. Additional legislative or regulatory actions to address perceived liquidity or other issues in fixed income markets generally may alter or impair the Fund’s ability to pursue its investment objectives or utilize certain investment strategies and techniques. While there continues to be uncertainty about the full impact of these and other regulatory changes, it is likely that the Fund will be subject to a more complex regulatory framework, and may incur additional costs to comply with new requirements as well as to monitor for compliance in the future.

REAL ESTATE SECTOR RISK

Securities of issuers that are principally engaged in the real estate sector are subject to certain risks associated with the ownership of real estate and with the real estate industry in general. These risks include, among others: possible declines in the value of real estate; risks related to general and local economic conditions; possible lack of availability of mortgage funds or other limitations on access to capital; overbuilding; risks associated with leverage; market illiquidity; extended vacancies of properties; increase in competition, property taxes, capital expenditures and operating expenses; changes in zoning laws or other governmental regulation; costs resulting from the clean-up of, and liability to third parties for damages resulting from, environmental problems; tenant bankruptcies or other credit problems; casualty or condemnation losses; uninsured damages from floods, earthquakes or other natural disasters; limitations on and variations in rents, including decreases in market rates for rents; investment in developments that are not completed or that are subject to delays in completion; and changes in interest rates. To the extent that assets underlying the Fund’s investments are concentrated geographically, by property type, or in certain other respects, the Fund may be subject to certain of the foregoing risks to a greater extent.

SECONDARY MARKET TRADING RISK

Trading Issues. Although Fund shares are listed for trading on the NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE” or the “Exchange”), there can be no assurance that an active trading market for such shares will develop or be maintained. Trading in Fund shares may be halted due to market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in shares inadvisable. There can be no assurance that the requirements of the Exchange necessary to maintain the listing of the Fund will continue to be met or will remain unchanged or that the shares will trade with any volume, or at all.

Fluctuation of Net Asset Value. The net asset value of Fund shares will generally fluctuate with changes in the market value of the Fund’s portfolio holdings. The market prices of shares will generally fluctuate in accordance with changes in the Fund’s net asset value and supply and demand of shares on the Exchange. The market price of Fund shares may deviate from the value of the Fund’s underlying portfolio holdings, particularly in times of market stress, with the result that investors may pay significantly more or receive significantly less than the underlying value of the Fund shares bought or sold. This may be reflected as a spread between the bid and ask prices for Fund shares quoted during a trading day or a premium or discount in the closing price of Fund shares from the Fund’s net asset value. It cannot be predicted whether Fund shares will trade below, at or above their net asset value.

Costs of Buying or Selling Shares. Investors buying or selling Fund shares in the secondary market will pay brokerage commissions or other charges imposed by brokers as determined by each broker. Brokerage commissions are often a fixed amount and may be a significant proportional cost for investors seeking to buy or sell relatively small amounts of shares.

SMALL AND MID-SIZED COMPANY RISK

Small and mid-sized companies may be more vulnerable to adverse issuer, market, political, or economic developments than securities of larger-capitalization companies. The securities of small-and mid-sized capitalization companies generally trade in lower volumes and are subject to greater and more unpredictable price changes than larger capitalization stocks or the stock market as a whole. Some smaller capitalization companies have limited product lines, markets, and financial and managerial resources and tend to concentrate on fewer geographical markets relative to larger capitalization companies. There is typically less publicly available information concerning smaller-capitalization companies than for larger, more established companies. Smaller-capitalization companies also may be particularly sensitive to changes in interest rates, government regulation, borrowing costs and earnings.

TAX RISK

The Fund intends to qualify for treatment as a RIC under Subchapter M of the Code. RICs are generally subject to favorable tax treatment under the Code. To qualify for treatment as a RIC, the Fund must meet certain source-of-income, asset diversification and annual distribution requirements. Under the diversification requirements, the Fund must generally limit its investments in qualified publicly traded partnerships, which includes certain MLPs, to no more than 25% of the Fund’s total assets.

If the Fund fails to qualify for treatment as a RIC for any taxable year, and was ineligible to or otherwise did not cure such failure, the Fund would be subject to tax on its taxable income at corporate rates, and all distributions from the Fund’s earnings and profits, including any distributions of net long-term capital gains, would be taxable to shareholders as dividend income. The Fund’s failure to qualify for treatment as a RIC could significantly reduce shareholders’ returns on their investments in the Fund. Under certain circumstances, the Fund could cure a failure to qualify as a RIC, but in order to do so, the Fund could incur significant Fund-level taxes and could be forced to dispose of certain assets.

MLPs taxed as partnerships have historically made cash distributions to limited partners that exceed the amount of taxable income allocable to limited partners or members, due to a variety of factors, including significant non-cash deductions such as depreciation and depletion. These excess cash distributions would not be treated as income to a Fund but rather would be treated as a return of capital to the extent of the Fund’s basis in the MLP. As a consequence, the Fund may make distributions that exceed its earnings and profits, which would be recharacterized as a return of capital to shareholders. A return of capital distribution will generally not be taxable for federal income tax purpsoes, but will reduce each shareholder’s cost basis in the Fund’s shares and result in a higher capital gain or lower capital loss when the shares are sold. After a shareholder’s basis in shares has been reduced to zero, distributions in excess of earnings and profits in respect of those shares will be treated as gain from the sale of the shares.

TRACKING ERROR RISK

As with all index funds, the performance of the Fund and its Index may vary somewhat for a variety of reasons. For example, the Fund incurs operating expenses and portfolio transaction costs not incurred by its Index. In addition, the Fund may not be fully invested in the securities of its Index at all times or may hold securities not included in its Index. The use of sampling techniques may affect the Fund’s ability to achieve close correlation with its Index. The Fund may use a representative sampling strategy to achieve its investment objective, if the Adviser believes it is in the best interest of the Fund, which generally can be expected to produce a greater non-correlation risk.

VALUATION RISK

PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS

Information about the Fund’s daily portfolio holdings is available at www.graniteshares.com. In addition, the Fund discloses its complete portfolio holdings as of the end of its fiscal year and its second fiscal quarter in its reports to shareholders. Each Fund files its complete portfolio holdings as of the end of its first and third fiscal quarters with the SEC on Form N-Q no later than 60 days after the relevant fiscal period. You can find the SEC filings on the SEC’s website, www.sec.gov. A summarized description of the Fund’s policies and procedures with respect to the disclosure of the Fund’s portfolio holdings is available in the Fund’s Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”). Information on how to obtain the SAI is on the inside back cover of this prospectus.

FUND MANAGEMENT

ADVISER

GraniteShares Advisors LLC, the investment adviser to Fund, is a Delaware limited liability company located at 30 Vesey Street, 9th Floor, New York, NY 10007. The Adviser provides investment advisory services to exchange-traded funds. The Adviser serves as investment adviser to the Fund with overall responsibility for the portfolio management of the Fund, subject to the supervision of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the GraniteShares Trust (the “Trust”). For its services, the Adviser receives a fee that is equal to 0.70% per annum of the average daily net assets of the Fund.

PORTFOLIO MANAGERS

Benoit Autier has been Chief Operating Officer & Head of Product at GraniteShares since 2017. Prior to joining GraniteShares, Mr. Autier started his career in 1999 at KPMG Audit in Paris before moving in 2003 to Ricol & Lasteyrie (member of the E&Y Corporate Finance network). He joined ETF Securities in 2005, where he worked for over 10 years in London and New York. While at ETF Securities, Mr. Autier was Head of Product Management, overseeing the operation of more than 300 exchange-traded products. Between 2015 and 2016, Mr. Autier worked at the World Gold Council in New York, where he helped structuring the SPDR® Long Dollar Gold Trust. Mr. Autier received a Master in Finance from the London Business School in 2005.

Jeff Klearman has been Portfolio Manager at GraniteShares since 2017. Mr. Klearman has over 20 years of experience working as a trader, structurer, marketer and researcher. Most recently, Mr. Klearman was the Chief Investment Officer for Rich Investment Services, a company which created, listed and managed ETFs. Prior to Rich Investment Services, Mr. Klearman headed the New York Commodities Structuring desk at Deutsche Bank AG. From 2004 to 2007, Mr. Klearman headed the marketing and structuring effort for rates based structured products at BNP Paribas in New York. Mr. Klearman worked at AIG Financial Products from 1994 to 2004 trading rates-based volatility products as well as marketing and structuring. Mr. Klearman received his MBA in Finance from NYU Stern School of Business and his Bachelors of Science in Chemical Engineering from Purdue University.

The SAI provides additional information about the Portfolio Managers’ compensation, other accounts managed, and ownership of Fund shares.

BUYING AND SELLING SHARES

The Fund issues and redeems shares at net asset value only in a large specified number of shares each called a “Creation Unit,” or multiples thereof. A Creation Unit consists of 50,000 shares. Fund shares are listed for secondary trading on the NYSE. When you buy or sell the Fund’s shares on the secondary market, you will pay or receive the market price. You may incur customary brokerage commissions and charges and may pay some or all of the spread between the bid and the offered price in the secondary market on each leg of a round trip (purchase and sale) transaction. The shares will trade on the NYSE at prices that may differ to varying degrees from the daily net asset value (“NAV”) of the shares. The NYSE is generally open Monday through Friday and is closed weekends and the following holidays: New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Presidents’ Day, Good Friday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day.

NAV per share for the Fund is computed by dividing the value of the net assets of the Fund (i.e., the value of its total assets less total liabilities) by its total number of shares outstanding. Expenses and fees, including management and distribution fees, if any, are accrued daily and taken into account for purposes of determining NAV. NAV is determined each business day, normally as of the close of regular trading of the NYSE (ordinarily 4:00 p.m., Eastern time).

When determining NAV, the value of the Fund’s portfolio securities or other instruments is based on market prices of the securities or other instruments, which generally means a valuation obtained from an exchange or other market (or based on a price quotation or other equivalent indication of the value supplied by an exchange or other market) or a valuation obtained from an independent pricing service. If a security or other instrument’s market price is not readily available or does not otherwise accurately reflect the fair value of the security or other instrument, the security or other instrument will be valued by another method that the Board believes will better reflect fair value in accordance with the Trust’s valuation policies and procedures. Fair value pricing may be used in a variety of circumstances, including, but not limited to, situations when the value of a security or other instrument in the Fund’s portfolio has been materially affected by events occurring after the close of the market on which the security or other instrument is principally traded but prior to the close of the NYSE (such as in the case of a corporate action or other news that may materially affect the price of a security) or trading in a security or other instrument has been suspended or halted. Accordingly, the Fund’s NAV may reflect certain portfolio securities’ fair values rather than their market prices.

Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and it is possible that a fair value determination for a security or other instrument will materially differ from the value that could be realized upon the sale of the security or other instrument. In addition, fair value pricing could result in a difference between the prices used to calculate the Fund’s NAV and the prices used by the Index. This may result in a difference between the Fund’s performance and the performance of the Index.

BOOK ENTRY

Shares of the Fund are held in book-entry form, which means that no stock certificates are issued. The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) or its nominee is the record owner of all outstanding shares of the Fund.

Investors owning shares of the Fund are beneficial owners as shown on the records of DTC or its participants. DTC serves as the securities depository for all shares of the Fund. Participants include DTC, securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, clearing corporations, and other institutions that directly or indirectly maintain a custodial relationship with DTC. As a beneficial owner of shares, you are not entitled to receive physical delivery of stock certificates or to have shares registered in your name, and you are not considered a registered owner of shares. Therefore, to exercise any right as an owner of shares, you must rely upon the procedures of DTC and its participants. These procedures are the same as those that apply to any securities that you hold in book-entry or “street name” form. Your broker will provide you with account statements, confirmations of your purchases and sales, and tax information.

FREQUENT REDEMPTIONS AND PURCHASES OF FUND SHARES

Unlike frequent trading of shares of a traditional open-end mutual fund’s (i.e., not exchange-traded) shares, frequent trading of shares of the Fund on the secondary market does not disrupt portfolio management, increase the Fund’s trading costs, lead to realization of capitalization gains, or otherwise harm the Fund’s shareholders because these trades do not involve the Fund directly. Certain institutional investors are authorized to purchase and redeem the Fund’s shares directly with the Fund. To the extent these trades are effected in-kind (i.e., for securities, and not for cash), they do not cause any of the harmful effects noted above that may result from frequent cash trades. Moreover, the Fund imposes transaction fees on in-kind purchases and redemptions of Creation Units to cover the custodial and other costs incurred by the Fund in effecting in-kind trades. These fees increase if an investor substitutes cash in part or in whole for Creation Units, reflecting the fact that the Fund’s trading costs increase in those circumstances. For these reasons, the Board has determined that it is not necessary to adopt policies and procedures to detect and deter frequent trading and market-timing in shares of the Fund.

DIVIDENDS, DISTRIBUTIONS, AND TAXES

DIVIDENDS AND DISTRIBUTIONS

The Fund intends to pay out dividends, if any, and distribute any net realized capital gains to its shareholders at least annually. In so doing, the Fund seeks to make cash distributions of equal amount once per month throughout a calendar year based on a rate determined at the beginning of the year. This rate may be adjusted at any time during a given year. Consequently, there can be no assurance or guarantee that the Fund will be able to make equal monthly distributions. The Fund monitors its distributions, the expected cash flow from its investments and other metrics in determining whether to adjust the distribution rate during the course of a year. Further, the distribution rate will vary from year to year. A portion of the distributions made by the Fund may be treated as return of capital for tax purposes. One or more additional distributions may be made generally in December or after the Fund’s fiscal year-end to comply with applicable law. The Fund will declare and pay capital gain distributions in cash. Distributions in cash may be reinvested automatically in additional shares of the Fund only if the broker through whom you purchased shares makes such option available. Your broker is responsible for distributing the income and capital gain distributions to you.

TAXES

The following discussion is a summary of some important U.S. federal income tax considerations generally applicable to investments in the Fund. Your investment in the Fund may have other tax implications. Please consult your tax advisor about the tax consequences of an investment in the Fund, including the possible application of foreign, state, and local tax laws.

The Fund intends to qualify each year for treatment as a RIC. If it meets certain minimum distribution requirements, a RIC is not subject to federal income tax at the fund level on income and gains from investments that are timely distributed to shareholders. However, the Fund’s failure to qualify as a RIC or to meet minimum distribution requirements would result (if certain relief provisions were not available) in fund-level taxation and, consequently, a reduction in income available for distribution to shareholders.

Unless your investment in shares of the Fund is made through a tax-exempt entity or tax-advantaged account, such as an IRA plan, you need to be aware of the possible tax consequences when the Fund makes distributions, when you sell your shares listed on the Exchange; and when you purchase or redeem Creation Units (institutional investors only).

TAXES ON DISTRIBUTIONS

The Fund intends to distribute, at least annually, substantially all of its net investment income and net capital gains. For federal income tax purposes, distributions of net investment income are generally taxable as ordinary income or qualified dividend income. Taxes on distributions of capital gains (if any) are determined by how long the Fund owned the investments that generated them, rather than how long a shareholder has owned his or her shares. Sales of assets held by the Fund for more than one year generally result in long-term capital gains and losses, and sales of assets held by the Fund for one year or less generally result in short-term capital gains and losses. Distributions of the Fund’s net capital gain (the excess of net long-term capital gains over net short-term capital losses) that are reported by the Fund as capital gain dividends (“Capital Gain Dividends”) will be taxable as long-term capital gains, which for noncorporate shareholders are subject to tax at reduced rates. Distributions of short-term capital gain will generally be taxable as ordinary income. Dividends and distributions are generally taxable to you whether you receive them in cash or reinvest them in additional shares.

Distributions reported by the Fund as “qualified dividend income” are generally taxed to noncorporate shareholders at rates applicable to long-term capital gains, provided holding period and other requirements are met. “Qualified dividend income” generally is income derived from dividends paid by U.S. corporations or certain foreign corporations that are either incorporated in a U.S. possession or eligible for tax benefits under certain U.S. income tax treaties. In addition, dividends that the Fund received in respect of stock of certain foreign corporations may be qualified dividend income if that stock is readily tradable on an established U.S. securities market. Corporate shareholders may be entitled to a dividends-received deduction for the portion of dividends they receive from the Fund that are attributable to dividends received by the Fund from U.S. corporations, subject to certain limitations.

Shortly after the close of each calendar year, you will be informed of the character of any distributions received from the Fund.

U.S. individuals with income exceeding specified thresholds are subject to a 3.8% Medicare contribution tax on all or a portion of their “net investment income,” which includes interest, dividends, and certain capital gains (generally including capital gains distributions and capital gains realized on the sale of shares). This 3.8% tax also applies to all or a portion of the undistributed net investment income of certain shareholders that are estates and trusts.

In general, your distributions are subject to federal income tax for the year in which they are paid. Certain distributions paid in January, however, may be treated as paid on December 31 of the prior year. Distributions are generally taxable even if they are paid from income or gains earned by the Fund before your investment (and thus were included in the Fund’s NAV when you purchased your shares).

You may wish to avoid investing in the Fund shortly before a dividend or other distribution, because such a distribution will generally be taxable even though it may economically represent a return of a portion of your investment.

If the Fund’s distributions exceed its earnings and profits, all or a portion of the distributions made for a taxable year may be recharacterized as a return of capital to shareholders. A return of capital distribution will generally not be taxable, but will reduce each shareholder’s cost basis in the Fund and result in a higher capital gain or lower capital loss when the shares are sold. After a shareholder’s basis in shares has been reduced to zero, distributions in excess of earnings and profits in respect of those shares will be treated as gain from the sale of the shares.

If you are neither a resident nor a citizen of the United States or if you are a foreign entity, distributions (other than Capital Gain Dividends) paid to you by the Fund will generally be subject to a U.S. withholding tax at the rate of 30% unless a lower treaty rate applies. The Fund may, under certain circumstances, report all or a portion of a dividend as an “interest-related dividend” or a “short-term capital gain dividend,” which would generally be exempt from this 30% U.S. withholding tax, provided certain other requirements are met. The Fund may choose not to designate such amounts.

Under legislation generally known as “FATCA” (the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act), the Fund is required to withhold 30% of certain ordinary dividends it pays, and, after December 31, 2018, 30% of the gross proceeds of share redemptions and certain capital gain dividends it pays, to shareholders that are foreign entities and that fail to meet prescribed information reporting or certification requirements.

The Fund (or a financial intermediary, such as a broker, through which a shareholder owns shares of the Fund) generally is required to withhold and remit to the U.S. Treasury a percentage of the taxable distributions and sale or redemption proceeds paid to any shareholder who fails to properly furnish a correct taxpayer identification number, who has underreported dividend or interest income, or who fails to certify that he, she or it is not subject to such withholding.

TAXES WHEN SHARES ARE SOLD ON THE EXCHANGE

Any capital gain or loss realized upon a sale of the Fund’s shares generally is treated as a long-term capital gain or loss if shares have been held for more than one year and as a short-term capital gain or loss if shares have been held for one year or less. However, any capital loss on a sale of shares held for six months or less is treated as long-term capital loss to the extent of Capital Gain Dividends paid with respect to such shares. Any loss realized on a sale will be disallowed to the extent shares of the Fund or other substantially identical stock or securities are acquired, including through reinvestment of dividends, within a 61-day period beginning 30 days before and ending 30 days after a redemption or other disposition of shares. In such a case, the basis of the shares acquired will be increased to reflect the disallowed loss. Shareholders may be limited in their ability to utilize capital losses.

TAXES ON PURCHASES AND REDEMPTIONS OF CREATION UNITS

An AP having the U.S. dollar as its functional currency for U.S. federal income tax purposes who exchanges securities for Creation Units generally recognizes a gain or a loss. The gain or loss will be equal to the difference between the value of the Creation Units at the time of the exchange and the exchanging AP’s aggregate basis in the securities delivered, plus the amount of any cash paid for the Creation Units. An AP who exchanges Creation Units for securities will generally recognize a gain or loss equal to the difference between the exchanging AP’s basis in the Creation Units and the aggregate U.S. dollar market value of the securities received, plus any cash received for such Creation Units. The Internal Revenue Service may assert, however, that an AP may not be permitted to currently deduct losses upon an exchange of securities for Creation Units under the rules governing “wash sales,” or on the basis that there has been no significant change in economic position. Persons exchanging securities should consult their own tax advisor with respect to whether wash sale rules apply and when a loss might be deductible.

Any capital gain or loss realized upon redemption of Creation Units is generally treated as long-term capital gain or loss if the shares have been held for more than one year and as a short-term capital gain or loss if the shares have been held for one year or less.

The Fund may include a payment of cash in addition to, or in place of, the delivery of a basket of securities upon the redemption of Creation Units. The Fund may sell portfolio securities to obtain the cash needed to distribute redemption proceeds. This may cause the Fund to recognize investment income and/or capital gains or losses that it might not have recognized if it had completely satisfied the redemption in-kind. As a result, the Fund may be less tax efficient if it includes such a cash payment in the proceeds paid upon the redemption of Creation Units.

The foregoing discussion summarizes some of the possible consequences under current federal income tax law of an investment in the Fund. It is not a substitute for personal tax advice. You also may be subject to state, local and foreign tax on Fund distributions and sales of shares. Consult your personal tax advisor about the potential tax consequences of an investment in shares under all applicable tax laws. For more information, please see the section entitled “Federal Income Taxes” in the SAI.

DISTRIBUTION OF FUND SHARES

Foreside Fund Services, LLC (the “Distributor”) is a broker-dealer registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Distributor distributes Creation Units for the Fund on an agency basis and does not maintain a secondary market in Fund shares. The Distributor has no role in determining the policies of the Fund or the securities that are purchased or sold by the Fund. The Distributor’s principal address is Three Canal Plaza, Suite 100, Portland, ME 04101.

The Board has adopted a Distribution and Service Plan (the “Plan”) pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the Investment Company Act of 1940. In accordance with the Plan, the Fund is authorized to pay an amount up to 0.25% of its average daily net assets each year for certain distribution-related activities and shareholder services. No Rule 12b-1 fees are currently paid by the Fund, and there are no plans to impose these fees. However, in the event Rule 12b-1 fees are charged in the future, because the fees are paid out of the Fund’s assets, over time these fees will increase the cost of your investment and may cost you more than certain other types of sales charges.

PREMIUM/DISCOUNT INFORMATION

Information regarding how often shares of the Fund traded on the Exchange at a price above (i.e., at a premium) or below (i.e., at a discount) the NAV per share is available, free of charge, on the Fund’s website at www.graniteshares.com.

FUND SERVICE PROVIDERS

The Bank of New York Mellon is the administrator, custodian and transfer agent for the Funds. The Bank of New York Mellon is located at 101 Barclay Street, New York, NY 10026.

Foreside Fund Services, LLC, located at Three Canal Plaza, Suite 100, Portland, ME 04101, is the distributor for the Funds.

Vedder Price P.C., 1633 Broadway, 31st Floor, New York, NY 10019, serves a legal counsel to the Trust.

FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS

The Fund is newly formed and has adopted the financial statements of the Predecessor Fund. The financial highlights table is intended to help you understand the Predecessor Fund’s financial performance for the periods shown. The information below has been derived from the Predecessor Fund’s financial statements for the six months ended May 31, 2017 (unaudited) and the fiscal periods ended November 30, 2016, and 2015, audited by Cohen & Company, Ltd., the Predecessor Fund’s independent registered public accounting firm, whose reports, along with the Predecessor Fund’s financial statements, are included in the semi-annual and annual reports as applicable, which may be obtained free of charge by visiting the SEC’s internet site at http://www.sec.gov. Certain information reflects financial results for a single Predecessor Fund share. The total return in the table represents the rate that an investor would have earned or lost on an investment in the Predecessor Fund (assuming reinvestment of all dividends and distributions).

Master Income ETF (Predecessor Fund of GraniteShares HIPS US High Income ETF)

FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS

For a capital share outstanding throughout the year/period

	Six-Months Ended			Year Ended			Period Ended
	May 31, 2017			November 30,			November 30,
		(Unaudited)			2016			2015⁽¹⁾
Net asset value,
beginning of period/year	$	17.41		$	16.54		$	20.00
INCOME (LOSS) FROM
INVESTMENT OPERATIONS:
Net investment income (loss)⁽²⁾		0.35			0.74			0.63
Net realized and unrealized
gain (loss) on investments		0.83			1.42			(3.01	)
Total from investment operations		1.18			2.16			(2.38	)
DISTRIBUTIONS:
Distributions from:
Net investment income		(0.64	)		(0.85	)		(0.59	)
Tax return of capital
to shareholders		—			(0.44	)		(0.49	)
Total distributions		(0.64	)		(1.29	)		(1.08	)
Net asset value,
end of period/year	$	17.95		$	17.41		$	16.54
Total return		6.82	%⁽³⁾		14.02	%		(12.39	)%⁽³⁾
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA:
Net assets at end
of period/year (000’s)	$	8,977		$	6,966		$	4,962
RATIOS TO AVERAGE NET ASSETS:
Expenses to average net assets		0.75	%⁽⁴⁾		0.76	%		0.75	%⁽⁴⁾
Ratio of expenses excluding tax
expense to average net assets		0.75	%⁽⁴⁾		0.75	%		0.75	%⁽⁴⁾
Net investment income (loss)
to average net assets		3.85	%⁽⁴⁾		4.49	%		3.72	%⁽⁴⁾
Net investment income (loss)
excluding tax expense
to average net assets		3.85	%⁽⁴⁾		4.50	%		3.72	%⁽⁴⁾
Portfolio turnover rate⁽⁵⁾		39	%⁽³⁾		54	%		23	%⁽³⁾

⁽¹⁾	Commencement of operations on January 6, 2015.
⁽²⁾	Calculated based on average shares outstanding during the period.
⁽³⁾	Not annualized.
⁽⁴⁾	Annualized.
⁽⁵⁾	Excludes the impact of in-kind transactions.

ANNUAL/SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS TO SHAREHOLDERS

Additional information about the Fund’s investments will be available in the Trust’s annual and semi-annual reports to shareholders (when available). In the Trust’s annual reports, you will find a discussion of the market conditions and investment strategies that significantly affected the Fund’s performance during its most recent fiscal year.

STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (SAI)

The SAI provides more detailed information about the Fund. The SAI is incorporated by reference into, and is thus legally a part of, this prospectus.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

To request a free copy of the latest annual or semi-annual report of the Fund, when available, the SAI or to request additional information about the Funds or to make other inquiries, please contact us as follows:

Call:		844-GRN-TSHR (844-476-8747)
		Monday through Friday
		9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Write:		GraniteShares ETF Trust
		c/o Foreside Fund Services, LLC
		Three Canal Plaza, Suite 100
		Portland, ME 04101

Visit:		www.graniteshares.com

INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

You can review and copy information about the Fund (including the SAI) at the SEC’s Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. To find out more about this public service, call the SEC at 1-202-551-8090. Reports and other information about the Fund is also available in the EDGAR Database on the SEC’s Internet site at http://www.sec.gov, or you can receive copies of this information, after paying a duplicating fee, by electronic request at the following e-mail address: publicinfo@sec.gov, or by writing the Public Reference Section, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC 20549-1520.

The Trust’s Investment Company Act file number: 811-23214

STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

	NYSE ARCA, INC. TICKER SYMBOL
GraniteShares HIPS US High Income ETF	HIPS

a series of GraniteShares ETF Trust (the “Trust”)

December 18, 2017

Investment Adviser:
GraniteShares Advisors LLC

This Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) is not a prospectus. With respect to the Trust’s series listed above, the SAI should be read in conjunction with the prospectus, dated December 18, 2017, as revised from time to time (the “Prospectus”). Capitalized terms used herein that are not defined have the same meaning as in the Prospectus, unless otherwise noted. A copy of the Prospectus and the Fund’s annual and semi-annual reports (when available) may be obtained without charge, by writing the Fund’s distributor, Foreside Fund Services, LLC (the “Distributor”), by visiting the Trust’s website at www.graniteshares.com, or by calling 844-GRN-TSHR (844-476-8747).

