Vanguard Trustees’ Equity Fund

Supplement Dated October 1, 2019 to the Statement of Additional Information

Effective October 1, 2019, the Vanguard’s Proxy Voting Guidelines section (revised to Proxy Voting) is replaced in its entirety with the following:

I. Proxy Voting Policies

Each Vanguard fund advised by Vanguard has retained proxy voting authority for each respective portfolio advised by Vanguard. The Board of Trustees of the Vanguard-advised funds (the Board) has adopted proxy voting procedures and guidelines to govern proxy voting for each portfolio retaining proxy voting authority, which are summarized in Appendix A. The Board of each Vanguard fund advised by a manager not affiliated with Vanguard has delegated the authority to vote proxies related to the portfolio securities held by each fund to its respective advisor(s). Each advisor will vote such proxies in accordance with its proxy voting policies and procedures, which are summarized in Appendix B.

II. Securities Lending

There may be occasions when Vanguard needs to restrict lending of and/or recall securities that are out on loan in order to vote in a shareholder meeting. For the funds managed by Vanguard, Vanguard has processes to monitor securities on loan and to evaluate any circumstances that may require it to restrict and/or attempt to recall the security based on the criteria set forth in Appendix A. Additionally, Vanguard has processes in place for advisors unaffiliated with Vanguard who have been delegated authority to vote proxies on behalf of certain Vanguard funds to inform Vanguard of an upcoming vote they deem to be material in accordance with such advisor’s proxy voting policies and procedures in order for Vanguard to instruct the recall of the security.

To obtain a free copy of a report that details how the funds voted the proxies relating to the portfolio securities held by the funds for the prior 12-month period ended June 30, log on to vanguard.com or visit the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.

The following is added as Appendix A to this Statement of Additional Information:

Vanguard-Advised Funds Proxy Voting Policy

Each Vanguard fund advised by Vanguard retains proxy voting authority for each respective portfolio advised by Vanguard. The Board of Trustees (the Board) for the Vanguard-advised funds has adopted

proxy voting procedures and guidelines to govern proxy voting for each portfolio retaining proxy voting authority.

The Investment Stewardship Oversight Committee (the Committee), made up of senior officers of Vanguard and subject to the procedures described below, oversees the Vanguard-advised funds’ proxy voting. The Committee reports directly to the Board. Vanguard is subject to these procedures and the proxy voting guidelines to the extent that they call for Vanguard to administer the voting process and implement the resulting voting decisions, and for these purposes the guidelines have also been approved by the Board of Directors of Vanguard.

The overarching objective in voting is simple: to support proposals and director nominees that maximize the value of each fund’s investments—and those of fund shareholders—over the long term, consistent with the fund’s investment objective. Although the goal is simple, the proposals the funds receive are varied and frequently complex. As such, the voting principles and guidelines adopted by the Board provide a rigorous framework for assessing each proposal. Under the guidelines, each proposal must be evaluated on its merits, based on the particular facts and circumstances as presented. For more information on the funds’ proxy voting guidelines, please visit about.vanguard.com/investment-stewardship.

I. Investment Stewardship Team

The Investment Stewardship Team administers the day-to-day operation of the funds’ proxy voting process, overseen by the Committee. Although most votes will be determined, subject to the individual circumstances of each fund, by reference to the guidelines as separately adopted by each of the funds, there may be circumstances when the Investment Stewardship Team will refer proxy issues to the Committee for consideration. In addition, at any time, the Board has the authority to vote proxies, when, at the Board’s or the Committee’s discretion, such action is warranted. The Investment Stewardship Team performs the following functions: (1) managing and conducting due diligence of proxy voting vendors; (2) reconciling share positions; (3) analyzing proxy proposals using factors described in the guidelines; (4) determining and addressing potential or actual conflicts of interest that may be presented by a particular proxy; and (5) voting proxies. The Investment Stewardship Team also prepares periodic and special reports to the Board, and any proposed amendments to the procedures and guidelines.

II. Investment Stewardship Oversight Committee

The Board, including a majority of the independent trustees, appoints the members of the Committee who are senior officers of Vanguard. The Committee works with the Investment Stewardship Team to provide reports and other guidance to the Board regarding proxy voting by the funds. The Committee has an obligation to conduct its meetings and exercise its decision-making authority subject to the fiduciary standards of good faith, fairness, and Vanguard’s Code of Ethics. There may be instances when the Committee is called upon to determine how to apply the proxy voting principles and guidelines in the best interest of each fund’s shareholders. The Board reviews the procedures and guidelines annually and modifies them from time to time in consultation with the Committee.

III. Proxy Voting Principles

Vanguard’s investment stewardship activities are grounded in four principles of good governance:

1)	Board composition: We believe good governance begins with a great board of directors. Our primary interest is to ensure that the individuals who represent the interests of all shareholders are independent, committed, capable, and appropriately experienced.
2)	Oversight of strategy and risk: We believe that boards are responsible for effective oversight of a company’s long-term strategy and any relevant and material risks.

3)	Executive compensation: We believe that performance-linked compensation (or remuneration) policies and practices are fundamental drivers of sustainable, long-term value.
4)	Governance structures: We believe that companies should have in place governance structures to ensure that boards and management serve in the best interests of the shareholders they represent.

IV. Evaluation of Proxies

For ease of reference, the procedures and guidelines often refer to all funds. However, the processes and practices seek to ensure that proxy voting decisions are suitable for individual funds. For most proxy proposals, particularly those involving corporate governance, the evaluation will result in the same position being taken across all of the funds and the funds voting as a block. In other cases, however, a fund may vote differently, depending upon the nature and objective of the fund, the composition of its portfolio, and other factors.

The guidelines do not permit the Board to delegate voting responsibility to a third party that does not serve as a fiduciary for the funds. Because many factors bear on each decision, the guidelines incorporate factors that should be considered in each voting decision. A fund may refrain from voting some or all of its shares or vote in a particular way if doing so would be in the fund’s and its shareholders’ best interests. These circumstances may arise, for example, if the expected cost of voting exceeds the expected benefits of voting, if exercising the vote would result in the imposition of trading or other restrictions, or if a fund (or all Vanguard funds in the aggregate) were to own more than the permissible maximum percentage of a company’s stock (as determined by the company’s governing documents or by applicable law, regulation, or regulatory agreement).

In evaluating proxy proposals, we consider information from many sources, including, but not limited to, an investment advisor unaffiliated with Vanguard that has investment and proxy voting authority with respect to Vanguard funds that hold shares in the applicable company, the management or shareholders of a company presenting a proposal, and independent proxy research services. We will give substantial weight to the recommendations of the company’s board, absent guidelines or other specific facts that would support a vote against management. The Investment Stewardship Team does not vote in lockstep with recommendations from proxy advisors (such as Institutional Shareholder Services or Glass Lewis) for voting on behalf of the Vanguard funds. Data from proxy advisors serve as one of many inputs into our research process.

While serving as a framework, the guidelines cannot contemplate all possible proposals with which a fund may be presented. In the absence of a specific guideline for a particular proposal (e.g., in the case of a transactional issue or contested proxy), the Investment Stewardship Team, under the supervision of the Committee, will evaluate the issue and cast the fund’s vote in a manner that, in their view, will maximize the value of the fund’s investment, subject to the individual circumstances of the fund.

V. Conflicts of Interest

Vanguard takes seriously its commitment to avoid potential conflicts of interest. Vanguard funds invest in thousands of publicly listed companies worldwide. Those companies may include clients, potential clients, vendors, or competitors. Some companies may employ Vanguard trustees, former Vanguard executives, or family members of Vanguard personnel who have direct involvement in Vanguard’s Investment Stewardship program.

Vanguard’s approach to mitigating conflicts of interest begins with the funds’ proxy voting procedures.

The procedures require that voting personnel act as fiduciaries, and must conduct their activities at all

times in accordance with the following standards: (i) Fund shareholders’ interests come first; (ii) conflicts of interest must be avoided; (iii) and compromising situations must be avoided.

We maintain an important separation between Vanguard’s Investment Stewardship Team and other groups within Vanguard that are responsible for sales, marketing, client service, and vendor/partner relationships. Proxy voting personnel are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest, and must recuse themselves from all voting decisions and engagement activities in such instances. In certain circumstances, Vanguard may refrain from voting shares of a company, or may engage an independent third-party fiduciary to vote proxies.

