Advanced Series Trust

STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION • May 1, 2017

This Statement of Additional Information (SAI) of Advanced Series Trust (the Trust) is not a prospectus and should be read in conjunction with the Prospectus of the Trust dated May 1, 2017, which can be obtained, without charge, by calling (800) 778-2255 or by writing to the Trust at 655 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102. This SAI has been incorporated by reference into the Trust's Prospectus. The Trust's audited financial statements are incorporated into this SAI by reference to the Trust's 2016 Annual Report (File No. 811-5186). You may request a copy of the Annual Report at no charge by calling the telephone number or writing to the address indicated above.

The portfolios of the Trust which are discussed in this SAI are noted on this front cover (each, a Portfolio, and together, the Portfolios).

AST Academic Strategies Asset
Allocation Portfolio

AST Advanced Strategies Portfolio

AST AQR Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio

AST AQR Large-Cap Portfolio

AST Balanced Asset Allocation Portfolio

AST BlackRock Global Strategies Portfolio

AST BlackRock/Loomis Sayles Bond Portfolio

AST BlackRock Low Duration Bond Portfolio

AST Bond Portfolio 2017

AST Bond Portfolio 2018

AST Bond Portfolio 2019

AST Bond Portfolio 2020

AST Bond Portfolio 2021

AST Bond Portfolio 2022

AST Bond Portfolio 2023

AST Bond Portfolio 2024

AST Bond Portfolio 2025

AST Bond Portfolio 2026

AST Bond Portfolio 2027

AST Bond Portfolio 2028

AST Capital Growth Asset Allocation Portfolio

AST ClearBridge Dividend Growth Portfolio

AST Cohen & Steers Realty Portfolio

AST FI Pyramis^® Quantitative Portfolio

AST Global Real Estate Portfolio

AST Goldman Sachs Large-Cap Value Portfolio

AST Goldman Sachs Mid-Cap Growth Portfolio

AST Goldman Sachs Multi-Asset Portfolio

AST Goldman Sachs Small-Cap Value Portfolio

AST Government Money Market Portfolio

AST High Yield Portfolio

AST Hotchkis & Wiley Large-Cap Value Portfolio

AST International Growth Portfolio

AST International Value Portfolio

AST Investment Grade Bond Portfolio

AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio

AST J.P. Morgan International Equity Portfolio

AST J.P. Morgan Strategic Opportunities Portfolio

AST Jennison Large-Cap Growth Portfolio

AST Loomis Sayles Large-Cap Growth Portfolio

AST Lord Abbett Core Fixed Income Portfolio

AST MFS Global Equity Portfolio

AST MFS Growth Portfolio

AST MFS Large-Cap Value Portfolio

AST Multi-Sector Fixed Income Portfolio

AST Neuberger Berman/LSV Mid-Cap
Value Portfolio

AST New Discovery Asset Allocation Portfolio

AST Parametric Emerging Markets
Equity Portfolio

AST Preservation Asset Allocation Portfolio

AST Prudential Core Bond Portfolio

AST Prudential Growth Allocation Portfolio

AST QMA Large-Cap Portfolio

AST QMA US Equity Alpha Portfolio

AST Quantitative Modeling Portfolio

AST RCM World Trends Portfolio

AST Small-Cap Growth Portfolio

AST Small-Cap Growth Opportunities Portfolio

AST Small-Cap Value Portfolio

AST T. Rowe Price Asset Allocation Portfolio

AST T. Rowe Price Growth Opportunities Portfolio

AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Growth Portfolio

AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Value Portfolio

AST T. Rowe Price Natural Resources Portfolio

AST Templeton Global Bond Portfolio

AST WEDGE Capital Mid-Cap Value Portfolio

AST Wellington Management Hedged
Equity Portfolio

AST Western Asset Core Plus Bond Portfolio

AST Western Asset Emerging Markets Debt Portfolio

PART I

INTRODUCTION

This SAI sets forth information about the Trust and the Portfolios covered by the SAI. Part I provides additional information about the Trust’s Board of Trustees (the Board), certain investments restrictions that apply to the Portfolios, the advisory services provided to and the management fees paid by the Trust, and information about other fees paid by and services provided to the Trust. Part II provides additional information about certain investments and investment strategies that may be used by the Portfolios and explanations of various investments and strategies which may be used by the Portfolios and explanations of these investments and strategies, and should be read in conjunction with Part I.

Before reading the SAI, you should consult the Glossary below, which defines certain of the terms used in the SAI:

Glossary
Term	Definition
ADR	American Depositary Receipt
ADS	American Depositary Share
ASTIS	AST Investment Services, Inc.
Board	Trust’s Board of Directors or Trustees
Board Member	A trustee or director of the Trust’s Board
CFTC	Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Code	Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended
EDR	European Depositary Receipt
ETF	Exchange-Traded Fund
Fannie Mae	Federal National Mortgage Association
Fitch	Fitch, Inc.
Freddie Mac	The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
Global Depositary Receipt	GDR
Ginnie Mae	Government National Mortgage Association
IPO	Initial Public Offering
IRS	Internal Revenue Service
1933 Act	Securities Act of 1933, as amended
1934 Act	Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
1940 Act	Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended
LIBOR	London Interbank Offered Rate
Moody’s	Moody’s Investor Services, Inc.
NASDAQ	National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations System
NAV	Net Asset Value
NYSE	New York Stock Exchange
OTC	Over the Counter
PGIM Investments	PGIM Investments LLC (formerly, Prudential Investments LLC)
PMFS	Prudential Mutual Fund Services LLC
REIT	Real Estate Investment Trust
RIC	Regulated Investment Company, as the term is used in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended
S&P	Standard & Poor’s Corporation
SEC	US Securities & Exchange Commission
World Bank	International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

Trust PORTFOLIOS, INVESTMENT POLICIES & STRATEGIES

The Trust is an open-end management investment company (commonly known as a mutual fund) that is intended to provide a range of investment alternatives through its separate Portfolios, each of which is, for investment purposes, in effect a separate fund. The Portfolios offered by the Trust which are discussed in this SAI are set forth below:

■	AST Academic Strategies Asset Allocation Portfolio
■	AST Advanced Strategies Portfolio
■	AST AQR Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio
■	AST AQR Large-Cap Portfolio
■	AST Balanced Asset Allocation Portfolio
■	AST BlackRock Global Strategies Portfolio
■	AST BlackRock/Loomis Sayles Bond Portfolio
■	AST BlackRock Low Duration Bond Portfolio
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2017
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2018
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2019
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2020
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2021
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2022
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2023
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2024
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2025
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2026
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2027
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2028
■	AST Capital Growth Asset Allocation Portfolio
■	AST ClearBridge Dividend Growth Portfolio
■	AST Cohen & Steers Realty Portfolio
■	AST FI Pyramis^® Quantitative Portfolio
■	AST Global Real Estate Portfolio
■	AST Goldman Sachs Large-Cap Value Portfolio
■	AST Goldman Sachs Mid-Cap Growth Portfolio
■	AST Goldman Sachs Multi-Asset Portfolio
■	AST Goldman Sachs Small-Cap Value Portfolio
■	AST Government Money Market Portfolio (formerly, AST Money Market Portfolio)
■	AST High Yield Portfolio
■	AST Hotchkis & Wiley Large-Cap Value Portfolio
■	AST International Growth Portfolio
■	AST International Value Portfolio
■	AST Investment Grade Bond Portfolio
■	AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio
■	AST J.P. Morgan International Equity Portfolio
■	AST J.P. Morgan Strategic Opportunities Portfolio
■	AST Jennison Large-Cap Growth Portfolio
■	AST Loomis Sayles Large-Cap Growth Portfolio
■	AST Lord Abbett Core Fixed Income Portfolio
■	AST MFS Global Equity Portfolio
■	AST MFS Growth Portfolio
■	AST MFS Large-Cap Value Portfolio
■	AST Multi-Sector Fixed Income Portfolio
■	AST Neuberger Berman/LSV Mid-Cap Value Portfolio
■	AST New Discovery Asset Allocation Portfolio
■	AST Parametric Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio
■	AST Preservation Asset Allocation Portfolio
■	AST Prudential Core Bond Portfolio
■	AST Prudential Growth Allocation Portfolio
■	AST QMA Large-Cap Portfolio
■	AST QMA US Equity Alpha Portfolio

■	AST Quantitative Modeling Portfolio
■	AST RCM World Trends Portfolio
■	AST Small-Cap Growth Portfolio
■	AST Small-Cap Growth Opportunities Portfolio
■	AST Small-Cap Value Portfolio
■	AST T. Rowe Price Asset Allocation Portfolio
■	AST T. Rowe Price Growth Opportunities Portfolio
■	AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Growth Portfolio
■	AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Value Portfolio (formerly, AST Value Equity Portfolio)
■	AST T. Rowe Price Natural Resources Portfolio
■	AST Templeton Global Bond Portfolio
■	AST WEDGE Capital Mid-Cap Value Portfolio
■	AST Wellington Management Hedged Equity Portfolio
■	AST Western Asset Core Plus Bond Portfolio
■	AST Western Asset Emerging Markets Debt Portfolio

In addition to the Portfolios identified above, the Trust also offers the following portfolios, which are discussed in a separate prospectus(es) and separate SAI. Please consult the other prospectuses and SAI for information about these portfolios:

■	AST AB Global Bond Portfolio
■	AST BlackRock Multi-Asset Income Portfolio
■	AST Columbia Adaptive Risk Allocation Portfolio
■	AST Emerging Managers Diversified Portfolio
■	AST FQ Absolute Return Currency Portfolio
■	AST Franklin Templeton K2 Global Absolute Return Portfolio
■	AST Goldman Sachs Global Growth Allocation Portfolio
■	AST Goldman Sachs Global Income Portfolio
■	AST Goldman Sachs Strategic Income Portfolio
■	AST Jennison Global Infrastructure Portfolio
■	AST Legg Mason Diversified Growth Portfolio
■	AST Managed Alternatives Portfolio
■	AST Managed Equity Portfolio
■	AST Managed Fixed Income Portfolio
■	AST Morgan Stanley Multi-Asset Portfolio
■	AST Neuberger Berman Long/Short Portfolio
■	AST Prudential Flexible Multi-Strategy Portfolio
■	AST QMA International Core Equity Portfolio
■	AST T. Rowe Price Diversified Real Growth Portfolio
■	AST Wellington Management Global Bond Portfolio
■	AST Wellington Management Real Total Return Portfolio

The Trust offers one class of shares in each Portfolio. Shares of each Portfolio are sold only to separate accounts of Prudential Annuities Life Assurance Corporation, The Prudential Insurance Company of America, Pruco Life Insurance Company, Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey, Prudential Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, Pramerica of Bermuda Life Assurance Company, Ltd. (collectively, Prudential), Kemper Investors Life Insurance Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company and Allstate Life Insurance Company of New York as investment options under variable life insurance and variable annuity contracts (the Contracts). (A separate account keeps the assets supporting certain insurance contracts separate from the general assets and liabilities of the insurance company.)

Not every Portfolio is available under each Contract. The prospectus for each Contract lists the Portfolios currently available under that particular Contract.

In order to sell shares to both Prudential and non-Prudential insurance companies, the Trust has obtained an exemptive order (the Order) from the SEC. The Trust and its Portfolios are managed in compliance with the terms and conditions of that Order.

PGIM Investments and ASTIS, both wholly-owned subsidiaries of Prudential Financial, Inc. (Prudential Financial), serve as overall investment managers of the Portfolios covered by this SAI other than the following Portfolios, for which PGIM Investments serves as the sole investment manager:

■	AST AQR Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio

■	AST Bond Portfolio 2026
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2027
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2028

When used in this SAI, the “Investment Managers” or “Manager” refers to (a) PGIM Investments with respect to the AST AQR Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio, the AST Bond Portfolio 2026, the AST Bond Portfolio 2027, and the AST Bond Portfolio 2028; and (b) PGIM Investments and ASTIS, collectively, with respect to all other Portfolios covered by this SAI. Each of the Portfolios has a different investment objective. For this reason, each Portfolio will have different investment results and be subject to different financial and market risks. As discussed in the Prospectus, several of the Portfolios may invest in money market instruments and comparable securities as part of assuming a temporary defensive position. The investment objects of each Portfolio are discussed in the Prospectus.

Each of the Portfolios operated as funds-of-funds, as identified in the Prospectus, may engage in all of the investments and investment strategies discussed in Part II of this SAI, either by each such Portfolio's investments in an underlying fund or by investing the Portfolio's assets in the investments or strategies.

The Prospectus and SAI do not purport to create any contractual obligations between the Trust or any Portfolio and its shareholders. In addition, shareholders are not intended third-party beneficiaries of any contracts entered into by (or on behalf of) the Portfolios, including contracts with the investment manager or other parties who provide services to the Portfolios.

FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS

Set forth below are certain investment restrictions applicable to the Portfolios. Fundamental restrictions may not be changed without a majority vote of shareholders as required by the 1940 Act. Non-fundamental restrictions may be changed by the Board of Trustees without shareholder approval.

The investment restrictions set forth below are “fundamental” policies. These fundamental policies may not be changed without the approval of the lesser of (i) 67% or more of the shares of a Portfolio present at a meeting, if the holders of more than 50% of the outstanding shares of the Portfolio are present or represented by proxy, or (ii) more than 50% of the shares of the Portfolio.

FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE FOLLOWING PORTFOLIOS:

■	AST Cohen & Steers Realty Portfolio
■	AST Goldman Sachs Mid-Cap Growth Portfolio
■	AST Goldman Sachs Small-Cap Value Portfolio
■	AST J.P. Morgan International Equity Portfolio
■	AST J.P. Morgan Strategic Opportunities Portfolio
■	AST Loomis Sayles Large-Cap Growth Portfolio
■	AST Lord Abbett Core Fixed Income Portfolio
■	AST MFS Global Equity Portfolio
■	AST MFS Growth Portfolio
■	AST Neuberger Berman/LSV Mid-Cap Value Portfolio
■	AST QMA US Equity Alpha Portfolio
■	AST Small-Cap Growth Portfolio
■	AST Small-Cap Growth Opportunities Portfolio
■	AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Growth Portfolio
■	AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Value Portfolio (formerly, AST Value Equity Portfolio)
■	AST WEDGE Capital Mid-Cap Value Portfolio

1. No Portfolio may issue senior securities, except as permitted under the 1940 Act.

2. With respect to each Portfolio other than the AST QMA US Equity Alpha Portfolio, no Portfolio may borrow money, except that a Portfolio may (i) borrow money for non-leveraging, temporary or emergency purposes, and (ii) engage in reverse repurchase agreements and make other investments or engage in other transactions, which may involve a borrowing, in a manner consistent with the Portfolio's investment objective and policies; provided that the combination of (i) and (ii) shall not exceed 33¹⁄3% of the value of the Portfolio's assets (including the amount borrowed) less liabilities (other than borrowings) or such other percentage permitted by law. Any borrowings which come to exceed this amount will be reduced in accordance with applicable law. Subject to the above limitations, a Portfolio may borrow from persons to the extent permitted by applicable law, including the 1940 Act, or to the extent permitted by any exemption from the 1940 Act that may be granted by the SEC, or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance.

With respect only to the AST QMA US Equity Alpha Portfolio, the Portfolio may not borrow money, except that the Portfolio may borrow money from banks provided that the Portfolio maintains a ratio of assets to borrowings at all times in the manner set forth in the 1940 Act. Notwithstanding the above limitation, the Portfolio may borrow money from any person to the extent permitted by applicable law, including the 1940 Act, or to the extent permitted by any exemption from the 1940 Act that may be granted by the SEC, or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance.

3. No Portfolio may underwrite securities issued by other persons, except to the extent that the Portfolio may be deemed to be an underwriter (within the meaning of the 1933 Act) in connection with the purchase and sale of portfolio securities.

4. No Portfolio may purchase or sell real estate unless acquired as a result of the ownership of securities or other instruments; provided that this restriction shall not prohibit a Portfolio from investing in securities or other instruments backed by real estate or in securities of companies engaged in the real estate business.

5. No Portfolio may purchase or sell physical commodities unless acquired as a result of the ownership of securities or instruments; provided that this restriction shall not prohibit a Portfolio from (i) engaging in permissible options and futures transactions and forward foreign currency contracts in accordance with the Portfolio's investment policies, or (ii) investing in securities of any kind.

6. No Portfolio may make loans, except that a Portfolio may (i) lend portfolio securities in accordance with the Portfolio's investment policies in amounts up to 33¹⁄3% of the total assets of the Portfolio taken at market value, (ii) purchase money market securities and enter into repurchase agreements, (iii) acquire publicly distributed or privately placed debt securities, and (iv) make loans of money to other investment companies to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act or any exemption therefrom that may be granted by the SEC or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance.