Table of Contents

		Page

GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE TRUST		1
CONTINUOUS OFFERING		1
PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS		2
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND RELATED RISKS		3
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND RISKS		15
EXCHANGE LISTING AND TRADING		15
MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUST		17
OWNERSHIP OF SHARES		18
COMPENSATION OF THE TRUSTEES AND OFFICERS		18
CODES OF ETHICS		18
PROXY VOTING POLICIES		19
INVESTMENT ADVISORY AND OTHER SERVICES		19
THE PORTFOLIO MANAGERS		20
THE DISTRIBUTOR		20
THE ADMINISTRATOR		22
THE CUSTODIAN		22
THE TRANSFER AGENT		22
LEGAL COUNSEL		22
DESCRIPTION OF SHARES		23
BROKERAGE TRANSACTIONS		23
PORTFOLIO TURNOVER RATE		24
BOOK ENTRY ONLY SYSTEM		25
CONTROL PERSONS AND PRINCIPAL HOLDERS OF SECURITIES		26
PURCHASE AND ISSUANCE OF SHARES IN CREATION UNITS		26
DETERMINATION OF NET ASSET VALUE		32
DIVIDENDS AND DISTRIBUTIONS		33
FEDERAL INCOME TAXES		33
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS		40

-i-

GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE TRUST

The Trust is an open-end management investment company currently consisting of multiple investment series, of which the GraniteShares US High Income ETF (the “Fund”) is a series. The Trust was organized as a Delaware statutory trust on November 7, 2016. The Trust is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), and the offering of the Fund’s shares (“Shares”) is registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”). GraniteShares Advisors LLC (the “Adviser”) serves as investment adviser to the Fund. The investment objective of the Fund is to seek to track the performance, before fees and expenses, of the TFMS HIPS 300 Index (the “Index”).

The Fund offers and issues Shares at their net asset value (“NAV”) only in aggregations of a specified number of Shares (each, a “Creation Unit”). Only “Authorized Participants” may purchase or redeem Shares directly from the Fund. An Authorized Participant is either (i) a broker-dealer or other participant in the clearing process through the Continuous Net Settlement System of the National Securities Clearing Corporation or (ii) a Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) participant and, in each case, must have executed a Participant Agreement (as defined below) with the Distributor. Most retail investors will not qualify as Authorized Participants or have the resources to buy and sell whole Creation Units. Therefore, they will be unable to purchase or redeem the Shares directly from the Fund. Rather, most retail investors will purchase Shares in the secondary market with the assistance of a broker and will be subject to customary brokerage commissions or fees. The Fund generally offers and issues Shares in exchange for a basket of financial instruments (“Deposit Securities”) together with the deposit of a specified cash payment (“Cash Component”). The Trust reserves the right to permit or require the substitution of a “cash in lieu” amount (“Deposit Cash”) to be added to the Cash Component to replace any Deposit Security. The Shares are listed on the NYSE Arca, Inc. (“the “Exchange”) and trade on the Exchange at market prices. These prices may differ from the Shares’ NAV. The Shares are also redeemable only in Creation Unit aggregations, and generally in exchange for portfolio securities and a specified cash payment. A Creation Unit of the Fund consists of at least 50,000 Shares (“Creation Unit Aggregations”).

Shares may be issued in advance of receipt of Deposit Securities subject to various conditions, including a requirement to maintain on deposit with the Trust an amount in cash at least equal to a specified percentage of the market value of the missing Deposit Securities as set forth in the Participant Agreement (as defined below). The Trust may impose a transaction fee for each creation or redemption (“Creation or Redemption Transaction Fee”). In all cases, such fees will be limited in accordance with the requirements of the SEC applicable to management investment companies offering redeemable securities.

History of the Fund

Before the Fund commences operations, the assets of the predecessor of Master Income ETF (the “Predecessor Fund”) will be acquired by the Fund in a tax-free reorganization as set forth in the agreement and plan of reorganization (the “Reorganization”) between the Trust, on behalf of the Fund, and ETF Series Solutions, on behalf of the Predecessor Fund. The Reorganization is expected to occur on or about December 18, 2017 or as soon as practicable thereafter. As a result of the Reorganization, the performance and accounting history of the Predecessor Fund will be assumed by the Fund. Financial and performance information included herein is that of the Predecessor Fund.

CONTINUOUS OFFERING

The method by which Creation Unit Aggregations of Shares are created and traded may raise certain issues under applicable securities laws. Because new Creation Unit Aggregations of Shares are issued and sold by the Fund on an ongoing basis, at any point a “distribution,” as such term is used in 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 Unit Aggregations after placing an order with the Distributor, breaks them down into constituent Shares, and sells such Shares directly to customers, or if it chooses to couple the creation of a supply of new Shares with an active selling effort involving solicitation of secondary market demand for Shares. A determination of whether one is an underwriter for purposes of the Securities Act must take into account all the facts and circumstances pertaining to the activities of the broker-dealer or its client in the particular case, and the examples mentioned above should not be considered a complete description of all the activities that could lead to a categorization as an underwriter. Broker-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(a)(3) of the Securities Act is not available in respect of such transactions as a result of Section 24(d) of the 1940 Act. 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 a sale on the Exchange is satisfied by the fact that the prospectus is available at the Exchange upon request. The prospectus delivery mechanism provided in Rule 153 is only available with respect to transactions on an exchange.

PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS

The Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board”) has adopted a policy on disclosure of portfolio holdings, which it believes is in the best interest of the Fund’s shareholders. The policy provides that the Fund’s current portfolio holdings may not be selectively disclosed, except under the safeguards and circumstances provided in the policy or as otherwise required by state law or federal securities laws. The policy is designed to prevent the possible misuse of knowledge of the Fund’s portfolio holdings and to ensure that the interests of the Fund’s adviser, the Fund’s distributor, custodian, transfer agent, fund accountant and administrator, or any affiliated person of the Fund or the Fund’s service providers, are not placed above those of the Fund’s shareholders. As a general principal, the policy prohibits the Fund and any service provider to the Fund, including the adviser, from entering into any arrangement to receive any compensation or consideration, either directly or indirectly, in return for the disclosure of the Fund’s non-public portfolio holdings.

The Fund’s entire portfolio holdings are publicly disseminated each day the Fund is open for business through financial reporting and news services including publicly available internet web sites. In addition, a basket composition file, which includes the security names and share quantities to deliver in exchange for Fund Shares, together with estimates and actual cash components, is publicly disseminated daily via the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”). The basket represents one Creation Unit of the Fund.

Other than as provided in the preceding paragraph, portfolio information of the Fund must be disclosed in a manner that: (a) is consistent with applicable legal requirements and in the best interests of the Fund’s respective shareholders; (b) does not put the interests of the Fund’s service providers or any affiliated person of the Fund and its service providers above those of the Fund’s shareholders; (c) does not advantage any current or prospective Fund shareholders over any other current or prospective Fund shareholders, except to the extent that certain entities (as described below) may receive portfolio information in a format not available to other current or prospective Fund shareholders in connection with the dissemination of information necessary for transactions in Creation Units; and (d) does not provide selective access to portfolio holdings information except pursuant to the procedures outlined below and, to the extent appropriate, confidentiality arrangements limiting the use of such information are in effect. The “entities” referred to in sub-section (c) are generally limited to NSCC members and subscribers to various fee -based subscription services, including Authorized Participants and other institutional market participants and entities that provide information services. This information may or may not reflect the pro rata composition of the Fund’s portfolio.

The Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (the “CCO”) may authorize disclosure of portfolio holdings under additional circumstances when it is determined to be appropriate and doing so is reasonably likely not to harm the Fund or its shareholders.

Greater than daily access to information concerning the Fund’s portfolio holdings will be permitted (i) to certain personnel of the Fund’s service providers that are involved in portfolio management and providing administrative, operational, risk management, or other support to portfolio management, including Authorized Participants, and (ii) to other personnel of the Fund’s service providers who deal directly with, or assist in, functions related to investment management, administration, custody and fund accounting, as may be necessary to conduct business in the ordinary course in a manner consistent with the Trust’s exemptive order, agreements with the Fund, and the terms of the Trust’s current registration statement. From time to time, and in the ordinary course of business, such information may also be disclosed (i) to other entities that provide services to the Fund, including pricing information vendors, and third parties that deliver analytical, statistical or consulting services to the Fund and (ii) generally after it has been disseminated to the NSCC. The Trust seeks to avoid potential conflicts between the interests of the Fund’s shareholders and those of the Fund’s service providers and ensure that non-public portfolio holdings information is disclosed only when such disclosure is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders. The Trust seeks to accomplish this by permitting such disclosure solely for the purpose of assisting the service provider in carrying out its designated responsibilities for the Fund.

A report will be made to the Board at the next quarterly meeting if disclosure of the Fund’s current portfolio holdings was authorized by the CCO, as discussed above, or outside the permissions of the policy. The policy is subject to periodic review by the Board. As part of the annual review of the Trust’s compliance policies and procedures, the CCO will report to the Board regarding the operation and effectiveness of the policy, including as to any changes to the policies and procedures that have been made or recommendations for future changes. The Board is responsible for approving or ratifying any amendment to the policy.

Portfolio holdings will be disclosed through required filings with the SEC. The Fund files its portfolio holdings with the SEC for each fiscal quarter on Form N-CSR (with respect to each annual period and semiannual period) and Form N-Q (with respect to the first and third quarters of the Fund’s fiscal year). Shareholders may obtain the Fund’s Forms N-CSR and N-Q filings on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. In addition, the Fund’s Forms N-CSR and N-Q filings may be reviewed and copied at the SEC’s public reference room in Washington, D.C. You may call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 for information about the SEC’s website or the operation of the public reference room.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND RELATED RISKS

The Fund’s investment objectives and principal investment strategies are described in the Prospectus. The following information supplements, and should be read in conjunction with, the Prospectus. For a description of certain permitted investments, see “Description of Permitted Investments” in this SAI.

With respect to the Fund’s investments, unless otherwise noted, if a percentage limitation on investment is adhered to at the time of investment or contract, a subsequent increase or decrease as a result of market movement or redemption will not result in a violation of such investment limitation.

DIVERSIFICATION

The Fund is “diversified” within the meaning of the 1940 Act. Under applicable federal laws, to qualify as a diversified fund, the Fund, with respect to 75% of its total assets, may not invest greater than 5% of its total assets in any one issuer and may not hold greater than 10% of the securities of one issuer, other than cash and cash items (including receivables), U.S. government securities, and securities of other investment companies. The remaining 25% of the Fund’s total assets does not need to be “diversified” and may be invested in securities of a single issuer, subject to other applicable laws. The diversification of a fund’s holdings is measured at the time the fund purchases a security. However, if a fund purchases a security and holds it for a period of time, the security may become a larger percentage of the fund’s total assets due to movements in the financial markets. If the market affects several securities held by a fund, the fund may have a greater percentage of its assets invested in securities of fewer issuers.

DESCRIPTION OF PERMITTED INVESTMENTS

The following are descriptions of the permitted investments and investment practices for the Fund and the associated risk factors. The Fund will only invest in any of the following instruments or engage in any of the following investment practices if such investment or activity is consistent with the Fund’s investment objective and permitted by the Fund’s stated investment policies.

Business Development Companies (“BDCs”)

The Fund may invest in BDCs. A BDC is a less common type of closed-end investment company that more closely resembles an operating company than a typical investment company. BDCs generally focus on investing in, and providing managerial assistance to, small, developing, financially troubled, private companies or other companies that may have value that can be realized over time and with management assistance. Similar to an operating company, a BDC’s total annual operating expense ratio typically reflects all of the operating expenses incurred by the BDC, and is generally greater than the total annual operating expense ratio of a mutual fund that does not bear the same types of operating expenses. However, as a shareholder of a BDC, the Fund does not directly pay for a portion of all of the operating expenses of the BDC, just as a shareholder of computer manufacturer does not directly pay for the cost of labor associated with producing such computers. As a result, the fees and expenses of the Fund will be effectively overstated by an amount equal to the “Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses.” Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses are not included as an operating expense of the Fund in the Fund’s financial statements, which more accurately reflect the Fund’s actual operating expenses.

BDCs invest in private companies and thinly traded securities of public companies, including debt instruments of such companies. Generally, little public information exists for private and thinly traded companies and there is a risk that investors may not be able to make fully informed investment decisions. Less mature and smaller private companies involve greater risk than well-established and larger publicly-traded companies. Investing in debt involves risk that the issuer may default on its payments or declare bankruptcy and debt may not be rated by a credit rating agency. Many debt investments in which a BDC may invest will not be rated by a credit rating agency and will be below investment grade quality. These investments have predominantly speculative characteristics with respect to an issuer’s capacity to make payments of interest and principal. BDCs may not generate income at all times. Additionally, limitations on asset mix and leverage may prohibit the way that BDCs raise capital. The Fund and its affiliates may not own in excess of 25% of a BDC’s outstanding voting securities which may limit the Fund’s ability to fully replicate its index.

BDCs are regulated under the 1940 Act and are taxed as regulated investment companies under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). BDCs realize operating income when their investments are sold off, and therefore maintain complex organizational, operational, tax and compliance requirements. For tax purposes, BDCs generally intend to qualify for taxation as regulated investment companies. To so qualify, BDCs must satisfy certain asset diversification and source of income tests and must generally distribute at least 90% of their taxable earnings as dividends. Under the 1940 Act, BDCs are also required to invest at least 70% of their total assets primarily in securities of private companies or thinly traded U.S. public companies, cash, cash equivalents, U.S. government securities and high quality debt investments that mature in one year or less. Generally, little public information exists for private and thinly traded companies and there is a risk that investors may not be able to make a fully informed decision. Additionally, a BDC may only incur indebtedness in amounts such that the BDC’s asset coverage equals at least 200% after such incurrence. These limitations on asset mix and leverage may prohibit the way that the BDC raises capital.

Equity Securities

Equity securities, such as the common stocks of an issuer, are subject to stock market fluctuations and therefore may experience volatile changes in value as market conditions, consumer sentiment or the financial condition of the issuers change. A decrease in value of the equity securities in the Fund’s portfolio may also cause the value of the Fund’s Shares to decline.

An investment in the Fund should be made with an understanding of the risks inherent in an investment in equity securities, including the risk that the financial condition of issuers may become impaired or that the general condition of the stock market may deteriorate (either of which may cause a decrease in the value of the Fund’s portfolio securities and therefore a decrease in the value of Shares of the Fund). Common stocks are susceptible to general stock market fluctuations and to volatile increases and decreases in value as market confidence and perceptions change. These investor perceptions are based on various and unpredictable factors, including expectations regarding government, economic, monetary and fiscal policies; inflation and interest rates; economic expansion or contraction; and global or regional political, economic or banking crises.

Holders of common stocks incur more risk than holders of preferred stocks and debt obligations because common stockholders, as owners of the issuer, generally have inferior rights to receive payments from the issuer in comparison with the rights of creditors or holders of debt obligations or preferred stocks. Further, unlike debt securities, which typically have a stated principal amount payable at maturity (whose value, however, is subject to market fluctuations prior thereto), or preferred stocks, which typically have a liquidation preference and which may have stated optional or mandatory redemption provisions, common stocks have neither a fixed principal amount nor a maturity. Common stock values are subject to market fluctuations as long as the common stock remains outstanding.

When-Issued Securities: A when-issued security is one whose terms are available and for which a market exists, but which has not been issued. When the Fund engages in when-issued transactions, it relies on the other party to consummate the sale. If the other party fails to complete the sale, the Fund may miss the opportunity to obtain the security at a favorable price or yield.

When purchasing a security on a when-issued basis, the Fund assumes the rights and risks of ownership of the security, including the risk of price and yield changes. At the time of settlement, the value of the security may be more or less than the purchase price. The yield available in the market when the delivery takes place also may be higher than those obtained in the transaction itself. Because the Fund does not pay for the security until the delivery date, these risks are in addition to the risks associated with its other investments.

Decisions to enter into “when-issued” transactions will be considered on a case-by-case basis when necessary to maintain continuity in a company’s index membership. The Fund will segregate cash or liquid securities equal in value to commitments for the when-issued transactions. The Fund will segregate additional liquid assets daily so that the value of such assets is equal to the amount of the commitments.

Types of Equity Securities:

Common Stocks: Common stocks represent units of ownership in a company. Common stocks usually carry voting rights and earn dividends. Unlike preferred stocks, which are described below, dividends on common stocks are not fixed but are declared at the discretion of the company’s board of directors.

Preferred Stocks: Preferred stocks are also units of ownership in a company. Preferred stocks normally have preference over common stock in the payment of dividends and the liquidation of the company. However, in all other respects, preferred stocks are subordinated to the liabilities of the issuer. Unlike common stocks, preferred stocks are generally not entitled to vote on corporate matters. Types of preferred stocks include adjustable-rate preferred stock, fixed dividend preferred stock, perpetual preferred stock, and sinking fund preferred stock.

Generally, the market values of preferred stock with a fixed dividend rate and no conversion element vary inversely with interest rates and perceived credit risk.

Rights and Warrants: A right is a privilege granted to existing shareholders of a corporation to subscribe to shares of a new issue of common stock before it is issued. Rights normally have a short life of usually two to four weeks, are freely transferable and entitle the holder to buy the new common stock at a lower price than the public offering price. Warrants are securities that are usually issued together with a debt security or preferred stock and that give the holder the right to buy proportionate amount of common stock at a specified price. Warrants are freely transferable and are traded on major exchanges. Unlike rights, warrants normally have a life that is measured in years and entitles the holder to buy common stock of a company at a price that is usually higher than the market price at the time the warrant is issued. Corporations often issue warrants to make the accompanying debt security more attractive.

An investment in warrants and rights may entail greater risks than certain other types of investments. Generally, rights and warrants do not carry the right to receive dividends or exercise voting rights with respect to the underlying securities, and they do not represent any rights in the assets of the issuer. In addition, their value does not necessarily change with the value of the underlying securities, and they cease to have value if they are not exercised on or before their expiration date. Investing in rights and warrants increases the potential profit or loss to be realized from the investment as compared with investing the same amount in the underlying securities.

Fixed Income Securities

The Fund may invest in closed-end funds (“CEFs”) that invest in fixed income securities, such as corporate debt and bonds, or invest in fixed income securities directly. Fixed income securities change in value in response to interest rate changes and other factors, such as the perception of the issuer’s creditworthiness. For example, the value of fixed income securities will generally decrease when interest rates rise, which may cause the value of the investing CEF, and the Fund, to decrease. In addition, investments in fixed income securities with longer maturities will fluctuate more in response to interest rate changes.

Fixed income securities include a broad array of short-, medium-, and long-term obligations issued by the U.S. or foreign governments, government or international agencies and instrumentalities, and corporate and private issuers of various types. The maturity date is the date on which a fixed income security matures. This is the date on which the borrower must pay back the borrowed amount, which is known as the principal. Some fixed income securities represent uncollateralized obligations of their issuers; in other cases, the securities may be backed by specific assets (such as mortgages or other receivables) that have been set aside as collateral for the issuer’s obligation. Fixed income securities generally involve an obligation of the issuer to pay interest or dividends on either a current basis or at the maturity of the security, as well as the obligation to repay the principal amount of the security at maturity. The rate of interest on fixed income securities may be fixed, floating, or variable. Some securities pay a higher interest rate than the current market rate. An investor may have to pay more than the security’s principal to compensate the seller for the value of the higher interest rate. This additional payment is a premium.

Fixed income securities are subject to credit risk, market risk, and interest rate risk. Except to the extent values are affected by other factors such as developments relating to a specific issuer, generally the value of a fixed income security can be expected to rise when interest rates decline and, conversely, the value of such a security can be expected to fall when interest rates rise. Some fixed income securities also involve prepayment or call risk. This is the risk that the issuer will repay the Fund the principal on the security before it is due, thus depriving the Fund of a favorable stream of future interest or dividend payments. The Fund could buy another security, but that other security might pay a lower interest rate. In addition, many fixed income securities contain call or buy-back features that permit their issuers to call or repurchase the securities from their holders. Such securities may present risks based on payment expectations. Although the Fund would typically receive a premium if an issuer were to redeem a security, if an issuer were to exercise a call option and redeem the security during times of declining interest rates, the Fund may realize a capital loss on its investment if the security was purchased at a premium and the Fund may be forced to replace the called security with a lower yielding security.

Changes by nationally recognized securities rating organizations (“NRSROs”) in their ratings of any fixed income security or the issuer of a fixed income security and changes in the ability of an issuer to make payments of interest and principal may also affect the value of these investments. Changes in the value of portfolio securities generally will not affect income derived from these securities, but will affect the Fund’s NAV.

Duration is an estimate of how much a bond’s price will fluctuate in response to a change in interest rates. In general, the value of a fixed income security with positive duration will generally decline if interest rates increase, whereas the value of a security with negative duration will generally decline if interest rates decrease. If interest rates rise by one percentage point, the price of debt securities with an average duration of five years would be expected to decline by about 5%. If rates decrease by a percentage point, the price of debt securities with an average duration of five years would be expected to rise by about 5%. The greater the duration of a bond (whether positive or negative), the greater its percentage price volatility. Only a pure discount bond – that is, one with no coupon or sinking-fund payments – has a duration equal to the remaining maturity of the bond, because only in this case does the present value of the final redemption payment represent the entirety of the present value of the bond. For all other bonds, duration is less than maturity.

High Yield and Unrated Securities

The Fund may invest in CEFs that invest in high yield securities and unrated securities of similar credit quality (commonly known as “junk bonds”). High yield securities generally pay higher yields (greater income) than investment in higher quality securities; however, high yield securities may be subject to greater levels of interest rate, credit and liquidity risk than funds that do not invest in such securities, and are considered predominantly speculative with respect to an issuer’s continuing ability to make principal and interest payments. Successful investment in high yield securities and unrated securities of similar quality involves greater investment risk and is highly dependent on the applicable investment adviser’s credit analysis. The value of these securities often fluctuates in response to company, political or economic developments and declines significantly over short periods of time or during periods of general economic difficulty. An economic downturn or period of rising interest rates could adversely affect the market for these securities and reduce the ability to sell these securities (liquidity risk). These securities can also be thinly traded or have restrictions on resale, making them difficult to sell at an acceptable price. Because objective pricing data may be less available, judgment may play a greater role in the valuation process. If the issuer of a security is in default with respect to interest or principal payments, the investing CEF may lose its entire investment.

Illiquid Securities

The Fund may invest up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities. Illiquid securities include securities subject to contractual or other restrictions on resale and other instruments that lack readily available markets. The inability of the Fund to dispose of illiquid or not readily marketable investments readily or at a reasonable price could impair the Fund’s ability to raise cash for redemptions or other purposes. The liquidity of securities purchased by the Fund which are eligible for resale pursuant to Rule 144A, except for certain 144A bonds, will be monitored by the Fund on an ongoing basis. In the event that such a security is deemed to be no longer liquid, the Fund’s holdings will be reviewed to determine what action, if any, is required to ensure that the retention of such security does not result in the Fund having more than 15% of its net assets invested in illiquid or not readily marketable securities.

Investment Company Securities

The Fund may invest in the securities of other investment companies, including CEFs, BDCs and money market funds, subject to applicable limitations under Section 12(d)(1) of the 1940 Act. Pursuant to Section 12(d)(1), the Fund may invest in the securities of another investment company (the “acquired company”) provided that the Fund, immediately after such purchase or acquisition, does not own in the aggregate: (i) more than 3% of the total outstanding voting stock of the acquired company; (ii) securities issued by the acquired company having an aggregate value in excess of 5% of the value of the total assets of the Fund; or (iii) securities issued by the acquired company and all other investment companies (other than treasury stock of the Fund) having an aggregate value in excess of 10% of the value of the total assets of the Fund. To the extent allowed by law or regulation, the Fund may invest its assets in securities of investment companies that are money market funds in excess of the limits discussed above.

If the Fund invests in and, thus, is a shareholder of, another investment company, the Fund’s shareholders will indirectly bear the Fund’s proportionate share of the fees and expenses paid by such other investment company, including advisory fees, in addition to both the management fees payable directly by the Fund to the Fund’s own investment adviser and the other expenses that the Fund bears directly in connection with the Fund’s own operations.

Section 12(d)(1) of the 1940 Act restricts investments by registered investment companies in securities of other registered investment companies, including the Fund. The acquisition of the Fund’s Shares by registered investment companies is subject to the restrictions of Section 12(d)(1) of the 1940 Act, except as may be permitted by exemptive rules under the 1940 Act or as may at some future time be permitted by an exemptive order that permits registered investment companies to invest in the Fund beyond the limits of Section 12(d)(1), subject to certain terms and conditions, including that the registered investment company enter into an agreement with the Fund regarding the terms of the investment.

The Fund may rely on Section 12(d)(1)(F) and Rule 12d1-3 of the 1940 Act, which provide an exemption from Section 12(d)(1) that allows the Fund to invest all of its assets in other registered funds, including ETFs, if, among other conditions: (a) the Fund, together with its affiliates, acquires no more than three percent of the outstanding voting stock of any acquired fund, and (b) the sales load charged on the Fund’s Shares is no greater than the limits set forth in Rule 2830 of the Conduct Rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”).

Investment in Loans

The Fund may invest in CEFs that invest in loans, such as syndicated bank loans, senior floating rate loans, secured and unsecured loans, second lien or more junior loans, bridge loans and unfunded commitments. Such loans may incur some of the same risks as other debt securities, such as prepayment risk, credit risk, interest rate risk, liquidity risk and risks found with high yield securities. Although some loans are secured by collateral, the collateral may be difficult to liquidate and the value of the collateral can decline or be insufficient to meet the obligation of the borrower. A CEF investing in loans could also have its interest subordinated to other indebtedness of the obligor. As a result, a loan may not be fully collateralized and can decline significantly in value, which may result in the CEF not receiving payments to which it is entitled.

Loans may offer a fixed rate or floating rate of interest. Loans may decline in value if their interest rates do not rise as much or as fast as interest rates in general.

Loans are subject to the risk that the scheduled interest or principal payments will not be paid. Lower-rated loans and debt securities (those of less than investment grade quality), involve greater risk of default on interest and principal payments than higher-rated loans and securities. In the event that a non-payment occurs, the value of that obligation likely will decline. Debt securities rated below “BBB” category by S&P or “Baa” category by Moody’s are considered to have speculative characteristics and are commonly referred to as “junk bonds.” Junk bonds entail default and other risks greater than those associated with higher-rated securities.

Loans are vulnerable to market sentiment such that economic conditions or other events may reduce the demand for loans and cause their value to decline rapidly and unpredictably. Furthermore, while the resale, or secondary, market for loans is growing, it is currently limited. There is no organized exchange or board of trade on which loans are traded. Loans often trade in large denominations (typically $1 million and higher), and trades can be infrequent. The market has limited transparency so that information about actual trades may be difficult to obtain. Accordingly, some of the loans in which a CEF may invest will be relatively illiquid. Certain loans may be subject to restrictions on resale or assignment. A CEF may have difficulty in disposing of loans in a timely fashion, which could result in losses to the CEF and the value of the Fund’s investment in such CEF.

Loans may be issued in connection with highly leveraged transactions, such as restructurings, leveraged buyouts, leveraged recapitalizations and other types of acquisition financing. In such highly leveraged transactions, the borrower assumes large amounts of debt in order to have the financial resources to attempt to achieve its business objectives. As such, such loans may be part of highly leveraged transactions and involve a significant risk that the borrower may default or go into bankruptcy.

The Fund and any CEF in which it invests values its assets daily. However, because the secondary market for loans is limited, they may be difficult to value. Market quotations may not be readily available for some loans or may be volatile and/or subject to large spreads between bid and ask prices, and valuation may require more research than for other securities. In addition, elements of judgment may play a greater role in valuation than for securities with a more active secondary market, because there is less reliable, objective market value data available.

CEF investing in loans may be in possession of material non-public information about a borrower as a result of its ownership of a loan and/or corporate debt security of a borrower. Because U.S. laws and regulations generally prohibit trading in securities of issuers while in possession of material, non-public information, the CEF might be unable to trade securities of such a borrower when it would otherwise be advantageous to do so and, as such, could incur a loss, which may reduce the value of the Fund’s investment in such CEF.

Master Limited Partnerships (“MLPS”)

MLPs are limited partnerships in which the ownership units are publicly traded. MLP units are registered with the SEC and are freely traded on a securities exchange or in the OTC market. MLPs often own several properties or businesses (or own interests) that are related to real estate development and oil and gas industries, but they also may finance motion pictures, research and development and other projects. Generally, a MLP is operated under the supervision of one or more managing general partners. Limited partners are not involved in the day-to-day management of the partnership.

The risks of investing in a MLP are generally those involved in investing in a partnership as opposed to a corporation. For example, state law governing partnerships is often less restrictive than state law governing corporations. Accordingly, there may be fewer protections afforded investors in a MLP than investors in a corporation. Additional risks involved with investing in a MLP are risks associated with the specific industry or industries in which the partnership invests, such as the risks of investing in real estate, or oil and gas industries.