Each externally managed fund has adopted the proxy voting guidelines of its advisor(s) and votes in accordance with the external advisor’s guidelines and procedures. Each advisor has its own procedures for managing conflicts of interest in the best interests of fund shareholders.

VI. Environmental and Social Proposals

Proposals in this category, initiated primarily by shareholders, typically request that a company enhance its disclosure or amend certain business practices. The funds will evaluate these resolutions in the context of our view that a company’s board has ultimate responsibility for providing effective ongoing oversight of relevant sector- and company-specific risks, including those related to environmental and social matters. The funds will evaluate each proposal on its merits and support those where we believe there is a logically demonstrable linkage between the specific proposal and long-term shareholder value of the company. Some of the factors considered when evaluating these proposals include the materiality of the issue, the quality of the current disclosures/business practices, and any progress by the company toward the adoption of best practices and/or industry norms.

VII. Voting in Markets Outside the United States

Corporate governance standards, disclosure requirements, and voting mechanics vary greatly among the markets outside the United States in which the funds may invest. Each fund’s votes will be used, where applicable, to advocate for improvements in governance and disclosure by each fund’s portfolio companies. We will evaluate issues presented to shareholders for each fund’s foreign holdings in the context with the principles described above, as well as local market standards and best practices. The funds will cast their votes in a manner believed to be philosophically consistent with the principles, while taking into account differing practices by market. In addition, there may be instances in which the funds elect not to vote, as described below.

Many other markets require that securities be “blocked” or reregistered to vote at a company’s meeting. Absent an issue of compelling economic importance, we will generally not subject the fund to the loss of liquidity imposed by these requirements.

The costs of voting (e.g., custodian fees, vote agency fees) in other markets may be substantially higher than for U.S. holdings. As such, the fund may limit its voting on foreign holdings in instances in which the issues presented are unlikely to have a material impact on shareholder value.

VIII. Voting Shares of a Company That Has an Ownership Limitation

Certain companies have provisions in their governing documents that restrict stock ownership in excess of a specified limit. Typically, these ownership restrictions are included in the governing documents of real estate investment trusts, but may be included in other companies’ governing documents. A company’s governing documents normally allow the company to grant a waiver of these ownership limits, which would allow a fund to exceed the stated ownership limit. Sometimes a company will grant a waiver without restriction. From time to time, a company may grant a waiver only if a fund (or funds) agrees to

not vote the company’s shares in excess of the normal specified limit. In such a circumstance, a fund may refrain from voting shares if owning the shares beyond the company’s specified limit is in the best interests of the fund and its shareholders. In addition, applicable law may require prior regulatory approval to permit ownership of certain regulated issuer’s voting securities above certain limits or may impose other restrictions on owners of more than a certain percentage of a regulated issuer’s voting shares. The Board has authorized the funds to vote shares above these limits in the same proportion as votes cast by the issuer’s entire shareholder base (i.e., mirror vote) or to refrain from voting excess shares if mirror voting is not practicable. Further, the Board has adopted policies that will result in certain funds mirror voting a higher proportion of the shares they own in a regulated issuer in order to permit certain other funds (generally advised by managers not affiliated with Vanguard) to mirror vote none, or a lower proportion of, their shares in such regulated issuer.

IX. Voting on a Fund’s Holdings of Other Vanguard Funds

Certain Vanguard funds (owner funds) may, from time to time, own shares of other Vanguard funds (underlying funds). If an underlying fund submits a matter to a vote of its shareholders, votes for and against such matters on behalf of the owner funds will be cast in the same proportion as the votes of the other shareholders in the underlying fund.

X. Securities Lending

There may be occasions when Vanguard needs to restrict lending of and/or recall securities that are out on loan in order to vote in a shareholder meeting. Vanguard has processes to monitor securities on loan and to evaluate any circumstances that may require us to restrict and/or recall the stock. In making this decision, we consider:

• The subject of the vote and whether, based on our knowledge and experience, we believe the topic is potentially material to the corporate governance and/or long term performance of the company;

• The Vanguard funds’ individual and/or aggregate equity investment in a company, and whether we estimate that voting Vanguard funds’ shares would affect the shareholder meeting outcome;

• The long-term impact to our fund shareholders, evaluating whether we believe the benefits of voting a company’s shares would outweigh the benefits of stock lending revenues in a particular instance.

The following is added as Appendix B to this Statement of Additional Information:

ARGA Investment Management, LP
Summary of Proxy Voting Policy

Consistent with our fiduciary responsibility, ARGA’s objective in voting proxies is to maximize shareholder value and to vote in a manner that reflects the best long-term, economic interest of our clients. In doing so, we follow any voting guidelines issued by clients, so long as these guidelines are consistent with ARGA’s duties under applicable law, including ERISA. ARGA’s proxy voting guidelines are the same for all the accounts we manage, where a client has delegated us with the authority to vote proxies on their behalf.

ARGA has implemented extensive procedures to ensure all proxies are received, analyzed and voted in a timely manner. In addition to information derived from our in-depth research and ongoing company analyses, ARGA utilizes the services of a third party proxy advisory firm, Glass Lewis & Co. (“Glass

Lewis”), to obtain supplementary research and impartial analysis prior to voting and to administer the proxy voting process. ARGA retains responsibility for instructing Glass Lewis how to vote and we still apply our proxy voting guidelines when voting proxies on behalf of clients through Glass Lewis. This includes rejecting the advice of Glass Lewis in circumstances where ARGA determines doing so is in the best interest of our clients.

Proxy Voting Guidelines

The decision to vote in support or opposition of a proposal is based on the specific circumstances described in the proxy statement and other available information.

Generally, ARGA votes in favor of routine proposals that increase shareholder value, improve the management of a company, and maintain or increase shareholder rights and influence over a company’s board and management.

Moral or social issues are generally voted based on the economic impact of the proposal. In cases where the economic impact is not clear, a vote to “abstain” may be appropriate.

Financial and corporate governance issues take more time to consider and may be complicated by activities such as hostile takeovers and mergers. ARGA generally votes in favor of the following types of proposals:

Election of competent, qualified directors that support the board’s independenceand ensures its diversity
Reasonable incentive compensation plans for certain key employees and directors
Mandatory retirement age for directors
Confidential voting, cumulative voting, proposals to lower barriers to shareholder action
Proposals to restore shareholder ability to remove directors with or without cause
Appointment of external auditors that provide competent advice, avoid conflicts of interest and uphold the transparency and integrity of financial reporting ARGA generally votes against the following types of financial and corporate governance proposals:
	Board entrenchment proposals and anti-takeover measures, such as “poison pill” and “golden parachute” provisions
	Compensation plans that are not aligned with shareholder interest
	Limitations on shareholder ability to act, blank check preferred stockauthorizations, eliminating cumulative voting rights, and proposals to adopt classified boards

Conflicts of Interest

ARGA’s proxy voting policies provide guidelines for dealing with actual or potential conflicts of interest, when identified. These include informing clients and seeking their consent or instructions or addressing the issue through other objective means, such as deferring to the recommendation of our independent third-party advisory firm, Glass Lewis.

Glass Lewis itself has implemented Conflict Management Procedures to avoid and manage (if unavoidable) conflicts of interest arising between an issuer and Glass Lewis. For example, Glass Lewis requires any employee who serves as an executive or director of a public company to disclose the conflicts and abstain from any involvement in the research, analysis or making of any vote recommendations for such company.

Limitations on ARGA’s Proxy Voting Obligations

In certain situations, ARGA may not vote client proxies or may abstain from voting. For example:

ARGA will not vote proxies of behalf of a client where the client has reserved the right to vote
proxies	itself or has delegated the right to vote to a third party.
ARGA will not vote proxies on behalf of a client after the effective termination date of ARGA’s
investment	advisory agreement with such client.
ARGA may abstain from voting proxies in circumstances where we determine doing so would
have	no identifiable economic benefit to the client, such as when the security is no longer held in
the	client’s portfolio or when the value of the portfolio holdings is insignificant.
ARGA may abstain from voting a client’s proxy when the cost or disadvantage resulting from
voting,	in our judgment, outweighs the economic benefits of voting. For example, in some non-
U.S.	jurisdictions, the sale of securities voted may be prohibited for some period of time, usually
between	the record date and meeting date (“share blocking”). In general, ARGA believes that
the	loss of investment flexibility resulting from share blocking outweighs the benefit to be gained
by	voting.
ARGA does not offer a securities lending service. Proxies for securities on loan through
securities	lending programs will generally not be voted, as ARGA’s clients (not ARGA) control
these	securities lending decisions.
ARGA may not be able to vote proxies due to circumstances beyond our control such as a
regional	disaster, business continuity or cyber event involving ARGA, our proxy advisory firm
or	client custodians, which may prevent proxies from being voted on time, or errors and
circumstances	not attributable to, and beyond, ARGA’s control.