7. No Portfolio other than the AST Cohen & Steers Realty Portfolio may purchase any security if, as a result, more than 25% of the value of the Portfolio's assets would be invested in the securities of issuers having their principal business activities in the same industry; provided that this restriction does not apply to investments in obligations issued or guaranteed by the US Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities (or repurchase agreements with respect thereto). The AST Cohen & Steers Realty Portfolio will invest at least 25% of its total assets in securities of companies engaged in the real estate business.

8. No Portfolio other than the AST Cohen & Steers Realty Portfolio may, with respect to 75% of the value of its total assets, purchase the securities of any issuer (other than securities issued or guaranteed by the US Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities) if, as a result, (i) more than 5% of the value of the Portfolio's total assets would be invested in the securities of such issuer, or (ii) more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of such issuer would be held by the Portfolio. The AST Cohen & Steers Realty Portfolio may not, with respect to 50% of a Portfolio's total assets, invest in the securities of any one issuer (other than the US Government and its agencies and instrumentalities), if immediately after and as a result of such investment more than 5% of the total assets of the Portfolio would be invested in such issuer.

If a restriction on a Portfolio's investments is adhered to at the time an investment is made, a subsequent change in the percentage of Portfolio assets invested in certain securities or other instruments, or change in average duration of the Portfolio's investment portfolio, resulting from changes in the value of the Portfolio's total assets, will not be considered a violation of the restriction; provided, however, that the asset coverage requirement applicable to borrowings shall be maintained in the manner contemplated by applicable law.

With respect to investment restrictions (2) and (6), a Portfolio will not borrow or lend to any other fund unless it applies for and receives an exemptive order from the SEC, if so required, or the SEC issues rules permitting such transactions.

With respect to investment restriction (6), the restriction on making loans is not considered to limit a Portfolio's investments in loan participations and assignments.

With respect to investment restriction (7), the AST J.P. Morgan International Equity Portfolio and the AST J.P. Morgan Strategic Opportunities Portfolio will not consider a bank-issued guaranty or financial guaranty insurance as a separate security for purposes of determining the percentage of the Portfolios' assets invested in the securities of issuers in a particular industry.

FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE FOLLOWING PORTFOLIOS:

■	AST BlackRock/Loomis Sayles Bond Portfolio
■	AST Goldman Sachs Large-Cap Value Portfolio
■	AST Government Money Market Portfolio (formerly, AST Money Market Portfolio)
■	AST High Yield Portfolio
■	AST Hotchkis & Wiley Large-Cap Value Portfolio

1. A Portfolio will not underwrite securities issued by others except to the extent that the Portfolio may be deemed an underwriter when purchasing or selling securities.

2. A Portfolio will not issue senior securities.

FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE FOLLOWING PORTFOLIOS:

■	AST Advanced Strategies Portfolio
■	AST FI Pyramis^® Quantitative Portfolio
■	AST Goldman Sachs Multi-Asset Portfolio
■	AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio
■	AST Prudential Growth Allocation Portfolio
■	AST RCM World Trends Portfolio
■	AST Western Asset Core Plus Bond Portfolio

Under its fundamental investment restrictions, each Portfolio may not:

1. Issue senior securities, except as permitted under the 1940 Act.

2. Borrow money, except that a Portfolio may (i) borrow money for non-leveraging, temporary or emergency purposes, and (ii) engage in reverse repurchase agreements and make other investments or engage in other transactions, which may involve a borrowing, in a manner consistent with the Portfolio's investment objective and policies; provided that the combination of (i) and (ii) shall not exceed 33¹⁄3% of the value of the Portfolio's assets (including the amount borrowed) less liabilities (other than borrowings) or such other percentage permitted by law. Any borrowings that come to exceed this amount will be reduced in accordance with applicable law. Subject to the above limitations, a Portfolio may borrow from persons to the extent permitted by applicable law, including the 1940 Act, or to the extent permitted by any exemption from the 1940 Act that may be granted by the SEC, or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance.

3. Underwrite securities issued by other persons, except to the extent that a Portfolio may be deemed to be an underwriter (within the meaning of the 1933 Act) in connection with the purchase and sale of portfolio securities.

4. Purchase or sell real estate unless acquired as a result of the ownership of securities or other instruments; provided that this restriction shall not prohibit a Portfolio from investing in securities or other instruments backed by real estate or in securities of companies engaged in the real estate business.

5. Purchase or sell physical commodities unless acquired as a result of the ownership of securities or instruments; provided that this restriction shall not prohibit a Portfolio from (i) engaging in permissible options and futures transactions and forward foreign currency contracts in accordance with the Portfolio's investment policies, or (ii) investing in securities of any kind.

6. Make loans, except that a Portfolio may (i) lend portfolio securities in accordance with the Portfolio's investment policies in amounts up to 33¹⁄3% of the total assets of the Portfolio taken at market value, (ii) purchase money market securities and enter into repurchase agreements, (iii) acquire publicly distributed or privately placed debt securities, and (iv) make loans of money to other investment companies to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act or any exemption therefrom that may be granted by the SEC or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance.

7. Purchase any security if, as a result, more than 25% of the value of the Portfolio's assets would be invested in the securities of issuers having their principal business activities in the same industry; provided that this restriction does not apply to investments in obligations issued or guaranteed by the US Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities or to municipal securities (or repurchase agreements with respect thereto). For purposes of this limitation, investments in other investment companies shall not be considered an investment in any particular industry.

8. With respect to 75% of the value of its total assets, purchase the securities of any issuer (other than securities issued or guaranteed by the US Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities) if, as a result, (i) more than 5% of the value of the Portfolio's total assets would be invested in the securities of such issuer, or (ii) more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of such issuer would be held by the Portfolio.

If a restriction on a Portfolio's investments is adhered to at the time an investment is made, a subsequent change in the percentage of the Portfolio assets invested in certain securities or other instruments, or change in average duration of the Portfolio's investment portfolio, resulting from changes in the value of the Portfolio's total assets, will not be considered a violation of the restriction; provided, however, that the asset coverage requirement applicable to borrowings shall be maintained in the manner contemplated by applicable law.

With respect to investment restriction (6), the restriction on making loans is not considered to limit Portfolio's investments in loan participations and assignments.

With respect to investment restriction (7), a Portfolio will not consider a bank-issued guaranty or financial guaranty insurance as a separate security for purposes of determining the percentage of the Portfolio's assets invested in the securities of issuers in a particular industry.

FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE FOLLOWING PORTFOLIOS:

■	AST Academic Strategies Asset Allocation Portfolio
■	AST Balanced Asset Allocation Portfolio
■	AST Capital Growth Asset Allocation Portfolio
■	AST Preservation Asset Allocation Portfolio
■	AST Wellington Management Hedged Equity Portfolio

Under its fundamental investment restrictions, each Portfolio may not:

1. Issue senior securities, except as permitted under the 1940 Act.

2. The Portfolios may not borrow money, except to the extent permitted by applicable law from time to time. Note: The 1940 Act currently permits an open-end investment company to borrow money from a bank so long as the ratio which the value of the total assets of the investment company (including the amount of any such borrowing), less the amount of all liabilities and indebtedness (other than such borrowing) of the investment company, bears to the amount of such borrowing is at least 300%. An open-end investment company may also borrow money from other lenders in accordance with applicable law and positions of the SEC and its staff. The Portfolio may engage in reverse repurchase arrangements without limit, subject to applicable requirements related to segregation of assets.

5. Purchase or sell physical commodities unless acquired as a result of the ownership of securities or instruments; provided that this restriction shall not prohibit a Portfolio from (i) engaging in permissible options and futures transactions and forward foreign currency contracts in accordance with the Asset Allocation Portfolio's investment policies, or (ii) investing in securities of any kind.

If a restriction on a Portfolio's investments is adhered to at the time an investment is made, a subsequent change in the percentage of the Portfolio's assets invested in certain securities or other instruments, or change in average duration of the Portfolio's investment portfolio, resulting from changes in the value of the Portfolio's total assets, will not be considered a violation of the restriction; provided, however, that the asset coverage requirement applicable to borrowings shall be maintained in the manner contemplated by applicable law.

With respect to investment restriction (6), the restriction on making loans is not considered to limit an Asset Allocation Portfolio's investments in loan participations and assignments.

With respect to investment restriction (7), each Portfolio will not consider a bank-issued guaranty or financial guaranty insurance as a separate security for purposes of determining the percentage of the Asset Allocation Portfolio's assets invested in the securities of issuers in a particular industry.

FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE ONLY TO AST INTERNATIONAL GROWTH PORTFOLIO:

1. The Portfolio may borrow money for temporary or emergency purposes (not for leveraging or investment) in an amount not exceeding 33¹⁄3% of the value of its total assets (including the amount borrowed) less liabilities (other than borrowings). If borrowings exceed 33¹⁄3% of the value of the Portfolio's total assets by reason of a decline in net assets, the Portfolio will reduce its borrowings within three business days to the extent necessary to comply with the 33¹⁄3% limitation. This policy shall not prohibit reverse repurchase agreements, deposits of assets to margin or guarantee positions in futures, options, swaps or forward contracts, or the segregation of assets in connection with such contracts. Subject to the above limitations, the Portfolio may borrow from persons to the extent permitted by applicable law, including the 1940 Act, or to the extent permitted by any exemption from the 1940 Act that may be granted by the SEC, or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance.

2. The Portfolio will not, as to 75% of the value of its total assets, own more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of any one issuer, or purchase the securities of any one issuer (except cash items and “government securities” as defined under the 1940 Act), if immediately after and as a result of such purchase, the value of the holdings of the Portfolio in the securities of such issuer exceeds 5% of the value of its total assets.

3. The Portfolio will not invest more than 25% of the value of its assets in any particular industry (other than US government securities).

4. The Portfolio will not invest directly in real estate or interests in real estate; however, the Portfolio may own debt or equity securities issued by companies engaged in those businesses.

5. The Portfolio will not purchase or sell physical commodities other than foreign currencies unless acquired as a result of ownership of securities (but this limitation shall not prevent the Portfolio from purchasing or selling options, futures, swaps and forward contracts or from investing in securities or other instruments backed by physical commodities).

6. The Portfolio may not make loans, except that the Portfolio may (i) lend portfolio securities in accordance with the Portfolio's investment policies in amounts up to 33¹⁄3% of the total assets of the Portfolio taken at market value; (ii) purchase money market securities and enter into repurchase agreements; (iii) acquire publicly distributed or privately placed debt securities; and (iv) make loans of money to other investment companies to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act or any exemption therefrom that may be granted by the SEC or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance.

7. The Portfolio will not act as an underwriter of securities issued by others, except to the extent that the Portfolio may be deemed an underwriter in connection with the disposition of its securities.

8. The Portfolio will not issue senior securities except in compliance with the 1940 Act.

FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE ONLY TO AST SMALL-CAP VALUE PORTFOLIO:

The following fundamental policies should be read in connection with the notes set forth below. The notes are not fundamental policies. As a matter of fundamental policy, the Portfolio may not:

33¹⁄3% of the value of the Portfolio's total assets (including the amount borrowed) less liabilities (other than borrowings) or such other percentage permitted by law. Any borrowings which come to exceed this amount will be reduced in accordance with applicable law. The Portfolio may borrow from persons to the extent permitted by applicable law including the 1940 Act, or to the extent permitted by any exemption from the 1940 Act that may be granted by the SEC, or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance;

2. Purchase or sell physical commodities; except that it may enter into futures contracts and options thereon;

3. Purchase the securities of any issuer if, as a result, more than 25% of the value of the Portfolio's total assets would be invested in the securities of issuers having their principal business activities in the same industry;

4. Make loans, although the Portfolio may (i) lend portfolio securities and participate in an interfund lending program to the extent permitted by applicable law, provided that no such loan may be made if, as a result, the aggregate of such loans would exceed 33¹⁄3% of the value of the Portfolio's total assets; (ii) purchase money market securities and enter into repurchase agreements; (iii) acquire publicly-distributed or privately-placed debt securities and purchase debt; and (iv) make loans of money to other investment companies to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act or any exemption therefrom that may be granted by the SEC or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance;

5. Purchase a security if, as a result, with respect to 75% of the value of its total assets, more than 5% of the value of the Portfolio's total assets would be invested in the securities of a single issuer, except securities issued or guaranteed by the US Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities;

6. Purchase a security if, as a result, with respect to 75% of the value of the Portfolio's total assets, more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of any issuer would be held by the Portfolio (other than obligations issued or guaranteed by the US Government, its agencies or instrumentalities);

7. Purchase or sell real estate unless acquired as a result of ownership of securities or other instruments (but this shall not prevent the Portfolio from investing in securities or other instruments backed by real estate or in securities of companies engaged in the real estate business);

8. Issue senior securities except in compliance with the 1940 Act; or

9. Underwrite securities issued by other persons, except to the extent that the Portfolio may be deemed to be an underwriter within the meaning of the 1933 Act in connection with the purchase and sale of its portfolio securities in the ordinary course of pursuing its investment program.

Notes: The following notes should be read in connection with the above-described fundamental policies. The notes are not fundamental policies.

With respect to investment restrictions (1) and (4), the Portfolio will not borrow from or lend to any other fund unless it applies for and receives an exemptive order from the SEC, if so required, or the SEC issues rules permitting such transactions.

With respect to investment restriction (2), the Portfolio does not consider currency contracts or hybrid investments to be commodities.

For purposes of investment restriction (3), US, state or local governments, or related agencies or instrumentalities, are not considered an industry.

For purposes of investment restriction (4), the Portfolio will consider the acquisition of a debt security to include the execution of a note or other evidence of an extension of credit with a term of more than nine months.

FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE ONLY TO AST INTERNATIONAL VALUE PORTFOLIO:

As a matter of fundamental policy, the Portfolio will not:

1. Make loans of money or securities other than (a) through the purchase of securities in accordance with the Portfolio's investment objective, (b) through repurchase agreements, (c) by lending portfolio securities in an amount not to exceed 33¹⁄3% of the Portfolio's total assets and (d) loans of money to other investment companies to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act or any exemptions therefrom that may be granted by the SEC or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance;

2. Underwrite securities issued by others except to the extent that the Portfolio may be deemed an underwriter when purchasing or selling securities;

3. Issue senior securities;

4. Invest directly in physical commodities (other than foreign currencies), real estate or interests in real estate; provided, that the Portfolio may invest in securities of issuers which invest in physical commodities, real estate or interests in real estate; and, provided further, that this restriction shall not prevent the Portfolio from purchasing or selling options, futures, swaps and forward contracts, or from investing in securities or other instruments backed by physical commodities, real estate or interests in real estate;

5. Make any investment which would concentrate 25% or more of the Portfolio's total assets in the securities of issuers having their principal business activities in the same industry, provided that this limitation does not apply to obligations issued or guaranteed by the US government, its agencies or instrumentalities;

6. Borrow money except from persons to the extent permitted by applicable law, including the 1940 Act, or to the extent permitted by any exemption from the 1940 Act that may be granted by the SEC, or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance, and then in amounts up to 33¹⁄3% of the Portfolio's total assets;

7. As to 75% of the value of its total assets, invest more than 5% of its total assets, at market value, in the securities of any one issuer (except securities issued or guaranteed by the US Government, its agencies or instrumentalities); or

8. As to 75% of the value of its total assets, purchase more than 10% of any class of securities of any single issuer or purchase more than 10% of the voting securities of any single issuer.

In applying the above restriction regarding investments in a single industry, the Portfolio uses industry classifications based, where applicable, on Baseline, Bridge Information Systems, Reuters, the S&P Stock Guide published by Standard & Poor's, information obtained from Bloomberg L.P. and Moody's International, and/or the prospectus of the issuing company. Selection of an appropriate industry classification resource will be made by the subadviser in the exercise of its reasonable discretion. (This note is not a fundamental policy.)

FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE ONLY TO AST T. ROWE PRICE NATURAL RESOURCES PORTFOLIO:

The following fundamental policies should be read in connection with the notes set forth below. The notes are not fundamental policies. As a matter of fundamental policy, the Portfolio may not:

1. Borrow money except that the Portfolio may (i) borrow for non-leveraging, temporary or emergency purposes and (ii) engage in reverse repurchase agreements and make other investments or engage in other transactions, which may involve a borrowing, in a manner consistent with the Portfolio's investment objective and program, provided that the combination of (i) and (ii) shall not exceed 33¹⁄3% of the value of the Portfolio's total assets (including the amount borrowed) less liabilities (other than borrowings) or such other percentage permitted by law. Any borrowings which come to exceed this amount will be reduced in accordance with applicable law. The Portfolio may borrow from persons to the extent permitted by applicable law, including the 1940 Act, or to the extent permitted by any exemption from the 1940 Act that may be granted by the SEC, or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance;

2. Purchase or sell physical commodities; except that it may enter into futures contracts and options thereon;

4. Make loans, although the Portfolio may (i) lend portfolio securities provided that no such loan may be made if, as a result, the aggregate of such loans would exceed 33¹⁄3% of the value of the Portfolio's total assets; (ii) make loans of money to other investment companies to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act or any exemption therefrom that may be granted by the SEC, or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance; (iii) purchase money market securities and enter into repurchase agreements; and (iv) acquire publicly-distributed or privately-placed debt securities and purchase debt;

8. Issue senior securities except in compliance with the 1940 Act; or

Notes: The following notes should be read in connection with the above-described fundamental policies. The notes are not fundamental policies.