MLPs are generally treated as partnerships for U.S. federal income tax purposes. When the Fund invests in the equity securities of an MLP or any other entity that is treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, the Fund will be treated as a partner in the entity for tax purposes. Accordingly, in calculating the Fund’s taxable income, it will be required to take into account its allocable share of the income, gains, losses, deductions, and credits recognized by each such entity, regardless of whether the entity distributes cash to the Fund. Distributions from such an entity to the Fund are not generally taxable unless the cash amount (or, in certain cases, the fair market value of marketable securities) distributed to the Fund exceeds the Fund’s adjusted tax basis in its interest in the entity. In general, the Fund’s allocable share of such an entity’s net income will increase the Fund’s adjusted tax basis in its interest in the entity, and distributions to the Fund from such an entity and the Fund’s allocable share of the entity’s net losses will decrease the Fund’s adjusted basis in its interest in the entity, but not below zero. The Fund may receive cash distributions from such an entity in excess of the net amount of taxable income the Fund is allocated from its investment in the entity. In other circumstances, the net amount of taxable income the Fund is allocated from its investment in such an entity may exceed cash distributions received from the entity. Thus, the Fund’s investments in such an entity may lead the Fund to make distributions in excess of its earnings and profits, or the Fund may be required to sell investments, including when not otherwise advantageous to do so, in order to satisfy the distribution requirements applicable to regulated investment companies under the Code.

Depreciation or other cost recovery deductions passed through to the Fund from any investments in MLPs in a given year will generally reduce the Fund’s taxable income, but those deductions may be recaptured in the Fund’s income in one or more subsequent years. When recognized and distributed, recapture income will generally be taxable to the Fund’s shareholders at the time of the distribution at ordinary income tax rates, even though those shareholders might not have held shares in the Fund at the time the deductions were taken, and even though those shareholders may not have corresponding economic gain on their shares at the time of the recapture. In order to distribute recapture income or to fund redemption requests, the Fund may need to liquidate investments, which may lead to additional taxable income.

Money Market Instruments

The Fund may invest a portion of its assets in high-quality money market instruments on an ongoing basis to provide liquidity or for other reasons. The instruments in which the Fund may invest include: (i) short-term obligations issued by the U.S. Government; (ii) negotiable certificates of deposit (“CDs”), fixed time deposits and bankers’ acceptances of U.S. and foreign banks and similar institutions; (iii) commercial paper rated at the date of purchase “Prime-1” by Moody’s or “A-1+” or “A-1” by Standard & Poor’s (“S&P”) or, if unrated, of comparable quality as determined by the Fund; and (iv) repurchase agreements. CDs are short-term negotiable obligations of commercial banks. Time deposits are non-negotiable deposits maintained in banking institutions for specified periods of time at stated interest rates. Banker’s acceptances are time drafts drawn on commercial banks by borrowers, usually in connection with international transactions.

Mortgage-Backed and Asset-Backed Securities

The Fund may invest in CEFs that invest in mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities. Mortgage-backed securities are mortgage-related securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government, its agencies and instrumentalities, or issued by nongovernment entities. Mortgage-related securities represent ownership in pools of mortgage loans assembled for sale to investors by various government agencies such as the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) and government-related organizations such as the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), as well as by nongovernment issuers such as commercial banks, savings and loan institutions, mortgage bankers and private mortgage insurance companies. Although certain mortgage-related securities are guaranteed by a third party or otherwise similarly secured, the market value of the security, which may fluctuate, is not so secured. These securities differ from conventional bonds in that the principal is paid back to the investor as payments are made on the underlying mortgages in the pool. Accordingly, the investing CEF receives monthly scheduled payments of principal and interest along with any unscheduled principal prepayments on the underlying mortgages. Because these scheduled and unscheduled principal payments must be reinvested at prevailing interest rates, mortgage-backed securities do not provide an effective means of locking in long-term interest rates for the investor.

In addition, there are a number of important differences among the agencies and instrumentalities of the U.S. government that issue mortgage-related securities and among the securities they issue. Mortgage-related securities issued by GNMA include GNMA Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates (also known as Ginnie Maes) which are guaranteed as to the timely payment of principal and interest. That guarantee is backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Treasury. GNMA is a corporation wholly owned by the U.S. government within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Mortgage-related securities issued by FNMA include FNMA Guaranteed Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates (also known as Fannie Maes) and are guaranteed as to payment of principal and interest by FNMA itself and backed by a line of credit with the U.S. Treasury. FNMA is a government-sponsored entity wholly owned by public stockholders. Mortgage-related securities issued by FHLMC include FHLMC Mortgage Participation Certificates (also known as Freddie Macs) guaranteed as to payment of principal and interest by FHLMC itself and backed by a line of credit with the U.S. Treasury. FHLMC is a government-sponsored entity wholly owned by public stockholders.

In September 2008, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) placed FNMA and FHLMC into conservatorship, and FHFA succeeded to all rights, titles, powers and privileges of FNMA and FHLMC. The U.S. Treasury entered into a Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement with each of FNMA and FHLMC pursuant to which the U.S. Treasury will disburse up to an aggregate of $200 billion to each of FNMA and FHLMC to maintain a positive net worth in each enterprise; this agreement contains various covenants that severely limit each enterprise’s operation. The U.S. Treasury also announced the creation of a new secured lending facility that is available to FNMA and FHLMC as a liquidity backstop and announced the creation of a temporary program to purchase mortgage-backed securities issued by FNMA and FHLMC. FHFA has the power to repudiate any contract entered into by FNMA or FHLMC prior to FHFA’s appointment if FHFA determines that performance of the contract is burdensome and the repudiation of the contract promotes the orderly administration of FNMA’s or FHLMC’s affairs. FHFA has indicated that it has no intention to repudiate the guaranty obligations of FNMA or FHLMC. FHFA also has the right to transfer or sell any asset or liability of FNMA or FHLMC without any approval, assignment or consent, although FHFA has stated that is has no present intention to do so. In addition, holders of mortgage-backed securities issued by FNMA and FHLMC may not enforce certain rights related to such securities against FHFA, or the enforcement of such rights may be delayed, during the conservatorship. While the actions of the U.S. Treasury are intended to support the operations of FNMA and FHLMC, there is no guarantee that such actions will be successful. Furthermore, the U.S. Congress has recently considered proposals to wind down or restructure the operations of both FNMA and FHLMC. The passage of any such proposal has the potential to impact the value of securities issued by FNMA or FHLMC, which could adversely affect the investing CEF.

Asset-backed securities are structured like mortgage-backed securities, but instead of mortgage loans or interests in mortgage loans, the underlying assets may include such items as motor vehicle installment sales contracts or installment loan contracts, leases of various types of real and personal property, and receivables from credit card agreements and from sales of personal property. Regular payments received on asset-backed securities include both interest and principal. Asset-backed securities typically have no U.S. government backing. Additionally, the ability of an issuer of asset-backed securities to enforce its security interest in the underlying assets may be limited.

If the investing CEF purchases a mortgage-backed or other asset-backed security at a premium, the premium may be lost if there is a decline in the market value of the security whether resulting from changes in interest rates or prepayments in the underlying collateral. As with other interest-bearing securities, the prices of such securities are inversely affected by changes in interest rates. Although the value of a mortgage-backed or other asset-backed security may decline when interest rates rise, the converse is not necessarily true, since in periods of declining interest rates the mortgages and loans underlying the securities are prone to prepayment, thereby shortening the average life of the security and shortening the period of time over which income at the higher rate is received. When interest rates are rising, the rate of prepayment tends to decrease, thereby lengthening the period of time over which income at the lower rate is received. For these and other reasons, a mortgage-backed or other asset-backed security’s average maturity may be shortened or lengthened as a result of interest rate fluctuations and, therefore, it is not possible to predict accurately the security’s return. In addition, while the trading market for short-term mortgages and asset-backed securities is ordinarily quite liquid, in times of financial stress the trading market for these securities may become restricted.

Non-U.S. Securities

The Fund may invest in CEFs that invest in non-U.S. securities. Investments in non-U.S. securities involve certain risks that may not be present in investments in U.S. securities. For example, non-U.S. securities may be subject to currency risks or to political or economic instability. There may be less information publicly available about a non-U.S. issuer than about a U.S. issuer, and a foreign issuer may or may not be subject to uniform accounting, auditing and financial reporting standards and practices comparable to those in the U.S. Investments in non-U.S. securities may be subject to withholding or other taxes and may be subject to additional trading, settlement, custodial, and operational risks. Other risks of investing in such securities include political or economic instability in the country involved, the difficulty of predicting international trade patterns and the possibility of imposition of exchange controls. The prices of such securities may be more volatile than those of domestic securities. With respect to certain foreign countries, there is a possibility of expropriation of assets or nationalization, imposition of withholding taxes on dividend or interest payments, difficulty in obtaining and enforcing judgments against foreign entities or diplomatic developments which could affect investment in these countries. Losses and other expenses may be incurred in converting between various currencies in connection with purchases and sales of foreign securities. Since foreign exchanges may be open on days when the Fund does not price its shares, the value of the securities in the Fund’s portfolio may change on days when shareholders will not be able to purchase or sell the Fund’s shares. Conversely, Shares may trade on days when foreign exchanges are closed. Each of these factors can make investments in the Fund more volatile and potentially less liquid than other types of investments.

Investments in Emerging Markets: The Fund may invest in CEFs that invest in emerging market securities. Investments in securities listed and traded in emerging markets are subject to additional risks that may not be present for U.S. investments or investments in more developed non-U.S. markets. Such risks may include: (i) greater market volatility, (ii) lower trading volume, (iii) greater social, political and economic uncertainty, (iv) governmental controls on foreign investments and limitations on repatriation of invested capital, (v) the risk that companies may be held to lower disclosure, corporate governance, auditing and financial reporting standards than companies in more developed markets, and (vi) the risk that there may be less protection of property rights than in other countries. Emerging markets are generally less liquid and less efficient than developed securities markets.

Investments in Europe: Most developed countries in Western Europe are members of the European Union (EU), and many are also members of the European Monetary Union (EMU), which requires compliance with restrictions on inflation rates, deficits, and debt levels. Unemployment in certain European nations is historically high and several countries face significant debt problems. These conditions can significantly affect every European country and their economic partners. The euro is the official currency of the European Union (EU). The Fund’s investments in Europe may have significant exposure to the euro and events affecting the euro. Recent market events affecting several of the EU member countries have adversely affected the sovereign debt issued by those countries, and ultimately may lead to a decline in the value of the euro. A significant decline in the value of the euro may produce unpredictable effects on trade and commerce generally and could lead to increased volatility in financial markets worldwide. In June 2016, the United Kingdom (the “UK”) voted to withdraw from the EU, commonly referred to as “Brexit.” The impact of Brexit is so far uncertain. The effect on the UK’s economy will likely depend on the nature of trade relations with the EU following its exit, a matter to be negotiated. The decision may cause increased volatility and have a significant adverse impact on world financial markets, other international trade agreements, and the UK and European economies, as well as the broader global economy for some time. Additional EU members could decide to abandon the euro and also withdraw from the EU, which could adversely affect the value of the Fund’s investments.

Real Estate Investment Trusts (“REITs”)

A REIT is a corporation or business trust (that would otherwise be taxed as a corporation) which meets the definitional requirements of the Code. The Code permits a qualifying REIT to deduct from taxable income the dividends paid, thereby effectively eliminating corporate level federal income tax. To meet the definitional requirements of the Code, a REIT must, among other things: invest substantially all of its assets in interests in real estate (including mortgages and other REITs), cash and government securities; derive most of its income from rents from real property or interest on loans secured by mortgages on real property; and, in general, distribute annually 90% or more of its taxable income (other than net capital gains) to shareholders.

REITs are sometimes informally characterized as Equity REITs and Mortgage REITs. An Equity REIT invests primarily in the fee ownership or leasehold ownership of land and buildings (e.g., commercial equity REITs and residential equity REITs); a Mortgage REIT invests primarily in mortgages on real property, which may secure construction, development or long-term loans.

REITs may be affected by changes in underlying real estate values, which may have an exaggerated effect to the extent that REITs in which the Fund invests may concentrate investments in particular geographic regions or property types. Additionally, rising interest rates may cause investors in REITs to demand a higher annual yield from future distributions, which may in turn decrease market prices for equity securities issued by REITs. Rising interest rates also generally increase the costs of obtaining financing, which could cause the value of the Fund’s investments to decline. During periods of declining interest rates, certain Mortgage REITs may hold mortgages that the mortgagors elect to prepay, which prepayment may diminish the yield on securities issued by such Mortgage REITs. In addition, Mortgage REITs may be affected by the ability of borrowers to repay when due the debt extended by the REIT and Equity REITs may be affected by the ability of tenants to pay rent.

Certain REITs have relatively small market capitalization, which may tend to increase the volatility of the market price of securities issued by such REITs. Furthermore, 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 the Fund, a shareholder will bear not only his or her proportionate share of the expenses of the Fund, but also, indirectly, similar expenses of the REITs. REITs depend generally on their ability to generate cashflow to make distributions to shareholders.

In addition to these risks, Equity REITs may be affected by changes in the value of the underlying property owned by the trusts, while Mortgage REITs may be affected by the quality of any credit extended. Further, Equity and Mortgage REITs are dependent upon management skills and generally may not be diversified. Equity and Mortgage REITs are also subject to heavy cashflow dependency defaults by borrowers and self-liquidation. In addition, Equity and Mortgage REITs could possibly fail to qualify for the favorable U.S. federal income tax treatment generally available to REITs under the Code or fail to maintain their exemptions from registration under the 1940 Act. The above factors may also adversely affect a borrower’s or a lessee’s ability to meet its obligations to the REIT. In the event of default by a borrower or lessee, the REIT may experience delays in enforcing its rights as a mortgagee or lessor and may incur substantial costs associated with protecting its investments.

Tracking Stocks

The Fund may invest in tracking stocks. A tracking stock is a separate class of common stock whose value is linked to a specific business unit or operating division within a larger company and which is designed to “track” the performance of such business unit or division. The tracking stock may pay dividends to shareholders independent of the parent company. The parent company, rather than the business unit or division, generally is the issuer of tracking stock. However, holders of the tracking stock may not have the same rights as holders of the company’s common stock.

INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS

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

Except with the approval of a majority of the outstanding voting securities, the Fund may not:

Concentrate its investments (i.e., hold more than 25% of its total assets) in any industry or group of related industries, except that the Fund will concentrate to approximately the same extent that the Index concentrates in the stocks of such particular industry or group of related industries. For purposes of this limitation, securities of the U.S. government (including its agencies and instrumentalities), repurchase agreements collateralized by U.S. government securities and securities of state or municipal governments and their political subdivisions are not considered to be issued by members of any industry.

Borrow money or issue senior securities (as defined under the 1940 Act), except to the extent permitted under the 1940 Act, the rules and regulations thereunder or any exemption therefrom, as such statute, rules or regulations may be amended or interpreted from time to time.

Lend any security or make any other loan except to the extent permitted under the 1940 Act the rules and regulations thereunder or any exemption therefrom, as such statute, rules or regulations may be amended or interpreted from time to time.

Purchase or sell commodities or real estate, except to the extent permitted under the 1940 Act, the rules and regulations thereunder or any exemption therefrom, as such statute, rules or regulations may be amended or interpreted from time to time.

Underwrite securities issued by other persons, except to the extent permitted under the 1940 Act, the rules and regulations thereunder or any exemption therefrom, as such statute, rules or regulations may be amended or interpreted from time to time.

With respect to 75% of its total assets, purchase the securities of any one issuer if, immediately after and as a result of such purchase, (a) the value of the Fund’s holdings in the securities of such issuer exceeds 5% of the value of the Fund’s total assets, or (b) the Fund owns more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of the issuer (with the exception that this restriction does not apply to the Fund’s investments in the securities of the U.S. Government, or its agencies or instrumentalities, or other investment companies).

In addition to the investment restrictions adopted as fundamental policies as set forth above, the Fund observes the following restrictions, which may be changed without a shareholder vote.

The Fund will not invest more than 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities. An illiquid asset is any asset that may not be sold or disposed of in the ordinary course of business within seven days at approximately the value at which the Fund has valued the investment.

The Fund invests, under normal circumstances, at least 80% of its total assets (exclusive of collateral held from securities lending) in the component securities of the Index.

The investment objective of the Fund is a non-fundamental policy that can be changed by the Board without approval by shareholders.

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

During times of adverse market, economic, political or other conditions, the Fund may depart temporarily from its principal investment strategies (such as by maintaining a significant uninvested cash position) for defensive purposes. Doing so could help the Fund avoid losses, but may mean lost investment opportunities. During these periods, the Fund may not achieve its investment objective.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND RISKS

A discussion of the risks associated with an investment in the Fund is contained in the Prospectus. The discussion below supplements, and should be read in conjunction with, the Prospectus.

GENERAL

Investment in the Fund should be made with an understanding that the value of the Fund’s portfolio investments may fluctuate in accordance with changes in the financial condition of the issuers thereof, the value of financial instruments generally and other factors. An investment in the Fund should also be made with an understanding of the risks inherent in an investment in securities and derivatives, including the risk that the financial condition of issuers may become impaired or that the general condition of the securities and derivatives markets may deteriorate (either of which may cause a decrease in the value of the portfolio investments and thus in the value of Shares). Securities are susceptible to general market fluctuations and to volatile increases and decreases in value as market confidence in and perceptions of their issuers change. These investor perceptions are based on various and unpredictable factors including expectations regarding government, economic, monetary and fiscal policies, inflation and interest rates, economic expansion or contraction, and global or regional political, economic and banking crises.

CYBER SECURITY

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

TAX RISKS

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

Unless your investment in Shares is made through a tax-exempt entity or tax-deferred retirement account, such as an individual retirement account, you need to be aware of the possible tax consequences when the Fund makes distributions or you sell Shares.

EXCHANGE LISTING AND TRADING

A discussion of exchange listing and trading matters associated with an investment in the Fund is contained in the summary section of the Fund’s Prospectus under the “PURCHASE AND SALE OF FUND SHARES” and in the statutory Prospectus under “BUYING AND SELLING SHARES.” The discussion below supplements, and should be read in conjunction with, such sections of the Prospectus.

The Shares of the Fund are approved for listing and trading on the Exchange, subject to notice of issuance. The Shares trade on the Exchange at prices that may differ to some degree from their net asset value. There can be no assurance that the requirements of the Exchange necessary to maintain the listing of Shares of the Fund will continue to be met.

The Exchange may, but is not required to, remove the Shares of the Fund from listing if: (i) following the initial twelve- month period beginning upon the commencement of trading of the Fund, there are fewer than 50 beneficial holders of the Shares for 30 or more consecutive trading days; (ii) the value of its Benchmark or portfolio of securities on which the Fund is based is no longer calculated or available; (iii) the “indicative optimized portfolio value” (“IOPV”) of the Fund is no longer calculated or available; or (iv) such other event shall occur or condition exists that, in the opinion of the Exchange, makes further dealings on the Exchange inadvisable. In addition, the Exchange will remove the Fund’s Shares from listing and trading upon termination of the Trust or the Fund.

The Exchange or market data vendors or other information providers will disseminate, every fifteen seconds during the regular trading day, an IOPV relating to the Fund. The IOPV calculations are estimates of the value of the Fund’s net asset value per Share using market data converted into U.S. dollars at the current currency rates. The IOPV price is based on quotes and closing prices from the securities local market and may not reflect events that occur subsequent to the local market’s close. Premiums and discounts between the IOPV and the market price may occur. This should not be viewed as a “real-time” update of the NAV per Share of the Fund, which is calculated only once a day. Neither the Fund or the Adviser, nor any of their affiliates is involved in, or responsible for, the calculation or dissemination of such IOPVs and make no warranty as to their accuracy.

The Trust reserves the right to adjust the Share price of the Fund in the future to maintain convenient trading ranges for investors. Any adjustments would be accomplished through stock splits or reverse stock splits, which would have no effect on the net assets of the Fund.

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

The base and trading currencies of the Fund is the U.S. dollar. The base currency is the currency in which the Fund’s NAV per Share is calculated and the trading currency is the currency in which Shares of the Fund are listed and traded on the Exchange.

There can be no assurance that the Fund will continue to meet the requirements of the Exchange necessary to maintain the listing of Shares. The Exchange may, but is not required to, remove the Shares from listing if: (i) following the initial 12-month period beginning at the commencement of trading of the Fund, there are fewer than 50 beneficial owners of the Shares for 30 or more consecutive trading days; (ii) the value of the Fund’s Index no longer is calculated or available; or (iii) such other event shall occur or condition shall exist that, in the opinion of the Exchange, makes further dealings on the Exchange inadvisable. The Exchange will remove the Shares from listing and trading upon termination of the Fund.

The Trust reserves the right to adjust the price levels of the Shares in the future to help maintain convenient trading ranges for investors. Any adjustments would be accomplished through stock splits or reverse stock splits, which would have no effect on the net assets of the Fund.

To provide additional information regarding the indicative value of Shares, the Exchange or a market data vendor disseminates information every 15 seconds through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association or other widely disseminated means an updated “intraday indicative value” (“IIV”) for the Fund as calculated by an information provider or market data vendor. The Trust is not involved in or responsible for any aspect of the calculation or dissemination of the IIVs and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the IIVs

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUST

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

TRUSTEES AND OFFICERS OF THE TRUST

Board Responsibilities: The management and affairs of the Trust and the Fund described in this SAI are overseen by the Board. The Board elects the officers of the Trust who are responsible for administering the day-to-day operations of the Trust and the Fund. The Board has approved contracts, as described below, under which certain companies provide essential services to the Trust.

Like most registered investment companies, the day-to-day business of the Trust, including the management of risk, is performed by third party service providers, such as the Adviser, the Distributor and the Administrator (as defined below). The Board is responsible for overseeing the Trust’s service providers and, thus, has oversight responsibility with respect to risk management performed by those service providers. Risk management seeks to identify and address risks, i.e., events or circumstances that could have material adverse effects on the business, operations, shareholder services, investment performance or reputation of the Fund. The Fund and its service providers employ a variety of processes, procedures and controls to identify various of those possible events or circumstances, to lessen the probability of their occurrence and/or to mitigate the effects of such events or circumstances if they do occur. Each service provider is responsible for one or more discrete aspects of the Trust’s business (e.g., the Adviser is responsible for the day-to-day management of the Fund’s portfolio investments) and, consequently, for managing the risks associated with that business. The Board has emphasized to the Fund’s service providers the importance of maintaining vigorous risk management.

The role of the members of the Board (the “Trustees”) in risk oversight begins before the inception of the Fund, at which time certain of the Fund’s service providers present the Board with information concerning the investment objectives, strategies and risks of the Fund as well as proposed investment limitations for the Fund. Additionally, the Fund’s Adviser provides the Board with an overview of, among other things, its investment philosophy, brokerage practices and compliance infrastructure.

Thereafter, the Board continues its oversight function as various personnel, including the CCO, as well as personnel of the Adviser and other service providers such as the Fund’s independent accountants, make periodic reports to the Audit Committee or to the Board with respect to various aspects of risk management. The Board and the Audit Committee oversee efforts by management and service providers to manage risks to which the Fund may be exposed.

The Board is responsible for overseeing the nature, extent and quality of the services provided to the Fund by the Adviser and receives information about those services at its regular meetings. In addition, on an annual basis, in connection with its consideration of whether to renew the Fund’s investment advisory agreements with the Adviser, the Board meets with the Adviser to review such services. Among other things, the Board regularly considers the Adviser’s adherence to the Fund’s investment restrictions and compliance with various Fund policies and procedures and with applicable securities regulations. The Board also reviews information about the Fund’s performance and the Fund’s investments, including, for example, portfolio holdings schedules.

OWNERSHIP OF SHARES

The following table shows the dollar amount ranges of each Trustee’s “beneficial ownership” of Shares of the Fund and in all registered investment companies in the Fund Complex. Dollar amount ranges disclosed are established by the SEC. “Beneficial ownership” is determined in accordance with Rule 16a-1(a)(2) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “1934 Act”). The Trustees and officers of the Trust own less than 1% of the outstanding Shares of the Trust.

Name	Dollar Range of Shares	Aggregate Dollar Range of Shares (All Funds in the Complex)

*Interested Trustees*

William Rhind	None	None

*Independent Trustees*

Steven James Smyser	None	None
Seddik Meziani	None	None

COMPENSATION OF THE TRUSTEES AND OFFICERS

Trustees are expected to receive the following estimated compensation, to be paid by the Trust, during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018.

Name	Aggregate Compensation		Pension or Retirement Benefits Accrued as Part of Fund Expenses		Estimated Annual Benefits Upon Retirement		Total Compensation from the Trust and Fund Complex

Interested Trustees

William Rhind	$	0	$	0	$	0	$	0

Independent Trustees

Steven James Smyser	$	10,000	$	0	$	0	$	10,000

Seddik Meziani	$	10,000	$	0	$	0	$	10,000

CODES OF ETHICS

The Trust, the Adviser, and the Distributor have each adopted codes of ethics pursuant to Rule 17j-1 of the 1940 Act. These codes of ethics are designed to prevent affiliated persons of the Trust, the Adviser and the Distributor from engaging in deceptive, manipulative or fraudulent activities in connection with securities held or to be acquired by the Fund (which may also be held by persons subject to the codes of ethics). These Codes prohibit personnel of the Adviser and the Distributor from investing in securities that may be purchased or held by the Fund.

There can be no assurance that the codes of ethics will be effective in preventing such activities. Each code of ethics has been filed with the SEC and may be examined at the office of the SEC in Washington, D.C. or on the Internet at the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

PROXY VOTING POLICIES

The Trust has delegated to the Adviser the authority and responsibility for voting proxies on the portfolio securities held by the Fund. In delegating proxy responsibilities, the Board has directed that proxies be voted consistent with the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders in compliance with all applicable proxy voting rules and regulations. The Adviser has a fiduciary duty to vote proxies on behalf of the Fund in the best interest of the Fund and its shareholder and has adopted proxy voting policies and procedures for this purpose, including procedures to be followed when a vote presents a conflict between the interests of the Fund and its shareholders and the Adviser, its affiliates, its other clients or other persons.

The Adviser has a third party proxy solicitation firm to assist with voting proxies on the portfolio securities held by the Fund in accordance with the Adviser’s policies and predetermined guidelines (“Proxy Guidelines”). A copy of the Proxy Guidelines is attached as Appendix A to this SAI. Although the Proxy Guidelines are followed as a general policy, certain issues are considered on a case-by-case basis based on the relevant facts and circumstances and the Adviser retains the right to override a recommendation that is not in the best interest of the Fund and its shareholders and to change any vote prior to the voting deadline.

The Adviser’s policy is that all proxies for Fund securities must be voted in a manner considered by the Adviser to be in the best interest of the Fund and its shareholders without regard to any benefit to the Adviser or its affiliates and that all issues brought to shareholders are analyzed in light of the Adviser’s fiduciary responsibilities. Because of the limited scope of the business of the Adviser and its affiliates, the Adviser does not expect conflicts between the interests of the Adviser and those of its clients with respect to voting proxies to arise frequently. In situations where there may be a conflict of interest in the voting of proxies due to business or personal relationships that the Adviser maintains with persons having an interest in the outcome of certain votes, the Adviser takes appropriate steps to ensure that its proxy voting decisions are made in the best interest of its clients and are not the product of such conflict. When the Adviser becomes aware of any vote that presents a conflict, the conflict will be reported to the Adviser’s chief compliance officer. The Adviser’s chief compliance officer will work with senior management to identify the source of the conflict and implement measures to address the conflict. If a material conflict exists, the Adviser will address the voting issue through objective means such as voting in a manner consistent with a pre-determined voting policy or receiving an independent third party voting recommendation.

When available, information regarding how a Fund voted proxies relating to portfolio securities during the most recent 12-month period ended June 30 is available without charge, upon request, by calling 1-844-476-8747 or from the Funds’ website at http://www.graniteshares.com, and on the SEC’S website at http://www.sec.gov.

INVESTMENT ADVISORY AND OTHER SERVICES

GraniteShares Advisors LLC, a Delaware limited liability company located at 30 Vesey Street, 9th Floor, New York, New York 10007, serves as the investment adviser to the Fund. William Rhind, a Trustee, Chairman of the Board, and officer of the Trust, controls the Adviser due to his ownership of shares of, and his position as CEO of, GraniteShares, Inc., the owner of the Adviser.

The Trust and the Adviser have entered into an investment advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with respect to the Fund. Under the Advisory Agreement, the Adviser serves as the investment adviser, makes investment decisions for the Fund, and manages the investment portfolios of the Fund, subject to the supervision of, and policies established by, the Board. The Advisory Agreement provides that the Adviser shall not be protected against any liability to the Trust or its shareholders by reason of willful misfeasance, bad faith or gross negligence generally in the performance of its duties, or its reckless disregard of its obligation and duties, under the Advisory Agreement.