Baillie Gifford Proxy Voting Guidelines

Baillie Gifford has adopted the Governance and Sustainability Principles and Guidelines (the Guidelines) to vote proxies related to securities held by the funds.

The Guidelines are developed and administered by the Governance & Sustainability Team of the Baillie Gifford Group. This Governance & Sustainability Team sits alongside the investment teams and is responsible for the voting of proxies. The head of this Governance & Sustainability Team jointly reports to an investment partner of Baillie Gifford & Co., the parent of Baillie Gifford, and to the senior investment committee of the Investment Management Group of the Baillie Gifford Group.

The Guidelines cover Baillie Gifford’s approach to governance and sustainability matters including the following areas:

• Board Effectiveness and Composition

• Capital Allocation

• Governance Processes and Disclosure

• Remuneration

• Sustainability

Baillie Gifford recognizes that given the range of markets in which the Funds invest, one set of standards is unlikely to be appropriate. The Guidelines consequently take an issues based approach covering standards from a global perspective.

Pragmatic & Flexible Approach

Baillie Gifford recognizes that companies within particular markets operate under significantly differing conditions. The Guidelines are intended to provide an insight into how Baillie Gifford approaches voting and engagement on behalf of clients with it important to note that Baillie Gifford assesses every company individually. With respect to voting, Baillie Gifford will evaluate proposals on a case-by-case basis, based on what it believes to be in the best long-term interests of the clients, rather than rigidly applying a policy.

In evaluating each proxy, the Governance & Sustainability Team follows the Guidelines, while also considering third party analysis, Baillie Gifford’s and its affiliates own research and discussions with company management.

The Governance & Sustainability team oversees voting analysis and execution in conjunction with the investment managers. Baillie Gifford may elect not to vote on certain proxies. While Baillie Gifford endeavours to vote a fund’s shares in all markets, on occasion this may not be possible due to a practice known as share blocking, whereby voting shares would result in Baillie Gifford being prevented from trading for a certain period of time. When voting in these markets, Baillie Gifford assesses the benefits of voting clients’ shares against the relevant restrictions. Baillie Gifford may also not vote where it has sold out of a stock following the record date.

Conflicts of Interest

Baillie Gifford recognizes the importance of managing potential conflicts of interest that may exist when voting a proxy solicited by a company with whom the Baillie Gifford Group has a material business or personal relationship. The Governance & Sustainability Team of the Baillie Gifford Group is responsible for monitoring possible material conflicts of interest with respect to proxy voting.

For proxy votes that involve a potential conflict of interest that is not managed in line with the Conflicts of Interest policy, the Governance & Sustainability team report the conflict to the Investment Management Group (IMG) for discussion. The Governance & Sustainability team reports into the IMG which is comprised of several senior Baillie Gifford partners. These individuals review the voting rationale, consider whether business relationships between Baillie Gifford and the company have influenced the proposed vote and decide the course of action to be taken in the best interest of clients.

Edinburgh Partners Proxy Voting Summary

Edinburgh Partners aims to vote all shares where possible and where we have been given discretion by our clients. In exercising voting authority provided to us by clients we follow the relevant applicable regulatory and legislative requirements, both in the UK and other jurisdictions in which we are regulated. The guiding principle in performing this service is to make proxy voting decisions which favour proposals designed to maximize a company’s shareholder value and are free from the influence of conflicts of interest.

We use an independent service provider to assist us in determining Edinburgh Partners Proxy Voting Policy and in implementing our proxy voting decisions. The provider Edinburgh Partners uses is ISS. Specifically, ISS assists us in the proxy voting and corporate governance oversight process by developing and updating their own proxy voting guidelines and by providing research and analysis, recommendations regarding votes, delivery of proxy instructions, recordkeeping and reporting services. Our decision to retain ISS is based principally on the view that the services ISS provides, subject to Edinburgh Partners’ oversight, will generally result in proxy voting decisions which are favorable to shareholders’ interests. In addition, portfolio managers will review the ISS recommendations and may elect to cast votes in a manner other than in line with those recommendations, where they have good reason to believe it is in

the best interests of shareholders to do so. In these instances full documentation is maintained of any variation from the recommended course of action and reported to the relevant clients.

This policy does not apply in any instance where a client has not granted Edinburgh Partners discretionary voting authority either because the client has retained voting discretion, granted voting discretion to a third party or directed us to vote proxies in a particular manner. For investors in the Edinburgh Partners' pooled funds the proxy voting policy detailed above is exercised in a manner consistent with other segregated portfolios where Edinburgh Partners has been given discretion to vote.

Edinburgh Partners retains the following records in relation to our exercise of discretionary voting authority for our clients:

• Proxy voting policies and procedures as amended from time to time

• ISS proxy voting recommendations

• Client requests for proxy voting information

• Documentation material to the voting decision for a client proxy or that reflects the basis for that decision

Lazard Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

Introduction

Lazard Asset Management LLC (Lazard) is a global investment firm that provides investment management services for a variety of clients. As a registered investment advisor, Lazard has a fiduciary obligation to vote proxies in the best interests of our clients. Lazard’s Proxy Voting Policy has been developed with the goal of maximizing the long term shareholder value.

Lazard does not delegate voting authority to any proxy advisory service, but rather retains complete authority for voting all proxies delegated to it. Our policy is generally to vote all meetings and all proposals; and generally to vote all proxies for a given proposal the same way for all clients. The Policy is also designed to address potential material conflicts of interest associated with proxy voting, and does so principally in setting approved guidelines for various common proposals.

Proxy Operations Department

Lazard’s proxy voting process is administered by members of its Operations Department (Proxy Administration Team). Oversight of the process is provided by Lazard’s Legal/Compliance Department and Lazard’s Proxy Committee (Proxy Committee).

Proxy Committee

Lazard’s Proxy Committee is comprised of senior investment professionals, members of the Legal/Compliance Department and other Lazard personnel. The Proxy Committee meets regularly, generally on a quarterly basis, to review this Policy and other matters relating to the firm’s proxy voting functions. Meetings may be convened more frequently (for example, to discuss a specific proxy voting proposal) as needed.

Role of Third Parties

Lazard currently subscribes to advisory and other proxy voting services provided by Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. (ISS) and by Glass, Lewis & Co. (Glass Lewis). These proxy advisory services provide independent analysis and recommendations regarding various companies’ proxy proposals. While this research serves to help improve our understanding of the issues surrounding a company’s proxy proposals, Lazard’s investment professionals are ultimately responsible for providing the vote

recommendation for a given non-routine proposal. Voting for each agenda of each meeting is instructed specifically by Lazard in accordance with the Policy. ISS also provides administrative services related to proxy voting such as a web-based platform for proxy voting, ballot processing, recordkeeping and reporting.

Voting Process

Lazard votes on behalf of our clients according to proxy voting guidelines approved by the Proxy Committee (Approved Guidelines). The Approved Guidelines determine whether a specific agenda item should be voted ‘For,’ ‘Against,’ or is to be considered on a case-by case basis. The Proxy Administration Team ensures that investment professionals responsible for proxy voting are aware of the Approved Guidelines for each proposal. Voting on a proposal in a manner that is inconsistent with an Approved Guideline requires the approval of the Proxy Committee.

With respect to proposals to be voted on a case-by-case basis, the Proxy Administration Team will consult with relevant investment professionals prior to determining how to vote on a proposal. Lazard generally will treat proxy votes and voting intentions as confidential in the period before votes have been cast, and for appropriate time periods thereafter.