With respect to investment restriction (2), the Portfolio does not consider currency contracts or hybrid investments to be commodities.

For purposes of investment restriction (3), US, state or local governments, or related agencies or instrumentalities, are not considered an industry. Industries are determined by reference to the classifications of industries set forth in the Portfolio's semi-annual and annual reports.

FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE ONLY TO AST GOLDMAN SACHS LARGE-CAP VALUE PORTFOLIO:

1. As to 75% of the value of its total assets, the Portfolio will not purchase a security of any issuer (other than securities issued or guaranteed by the US Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities, or securities of other investment companies) if as a result, (a) more than 5% of the Portfolio's total assets would be invested in the securities of that issuer, or (b) the Portfolio would hold more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of that issuer.

2. The Portfolio may not make loans, except that the Portfolio may (i) lend portfolio securities in accordance with the Portfolio's investment policies in amounts up to 33¹⁄3% of the total assets of the Portfolio taken at market value; (ii) purchase money market securities and enter into repurchase agreements; (iii) acquire publicly distributed or privately placed debt securities; and (iv) make loans of money to other investment companies to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act or any exemption there from that may be granted by the SEC or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance.

3. The Portfolio will not concentrate its investments in any one industry (the Portfolio's investment policy of keeping its assets in those securities which are selling at the most reasonable prices in relation to value normally results in diversification among many industries—consistent with this, the Portfolio does not intend to invest more than 25% of its assets in any one industry classification used by the Subadviser for investment purposes, although such concentration could, under unusual economic and market conditions, amount to 30% or conceivably somewhat more).

4. The Portfolio will not borrow money except from persons to the extent permitted by applicable law including the 1940 Act, or to the extent permitted by any exemption from the 1940 Act that may be granted by the SEC, or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance, and then in amounts not in excess of 33¹⁄3% of its total assets. The Portfolio may borrow at prevailing interest rates and invest the Portfolios in additional securities. The Portfolio's borrowings are limited so that immediately after such borrowing the value of the Portfolio's assets (including borrowings) less its liabilities (not including borrowings) is at least three times the amount of the borrowings. Should the Portfolio, for any reason, have borrowings that do not meet the above test then, within three business days, the Portfolio must reduce such borrowings so as to meet the necessary test. Under such a circumstance, the Portfolio may have to liquidate securities at a time when it is disadvantageous to do so.

5. The Portfolio will not purchase or sell real estate (although it may purchase securities secured by real estate interests or interests therein, or issued by companies or investment trusts which invest in real estate or interests therein).

6. The Portfolio will not invest directly in oil, gas, or other mineral exploration or development programs; however, the Portfolio may purchase securities of issuers whose principal business activities fall within such areas.

FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE ONLY TO AST HOTCHKIS & WILEY LARGE-CAP VALUE PORTFOLIO:

As a matter of fundamental policy, the Portfolio may not:

1. Borrow money except from persons to the extent permitted by applicable law including the Investment Company Act of 1940, or to the extent permitted by any exemption from the 1940 Act that may be granted by the SEC, or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance, in excess of 33¹⁄3% of the value of its total net assets, and when borrowing, it is for temporary or emergency purposes;

2. Buy or sell real estate, commodities, commodity contracts (however, the Portfolio may purchase securities of companies investing in real estate);

3. Purchase securities if the purchase would cause the Portfolio, at the time, with respect to 75% of its total assets, to have more than 5% of its total assets invested in the securities of any one company or to own more than 10% of the voting securities of any one company (except obligations issued or guaranteed by the US Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities, or securities of other investment companies);

4. Make loans, except that the Portfolio may (i) lend portfolio securities in accordance with the Portfolio's investment policies in amounts up to 33¹⁄3% of the total assets of the Portfolio taken at market value; (ii) purchase money market securities and enter into repurchase agreements; (iii) acquire publicly distributed or privately placed debt securities; and (iv) make loans of money to other investment companies to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act or any exemption therefrom that may be granted by the SEC or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance; or

5. Invest more than 25% of the value of the Portfolio's assets in one particular industry.

FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE ONLY TO AST T. ROWE PRICE ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO:

The following fundamental policies should be read in connection with the notes set forth below. The notes are not fundamental policies. As a matter of fundamental policy, the Portfolio may not:

1. Borrow money except that the Portfolio may (i) borrow for non-leveraging, temporary or emergency purposes and (ii) engage in reverse repurchase agreements and make other investments or engage in other transactions, which may or may be deemed to involve a borrowing, in a manner consistent with the Portfolio's investment objective and policies, provided that the combination of (i) and (ii) shall not exceed 33¹⁄3% of the value of the Portfolio's total assets (including the amount borrowed) less liabilities (other than borrowings) or such other percentage permitted by law. Any borrowings which come to exceed this amount will be reduced in accordance with applicable law. The Portfolio may borrow from persons to the extent permitted by applicable law, including the 1940 Act, or to the extent permitted by any exemption from the 1940 Act that may be granted by the SEC, or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance;

2. Purchase or sell physical commodities; except that it may enter into futures contracts and options thereon;

4. Make loans, although the Portfolio may (i) purchase money market securities and enter into repurchase agreements; (ii) acquire publicly-distributed or privately placed debt securities and purchase debt; (iii) lend portfolio securities provided that no such loan may be made if, as a result, the aggregate of such loans would exceed 33¹⁄3% of the value of the Portfolio's total assets; and (iv) make loans of money to other investment companies to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act or any exemption there from that may be granted by the SEC or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance;

5. Purchase a security if, as a result, with respect to 75% of the value of its total assets, more than 5% of the value of the Portfolio's total assets would be invested in the securities of a single issuer, except securities issued or guaranteed by the US government, or any of its agencies or instrumentalities;

7. Purchase or sell real estate unless acquired as a result of ownership of securities or other instruments (but this shall not prevent the Portfolio from investing in securities or other instruments backed by real estate or securities of companies engaged in the real estate business);

8. Issue senior securities except in compliance with the 1940 Act; or

Notes: The following notes should be read in connection with the above described fundamental policies. The notes are not fundamental policies.

With respect to investment restrictions (1) and (4), the Portfolio will not borrow or lend to any other fund unless it applies for and receives an exemptive order from the SEC, if so required, or the SEC issues rules permitting such transactions.

With respect to investment restriction (2), the Portfolio does not consider currency contracts on hybrid investments to be commodities.

For the purposes of investment restriction (3), United States federal, state or local governments, or related agencies and instrumentalities, are not considered an industry. Foreign governments are considered an industry.

FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE ONLY TO AST TEMPLETON GLOBAL BOND PORTFOLIO:

As a matter of fundamental policy, the Portfolio may not:

1. Borrow money, except for temporary, extraordinary or emergency purposes or except in connection with reverse repurchase agreements provided that the Portfolio maintains asset coverage of 300% for all borrowings. Subject to the above limitations, the Portfolio may borrow from persons to the extent permitted by applicable law including the 1940 Act, or to the extent permitted by any exemption from the 1940 Act that may be granted by the SEC, or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance;

2. Purchase or sell real estate (except that the Portfolio may invest in (i) securities of companies which deal in real estate or mortgages, and (ii) securities secured by real estate or interests therein, and that the Portfolio reserves freedom of action to hold and to sell real estate acquired as a result of the Portfolio's ownership of securities) or purchase or sell physical commodities or contracts relating to physical commodities;

3. Act as underwriter of securities issued by others, except to the extent that it may be deemed an underwriter in connection with the disposition of portfolio securities of the Portfolio;

4. Make loans to other persons, except (a) loans of portfolio securities, (b) to the extent the entry into repurchase agreements and the purchase of debt securities in accordance with its investment objectives and investment policies may be deemed to be loans, and (c) loans of money to other investment companies to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act or any exemption therefrom that may be granted by the SEC or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance;

5. Issue senior securities except in compliance with the 1940 Act; or

6. Purchase any securities which would cause more than 25% of the market value of its total assets at the time of such purchase to be invested in the securities of one or more issuers having their principal business activities in the same industry, provided that there is no limitation with respect to investments in obligations issued or guaranteed by the US Government, its agencies or instrumentalities (for the purposes of this restriction, telephone companies are considered to be in a separate industry from gas and electric public utilities, and wholly-owned finance companies are considered to be in the industry of their parents if their activities are primarily related to financing the activities of their parents).

Notes: The following notes should be read in connection with the above described fundamental policies. The notes are not fundamental policies.

For purposes of investment restriction (6), US, state or local governments, or related agencies or instrumentalities, are not considered an industry. It is the position of the Staff of the SEC that foreign governments are industries for purposes of this restriction. For as long as this staff position is in effect, the Portfolio will not invest more than 25% of its total assets in the securities of any single governmental issuer. For purposes of this restriction, governmental entities are considered separate issuers.

FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE ONLY TO AST HIGH YIELD PORTFOLIO:

1. The Portfolio will not borrow money except for temporary, extraordinary or emergency purposes and then only from persons to the extent permitted by applicable law including the 1940 Act, or to the extent permitted by any exemption from the 1940 Act that may be granted by the SEC, or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance, and only in amounts not in excess of 33¹⁄3% of the value of its net assets, taken at the lower of cost or market. In addition, to meet redemption requests without immediately selling portfolio securities, the Portfolio may borrow up to one-third of the value of its total assets (including the amount borrowed) less its liabilities (not including borrowings, but including the current fair market value of any securities carried in open short positions). This practice is not for investment leverage but solely to facilitate management of the portfolio by enabling the Portfolio to meet redemption requests when the liquidation of portfolio securities is deemed to be inconvenient or disadvantageous. If, due to market fluctuations or other reasons, the value of the Portfolio's assets falls below 300% of its borrowings, it will reduce its borrowings within three business days.

2. The Portfolio will not invest more than 5% of its total assets in the securities of any one issuer (except cash and cash instruments, securities issued or guaranteed by the US government, its agencies, or instrumentalities, or instruments secured by these money market instruments, such as repurchase agreements).

3. The Portfolio will not purchase or sell real estate, although it may invest in marketable securities secured by real estate or interests in real estate, and it may invest in the marketable securities of companies investing or dealing in real estate.

4. The Portfolio will not purchase or sell commodities or commodity contracts or oil, gas, or other mineral exploration or development programs. However, it may invest in the marketable securities of companies investing in or sponsoring such programs.

5. The Portfolio may not make loans, except that the Portfolio may (i) lend portfolio securities in accordance with the Portfolio's investment policies in amounts up to 33¹⁄3% of the total assets of the Portfolio taken at market value; (ii) purchase money market securities and enter into repurchase agreements; (iii) acquire publicly distributed or privately placed debt securities; and (iv) make loans of money to other investment companies to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act or any exemption there from that may be granted by the SEC or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance.

6. The Portfolio will not invest more than 25% of the value of its total assets in one industry. However, for temporary defensive purposes, the Portfolio may at times invest more than that percentage in: cash and cash items; securities issued or guaranteed by the US government, its agencies, or instrumentalities; or instruments secured by these money market instruments, such as repurchase agreements.

FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE ONLY TO AST BLACKROCK/LOOMIS SAYLES BOND PORTFOLIO:

1. The Portfolio will not invest in a security if, as a result of such investment, more than 25% of its total assets (taken at market value at the time of investment) would be invested in securities of issuers of a particular industry, except that this restriction does not apply to securities issued or guaranteed by the US government or its agencies or instrumentalities (or repurchase agreements with respect thereto);

2. The Portfolio will not, with respect to 75% of its total assets, invest in a security if, as a result of such investment, more than 5% of its total assets (taken at market value at the time of investment) would be invested in the securities of any one issuer, except that this restriction does not apply to securities issued or guaranteed by the US government or its agencies or instrumentalities (or repurchase agreements with respect thereto);

3. The Portfolio will not, with respect to 75% of its assets, invest in a security if, as a result of such investment, it would hold more than 10% (taken at the time of investment) of the outstanding voting securities of any one issuer;

4. The Portfolio will not purchase or sell real estate (although it may purchase securities secured by real estate or interests therein, or securities issued by companies which invest in real estate, or interests therein);

5. The Portfolio will not purchase or sell commodities contracts or oil, gas or mineral programs. This restriction shall not prohibit the Portfolio, subject to restrictions stated in the Trust’s Prospectus and elsewhere in this Statement, from purchasing, selling or entering into futures contracts, options on futures contracts, foreign currency forward contracts, foreign currency options, or any interest rate, securities related or foreign currency-related hedging instrument, including swap agreements and other derivative instruments, subject to compliance with any applicable provisions of the federal securities laws or commodities laws;

6. The Portfolio will not borrow money, issue senior securities, pledge, mortgage, hypothecate its assets, except that the Portfolio may (i) borrow from persons to the extent permitted by applicable law including the 1940 Act, or to the extent permitted by any exemption from the 1940 Act that may be granted by the SEC, or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance, or

enter into reverse repurchase agreements, or employ similar investment techniques, and pledge its assets in connection therewith, but only if immediately after each borrowing there is an asset coverage of 300% and (ii) enter into transactions in options, futures and options on futures and other derivative instruments as described in the Trust’s Prospectus and this Statement (the deposit of assets in escrow in connection with the writing of covered put and call options and the purchase of securities on a when-issued or delayed delivery basis, collateral arrangements with respect to initial or variation margin deposits for future contracts and commitments entered into under swap agreements or other derivative instruments, will not be deemed to be pledges of the Portfolio's assets);

7. The Portfolio will not lend funds or other assets, except that the Portfolio may, consistent with its investment objective and policies: (a) invest in debt obligations, including bonds, debentures or other debt securities, bankers' acceptances and commercial paper, even though the purchase of such obligations may be deemed to be the making of a loan, (b) enter into repurchase agreements, (c) lend its Portfolio securities in an amount not to exceed one-third the value of its total assets, provided such loans are and in accordance with applicable guidelines established by the SEC; and (d) make loans of money to other investment companies to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act or any exemption there from that may be granted by the SEC or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance.

FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE ONLY TO AST BLACKROCK LOW DURATION BOND PORTFOLIO:

As a matter of fundamental policy, the Portfolio may not:

1. Invest in a security if, as a result of such investment, more than 25% of its total assets (taken at market value at the time of such investment) would be invested in the securities of issuers in any particular industry, except that this restriction does not apply to securities issued or guaranteed by the US Government or its agencies or instrumentalities (or repurchase agreements with respect thereto);

2. With respect to 75% of its assets, invest in a security if, as a result of such investment, more than 5% of its total assets (taken at market value at the time of such investment) would be invested in securities of any one issuer, except that this restriction does not apply to securities issued or guaranteed by the US Government or its agencies or instrumentalities;

3. With respect to 75% of its assets, invest in a security if, as a result of such investment, it would hold more than 10% (taken at the time of such investment) of the outstanding voting securities of any one issuer;

4. Purchase or sell real estate (although it may purchase securities secured by real estate or interests therein, or securities issued by companies which invest in real estate, or interests therein);

5. Purchase or sell commodities or commodities contracts or oil, gas or mineral programs. This restriction shall not prohibit the Portfolio, subject to restrictions described in the Prospectus and elsewhere in this Statement, from purchasing, selling or entering into futures contracts, options, or any interest rate, securities-related or foreign currency-related hedging instrument, including swap agreements and other derivative instruments, subject to compliance with any applicable provisions of the federal securities or commodities laws;

6. Borrow money, issue senior securities, or pledge, mortgage or hypothecate its assets, except that the Portfolio may (i) borrow from persons to the extent permitted by applicable law including the 1940 Act, or to the extent permitted by any exemption from the 1940 Act that may be granted by the SEC, or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance, or enter into reverse repurchase agreements, or employ similar investment techniques, and pledge its assets in connection therewith, but only if immediately after each borrowing there is asset coverage of 300% and (ii) enter into transactions in options, futures and options on futures and other derivative instruments as described in the Prospectus and in this Statement (the deposit of assets in escrow in connection with the writing of covered put and call options and the purchase of securities on a when-issued or delayed delivery basis, collateral arrangements with respect to initial or variation margin deposits for futures contracts and commitments entered into under swap agreements or other derivative instruments, will not be deemed to be pledges of the Portfolio assets);

7. Lend any funds or other assets, except that a Portfolio may, consistent with its investment objective and policies: (a) invest in debt obligations, including bonds, debentures or other debt securities, banker' acceptance and commercial paper, even though the purchase of such obligations may be deemed to be the making of loans, (b) enter into repurchase agreements, (c) lend its portfolio securities in an amount not to exceed one-third of the value of its total assets, provided such loans are made in accordance with applicable guidelines established by the SEC; and (d) make loans of money to other investment companies to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act or any exemption therefrom that may be granted by the SEC or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance.

FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE ONLY TO AST GOVERNMENT MONEY MARKET PORTFOLIO (FORMERLY, AST MONEY MARKET PORTFOLIO):

1. The Portfolio will not purchase a security if as a result, the Portfolio would own more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of any issuer.

2. As to 75% of the value of its total assets, the Portfolio will not invest more than 5% of its total assets, at market value, in the securities of any one issuer (except securities issued or guaranteed by the US Government, its agencies or instrumentalities).

3. The Portfolio will not purchase a security if as a result, more than 25% of its total assets, at market value, would be invested in the securities of issuers principally engaged in the same industry (except securities issued or guaranteed by the US Government, its agencies or instrumentalities, negotiable certificates of deposit, time deposits, and bankers' acceptances of United States branches of United States banks).

4. The Portfolio will not enter into reverse repurchase agreements exceeding in the aggregate one-third of the market value of the Portfolio's total assets, less liabilities other than obligations created by reverse repurchase agreements.

5. The Portfolio will not borrow money, except from persons to the extent permitted by applicable law including the Investment Company Act of 1940, or to the extent permitted by any exemption from the 1940 Act that may be granted by the SEC, or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance, for temporary, extraordinary or emergency purposes and then only in amounts not to exceed 33¹⁄3% of the value of the Portfolio's total assets, taken at cost, at the time of such borrowing. The Portfolio may not mortgage, pledge or hypothecate any assets except in connection with any such borrowing. The Portfolio will not purchase securities while borrowings exceed 5% of the Portfolio's total assets. This borrowing provision is included to facilitate the orderly sale of securities, for example, in the event of abnormally heavy redemption requests, and is not for investment purposes and shall not apply to reverse repurchase agreements.

6. The Portfolio will not make loans, except through purchasing or holding debt obligations, or entering into repurchase agreements, or loans of Portfolio securities in accordance with the Portfolio's investment objectives and policies, or making loans of money to other investment companies to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act or any exemption there from that may be granted by the SEC or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance.

7. The Portfolio will not purchase or sell puts, calls, straddles, spreads, or any combination thereof; real estate; commodities; or commodity contracts or interests in oil, gas or mineral exploration or development programs. However, the Portfolio may purchase bonds or commercial paper issued by companies which invest in real estate or interests therein including real estate investment trusts.

FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE FOLLOWING PORTFOLIOS:

■	AST AQR Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio
■	AST AQR Large-Cap Portfolio
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2017
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2018
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2019
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2020
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2021
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2022
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2023
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2024
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2025
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2026
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2027
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2028
■	AST ClearBridge Dividend Growth Portfolio
■	AST Global Real Estate Portfolio
■	AST Investment Grade Bond Portfolio
■	AST Jennison Large-Cap Growth Portfolio
■	AST MFS Large-Cap Value Portfolio
■	AST Multi-Sector Fixed Income Portfolio
■	AST New Discovery Asset Allocation Portfolio
■	AST Parametric Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio
■	AST QMA Large-Cap Portfolio

■	AST T. Rowe Price Growth Opportunities Portfolio
■	AST Western Asset Emerging Markets Debt Portfolio

Under its fundamental investment restrictions, each Portfolio may not:

1. Issue senior securities or borrow money or pledge its assets, except as permitted by the 1940 Act and rules thereunder, exemptive order, SEC release, no-action letter or similar relief or interpretations. For purposes of this restriction, the purchase or sale of securities on a when-issued or delayed delivery basis, reverse repurchase agreements, dollar rolls, short sales, derivative and hedging transactions such as interest rate swap transactions, and collateral arrangements with respect thereto, and transactions similar to any of the foregoing and collateral arrangements with respect thereto, and obligations of a Portfolio to Trustees pursuant to any deferred compensation arrangements are not deemed to be a pledge of assets or the issuance of a senior security.

2. Underwrite securities issued by other persons, except to the extent that a Portfolio may be deemed to be an underwriter (within the meaning of the 1933 Act) in connection with the purchase and sale of portfolio securities.

3. Purchase or sell real estate unless acquired as a result of the ownership of securities or other instruments; provided that this restriction shall not prohibit a Portfolio from investing in securities or other instruments backed by real estate or in securities of companies engaged in the real estate business.

4. Purchase or sell physical commodities unless acquired as a result of the ownership of securities or instruments; provided that this restriction shall not prohibit a Portfolio from (i) engaging in permissible options and futures transactions and forward foreign currency contracts in accordance with the Portfolio's investment policies, or (ii) investing in securities of any kind.

5. Make loans, except that a Portfolio may (i) lend portfolio securities in accordance with the Portfolio's investment policies in amounts up to 33¹⁄3% of the total assets of the Portfolio taken at market value, (ii) purchase money market securities and enter into repurchase agreements, (iii) acquire publicly distributed or privately placed debt securities, and (iv) make loans of money to other investment companies to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act or any exemption there from that may be granted by the SEC or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance.

6. Purchase any security if, as a result, more than 25% of the value of the Portfolio's assets would be invested in the securities of issuers having their principal business activities in the same industry; provided that this restriction does not apply to investments in obligations issued or guaranteed by the US Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities or to municipal securities (or repurchase agreements with respect thereto). For purposes of this limitation, investments in other investment companies shall not be considered an investment in any particular industry.

7. With respect to 75% of the value of its total assets, purchase the securities of any issuer (other than securities issued or guaranteed by the US Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities) if, as a result, (i) more than 5% of the value of the Portfolio's total assets would be invested in the securities of such issuer, or (ii) more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of such issuer would be held by the Portfolio.

If a restriction on a Portfolio's investments is adhered to at the time an investment is made, a subsequent change in the percentage of the Portfolio assets invested in certain securities or other instruments, or, except for AST Jennison Large-Cap Growth Portfolio, change in average duration of the Portfolio's investment portfolio, resulting from changes in the value of the Portfolio's total assets, will not be considered a violation of the restriction; provided, however, that the asset coverage requirement applicable to borrowings shall be maintained in the manner contemplated by applicable law.

With respect to investment restriction (5), the restriction on making loans is not considered to limit Portfolio's investments in loan participations and assignments.

With respect to investment restriction (6), a Portfolio will not consider a bank-issued guaranty or financial guaranty insurance as a separate security for purposes of determining the percentage of the Portfolio's assets invested in the securities of issuers in a particular industry.

With respect to investment restrictions (1) and (5), a Portfolio will not borrow or lend to any other fund unless it applies for and receives an exemptive order from the SEC, if so required, or the SEC issues rules permitting such transactions.

FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE FOLLOWING PORTFOLIOS:

■	AST Global Real Estate Portfolio
■	AST Parametric Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio

1. Neither Portfolio may issue senior securities or borrow money or pledge its assets, except as permitted by the 1940 Act and rules thereunder, exemptive order, SEC release, no-action letter or similar relief or interpretations. For purposes of this restriction, the purchase or sale of securities on a when-issued or delayed delivery basis, reverse repurchase agreements, dollar rolls, short sales, derivative and hedging transactions such as interest rate swap transactions, and collateral arrangements with respect thereto, and transactions similar to any of the foregoing and collateral arrangements with respect thereto, and obligations of a Portfolio to Trustees pursuant to any deferred compensation arrangements are not deemed to be a pledge of assets or the issuance of a senior security.

2. Neither Portfolio may underwrite securities issued by other persons, except to the extent that a Portfolio may be deemed to be an underwriter (within the meaning of the 1933 Act) in connection with the purchase and sale of portfolio securities.

3. Neither Portfolio may purchase or sell real estate, unless acquired as a result of ownership of securities or other instruments; provided, however, that this restriction shall not prohibit either Portfolio from investing in securities or other instruments backed by real estate or in securities of companies engaged in the real estate business.

4. Neither Portfolio may purchase or sell physical commodities unless acquired as a result of the ownership of securities or instruments; provided that this restriction shall not prohibit either Portfolio from (i) engaging in permissible options and futures transactions and forward foreign currency contracts in accordance with the Portfolio's investment policies, or (ii) investing in securities of any kind.

5. Neither Portfolio may make loans, except that each Portfolio may (i) lend portfolio securities in accordance with the Portfolio's investment policies in amounts up to 33¹⁄3% of the total assets of the Portfolio taken at market value, (ii) purchase money market securities and enter into repurchase agreements, (iii) acquire publicly distributed or privately placed debt securities, and (iv) make loans of money to other investment companies to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act or any exemption there from that may be granted by the SEC or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance.

6. The Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio may not purchase any security if, as a result, more than 25% of the value of the Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio's assets would be invested in the securities of issuers having their principal business activities in the same industry; provided that this restriction does not apply to investments in obligations issued or guaranteed by the US Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities (or repurchase agreements with respect thereto). The Global Real Estate Portfolio will invest at least 25% of its total assets in securities of companies engaged in the real estate business.

7. The Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio may not, with respect to 75% of the value of its total assets, purchase the securities of any issuer (other than securities issued or guaranteed by the US Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities) if, as a result, (i) more than 5% of the value of the Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio's total assets would be invested in the securities of such issuer, or (ii) more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of such issuer would be held by the Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio.

With respect to investment restriction (5), the restriction on making loans is not considered to limit the Portfolio's investments in loan participations and assignments.

With respect to investment restrictions (1) and (5), the Portfolio will not borrow or lend to any other fund unless it applies for and receives an exemptive order from the SEC, if so required, or the SEC issues rules permitting such transactions.

FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE ONLY TO AST BLACKROCK GLOBAL STRATEGIES PORTFOLIO:

The Portfolio will not:

1. Issue senior securities or pledge its assets, except as permitted by the 1940 Act and rules thereunder, exemptive order, SEC release, no-action letter or similar relief or interpretations. For purposes of this restriction, the purchase or sale of securities on a when-issued or delayed delivery basis, reverse repurchase agreements, dollar rolls, short sales, derivative and hedging transactions such as interest rate or credit default swap transactions, and collateral arrangements with respect thereto, and transactions similar to any of the foregoing and collateral arrangements with respect thereto, and obligations of the BlackRock Portfolio to Trustees pursuant to any deferred compensation arrangements are not deemed to be a pledge of assets or the issuance of a senior security.

2. Borrow money, except as permitted under the 1940 Act and rules thereunder, as interpreted, modified, or otherwise permitted by regulatory authority having jurisdiction, from time to time.

3. Underwrite securities issued by other persons, except to the extent that the Portfolio may be deemed to be an underwriter (within the meaning of the 1933 Act) in connection with the purchase and sale of portfolio securities.

4. Purchase or sell real estate unless acquired as a result of the ownership of securities or other instruments; provided that this restriction shall not prohibit the Portfolio from investing in securities or other instruments backed by real estate or in securities of companies engaged in the real estate business.

5. Purchase or sell physical commodities unless acquired as a result of the ownership of securities or instruments; provided that this restriction shall not prohibit the Portfolio from (i) engaging in permissible options and futures transactions and forward foreign currency contracts in accordance with the Portfolio's investment policies, or (ii) investing in securities of any kind.

6. Make loans, except that the Portfolio may (i) lend portfolio securities in accordance with the Portfolio's investment policies in amounts up to 33¹⁄3% of the total assets of the Portfolio taken at market value, (ii) purchase money market securities and enter into repurchase agreements, (iii) acquire publicly distributed or privately placed debt securities, and (iv) make loans of money to other investment companies to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act or any exemption therefrom that may be granted by the SEC or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance.

If a restriction on the Portfolio's investments is adhered to at the time an investment is made, a subsequent change in the percentage of Portfolio assets invested in certain securities or other instruments, or change in average duration of the Portfolio's investment portfolio, resulting from changes in the value of the Portfolio's total assets, will not be considered a violation of the restriction; provided, however, that the asset coverage requirement applicable to borrowings shall be maintained in the manner contemplated by applicable law.

With respect to investment restrictions (2) and (6), the Portfolio will not borrow or lend to any other fund unless it applies for and receives an exemptive order from the SEC, if so required, or the SEC issues rules permitting such transactions.

With respect to investment restriction (6), the restriction on making loans is not considered to limit the Portfolio's investments in loan participations and assignments.

With respect to investment restriction (7), the Portfolio will not consider a bank-issued guaranty or financial guaranty insurance as a separate security for purposes of determining the percentage of the Portfolio's assets invested in the securities of issuers in a particular industry.

FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE ONLY TO AST QUANTITATIVE MODELING PORTFOLIO:

The Portfolio will not:

1. Issue senior securities, except as permitted under the 1940 Act.

2. The Portfolio may not borrow money, except to the extent permitted by applicable law from time to time. Note: The 1940 Act currently permits an open-end investment company to borrow money from a bank so long as the ratio which the value of the total assets of the investment company (including the amount of any such borrowing), less the amount of all liabilities and indebtedness (other than such borrowing) of the investment company, bears to the amount of such borrowing is at least 300%. An open-end investment company may also borrow money from other lenders in accordance with applicable law and positions of the SEC and its staff. The Portfolio may engage in reverse repurchase arrangements without limit, subject to applicable requirements related to segregation of assets.

With respect to investment restriction (6), the restriction on making loans is not considered to limit the Portfolio's investments in loan participations and assignments.

With respect to investment restriction (7), the Portfolio will not consider a bank-issued guaranty or financial guaranty insurance as a separate security for purposes of determining the percentage of its assets invested in the securities of issuers in a particular industry.

FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE ONLY TO AST PRUDENTIAL CORE BOND PORTFOLIO:

The Portfolio may not:

1. Issue senior securities or borrow money or pledge its assets, except as permitted by the 1940 Act and rules thereunder, exemptive order, Commission release, no-action letter or similar relief or interpretations. For purposes of this restriction, the purchase or sale of securities on a when-issued or delayed delivery basis, reverse repurchase agreements, dollar rolls, short sales, derivative and hedging transactions such as interest rate swap transactions, and collateral arrangements with respect thereto, and transactions similar to any of the foregoing and collateral arrangements with respect thereto, and obligations of the Portfolio to Trustees pursuant to any deferred compensation arrangements are not deemed to be a pledge of assets or the issuance of a senior security.

2. Underwrite securities issued by other persons, except to the extent that the Portfolio may be deemed to be an underwriter (within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933) in connection with the purchase and sale of portfolio securities.

3. Purchase or sell real estate unless acquired as a result of the ownership of securities or other instruments; provided that this restriction shall not prohibit the Portfolio from investing in securities or other instruments backed by real estate or in securities of companies engaged in the real estate business.

4. Purchase or sell physical commodities unless acquired as a result of the ownership of securities or instruments; provided that this restriction shall not prohibit the Portfolio from (i) engaging in permissible options and futures transactions and forward foreign currency contracts in accordance with the Portfolio’s investment policies, or (ii) investing in securities of any kind.

5. Make loans, except that the Portfolio may (i) lend portfolio securities in accordance with the Portfolio’s investment policies in amounts up to 33- 1 / 3 % of the total assets of the Portfolio taken at market value, (ii) purchase money market securities and enter into repurchase agreements, (iii) acquire publicly distributed or privately placed debt securities, and (iv) make loans of money to other investment companies to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act or any exemption there from that may be granted by the SEC or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance.

6. Purchase any security if, as a result, more than 25% of the value of the Portfolio’s assets would be invested in the securities of issuers having their principal business activities in the same industry; provided that this restriction does not apply to investments in obligations issued or guaranteed by the US Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities or to municipal securities (or repurchase agreements with respect thereto). For purposes of this limitation, investments in other investment companies shall not be considered an investment in any particular industry.

7. With respect to 75% of the value of its total assets, purchase the securities of any issuer (other than securities issued or guaranteed by the US Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities) if, as a result, (i) more than 5% of the value of the Portfolio’s total assets would be invested in the securities of such issuer, or (ii) more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of such issuer would be held by the Portfolio.

If a restriction on the Portfolio’s investments is adhered to at the time an investment is made, a subsequent change in the percentage of the Portfolio assets invested in certain securities or other instruments, or change in average duration of the Portfolio’s investment portfolio, resulting from changes in the value of the Portfolio’s total assets, will not be considered a violation of the restriction; provided, however, that the asset coverage requirement applicable to borrowings shall be maintained in the manner contemplated by applicable law.