After the initial two-year term, the continuance of the Advisory Agreement must be specifically approved at least annually: (i) by the vote of the Trustees or by a vote of the shareholders of the Fund; and (ii) by the vote of a majority of the Trustees who are not parties to the Advisory Agreement or “interested persons” or of any party thereto, cast in person at a meeting called for the purpose of voting on such approval. The Advisory Agreement will terminate automatically in the event of its assignment, and is terminable at any time without penalty by the Trustees of the Trust or, with respect to the Fund, by a majority of the outstanding voting securities of the Fund, or by the Adviser on not more than 60 days’ nor less than 30 days’ written notice to the Trust. As used in the Advisory Agreement, the terms “majority of the outstanding voting securities,” “interested persons” and “assignment” have the same meaning as such terms in the 1940 Act.

For its services, the Adviser receives a fee that is equal to 0.70% per annum of the average daily net assets of the Fund, calculated daily and paid monthly. The Adviser has contractually agreed to waive or reduce its fees and to reimburse the Fund for its expenses for at least two years from the date of the reorganization, so that the total annual operating expenses (excluding interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, expenses related to short sales, other expenditures which are capitalized in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of the Fund’s business, and amounts, if any, payable pursuant to a plan adopted in accordance with Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act) of the Fund are limited to 0.70%.

Pursuant to the Advisory Agreement, the Adviser has agreed to pay all expenses of the Fund, except for: (i) brokerage expenses and other fees, charges, taxes, levies or expenses (such as stamp taxes) incurred in connection with the execution of portfolio transactions or in connection with creation and redemption transactions; (ii) legal fees or expenses in connection with any arbitration, litigation or pending or threatened arbitration or litigation, including any settlements in connection therewith; (iii) compensation and expenses of the Independent Trustees; (iv) compensation and expenses of counsel to the Independent Trustees; (v) compensation and expenses of the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer; (vi) extraordinary expenses; (vii) distribution fees and expenses paid by the Trust under any distribution plan adopted pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act; (viii) interest and taxes of any kind or nature; (ix) any fees and expenses related to the provision of securities lending services; and (x) the advisory fee payable to the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement

THE PORTFOLIO MANAGERS

This section includes information about the Fund’s portfolio managers, including information about other accounts they manage, the dollar range of Shares they own, and how they are compensated.

COMPENSATION

Benoit Autier and Jeff Klearman are the Fund’s portfolio managers (the “Portfolio Managers”). As of the date of this SAI, each Portfolio Manager’s compensation generally includes a fixed base salary determined periodically (typically annually) and a discretionary annual bonus that is based on both objective and subjective criteria.

Each Portfolio Manager’s base salary is determined by level of responsibility and tenure at the Adviser. The level of the discretionary bonus is determined by the Adviser based upon a number of factors, including the Adviser’s profitability, the expansion work and effort of the Portfolio Manager, the involvement of the Portfolio Manager in the investment management functions of the Adviser, the Portfolio Manager’s role in the development of other investment professionals and the Portfolio Manager’s work relationship with support staff, and the Portfolio Manager’s overall contribution to strategic planning.

SHARES OWNED BY PORTFOLIO MANAGER

As of the date of this SAI, the Portfolio Managers did not beneficially own Shares of the Fund.

OTHER ACCOUNTS

As of the date of this SAI, the Portfolio Managers did not manage any accounts other than the series of the Trust.

THE DISTRIBUTOR

The Trust and the Distributor, Foreside Fund Services, LLC, are parties to a distribution agreement (the “Distribution Agreement”), whereby the Distributor acts as principal underwriter for the Trust’s Shares and distributes the Creation Units of the Fund. Shares are continuously offered for sale only in Creation Units. Each Creation Unit is made up of 50,000 Shares. The Distributor will not distribute Shares in amounts less than a Creation Unit. The principal business address of the Distributor is Three Canal Plaza, Suite 100, Portland, Maine 04101.

Under the Distribution Agreement, the Distributor, as agent for the Trust, and upon direction from the Fund, may enter into arrangements with Authorized Participants that place orders for purchases Shares, provided that any subscriptions and orders will not be binding on the Trust unless placed in accordance with proper procedures. (See “Purchase and Issuance of Shares in Creation Units.”) The Distributor will deliver Prospectuses and, upon request, SAIs to Authorized Participants purchasing Creation Units and will maintain records of orders placed with it. The Distributor is a broker-dealer registered under the 1934 Act and a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”).

The Distribution Agreement will continue for two years from its effective date and is renewable thereafter. The continuance of the Distribution Agreement must be specifically approved at least annually (i) by the vote of the Trustees or by a vote of the shareholders of the Fund and (ii) by the vote of a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trust and have no direct or indirect financial interest in the operations of the Distribution Agreement or any related agreement, cast in person at a meeting called for the purpose of voting on such approval. The Distribution Agreement is terminable without penalty by the Trust on 60 days’ written notice when authorized either by majority vote of its outstanding voting shares or by a vote of a majority of the Independent Trustees, or by the Distributor on 60 days written notice, and will automatically terminate in the event of its assignment.

Distribution Plan. The Trust has adopted a Distribution Plan (the “Plan”) in accordance with the provisions of Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act, which regulates circumstances under which an investment company may directly or indirectly bear expenses relating to the distribution of its shares. No distribution fees are currently charged to the Fund; there are no plans to impose these fees.

Continuance of the Plan must be approved annually by a majority of the Trustees of the Trust and by a majority of the Trustees who are not interested persons (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the Trust and have no direct or indirect financial interest in the Plan or in any agreements related to the Plan (“Qualified Trustees”). The Plan requires that quarterly written reports of amounts spent under the Plan and the purposes of such expenditures be furnished to and reviewed by the Trustees. The Plan may not be amended to increase materially the amount that may be spent thereunder without approval by a majority of the outstanding Shares of any class of the Fund that is affected by such increase. All material amendments of the Plan will require approval by a majority of the Trustees of the Trust and of the Qualified Trustees.

The Plan provides that Shares of the Fund may pay the Distributor an annual fee of up to a maximum of 0.25% of the average daily net assets of the Shares. Under the Plan, the Distributor may make payments pursuant to written agreements to financial institutions and intermediaries such as banks, savings and loan associations and insurance companies including, without limit, investment counselors, broker-dealers and the Distributor’s affiliates and subsidiaries as compensation for services and reimbursement of expenses incurred in connection with distribution assistance. The Plan is characterized as a compensation plan since the distribution fee will be paid to the Distributor without regard to the distribution expenses incurred by the Distributor or the amount of payments made to other financial institutions and intermediaries. The Trust intends to operate the Plan in accordance with its terms and with FINRA rules concerning sales charges.

Under the Plan, subject to the limitations of applicable law and regulations, the Fund is authorized to compensate the Distributor up to the maximum amount to finance any activity primarily intended to result in the sale of Creation Units of the Fund or for providing or arranging for others to provide shareholder services and for the maintenance of shareholder accounts. Such activities may include, but are not limited to: (i) delivering copies of the Fund’s then current reports, prospectuses, notices, and similar materials, to prospective purchasers of Creation Units; (ii) marketing and promotional services, including advertising; (iii) paying the costs of and compensating others, including Authorized Participants with whom the Distributor has entered into written Participant Agreements (as defined below), for performing shareholder servicing on behalf of the Fund; (iv) compensating certain Authorized Participants for providing assistance in distributing the Creation Units of the Fund, including the travel and communication expenses and salaries and/or commissions of sales personnel in connection with the distribution of the Creation Units of the Fund; (v) payments to financial institutions and intermediaries such as banks, savings and loan associations, insurance companies and investment counselors, broker-dealers, mutual fund supermarkets and the affiliates and subsidiaries of the Trust’s service providers as compensation for services or reimbursement of expenses incurred in connection with distribution assistance; (vi) facilitating communications with beneficial owners of Shares, including the cost of providing (or paying others to provide) services to beneficial owners of Shares, including, but not limited to, assistance in answering inquiries related to shareholder accounts, and (vi) such other services and obligations as are set forth in the Distribution Agreement.

THE ADMINISTRATOR

The Trust and The Bank of New York Mellon (the “Administrator”) have entered into an administrative services agreement (the “Administration Agreement”), under which the Administrator provides the Trust with administrative services, including providing certain operational, clerical, recordkeeping and/or bookkeeping services. The principal business address of the Administrator is 101 Barclay Street, New York, NY 10026.

The Administration Agreement provides that the Administrator shall not be liable for any loss suffered by the Trust in connection with the matters to which the Administration Agreement relates, except a loss resulting from bad faith, gross negligence or willful misconduct on the part of the Administrator.

For its services under the Administration Agreement, the Administrator is entitled to a fee based on the average daily net assets of the Fund, and subject to a minimum annual fee.

As of the date of this SAI, the Advisor has not received fees under the Administration Agreement with respect to the Funds.

THE CUSTODIAN

The Bank of New York Mellon (the “Custodian”), 101 Barclay Street, New York, NY 10026, serves as the custodian of the Fund under a custodian agreement with the Trust. The Custodian holds cash, securities and other assets of the Fund as required by the 1940 Act.

THE TRANSFER AGENT

The Bank of New York Mellon (the “Transfer Agent”), 101 Barclay Street, New York, NY 10026, serves as the Fund’s transfer agent and dividend disbursing agent under a transfer agency agreement with the Trust.

LEGAL COUNSEL

Vedder Price P.C., with offices located at 1633 Broadway, 31st Floor, New York, NY 10019 serves as legal counsel to the Trust.

DESCRIPTION OF SHARES

The Declaration of Trust establishing the Trust (the “Declaration of the Trust”) authorizes the issuance of an unlimited number of funds and shares of the Fund. Each share of a fund represents an equal proportionate interest in that fund with each other share. Shares are entitled upon liquidation to a pro rata share in the net assets of the fund. Shareholders have no preemptive rights. The Declaration of Trust provides that the Trustees of the Trust may create additional series or classes of shares. All consideration received by the Trust for shares of any additional funds and all assets in which such consideration is invested would belong to that fund and would be subject to the liabilities related thereto. Share certificates representing shares will not be issued. The Fund’s shares, when issued, are fully paid and non-assessable.

Each share has one vote with respect to matters upon which a shareholder vote is required consistent with the requirements of the 1940 Act and the rules promulgated thereunder. Shares of all funds vote together as a single class, except that if the matter being voted on affects only a particular fund it will be voted on only by that fund, and if a matter affects a particular fund differently from other funds, that fund will vote separately on such matter. As a Delaware statutory trust, the Trust is not required, and does not intend, to hold annual meetings of shareholders. Approval of shareholders will be sought, however, for certain changes in the operation of the Trust and for the election of Trustees under certain circumstances.

Under the Declaration of Trust, the Trustees have the power to liquidate the Fund without shareholder approval. While the Trustees have no present intention of exercising this power, they may do so if any fund fails to reach a viable size within a reasonable amount of time or for such other reasons as may be determined by the Board.

BROKERAGE TRANSACTIONS

The policy of the Trust regarding purchases and sales of securities for the Fund is that primary consideration will be given to obtaining the most favorable prices and efficient executions of transactions. Consistent with this policy, when securities transactions are effected on a stock exchange, the Trust’s policy is to pay commissions, which are considered fair and reasonable, without necessarily determining that the lowest possible commissions are paid in all circumstances. The Trust believes that a requirement always to seek the lowest possible commission cost could impede effective portfolio management and preclude the Fund and the Adviser from obtaining a high quality of brokerage and research services. In seeking to determine the reasonableness of brokerage commissions paid in any transaction, the Adviser will rely upon its experience and knowledge regarding commissions generally charged by various brokers and on its judgment in evaluating the brokerage services received from the broker effecting the transaction. Such determinations are necessarily subjective and imprecise, as in most cases, an exact dollar value for those services is not ascertainable. The Trust has adopted policies and procedures that prohibit the consideration of sales of the Fund’s Shares as a factor in the selection of a broker or dealer to execute its portfolio transactions.

The Adviser owes a fiduciary duty to its clients to seek to provide best execution on trades effected. In selecting a broker/dealer for each specific transaction, the Adviser chooses the broker/dealer deemed most capable of providing the services necessary to obtain the most favorable execution. Best execution is generally understood to mean the most favorable cost or net proceeds reasonably obtainable under the circumstances. The full range of brokerage services applicable to a particular transaction may be considered when making this judgment, which may include, but is not limited to: liquidity, price, commission, timing, aggregated trades, capable floor brokers or traders, competent block trading coverage, ability to position, capital strength and stability, reliable and accurate communications and settlement processing, use of automation, knowledge of other buyers or sellers, arbitrage skills, administrative ability, underwriting and provision of information on a particular security or market in which the transaction is to occur. The specific criteria will vary depending upon the nature of the transaction, the market in which it is executed, and the extent to which it is possible to select from among multiple broker/dealers. The Adviser will also use electronic crossing networks when appropriate.

The Adviser does not currently use the Fund’s assets for, or participate in, any third party soft dollar arrangements, although it may receive proprietary research from various full service brokers, the cost of which is bundled with the cost of the broker’s execution services. The Adviser does not “pay up” for the value of any such proprietary research.

The Adviser is responsible, subject to oversight by the Board, for placing orders on behalf of the Fund for the purchase or sale of portfolio securities. If purchases or sales of portfolio securities of the Fund and one or more other investment companies or clients supervised by the Adviser are considered at or about the same time, transactions in such securities are allocated among the several investment companies and clients in a manner deemed equitable and consistent with its fiduciary obligations to all by the Adviser. In some cases, this procedure could have a detrimental effect on the price or volume of the security so far as the Fund is concerned. However, in other cases, it is possible that the ability to participate in volume transactions and to negotiate lower brokerage commissions will be beneficial to the Fund. The primary consideration is prompt execution of orders at the most favorable net price.

The Fund may deal with affiliates in principal transactions to the extent permitted by exemptive order or applicable rule or regulation.

Brokerage with Fund Affiliates. The Fund may execute brokerage or other agency transactions through registered broker-dealer affiliates of the Fund, the Adviser or the Distributor for a commission in conformity with the 1940 Act, the 1934 Act and rules promulgated by the SEC. These rules require that commissions paid to the affiliate by the Fund for exchange transactions not exceed “usual and customary” brokerage commissions. The rules define “usual and customary” commissions to include amounts which are “reasonable and fair compared to the commission, fee or other remuneration received or to be received by other brokers in connection with comparable transactions involving similar securities being purchased or sold on a securities exchange during a comparable period of time.” The Trustees, including the Independent Trustees, have adopted procedures for evaluating the reasonableness of commissions paid to affiliates and review these procedures periodically.

Securities of “Regular Broker-Dealer.” The Fund is required to identify any securities of its “regular brokers and dealers” (as such term is defined in the 1940 Act) which it may hold at the close of its most recent fiscal year. “Regular brokers or dealers” of the Trust are the ten brokers or dealers that, during the most recent fiscal year: (i) received the greatest dollar amounts of brokerage commissions from the Trust’s portfolio transactions; (ii) engaged as principal in the largest dollar amounts of portfolio transactions of the Trust; or (iii) sold the largest dollar amounts of the Trust’s shares. The Fund is new and has no securities of “regular broker dealers” to report.

PORTFOLIO TURNOVER RATE

Portfolio turnover may vary from year to year, as well as within a year. High turnover rates are likely to result in comparatively greater brokerage expenses. The overall reasonableness of brokerage commissions is evaluated by the Adviser based upon its knowledge of available information as to the general level of commissions paid by other institutional investors for comparable services. For the fiscal periods ended November 30, 2016, and 2015 the portfolio turnover rate for the Predecessor Fund was 54% and 23%, respectively.

BOOK ENTRY ONLY SYSTEM

Depositary Trust Company (“DTC”) acts as securities depositary for the Shares. Shares of the Fund are represented by securities registered in the name of DTC or its nominee, Cede & Co., and deposited with, or on behalf of, DTC. Except in limited circumstances set forth below, certificates will not be issued for Shares.

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

Beneficial ownership of Shares is limited to DTC Participants, Indirect Participants, and persons holding interests through DTC Participants and Indirect Participants. Ownership of beneficial interests in Shares (owners of such beneficial interests are referred to herein as “Beneficial Owners”) is shown on, and the transfer of ownership is effected only through, records maintained by DTC (with respect to DTC Participants) and on the records of DTC Participants (with respect to Indirect Participants and Beneficial Owners that are not DTC Participants). Beneficial Owners will receive from or through the DTC Participant a written confirmation relating to their purchase of Shares. The Trust recognizes DTC or its nominee as the record owner of all Shares for all purposes. Beneficial Owners of Shares are not entitled to have Shares registered in their names, and will not receive or be entitled to physical delivery of share certificates. Each Beneficial Owner must rely on the procedures of DTC and any DTC Participant and/or Indirect Participant through which such Beneficial Owner holds its interests, to exercise any rights of a holder of Shares.

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

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

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

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

CONTROL PERSONS AND PRINCIPAL HOLDERS OF SECURITIES

A principal shareholder is any person who owns of record or beneficially 5% or more of the outstanding Shares of the Fund. A control person is a shareholder that owns beneficially or through controlled companies more than 25% of the voting securities of the Fund or acknowledges the existence of control. Shareholders owning voting securities in excess of 25% may determine the outcome of any matter affecting and voted on by shareholders of the Fund.

As September 25, 2017, the name, address and percentage ownership of each entity or person that owned of record or beneficially 5% or more of the outstanding shares of the Predecessor Fund are as follows:

Name and Address	No. of Shares Owned		% of Shares			Type of Ownership
Charles Schwab 211 Main Street San Francisco, CA 94105		124,619		20.77	%		Record
National Financial Services, LLC 200 Liberty Street New York, NY 10281		78,704		13.12	%		Record
Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005		63,491		10.58	%		Record
TD Ameritrade 200 S 108th Ave Omaha, NE 68103		48,221		8.04	%		Record
E*Trade Securities LLC 11 Times Square New York, NY 10036		46,201		7.70	%		Record
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. 4 World Financial Center New York, NY 10080		40,336		6.72	%		Record
Pershing LLC 1 Pershing PL FL 14 Jersey City, NJ 07399		37,510		6.25	%		Record
Raymond James Financial, Inc. 880 Carillon Parkway St. Petersburg, FL 33716		35,500		5.92	%		Record

PURCHASE AND ISSUANCE OF SHARES IN CREATION UNITS

The Trust issues and sells Shares of the Fund only in Creation Units on a continuous basis through the Distributor, without a sales load (but subject to transaction fees), at their NAV per share next determined after receipt of an order, on any Business Day (as defined below), in proper form pursuant to the terms of the Authorized Participant Agreement (“Participant Agreement”). The NAV of the Fund’s Shares is calculated each business day as of the close of regular trading on the Exchange, generally 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time. The Fund will not issue fractional Creation Units. A Business Day is any day on which the Exchange is open for business.

FUND DEPOSIT. The consideration for purchase of a Creation Unit of the Fund generally consists of (i) the in-kind deposit of a designated portfolio of securities (the “Deposit Securities”) per each Creation Unit, and (ii) the Cash Component (defined below), computed as described below. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Trust reserves the right to permit or require the substitution of a “cash in lieu” amount (“Deposit Cash”) to be added to the Cash Component to replace any Deposit Security. When accepting purchases of Creation Units for all or a portion of Deposit Cash, the Fund may incur additional costs associated with the acquisition of Deposit Securities that would otherwise be provided by an in-kind purchaser.

Together, the Deposit Securities or Deposit Cash, as applicable, and the Cash Component constitute the “Fund Deposit,” which represents the minimum initial and subsequent investment amount for a Creation Unit of the Fund. The “Cash Component” is an amount equal to the difference between the net asset value of the Shares (per Creation Unit) and the market value of the Deposit Securities or Deposit Cash, as applicable. If the Cash Component is a positive number (i.e., the net asset value per Creation Unit exceeds the market value of the Deposit Securities or Deposit Cash, as applicable), the Cash Component shall be such positive amount. If the Cash Component is a negative number (i.e., the net asset value per Creation Unit is less than the market value of the Deposit Securities or Deposit Cash, as applicable), the Cash Component shall be such negative amount, and the creator will be entitled to receive cash in an amount equal to the Cash Component. The Cash Component serves the function of compensating for any differences between the net asset value per Creation Unit and the market value of the Deposit Securities or Deposit Cash, as applicable. Computation of the Cash Component excludes any stamp duty or other similar fees and expenses payable upon transfer of beneficial ownership of the Deposit Securities, if applicable, which shall be the sole responsibility of the Authorized Participant.

The Fund, through the National Securities Clearance Corporation (the “NSCC”), makes available on each Business Day, immediately prior to the opening of business on the Exchange (currently 9:30 a.m., Eastern time), the list of the names and the required number of shares of each Deposit Security or the required amount of Deposit Cash, as applicable, to be included in the current Fund Deposit (based on information at the end of the previous Business Day) for the Fund. Such Fund Deposit is subject to any applicable adjustments as described below, in order to effect purchases of Creation Units of the Fund until such time as the next-announced composition of the Deposit Securities or the required amount of Deposit Cash, as applicable, is made available.

The identity and number of shares of the Deposit Securities or the amount of Deposit Cash, as applicable, required for the Fund Deposit for the Fund changes as rebalancing adjustments and corporate action events are reflected from time to time by the Adviser with a view to the investment objective of the Fund. The composition of the Deposit Securities may also change in response to adjustments to the weighting or composition of the component securities of the Fund’s Benchmark.

The Trust reserves the right to permit or require the substitution of Deposit Cash in situations where a Deposit Security: (i) may not be available in sufficient quantity for delivery; (ii) may not be eligible for transfer through the systems of DTC for corporate securities and municipal securities; (iii) may not be eligible for trading by an Authorized Participant or the investor for which it is acting; (iv) 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 (v) in certain other situations. The Trust also reserves the right to include or remove Deposit Securities from the basket in anticipation of Benchmark rebalancing changes. The adjustments described above will reflect changes, known to the Adviser on the date of announcement to be in effect by the time of delivery of the Fund Deposit, in the composition of the subject Benchmark being tracked by the applicable Fund or resulting from certain corporate actions.

PROCEDURES FOR PURCHASE OF CREATION UNITS. To be an Authorized Participant eligible to place orders with the Distributor to purchase a Creation Unit of the Fund, an entity must be a “Participating Party”, i.e., a broker-dealer or other participant in the clearing process through the Continuous Net Settlement System of the NSCC (the “Clearing Process”), a clearing agency that is registered with the SEC, or a DTC Participant (see “BOOK ENTRY ONLY SYSTEM”). In addition, each Authorized Participant must execute a Participant Agreement that has been agreed to by the Distributor, and that has been accepted by the Transfer Agent, with respect to purchases and redemptions of Creation Units. Each Authorized Participant will agree, pursuant to the terms of a Participant Agreement, on behalf of itself or any investor on whose behalf it will act, to certain conditions, including that it will pay to the Trust an amount of cash sufficient to pay the Cash Component together with the Creation Transaction Fee (defined below) and any other applicable fees and taxes. The Adviser may retain all or a portion of the Creation Transaction Fee to the extent the Adviser bears the expenses that otherwise would be borne by the Trust in connection with the purchase of a Creation Unit, which the Creation Transaction Fee is designed to cover.

All orders to purchase Shares directly from the Fund must be placed for one or more Creation Units and in the manner and by the time set forth in the Participant Agreement and/or applicable order form. The date on which an order to purchase Creation Units (or an order to redeem Creation Units, as set forth below) is received and accepted is referred to as the “Order Placement Date.”

An Authorized Participant may require an investor to make certain representations or enter into agreements with respect to the order, (e.g., to provide for payments of cash, when required). Investors should be aware that their particular broker may not have executed a Participant Agreement and that, therefore, orders to purchase Shares directly from the Fund in Creation Units have to be placed by the investor’s broker through an Authorized Participant that has executed a Participant Agreement. In such cases there may be additional charges to such investor. At any given time, there may be only a limited number of broker-dealers that have executed a Participant Agreement and only a small number of such Authorized Participants may have international capabilities.

On days when the Exchange closes earlier than normal, the Fund may require orders to create Creation Units to be placed earlier in the day. In addition, if a market or markets on which the Fund’s investments are primarily traded is closed, the Fund will also generally not accept orders on such day(s). Orders must be transmitted by an Authorized Participant by use of the Distributor’s electronic order entry system, telephone or other transmission method acceptable to the Distributor pursuant to procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement and in accordance with the applicable order form. With respect to the applicable Fund, the Distributor will notify the Custodian of such order. The Custodian will then provide such information to the appropriate local sub-custodian(s). Those placing orders through an Authorized Participant should allow sufficient time to permit proper submission of the purchase order to the Distributor by the cut-off time on such Business Day. Economic or market disruptions or changes, or telephone or other communication failure may impede the ability to reach the Distributor or an Authorized Participant.

Fund Deposits must be delivered by an Authorized Participant through the Federal Reserve System (for cash) or through DTC (for corporate securities) and/or through such other arrangements allowed by the Trust or its agents. With respect to foreign Deposit Securities, the Custodian shall cause the sub-custodian of the applicable Fund to maintain an account into which the Authorized Participant shall deliver, on behalf of itself or the party on whose behalf it is acting, such Deposit Securities (or Deposit Cash for all or a part of such securities, as permitted or required), with any appropriate adjustments as advised by the Trust. Foreign Deposit Securities must be delivered to an account maintained at the applicable local sub-custodian. The Fund Deposit transfer must be ordered by the Authorized Participant in a timely fashion so as to ensure the delivery of the requisite number of Deposit Securities or Deposit Cash, as applicable, to the account of the Fund or its agents by no later than the Settlement Date. The “Settlement Date” for the Fund is generally the third Business Day after the Order Placement Date. All questions as to the number of Deposit Securities or Deposit Cash to be delivered, as applicable, and the validity, form and eligibility (including time of receipt) for the deposit of any tendered securities or cash, as applicable, will be determined by the Trust, whose determination shall be final and binding. The amount of cash represented by the Cash Component must be transferred directly to the Custodian through the Federal Reserve Bank wire transfer system or through DTC in a timely manner so as to be received by the Custodian no later than the Settlement Date. If the Cash Component and the Deposit Securities or Deposit Cash, as applicable, are not received by the Custodian in a timely manner by the Settlement Date, the creation order may be cancelled. Upon written notice to the Distributor, such canceled order may be resubmitted the following Business Day using the Fund Deposit as newly constituted to reflect the then current NAV of the applicable Fund.

An order shall be deemed to be received on the Business Day on which the order is placed, provided that the order is placed in proper form prior to the applicable cut-off time and federal funds in the appropriate amount are deposited by 2:00 p.m. or 3:00 p.m. Eastern time (as set forth on the applicable order form), with the Custodian on the Settlement Date. If the order is not placed in proper form as required, or federal funds in the appropriate amount are not received by 2:00 p.m. or 3:00 p.m. Eastern time (as set forth on the applicable order form) on the Settlement Date, then the order may be deemed to be rejected, and the Authorized Participant shall be liable to the applicable Fund for losses, if any, resulting therefrom. A creation request is considered to be in “proper form” if all procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement, order form and this SAI are properly followed.

ISSUANCE OF A CREATION UNIT. Except as provided herein, Creation Units will not be issued until the transfer of good title to the Trust of the Deposit Securities or payment of Deposit Cash, as applicable, and the payment of the Cash Component have been completed. When the sub-custodian has confirmed to the Custodian that the required Deposit Securities (or the cash value thereof) have been delivered to the account of the relevant sub-custodian or sub-custodians, the Distributor and the Adviser shall be notified of such delivery, and the Trust will issue and cause the delivery of the Creation Units. The delivery of Creation Units so created generally will occur no later than the third Business Day following the day on which the purchase order is deemed received by the Distributor. The Authorized Participant shall be liable to the applicable Fund for losses, if any, resulting from unsettled orders.

Creation Units may be purchased 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 in proper form since, in addition to available Deposit Securities, cash must be deposited in an amount equal to the sum of (i) the Cash Component, plus (ii) an additional amount of cash equal to a percentage of the market value, as set forth in the Participant Agreement, of the undelivered Deposit Securities (the “Additional Cash Deposit”), which shall be maintained in a separate non-interest bearing collateral account. An additional amount of cash shall be required to be deposited with the Trust, 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 the applicable percentage, as set forth in the Participant Agreement, of the daily marked-to-market value of the missing Deposit Securities. The Participant Agreement will permit the Trust to buy the missing Deposit Securities at any time. Authorized Participants 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 day the purchase order was deemed received by the Distributor, 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 Custodian or purchased by the Trust and deposited into the Trust. In addition, a transaction fee as set forth below under “Creation Transaction Fee” will be charged in all cases. The delivery of Creation Units so created generally will occur no later than the Settlement Date.