Conflicts of Interest

Meetings that pose a potential material conflict of interest for Lazard are voted in accordance with Approved Guidelines. Where the Approved Guideline is to vote on a case-by-case basis, Lazard will vote in accordance with the majority recommendation of the independent proxy services. Potential material conflicts of interest include: Lazard manages the company’s pension plan; The proponent of a shareholder proposal is a Lazard client; An employee of Lazard (or an affiliate) sits on a company’s board of directors; An affiliate of Lazard serves as financial advisor or provides other services to the company; or A Lazard employee has a material relationship with the company.

“Conflict Meetings” are voted in accordance with the Lazard Approved Guidelines. In situations where the Approved Guideline is to vote case-by-case and a material conflict of interest appears to exist, Lazard’s policy is to vote the proxy item according to the majority recommendation of the independent proxy services to which we subscribe.

Voting Exceptions

It is Lazard’s intention to vote all proposals at every meeting. However, there are instances when voting is not practical or is not, in our view, in the best interests of our clients. Lazard does not generally vote proxies for securities loaned by clients through a custodian’s stock lending program.

Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance

Lazard has an Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG) Policy, which outlines our approach to ESG and how our investment professionals take ESG issues into account as a part of the investment process. We recognize that ESG issues can affect the valuation of the companies that we invest in on our clients’ behalf. As a result, we take these factors into consideration when voting, and, consistent with our fiduciary duty, vote proposals in a way we believe will increase shareholder value.

Oaktree Capital Management, L.P.
Proxy Voting Policy

Proxy Voting

Clients often grant Oaktree the authority to vote proxies on their behalf. Proxy statements increasingly contain controversial issues involving shareholder rights and corporate governance, among others, which deserve careful review and consideration. Oaktree has adopted and implemented policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that proxies are voted in the best interest of investors and clients, in accordance with our fiduciary duties and SEC Rule 206(4)-6 under the Advisers Act. Our authority to vote the proxies of our clients is established by the investment management agreements or similar documents.

Oaktree maintains written proxy voting guidelines, which are amended as necessary. The proxy voting guidelines address a broad range of issues, including the selection of directors, executive compensation, proxy contests and tender offer defenses. We generally vote in the manner as noted within the guidelines, unless a different vote is deemed prudent under the specific circumstances, taking into consideration the contractual obligations under any investment management agreement, or other comparable document, and all other relevant facts and circumstances at the time of the vote. It is our policy to perform a detailed review of each proxy statement when considering the voting recommendations of the guidelines.

1. Delegation of Voting Responsibility and Account Set Up

It is the responsibility of the Legal personnel who prepares or reviews an investment management agreement, or other comparable document, to ensure that such agreement, prior to, or at the time of execution, assigns responsibility of voting proxies, whether it be retained by the client or delegated to Oaktree.

There may be certain instances in which Oaktree’s authority to vote proxies may be limited and as such the proxy voting guidelines may not be followed or a vote may not be placed. Such occasions may include, but are not limited to, when (i) the client has mandated that Oaktree vote in accordance with their proxy voting guidelines; or (ii) the client has chosen to participate in a securities lending program which may result in voting authority being lost if a particular security is out on loan on the record date. In the case where a Separate Account client has requested that Oaktree vote proxies in accordance with their guidelines, the Legal personnel reviewing the investment management agreement shall ensure that such guidelines are received from the client prior to funding of the account.

Additionally, Oaktree may in its discretion, under certain limited facts and circumstances, abstain from voting proxies on behalf of its clients. Such facts and circumstances are documented and maintained as evidence for abstaining from the proxy vote.

Upon receipt of an investment management agreement, or other comparable document, the Compliance department sends the appropriate proxy voting provisions to the Corporate Actions department. The Corporate Actions department is responsible for preparing the Proxy Account Guidelines Matrix which details the voting responsibility for each Separate Account/Oaktree-Managed Fund and any other relevant details. The Corporate Actions department ensures that, for those Separate Accounts/Oaktree-Managed Funds for which Oaktree has been delegated voting authority, contact is made with the appropriate custodian bank and/or benefit plan trustee in order to receive proxy statements.

Note that Oaktree is not always delegated voting authority with respect to the registered investment companies with which it maintains a subadvisory relationship. This is stipulated in a provision regarding proxy voting in the investment management agreements between Oaktree and the investment adviser for each such registered investment company.

2. Voting Procedures
Determination of Vote

Proxies are generally considered by the investment professional responsible for monitoring the security being voted. The Corporate Actions personnel responsible for proxies (with the exception of the Emerging Markets Equity investment strategy, which handles the proxies relating to their investments) deliver to such investment professional the proxy statement, the proxy voting guidelines and the Proxy Voting Form. The Proxy Voting Form serve as Oaktree’s record of the following information:

(i) whether the investment was held as a passive investment or considered a significant holding;

(ii) whether any material conflict of interest existed in connection with the vote (see further discussion below for description of the procedures to be followed in the instance of such occurrence);

(iii) documentation of the vote for each proposal, including any additional document created or utilized, if any, that was material to arriving at such a determination; and

(iv) documentation of the basis and rationale of the vote when the proxy voting guidelines were not followed, including the reasons why such guidelines were not used.

Once the investment professional has completed his or her analysis, documented the vote, the basis for such vote and signed the form, it should be forwarded to designated Compliance personnel for review. Such personnel ensures that all required documentation has been included, the vote is in accordance with the proxy voting guidelines, or if not, documentation supporting such exception has been created. The information is then taken to a Legal or Compliance Officer for a final review, which is evidenced in the proxy documentation.

Corporate Actions personnel (with the exception of the Emerging Markets Equity investment strategy, which handles the proxies relating to their investments) then takes the recommended vote from the Proxy Voting Form and submit/transmit such vote(s) online unless the securities are held in physical form. If they are held in physical form, the custodian banks will provide the physical proxy ballots to Oaktree for approval and election. Oaktree will then forward the completed proxy ballots to the agent by mail in a timely manner. Copies of all such documents must be maintained to evidence submission of each proxy vote (see discussion under record- keeping below for additional guidance).

The Emerging Markets Equity strategy follows a similar process in which proxies are processed by the relevant Operations personnel supporting the strategy and forwarded to the applicable investment professional for consideration. Once the investment professional has completed his or her analysis, documented the vote, the rationale for such vote, and completed the Proxy Voting Form and received approval as necessary, the documentation is forwarded to designated Compliance personnel for review and approval. Once approval is received, the relevant Operations personnel then takes the recommended vote from the approved Proxy Voting Form and submit/transmit such vote(s) online.

Oaktree endeavors, on a best efforts basis, to vote all proxies for which it has proxy voting authority in accordance with the applicable deadlines. Nevertheless, from time to time, proxies may not be

voted or are not voted in a timely manner due to various factors, for example receiving proxy notices late or after the cut-off time for voting, not receiving sufficient information regarding proxy matters or certain custodian policies and restrictions.

Conflicts of Interest

Occasions may arise where a person or organization involved in the proxy voting process may have a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest may exist, for example if Oaktree has a business relationship with (or is actively soliciting business from) either the company soliciting the proxy, a third party that has a material interest in the outcome of a proxy vote or that is actively lobbying for a particular outcome of a proxy vote. Any person with knowledge of a personal conflict of interest (e.g. familial relationship with company management) regarding a particular proxy vote must notify Legal or Compliance personnel.

The Legal and Compliance department review such circumstances to determine if a material conflict exists and address any such conflict by: (i) identifying the potential material conflict of interest on the proxy voting form; and (ii) implementing appropriate procedures to address such material conflict of interest. Such procedures may include: (i) having the investment professional remove him or herself from the voting process to be replaced with another research analyst not directly involved; (ii) disclose the conflict to the client and obtain their consent prior to voting; or (iii) a determination that the conflict is not material as neither Oaktree nor an Oaktree-Managed Fund or Separate Account owns more than 5% of the outstanding class of securities subject to the vote.

3. Tracking Procedures

The Corporate Actions or Trade Support/Operations personnel in each investment strategy in charge of proxies have been delegated the responsibility of communicating with each Separate Accounts’/Oaktree-Managed Funds’ custodian bank, prime broker and/or benefit plan trustee to ensure that all proxies are received and for the correct amount of holdings. In addition, such personnel are responsible for ensuring that proxies are responded to in a timely manner and for transmitting appropriate voting instructions to the correct party. Information is documented on a Proxy Tracking Form as follows:

(i) Matching proxies received with stock holdings on the record date as indicated on the proxy card to internal holding reports;

(ii) Documenting reasons as to why proxies were not received for any stock holdings; and

(iii) Recording the dates on which votes were submitted for each Separate

Account/Oaktree-Managed Fund.