With respect to investment restriction (5), the restriction on making loans is not considered to limit the Portfolio’s investments in loan participations and assignments.

With respect to investment restriction (6), the Portfolio will not consider a bank-issued guaranty or financial guaranty insurance as a separate security for purposes of determining the percentage of the Portfolio’s assets invested in the securities of issuers in a particular industry.

NON-FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS

In addition to the fundamental policies described above, the Board of Trustees has adopted the following non-fundamental policies, which may be changed by the Board of Trustees without approval of shareholders.

Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions Applicable Only to AST Advanced Strategies Portfolio.

The Portfolio may invest in other investment companies to the extent permitted under the 1940 Act and the rules thereunder.

Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions Applicable Only to AST Academic Strategies Asset Allocation Portfolio.

The Portfolio may not:

1. Purchase securities on margin; provided, however, that the Portfolio may obtain short-term credits necessary for the clearance of purchases and sales of securities, and, provided further that the Portfolio may make margin deposits in connection with its use of financial options and futures, forward and spot currency contracts, swap transactions and other financial contracts or derivative instruments.

2. Mortgage, pledge, or hypothecate any of its assets; provided, however, that this restriction shall not apply to the transfer of securities in connection with any permissible borrowing or to collateral arrangements in connection with any permissible activity.

Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions Applicable Only to AST BlackRock Global Strategies Portfolio.

The Portfolio will not:

1. Invest more than 15% of its net assets taken at market value at the time of the investment in “illiquid securities.” For purposes of this restriction, “illiquid securities” are those deemed illiquid pursuant to SEC rules, regulations, and guidelines, as they may be amended or supplemented from time to time.

2. Invest for the purpose of exercising control or management; or

3. Purchase securities of other investment companies except in compliance with the 1940 Act and rules thereunder, as interpreted, modified, or otherwise permitted by regulatory authority having jurisdiction, from time to time.

Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions of Applicable Only to AST BlackRock/Loomis Sayles Bond Portfolio.

1. The Portfolio will not change its policy to invest at least 80% of the value of its assets in fixed income securities unless it provides 60 days prior written notice to its shareholders.

2. The Portfolio will not purchase securities for the Portfolio from, or sell portfolio securities to, any of the officers and directors or Trustees of the Trust or of the Manager or of the Subadviser.

3. The Portfolio will not invest more than 5% of the assets of the Portfolio (taken at market value at the time of investment) in any combination of interest only, principal only, or inverse floating rate securities.

4. The Portfolio will not maintain a short position, or purchase, write or sell puts, calls, straddles, spreads or combinations thereof, except as set forth in the Trust's Prospectus and this SAI.

5. Invest in companies for the purpose of exercising control or management.

6. Buy any securities or other property on margin (except for such short-term credits as are necessary for the clearance of transactions).

Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions Applicable Only to AST BlackRock Low Duration Bond Portfolio.

1. The Portfolio will not change its policy to invest at least 80% of the value of its assets in fixed income securities unless it provides 60 days prior written notice to its shareholders.

2. Invest more than 5% of the assets of the Portfolio (taken at market value at the time of investment) in any combination of interest only, principal only, or inverse floating rate securities.

3. Maintain a short position, or purchase, write or sell puts, calls, straddles, spreads or combinations thereof, except on such conditions as may be set forth in the Prospectus and in this SAI.

4. Invest in companies for the purpose of exercising control or management.

5. Buy any securities or other property on margin (except for such short-term credits as are necessary for the clearance of transactions).

The Staff of the SEC has taken the position that purchased OTC options and the assets used as cover for written OTC options are illiquid securities. Therefore, the Portfolio has adopted an investment policy pursuant to which the Portfolio will not purchase or sell OTC options if, as a result of such transactions, the sum of the market value of OTC options currently outstanding which are held by the Portfolio, the market value of the underlying securities covered by OTC call options currently outstanding which were sold by the Portfolio and margin deposits on the Portfolio's existing OTC options on futures contracts exceeds 15% of the total assets of the Portfolio, taken at market value, together with all other assets of the Portfolio which are illiquid or are otherwise not readily marketable. However, if an OTC option is sold by the Portfolio to a primary US Government securities dealer recognized by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and if the Portfolio has the unconditional contractual right to repurchase such OTC option from the dealer at a predetermined price, then the Portfolio will treat as illiquid such amount of the underlying securities equal to the repurchase price less the amount by which the option is “in-the-money” (i.e., current market value of the underlying securities minus the option's strike price). The repurchase price with the primary dealers is typically a formula price which is generally based on a multiple of the premium received for the option, plus the amount by which the option is “in-the-money.”

Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions Applicable Only to AST Cohen & Steers Realty Portfolio.

The Portfolio will not:

1. Change its policy to invest at least 80% of the value of its assets in securities of real estate related issuers unless it provides 60 days prior written notice to its shareholders.

2. Pledge, hypothecate, mortgage or otherwise encumber its assets, except to secure permitted borrowings;

3. Participate on a joint or joint and several basis in any securities trading account;

4. Invest in companies for the purpose of exercising control;

5. Purchase securities of investment companies except in compliance with the 1940 Act; or

6. (a) invest in interests in oil, gas, or other mineral exploration or development programs; or (b) purchase securities on margin, except for such short-term credits as may be necessary for the clearance of transactions.

Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions Applicable Only to AST Goldman Sachs Large-Cap Value Portfolio.

The Portfolio may not:

1. Invest in companies for the purpose of exercising control or management.

2. Invest more than 15% of the Portfolio’s net assets in illiquid investments including illiquid repurchase agreements with a notice or demand period of more than seven days, securities which are not readily marketable and restricted securities not eligible for resale pursuant to Rule 144A under the 1933 Act.

3. Purchase additional securities if the Portfolio’s borrowings, as permitted by the Portfolio's borrowing policy, exceed 5% of its net assets. (Mortgage dollar rolls are not subject to this limitation).

4. Make short sales of securities, except that the Portfolios may make short sales against the box.

Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions Applicable Only to AST Goldman Sachs Mid-Cap Growth Portfolio.

1. The Portfolio will not change its policy to invest at least 80% of the value of its assets in medium capitalization companies unless it provides 60 days prior written notice to its shareholders.

2. The Portfolio does not currently intend to sell securities short, unless it owns or has the right to obtain securities equivalent in kind and amount to the securities sold short without the payment of any additional consideration therefor, and provided that transactions in futures, options, swaps and forward contracts are not deemed to constitute selling securities short.

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

4. The Portfolio may not mortgage or pledge any securities owned or held by the Portfolio in amounts that exceed, in the aggregate, 15% of the Portfolio's net asset value, provided that this limitation does not apply to reverse repurchase agreements, deposits of assets to margin, guarantee positions in futures, options, swaps or forward contracts, or the segregation of assets in connection with such contracts.

5. The Portfolio may not invest in companies for the purpose of exercising control of management.

Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions Applicable Only to AST Goldman Sachs Small-Cap Value Portfolio.

The Portfolio will not:

1. Change its policy to invest at least 80% of the value of its assets in small capitalization companies unless it provides 60 days prior written notice to its shareholders.

2. Pledge its assets (other than to secure borrowings or to the extent permitted by the Portfolio's investment policies as permitted by applicable law);

3. Make short sales of securities or maintain a short position except to the extent permitted by applicable law;

4. Invest in the securities of other investment companies except as permitted by applicable law;

5. Invest in real estate limited partnership interests or interests in oil, gas or other mineral leases, or exploration or other development programs, except that the Portfolio may invest in securities issued by companies that engage in oil, gas or other mineral exploration or other development activities; or

6. Write, purchase or sell puts, calls, straddles, spreads or combinations thereof, except to the extent permitted in this SAI and the Trust's Prospectus, as they may be amended from time to time.

Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions Applicable Only to AST High Yield Portfolio.

The Portfolio will not:

1. Invest in companies for the purpose of exercising control or management; or

2. Purchase additional securities if the Portfolio’s borrowings (excluding covered mortgage dollar rolls) exceed 5% of its net assets

Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions Applicable Only to AST International Growth Portfolio.

1. The Portfolio will not change its policy to invest at least 80% of the value of its assets in securities of issuers that are economically tied to countries other than the United States unless it provides 60 days prior written notice to its shareholders.

2. The Portfolio will not (i) enter into any futures contracts and related options for purposes other than bona fide hedging transactions within the meaning of CFTC regulations if the aggregate initial margin and premiums required to establish positions in futures contracts and related options that do not fall within the definition of bona fide hedging transactions will exceed 5% of the fair market value of the Portfolio's net assets, after taking into account unrealized profits and unrealized losses on any such contracts it has entered into; and (ii) enter into any futures contracts if the aggregate amount of the Portfolio's commitments under outstanding futures contracts positions would exceed the market value of its total assets.

3. The Portfolio does not currently intend to sell securities short, unless it owns or has the right to obtain securities equivalent in kind and amount to the securities sold short without the payment of any additional consideration therefor, and provided that transactions in futures, options, swaps and forward contracts are not deemed to constitute selling securities short.

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

5. The Portfolio does not currently intend to purchase securities of other investment companies, except in compliance with the 1940 Act.

6. The Portfolio may not mortgage or pledge any securities owned or held by the Portfolio in amounts that exceed, in the aggregate, 15% of the Portfolio's net asset value, provided that this limitation does not apply to reverse repurchase agreements, deposits of assets to margin, guarantee positions in futures, options, swaps or forward contracts, or the segregation of assets in connection with such contracts.

7. The Portfolio may not invest in companies for the purpose of exercising control of management.

Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions Applicable Only to AST International Value Portfolio.

The Portfolio will not:

1. Change its policy to invest at least 80% of the value of its assets in equity securities unless it provides 60 days prior written notice to its shareholders.

2. Purchase securities of other investment companies except in compliance with the 1940 Act;

3. Invest in companies for the purpose of exercising control or management.

4. Purchase any securities on margin except to obtain such short-term credits as may be necessary for the clearance of transactions (and provided that margin payments and other deposits in connection with transactions in options, futures and forward contracts shall not be deemed to constitute purchasing securities on margin); or

5. Sell securities short.

In addition, in periods of uncertain market and economic conditions, as determined by the subadvisers, the Portfolio may depart from its basic investment objective and assume a defensive position with up to 100% of its assets temporarily invested in high quality corporate bonds or notes and government issues, or held in cash.

If a percentage restriction is adhered to at the time of investment, a later increase or decrease in percentage beyond the specified limit that results from a change in values or net assets will not be considered a violation.

Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions Applicable Only to AST J.P. Morgan International Equity Portfolio.

The Portfolio will not:

1. Change its policy to invest at least 80% of the value of its assets in equity securities unless it provides 60 days prior written notice to its shareholders.

2. Make investments for the purpose of gaining control of a company's management.

Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions Applicable Only to AST Lord Abbett Core Fixed Income Portfolio.

The Portfolio will not:

1. Change its policy to invest at least 80% of the value of its assets in fixed income securities unless it provides 60 days prior written notice to its shareholders.

2. Pledge its assets (other than to secure borrowings, or to the extent permitted by the Portfolio's investment policies);

3. Make short sales of securities or maintain a short position except to the extent permitted by applicable law;

4. Invest in the securities of other investment companies except in compliance with the 1940 Act;

6. Write, purchase or sell puts, calls, straddles, spreads or combinations thereof, except to the extent permitted in this SAI and the Trust’s Prospectus, as they may be amended from time to time;

7. Invest more than 10% of the market value of its gross assets at the time of investment in debt securities that are in default as to interest or principal.

Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions Applicable only to AST Loomis Sayles Large-Cap Growth Portfolio.

1. The Portfolio does not currently intend to sell securities short, unless it owns or has the right to obtain securities equivalent in kind and amount to the securities sold short without the payment of any additional consideration therefor, and provided that transactions in futures, options, swaps and forward contracts are not deemed to constitute selling securities short.

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

3. The Portfolio may not mortgage or pledge any securities owned or held by the Portfolio in amounts that exceed, in the aggregate, 15% of the Portfolio's net asset value, provided that this limitation does not apply to (i) reverse repurchase agreements; (ii) deposits of assets on margin; (iii) guaranteed positions in futures, options, swaps or forward contracts; or (iv) the segregation of assets in connection with such contracts.

4. The Portfolio may not invest in companies for the purpose of exercising control or management.

Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions Applicable Only to AST MFS Global Equity Portfolio.

The Portfolio will not:

1. Change its policy to invest at least 80% of the value of its assets in equity securities unless it provides 60 days prior written notice to its shareholders.

Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions Applicable Only to AST Government Money Market Portfolio (formerly, AST Money Market Portfolio).

1. The Portfolio will not buy any securities or other property on margin (except for such short-term credits as are necessary for the clearance of transactions).

2. Portfolio will not invest in companies for the purpose of exercising control or management.

3. The Portfolio will not purchase securities on margin, make short sales of securities, or maintain a short position, provided that this restriction shall not be deemed to be applicable to the purchase or sale of when-issued securities or of securities for delivery at a future date.

Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions Applicable Only to AST Neuberger Berman/LSV Mid-Cap Value Portfolio.

1. The Portfolio will not change its policy to invest at least 80% of the value of its assets in medium capitalization companies unless it provides 60 days prior written notice to its shareholders.

2. The Portfolio may not purchase securities if outstanding borrowings, including any reverse repurchase agreements, exceed 5% of its total assets.

3. Except for the purchase of debt securities and engaging in repurchase agreements, the Portfolio may not make any loans other than securities loans.

4. The Portfolio may not purchase securities on margin from brokers, except that the Portfolio may obtain such short-term credits as are necessary for the clearance of securities transactions. Margin payments in connection with transactions in futures contracts and options on futures contracts shall not constitute the purchase of securities on margin and shall not be deemed to violate the foregoing limitation.

5. The Portfolio may not sell securities short, unless it owns or has the right to obtain securities equivalent in kind and amount to the securities sold without payment of additional consideration. Transactions in futures contracts and options shall not constitute selling securities short.

6. The Portfolio may not invest in puts, calls, straddles, spreads, or any combination thereof, except that the Portfolio may (i) write (sell) covered call options against portfolio securities having a market value not exceeding 10% of its net assets and (ii) purchase call options in related closing transactions. The Portfolio does not construe the foregoing limitation to preclude it from purchasing or writing options on futures contracts.

7. The Portfolio may not invest more than 10% of the value of its total assets in securities of foreign issuers, provided that this limitation shall not apply to foreign securities denominated in US dollars.

Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions Applicable Only to AST Prudential Core Bond Portfolio.

The Portfolio will not:

1. Invest more than 15% of their net assets taken at market value at the time of the investment in “illiquid securities.” For purposes of this restriction, “illiquid securities” are those deemed illiquid pursuant to SEC rules, regulations and guidelines, as they may be amended or supplemented from time to time.

2. Invest for the purpose of exercising control or management; or

3. Purchase securities of other investment companies except in compliance with the 1940 Act and rules thereunder, as interpreted, modified or otherwise permitted by regulatory authority having jurisdiction, from time to time.

Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions Applicable Only to AST QMA US Equity Alpha Portfolio.

The Portfolio will not:

1. Change its policy to invest at least 80% of the value of its net assets plus borrowings, if any, for investment purposes in equity and equity-related securities of US issuers unless it provides 60 days prior written notice to its shareholders;

2. Invest for the purpose of exercising control or management;

3. Purchase securities of other investment companies except in compliance with the 1940 Act.

Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions Applicable Only to AST Small-Cap Growth Portfolio.

The Portfolio will not:

1. Change its policy to invest at least 80% of the value of its assets in small capitalization companies unless it provides 60 days prior written notice to its shareholders.

2. Invest for the purpose of exercising control or management of another issuer.

3. Purchase securities of other investment companies, except in compliance with the 1940 Act.

Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions Applicable Only to AST Small-Cap Growth Opportunities Portfolio.

1. The Portfolio will not purchase securities on margin, provided that the Portfolio may obtain short-term credits necessary for the clearance of purchases and sales of securities, and further provided that the Portfolio may make margin deposits in connection with its use of financial options and futures, forward and spot currency contracts, swap transactions and other financial contracts or derivative instruments.

2. The Portfolio will not mortgage, pledge, or hypothecate any of its assets, provided that this shall not apply to the transfer of securities in connection with any permissible borrowing or to collateral arrangements in connection with permissible activities.

Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions Applicable Only to AST Small-Cap Value Portfolio.

The Portfolio will not:

1. Change its policy to invest at least 80% of the value of its assets in small capitalization companies unless it provides 60 days prior written notice to its shareholders.