ACCEPTANCE OF ORDERS OF CREATION UNITS. The Trust reserves the absolute right to reject an order for Creation Units transmitted to it by the Distributor in respect of the Fund including, without limitation, if (a) the order is not in proper form; (b) the Deposit Securities or Deposit Cash, as applicable, delivered by the Authorized Participant are not as disseminated through the facilities of the NSCC for that date by the Custodian; (c) the investor(s), upon obtaining the Shares ordered, would own 80% or more of the currently outstanding Shares of the Fund; (d) acceptance of the Deposit Securities would have certain adverse tax consequences to the Fund; (e) the acceptance of the Fund Deposit would, in the opinion of counsel, be unlawful; (f) the acceptance of the Fund Deposit would otherwise, in the discretion of the Trust or the Adviser, have an adverse effect on the Trust or the rights of beneficial owners; (g) the acceptance or receipt of the order for a Creation Unit would, in the opinion of counsel to the Trust, be unlawful; or (h) in the event that circumstances outside the control of the Trust, the Custodian, the Transfer Agent, the Distributor and/or the Adviser make it for all practical purposes not feasible to process orders for Creation Units.

Examples of such circumstances include acts of God or 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, the Distributor, the Custodian, a sub-custodian, the Transfer Agent, DTC, NSCC, Federal Reserve System, or any other participant in the creation process, and other 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, the Transfer Agent, the Custodian, any 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. The Trust, the Transfer Agent, the Custodian and the Distributor shall not be liable for the rejection of any purchase order for Creation Units.

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

CREATION TRANSACTION FEE. A purchase (i.e., creation) transaction fee is imposed for the transfer and other transaction costs associated with the purchase of Creation Units (the “Creation Transaction Fee”), and investors will be required to pay a Creation Transaction Fee regardless of the number of Creation Units created in the transaction. The Fund may adjust the Creation Transaction Fee from time to time based upon actual experience. The standard fixed Creation Transaction Fee for the Fund will be $500. Investors who use the services of a broker or other such intermediary may be charged a fee for such services. Investors are responsible for the fixed costs of transferring the securities constituting the Deposit Securities to the account of the Trust.

RISKS OF PURCHASING CREATION UNITS. There are certain legal risks unique to investors purchasing Creation Units directly from the Fund. Because the Fund’s Shares may be issued on an ongoing basis, a “distribution” of Shares could be occurring at any time. Certain activities that a shareholder performs as a dealer could, depending on the circumstances, result in the shareholder being deemed a participant in the distribution in a manner that could render the shareholder a statutory underwriter and subject to the prospectus delivery and liability provisions of the Securities Act. For example, a shareholder could be deemed a statutory underwriter if it purchases Creation Units from the Fund, breaks them down into the constituent Shares, and sells those Shares directly to customers, or if a shareholder chooses to couple the creation of a supply of new Shares with an active selling effort involving solicitation of secondary-market demand for Shares. Whether a person is an underwriter depends upon all of the facts and circumstances pertaining to that person’s activities, and the examples mentioned here should not be considered a complete description of all the activities that could cause you to be deemed an underwriter.

Dealers who are not “underwriters” but are participating in a distribution (as opposed to engaging in ordinary secondary-market transactions), and thus dealing with the Fund’s Shares as part of an “unsold allotment” within the meaning of Section 4(3)(C) of the Securities Act, will be unable to take advantage of the prospectus delivery exemption provided by Section 4(3) of the Securities Act.

REDEMPTION. Shares may be redeemed only in Creation Units at their NAV next determined after receipt of a redemption request in proper form by the applicable Fund through the Distributor, and only on a Business Day. EXCEPT UPON LIQUIDATION OF THE FUND, THE TRUST WILL NOT REDEEM SHARES IN AMOUNTS LESS THAN CREATION UNITS.

Investors must accumulate enough Shares in the secondary market to constitute a Creation Unit in order to have such Shares redeemed by the Trust. There can be no assurance, however, that there will be sufficient liquidity in the public trading market at any time to permit assembly of a Creation Unit. Investors should expect to incur brokerage and other costs in connection with assembling a sufficient number of Shares to constitute a redeemable Creation Unit.

With respect to the Fund, the Custodian, through the NSCC, makes available immediately prior to the opening of business on the Exchange (currently 9:30 a.m. Eastern time) on each Business Day, the list of the names and share quantities of the Fund’s portfolio securities that will be applicable (subject to possible amendment or correction) to redemption requests received in proper form (as defined below) on that day (“Fund Securities”). Fund Securities received on redemption may not be identical to Deposit Securities.

Redemption proceeds for a Creation Unit are paid either in-kind or in cash, or combination thereof, as determined by the Trust. With respect to in-kind redemptions of the Fund, redemption proceeds for a Creation Unit will consist of Fund Securities, as announced by the Custodian on the Business Day of the request for redemption received in proper form, plus cash in an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares being redeemed, as next determined after a receipt of a request in proper form, and the value of the Fund Securities (the “Cash Redemption Amount”), less a fixed redemption transaction fee, as set forth below. In the event that the Fund Securities have a value greater than the NAV of the Shares, a compensating cash payment equal to the differential is required to be made by or through an Authorized Participant by the redeeming shareholder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, at the Trust’s discretion, an Authorized Participant may receive the corresponding cash value of the securities in lieu of the in-kind securities value representing one or more Fund Securities.

REDEMPTION TRANSACTION FEE. A redemption transaction fee is imposed for the transfer and other transaction costs associated with the redemption of Creation Units, and investors will be required to pay a fixed redemption transaction fee regardless of the number of Creation Units created in the transaction. The redemption transaction fee is the same no matter how many Creation Units are being redeemed pursuant to any one redemption request. The Fund may adjust the redemption transaction fee from time to time based upon actual experience. The standard fixed redemption transaction fee for the Fund will be $500. Investors who use the services of a broker or other such intermediary may be charged a fee for such services. Investors are responsible for the fixed costs of transferring the Fund Securities from the Trust to their account or on their order.

PROCEDURES FOR REDEMPTION OF CREATION UNITS. Orders to redeem Creation Units must be submitted in proper form to the Distributor prior to the time as set forth in the Participant Agreement. A redemption request is considered to be in “proper form” if (i) an Authorized Participant has transferred or caused to be transferred to the Transfer Agent the Creation Unit(s) being redeemed through the book-entry system of DTC so as to be effective by the time as set forth in the Participant Agreement and (ii) a request in form satisfactory to the Trust is received by the Distributor from the Authorized Participant on behalf of itself or another redeeming investor within the time periods specified in the Participant Agreement, or order form, as the case may be. If the Transfer Agent does not receive the investor’s Shares through DTC’s facilities by the times and pursuant to the other terms and conditions set forth in the Participant Agreement, the redemption request shall be rejected.

The Authorized Participant must transmit the request for redemption, in the form required by the Trust, to the Distributor in accordance with procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement. Investors should be aware that their particular broker may not have executed a Participant Agreement, and that, therefore, requests to redeem Creation Units may have to be placed by the investor’s broker through an Authorized Participant who has executed a Participant Agreement. Investors making a redemption request should be aware that such request must be in the form specified by such Authorized Participant. Investors making a request to redeem Creation Units should allow sufficient time to permit proper submission of the request by an Authorized Participant and transfer of the Shares to the Transfer Agent; such investors should allow for the additional time that may be required to effect redemptions through their banks, brokers or other financial intermediaries if such intermediaries are not Authorized Participants.

ADDITIONAL REDEMPTION PROCEDURES. In connection with taking delivery of Fund Securities upon redemption of Creation Units, the Authorized Participant must maintain appropriate custody arrangements with a qualified broker-dealer, bank or other custody providers in each jurisdiction in which any of the Fund Securities are customarily traded, to which account such Fund Securities will be delivered. Deliveries of redemption proceeds generally will be made within three business days of the trade date.

The Fund may, in its 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 net asset value.

Redemptions of Shares for Fund Securities will be subject to compliance with applicable federal and state securities laws and the Fund (whether or not it otherwise permits cash redemptions) reserves 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. An Authorized Participant or an investor for which it is acting subject to a legal restriction with respect to a particular security included in the Fund Securities applicable to the redemption of Creation Units may be paid an equivalent amount of cash. The Authorized Participant may request the redeeming investor of the Shares to complete an order form or to enter into agreements with respect to such matters as compensating cash payment. Further, an Authorized Participant that is not a “qualified institutional buyer” (“QIB”), as such term is defined under Rule 144A of the Securities Act, will not be able to receive Fund Securities that are restricted securities eligible for resale under Rule 144A. An Authorized Participant may be required by the Trust to provide a written confirmation with respect to QIB status in order to receive Fund Securities.

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

REQUIRED EARLY ACCEPTANCE OF ORDERS. Notwithstanding the foregoing, as described in the Participant Agreement and/or applicable order form, the Fund may require orders to be placed up to one or more Business Days prior to the trade date, as described in the Participant Agreement or the applicable order form, in order to receive the trade date’s NAV. Authorized Participants may be notified that the cut-off time for an order may be earlier on a particular business day, as described in the Participant Agreement and the order form.

DETERMINATION OF NET ASSET VALUE

NAV per Share for the Fund is computed by dividing the value of the net assets of the Fund (i.e., the value of its total assets less total liabilities) by the total number of Shares outstanding, rounded to the nearest cent. Expenses and fees, including the management fees, are accrued daily and taken into account for purposes of determining NAV. The NAV of the Fund is calculated by the Custodian and determined at the close of the regular trading session on the Exchange (ordinarily 4:00 p.m. Eastern time) on each day that such exchange is open, provided that fixed income assets may be valued as of the announced closing time for trading in fixed income instruments on any day that the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”) announces an early closing time.

In calculating the Fund’s NAV per Share, the Fund’s investments are generally valued using market valuations. A market valuation generally means a valuation (i) obtained from an exchange, a pricing service, or a major market maker (or dealer), (ii) based on a price quotation or other equivalent indication of value supplied by an exchange, a pricing service, or a major market maker (or dealer) or (iii) based on amortized cost. In the case of shares of other funds that are not traded on an exchange, a market valuation means such fund’s published NAV per share. The Adviser may use various pricing services, or discontinue the use of any pricing service, as approved by the Board from time to time. A price obtained from a pricing service based on such pricing service’s valuation matrix may be considered a market valuation. Any assets or liabilities denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar are converted into U.S. dollars at the current market rates on the date of valuation as quoted by one or more sources.

In the event that current market valuations are not readily available or such valuations do not reflect current market value, the Trust’s procedures require the Valuation Committee to determine a security’s fair value if a market price is not readily available. In determining such value, the Valuation Committee may consider, among other things, (i) price comparisons among multiple sources, (ii) a review of corporate actions and news events, and (iii) a review of relevant financial indicators (e.g., movement in interest rates, market indices, and prices from the Fund’s Benchmark provider). In these cases, the Fund’s NAV may reflect certain portfolio securities’ fair values rather than their market prices. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments, and it is possible that the fair value determination for a security is materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of the security. In addition, fair value pricing could result in a difference between the prices used to calculate the Fund’s NAV and the prices used by the Fund’s Benchmark. This may result in a difference between the Fund’s performance and the performance of the Fund’s Benchmark.

DIVIDENDS AND DISTRIBUTIONS

The following information supplements and should be read in conjunction with the section in the Prospectus entitled “Dividends, Distributions and Taxes.”

General Policies. Dividends from net investment income, if any, are declared and paid quarterly by the Fund. Distributions of net realized securities gains, if any, generally are declared and paid once a year, but the Fund may make distributions on a more frequent basis in a manner consistent with the provisions of the 1940 Act.

Dividends and other distributions on Shares are distributed, as described below, on a pro rata basis to Beneficial Owners of such Shares. Dividend payments are made through DTC Participants and Indirect Participants to Beneficial Owners then of record with proceeds received from the applicable Fund.

The Fund may make additional distributions to the extent necessary (i) to distribute the entire annual taxable income of the Fund, plus any net capital gains and (ii) to avoid imposition of the excise tax imposed by Section 4982 of the Code.

Management of the Trust reserves the right to declare special dividends if, in its reasonable discretion, such action is necessary or advisable to preserve the status of the Fund as a regulated investment company or to avoid imposition of income or excise taxes on undistributed income.

Dividend Reinvestment Service. The Trust will not make the DTC book-entry dividend reinvestment service available for use by Beneficial Owners for reinvestment of their cash proceeds, but certain individual broker-dealers may make available the DTC book-entry Dividend Reinvestment Service for use by Beneficial Owners of the Fund through DTC Participants for reinvestment of their dividend distributions. Investors should contact their brokers to ascertain the availability and description of these services. Beneficial Owners should be aware that each broker may require investors to adhere to specific procedures and timetables in order to participate in the dividend reinvestment service, and investors should ascertain from their brokers such necessary details. If this service is available and used, dividend distributions of both income and realized gains will be automatically reinvested in additional whole Shares issued by the Trust of the applicable Fund at NAV per share. Distributions reinvested in additional Shares of the Fund will nevertheless be taxable to Beneficial Owners acquiring such additional Shares to the same extent as if such distributions had been received in cash.

FEDERAL INCOME TAXES

The following is only a summary of certain U.S. federal income tax considerations generally affecting the Fund and its shareholders that supplements the discussion in the Prospectus. No attempt is made to present a comprehensive explanation of the federal, state, local or foreign tax treatment of the Fund or its shareholders, and the discussion here and in the Prospectus is not intended to be a substitute for careful tax planning.

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

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

Taxation of the Fund. The Fund has elected and intends to continue to qualify each year to be treated as a separate RIC under the Code. As such, the Fund should not be subject to federal income taxes on its net investment income and capital gains, if any, to the extent that it timely distributes such income and capital gains to its shareholders. To qualify for treatment as a RIC, the Fund must distribute annually to its shareholders at least the sum of 90% of its net investment income (generally including the excess of net short-term capital gains over net long-term capital losses) and 90% of its net tax-exempt interest income, if any (the “Distribution Requirement”) and also must meet several additional requirements. Among these requirements are the following: (i) at least 90% of the Fund’s gross income each taxable year must be derived from dividends, interest, payments with respect to certain securities loans, 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, securities or foreign currencies and net income derived from interests in qualified publicly traded partnerships (the “Qualifying Income Requirement”); and (ii) at the end of each quarter of the Fund’s taxable year, the Fund’s assets must be diversified so that (a) at least 50% of the value of the Fund’s total assets is represented by cash and cash items, U.S. government securities, securities of other RICs, and other securities, with such other securities limited, in respect to any one issuer, to an amount not greater in value than 5% of the value of the Fund’s total assets and to not more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of such issuer, and (b) not more than 25% of the value of its total assets is invested in the securities (other than U.S. government securities or securities of other RICs) of any one issuer, the securities (other than securities of other RICs) of two or more issuers which the Fund controls and which are engaged in the same, similar, or related trades or businesses, or the securities of one or more qualified publicly traded partnerships (the “Diversification Requirement”).

To the extent the Fund makes investments that may generate income that is not qualifying income, the Fund will seek to restrict the resulting income from such investments so that the Fund’s non-qualifying income does not exceed 10% of its gross income.

The Fund similarly intends to limit its investments in qualified publicly traded partnerships (“QPTPs”), such as MLPs, to no more than 25% of its total assets to satisfy the Diversification Requirement. Although net income from QPTPs is qualifying income, if an entity intending to qualify as a QPTP fails to qualify as a QPTP, the income generated from the Fund’s investment in the entity may not be qualifying income. There can be no guarantee that any entity will be successful in qualifying as a QPTP. In addition, there is little regulatory guidance concerning the application of the rules governing qualification as a QPTP, and it is possible that future guidance may adversely affect the qualification of entities as QPTPs.

Although the Fund intends to distribute substantially all of its net investment income and may distribute its capital gains for any taxable year, the Fund will be subject to federal income taxation to the extent any such income or gains are not distributed. The Fund is treated as a separate corporation for federal income tax purposes. The Fund therefore is considered to be a separate entity in determining its treatment under the rules for RICs described herein.

If the Fund fails to satisfy the Qualifying Income Requirement or the Diversification Requirement in any taxable year, the Fund may be eligible for relief provisions if the failures are due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect and if a penalty tax is paid with respect to each failure to satisfy the applicable requirements. Additionally, relief is provided for certain de minimis failures of the Diversification Requirement where the Fund corrects the failure within a specified period of time. To be eligible for the relief provisions with respect to a failure to meet the Diversification Requirement, the Fund may be required to dispose of certain assets. If these relief provisions were not available to the Fund and it were to fail to qualify for treatment as a RIC for a taxable year, all of its taxable income would be subject to tax at regular corporate rates without any deduction for distributions to shareholders, and its distributions (including capital gains distributions) generally would be taxable to the shareholders of the Fund as ordinary income dividends, subject to the dividends-received deduction for corporate shareholders and the lower tax rates on qualified dividend income received by noncorporate shareholders, subject to certain limitations. To requalify for treatment as a RIC in a subsequent taxable year, the Fund would be required to satisfy the RIC qualification requirements for that year and to distribute any earnings and profits from any year in which the Fund failed to qualify for tax treatment as a RIC. If the Fund failed to qualify as a RIC for a period greater than two taxable years, it would generally be required to pay the Fund-level tax on certain net built in gains recognized with respect to certain of its assets upon a disposition of such assets within five years of qualifying as a RIC in a subsequent year. The Board reserves the right not to maintain the qualification of the Fund for treatment as a RIC if it determines such course of action to be beneficial to shareholders. If the Fund determines that it will not qualify as a RIC, the Fund will establish procedures to reflect the anticipated tax liability in the Fund’s NAV.

The Fund may elect to treat part or all of any “qualified late year loss” as if it had been incurred in the succeeding taxable year in determining the Fund’s taxable income, net capital gain, net short-term capital gain, and earnings and profits. The effect of this election is to treat any such “qualified late year loss” as if it had been incurred in the succeeding taxable year in characterizing Fund distributions for any calendar year. A “qualified late year loss” generally includes net capital loss, net long-term capital loss, or net short-term capital loss incurred after October 31 of the current taxable year (commonly referred to as “post-October losses”) and certain other late-year losses.

Capital losses in excess of capital gains (“net capital losses”) are not permitted to be deducted against a RIC’s net investment income. Instead, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, potentially subject to certain limitations, the Fund may carry a net capital loss from any taxable year forward indefinitely to offset its capital gains, if any, in years following the year of the loss. To the extent subsequent capital gains are offset by such losses, they will not result in U.S. federal income tax liability to the Fund and may not be distributed as capital gains to its shareholders. Generally, the Fund may not carry forward any losses other than net capital losses. The carryover of capital losses may be limited under the general loss limitation rules if the Fund experiences an ownership change as defined in the Code.

As of November 30, 2016, the Predecessor Fund had a short-term capital loss carryforwards in the amount of $225,490, which were not subject to expiration. Following the reorganization of the Predecessor Fund into the Fund, any capital loss carryforwards of the Predecessor Fund as of the closing of the Reorganization will be available to the Fund (subject to certain limitations contained in the Code.)

The Fund will be subject to a nondeductible 4% federal excise tax on certain undistributed income if it does not distribute to its shareholders in each calendar year an amount at least equal to 98% of its ordinary income for the calendar year plus 98.2% of its capital gain net income for the one-year period ending on October 31 of that year, subject to an increase for any shortfall in the prior year’s distribution. The Fund intends to declare and distribute dividends and distributions in the amounts and at the times necessary to avoid the application of the excise tax, but can make no assurances that all such tax liability will be eliminated.

If the Fund meets the Distribution Requirement but retains some or all of its income or gains, it will be subject to federal income tax to the extent any such income or gains are not distributed. The Fund may designate certain amounts retained as undistributed net capital gain in a notice to its shareholders, who (i) will be required to include in income for U.S. federal income tax purposes, as long-term capital gain, their proportionate shares of the undistributed amount so designated, (ii) will be entitled to credit their proportionate shares of the income tax paid by the Fund on that undistributed amount against their federal income tax liabilities and to claim refunds to the extent such credits exceed their tax liabilities, and (iii) will be entitled to increase their tax basis, for federal income tax purposes, in their Shares in the Fund by an amount equal to the excess of the amount of undistributed net capital gain included in their respective income over their respective income tax credits.

Taxation of Shareholders – Distributions. The Fund intends to distribute annually to its shareholders substantially all of its investment company taxable income (computed without regard to the deduction for dividends paid), its net tax-exempt income, if any, and any net capital gain (net recognized long-term capital gains in excess of net recognized short-term capital losses, taking into account any available capital loss carryforwards). The distribution of investment company taxable income (as so computed) and net capital gain will be taxable to Fund shareholders regardless of whether the shareholder receives these distributions in cash or reinvests them in additional Shares.

The Fund (or your broker) will report to shareholders annually the amounts of dividends paid from ordinary income, the amount of distributions of net capital gain, the portion of dividends which may qualify for the dividends-received deduction for corporations, and the portion of dividends which may qualify for treatment as qualified dividend income, which is taxable to noncorporate shareholders at rates of up to 20%. It is not expected that dividends paid by the Fund will qualify for the dividends-received deduction for corporations. It is also not expected that the dividends paid by the Fund will qualify for any favorable U.S. federal income tax rate available to noncorporate shareholders on “qualified dividend income.”

Qualified dividend income includes, in general, subject to certain holding period and other requirements, dividend income from taxable domestic corporations and certain foreign corporations. Subject to certain limitations, eligible foreign corporations include those incorporated in possessions of the United States, those incorporated in certain countries with comprehensive income tax treaties with the United States, and other foreign corporations if the stock with respect to which the dividends are paid is readily tradable on an established securities market in the United States. Dividends received by the Fund from an ETF or an underlying fund taxable as a RIC or a REIT may be treated as qualified dividend income generally only to the extent so reported by such ETF, underlying fund or REIT. If 95% or more of the Fund’s gross income (calculated without taking into account net capital gain derived from sales or other dispositions of stock or securities) consists of qualified dividend income, the Fund may report all distributions of such income as qualified dividend income.

Fund dividends will not be treated as qualified dividend income if the Fund does not meet holding period and other requirements with respect to dividend paying stocks in its portfolio, and the shareholder does not meet holding period and other requirements with respect to the Fund Shares on which the dividends were paid. Distributions by the Fund of their net short-term capital gains will be taxable as ordinary income. Distributions from the Fund’s net capital gain will be taxable to shareholders at long-term capital gains rates, regardless of how long shareholders have held their Shares. Distributions may be subject to state and local taxes.

In the case of corporate shareholders, certain dividends received by the Fund from U.S. corporations (generally, dividends received by the Fund in respect of any share of stock (1) with a tax holding period of at least 46 days during the 91-day period beginning on the date that is 45 days before the date on which the stock becomes ex-dividend as to that dividend and (2) that is held in an unleveraged position) and distributed and appropriately so reported by the Fund may be eligible for the 70% dividends-received deduction. Certain preferred stock must have a holding period of at least 91 days during the 181-day period beginning on the date that is 90 days before the date on which the stock becomes ex-dividend as to that dividend in order to be eligible. Capital gain dividends distributed to the Fund from other RICs are not eligible for the dividends-received deduction. In order to qualify for the deduction, corporate shareholders must meet the minimum holding period requirement stated above with respect to their Shares, taking into account any holding period reductions from certain hedging or other transactions or positions that diminish their risk of loss with respect to their Shares, and, if they borrow to acquire or otherwise incur debt attributable to Shares, they may be denied a portion of the dividends-received deduction with respect to those Shares.

Although dividends generally will be treated as distributed when paid, any dividend declared by the Fund in October, November or December and payable to shareholders of record in such a month that is paid during the following January will be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as received by shareholders on December 31 of the calendar year in which it was declared.

U.S. individuals with adjusted gross income (subject to certain adjustments) exceeding certain threshold amounts ($250,000 if married filing jointly or if considered a “surviving spouse” for federal income tax purposes, $125,000 if married filing separately, and $200,000 in other cases) are subject to a 3.8% Medicare contribution tax on all or a portion of their “net investment income,” which includes taxable interest, dividends, and certain capital gains (generally including capital gain distributions and capital gains realized on the sale of Shares). This 3.8% tax also applies to all or a portion of the undistributed net investment income of certain shareholders that are estates and trusts.

Shareholders who have not held Shares for a full year should be aware that the Fund may report and distribute, as ordinary dividends or capital gain dividends, a percentage of income that is not equal to the percentage of the Fund’s ordinary income or net capital gain, respectively, actually earned during the applicable shareholder’s period of investment in the Fund. A taxable shareholder may wish to avoid investing in the Fund shortly before a dividend or other distribution, because the distribution will generally be taxable even though it may economically represent a return of a portion of the shareholder’s investment.

To the extent that the Fund makes a distribution of income received by the Fund in lieu of dividends (a “substitute payment”) with respect to securities on loan pursuant to a securities lending transaction, such income will not constitute qualified dividend income to noncorporate shareholders and will not be eligible for the dividends received deduction for corporate shareholders.

If the Fund’s distributions exceed its earnings and profits, all or a portion of the distributions made for a taxable year may be recharacterized as a return of capital to shareholders. A return of capital distribution will generally not be taxable, but will reduce each shareholder’s cost basis in the Fund and result in a higher capital gain or lower capital loss when the Shares on which the distribution was received are sold. After a shareholder’s basis in the Shares has been reduced to zero, distributions in excess of earnings and profits will be treated as gain from the sale of the shareholder’s Shares.

Taxation of Shareholders – Sale of Shares. A sale, redemption or exchange of Shares 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 generally be treated as short-term capital gain or loss. Any loss realized upon a taxable disposition of Shares held for six months or less will be treated as long-term capital loss, rather than short-term capital loss, to the extent of any amounts treated as distributions to the shareholder of long-term capital gain (including any amounts credited to the shareholder as undistributed capital gains). All or a portion of any loss realized upon a taxable disposition of shares may be disallowed if shares of the Fund or other substantially identical stock or securities are acquired (through the reinvestment of dividends or otherwise) within a 61-day period beginning 30 days before and ending 30 days after the disposition. In such a case, the basis of the newly acquired securities will be adjusted to reflect the disallowed loss. Shareholders may be limited in their ability to utilize capital losses.

The cost basis of Shares acquired by purchase will generally be based on the amount paid for the Shares and then may be subsequently adjusted for other applicable transactions as required by the Code. The difference between the selling price and the cost basis of Shares generally determines the amount of the capital gain or loss realized on the sale or exchange of Shares. Contact the broker through whom you purchased your Shares to obtain information with respect to the available cost basis reporting methods and elections for your account.

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 (the “IRS”), however, may assert that an Authorized Participant who does not mark-to-market its portfolio upon an exchange of securities for Creation Units cannot currently deduct a loss 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 generally be treated as short-term capital gains or losses. Any loss upon a redemption of Creation Units held for six months or less will be treated as long-term capital loss to the extent of any amounts treated as distributions to the applicable Authorized Participant of long-term capital gain with respect to the Creation Units (including any amounts credited to the Authorized Participant as undistributed capital gains).

The Trust, on behalf of the Fund, has the right to reject an order for Creation Units if the purchaser (or a group of purchasers) would, upon obtaining the Creation Units so ordered, own 80% or more of the outstanding Shares and if, pursuant to Section 351 of the Code, the Fund would have a basis in the deposit securities different from the market value of such securities on the date of deposit. The Trust, on behalf of the Fund, has the right to reject an order for Creation Units if the purchaser (or a group of purchasers) would, upon obtaining the Creation Units so ordered, own 80% or more of the outstanding Shares and if, pursuant to Section 351 of the Code, the Fund would have a basis in the deposit securities different from the market value of such securities on the date of deposit. If the Fund’s basis in such securities on the date of deposit was less than market value on such date, the Fund upon disposition of the securities would recognize more taxable gain or less taxable loss than if the basis had been equal to market value. The Trust also has the right to require the provision of information necessary to determine beneficial Share ownership for purposes of the 80% determination.

Persons purchasing or redeeming Creation Units should consult their own tax advisers with respect to the tax treatment of any creation or redemption transaction.

Foreign Investments. Dividends and interest received by the Fund from sources within foreign countries may be subject to withholding and other taxes imposed by such countries. Tax treaties between certain countries and the U.S. may reduce or eliminate such taxes. The Fund does not expect to satisfy the requirements for passing through to its shareholders any share of foreign taxes paid by the Fund, with the result that shareholders will not include such taxes in their gross incomes and will not be entitled to a tax deduction or credit for such taxes on their own tax returns.