In addition to the above, Compliance personnel confirms whether the shares subject to the proxy are held by more than one investment strategy. If the position is cross held, Compliance personnel may instruct coordination of the vote between the various investment strategies where the combined position is material (more than 5% of the outstanding class of securities subject to the vote). The ultimate decision to coordinate voting requires an evaluation of the relevant facts and circumstances with the relevant portfolio managers and Legal personnel.

4. Disclosure to Clients

Oaktree clients that request additional information regarding our proxy voting policies and procedures, or details on how we have voted specific proxies, can forward their written requests to the attention of the Chief Compliance Officer at Oaktree Capital Management, L.P., 333 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, California, 90071, or via facsimile at (213) 830-6296. Disclosure of this option to clients is made through our Form ADV Part 2A. It is Oaktree’s policy not to release proxy voting information to third parties.

In the event a request is received, the Compliance department will forward such requests from clients to the appropriate Corporate Actions personnel or Trade Support/Operations personnel in charge of proxies to facilitate and maintain the requested information.

5. Recordkeeping

Documentation that Oaktree has voted all proxies for Separate Accounts/Oaktree-Managed Funds for which it has proxy voting authority is maintained by the Corporate Actions or Trade Support/Operations personnel responsible for proxies. Such documentation includes for each proxy voted:

(i) The proxy statement;

(ii) Proxy Voting Form indicating voting response, the basis and rationale for such vote, and any documentation or materials used in determining the vote;

(iii) Proxy Tracking Form indicating Separate Accounts/Oaktree-Managed Funds’ names, shares owned on record date, date voted, method of voting; and if Oaktree did not vote for a particular Separate Account/Oaktree-Managed Fund the reasons behind such action; and

(iv) List of client requests for proxy voting information.

Pzena Investment Management, LLC

Proxy Voting, Corporate Actions, & Class Actions

INTRODUCTION

As a registered investment adviser, Pzena Investment Management, LLC (“PIM” or “the Firm”) is required to adopt policies and procedures reasonably designed to (i) ensure that proxies are voted in the best interests of clients, (ii) disclose to clients information about these policies and procedures and how clients can obtain information about their proxies, and (iii) describe how conflicts of interest are addressed. The following policies and procedures have been established to ensure decision making consistent with PIM’s fiduciary responsibilities and applicable regulations under the Investment Company Act and Advisers Act. These policies, procedures and guidelines are meant to convey PIM’s general approach to certain issues.

Nevertheless, PIM reviews all proxies individually and makes final decisions based on the merits of each issue.

I.      PROXY VOTING PROCEDURES A. ISS

PIM subscribes to a proxy monitor and voting agent service offered by Institutional Shareholder Services (“ISS”). Under the written agreement between ISS and PIM, ISS provides a proxy analysis with research and a vote recommendation for each shareholder meeting of the companies in our separately managed client accounts. They also vote, record and generate a voting activity report for our clients. PIM retains responsibility for instructing ISS how to vote, and we still apply our own guidelines as set forth herein when voting. If PIM does not issue instructions for a particular vote, the default is for ISS to mark the ballots in accordance with these guidelines (when they specifically cover the item being voted on), and to refer all other items back to PIM for instruction (when there is no PIM policy covering the vote).

PIM personnel continue to be responsible for entering all relevant client and account information (e.g., changes in client identities and portfolio holdings) in the Indata system. A direct link download has been established between PIM and ISS providing data from the Indata System. ISS assists us with our recordkeeping functions, as well as the mechanics of voting. As part of ISS’ recordkeeping/administrative function, they receive and review all proxy ballots and other materials, and generate reports regarding proxy activity during specified periods, as requested by us. To the extent that the Procedures set forth in Section I are carried out by ISS, PIM will periodically monitor ISS to ensure that the Procedures are being followed and will conduct random tests to verify that proper records are being created and retained as provided in Section 6 below.

B. COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES

PIM’s standard Investment Advisory Agreement provides that until notified by the client to the contrary, PIM shall have the right to vote all proxies for securities held in that client’s account. In those instances where PIM does not have proxy voting responsibility, it shall forward to the client or to such other person as the client designates any proxy materials received by it. In all instances where PIM has voting responsibility on behalf of a client, it follows the procedures set forth below. The Director of Research is responsible for monitoring the PIM Analyst’s compliance with such procedures when voting. The Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) is responsible for monitoring overall compliance with these procedures and an internally-designated “Proxy Coordinator” is responsible for day-to-day proxy voting activities as described below.

C.	VOTING PROCEDURES
1.	DETERMINE PROXIES TO BE VOTED

Based on the information provided by PIM via the direct link download established between PIM and ISS mentioned above, ISS shall determine what proxy votes are outstanding and what issues are to be voted on for all client accounts. Proxies received by ISS will be matched against PIM’s records to verify that each proxy has been received. If a discrepancy is discovered, ISS will use reasonable efforts to resolve it, including calling PIM and/or applicable Custodians. Pending votes will be forwarded first to the Firm’s CCO, or designee, who will perform the conflicts checks described in Section 2 below. Once the conflicts checks are completed, the ballots and supporting proxy materials will be returned to the Proxy Coordinator who will forward them on to the Analyst who is responsible for the Company soliciting the proxy. Specifically, the Analyst will receive a folder containing the proxy statement, the proxy analysis by ISS, a blank disclosure of personal holdings form, and one or more vote record _forms.^* The Analyst will then mark his/her voting decision on the vote record form, initial this form to verify his/her voting instructions, fill out the disclosure of personal holdings form, and return the folder to the Proxy Coordinator who will then enter the vote into the ISS System. Any

notes or other materials prepared or used by the Analyst in making his/her voting decision shall also be filed in the folder.

If an Analyst desires to vote contrary to the guidelines set forth in this proxy voting policy or the written proxy voting policy designated by a specific client, the Analyst will discuss the vote with the Chief Investment Officers and/or Director of Research and the Chief Investment Officers and/or Director of Research shall determine how to vote the proxy based on the Analyst’s recommendation and the long term economic impact such vote will have on the securities held in client accounts. If the Chief Investment Officers and/or Director of Research agree with the Analyst’s recommendation and determine that a contrary vote is advisable the Analyst will provide written documentation of the reasons for the vote (by putting such documentation in the folder and/or e-mailing such documentation to the Proxy Coordinator and CCO for filing.) When the Analyst has completed all voting, the Analyst will return the folder to the Proxy Coordinator who will enter the votes in the ISS System.

^* A separate ballot and vote record form may be included in the folder if the company soliciting the proxy is included in the portfolio of a client who has designated specific voting guidelines in writing to PIM which vary substantially from these policies and if the Custodian for that client does not aggregate ballots before sending them to ISS. In such event, the Analyst shall evaluate and vote such ballot on an individual basis in accordance with the applicable voting guidelines.

2.	IDENTIFY CONFLICTS AND VOTE ACCORDING TO SPECIAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION RULES
	The	primary consideration is that PIM act for the benefit of its clients and places its
	client’s	interests before the interests of the Firm and its principals and employees. The
	following	provisions identify potential conflicts of interest that are relevant to and most
	likely	to arise with respect to PIM’s advisory business and its clients, and set forth how
	we	will resolve those conflicts. In the event that the Analyst who is responsible for the
	Company	soliciting a particular proxy has knowledge of any facts or circumstances
	which	the Analyst believes are or may appear be a material conflict, the Analyst will
	advise	PIM’s CCO, who will convene a meeting of the proxy committee to determine
	whether	a conflict exists and how that conflict should be resolved.
	a.	PIM has identified the following areas of potential concern:
			Where PIM manages any pension or other assets affiliated with a publicly traded company, and also holds that company’s or an affiliated company’s securities in one or more client portfolios.
			Where PIM manages the assets of a proponent of a shareholder proposal for a company whose securities are in one or more client portfolios.
			Where PIM has a client relationship with an individual who is a corporate director, or a candidate for a corporate directorship of a public company whose securities are in one or more client portfolios.
			Where a PIM officer, director or employee, or an immediate family member thereof is a corporate director, or a candidate for a corporate directorship of a public company whose securities are in one or more client portfolios. For purposes hereof, an immediate family member shall be a spouse, child, parent, or sibling.
	b.	To address the first potential conflict identified above, PIM’s CCO, or designee, will maintain a list of public company clients that will be updated regularly as new client relationships are established with the Firm. Upon receipt of each proxy to be voted for clients, the Proxy Coordinator will give

the ballot and supporting proxy materials to PIM’s CCO, or designee, who will check to see if the company soliciting the proxy is also on the public company client list. If the company soliciting the vote is on our public company client list and PIM still manages pension or other assets of that company, the CCO, or designee, will note this in the folder so that PIM will vote the proxy in accordance with the special rules set forth in Subsection f of this Section 2.