2. Purchase additional securities when money borrowed exceeds 5% of its total assets;

3. Invest in companies for the purpose of exercising management or control;

4. Purchase a futures contract or an option thereon if, with respect to positions in futures or options on futures which do not represent bona fide hedging, the aggregate initial margin and premiums on such options would exceed 5% of the Portfolio's net asset value;

5. Purchase securities of open-end or closed-end investment companies except in compliance with the 1940 Act or the conditions of any order of exemption from the SEC regarding the purchase of securities of money market funds managed by the Subadviser or its affiliates;

6. Purchase securities on margin, except (i) for use of short-term credit necessary for clearance of purchases of portfolio securities and (ii) the Portfolio may make margin deposits in connection with futures contracts or other permissible investments;

7. Mortgage, pledge, hypothecate or, in any manner, transfer any security owned by the Portfolio as security for indebtedness except as may be necessary in connection with permissible borrowings or investments and then such mortgaging, pledging or hypothecating may not exceed 33¹⁄3% of the Portfolio's total assets at the time of borrowing or investment;

8. Invest in puts, calls, straddles, spreads, or any combination thereof, except to the extent permitted by the Trust’s Prospectus and this SAI;

9. Sell securities short, except that the Portfolio may make short sales if it owns the securities sold short or has the right to acquire such securities through conversion or exchange of other securities it owns; or

10. Invest in warrants if, as a result thereof, more than 10% of the value of the net assets of the Portfolio would be invested in warrants, except that this restriction does not apply to warrants acquired as a result of the purchase of another security. For purposes of these percentage limitations, the warrants will be valued at the lower of cost or market.

Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions Applicable Only to AST T. Rowe Price Asset Allocation Portfolio and AST T. Rowe Price Growth Opportunities Portfolio.

The Portfolio will not:

1. Purchase additional securities when money borrowed exceeds 5% of the Portfolio's total assets;

2. Invest in companies for the purpose of exercising management or control;

3. Purchase securities of open-end or closed-end investment companies except in compliance with the 1940 Act;

4. Mortgage, pledge, hypothecate or, in any manner, transfer any security owned by the Portfolio as security for indebtedness except as may be necessary in connection with permissible borrowings or investments and then such mortgaging, pledging or hypothecating may not exceed 33¹⁄3% of the Portfolio's total assets at the time of borrowing or investment;

5. Invest in puts, calls, straddles, spreads, or any combination thereof to the extent permitted by the Trust's Prospectus and this SAI;

7. Invest in warrants if, as a result thereof, more than 10% of the value of the total assets of the Portfolio would be invested in warrants, provided that this restriction does not apply to warrants acquired as the result of the purchase of another security. For purposes of these percentage limitations, the warrants will be valued at the lower of cost or market;

8. Effect short sales of securities; or

9. Purchase a futures contract or an option thereon if, with respect to positions in futures or options on futures which do not represent bona fide hedging, the aggregate initial margin and premiums on such positions would exceed 5% of the Portfolio's net assets.

Notwithstanding anything in the above fundamental and operating restrictions to the contrary, the Portfolio may, as a fundamental policy, invest all of its assets in the securities of a single open-end management investment company with substantially the same fundamental investment objectives, policies and restrictions as the Portfolio subject to the prior approval of the Manager. The Manager will not approve such investment unless: (a) the Manager believes, on the advice of counsel, that such investment will not have an adverse effect on the tax status of the annuity contracts and/or life insurance policies supported by the separate accounts of the Participating Insurance Companies which purchase shares of the Trust; (b) the Manager has given prior notice to the Participating Insurance Companies that they intend to permit such investment and has determined whether such Participating Insurance Companies intend to redeem any shares and/or discontinue purchase of shares because of such investment; (c) the Trustees have determined that the fees to be paid by the Trust for administrative, accounting, custodial and transfer agency services for the Portfolio subsequent to such an investment are appropriate, or the Trustees have approved changes to the agreements providing such services to reflect a reduction in fees; (d) the Subadviser for the Portfolio has agreed to reduce its fee by the amount of any investment advisory fees paid to the investment manager of such open-end management investment company; and (e) shareholder approval is obtained if required by law. The Portfolio will apply for such exemptive relief under the provisions of the 1940 Act, or other such relief as may be necessary under the then governing rules and regulations of the 1940 Act, regarding investments in such investment companies.

Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions Applicable Only to AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Growth Portfolio.

The Portfolio will not:

1. Purchase or sell real estate limited partnership interests.

2. Invest more than 20% of its total assets in below investment grade, high-risk bonds, including bonds in default or those with the lowest rating;

3. Invest in companies for the purpose of exercising management or control;

4. Purchase securities of open-end or closed-end investment companies except in compliance with the 1940 Act; or

5. Effect short sales of securities.

In addition to the restrictions described above, some foreign countries limit, or prohibit, all direct foreign investment in the securities of their companies. However, the governments of some countries have authorized the organization of investment funds to permit indirect foreign investment in such securities. For tax purposes these funds may be known as Passive Foreign Investment Companies. The Portfolio is subject to certain percentage limitations under the 1940 Act relating to the purchase of securities of investment companies, and may be subject to the limitation that no more than 10% of the value of the Portfolio's total assets may be invested in such securities.

Restrictions with respect to repurchase agreements shall be construed to be for repurchase agreements entered into for the investment of available cash consistent with the Portfolio's repurchase agreement procedures, not repurchase commitments entered into for general investment purposes.

If a percentage restriction on investment or utilization of assets as set forth under “Investment Restrictions” and “Investment Policies” above is adhered to at the time an investment is made, a later change in percentage resulting from changes in the value or the total cost of Portfolio's assets will not be considered a violation of the restriction.

Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions Applicable Only to AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Value Portfolio (formerly, AST Value Equity Portfolio).

The Portfolio will not:

1. Change its policy to invest at least 80% of the value of its assets in large capitalization companies unless it provides 60 days prior written notice to its shareholders;

2. Invest for the purpose of exercising control or management of another issuer; or

3. Purchase securities of other investment companies, except in compliance with the 1940 Act.

Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions Applicable Only to AST T. Rowe Price Natural Resources Portfolio.

The Portfolio will not:

1. Change its policy to invest at least 80% of the value of its assets in the securities of natural resource companies unless it provides 60 days prior written notice to its shareholders.

2. Purchase additional securities when money borrowed exceeds 5% of its total assets;

3. Invest in companies for the purpose of exercising management or control;

5. Purchase securities of open-end or closed-end investment companies except in compliance with the 1940 Act.

Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions Applicable Only to AST Templeton Global Bond Portfolio.

The Portfolio will not:

1. The Portfolio will not change its policy to invest at least 80% of the value of its assets in fixed income securities unless it provides 60 days prior written notice to its shareholders.

2. Pledge, mortgage or hypothecate its assets in excess, together with permitted borrowings, of 1/3 of its total assets;

3. Purchase securities on margin, except (i) the Portfolio may make margin deposits in connection with futures contracts or other permissible investments and (ii) the Portfolio may obtain such short-term credits as may be necessary for the clearance of purchases and sales of securities;

4. Buy options on securities or financial instruments, unless the aggregate premiums paid on all such options held by the Portfolio at any time do not exceed 20% of its net assets; or sell put options on securities if, as a result, the aggregate value of the obligations underlying such put options would exceed 50% of the Portfolio's net assets;

5. Enter into futures contracts or purchase options thereon which do not represent bona fide hedging unless immediately after the purchase, the value of the aggregate initial margin with respect to all such futures contracts entered into on behalf of the Portfolio and the premiums paid for such options on futures contracts does not exceed 5% of the Portfolio's total assets, provided that in the case of an option that is in-the-money at the time of purchase, the in-the-money amount may be excluded in computing the 5% limit;

6. Purchase warrants if as a result warrants taken at the lower of cost or market value would represent more than 10% of the value of the Portfolio's total net assets, except that this restriction does not apply to warrants acquired as a result of the purchase of another security;

7. Make securities loans if the value of such securities loaned exceeds 30% of the value of the Portfolio's total assets at the time any loan is made; all loans of portfolio securities will be fully collateralized and marked to market daily. The Portfolio has no current intention of making loans of portfolio securities that would amount to greater than 5% of the Portfolio's total assets; or

8. Purchase or sell real estate limited partnership interests.

9. Invest more than 25% of its total assets in below investment grade, high-risk bonds, including bonds in default or those with the lowest rating;

10. Invest in companies for the purpose of exercising management or control;

11. Purchase securities of open-end or closed-end investment companies except in compliance with the 1940 Act; or

12. Effect short sales of securities.

Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions Applicable Only to AST WEDGE Capital Mid-Cap Value Portfolio.

The Portfolio may not:

1. Purchase securities on margin, but it may obtain such short-term credits from banks as may be necessary for the clearance of purchase and sales of securities;

2. Mortgage, pledge or hypothecate any of its assets except that, in connection with permissible borrowings, not more than 20% of the assets of the Portfolio (not including amounts borrowed) may be used as collateral;

3. Invest in the securities of other investment companies except in compliance with the 1940 Act;

4. Sell securities short, except that the Portfolio may make short sales if it owns the securities sold short or has the right to acquire such securities through conversion or exchange of other securities it owns; or

5. Invest in companies for the purpose of exercising control.

INFORMATION ABOUT TRUSTEES AND OFFICERS

Information about the Trustees and the Officers of the Trust is set forth below. Trustees who are not deemed to be “interested persons” of the Trust, as defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” Trustees who are deemed to be “interested persons” of the Trust are referred to as “Interested Trustees.” The Trustees are responsible for the overall supervision of the operations of the Trust and perform the various duties imposed on the trustees of investment companies by the 1940 Act and other applicable law.

Independent Trustees⁽¹⁾
Name, Address, Age No. of Portfolios Overseen	Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years	Other Directorships Held
Susan Davenport Austin (49) No. of Portfolios Overseen: 107	Senior Managing Director of Brock Capital (Since 2014); Vice Chairman (Since 2013), Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (2007-2012) and Vice President of Strategic Planning and Treasurer (2002-2007) of Sheridan Broadcasting Corporation; formerly President of Sheridan Gospel Network (2004-2014); formerly Vice President, Goldman, Sachs & Co. (2000-2001); formerly Associate Director, Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. (1997-2000); formerly Vice President, Salomon Brothers Inc. (1993-1997); Member of the Board of Directors, The MacDowell Colony (Since 2010); Presiding Director (Since 2014) and Chairman (2011-2014) of the Board of Directors, Broadcast Music, Inc.; Member of the Board of Directors, Hubbard Radio, LLC (Since 2011); President, Candide Business Advisors, Inc. (Since 2011); formerly Member of the Board of Directors, National Association of Broadcasters (2004-2010).	Director of NextEra Energy Partners, LP (NYSE: NEP) (February 2015-Present).
Sherry S. Barrat (67) No. of Portfolios Overseen: 107	Formerly, Vice Chairman of Northern Trust Corporation (financial services and banking institution) (2011–June 2012); formerly President, Personal Financial Services, Northern Trust Corporation (2006-2010); formerly Chairman & CEO, Western US Region, Northern Trust Corporation (1999-2005); formerly President & CEO, Palm Beach/Martin County Region, Northern Trust.	Director of NextEra Energy, Inc. (NYSE: NEE) (1998-Present); Director of Arthur J. Gallagher & Company (Since July 2013).
Jessica M. Bibliowicz (57) No. of Portfolios Overseen: 107	Senior Adviser (Since 2013) of Bridge Growth Partners (private equity firm); formerly Director (2013-2016) of Realogy Holdings Corp.(residential real estate services); formerly Chief Executive Officer (1999-2013) of National Financial Partners (independent distributor of financial services products).	Director (since 2006) of The Asia-Pacific Fund, Inc.; Sotheby’s (since 2014) (auction house and art-related finance).
Kay Ryan Booth (66) No. of Portfolios Overseen: 107	Partner, Trinity Private Equity Group (Since September 2014); formerly, Managing Director of Cappello Waterfield & Co. LLC (2011-2014); formerly Vice Chair, Global Research, J.P. Morgan (financial services and investment banking institution) (June 2008 – January 2009); formerly Global Director of Equity Research, Bear Stearns & Co., Inc. (financial services and investment banking institution) (1995-2008); formerly Associate Director of Equity Research, Bear Stearns & Co., Inc. (1987-1995).	None.
Delayne Dedrick Gold (79) No. of Portfolios Overseen: 107	Marketing Consultant (1982-present); formerly Senior Vice President and Member of the Board of Directors, Prudential Bache Securities, Inc.	None.
Robert F. Gunia (70) No. of Portfolios Overseen: 107	Independent Consultant (Since October 2009); formerly Director of ICI Mutual Insurance Company (June 2016-present); formerly Chief Administrative Officer (September 1999-September 2009) and Executive Vice President (December 1996-September 2009) of PGIM Investments LLC; formerly Executive Vice President (March 1999-September 2009) and Treasurer (May 2000-September 2009) of Prudential Mutual Fund Services LLC; formerly President (April 1999-December 2008) and Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer (December 2008-December 2009) of Prudential Investment Management Services LLC; formerly Chief Administrative Officer, Executive Vice President and Director (May 2003-September 2009) of AST Investment Services, Inc.	Director (Since May 1989) of The Asia Pacific Fund, Inc.
Thomas T. Mooney (75) No. of Portfolios Overseen: 107	Formerly Chief Executive Officer, Excell Partners, Inc. (2005-2007);founding partner of High Technology of Rochester and the Lennox Technology Center; formerly President of the Greater Rochester Metro Chamber of Commerce (1976-2004); formerly Rochester City Manager (1973); formerly Deputy Monroe County Executive (1974-1976).	None.

Independent Trustees⁽¹⁾
Name, Address, Age No. of Portfolios Overseen	Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years	Other Directorships Held
Thomas M. O'Brien (66) No. of Portfolios Overseen: 107	Director, President and CEO Sun Bancorp, Inc. N.A. (NASDAQ: SNBC) and Sun National Bank (Since July 2014); formerly Consultant, Valley National Bancorp, Inc. and Valley National Bank (January 2012-June 2012); formerly President and COO (November 2006-April 2017) and CEO (April 2007-December 2011) of State Bancorp, Inc. and State Bank; formerly Vice Chairman (January 1997-April 2000) of North Fork Bank; formerly President and Chief Executive Officer (December 1984-December 1996) of North Side Savings Bank; formerly President and Chief Executive Officer (May 2000-June 2006) Atlantic Bank of New York.	Formerly Director, BankUnited, Inc. and BankUnited N.A. (NYSE: BKU) (May 2012-April 2014); formerly Director (April 2008-January 2012) of Federal Home Loan Bank of New York; formerly Director (December 1996-May 2000) of North Fork Bancorporation, Inc.; formerly Director (May 2000-April 2006) of Atlantic Bank of New York; Director (November 2006 – January 2012) of State Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: STBC) and State Bank of Long Island.

Interested Trustee⁽¹⁾
Timothy S. Cronin (51) Number of Portfolios Overseen: 107	President of Prudential Annuities (Since June 2015); Chief Investment Officer and Strategist of Prudential Annuities (Since January 2004); Director of Investment & Research Strategy (Since February 1998); President of AST Investment Services, Inc. (Since June 2005).	None.

⁽¹⁾ The year that each Trustee joined the Board is as follows: Susan Davenport Austin, 2011; Sherry S. Barrat, 2013; Jessica Bibliowicz, 2014, Kay Ryan Booth, 2013; Timothy S. Cronin, 2009; Delayne Dedrick Gold, 2003; Robert F. Gunia, 2003; Thomas T. Mooney, 2003; Thomas M. O'Brien, 1992.