Backup Withholding. The Fund will be required in certain cases to withhold (as “backup withholding”) on amounts payable to any shareholder who (1) fails to provide a correct taxpayer identification number certified under penalty of perjury; (2) is subject to backup withholding by the IRS for failure to properly report all payments of interest or dividends; (3) fails to provide a certified statement that he, she or it is not subject to “backup withholding;” or (4) fails to provide a certified statement that he, she or it is a U.S. person (including a U.S. resident alien). The backup withholding rate is 28%. Backup withholding is not an additional tax and any amounts withheld may be credited against the shareholder’s ultimate U.S. tax liability. Backup withholding will not be applied to payments that have been subject to the 30% withholding tax on shareholders who are neither citizens nor permanent residents of the U.S.

Foreign Shareholders. Any non-U.S. investors in the Fund may be subject to U.S. withholding and estate tax and are encouraged to consult their tax advisors prior to investing in the Fund. 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 taxable ordinary income. The Fund may, under certain circumstances, report all or a portion of a dividend as an “interest-related dividend” or a “short-term capital gain dividend,” which would generally be exempt from this 30% U.S. withholding tax, provided certain other requirements are met. Short-term capital gain dividends received by a nonresident alien individual who is present in the U.S. for a period or periods aggregating 183 days or more during the taxable year are not exempt from this 30% withholding tax. Gains realized by foreign shareholders from the sale or other disposition of shares of the Fund generally are not subject to U.S. taxation, unless the recipient is an individual who is physically present in the U.S. for 183 days or more per year. Foreign shareholders who fail to provide an applicable IRS form may be subject to backup withholding on certain payments from the Fund. Backup withholding will not be applied to payments that are subject to the 30% (or lower applicable treaty rate) withholding tax described in this paragraph. 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.

Unless certain non-U.S. entities that hold Shares comply with IRS requirements that will generally require them to report information regarding U.S. persons investing in, or holding accounts with, such entities, a 30% withholding tax may apply to Fund distributions payable to such entities and with respect to redemptions and certain capital gain dividends payable to such entities after December 31, 2018. A non-U.S. shareholder may be exempt from the withholding described in this paragraph under an applicable intergovernmental agreement between the U.S. and a foreign government, provided that the shareholder and the applicable foreign government comply with the terms of the agreement.

For foreign shareholders to qualify for an exemption from backup withholding, described above, the foreign shareholder must comply with special certification and filing requirements. Foreign shareholders in the Fund should consult their tax advisors in this regard.

Tax-Exempt Shareholders. Certain tax-exempt shareholders, including qualified pension plans, individual retirement accounts, salary deferral arrangements, 401(k) plans, 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, the Fund generally serves to block UBTI from being realized by its tax-exempt shareholders with respect to their shares of Fund income. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, tax-exempt shareholders could realize UBTI by virtue of their investment in the Fund if, for example, (i) the Fund invests in residual interests of Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits (“REMICs”), (ii) the Fund invests in a REIT that is a taxable mortgage pool (“TMP”) or that has a subsidiary that is a TMP or that invests in the residual interest of a REMIC, or (iii) Shares in the Fund constitute debt-financed property in the hands of the tax-exempt shareholders within the meaning of section 514(b) of the Code. Charitable remainder trusts are subject to special rules and should consult their tax advisers. The IRS has issued guidance with respect to these issues and prospective shareholders, especially charitable remainder trusts, are strongly encouraged to consult with their tax advisers regarding these issues.

Certain Potential Tax Reporting Requirements. Under U.S. Treasury regulations, if a shareholder recognizes a loss on disposition of the Fund’s Shares of $2 million or more for an individual shareholder or $10 million or more for a corporate shareholder (or certain greater amounts over a combination of years), the shareholder must file with the IRS a disclosure statement on IRS Form 8886. Direct shareholders of portfolio securities are in many cases excepted from this reporting requirement, but under current guidance, shareholders of a RIC are not excepted. Significant penalties may be imposed for the failure to comply with the reporting requirements. The fact that a loss is reportable under these regulations does not affect the legal determination of whether the taxpayer’s treatment of the loss is proper. Shareholders should consult their tax advisors to determine the applicability of these regulations in light of their individual circumstances.

Additional Tax Information Concerning REITs and MLPs. The Fund may invest in entities treated as REITs or as MLPs for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The Fund’s investments in REIT or MLP equity securities may at times result in the Fund’s receipt of cash distributions in excess of the REIT’s or MLP’s earnings; if the Fund distributes these amounts, these distributions could constitute a return of capital to Fund shareholders for federal income tax purposes. Dividends received by the Fund from a REIT, and distributions received by the Fund from an MLP, generally will not constitute qualified dividend income. MLPs and other partnerships that the Fund may invest in will deliver Form K-1s to the Fund to report its share of income, gains, losses, deductions and credits of the MLP or other partnership. These Form K-1s may be delayed and may not be received until after the time that the Fund issues its tax reporting statements. As a result, the Fund may at times find it necessary to reclassify the amount and character of its distributions to you after it issues you your tax reporting statement.

Other Issues. In those states which have income tax laws, the tax treatment of the Fund and of Fund shareholders with respect to distributions by the Fund may differ from federal tax treatment. Shares held in a tax-qualified retirement account will generally not be subject to federal taxation on income and capital gains distributions from the Fund until a shareholder begins receiving payments from their retirement account. Because each shareholder’s tax situation is different, shareholders should consult their tax advisor about the tax implications of an investment in the Fund.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

The Fund has adopted the financial statements of the Predecessor Fund. The Predecessor Fund's audited financial statements for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2016, including the notes thereto and the report of Cohen & Company, Ltd., the Predecessor Fund's independent registered public accounting firm, included in the Predecessor Fund Annual Report are incorporated into this SAI by reference. The Predecessor Fund's unaudited financial statements for the period from December 1, 2016 to May 31, 2017 included in the Predecessor Fund’s Semi-Annual Report are also incorporated into this SAI by reference.

Appendix A

2018

PROXY PAPER™

GUIDELINES

AN OVERVIEW OF THE GLASS LEWIS APPROACH TO PROXY ADVICE

UNITED STATES

(GRAPHIC)

(GLASS LEWIS LOGO)

Table of Contents

GUIDELINES INTRODUCTION	1
Summary of Changes for the 2018 United States Policy Guidelines	1

A BOARD OF DIRECTORS THAT SERVES THE INTERESTS OF SHAREHOLDERS	3
Election of Directors	3
Independence	3
Voting Recommendations on the Basis of Board Independence	5
Committee Independence	5
Independent Chair	5
Performance	6
Voting Recommendations on the Basis of Performance	7
Board Responsiveness	7
The Role of a Committee Chair	8
Audit Committees and Performance	9
Standards for Assessing the Audit Committee	9
Compensation Committee Performance	11
Nominating and Governance Committee Performance	13
Board-Level Risk Management Oversight	15
Environmental and Social Risk Oversight	16
Director Commitments	16
Other Considerations	17
Controlled Companies	18
Significant Shareholders	19
Governance Following an IPO or Spin-Off	19
Dual-Listed or Foreign Incorporated Companies	20
Mutual Fund Boards	20
Declassified Boards	21
Board Composition and Refreshment	22
Board Gender Diversity	22
Proxy Access	23
Majority Vote for the Election of Directors	23
The Plurality Vote Standard	23
Advantages of a Majority Vote Standard	24
Conflicting Proposals	24

TRANSPARENCY AND INTEGRITY IN FINANCIAL REPORTING	25
Auditor Ratification	25
Voting Recommendations on Auditor Ratification	25
Pension Accounting Issues	26

THE LINK BETWEEN COMPENSATION AND PERFORMANCE	27
Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (“Say-on-Pay”)	27
Say-on-Pay Voting Recommendations	28
Company Responsiveness	29
Pay for Performance	29
Short-Term Incentives	30
Long-Term Incentives	30
Transitional and One-Off Awards	31
Recoupment Provisions (“Clawbacks”)	32
Hedging of Stock	32
Pledging of Stock	32
Compensation Consultant Independence	33
CEO Pay Ratio	33
Frequency of Say-on-Pay	34
Vote on Golden Parachute Arrangements	34
Equity-Based Compensation Plan Proposals	34
Option Exchanges	35
Option Backdating, Spring-Loading and Bullet-Dodging	36
Director Compensation Plans	37
Employee Stock Purchase Plans	37
Executive Compensation Tax Deductibility (IRS 162(m) Compliance)	37

GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE AND THE SHAREHOLDER FRANCHISE	39
Anti-Takeover Measures	39
Poison Pills (Shareholder Rights Plans)	39
NOL Poison Pills	40
Fair Price Provisions	40
Reincorporation	41
Exclusive Forum and Fee-Shifting Bylaw Provisions	41
Authorized Shares	42
Advance Notice Requirements	43
Virtual Shareholder Meetings	43
Voting Structure	44
Dual-Class Share Structures	44

Cumulative Voting	44
Supermajority Vote Requirements	45
Transaction of Other Business	45
Anti-Greenmail Proposals	45
Mutual Funds: Investment Policies and Advisory Agreements	45
Real Estate Investment Trusts	46
Preferred Stock Issuances at REITs	46
Business Development Companies	46
Authorization to Sell Shares at a Price Below Net Asset Value	46

COMPENSATION, ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND GOVERNANCE SHAREHOLDER INITIATIVES	48

III

Guidelines Introduction

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

SUMMARY OF CHANGES FOR THE 2018 UNITED STATES POLICY GUIDELINES

BOARD GENDER DIVERSITY

We have added a discussion of how Glass Lewis considers gender diversity on boards of directors. As with previous years, Glass Lewis will continue to closely review the composition of the board and may note as a concern instances where we believe the board lacks representation of diverse director candidates, including those boards which have no female directors.

In 2018, we will not make voting recommendations solely on the basis of the diversity of the board; rather, it will be one of many considerations we make when evaluating companies’ oversight structures. Beginning in 2019, however, Glass Lewis will generally recommend voting against the nominating committee chair of a board that has no female members. Depending on other factors, including the size of the company, the industry in which the company operates and the governance profile of the company, we may extend this recommendation to vote against other nominating committee members. Also, when making these voting recommendations, we will carefully review a company’s disclosure of its diversity considerations and may refrain from recommending shareholders vote against directors of companies outside the Russell 3000 index, or when boards have provided a sufficient rationale for not having any female board members, or have disclosed a plan to address the lack of diversity on the board.

DUAL-CLASS SHARE STRUCTURES

We have added a discussion of how Glass Lewis considers dual-class share structures when analyzing a company’s governance. Glass Lewis believes dual-class voting structures are typically not in the best interests of common shareholders and that allowing one vote per share generally operates as a safeguard for common shareholders by ensuring that those who hold a significant minority of shares are able to weigh in on issues set forth by the board.

With regards to our evaluation of corporate governance following an IPO or spin-off within the past year, we have not changed our general approach; however, we will now include the presence of dual-class share structures as an additional factor in determining whether shareholder rights are being severely restricted indefinitely.

BOARD RESPONSIVENESS

In light of evolving investor sentiment, we have clarified that we consider that the board generally has an imperative to respond to shareholder dissent from a proposal at an annual meeting of more than 20% of votes cast — particularly in the case of a compensation or director election proposal.

With regards to companies where voting control is held through a dual-class share structure with disproportionate voting and economic rights, we will carefully examine the level of approval or disapproval attributed to unaffiliated shareholders when determining whether board responsiveness is warranted. Where vote results indicate that a majority of unaffiliated shareholders supported a shareholder proposal or opposed a management proposal, we believe the board should demonstrate an appropriate level of responsiveness.

VIRTUAL SHAREHOLDER MEETINGS

Glass Lewis is aware that a relatively small but growing contingent of companies have elected to hold shareholder meetings by virtual means only. We believe that virtual meeting technology can be a useful complement to a traditional, in-person shareholder meeting by expanding participation of shareholders who are unable to attend a shareholder meeting in person (i.e. a “hybrid meeting”). However, we also believe that virtual-only meetings have the potential to curb the ability of a company’s shareholders to meaningfully communicate with the company’s management.

In 2018, we will not make voting recommendations solely on the basis that a company is holding a virtual-only meeting. When analyzing the governance profile of companies that choose to hold virtual-only meetings, we look for robust disclosure in a company’s proxy statement which assures shareholders that they will be afforded the same rights and opportunities to participate as they would at an in-person meeting. Beginning in 2019, however, Glass Lewis will generally recommend voting against members of the governance committee of a board where the board is planning to hold a virtual-only shareholder meeting and the company does not provide such disclosure.

DIRECTOR COMMITMENTS

While there is no change to our director overboarding policy, we have clarified our approach to evaluating outside commitments of directors who serve in executive roles other than CEO (e.g., executive chair). When determining whether to apply our limit of two total board memberships for public executives, we will evaluate the specific duties and responsibilities of their executive role in addition to the company’s disclosure regarding that director’s time commitments.

CEO PAY RATIO

We have added a discussion of the CEO Pay Ratio disclosure required beginning in 2018. Glass Lewis will display the pay ratio as a data point in our Proxy Papers, as available. While we believe the pay ratio has the potential to provide additional insight when assessing a company’s pay practices, at this time it will not be a determinative factor in our voting recommendations.

PAY FOR PERFORMANCE

While there is no change to our pay-for-performance model, we have added clarification regarding the Glass Lewis grading system. Consistent with previous years, our pay-for-performance grades guide our evaluation of compensation committee effectiveness, and we generally recommend voting against compensation committee members at companies with a pattern of failing our pay-for-performance analysis. Unlike a school letter grade, however, a “C” does not indicate a significant lapse; rather, a “C” in the Glass Lewis grade system identifies companies where the pay and performance percentile rankings relative to peers are generally aligned.

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 a board can best protect and enhance the interests of shareholders if it is sufficiently independent, has a record of positive performance, and consists of individuals with diverse backgrounds and a breadth and depth of relevant experience.

INDEPENDENCE

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

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

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

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 years¹before the inquiry are usually considered “current” for purposes of this test.

Affiliated Director — An affiliated director has, (or within the past three years, had) a material financial, familial or other relationship with the company or its executives, but is not an employee of the company.²This includes directors whose employers have a material financial relationship with the

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

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

company.³In addition, we view a director who either owns or controls 20% or more of the company’s voting stock, or is an employee or affiliate of an entity that controls such amount, as an affiliate.⁴

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

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

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

	●	$50,000 (or where no amount is disclosed) for directors who are paid for a service they have agreed to perform for the company, outside of their service as a director, including professional or other services; or

	●	$120,000 (or where no amount is disclosed) for those directors employed by a professional services firm such as a law firm, investment bank, or consulting firm and the company pays the firm, not the individual, for services.⁵This 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;⁶and any aircraft and real estate dealings between the company and the director’s firm; or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 typically⁸recommend voting against some of the inside and/ or affiliated directors in order to satisfy the two-thirds threshold.

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

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

COMMITTEE INDEPENDENCE

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

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

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

INDEPENDENT CHAIR

Glass Lewis believes that separating the roles of CEO (or, more rarely, another executive position) and chair creates a better governance structure than a combined CEO/chair position. An executive manages the business

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

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

according to a course the board charts. Executives should report to the board regarding their performance in achieving goals set by the board. This is needlessly complicated when a CEO chairs the board, since a CEO/ chair presumably will have a significant influence over the board.

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

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

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

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

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

Glass Lewis believes that the installation of an independent chair is almost always a positive step from a corporate governance perspective and promotes the best interests of shareholders. Further, the presence of an independent chair fosters the creation of a thoughtful and dynamic board, not dominated by the views of senior management. Encouragingly, many companies appear to be moving in this direction—one study indicates that only 10 percent of incoming CEOs in 2014 were awarded the chair title, versus 48 percent in 2002.¹⁰Another study finds that 47 percent of S&P 500 boards now separate the CEO and chair roles, up from 37 percent in 2009, although the same study found that only 28 percent of S&P 500 boards have truly independent chairs.¹¹

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

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

PERFORMANCE

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

We find that a director’s past conduct is often indicative of future conduct and performance. We often find directors with a history of overpaying executives or of serving on boards where avoidable disasters have occurred serving on the boards of companies with similar problems. Glass Lewis has a proprietary database

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

11 Spencer Stuart Board Index, 2014, p. 23.

of directors serving at over 8,000 of the most widely held U.S. companies. We use this database to track the performance of directors across companies.

VOTING RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE BASIS OF PERFORMANCE

We typically recommend that shareholders vote against directors who have served on boards or as executives of companies with records of poor performance, inadequate risk oversight, excessive compensation, auditor accounting-related issues, and/or other indicators of mismanagement or actions against the interests of shareholders. We will reevaluate such directors based on, among other factors, the length of time passed since the incident giving rise to the concern, shareholder support for the director, the severity of the issue, the director’s role (e.g., committee membership), director tenure at the subject company, whether ethical lapses accompanied the oversight lapse, and evidence of strong oversight at other companies.

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

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

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

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).

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.

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).

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.

BOARD RESPONSIVENESS

Glass Lewis believes that any time 20% or more of shareholders vote contrary to the recommendation of management, the board should, depending on the issue, demonstrate some level of responsiveness to address the concerns of shareholders. These include instances when 20% or more of shareholders (excluding abstentions and broker non-votes): WITHHOLD votes from (or vote AGAINST) a director nominee, vote AGAINST a management-sponsored proposal, or vote FOR a shareholder proposal. In our view, a 20% threshold is significant enough to warrant a close examination of the underlying issues and an evaluation of whether or not a board response was warranted and, if so, whether the board responded appropriately following the vote, particularly in the case of a compensation or director election proposal. While the 20% threshold alone will not automatically generate a negative vote recommendation from Glass Lewis on a future proposal (e.g., to recommend against a director nominee, against a say-on-pay proposal, etc.), it may be a contributing factor to our recommendation to vote against management’s recommendation in the event we determine that the board did not respond appropriately.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE ROLE OF A COMMITTEE CHAIR

Glass Lewis believes that a designated committee chair maintains primary responsibility for the actions of his or her respective committee. As such, many of our committee-specific voting recommendations are against the applicable committee chair rather than the entire committee (depending on the seriousness of the issue). However, in cases where we would ordinarily recommend voting against a committee chair but the chair is not specified, we apply the following general rules, which apply throughout our guidelines:

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

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

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

On the contrary, in cases where there is a designated committee chair and 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 any members of the committee who are up for election; rather, we will note the concern with regard to the committee chair.

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.”¹³

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.”¹⁴

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

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

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

When assessing the decisions and actions of the audit committee, we typically defer to its judgment and generally recommend voting in favor of its members. However, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against the following:¹⁵

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.

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

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

15 As discussed under the section labeled “Committee Chair,” 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 note the concern with regard to the committee chair.

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

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

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

	5.	Any audit committee member who sits on more than three public company audit committees, unless the audit committee member is a retired CPA, CFO, controller or has similar experience, in which case the limit shall be four committees, taking time and availability into consideration including a review of the audit committee member’s attendance at all board and committee meetings.¹⁶

	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 prohibited by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“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 chair¹⁷if 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.

	12.	All members of an audit committee where the auditor has resigned and reported that a section 10A¹⁸letter has been issued.

	13.	All members of an audit committee at a time when material accounting fraud occurred at the company.¹⁹

	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:

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

17 As discussed under the section labeled “Committee Chair,” 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.

18 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.

19 Research indicates that revenue fraud now accounts for over 60% of SEC fraud cases, and that companies that engage in fraud experience significant negative abnormal stock price declines—facing bankruptcy, delisting, and material asset sales at much higher rates than do non-fraud firms (Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. “Fraudulent Financial Reporting: 1998-2007.” May 2010).

●

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 five 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 (e.g., the company receives an adverse opinion on its financial statements from the auditor).

19.

All members of the audit committee if the contract with the auditor specifically limits the auditor’s liability to the company for damages.²⁰

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.

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE PERFORMANCE

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

Compensation committees are also responsible for the oversight of the transparency of compensation. This oversight includes disclosure of compensation arrangements, the matrix used in assessing pay for performance, and the use of compensation consultants. In order to ensure the independence of the board’s compensation

20 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.

consultant, we believe the compensation committee should only engage a compensation consultant that is not also providing any services to the company or management apart from their contract with the compensation committee. It is important to investors that they have clear and complete disclosure of all the significant terms of compensation arrangements in order to make informed decisions with respect to the oversight and decisions of the compensation committee.

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

Central to understanding the actions of 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 advisory votes on executive compensation, which allow shareholders to vote on the compensation paid to a company’s top executives.

When assessing the performance of compensation committees, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against the following:²¹

	1.	All members of a compensation committee during whose tenure the committee failed to address shareholder concerns following majority shareholder rejection of the say-on-pay proposal in the previous year. Where the proposal was approved but there was a significant shareholder vote (i.e., greater than 20% of votes cast) against the say-on-pay proposal in the prior year, if the board did not respond sufficiently to the vote including actively engaging shareholders on this issue, we will also consider recommending voting against the chair of the compensation committee or all members of the compensation committee, depending on the severity and history of the compensation problems and the level of shareholder opposition.

	2.	All members of the compensation committee who are up for election and served when the company failed to align pay with performance if shareholders are not provided with an advisory vote on executive compensation at the annual meeting.²²

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

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

21 As discussed under the section labeled “Committee Chair,” 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 note the concern with regard to the committee chair.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

10.

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

11.

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

12.

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

13.

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

14.

All members of the compensation committee during whose tenure the committee failed to implement a shareholder proposal regarding a compensation-related issue, where the proposal received the affirmative vote of a majority of the voting shares at a shareholder meeting, and when a reasonable analysis suggests that the compensation committee (rather than the governance committee) should have taken steps to implement the request.²³

NOMINATING AND GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE PERFORMANCE

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

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

23 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.

Regarding the committee responsible for governance, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against the following:²⁴

All members of the governance committee²⁵during whose tenure a shareholder proposal relating to important shareholder rights received support from a majority of the votes cast (excluding abstentions and broker non-votes) and the board has not begun to implement or enact the proposal’s subject matter.²⁶Examples of such shareholder proposals include those seeking a declassified board structure, a majority vote standard for director elections, or a right to call a special meeting. In determining whether a board has sufficiently implemented such a proposal, we will examine the quality of the right enacted or proffered by the board for any conditions that may unreasonably interfere with the shareholders’ ability to exercise the right (e.g., overly restrictive procedural requirements for calling a special meeting).

The governance committee chair,²⁷when the chair is not independent and an independent lead or presiding director has not been appointed.²⁸

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.

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

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

The governance committee chair, when during the past year the board adopted a forum selection clause (i.e., an exclusive forum provision)²⁹without shareholder approval, or if the board is currently seeking shareholder approval of a forum selection clause pursuant to a bundled bylaw amendment rather than as a separate proposal.

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

In addition, we may recommend that shareholders vote against the chair of the governance committee, or the entire committee, where the board has amended the company’s governing documents to reduce or remove important shareholder rights, or to otherwise impede the ability of shareholders to exercise such

24 As discussed in the guidelines section labeled “Committee Chair,” 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 note the concern with regard to the committee chair.

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

26 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.

27 As discussed in the guidelines section labeled “Committee Chair,” 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.

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

29 A forum selection clause is a bylaw provision stipulating that a certain state, typically where the company is incorporated, which is most often Delaware, shall be the exclusive forum for all intra-corporate disputes (e.g., shareholder derivative actions, assertions of claims of a breach of fiduciary duty, etc.). Such a clause effectively limits a shareholder’s legal remedy regarding appropriate choice of venue and related relief offered under that state’s laws and rulings.

right, and has done so without seeking shareholder approval. Examples of board actions that may cause such a recommendation include: the elimination of the ability of shareholders to call a special meeting or to act by written consent; an increase to the ownership threshold required for shareholders to call a special meeting; an increase to vote requirements for charter or bylaw amendments; the adoption of provisions that limit the ability of shareholders to pursue full legal recourse—such as bylaws that require arbitration of shareholder claims or that require shareholder plaintiffs to pay the company’s legal expenses in the absence of a court victory (i.e., “fee-shifting” or “loser pays” bylaws); the adoption of a classified board structure; and the elimination of the ability of shareholders to remove a director without cause.

Regarding the nominating committee, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against the following:³⁰

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.

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

In the absence of a governance committee, the nominating committee chair³¹when the chair is not independent, and an independent lead or presiding director has not been appointed.³²

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.³³

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.³⁴

In addition, we may consider recommending shareholders vote against the chair of the nominating committee where the board’s failure to ensure the board has directors with relevant experience, either through periodic director assessment or board refreshment, has contributed to a company’s poor performance.

BOARD-LEVEL RISK MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT

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

Our views on risk oversight are consistent with those expressed by various regulatory bodies. In its December 2009 Final Rule release on Proxy Disclosure Enhancements, the SEC noted that risk oversight is a key competence

30 As discussed in the guidelines section labeled “Committee Chair,” 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 note the concern with regard to the committee chair.

31 As discussed under the section labeled “Committee Chair,” 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.

32 In the absence of both a governance and a nominating committee, we will recommend voting against the board chair on this basis, unless if the chair also serves as the CEO, in which case we will recommend voting against the longest-serving director.

33 In the absence of both a governance and a nominating committee, we will recommend voting against the board chair on this basis, unless if the chair also serves as the CEO, in which case we will recommend voting against the the longest-serving director.

34 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 severity of the issue(s) that initially raised shareholder concern as well as company responsiveness to such matters, and will only recommend voting against the nominating chair if a reasonable analysis suggests that it would be most appropriate. In rare cases, we will consider recommending against the nominating chair when a director receives a substantial (i.e., 20% or more) vote against based on the same analysis.

of the board and that additional disclosures would improve investor and shareholder understanding of the role of the board in the organization’s risk management practices. The final rules, which became effective on February 28, 2010, now explicitly require companies and mutual funds to describe (while allowing for some degree of flexibility) the board’s role in the oversight of risk.

When analyzing the risk management practices of public companies, we take note of any significant losses or writedowns on financial assets and/or structured transactions. In cases where a company has disclosed a sizable loss or writedown, and where we find that the company’s board-level risk committee’s poor oversight contributed to the loss, we will recommend that shareholders vote against such committee members on that basis. In addition, in cases where a company maintains a significant level of financial risk exposure but fails to disclose any explicit form of board-level risk oversight (committee or otherwise)³⁵, we will consider recommending to vote against the board chair on that basis. However, we generally would not recommend voting against a combined chair/CEO, except in egregious cases.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL RISK OVERSIGHT

Companies face significant financial, legal and reputational risks resulting from poor environmental and social practices, or negligent oversight thereof. Therefore, Glass Lewis views the identification, mitigation

and management of environmental and social risks as integral components when evaluating a company’s overall risk exposure. We believe boards should ensure that management conducts a complete risk analysis of company operations, including those that have environmental and social implications. Directors should monitor management’s performance in managing and mitigating these environmental and social risks in order to eliminate or minimize the risks to the company and its shareholders. In cases where the board or management has failed to sufficiently identify and manage a material environmental or social risk that did or could negatively impact shareholder value, we will recommend shareholders vote against directors responsible for risk oversight in consideration of the nature of the risk and the potential effect on shareholder value.

DIRECTOR COMMITMENTS

We believe that directors should have the necessary time to fulfill their duties to shareholders. In our view, an overcommitted director can pose a material risk to a company’s shareholders, particularly during periods of crisis. In addition, recent research indicates that the time commitment associated with being a director has been on a significant upward trend in the past decade.³⁶As a result, we generally recommend that shareholders vote against a director who serves as an executive officer of any public company while serving on more than two public company boards and any other director who serves on more than five public company boards.

Because we believe that executives will primarily devote their attention to executive duties, we generally will not recommend that shareholders vote against overcommitted directors at the companies where they serve as an executive.

When determining whether a director’s service on an excessive number of boards may limit the ability of the director to devote sufficient time to board duties, we may consider relevant factors such as the size and location of the other companies where the director serves on the board, the director’s board roles at the companies in question, whether the director serves on the board of any large privately-held companies, the director’s tenure on the boards in question, and the director’s attendance record at all companies. In the case of directors who serve in executive roles other than CEO (e.g., executive chair), we will evaluate the specific duties and responsibilities of that role in determining whether an exception is warranted.

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

36 For example, the 2015-2016 NACD Public Company Governance Survey states that, on average, directors spent a total of 248.2 hours annual on board-related matters during the past year, which it describes as a “historically high level” that is significantly above the average hours recorded in 2006. Additionally, the 2015 Spencer Stuart Board Index indicates that the average number of outside board seats held by CEOs of S&P 500 companies is 0.6, down from 0.7 in 2009 and 0.9 in 2004.