c. To address the second potential conflict identified above, PIM’s CCO, or designee, will check the proxy materials to see if the proponent of any shareholder proposal is one of PIM’s clients. If the proponent of a shareholder proposal is a PIM client, the CCO, or designee, will note this in the folder so that PIM will vote the proxy in accordance with the special rules set forth in Subsection f of this Section 2.

d. To address the third potential conflict identified above, PIM’s CCO, or designee, will check the proxy materials to see if any corporate director, or candidate for a corporate directorship of a public company whose securities are in one or more client portfolios is one of PIM’s individual clients (based on the client list generated by our Portfolio Management System, Indata).

For purposes of this check, individual clients shall include natural persons and testamentary or other living trusts bearing the name of the grantor, settlor, or beneficiary thereof. If a director or director nominee is a PIM client, the CCO, or designee, will note this in the folder so that PIM will vote the proxy in accordance with the special rules set forth in Subsection f of this Section 2.

e. To address the fourth potential conflict identified above, PIM’s CCO, or designee, will check the proxy materials to see if any corporate director, or candidate for a corporate directorship of a public company whose securities are in one or more client portfolios is a PIM officer, director or employee or an immediate family member thereof (based on the written responses of PIM personnel to an annual questionnaire in this regard). If a director or director nominee is a PIM officer, director or employee or an immediate family member thereof, the CCO, or designee, will note this in the folder so that PIM will vote the proxy in accordance with the special rules set forth in Subsection f of this Section 2.

f. The following special rules shall apply when a conflict is noted in the folder:

i. In all cases where PIM manages the pension or other assets of a publicly traded company, and also holds that company’s or an affiliated company’s securities in one or more client portfolios, PIM will have no discretion to vote any portion of the proxy, but will defer to the recommendation(s) of ISS in connection therewith and will vote strictly according to those recommendations.

ii. The identity of the proponent of a shareholder proposal shall not be given any substantive weight (either positive or negative) and shall not otherwise influence an Analyst’s determination whether a vote for or against a proposal is in the best interests of PIM’s clients.

iii. If PIM has proxy voting authority for a client who is the proponent of a shareholder proposal and PIM determines that it is in the best interests of its clients to vote against that proposal, a designated member of PIM’s client service team will notify the client-proponent and give that client the option to direct PIM in writing to vote the

client’s proxy differently than it is voting the proxies of its other clients.

iv. If the proponent of a shareholder proposal is a PIM client whose assets under management with PIM constitute 30% or more of PIM’s total assets under management, and PIM has determined that it is in the best interests of its clients to vote for that proposal, PIM will disclose its intention to vote for such proposal to each additional client who also holds the securities of the company soliciting the vote on such proposal and for whom PIM has authority to vote proxies. If a client does not object to the vote within 3 business days of delivery of such disclosure, PIM will be free to vote such client’s proxy as stated in such disclosure.

v. In all cases where PIM manages assets of an individual client and that client is a corporate director, or candidate for a corporate directorship of a public company whose securities are in one or more client portfolios, PIM will have no discretion to vote any portion of the proxy, but will defer to the recommendation(s) of ISS in connection therewith and will vote strictly according to those recommendations.

vi. In all cases where a PIM officer, director or employee, or an immediate family member thereof is a corporate director, or a candidate for a corporate directorship of a public company whose securities are in one or more client portfolios, PIM will have no discretion to vote any portion of the proxy, but will defer to the recommendation(s) of ISS in connection therewith and will vote strictly according to those recommendations.

Notwithstanding any of the above special rules to the contrary, in the extraordinary event that it is determined by unanimous vote of the Director of Research, the Chief Executive Officer, and the Analyst covering a particular company that the ISS recommendation on a particular proposal to be voted is materially adverse to the best interests of the clients, then in that event, the following alternative conflict resolution procedures will be followed:

A designated member of PIM’s client service team will notify each client who holds the securities of the company soliciting the vote on such proposal, and for whom PIM has authority to vote proxies, and disclose all of the facts pertaining to the vote (including, PIM’s conflict of interest, the ISS recommendation, and PIM’s recommendation). The client then will be asked to direct PIM how to vote on the issue. If a client does not give any direction to PIM within 3 business days of delivery of such disclosure, PIM will be free to vote such client’s proxy in the manner it deems to be in the best interest of the client.

PIM will always defer to ISS when it votes a proxy of company shares accepted as a client accommodation, where said shares will not be held as part of the managed portfolio.

On an annual basis, the Compliance Department also will review the conflicts policies and Code of Conduct that ISS posts on its website.

3. VOTE

Each proxy that comes to PIM to be voted shall be evaluated on the basis of what is in the best interest of the clients. We deem the best interests of the clients to be that which maximizes shareholder value and yields the best economic results (e.g., higher stock prices, long-term financial health, and stability). In evaluating proxy issues, PIM will rely on ISS to identify and flag factual issues of relevance and importance. We also will use information gathered as a result of the in-depth research and on-going company analyses performed by our investment team in making buy, sell and hold decisions for our

client portfolios. This process includes periodic meetings with senior management of portfolio companies. PIM may also consider information from other sources, including the management of a company presenting a proposal, shareholder groups, and other independent proxy research services. Where applicable, PIM also will consider any specific guidelines designated in writing by a client.

The Analyst who is responsible for following the company votes the proxies for that company. If such Analyst also beneficially owns shares of the company in his/her personal trading accounts, the Analyst must complete a special “Disclosure of Personal Holdings Form” and the Director of Research must sign off on the Analyst’s votes for that company by initialing such special form before it and the vote record sheet are returned to the Proxy Coordinator. It is the responsibility of each Analyst to disclose such personal interest and obtain such initials. Any other owner, partner, officer, director, or employee of the Firm who has a personal or financial interest in the outcome of the vote is hereby prohibited from attempting to influence the proxy voting decision of PIM personnel responsible for voting client securities.

Unless a particular proposal or the particular circumstances of a company may otherwise require (in the case of the conflicts identified in Section 2 above) or suggest (in all other cases), proposals generally shall be voted in accordance with the following broad guidelines:

a.	Support management recommendations for the election of directors and appointment of auditors (subject to j below).
b.	Give management the tools to motivate employees through reasonable incentive programs. Within these general parameters, PIM generally will support plans under which 50% or more of the shares awarded to top executives are tied to performance goals. In addition, the following are conditions that would generally cause us to vote against a management incentive arrangement:
	i.	With respect to incentive option arrangements:
			The proposed plan is in excess of 10% of shares, or
			The company has issued 3% or more of outstanding shares in a single year in the recent past, or
			The new plan replaces an existing plan before the existing plan's termination date (i.e., they ran out of authorization) and some other terms of the new plan are likely to be adverse to the maximization of investment returns, or
			The proposed plan resets options, or similarly compensates executives, for declines in a company’s stock price. This includes circumstances where a plan calls for exchanging a lower number of options with lower strike prices for an existing larger volume of options with high strike prices, even when the option valuations might be considered the same total value. However, this would not include instances where such a plan seeks to retain key executives who have been undercompensated in the past.
			For purposes hereof, the methodology used to calculate the share threshold in (i) above shall be the (sum of A + B) divided by (the sum of A + B + C + D), where: A = the number of shares reserved under the new plan/amendment; B = the number of shares available under continuing plans; C = granted but unexercised shares under all plans; and D = shares outstanding, plus

	convertible debt, convertible equity, and warrants.
ii.	With respect to severance, golden parachute or other incentive compensation arrangements:
		The proposed arrangement is excessive or not reasonable in light of similar arrangements for other executives in the company or in the company’s industry (based solely on information about those arrangements which may be found in the company’s public disclosures and in ISS reports); or
		The proposed parachute or severance arrangement is considerably more financially or economically attractive than continued employment. Although PIM will apply a CASE-BY-CASE analysis of this issue, as a general rule, a proposed severance arrangement which is 3 or more times greater than the affected executive’s then current compensation shall be voted against unless such arrangement has been or will be submitted to a vote of shareholders for ratification; or
		The triggering mechanism in the proposed arrangement is solely within the recipient’s control (e.g., resignation).