Trust Officers^(a)(1)
Name, Address and Age Position with the Trust	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past Five Years
Raymond A. O’Hara (61) Chief Legal Officer	Vice President and Corporate Counsel (since July 2010) of Prudential Insurance Company of America (Prudential); Vice President (March 2011-Present) of Pruco Life Insurance Company and Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey; Vice President and Corporate Counsel (March 2011-Present) of Prudential Annuities Life Assurance Corporation; Chief Legal Officer of PGIM Investments LLC (since June 2012); Chief Legal Officer of Prudential Mutual Fund Services LLC (since June 2012) and Corporate Counsel of AST Investment Services, Inc. (since June 2012); formerly Assistant Vice President and Corporate Counsel (September 2008-July 2010) of The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.; formerly Associate (September 1980-December 1987) and Partner (January 1988–August 2008) of Blazzard & Hasenauer, P.C. (formerly, Blazzard, Grodd & Hasenauer, P.C.).
Deborah A. Docs (59) Secretary	Vice President and Corporate Counsel (since January 2001) of Prudential; Vice President (since December 1996) and Assistant Secretary (since March 1999) of PGIM Investments LLC; formerly Vice President and Assistant Secretary (May 2003-June 2005) of AST Investment Services, Inc.
Jonathan D. Shain (58) Assistant Secretary	Vice President and Corporate Counsel (since August 1998) of Prudential; Vice President and Assistant Secretary (since May 2001) of PGIM Investments LLC; Vice President and Assistant Secretary (since February 2001) of Prudential Mutual Fund Services LLC; formerly Vice President and Assistant Secretary (May 2003-June 2005) of AST Investment Services, Inc.
Claudia DiGiacomo (42) Assistant Secretary	Vice President and Corporate Counsel (since January 2005) of Prudential; Vice President and Assistant Secretary of PGIM Investments LLC (since December 2005); Associate at Sidley Austin Brown Wood LLP (1999-2004).
Andrew R. French (54) Assistant Secretary	Vice President and Corporate Counsel (since February 2010) of Prudential; formerly Director and Corporate Counsel (2006-2010) of Prudential; Vice President and Assistant Secretary (since January 2007) of PGIM Investments LLC; Vice President and Assistant Secretary (since January 2007) of Prudential Mutual Fund Services LLC.
Kathleen DeNicholas (42) Assistant Secretary	Vice President and Corporate Counsel (since May 2013) of Prudential; Managing Counsel at The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (2011-2013); formerly Senior Counsel (2007-2011) and Assistant General Counsel (2001-2007) of The Dreyfus Corporation; Chief Legal Officer and Secretary of MBSC Securities Corporation (2011-2013); Vice President and Assistant Secretary of The Dreyfus Family of Funds (2010-2012).
Chad A. Earnst (42) Chief Compliance Officer	Chief Compliance Officer (September 2014-Present) of PGIM Investments LLC; Chief Compliance Officer (September 2014-Present) of the PGIM Investments Funds, Target Funds, Advanced Series Trust, The Prudential Series Fund, Prudential's Gibraltar Fund, Inc., Prudential Global Short Duration High Yield Income Fund, Inc., Prudential Short Duration High Yield Fund, Inc. and Prudential Jennison MLP Income Fund, Inc.; formerly Assistant Director (March 2010-August 2014) of the Asset Management Unit, Division of Enforcement, US Securities & Exchange Commission; Assistant Regional Director (January 2010-August 2014), Branch Chief (June 2006–December 2009) and Senior Counsel (April 2003-May 2006) of the Miami Regional Office, Division of Enforcement, US Securities & Exchange Commission.
Theresa C. Thompson (54) Deputy Chief Compliance Officer	Vice President, Compliance, PGIM Investments LLC (since April 2004); and Director, Compliance, PGIM Investments LLC (2001-2004).

Trust Officers^(a)(1)
Name, Address and Age Position with the Trust	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past Five Years
Charles H. Smith (44) Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Officer	Vice President, Corporate Compliance, Anti-Money Laundering Unit (since January 2015) of Prudential; committee member of the American Council of Life Insurers Anti-Money Laundering and Critical Infrastructure Committee (since January 2016); formerly Global Head of Economic Sanctions Compliance at AIG Property Casualty (February 2007 – December 2014); Assistant Attorney General at the New York State Attorney General's Office, Division of Public Advocacy. (August 1998 —January 2007).
M. Sadiq Peshimam (53) Treasurer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer	Vice President (since 2005) of PGIM Investments LLC; formerly Assistant Treasurer of funds in the Prudential Mutual Fund Complex (2006-2014).
Peter Parrella (58) Assistant Treasurer	Vice President (since 2007) and Director (2004-2007) within Prudential Mutual Fund Administration; formerly Tax Manager at SSB Citi Fund Management LLC (1997-2004).
Lana Lomuti (50) Assistant Treasurer	Vice President (since 2007) and Director (2005-2007), within Prudential Mutual Fund Administration; formerly Assistant Treasurer (December 2007-February 2014) of The Greater China Fund, Inc.
Linda McMullin (55) Assistant Treasurer	Vice President (since 2011) and Director (2008-2011) within Prudential Mutual Fund Administration.

^(a) Excludes Mr. Cronin, an interested Trustee who also serves as President.

⁽¹⁾ The year in which each individual became an Officer is as follows: Raymond A. O’Hara, 2012; Deborah A. Docs, 2005; Jonathan D. Shain, 2005; Claudia DiGiacomo, 2005; Andrew R. French, 2006; Kathleen DeNicholas, 2013; Chad A. Earnst, 2014; Theresa C. Thompson, 2008; Peter Parrella, 2007; M. Sadiq Peshimam, 2006; Lana Lomuti, 2014; Linda McMullin, 2014; Charles H. Smith, 2016.

Explanatory Notes to Tables:

Trustees are deemed to be “Interested”, as defined in the 1940 Act, by reason of their affiliation with PGIM Investments and/or an affiliate of PGIM Investments. Timothy S. Cronin is an Interested Trustee because he is employed by an affiliate of the Manager.

Unless otherwise noted, the address of all Trustees and Officers is c/o PGIM Investments LLC, 655 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102.

There is no set term of office for Trustees or Officers. The Independent Trustees have adopted a retirement policy, which calls for the retirement of Trustees on December 31 of the year in which they reach the age of 78, provided that the Board may extend the retirement age on a year-by-year basis for a Trustee.

“Other Directorships Held” includes only directorships of companies required to register or file reports with the SEC under the 1934 Act (that is, “public companies”) or other investment companies registered under the 1940 Act.

“No. of Portfolios Overseen” includes all investment companies managed by PGIM Investments and/or ASTIS that are overseen by the Trustee. The investment companies for which PGIM Investments and/or ASTIS serves as Manager include The Prudential Variable Contract Accounts, The Prudential Series Fund, Advanced Series Trust, Prudential's Gibraltar Fund, Inc., the PGIM Investments Funds, the Target Funds, the Prudential Short Duration High Yield Fund, Inc. and Prudential Global Short Duration High Yield Fund, Inc.

COMPENSATION OF TRUSTEES AND OFFICERS. Pursuant to a Management Agreement with the Trust, the Investment Manager pays all compensation of Trustees, officers and employees of the Trust, other than the fees and expenses of Trustees who are not affiliated persons of the Investment Manager or any subadviser. The Trust pays each of its Independent Trustees annual compensation in addition to certain out-of-pocket expenses. Trustees who serve on Board Committees may receive additional compensation.

Independent Trustees may defer receipt of their fees pursuant to a deferred fee agreement with the Trust. Under the terms of the agreement, the Trust accrues deferred Trustees' fees daily which, in turn, accrue interest at a rate equivalent to the prevailing rate to 90-day US Treasury Bills at the beginning of each calendar quarter or, at the daily rate of return of one or more funds managed by PGIM Investments chosen by the Trustee. Payment of the interest so accrued is also deferred and becomes payable at the option of the Trustee. The Trust's obligation to make payments of deferred Trustees' fees, together with interest thereon, is a general obligation of the Trust. The Trust does not have a retirement or pension plan for its Trustees.

The following table sets forth the aggregate compensation paid by the Trust for the Trusts most recently completed fiscal year to the Independent Trustees for service on the Trust's Board, and the Board of any other investment company in the Fund Complex for the most recently completed calendar year. Trustees and officers who are “interested persons” of the Trust (as defined in the 1940 Act) do not receive compensation from the Fund Complex.

Name	Aggregate Fiscal Year Compensation from Trust ⁽¹⁾	Pension or Retirement Benefits Accrued as Part of Trust Expenses	Estimated Annual Benefits Upon Retirement	Total Compensation from Trust and Fund Complex for Most Recent Calendar Year
Susan Davenport Austin	$285,680	None	None	$332,250 (3/112)*
Sherry S. Barrat	$285,680	None	None	$332,250 (3/112)*
Jessica M. Bibliowicz	$285,680	None	None	$332,250 (3/112)*
Kay Ryan Booth	$285,680	None	None	$332,250 (3/112)*
Delayne Dedrick Gold	$307,490	None	None	$357,250 (3/112)*
Robert F. Gunia**	$307,490	None	None	$357,250 (3/112)*

Name	Aggregate Fiscal Year Compensation from Trust ⁽¹⁾	Pension or Retirement Benefits Accrued as Part of Trust Expenses	Estimated Annual Benefits Upon Retirement	Total Compensation from Trust and Fund Complex for Most Recent Calendar Year
Thomas T. Mooney**	$359,850	None	None	$417,250 (3/112)*
Thomas M. O'Brien**	$307,490	None	None	$357,250 (3/112)*

Explanatory Notes to Compensation Table

⁽¹⁾ Compensation relates to portfolios that were in existence during 2016.

* Number of funds and portfolios represents those in existence as of December 31, 2016 and excludes funds that have merged or liquidated during the year. Additionally, the number of funds and portfolios includes those which were approved as of December 31, 2016, but which may not have commenced operations as of December 31, 2016. No compensation is paid to Trustees with respect to funds/portfolios that have not yet commenced operations.

** Under the Trust’s deferred fee arrangement, certain Trustees have elected to defer all or part of their total compensation. The total amount of deferred compensation accrued during the calendar year ended December 31, 2016, including investment results during the year on cumulative deferred fees, amounted to $15,639, 18,521 and $204,087 for Messrs. Gunia, Mooney, and O'Brien, respectively.

BOARD COMMITTEES. The Board of Trustees (the Board) has established four standing committees in connection with governance of the Trust—Audit, Compliance, Governance, and Investment Review and Risk. Information on the membership of each standing committee and its functions is set forth below.

Audit Committee. The Board has determined that each member of the Audit Committee is not an “interested person” as defined in the 1940 Act. The responsibilities of the Audit Committee are to assist the Board in overseeing the Trust's independent registered public accounting firm, accounting policies and procedures, and other areas relating to the Trust's auditing processes. The Audit Committee is responsible for pre-approving all audit services and any permitted non-audit services to be provided by the independent registered public accounting firm directly to the Trust. The Audit Committee is also responsible for pre-approving permitted non-audit services to be provided by the independent registered public accounting firm to (1) the Investment Manager and (2) any entity in a control relationship with the Investment Manager that provides ongoing services to the Trust, provided that the engagement of the independent registered public accounting firm relates directly to the operation and financial reporting of the Trust. The scope of the Audit Committee's responsibilities is oversight. It is management's responsibility to maintain appropriate systems for accounting and internal control and the independent registered public accounting firm's responsibility to plan and carry out an audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). The Audit Committee Charter is available at www.prudential.com/variableinsuranceportfolios. The number of Audit Committee meetings held during the Trust's most recently completed fiscal year is set forth in the table below.

The membership of the Audit Committee is set forth below:
Thomas M. O’Brien (Chair)
Susan Davenport Austin
Delayne Dedrick Gold
Robert F. Gunia
Thomas T. Mooney (ex-officio)

Compliance Committee. The Compliance Committee serves as a liaison between the Board and the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (CCO). The Compliance Committee is responsible for considering, in consultation with the Board's Chair and outside counsel, any material compliance matters that are identified and reported by the CCO to the Compliance Committee between Board meetings. The Compliance Committee is also responsible for considering, when requested by the CCO, the CCO's recommendations regarding the materiality of compliance matters to be reported to the Board. The Compliance Committee reviews compliance matters that it determines warrant review between Board meetings. Further, when the CCO wishes to engage an independent third party to perform compliance-related work at the Trust’s expense, the Compliance Committee will evaluate with the CCO which third party to recommend to the Board as well as the appropriate scope of the work. The number of Compliance Committee meetings held during the Trust's most recently completed fiscal year is set forth in the table below. The Compliance Committee Charter is available on the Trust's website at www.prudential.com/variableinsuranceportfolios.

The membership of the Compliance Committee is set forth below:
Robert F. Gunia (Chair)
Jessica M. Bibliowicz
Kay Ryan Booth
Sherry S. Barrat
Thomas M. O’Brien
Thomas T. Mooney (ex-officio)

Governance Committee. The Governance Committee of the Board is responsible for nominating Trustees and making recommendations to the Board concerning Board composition, committee structure and governance, director compensation and expenses, director education, and governance practices. The Board has determined that each member of the Governance Committee is not an “interested person” as defined in the 1940 Act. The number of Governance Committee meetings held during the Trust's most recently completed fiscal year is set forth in the table below. The Governance Committee Charter is available on the Trust's website at www.prudential.com/variableinsuranceportfolios.

The membership of the Governance Committee is set forth below:
Delayne Dedrick Gold (Chair)
Susan Davenport Austin
Sherry S. Barrat
Jessica M. Bibliowicz
Kay Ryan Booth
Thomas T. Mooney (ex-officio)

Investment Review and Risk Committee (IRRC). The IRRC consists of all members of the Board and is chaired by Mr. Mooney, the Chairman of the Board. The Board created the IRRC to help the Board in reviewing certain types of risk, especially those risks related to portfolio investments, the subadvisers for the Portfolios and other related risks. The responsibilities of the IRRC include, but are not limited to: reviewing written materials and reports pertaining to Portfolio performance, investments and risk from subadvisers, the Strategic Investment Review Group (SIRG) of PGIM Investments and others; considering presentations from subadvisers, the Investment Manager, SIRG or other service providers on matters relating to Portfolio performance, investments and risk; and periodically reviewing management’s evaluation of various types of risks to the Portfolios.

LEADERSHIP STRUCTURE AND QUALIFICATIONS OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES. The Board is responsible for oversight of the Trust. The Trust has engaged the Investment Manager to manage the Trust on a day-to-day basis. The Board oversees the Investment Manager and certain other principal service providers in the operations of the Trust. The Board is currently composed of ten members, nine of whom are Independent Trustees. The Board meets in-person at regularly scheduled meetings twelve times throughout the year. In addition, the Board Members may meet in-person or by telephone at special meetings. As described above, the Board has established four standing committees—Audit, Compliance, Governance, and Investment Review and Risk—and may establish ad hoc committees or working groups from time to time, to assist the Board in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities. The Independent Trustees have also engaged independent legal counsel to assist them in fulfilling their responsibilities.

The Board is chaired by an Independent Trustee. As Chair, this Independent Trustee leads the Board in its activities. Also, the Chair acts as a member or an ex-officio member of each standing committee and any ad hoc committee of the Board of Trustees. The Trustees have determined that the Board's leadership and committee structure is appropriate because the Board believes it sets the proper tone to the relationships between the Trust, on the one hand, and the Investment Manager, the subadviser(s) and certain other principal service providers, on the other, and facilitates the exercise of the Board's independent judgment in evaluating and managing the relationships. In addition, the structure efficiently allocates responsibility among committees.

The Board has concluded that, based on each Trustee's experience, qualifications, attributes or skills on an individual basis and in combination with those of the other Trustees, each Trustee should serve as a Trustee. Among other attributes common to all Trustees are their ability to review critically, evaluate, question and discuss information provided to them, to interact effectively with the various service providers to the Trust, and to exercise reasonable business judgment in the performance of their duties as Trustees. In addition, the Board has taken into account the actual service and commitment of the Trustees during their tenure in concluding that each should continue to serve. A Trustee's ability to perform his or her duties effectively may have been attained through a Trustee's educational background or professional training; business, consulting, public service or academic positions; experience from service as a Trustee of the Trust, other funds in the Fund Complex, public companies, or non-profit entities or other organizations; or other experiences. Set forth below is a brief discussion of the specific experience qualifications, attributes or skills of each Trustee that led the Board to conclude that he or she should serve as a Trustee.

Investment Manager and its affiliates and predecessors. Ms. Austin currently serves as Vice Chairman of Sheridan Broadcasting Corporation and Senior Managing Director of Brock Capital. In addition to her experience in senior leadership positions with private companies, Ms. Austin has more than 10 years of experience in the investment banking industry, and has experience serving on boards of other public companies and non-profit entities. Ms. Barrat has more than 35 years of experience in senior leadership positions in the financial services and banking industries. In addition, Ms. Barrat has over 10 years experience serving on boards of other public companies and non-profit entities. Ms. Bibliowicz has more than 25 years of experience in senior leadership positions in the financial services and investment management industries. In addition, Ms. Bibliowicz also has experience in serving on the boards of other public companies, investment companies, and non-profit organizations. Ms. Booth has more than 35 years of experience in senior leadership positions in the investment management and investment banking industries. Ms. Booth is currently a Partner of Trinity Private Equity Group. In addition to her experience in senior leadership positions with private companies, Ms. Booth has experience serving on the boards of other entities. Mr. Cronin, an Interested Trustee of the Trust and other funds advised by the Investment Manager since 2009, served as Vice President of the Trust and other funds advised by the Investment Manager from 2009-2015, as President of the Trust and other funds advised by the Investment Manager since 2015, and has held senior positions with Prudential Financial (and American Skandia, which was purchased by Prudential Financial) since 1998.

Specific details about each Trustee's professional experience is set forth in the professional biography tables, above.