We may also refrain from recommending against certain directors if the company provides sufficient rationale for their continued board service. The rationale should allow shareholders to evaluate the scope of the directors’ other commitments, as well as their contributions to the board including specialized knowledge of the company’s industry, strategy or key markets, the diversity of skills, perspective and background they provide, and other relevant factors. We will also generally refrain from recommending to vote against a director who serves on an excessive number of boards within a consolidated group of companies or a director that represents a firm whose sole purpose is to manage a portfolio of investments which include the company.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

In addition to the three key characteristics — independence, performance, experience — that we use to evaluate board members, we consider conflict-of-interest issues as well as the size of the board of directors when making voting recommendations.

Conflicts of Interest

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

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

A director who provides — or a director who has an immediate family member who provides — material consulting or other material professional services to the company. These services may include legal, consulting, 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.

A director, or a director who has an immediate family member, engaging in airplane, real estate, or similar deals, including perquisite-type grants from the company, amounting to more than $50,000. Directors who receive these sorts of payments from the company will have to make unnecessarily complicated decisions that may pit their interests against shareholder interests.

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.³⁷

All board members who served at a time when a poison pill with a term of longer than one year was adopted without shareholder approval within the prior twelve months.³⁸In the event a board is classified and shareholders are therefore unable to vote against all directors, we will recommend voting against the remaining directors the next year they are up for a shareholder vote. If a poison pill with a term of one year or less was adopted without shareholder approval, and without adequate justification, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against all members of the governance committee. If the board has, without seeking shareholder approval, and without adequate justification, extended the term of a poison pill by one year or less in two consecutive years, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against the entire board.

37 We do not apply a look-back period for this situation. The interlock policy applies to both public and private companies. We will also evaluate multiple board interlocks among non-insiders (i.e., multiple directors serving on the same boards at other companies), for evidence of a pattern of poor oversight.

38 Refer to Section V. Governance Structure and the Shareholder Franchise for further discussion of our policies regarding anti-takeover measures, including poison pills.

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 chair of the nominating committee (or the governance committee, in the absence of a nominating committee) at a board with fewer than five directors or more than 20 directors.³⁹

CONTROLLED COMPANIES

We believe controlled companies warrant certain exceptions to our independence standards. The board’s function is to protect shareholder interests; however, when an individual, entity (or group of shareholders party to a formal agreement) owns more than 50% of the voting shares, the interests of the majority of shareholders are the interests of that entity or individual. Consequently, Glass Lewis does not apply our usual two-thirds board independence rule and therefore we will not recommend voting against boards whose composition reflects the makeup of the shareholder population.

Independence Exceptions

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

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.

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

●

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.

●

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.

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

39 The Conference Board, at p. 23 in its May 2003 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.”

Size of the Board of Directors

We have no board size requirements for controlled companies.

Audit Committee Independence

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

Board Responsiveness at Dual-Class Companies

SIGNIFICANT SHAREHOLDERS

Where an individual or entity holds between 20-50% of a company’s voting power, we believe it is reasonable to allow proportional representation on the board and committees (excluding the audit committee) based on the individual or entity’s percentage of ownership.

GOVERNANCE FOLLOWING AN IPO OR SPIN-OFF

We believe companies that have recently completed an initial public offering (“IPO”) or spin-off should be allowed adequate time to fully comply with marketplace listing requirements and meet basic corporate governance standards. Generally speaking, Glass Lewis refrains from making recommendations on the basis of governance standards (e.g., board independence, committee membership and structure, meeting attendance, etc.) during the one-year period following an IPO.

However, some cases warrant shareholder action against the board of a company that have completed an IPO or spin-off within the past year. When evaluating companies that have recently gone public, Glass Lewis will review the terms of the applicable governing documents in order to determine whether shareholder rights are being severely restricted indefinitely. We believe boards that approve highly restrictive governing documents have demonstrated that they may subvert shareholder interests following the IPO. In conducting this evaluation, Glass Lewis will consider:

The adoption of anti-takeover provisions such as a poison pill or classified board

Supermajority vote requirements to amend governing documents

The presence of exclusive forum or fee-shifting provisions

Whether shareholders can call special meetings or act by written consent

The voting standard provided for the election of directors

The ability of shareholders to remove directors without cause

The presence of evergreen provisions in the Company’s equity compensation arrangements

The presence of a dual-class share structure which does not afford common shareholders voting power that is aligned with their economic interest

In cases where a board adopts an anti-takeover provision preceding an IPO, we will consider recommending to vote against the members of the board who served when it was adopted if the board: (i) did not also commit to submit the anti-takeover provision to a shareholder vote at the company’s first shareholder meeting following the IPO; or (ii) did not provide a sound rationale or sunset provision for adopting the anti-takeover provision in question.

In our view, adopting an anti-takeover device unfairly penalizes future shareholders who (except for electing to buy or sell the stock) are unable to weigh in on a matter that could potentially negatively impact their ownership interest. This notion is strengthened when a board adopts a classified board with an infinite duration or a poison pill with a five- to ten-year term immediately prior to going public, thereby insulated management for a substantial amount of time.

In addition, shareholders should also be wary of companies that adopt supermajority voting requirements before their IPO. Absent explicit provisions in the articles or bylaws stipulating that certain policies will be phased out over a certain period of time, long-term shareholders could find themselves in the predicament of having to attain a supermajority vote to approve future proposals seeking to eliminate such policies.

DUAL-LISTED OR FOREIGN-INCORPORATED COMPANIES

For companies that trade on multiple exchanges or are incorporated in foreign jurisdictions but trade only in the U.S., we will apply the governance standard most relevant in each situation. We will consider a number of factors in determining which Glass Lewis country-specific policy to apply, including but not limited to: (i) the corporate governance structure and features of the company including whether the board structure is unique to a particular market; (ii) the nature of the proposals; (iii) the location of the company’s primary listing, if one can be determined; (iv) the regulatory/governance regime that the board is reporting against; and (v) the availability and completeness of the company’s SEC filings.

MUTUAL FUND BOARDS

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

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

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

The CFO on the board — Neither the CFO of the fund nor the CFO of the fund’s registered investment advisor should serve on the board.

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

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:

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.

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

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

Multiple funds overseen by the same director — Unlike service on a public company board, mutual fund boards require much less of a time commitment. Mutual fund directors typically serve on dozens of other mutual fund boards, often within the same fund complex. The Investment Company Institute’s (“ICI”) Overview of Fund Governance Practices, 1994-2012, indicates that the average number of funds served by an independent director in 2012 was 53. Absent evidence that a specific director is hindered from being an effective board member at a fund due to service on other funds’ boards, we refrain from maintaining a cap on the number of outside mutual fund boards that we believe a director can serve on.

DECLASSIFIED BOARDS

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

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

In our view, there is no evidence to demonstrate that staggered boards improve shareholder returns in a takeover context. Some research has indicated that shareholders are worse off when a staggered board blocks a transaction; further, when a staggered board negotiates a friendly transaction, no statistically significant difference in premium occurs.⁴⁰Additional research found that charter-based staggered boards “reduce the market value of a firm by 4% to 6% of its market capitalization” and that “staggered boards bring about and not merely reflect this reduction in market value.”⁴¹A subsequent study reaffirmed that classified boards reduce shareholder value, finding “that the ongoing process of dismantling staggered boards, encouraged by institutional investors, could well contribute to increasing shareholder wealth.”⁴²

40 Lucian Bebchuk, John Coates IV, Guhan Subramanian, “The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards: Further Findings and a Reply to Symposium Participants,” 55 Stanford Law Review 885-917 (2002).

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

42 Lucian Bebchuk, Alma Cohen and Charles C.Y. Wang, “Staggered Boards and the Wealth of Shareholders: Evidence from a Natural Experiment,” SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1706806 (2010), p. 26.

Shareholders have increasingly come to agree with this view. In 2016, 92% of S&P 500 companies had declassified boards, up from approximately 40% a decade ago.⁴³Management proposals to declassify boards are approved with near unanimity and shareholder proposals on the topic also receive strong shareholder support; in 2014, shareholder proposals requesting that companies declassify their boards received average support of 84% (excluding abstentions and broker non-votes), whereas in 1987, only 16.4% of votes cast favored board declassification.⁴⁴Further, a growing number of companies, nearly half of all those targeted by shareholder proposals requesting that all directors stand for election annually, either recommended shareholders support the proposal or made no recommendation, a departure from the more traditional management recommendation to vote against shareholder proposals.

Given our belief that declassified boards promote director accountability, the empirical evidence suggesting staggered boards reduce a company’s value and the established shareholder opposition to such a structure, Glass Lewis supports the declassification of boards and the annual election of directors.

BOARD COMPOSITION AND REFRESHMENT

Glass Lewis strongly supports routine director evaluation, including independent external reviews, and periodic board refreshment to foster the sharing of diverse perspectives in the boardroom and the generation of new ideas and business strategies. Further, we believe the board should evaluate the need for changes to board composition based on an analysis of skills and experience necessary for the company, as well as the results of the director evaluations, as opposed to relying solely on age or tenure limits. When necessary, shareholders can address concerns regarding proper board composition through director elections.

In our view, a director’s experience can be a valuable asset to shareholders because of the complex, critical issues that boards face. This said, we recognize that in rare circumstances, a lack of refreshment can contribute to a lack of board responsiveness to poor company performance.

On occasion, age or term limits can be used as a means to remove a director for boards that are unwilling to police their membership and enforce turnover. Some shareholders support term limits as a way to force change in such circumstances.

While we understand that age limits can aid board succession planning, the long-term impact of age limits restricts experienced and potentially valuable board members from service through an arbitrary means. We believe that shareholders are better off monitoring the board’s overall composition, including the diversity of its members, the alignment of the board’s areas of expertise with a company’s strategy, the board’s approach to corporate governance, and its stewardship of company performance, rather than imposing inflexible rules that don’t necessarily correlate with returns or benefits for shareholders.

However, if a board adopts term/age limits, it should follow through and not waive such limits. 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.

BOARD GENDER DIVERSITY

Glass Lewis recognizes the importance of ensuring that the board is comprised of directors who have a diversity of skills, thought and experience, as such diversity benefits companies by providing a broad range of perspectives and insights.⁴⁵As with previous years, Glass Lewis will continue to closely review the composition of the board and may note as a concern instances where we believe the board lacks representation of diverse director candidates, including those boards which have no female directors.

43 Spencer Stuart Board Index, 2016, p. 14.

44 Lucian Bebchuk, John Coates IV and Guhan Subramanian, “The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards: Theory, Evidence, and Policy”.

45 http://www.glasslewis.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2017-In-Depth-Report-Gender-Diversity.pdf.

In 2018, we will not make voting recommendations solely on the basis of the diversity of the board. Rather, it will be one of many considerations we make when evaluating companies’ oversight structures. Beginning in 2019, however, Glass Lewis will generally recommend voting against the nominating committee chair of a board that has no female members. Depending on other factors, including the size of the company, the industry in which the company operates and the governance profile of the company, we may extend this recommendation to vote against other nominating committee members. When making these voting recommendations, we will carefully review a company’s disclosure of its diversity considerations and may refrain from recommending shareholders vote against directors of companies outside the Russell 3000 index, or when boards have provided a sufficient rationale for not having any female board members or have disclosed a plan to address the lack of diversity on the board.

PROXY ACCESS

In lieu of running their own contested election, proxy access would not only allow certain shareholders to nominate directors to company boards but the shareholder nominees would be included on the company’s ballot, significantly enhancing the ability of shareholders to play a meaningful role in selecting their representatives. Glass Lewis generally supports affording shareholders the right to nominate director candidates to management’s proxy as a means to ensure that significant, long-term shareholders have an ability to nominate candidates to the board.

Companies generally seek shareholder approval to amend company bylaws to adopt proxy access in response to shareholder engagement or pressure, usually in the form of a shareholder proposal requesting proxy access, although some companies may adopt some elements of proxy access without prompting. Glass Lewis considers several factors when evaluating whether to support proposals for companies to adopt proxy access including the specified minimum ownership and holding requirement for shareholders to nominate one or more directors, as well as company size, performance and responsiveness to shareholders.

For a discussion of recent regulatory events in this area, along with a detailed overview of the Glass Lewis approach to Shareholder Proposals regarding Proxy Access, refer to Glass Lewis’ Proxy Paper Guidelines for Shareholder Initiatives, available at www.glasslewis.com.

MAJORITY VOTE FOR THE ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

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

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

The number of shareholder proposals requesting that companies adopt a majority voting standard has declined significantly during the past decade, largely as a result of widespread adoption of majority voting or director resignation policies at U.S. companies. In 2016, 88% of the S&P 500 Index had implemented a resignation policy for directors failing to receive majority shareholder support, compared to 76% in 2011.⁴⁶

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 that director, if the director is a shareholder), that nominee “wins” the election and assumes a seat on the board. The common concern among companies with a plurality voting standard is the possibility that one or more directors would not receive a majority of votes, resulting in “failed elections.”

46 Spencer Stuart Board Index, 2016, p. 12.

ADVANTAGES OF A MAJORITY VOTE STANDARD

If a majority vote standard were implemented, a nominee would have to receive the support of a majority of the shares voted in order to be elected. Thus, shareholders could collectively vote to reject a director they believe will not pursue their best interests. Given that so few directors (less than 100 a year) do not receive majority support from shareholders, we think that a majority vote standard is reasonable since it will neither result in many failed director elections nor reduce the willingness of qualified, shareholder-focused directors to serve in the future. Further, most directors who fail to receive a majority shareholder vote in favor of their election do not step down, underscoring the need for true majority voting.

We believe that a majority vote standard will likely lead to more attentive directors. Although shareholders only rarely fail to support directors, the occasional majority vote against a director’s election will likely deter the election of directors with a record of ignoring shareholder interests. Glass Lewis will therefore generally support proposals calling for the election of directors by a majority vote, excepting contested director elections.

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

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

CONFLICTING PROPOSALS

On January 16, 2015, the SEC announced that for the 2015 proxy season it would not opine on the application of Rule 14a-8(i)(9) that allows companies to exclude shareholder proposals, including those seeking proxy access, that conflict with a management proposal on the same issue. While the announcement did not render the rule ineffective, a number of companies opted not to exclude a shareholder proposal but rather to allow shareholders a vote on both management and shareholder proposals on the same issue, generally proxy access. The management proposals typically imposed more restrictive terms than the shareholder proposal in order to exercise the particular shareholder right at issue, e.g., a higher proxy access ownership threshold. On October 22, 2015, the SEC issued Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14H (“SLB 14H”) clarifying its rule concerning the exclusion of certain shareholder proposals when similar items are also on the ballot. SLB 14H increases the burden on companies to prove to SEC staff that a conflict exists; therefore, some companies may still choose to place management proposals alongside similar shareholder proposals in the coming year.

When Glass Lewis reviews conflicting management and shareholder proposals, we will consider the following:

	●	The nature of the underlying issue;

	●	The benefit to shareholders from implementation of the proposal;

	●	The materiality of the differences between the terms of the shareholder proposal and management proposal;

	●	The appropriateness of the provisions in the context of a company’s shareholder base, corporate structure and other relevant circumstances; and

	●	A company’s overall governance profile and, specifically, its responsiveness to shareholders as evidenced by a company’s response to previous shareholder proposals and its adoption of progressive shareholder rights provisions.

Transparency and Integrity in Financial Reporting

AUDITOR RATIFICATION

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

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

As such, shareholders should demand an objective, competent and diligent auditor who performs at or above professional standards at every company in which the investors hold an interest. Like directors, auditors should be free from conflicts of interest and should avoid situations requiring a choice between the auditor’s interests and the public’s interests. Almost without exception, shareholders should be able to annually review an auditor’s performance and to annually ratify a board’s auditor selection. Moreover, in October 2008, the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession went even further, and recommended that “to further enhance audit committee oversight and auditor accountability ... disclosure in the company proxy statement regarding shareholder ratification [should] include the name(s) of the senior auditing partner(s) staffed on the engagement.”⁴⁷

On August 16, 2011, the PCAOB issued a Concept Release seeking public comment on ways that auditor independence, objectivity and professional skepticism could be enhanced, with a specific emphasis on mandatory audit firm rotation. The PCAOB convened several public roundtable meetings during 2012 to further discuss such matters. Glass Lewis believes auditor rotation can ensure both the independence of the auditor and the integrity of the audit; we will typically recommend supporting proposals to require auditor rotation when the proposal uses a reasonable period of time (usually not less than 5-7 years), particularly at companies with a history of accounting problems.

VOTING RECOMMENDATIONS ON AUDITOR RATIFICATION

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

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

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

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

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.⁴⁸

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.

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

When the company has aggressive accounting policies.

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

Where the auditor limited its liability through its contract with the company or the audit contract requires the corporation to use alternative dispute resolution procedures without adequate justification.

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

PENSION ACCOUNTING ISSUES

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

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

48 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.

The Link Between Compensation and Performance

Glass Lewis carefully reviews the compensation awarded to senior executives, as we believe that this is an important area in which the board’s priorities are revealed. Glass Lewis strongly believes executive compensation should be linked directly with the performance of the business the executive is charged with managing. We believe the most effective compensation arrangements provide for an appropriate mix of performance-based short- and long-term incentives in addition to fixed pay elements while promoting a prudent and sustainable level of risk-taking.

Glass Lewis believes that comprehensive, timely and transparent disclosure of executive pay is critical to allowing shareholders to evaluate the extent to which pay is aligned with company performance. When reviewing proxy materials, Glass Lewis examines whether the company discloses the performance metrics used to determine executive compensation. We recognize performance metrics must necessarily vary depending on the company and industry, among other factors, and may include a wide variety of financial measures as well as industry-specific performance indicators. However, we believe companies should disclose why the specific performance metrics were selected and how the actions they are designed to incentivize will lead to better corporate performance.

Moreover, it is rarely in shareholders’ interests to disclose competitive data about individual salaries below the senior executive level. Such disclosure could create internal personnel discord that would be counterproductive for the company and its shareholders. While we favor full disclosure for senior executives and we view pay disclosure at the aggregate level (e.g., the number of employees being paid over a certain amount or in certain categories) as potentially useful, we do not believe share-holders 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 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) required companies to hold an advisory vote on executive compensation at the first shareholder meeting that occurs six months after enactment of the bill (January 21, 2011).

This practice of allowing shareholders a non-binding vote on a company’s compensation report is standard practice in many non-US countries, and has been a requirement for most companies in the United Kingdom since 2003 and in Australia since 2005. Although say-on-pay proposals are non-binding, a high level of “against” or “abstain” votes indicates substantial shareholder concern about a company’s compensation policies and procedures.

Given the complexity of most companies’ compensation programs, Glass Lewis applies a highly nuanced approach when analyzing advisory votes on executive compensation. We review each company’s compensation on a case-by-case basis, recognizing that each company must be examined in the context of industry, size, maturity, performance, financial condition, its historic pay for performance practices, and any other relevant internal or external factors.

We believe that each company should design and apply specific compensation policies and practices that are appropriate to the circumstances of the company and, in particular, will attract and retain competent executives and other staff, while motivating them to grow the company’s long-term shareholder value.

Where we find those specific policies and practices serve to reasonably align compensation with performance, and such practices are adequately disclosed, Glass Lewis will recommend supporting the company’s approach. If, however, those specific policies and practices fail to demonstrably link compensation with performance, Glass Lewis will generally recommend voting against the say-on-pay proposal.

Glass Lewis reviews say-on-pay proposals on both a qualitative basis and a quantitative basis, with a focus on several main areas:

	●	The overall design and structure of the company’s executive compensation programs including selection and challenging nature of performance metrics;

	●	The implementation and effectiveness of the company’s executive compensation programs including pay mix and use of performance metrics in determining pay levels;

	●	The quality and content of the company’s disclosure;

	●	The quantum paid to executives; and

	●	The link between compensation and performance as indicated by the company’s current and past pay-for-performance grades.

We also review any significant changes or modifications, and the rationale for such changes, made to the company’s compensation structure or award amounts, including base salaries.

SAY-ON-PAY VOTING RECOMMENDATIONS

In cases where we find deficiencies in a company’s compensation program’s design, implementation or management, we will recommend that shareholders vote against the say-on-pay proposal. Generally such instances include evidence of a pattern of poor pay-for-performance practices (i.e., deficient or failing pay-for-performance grades), unclear or questionable disclosure regarding the overall compensation structure (e.g., limited information regarding benchmarking processes, limited rationale for bonus performance metrics and targets, etc.), questionable adjustments to certain aspects of the overall compensation structure (e.g., limited rationale for significant changes to performance targets or metrics, the payout of guaranteed bonuses or sizable retention grants, etc.), and/or other egregious compensation practices.

Although not an exhaustive list, the following issues when weighed together may cause Glass Lewis to recommend voting against a say-on-pay vote:

	●	In appropriate peer group and/or benchmarking issues;

	●	Inadequate or no rationale for changes to peer groups;

	●	Egregious or excessive bonuses, equity awards or severance payments, including golden handshakes and golden parachutes;

	●	Problematic contractual payments, such as guaranteed bonuses;

	●	Targeting overall levels of compensation at higher than median without adequate justification;

	●	Performance targets not sufficiently challenging, and/or providing for high potential payouts;

	●	Performance targets lowered without justification;

	●	Discretionary bonuses paid when short- or long-term incentive plan targets were not met;

●

Executive pay high relative to peers not justified by outstanding company performance; and

●

The terms of the long-term incentive plans are inappropriate (please see “Long-Term Incentives” on page 30).

In instances where a company has simply failed to provide sufficient disclosure of its policies, we may recommend shareholders vote against this proposal solely on this basis, regardless of the appropriateness of compensation levels.

Where we identify egregious compensation practices, we may also recommend voting against the compensation committee based on the practices or actions of its members during the year. Such practices may include: approving large one-off payments, the inappropriate, unjustified use of discretion, or sustained poor pay for performance practices.

COMPANY RESPONSIVENESS

At companies that received a significant level of shareholder opposition (20% or greater) to their say-on-pay proposal at the previous annual meeting, we believe the board should demonstrate some level of engagement and responsiveness to the shareholder concerns behind the discontent, particularly in response to shareholder engagement. While we recognize that sweeping changes cannot be made to a compensation program without due consideration and that a majority of shareholders voted in favor of the proposal, given that the average approval rate for say-on-pay proposals is about 90% we believe the compensation committee should provide some level of response to a significant vote against, including engaging with large shareholders to identify their concerns. In the absence of any evidence that the board is actively engaging shareholders on these issues and responding accordingly, we may recommend holding compensation committee members accountable for failing to adequately respond to shareholder opposition, giving careful consideration to the level of shareholder protest and the severity and history of compensation problems.

PAY FOR PERFORMANCE

Glass Lewis believes an integral part of a well-structured compensation package is a successful link between pay and performance. Our proprietary pay-for-performance model was developed to better evaluate the link between pay and performance of the top five executives at US companies. Our model benchmarks these executives’ pay and company performance against peers selected using Equilar’s market-based peer groups and across five performance metrics. By measuring the magnitude of the gap between two weighted-average percentile rankings (executive compensation and performance), we rank companies based on a grade system. The grades guide our evaluation of compensation committee effectiveness, and we generally recommend voting against compensation committee members at companies with a pattern of failing our pay-for-performance analysis. Unlike a school letter system, however, the letter “C” in the Glass Lewis grade system does not indicate a significant lapse; rather, a “C” in the Glass Lewis grade system identifies companies where the pay and performance percentile rankings relative to peers are generally aligned. This suggests that the company neither overpays nor underpays its executives relative to its comparator group.

The grades “A” and “B” are also designated to companies which align pay with performance. However, these grades indicate lower compensation levels relative to the market and to company performance. A “B” grade stems from slightly higher performance levels in comparison to market peers while executives earn relatively less than peers. Receiving an “A” in our analysis shows that the company is paying significantly less than peers while outperforming the comparator group.

A grade of “D” or “F” in our analysis is due to high pay and low performance relative to the comparator group. In our analysis, we differentiate between a disconnect between pay and performance, “D”, and a significant disconnect, “F”. An “F” grade in our analysis indicates that executives receive significantly higher compensation than peers while underperforming the market.

We also use this analysis to inform our voting decisions on say-on-pay proposals. As such, if a company receives a failing grade from our proprietary model, we are more likely to recommend that shareholders vote against the say-on-pay proposal. However, other qualitative factors such as an effective overall incentive structure, the relevance of selected performance metrics, significant forthcoming enhancements or reasonable long-term payout levels may give us cause to recommend in favor of a proposal even when we have identified a disconnect between pay and performance.

SHORT-TERM INCENTIVES

A short-term bonus or incentive (“STI”) should be demonstrably tied to performance. Whenever possible, we believe a mix of corporate and individual performance measures is appropriate. We would normally expect performance measures for STIs to be based on company-wide or divisional financial measures as well as non-financial factors such as those related to safety, environmental issues, and customer satisfaction. While we recognize that companies operating in different sectors or markets may seek to utilize a wide range of metrics, we expect such measures to be appropriately tied to a company’s business drivers.

Further, the target and potential maximum awards that can be achieved under STI awards should be disclosed. Shareholders should expect stretching performance targets for the maximum award to be achieved. Any increase in the potential target and maximum award should be clearly justified to shareholders.

Glass Lewis recognizes that disclosure of some measures may include commercially confidential information. Therefore, we believe it may be reasonable to exclude such information in some cases as long as the company provides sufficient justification for non-disclosure. However, where a short-term bonus has been paid, companies should disclose the extent to which performance has been achieved against relevant targets, including disclosure of the actual target achieved.

Where management has received significant STIs but short-term performance over the previous year prima facie appears to be poor or negative, we believe the company should provide a clear explanation of why these significant short-term payments were made. In addition, we believe that where companies use non-GAAP or bespoke metrics, clear reconciliations between these figures and GAAP figures in audited financial statement should be provided.

LONG-TERM INCENTIVES

Glass Lewis recognizes the value of equity-based incentive programs, which are often the primary long-term incentive for executives. When used appropriately, they can provide a vehicle for linking an executive’s pay to company performance, thereby aligning their interests with those of shareholders. In addition, equity-based compensation can be an effective way to attract, retain and motivate key employees.

There are certain elements that Glass Lewis believes are common to most well-structured long-term incentive (“LTI”) plans. These include:

	●	No re-testing or lowering of performance conditions;

	●	Performance metrics that cannot be easily manipulated by management;

	●	Two or more performance metrics;

	●	At least one relative performance metric that compares the company’s performance to a relevant peer group or index;

	●	Performance periods of at least three years;

	●	Stretching metrics that incentivize executives to strive for outstanding performance while not encouraging excessive risk-taking; and

●

Individual limits expressed as a percentage of base salary.

Performance measures should be carefully selected and should relate to the specific business/industry in which the company operates and, especially, the key value drivers of the company’s business. As with short-term incentive plans, the basis for any adjustments to metrics or results should be clearly explained.

While cognizant of the inherent complexity of certain performance metrics, Glass Lewis generally believes that measuring a company’s performance with multiple metrics serves to provide a more complete picture of the company’s performance than a single metric; further, reliance on just one metric may focus too much management attention on a single target and is therefore more susceptible to manipulation. When utilized for relative measurements, external benchmarks such as a sector index or peer group should be disclosed and transparent. The rationale behind the selection of a specific index or peer group should also be disclosed. Internal benchmarks should also be disclosed and transparent, unless a cogent case for confidentiality is made and fully explained. Similarly, actual performance and vesting levels for previous grants earned during the fiscal year should be disclosed.

We also believe shareholders should evaluate the relative success of a company’s compensation programs, particularly with regard to existing equity-based incentive plans, in linking pay and performance when evaluating new LTI plans to determine the impact of additional stock awards. We will therefore review the company’s pay-for-performance grade (see below for more information) and specifically the proportion of total compensation that is stock-based.

TRANSITIONAL AND ONE-OFF AWARDS

Glass Lewis believes shareholders should generally be wary of awards granted outside of the standard incentive schemes outlined above, as such awards have the potential to undermine the integrity of a company’s regular incentive plans, the link between pay and performance or both. We generally believe that if the existing incentive programs fail to provide adequate incentives to executives, companies should redesign their compensation programs rather than make additional grants.

However, we recognize that in certain circumstances, additional incentives may be appropriate. In these cases, companies should provide a thorough description of the awards, including a cogent and convincing explanation of their necessity and why existing awards do not provide sufficient motivation. Further, such awards should be tied to future service and performance whenever possible.

Similarly, we acknowledge that there may be certain costs associated with transitions at the executive level. We believe that sign-on arrangements should be clearly disclosed and accompanied by a meaningful explanation of the payments and the process by which the amounts are reached. Furthermore, the details of and basis for any “make-whole” payments (which are paid as compensation for forfeited awards from a previous employer) should be provided.