c.	PIM prefers a shareholder vote on compensation plans in order to provide a
	mechanism	to register discontent with pay plans. In general, PIM will support
	proposals	to have non- binding shareholder votes on compensation plans so
	long	as these proposals are worded in a generic manner that is unrestrictive to
	actual	company plans. However, PIM may oppose these proposals if PIM
	deems	that the proposal:
	i.	restricts the company’s ability to hire new, suitable management, or
	ii.	restricts an otherwise responsible management team in some other way harmful to the company.
d.	Support facilitation of financings, acquisitions, stock splits, and increases
	in	shares of capital stock that do not discourage acquisition of the
	company	soliciting the proxy.
e.	Consider each environmental, social or corporate governance (ESG) proposal
	on	its own merits.
f.	Support anti-takeover measures that are in the best interest of the
	shareholders,	but oppose poison pills and other anti-takeover measures that
	entrench	management and/or thwart the maximization of investment returns.
g.	Oppose classified boards and any other proposals designed to
	eliminate	or restrict shareholders’ rights.
h.	Oppose proposals requiring super majority votes for business combinations
	unless	the particular proposal or the particular circumstances of the affected
	company	suggest that such a proposal would be in the best interest of the
	shareholders.

i.	Oppose vague, overly broad, open-ended, or general “other business”
		for which insufficient detail or explanation is provided or risks or
		of a vote in favor cannot be ascertained.
j.	Make sure management is complying with current requirements such as of
		NYSE, NASDAQ and Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 focusing on auditor
		and improved board and committee representation. Within
		general parameters, the opinions and recommendations of ISS will
		thoroughly evaluated and the following guidelines will be considered:
		PIM generally will vote against auditors and withhold votes from Audit
			members if non-audit (“other”) fees are greater than the
			of audit fees + audit- related fees + permissible tax fees.
			applying the above fee formula, PIM will use the following definitions:
			Audit fees shall mean fees for statutory audits, comfort letters, attest services, consents, and review of filings with SEC
			Audit-related fees shall mean fees for employee benefit plan audits, due diligence related to M&A, audits in connection with acquisitions, internal control reviews, consultation on financial accounting and reporting standards
			Tax fees shall mean fees for tax compliance (tax returns, claims for refunds and tax payment planning) and tax consultation and planning (assistance with tax audits and appeals, tax advice relating to M&A, employee benefit plans and requests for rulings or technical advice from taxing authorities)
		PIM will apply a CASE-BY-CASE approach to shareholder proposals
			companies to prohibit their auditors from engaging in non-audit
			(or capping the level of non-audit services), taking into account
			the non-audit fees are excessive (per the formula above) and
			the company has policies and procedures in place to limit non-
			services or otherwise prevent conflicts of interest.
		PIM generally will evaluate director nominees individually and as a
			based on ISS opinions and recommendations as well as our
			assessment of record and reputation, business knowledge and
			shareholder value mindedness, accessibility, corporate
			abilities, time commitment, attention and awareness,
			and character.
		PIM generally will withhold votes from any insiders flagged by ISS
			audit compensation or nominating committees, and from any
			and affiliated outsiders flagged by ISS on boards that are
			at least majority independent.
		In general, PIM will not support shareholder proposals to vote against
			unless PIM determines that clear shareholder value destruction
			occurred as a consequence of the directors’ actions. When
			propose voting against directors serving on compensation

	committees, PIM will evaluate ISS’ opinions and recommendations, but will vote on the issue based on PIM’s assessment of the matter and independently of ISS’ criteria.
		PIM will apply a CASE-BY-CASE approach to determine whether to vote for or against directors nominated by outside parties whose interests may conflict with our interests as shareholders, regardless of whether management agrees with the nomination.
		PIM will evaluate and vote proposals to separate the Chairman and CEO positions in a company on a CASE-BY-CASE basis based on ISS opinions and recommendations as well as our personal assessment of the strength of the companies governing structure, the independence of the board and compliance with NYSE and NASDAQ listing requirements.
k.	Support re-incorporation proposals that are in the best interests of
		and shareholder value.
l.	Support proposals enabling shareholders to call a special meeting of a
		so long as a 15% threshold is necessary in order for shareholders to
		so. However, on a CASE-BY-CASE basis as determined by the Analyst
		the proxy, a 10% threshold may be deemed more appropriate should
		circumstances warrant; for example, in instances where executive
		or governance has been an issue for a company.
m.	PIM may abstain from voting a proxy if we conclude that the effect of
		on our clients’ economic interests or the value of the portfolio
		is indeterminable or insignificant. In addition, if a company imposes a
		period for purchases and sales of securities after a particular proxy is
		PIM generally will abstain from voting that proxy.

It is understood that PIM’s and ISS’ ability to commence voting proxies for new or transferred accounts is dependent upon the actions of custodian’s and banks in updating their records and forwarding proxies. PIM will not be liable for any action or inaction by any Custodian or bank with respect to proxy ballots and voting.

Where a new client has funded its account by delivering in a portfolio of securities for PIM to liquidate and the record date to vote a proxy for one of those securities falls on a day when we are temporarily holding the position (because we were still executing or waiting for settlement), we will vote the shares. For these votes only, we will defer to ISS’ recommendations, since we will not have firsthand knowledge of the companies and cannot devote research time to them.

Proxies for securities on loan through securities lending programs will generally not be voted. Since PIM’s clients generally control these securities lending decisions, PIM may not be able to recall a security for voting purposes even if the issue is material; however, it will use its best efforts. In certain instances, PIM’s commingled funds may participate in securities lending programs. PIM will use best efforts to have shares recalled in time to vote on material issues.

4. RETURN PROXIES

The Chief Compliance Officer or designee shall send or cause to be sent (or otherwise communicate) all votes to the company or companies soliciting the proxies within the applicable time period designated for return of such votes.

5. CLIENT DISCLOSURES

PIM will include a copy of these proxy voting policies and procedures, as they may be amended from time to time, in each new account pack sent to prospective clients. It also will update its ADV disclosures regarding these policies and procedures to reflect any material additions or other changes to them, as needed. Such ADV disclosures will include an explanation of how to request copies of these policies and procedures as well as any other disclosures required by Rule 206(4)-6 of the Advisers Act.

PIM will provide proxy voting summary reports to clients, on request. With respect to PIM’s mutual fund clients, PIM will provide proxy voting information in such form as needed for them to prepare their Rule 30b1-4 Annual Report on Form N-PX.

6.	RECORDKEEPING
	A.	PIM will maintain a list of dedicated proxy contacts for its clients as required. Each client will be asked to provide the name, email address, telephone number, and post office mailing address of one or more persons who are authorized to receive, give direction under and otherwise act on any notices and disclosures provided by PIM pursuant to Section I.C.2.f of these policies. With respect to ERISA plan clients, PIM shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the dedicated proxy contact for the ERISA client is a named fiduciary of the plan.
		B.	PIM will maintain and/or cause to be maintained by any proxy voting service provider engaged by PIM the following records. Such records will be maintained for a minimum of five years. Records maintained by PIM shall be kept for 2 years at PIM’s principal office and 3 years in offsite storage.
			i.	Copies of PIM’s proxy voting policies and procedures, and any amendments thereto.
			ii.	Copies of the proxy materials received by PIM for client securities. These may be in the form of the proxy packages received from each Company and/or ISS, or downloaded from EDGAR, or any combination thereof.
			iii.	The vote cast for each proposal overall as well as by account.
			iv.	Records of any correspondence made regarding specific proxies and the voting thereof.
			v.	Records of any reasons for deviations from broad voting guidelines.
			vi.	Copies of any document created by PIM that was material to making a decision on how to vote proxies or that memorializes the basis of that decision.
			vii.	A record of proxies that were not received, and what actions were taken to obtain them.
			viii.	Copies of any written client requests for voting summary reports (including reports to mutual fund clients for whom PIM has proxy voting authority containing information they need to satisfy their annual reporting obligations under Rule 30b-1-4 and to complete Form N-PX) and the correspondence and reports sent to the clients in response to such requests.