While in limited circumstances such deviations may not be inappropriate, we believe shareholders should be provided with a meaningful explanation of any additional benefits agreed upon outside of the regular arrangements. For severance or sign-on arrangements, we may consider the executive’s regular target compensation levels or the sums paid to other executives (including the recipient’s predecessor, where applicable) in evaluating the appropriateness of such an arrangement.

Additionally, we believe companies making supplemental or one-time awards should also describe if and how the regular compensation arrangements will be affected by these additional grants. In reviewing a company’s use of supplemental awards, Glass Lewis will evaluate the terms and size of the grants in the context of the company’s overall incentive strategy and granting practices, as well as the current operating environment.

RECOUPMENT PROVISIONS (“CLAWBACKS”)

We believe it is prudent for boards to adopt detailed and stringent bonus recoupment policies to prevent executives from retaining performance-based awards that were not truly earned. We believe such “clawback” policies should be triggered in the event of a restatement of financial results or similar revision of performance indicators upon which bonuses were based. Such policies would allow the board to review all performance-related bonuses and awards made to senior executives during the period covered by a restatement and would, to the extent feasible, allow the company to recoup such bonuses in the event that performance goals were not actually achieved. We further believe clawback policies should be subject to only limited discretion to ensure the integrity of such policies.

Section 954 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the SEC to create a rule requiring listed companies to adopt policies for recouping certain compensation during a three-year look-back period. The rule applies to incentive-based compensation paid to current or former executives if the company is required to prepare an accounting restatement due to erroneous data resulting from material non-compliance with any financial reporting requirements under the securities laws. However, the SEC has yet to finalize the relevant rules.

These recoupment provisions are more stringent than under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in three respects: (i) the provisions extend to current or former executive officers rather than only to the CEO and CFO; (ii) it has a three-year look-back period (rather than a twelve-month look-back period); and (iii) it allows for recovery of compensation based upon a financial restatement due to erroneous data, and therefore does not require misconduct on the part of the executive or other employees.

HEDGING OF STOCK

Glass Lewis believes that the hedging of shares by executives in the shares of the companies where they are employed severs the alignment of interests of the executive with shareholders. We believe companies should adopt strict policies to prohibit executives from hedging the economic risk associated with their shareownership in the company.

PLEDGING OF STOCK

Glass Lewis believes that shareholders should examine the facts and circumstances of each company rather than apply a one-size-fits-all policy regarding employee stock pledging. Glass Lewis believes that shareholders benefit when employees, particularly senior executives have “skin-in-the-game” and therefore recognizes the benefits of measures designed to encourage employees to both buy shares out of their own pocket and to retain shares they have been granted; blanket policies prohibiting stock pledging may discourage executives and employees from doing either.

However, we also recognize that the pledging of shares can present a risk that, depending on a host of factors, an executive with significant pledged shares and limited other assets may have an incentive to take steps to avoid a forced sale of shares in the face of a rapid stock price decline. Therefore, to avoid substantial losses from a forced sale to meet the terms of the loan, the executive may have an incentive to boost the stock price in the short term in a manner that is unsustainable, thus hurting shareholders in the long-term. We also recognize concerns regarding pledging may not apply to less senior employees, given the latter group’s significantly more limited influence over a company’s stock price. Therefore, we believe that the issue of pledging shares should be reviewed in that context, as should polices that distinguish between the two groups.

Glass Lewis believes that the benefits of stock ownership by executives and employees may outweigh the risks of stock pledging, depending on many factors. As such, Glass Lewis reviews all relevant factors in evaluating proposed policies, limitations and prohibitions on pledging stock, including:

	●	The number of shares pledged;

	●	The percentage executives’ pledged shares are of outstanding shares;

	●	The percentage executives’ pledged shares are of each executive’s shares and total assets;

	●	Whether the pledged shares were purchased by the employee or granted by the company;

	●	Whether there are different policies for purchased and granted shares;

	●	Whether the granted shares were time-based or performance-based;

	●	The overall governance profile of the company;

	●	The volatility of the company’s stock (in order to determine the likelihood of a sudden stock price drop);

	●	The nature and cyclicality, if applicable, of the company’s industry;

	●	The participation and eligibility of executives and employees in pledging;

	●	The company’s current policies regarding pledging and any waiver from these policies for employees and executives; and

	●	Disclosure of the extent of any pledging, particularly among senior executives.

COMPENSATION CONSULTANT INDEPENDENCE

As mandated by Section 952 of the Dodd-Frank Act, as of January 11, 2013, the SEC approved new listing requirements for both the NYSE and NASDAQ which require compensation committees to consider six factors in assessing compensation advisor independence. These factors include: (1) provision of other services to the company; (2) fees paid by the company as a percentage of the advisor’s total annual revenue; (3) policies and procedures of the advisor to mitigate conflicts of interests; (4) any business or personal relationships of the consultant with any member of the compensation committee; (5) any company stock held by the consultant; and (6) any business or personal relationships of the consultant with any executive officer of the company. According to the SEC, “no one factor should be viewed as a determinative factor.” Glass Lewis believes this six-factor assessment is an important process for every compensation committee to undertake but believes companies employing a consultant for board compensation, consulting and other corporate services should provide clear disclosure beyond just a reference to examining the six points to allow shareholders to review the specific aspects of the various consultant relationships.

We believe compensation consultants are engaged to provide objective, disinterested, expert advice to the compensation committee. When the consultant or its affiliates receive substantial income from providing other services to the company, we believe the potential for a conflict of interest arises and the independence of the consultant may be jeopardized. Therefore, Glass Lewis will, when relevant, note the potential for a conflict of interest when the fees paid to the advisor or its affiliates for other services exceeds those paid for compensation consulting.

CEO PAY RATIO

As mandated by Section 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Consumer and Protection Act, beginning in 2018, issuers will be required to disclose the median annual total compensation of all employees except the CEO, the total annual compensation of the CEO or equivalent position, and the ratio between the two amounts. Glass Lewis will display the pay ratio as a data point in our Proxy Papers, as available. While we recognize that the pay ratio has the potential to provide additional insight when assessing a company’s pay practices, at this time it will not be a determinative factor in our voting recommendations.

FREQUENCY OF SAY-ON-PAY

The Dodd-Frank Act also requires companies to allow shareholders a non-binding vote on the frequency of say-on-pay votes, i.e. every one, two or three years. Additionally, Dodd-Frank requires companies to hold such votes on the frequency of say-on-pay votes at least once every six years.

We believe companies should submit say-on-pay votes to shareholders every year. We believe that the time and financial burdens to a company with regard to an annual vote are relatively small and incremental and are outweighed by the benefits to shareholders through more frequent accountability. Implementing biannual or triennial votes on executive compensation limits shareholders’ ability to hold the board accountable for its compensation practices through means other than voting against the compensation committee. Unless a company provides a compelling rationale or unique circumstances for say-on-pay votes less frequent than annually, we will generally recommend that shareholders support annual votes on compensation.

VOTE ON GOLDEN PARACHUTE ARRANGEMENTS

The Dodd-Frank Act also requires companies to provide shareholders with a separate non-binding vote on approval of golden parachute compensation arrangements in connection with certain change-in-control transactions. However, if the golden parachute arrangements have previously been subject to a say-on-pay vote which shareholders approved, then this required vote is waived.

Glass Lewis believes the narrative and tabular disclosure of golden parachute arrangements benefits all shareholders. Glass Lewis analyzes each golden parachute arrangement on a case-by-case basis, taking into account, among other items: the nature of the change-in-control transaction, the ultimate value of the payments particularly compared to the value of the transaction, any excise tax gross-up obligations, the tenure and position of the executives in question before and after the transaction, any new or amended employment agreements entered into in connection with the transaction, and the type of triggers involved (i.e., single vs. double).

EQUITY-BASED COMPENSATION PLAN PROPOSALS

We believe that equity compensation awards, when not abused, are useful for retaining employees and providing an incentive for them to act in a way that will improve company performance. Glass Lewis recognizes that equity-based compensation plans are critical components of a company’s overall compensation program and we analyze such plans accordingly based on both quantitative and qualitative factors.

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

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

We then consider qualitative aspects of the plan such as plan administration, the method and terms of exercise, repricing history, express or implied rights to reprice, and the presence of evergreen provisions. We also

closely review the choice and use of, and difficulty in meeting, the awards’ performance metrics and targets, if any. We believe significant changes to the terms of a plan should be explained for shareholders and clearly indicated. Other factors such as a company’s size and operating environment may also be relevant in assessing the severity of concerns or the benefits of certain changes. Finally, we may consider a company’s executive compensation practices in certain situations, as applicable.

We evaluate equity plans based on certain overarching principles:

	●	Companies should seek more shares only when needed;

	●	Requested share amounts should be small enough that companies seek shareholder approval every three to four years (or more frequently);

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

	●	Dilution of annual net share count or voting power, along with the “overhang” of incentive plans, should be limited;

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

	●	The expected annual cost of the plan should be proportional to the business’s value;

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

	●	Plans should not permit re-pricing of stock options;

	●	Plans should not contain excessively liberal administrative or payment terms;

	●	Plans should not count shares in ways that understate the potential dilution, or cost, to common shareholders. This refers to “inverse” full-value award multipliers;

	●	Selected performance metrics should be challenging and appropriate, and should be subject to relative performance measurements; and

	●	Stock grants should be subject to minimum vesting and/or holding periods sufficient to ensure sustainable performance and promote retention.

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.

There is one circumstance in which a repricing or option exchange program may be acceptable: if macroeconomic or industry trends, rather than specific company issues, cause a stock’s value to decline dramatically and the repricing is necessary to motivate and retain employees. In 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 recommend supporting a repricing if the following conditions are true:

	●	Officers and board members cannot participate in the program;

	●	The stock decline mirrors the market or industry price decline in terms of timing and approximates the decline in magnitude;

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

	●	Management and the board make a cogent case for needing to motivate and retain existing employees, such as being in a competitive employment market.

OPTION BACKDATING, SPRING-LOADING AND BULLET-DODGING

Glass Lewis views option backdating, and the related practices of spring-loading and bullet-dodging, as egregious actions that warrant holding the appropriate management and board members responsible. These practices are similar to 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. Since 2006, 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.⁴⁹

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.

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

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.

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PLANS

Glass Lewis believes that non-employee directors should receive reasonable and appropriate compensation for the time and effort they spend serving on the board and its committees. However, a balance is required. Fees should be competitive in order to retain and attract qualified individuals, but excessive fees represent a financial cost to the company and potentially compromise the objectivity and independence of non-employee directors. We will consider recommending supporting compensation plans that include option grants or other equity-based awards that help to align the interests of outside directors with those of shareholders. However, equity grants to directors should not be performance-based to ensure directors are not incentivized in the same manner as executives but rather serve as a check on imprudent risk-taking in executive compensation plan design.

Glass Lewis uses a proprietary model and analyst review to evaluate the costs of equity plans compared to the plans of peer companies with similar market capitalizations. We use the results of this model to guide our voting recommendations on stock-based director compensation plans.

EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLANS

Glass Lewis believes that employee stock purchase plans (“ESPPs”) can provide employees with a sense of ownership in their company and help strengthen the alignment between the interests of employees and shareholders. We evaluate ESPPs by assessing the expected discount, purchase period, expected purchase activity (if previous activity has been disclosed) and whether the plan has a “lookback” feature. Except for the most extreme cases, Glass Lewis will generally support these plans given the regulatory purchase limit of $25,000 per employee per year, which we believe is reasonable. We also look at the number of shares requested to see if a ESPP will significantly contribute to overall shareholder dilution or if shareholders will not have a chance to approve the program for an excessive period of time. As such, we will generally recommend against ESPPs that contain “evergreen” provisions that automatically increase the number of shares available under the ESPP each year.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TAX DEDUCTIBILITY (IRS 162(M) COMPLIANCE)

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, if the compensation is performance-based and is paid under shareholder-approved plans. Companies therefore submit incentive plans for shareholder approval to take of advantage of the tax deductibility afforded under 162(m) for certain types of compensation.

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

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

The company’s record of aligning pay with performance (as evaluated using our proprietary pay-for-performance model) also plays a role in our recommendation. Where a company has a record of setting reasonable pay relative to business performance, we generally recommend voting in favor of a plan even if the plan caps seem large relative to peers because we recognize the value in special pay arrangements for continued exceptional performance.

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

Governance Structure and the Shareholder Franchise

ANTI-TAKEOVER MEASURES

POISON PILLS (SHAREHOLDER RIGHTS PLANS)

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

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

In certain circumstances, we will support a poison pill that is limited in scope to accomplish a particular objective, such as the closing of an important merger, or a pill that contains what we believe to be a reasonable qualifying offer clause. We will consider supporting a poison pill plan if the qualifying offer clause includes each of the following attributes:

	●	The form of offer is not required to be an all-cash transaction;

	●	The offer is not required to remain open for more than 90 business days;

	●	The offeror is permitted to amend the offer, reduce the offer, or otherwise change the terms;

	●	There is no fairness opinion requirement; and

	●	There is a low to no premium requirement.

Where these requirements are met, we typically feel comfortable that shareholders will have the opportunity to voice their opinion on any legitimate offer.

NOL POISON PILLS

Similarly, Glass Lewis may consider supporting a limited poison pill in the event that a company seeks shareholder approval of a rights plan for the express purpose of preserving Net Operating Losses (NOLs). While companies with NOLs can generally carry these losses forward to offset future taxable income, Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code limits companies’ ability to use NOLs in the event of a “change of ownership.”⁵⁰In this case, a company may adopt or amend a poison pill (“NOL pill”) in order to prevent an inadvertent change of ownership by multiple investors purchasing small chunks of stock at the same time, and thereby preserve the ability to carry the NOLs forward. Often such NOL pills have trigger thresholds much lower than the common 15% or 20% thresholds, with some NOL pill triggers as low as 5%.

Glass Lewis evaluates NOL pills on a strictly case-by-case basis taking into consideration, among other factors, the value of the NOLs to the company, the likelihood of a change of ownership based on the size of the holding and the nature of the larger shareholders, the trigger threshold and whether the term of the plan is limited in duration (i.e., whether it contains a reasonable “sunset” provision) or is subject to periodic board review and/or shareholder ratification. 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 shareholders. The provision is generally applied against the acquirer unless the takeover is approved by a majority of ”continuing directors” and holders of a majority, in some cases a supermajority as high as 80%, of the combined voting power of all stock entitled to vote to alter, amend, or repeal the above provisions.

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

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

50 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.

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:

	●	Is the board sufficiently independent?

	●	Does the company have anti-takeover protections such as a poison pill or classified board in place?

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

	●	Do shareholders have the right to call special meetings of shareholders?

	●	Are there other material governance issues of concern at the company?

	●	Has the company’s performance matched or exceeded its peers in the past one and three years?

	●	How has the company ranked in Glass Lewis’ pay-for-performance analysis during the last three years?

	●	Does the company have an independent chair?

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

EXCLUSIVE FORUM AND FEE-SHIFTING BYLAW PROVISIONS

Glass Lewis recognizes that companies may be subject to frivolous and opportunistic lawsuits, particularly in conjunction with a merger or acquisition, that are expensive and distracting. In response, companies have sought ways to prevent or limit the risk of such suits by adopting bylaws regarding where the suits must be brought or shifting the burden of the legal expenses to the plaintiff, if unsuccessful at trial.

Glass Lewis believes that charter or bylaw provisions limiting a shareholder’s choice of legal venue are not in the best interests of shareholders. Such clauses may effectively discourage the use of shareholder claims by increasing their associated costs and making them more difficult to pursue. As such, shareholders should

be wary about approving any limitation on their legal recourse including limiting themselves to a single jurisdiction (e.g., Delaware) without compelling evidence that it will benefit shareholders.

For this reason, we recommend that shareholders vote against any bylaw or charter amendment seeking to adopt an exclusive forum provision unless the company: (i) provides a compelling argument on why the provision would directly benefit shareholders; (ii) provides evidence of abuse of legal process in other, non-favored jurisdictions; (iii) narrowly tailors such provision to the risks involved; and (iv) maintains a strong record of good corporate governance practices.

Moreover, in the event a board seeks shareholder approval of a forum selection clause pursuant to a bundled bylaw amendment rather than as a separate proposal, we will weigh the importance of the other bundled provisions when determining the vote recommendation on the proposal. We will nonetheless recommend voting against the chair of the governance committee for bundling disparate proposals into a single proposal (refer to our discussion of nominating and governance committee performance in Section I of the guidelines).

Similarly, some companies have adopted bylaws requiring plaintiffs who sue the company and fail to receive a judgment in their favor pay the legal expenses of the company. These bylaws, also known as “fee-shifting” or “loser pays” bylaws, will likely have a chilling effect on even meritorious shareholder lawsuits as shareholders would face an strong financial disincentive not to sue a company. Glass Lewis therefore strongly opposes the adoption of such fee-shifting bylaws and, if adopted without shareholder approval, will recommend voting against the governance committee. While we note that in June of 2015 the State of Delaware banned the adoption of fee-shifting bylaws, such provisions could still be adopted by companies incorporated in other states.

AUTHORIZED SHARES

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

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

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

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

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

Issuing additional shares 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. Similar concerns may also lead us to recommend against a proposal to conduct a reverse stock split if the board does not state that it will reduce the number of authorized common shares in a ratio proportionate to the split.

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

ADVANCE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS

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

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

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

VIRTUAL SHAREHOLDER MEETINGS

A relatively small but growing contingent of companies have elected to hold shareholder meetings by virtual means only. Glass Lewis believes that virtual meeting technology can be a useful complement to a traditional, in-person shareholder meeting by expanding participation of shareholders who are unable to attend a shareholder meeting in person (i.e. a “hybrid meeting”). However, we also believe that virtual-only meetings have the potential to curb the ability of a company’s shareholders to meaningfully communicate with the company’s management.

Prominent shareholder rights advocates, including the Council of Institutional Investors, have expressed concerns that such virtual-only meetings do not approximate an in-person experience and may serve to reduce the board’s accountability to shareholders. When analyzing the governance profile of companies that choose to hold virtual-only meetings, we look for robust disclosure in a company’s proxy statement which assures shareholders that they will be afforded the same rights and opportunities to participate as they would at an in-person meeting.

In 2018, we will not make voting recommendations solely on the basis that a company is holding a virtual-only meeting. Beginning in 2019, however, Glass Lewis will generally recommend voting against members of the governance committee of a board where the board is planning to hold a virtual-only shareholder meeting and the company does not provide such disclosure.

VOTING STRUCTURE

DUAL-CLASS SHARE STRUCTURES

Glass Lewis believes dual-class voting structures are typically not in the best interests of common shareholders. Allowing one vote per share generally operates as a safeguard for common shareholders by ensuring that those who hold a significant minority of shares are able to weigh in on issues set forth by the board.

Furthermore, we believe that the economic stake of each shareholder should match their voting power and that no small group of shareholders, family or otherwise, should have voting rights different from those of other shareholders. On matters of governance and shareholder rights, we believe shareholders should have the power to speak and the opportunity to effect change. That power should not be concentrated in the hands of a few for reasons other than economic stake.

We generally consider a dual-class share structure to reflect negatively on a company’s overall corporate governance. Because we believe that companies should have share capital structures that protect the interests of non-controlling shareholders as well as any controlling entity, we typically recommend that shareholders vote in favor of recapitalization proposals to eliminate dual-class share structures. Similarly, we will generally recommend against proposals to adopt a new class of common stock.

With regards to our evaluation of corporate governance following an IPO or spin-off within the past year, we will now include the presence of dual-class share structures as an additional factor in determining whether shareholder rights are being severely restricted indefinitely.

When analyzing voting results from meetings of shareholders at companies controlled through dual-class structures, we will carefully examine the level of approval or disapproval attributed to unaffiliated shareholders when determining whether board responsiveness is warranted. Where vote results indicate that a majority of unaffiliated shareholders supported a shareholder proposal or opposed a management proposal, we believe the board should demonstrate an appropriate level of responsiveness.

CUMULATIVE VOTING

Cumulative voting increases the ability of minority shareholders to elect a director by allowing shareholders to cast as many shares of the stock they own multiplied by the number of directors to be elected. As companies generally have multiple nominees up for election, cumulative voting allows shareholders to cast all of their votes for a single nominee, or a smaller number of nominees than up for election, thereby raising the likelihood of electing one or more of their preferred nominees to the board. It can be important when a board is controlled by insiders or affiliates and where the company’s ownership structure includes one or more shareholders who control a majority-voting block of company stock.

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

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

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

of majority voting, Glass Lewis will also generally recommend voting against cumulative voting proposals if the company has not adopted 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

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

ANTI-GREENMAIL PROPOSALS

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

MUTUAL FUNDS: INVESTMENT POLICIES AND ADVISORY AGREEMENTS

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

	●	The terms of any amended advisory or sub-advisory agreement;

	●	Any changes in the fee structure paid to the investment advisor; and

	●	Any material changes to the fund’s investment objective or strategy.

We generally support amendments to a fund’s investment advisory agreement absent a material change that is not in the best interests of shareholders. A significant increase in the fees paid to an investment advisor would be reason for us to consider recommending voting against a proposed amendment to an investment advisory agreement or fund reorganization. However, in certain cases, we are more inclined to support an increase in advisory fees if such increases result from being performance-based rather than asset-based. Furthermore, we generally support sub-advisory agreements between a fund’s advisor and sub-advisor, primarily because the fees received by the sub-advisor are paid by the advisor, and not by the fund.

In matters pertaining to a fund’s investment objective or strategy, we believe shareholders are best served when a fund’s objective or strategy closely resembles the investment discipline shareholders understood and selected when they initially bought into the fund. As such, we generally recommend voting against amendments to a fund’s investment objective or strategy when the proposed changes would leave shareholders with stakes in a fund that is noticeably different than when originally purchased, and which could therefore potentially negatively impact some investors’ diversification strategies.

REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUSTS

The complex organizational, operational, tax and compliance requirements of Real Estate Investment Trusts (“REITs”) provide for a unique shareholder evaluation. In simple terms, a REIT must have a minimum of 100 shareholders (the “100 Shareholder Test”) and no more than 50% of the value of its shares can be held by five or fewer individuals (the “5/50 Test”). At least 75% of a REITs’ assets must be in real estate, it must derive 75% of its gross income from rents or mortgage interest, and it must pay out 90% of its taxable earnings as dividends. In addition, as a publicly traded security listed on a stock exchange, a REIT must comply with the same general listing requirements as a publicly traded equity.

In order to comply with such requirements, REITs typically include percentage ownership limitations in their organizational documents, usually in the range of 5% to 10% of the REITs outstanding shares. Given the complexities of REITs as an asset class, Glass Lewis applies a highly nuanced approach in our evaluation of REIT proposals, especially regarding changes in authorized share capital, including preferred stock.

PREFERRED STOCK ISSUANCES AT REITS

Glass Lewis is generally against the authorization of preferred shares that allows the board to determine the preferences, limitations and rights of the preferred shares (known as “blank-check preferred stock”). We believe that granting such broad discretion should be of concern to common shareholders, since blank-check preferred stock could be used as an antitakeover device or in some other fashion that adversely affects the voting power or financial interests of common shareholders. However, given the requirement that a REIT must distribute 90% of its net income annually, it is inhibited from retaining capital to make investments in its business. As such, we recognize that equity financing likely plays a key role in a REIT’s growth and creation of shareholder value. Moreover, shareholder concern regarding the use of preferred stock as an anti-takeover mechanism may be allayed by the fact that most REITs maintain ownership limitations in their certificates of incorporation. For these reasons, along with the fact that REITs typically do not engage in private placements of preferred stock (which result in the rights of common shareholders being adversely impacted), we may support requests to authorize shares of blank-check preferred stock at REITs.

BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES

Business Development Companies (“BDCs”) were created by the U.S. Congress in 1980; they are regulated under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and are taxed as regulated investment companies (“RICs”) under the Internal Revenue Code. BDCs typically operate as publicly traded private equity firms that invest in early stage to mature private companies as well as small public companies. BDCs realize operating income when their investments are sold off, and therefore maintain complex organizational, operational, tax and compliance requirements that are similar to those of REITs—the most evident of which is that BDCs must distribute at least 90% of their taxable earnings as dividends.

AUTHORIZATION TO SELL SHARES AT A PRICE BELOW NET ASSET VALUE

Considering that BDCs are required to distribute nearly all their earnings to shareholders, they sometimes need to offer additional shares of common stock in the public markets to finance operations and acquisitions. However, shareholder approval is required in order for a BDC to sell shares of common stock at a price below Net Asset Value (“NAV”). Glass Lewis evaluates these proposals using a case-by-case approach, but will recommend supporting such requests if the following conditions are met:

	●	The authorization to allow share issuances below NAV has an expiration date of one year or less from the date that shareholders approve the underlying proposal (i.e. the meeting date);

	●	The proposed discount below NAV is minimal (ideally no greater than 20%);

	●	The board specifies that the issuance will have a minimal or modest dilutive effect (ideally no greater than 25% of the company’s then-outstanding common stock prior to the issuance); and

	●	A majority of the company’s independent directors who do not have a financial interest in the issuance approve the sale.

In short, we believe BDCs should demonstrate a responsible approach to issuing shares below NAV, by proactively addressing shareholder concerns regarding the potential dilution of the requested share issuance, and explaining if and how the company’s past below-NAV share issuances have benefitted the company.

Compensation, Environmental, Social and Governance Shareholder Initialtives

Glass Lewis generally believes decisions regarding day-to-day management and policy decisions, including those related to social, environmental or political issues, are best left to management and the board as they in almost all cases have more and better information about company strategy and risk. However, when there is a clear link between the subject of a shareholder proposal and value enhancement or risk mitigation, Glass Lewis will recommend in favor of a reasonable, well-crafted shareholder proposal where the company has failed to or inadequately addressed the issue.

We believe that shareholders should not attempt to micromanage a 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. Shareholders should then put in place a board they can trust to make informed decisions that are in the best interests of the business and its owners, and hold directors accountable for management and policy decisions through board elections. However, we recognize that support of appropriately crafted shareholder initiatives may at times serve to promote or protect shareholder value.

To this end, Glass Lewis evaluates shareholder proposals on a case-by-case basis. We generally recommend supporting shareholder proposals calling for the elimination of, as well as to require shareholder approval of, antitakeover devices such as poison pills and classified boards. We generally recommend supporting proposals likely to increase and/or protect shareholder value and also those that promote the furtherance of shareholder rights. In addition, we also generally recommend supporting proposals that promote director accountability and those that seek to improve compensation practices, especially those promoting a closer link between compensation and performance, as well as those that promote more and better disclosure of relevant risk factors where such disclosure is lacking or inadequate.

For a detailed review of our policies concerning compensation, environmental, social and governance shareholder initiatives, please refer to our comprehensive Proxy Paper Guidelines for Shareholder Initiatives, available at www.glasslewis.com.

DISCLAIMER

This document is intended to provide an overview of Glass Lewis’ proxy voting policies and guidelines. It is not intended to be exhaustive and does not address all potential voting issues. Additionally, none of the information contained herein should be relied upon as investment advice. The content of this document has been developed based on Glass Lewis’ experience with proxy voting and corporate governance issues, engagement with clients and issuers and review of relevant studies and surveys, and has not been tailored to any specific person.

No representations or warranties express or implied, are made as to the accuracy or completeness of any information included herein. In addition, Glass Lewis shall not be liable for any losses or damages arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use, reliance on or inability to use any such information. Glass Lewis expects its subscribers possess sufficient experience and knowledge to make their own decisions entirely independent of any information contained in this document.

All information contained in this report is protected by law, including but not limited to, copyright law, and none of such information may be copied or otherwise reproduced, repackaged, further transmitted, transferred, disseminated, redistributed or resold, or stored for subsequent use for any such purpose, in whole or in part, in any form or manner or by any means whatsoever, by any person without Glass Lewis’ prior written consent.

North America			UNITED STATES

			Headquarters
			One Sansome Street
			Suite 3300
			San Francisco, CA 94104
			+1 415 678 4110
			+1 888 800 7001

			44 Wall Street
			Suite 2001
			New York, NY 10005
			+1 212 797 3777


Europe			IRELAND
			15 Henry Street
			Limerick
			+353 61 292 800

			UNITED KINGDOM
			80 Coleman Street
			Suite 4.02
			London, EC2R 5BJ
			+44 207 653 8800

			GERMANY
			IVOX Glass Lewis
			Kaiserallee 23a
			76133 Karlsruhe
			+49 721 3549622


Asia Pacific			AUSTRALIA
			CGI Glass Lewis
			Suite 5.03, Level 5
			255 George St
			Sydney NSW 2000
			+61 2 9299 9266

www.glasslewis.com

	@GlassLewis

	@CGIGlassLewis

	@MeetylConnect

	Glass, Lewis & Co.

(GLASS LEWIS LOGO)