7. REVIEW OF POLICIES

The proxy voting policies, procedures and guidelines contained herein have been formulated by PIM’s proxy committee. This committee consists of PIM’s Director of Research, CCO, and at least one Portfolio Manager (who represents the interests of all PIM’s portfolio managers and is responsible for obtaining and expressing their opinions at committee meetings). The committee reviews these policies, procedures and guidelines at least annually, and makes such changes as it deems appropriate in light of current trends and developments in corporate governance and related issues, as well as operational issues facing the Firm.

II. CORPORATE ACTIONS

PIM is responsible for monitoring both mandatory (e.g. calls, cash dividends, exchanges, mergers, spin-offs, stock dividends and stock splits) and voluntary (e.g. rights offerings, exchange offerings, and tender offers) corporate actions. Operations personnel will ensure that all corporate actions received are promptly reviewed and recorded in PIM’s portfolio accounting system, and properly executed by the custodian banks for all eligible portfolios. On a daily basis, a file of PIM’s security database is sent to a third-party service, Vantage, via an automated upload which then provides corporate action information for securities included in the file.

This information is received and acted upon by the Operations personnel responsible for corporate action processing. In addition, PIM receives details on voluntary and some mandatory corporate actions from the custodian banks via email or online system and all available data is used to properly understand each corporate event.

Voluntary Corporate Actions - The Portfolio Management team is responsible for providing guidance to Operations on the course of action to be taken for each voluntary corporate action received. In some instances, the Portfolio Management team may maintain standing instructions on particular event types. As appropriate, Legal and Compliance may be consulted to determine whether certain clients may participate in particular corporate actions. Operations personnel will then notify each custodian banks, either through an online interface, via email, or with a signed faxed document of the election selected. Once all necessary information is received and the corporate action has been vetted, the event is processed in the portfolio accounting system and filed electronically. A log of holdings information related to the corporate action is maintained for each portfolio in order to confirm accuracy of processing.

III. CLASS ACTIONS

PIM shall not have any responsibility to initiate, consider or participate in any bankruptcy, class action or other litigation against or involving any issue of securities held in or formerly held in a client account or to advise or take any action on behalf of a client or former client with respect to any such actions or litigation.

Wellington Management Global Proxy Policy and Procedures

Wellington Management has adopted and implemented policies and procedures that it believes are reasonably designed to ensure that proxies are voted in the best economic interests of clients for whom it exercises proxy-voting discretion.

Wellington Management's Proxy Voting Guidelines (the "Guidelines") set forth broad guidelines and positions on common proxy issues that Wellington Management uses in voting on proxies. In addition, Wellington Management also considers each proposal in the context of the issuer, industry and country or countries in which the issuer's business is conducted. The Guidelines are not rigid rules and the merits of a particular proposal may cause Wellington Management to enter a vote that differs from the Guidelines.

Statement of Policy
Wellington Management:

1) Votes client proxies for which clients have affirmatively delegated proxy-voting authority, in writing, unless it determines that it is in the best interest of one or more clients to refrain from voting a given proxy.

2) Votes all proxies in the best interests of the client for whom it is voting, i.e., to maximize economic value.

3) Identifies and resolves all material proxy-related conflicts of interest between the firm and its clients in the best interests of the client.

Responsibility and Oversight

The Investment Research Group ("Investment Research") monitors regulatory requirements with respect to proxy voting and works with the firm's Legal and Compliance Group and the Investment Stewardship Committee to develop practices that implement those requirements. Investment Research also acts as a resource for portfolio managers and research analysts on proxy matters as needed. Day-to-day administration of the proxy voting process is the responsibility of Investment Research. The Investment Stewardship Committee is responsible for oversight of the implementation of the Global Proxy Policy and Procedures, review and approval of the Guidelines and for providing advice and guidance on specific proxy votes for individual issuers.

Procedures

Use of Third-Party Voting Agent

Wellington Management uses the services of a third-party voting agent to manage the administrative aspects of proxy voting. The voting agent processes proxies for client accounts, casts votes based on the Guidelines and maintains records of proxies voted.

Receipt of Proxy

If a client requests that Wellington Management votes proxies on its behalf, the client must instruct its custodian bank to deliver all relevant voting material to Wellington Management or its voting agent.

Reconciliation

Each public security proxy received by electronic means is matched to the securities eligible to be voted and a reminder is sent to any custodian or trustee that has not forwarded the proxies as due. Although proxies received for private securities, as well as those received in non-electronic format, are voted as received, Wellington Management is not able to reconcile these proxies to holdings, nor does it notify custodians of non-receipt.

Research

In addition to proprietary investment research undertaken by Wellington Management investment professionals, Investment Research conducts proxy research internally, and uses the resources of a number of external sources to keep abreast of developments in corporate governance and of current practices of specific companies.

Proxy Voting

Following the reconciliation process, each proxy is compared against the Guidelines, and handled as follows:

• Generally, issues for which explicit proxy voting guidance is provided in the Guidelines (i.e., "For", "Against", "Abstain") are reviewed by Investment Research and voted in accordance with the Guidelines.

• Issues identified as "case-by-case" in the Guidelines are further reviewed by Investment Research. In certain circumstances, further input is needed, so the issues are forwarded to the relevant research analyst and/or portfolio manager(s) for their input.

• Absent a material conflict of interest, the portfolio manager has the authority to decide the final vote. Different portfolio managers holding the same securities may arrive at different voting conclusions for their clients' proxies.

Wellington Management reviews regularly the voting record to ensure that proxies are voted in accordance with these Global Proxy Policy and Procedures and the Guidelines; and ensures that documentation and reports, for clients and for internal purposes, relating to the voting of proxies are promptly and properly prepared and disseminated.

Material Conflict of Interest Identification and Resolution Processes

Wellington Management's broadly diversified client base and functional lines of responsibility serve to minimize the number of, but not prevent, material conflicts of interest it faces in voting proxies. Annually, the Investment Stewardship Committee sets standards for identifying material conflicts based on client, vendor, and lender relationships, and publishes those standards to individuals involved in the proxy voting process. In addition, the Investment Stewardship Committee encourages all personnel to contact Investment Research about apparent conflicts of interest, even if the apparent conflict does not meet the published materiality criteria. Apparent conflicts are reviewed by designated members of the Investment Stewardship Committee to determine if there is a conflict and if so whether the conflict is material.

If a proxy is identified as presenting a material conflict of interest, the matter must be reviewed by designated members of the Investment Stewardship Committee, who will resolve the conflict and direct the vote. In certain circumstances, the designated members may determine that the full Investment Stewardship Committee should convene.

Other Considerations

In certain instances, Wellington Management may be unable to vote or may determine not to vote a proxy on behalf of one or more clients. While not exhaustive, the following are potential instances in which a proxy vote might not be entered.

Securities Lending

In general, Wellington Management does not know when securities have been lent out pursuant to a client's securities lending program and are therefore unavailable to be voted. Efforts to recall loaned securities are not always effective, but, in rare circumstances, Wellington Management may recommend that a client attempt to have its custodian recall the security to permit voting of related proxies.

Share Blocking and Re-registration

Certain countries impose trading restrictions or requirements regarding re-registration of securities held in omnibus accounts in order for shareholders to vote a proxy. The potential impact of such requirements is evaluated when determining whether to vote such proxies.

Lack of Adequate Information, Untimely Receipt of Proxy Materials, or Excessive Costs

Wellington Management may abstain from voting a proxy when the proxy statement or other available information is inadequate to allow for an informed vote, when the proxy materials are not delivered in a timely fashion or when, in Wellington Management's judgment, the costs exceed the expected benefits to clients (such as when powers of attorney or consularization are required).

Additional Information

Wellington Management maintains records related to proxies pursuant to Rule 204-2 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the "Advisers Act"), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), and other applicable laws.

Wellington Management provides clients with a copy of its Global Proxy Policy and Procedures, including the Guidelines, upon written request. In addition, Wellington Management will make specific client information relating to proxy voting available to a client upon reasonable written request.

© 2019 The Vanguard Group, Inc. All Rights reserved.
Vanguard Marketing Corporation, Distributor.	SAI 046A 102019