Risk Oversight. Investing in general and the operation of a mutual fund involve a variety of risks, such as investment risk, compliance risk, and operational risk, among others. The Board oversees risk as part of its oversight of the Trust. Risk oversight is addressed as part of various regular Board and committee activities. The Board, directly or through its committees, reviews reports from among others, the Investment Manager, sub-advisers, the Trust's Chief Compliance Officer, the Trust's independent registered public accounting firm, counsel, and internal auditors of the Investment Manager or its affiliates, as appropriate, regarding risks faced by the Trust and the risk management programs of the Investment Manager and certain service providers. The actual day-to-day risk management with respect to the Trust resides with the Investment Manager and other service providers to the Trust. Although the risk management policies of the Investment Manager and the service providers are designed to be effective, those policies and their implementation vary among service providers and over time, and there is no guarantee that they will be effective. Not all risks that may affect the Trust can be identified or processes and controls developed to eliminate or mitigate their occurrence or effects, and some risks are simply beyond any control of the Trust or the Investment Manager, its affiliates or other service providers.

Selection of Trustee Nominees. The Governance Committee is responsible for considering trustee nominees for Trustees at such times as it considers electing new members to the Board. The Governance Committee may consider recommendations by business and personal contacts of current Board members, and by executive search firms which the Committee may engage from time to time and will also consider shareholder recommendations. The Governance Committee has not established specific, minimum qualifications that it believes must be met by a nominee. In evaluating nominees, the Governance Committee considers, among other things, an individual's background, skills, and experience; whether the individual is an “interested person” as defined in the 1940 Act; and whether the individual would be deemed an “audit committee financial expert” within the meaning of applicable SEC rules. The Governance Committee also considers whether the individual's background, skills, and experience will complement the background, skills, and experience of other nominees and will contribute to the diversity of the Board. There are no differences in the manner in which the Governance Committee evaluates nominees for the Board based on whether the nominee is recommended by a shareholder.

A shareholder who wishes to recommend a director for nomination should submit his or her recommendation in writing to the Chair of the Board (Thomas T. Mooney) or the Chair of the Governance Committee (Delayne D. Gold), in either case in care of the Trust, at 655 Broad Street, 17^th Floor, Newark, New Jersey 07102. At a minimum, the recommendation should include: the name, address, and business, educational, and/or other pertinent background of the person being recommended; a statement concerning whether the person is an “interested person” as defined in the 1940 Act; any other information that the Trust would be required to include in a proxy statement concerning the person if he or she was nominated; and the name and address of the person submitting the recommendation, together with the number of shares held by such person and the period for which the shares have been held. The recommendation also can include any additional information which the person submitting it believes would assist the Governance Committee in evaluating the recommendation.

members and other Board members customarily interview the individual in person. In addition, the individual customarily is asked to complete a detailed questionnaire which is designed to elicit information which must be disclosed under SEC and stock exchange rules and to determine whether the individual is subject to any statutory disqualification from serving on the board of a registered investment company.

Shareholder Communications with the Board of Trustees. Shareholders of the Trust can communicate directly with the Board of Trustees by writing to the Chair of the Board, c/o the Trust, 1 Corporate Drive, Shelton, Connecticut 06484. Shareholders can communicate directly with an individual Trustee by writing to that Trustee, c/o the Trust, 1 Corporate Drive, Shelton, Connecticut 06484. Such communications to the Board or individual Trustees are not screened before being delivered to the addressee.

Board Committee Meetings (for most recently completed fiscal year)
Audit Committee	Governance Committee	Compliance Committee	Investment Review and Risk Committee
4	5	4	4

Share Ownership. Information relating to each Trustee's share ownership in the Trust, other funds that are overseen by the respective Trustee as well as any other funds that are managed by the Manager as of the most recently completed calendar year is set forth in the chart below.

Name	Dollar Range of Equity Securities in the Trust	Aggregate Dollar Range of Equity Securities Owned by Trustee in All Registered Investment Companies in Fund Complex*
Trustee Share Ownership
Susan Davenport Austin	None	over $100,000
Sherry S. Barrat	None	over $100,000
Jessica M. Bibiliowicz	None	over $100,000
Kay Ryan Booth	None	over $100,000
Timothy S. Cronin	None	over $100,000
Delayne Dedrick Gold	None	over $100,000
Robert F. Gunia	None	over $100,000
Thomas T. Mooney	None	over $100,000
Thomas M. O'Brien	None	over $100,000

* “Fund Complex” includes Advanced Series Trust, The Prudential Series Fund, Prudential’s Gibraltar Fund, Inc., the PGIM Investments Funds, Target Funds, and any other funds that are managed by the Investment Manager.

Because the Portfolios of the Trust serve as investment options under variable annuity and life insurance contracts, federal tax law prohibits the sale of Portfolio shares directly to individuals, including the Trustees. Individuals, including a Trustee, may, however, have an interest in a Portfolio if he or she purchases a variable contract and selects the Portfolio as an investment option.

Other than as set forth in the following paragraph, none of the Independent Trustees, or any member of his/her immediate family, owned beneficially or of record any securities in an investment adviser or principal underwriter of the Trust or a person (other than a registered investment company) directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with an investment adviser or principal underwriter of a Portfolio as of the most recently completed calendar year.

Between September 17, 2014 and January 29, 2015, Ms. Bibliowicz was the beneficial owner of stock issued by Franklin Resources, Inc. (Franklin) due to the ownership of such stock by trusts of which Ms. Bibliowicz is the grantor and of which her sons are the beneficiaries (the Bibliowicz Trusts). Two of the Portfolios of the Trust, AST Templeton Global Bond Portfolio and AST Franklin Templeton K2 Global Absolute Return Portfolio, are subadvised by entities that are subsidiaries of Franklin. The AST Templeton Global Bond Portfolio is subadvised by Franklin Advisers, Inc. The AST Franklin Templeton K2 Global Absolute Return Portfolio is subadvised by each of Franklin Advisers, Inc., Templeton Global Advisors Limited and K2/D&S Management Co., L.L.C. The Bibliowicz Trusts sold all shares of Franklin stock as of January 28, 2015, resulting in proceeds of $133,322.40.

MANAGEMENT AND ADVISORY ARRANGEMENTS

TRUST MANAGEMENT. PGIM Investments, 655 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey, and ASTIS, One Corporate Drive, Shelton, Connecticut, serve as the investment managers of the Portfolios; PGIM Investments and ASTIS serve as co-investment managers for each Portfolio covered by this SAI, except for AST Bond Portfolio 2026, AST Bond Portfolio 2027, AST Bond Portfolio 2028 and AST AQR Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio, for which PGIM Investments serves as the sole investment manager.

As of December 31, 2016, PGIM Investments served as the investment manager to all of the Prudential US and offshore open-end investment companies, and as administrator to closed-end investment companies, with aggregate assets of approximately $254.1 billion. PGIM Investments is a wholly-owned subsidiary of PIFM Holdco, LLC, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of PGIM Holding Company LLC, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Prudential Financial, Inc. (Prudential). PGIM Investments has been in the business of providing advisory services since 1996.

As of December 31, 2016, ASTIS served as the investment manager to certain of the Prudential US open-end investment companies with aggregate assets of approximately $157.0 billion. ASTIS is a subsidiary of Prudential Annuities Holding Company, Inc., which is a subsidiary of Prudential Annuities, Inc., a subsidiary of Prudential. ASTIS has been in the business of providing advisory services since 1992.

Services Provided by the Investment Managers. Pursuant to Management Agreements with the Trust (collectively, the Management Agreement), the Investment Managers, subject to the supervision of the Trust's Board and in conformity with the stated policies of the Portfolios, manage both the investment operations and composition of each Portfolio, including the purchase, retention, disposition and loan of securities and other assets. In connection therewith, the Investment Managers are obligated to keep certain books and records of the Portfolios. The Investment Managers are authorized to enter into subadvisory agreements for investment advisory services in connection with the management of the Portfolios. The Investment Managers continue to have responsibility for all investment advisory services performed pursuant to any such subadvisory agreements.

The Investment Managers are specifically responsible for overseeing and managing the Portfolios and the subadvisers. In this capacity, the Investment Managers review the performance of the Portfolios and the subadvisers and make recommendations to the Board with respect to the retention of investment subadvisers, the renewal of contracts, and the reorganization and merger of Portfolios, and other legal and compliance matters. The Investment Manager takes on the entrepreneurial and other risks associated with the launch of each new Portfolio and its ongoing operations. The Investment Managers utilize the Strategic Investments Research Group (SIRG), a unit of PGIM Investments, to assist the Investment Managers in regularly evaluating and supervising the Portfolios and the subadvisers, including with respect to investment performance. SIRG is a centralized research department of PGIM Investments that is comprised of a group of highly experienced analysts. SIRG utilizes proprietary processes to analyze large quantities of industry data, both on a qualitative and quantitative level, in order to effectively oversee the Portfolios and the subadvisers. The Investment Managers utilize this data in directly overseeing the Portfolios and the subadvisers. SIRG provides reports to the Board and presents to the Board at special and regularly scheduled Board meetings. The Investment Managers bear the cost of the oversight program maintained by SIRG.

In addition, the Investment Managers generally provide all of the administrative functions necessary for the organization, operation and management of the Trust and its Portfolios. The Investment Managers administer the Trust's corporate affairs and, in connection therewith, furnish the Trust with office facilities, together with those ordinary clerical and bookkeeping services which are not being furnished by, the Trust's custodian (the Custodian), and the Trust's transfer agent. The Investment Managers are also responsible for the staffing and management of dedicated groups of legal, marketing, compliance and related personnel necessary for the operation of the Trust. The legal, marketing, compliance and related personnel are also responsible for the management and oversight of the various service providers to the Trust, including, but not limited to, the custodian, transfer agent, and accounting agent. The management services of the Investment Managers to the Trust are not exclusive under the terms of the Management Agreement and the Investment Managers are free to, and do, render management services to others.

The primary administrative services furnished by the Investment Managers are more specifically detailed below:

■	furnishing of office facilities;
■	paying salaries of all officers and other employees of the Investment Managers who are responsible for managing the Trust and the Portfolios;
■	monitoring financial and shareholder accounting services provided by the Trust’s custodian and transfer agent;
■	providing assistance to the service providers of the Trust and the Portfolios, including, but not limited to, the custodian, transfer agent, and accounting agent;
■	monitoring, together with each subadviser, each Portfolio’s compliance with its investment policies, restrictions, and with federal and state laws and regulations, including federal and state securities laws, the Internal Revenue Code and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations;
■	preparing and filing all required federal, state and local tax returns for the Trust and the Portfolios;

■	preparing and filing with the SEC on Form N-CSR the Trust’s annual and semi-annual reports to shareholders, including supervising financial printers who provide related support services;
■	preparing and filing with the SEC required quarterly reports of portfolio holdings on Form N-Q;
■	preparing and filing the Trust’s registration statement with the SEC on Form N-1A, as well as preparing and filing with the SEC supplements and other documents, as applicable;
■	preparing compliance, operations and other reports required to be received by the Trust’s Board and/or its committees in support of the Board’s oversight of the Trust; and
■	organizing the regular and any special meetings of the Board of the Trust, including the preparing Board materials and agendas, preparing minutes, and related functions.

Expenses Borne by the Investment Managers. In connection with their management of the corporate affairs of the Trust, the Investment Managers bear certain expenses, including, but not limited to:

■	the salaries and expenses of all of their and the Trust's personnel except the fees and expenses of Trustees who are not affiliated persons of the Investment Managers or any subadviser;
■	all expenses incurred by the Investment Managers or the Trust in connection with managing the ordinary course of a Trust's business, other than those assumed by the Trust as described below;
■	the fees, costs and expenses payable to any investment subadvisers pursuant to Subadvisory Agreements between the Investment Managers and such investment subadvisers; and
■	with respect to the compliance services provided by the Investment Managers, the cost of the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer, the Trust’s Deputy Chief Compliance Officer, and all personnel who provide compliance services for the Trust, and all of the other costs associated with the Trust’s compliance program, which includes the management and operation of the compliance program responsible for compliance oversight of the Portfolios and the subadvisers.

Expenses Borne by the Trust. Under the terms of the Management Agreement, the Trust is responsible for the payment of Trust expenses not paid by the Investment Managers, including:

■	the fees and expenses incurred by the Trust in connection with the management of the investment and reinvestment of the Trust's assets payable to the Investment Managers;
■	the fees and expenses of Trustees who are not affiliated persons of the Investment Managers or any subadviser;
■	the fees and certain expenses of the custodian and transfer and dividend disbursing agent, including the cost of providing records to the Investment Managers in connection with their obligation of maintaining required records of the Trust and of pricing the Trust's shares;
■	the charges and expenses of the Trust's legal counsel and independent auditors;
■	brokerage commissions and any issue or transfer taxes chargeable to the Trust in connection with its securities (and futures, if applicable) transactions;
■	all taxes and corporate fees payable by the Trust to governmental agencies;
■	the fees of any trade associations of which the Trust may be a member;
■	the cost of share certificates representing and/or non-negotiable share deposit receipts evidencing shares of the Trust;
■	the cost of fidelity, directors and officers and errors and omissions insurance;
■	the fees and expenses involved in registering and maintaining registration of the Trust and of its shares with the SEC and paying notice filing fees under state securities laws, including the preparation and printing of the Trust's registration statements and prospectuses for such purposes;
■	allocable communications expenses with respect to investor services and all expenses of shareholders' and Trustees' meetings and of preparing, printing and mailing reports and notices to shareholders; and
■	litigation and indemnification expenses and other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of the Trust's business and distribution and service (12b-1) fees.

Terms of the Management Agreement. The Management Agreement provides that the Investment Managers will not be liable for any error of judgment by PGIM Investments or for any loss suffered by the Trust in connection with the matters to which the Management Agreement relates, except a loss resulting from a breach of fiduciary duty with respect to the receipt of compensation for services (in which case any award of damages shall be limited to the period and the amount set forth in Section 36(b)(3) of the 1940 Act) or loss resulting from willful misfeasance, bad faith or gross negligence or reckless disregard of duties. The Management Agreement provides that it will terminate automatically, if assigned (as defined in the 1940 Act), and that it may be terminated without penalty by either the Investment Managers or the Trust by the Board or vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of the Trust, (as defined in the 1940 Act) upon not more than 60 days nor less than 30 days written notice. The Management Agreement will continue in effect for a period of more than two years from the date of execution only so long as such continuance is specifically approved at least annually in accordance with the requirements of the 1940 Act.

Fees payable under the Management Agreement are computed daily and paid monthly. The Investment Managers may from time to time waive all or a portion of its management fee and subsidize all or a portion of the operating expenses of a Portfolio. Management fee waivers and subsidies will increase a Portfolio's total return. These voluntary waivers may be terminated at any time without notice.

SEC Manager-of-Managers Order. The manager-of-managers structure operates under exemptive orders issued by the SEC. The orders permit the Investment Manager to hire subadvisers or amend subadvisory agreements, without shareholder approval.

The most recent order imposes the following conditions:

1. Before a Portfolio may rely on the order requested in the application, the operation of the Portfolio in the manner described in the application, including the hiring of wholly-owned subadvisers, will be, or has been, approved by a majority of the Portfolio’s outstanding voting securities as defined in the 1940 Act, which in the case of a master fund will include voting instructions provided by shareholders of the feeder funds investing in such master fund or other voting arrangements that comply with section 12(d)(1)(E)(iii)(aa) of the 1940 Act (or, in the case on an insurance-related Portfolio, pursuant to the voting instructions provided by contract owners with assets allocated to any registered separate account for which the Portfolio serves as a funding medium), or, in the case of a new Portfolio whose public shareholders purchase shares on the basis of a prospectus containing the disclosure contemplated by condition 2 below, by the sole initial shareholder before offering the Portfolio’s shares to the public.

2. The prospectus for each Portfolio, and in the case of a master fund relying on the requested relief, the prospectus for each feeder fund investing in such master fund, will disclose the existence, substance and effect of any order granted pursuant to the application. Each Portfolio (and any such feeder fund) will hold itself out to the public as employing the Multi-Manager Structure described in the application. Each prospectus will prominently disclose that the Investment Manager have the ultimate responsibility, subject to oversight by the Board, to oversee the subadvisers and recommend their hiring, termination, and replacement.

3. The Investment Manager will provide general management services to a Portfolio, including overall supervisory responsibility for the general management and investment of the Portfolio’s assets. Subject to review and approval of the Board, the Investment Manager will (a) set a Portfolio’s overall investment strategies, (b) evaluate, select, and recommend subadvisers to manage all or a portion of a Portfolio’s assets, and (c) implement procedures reasonably designed to ensure that subadvisers comply with a Portfolio’s investment objective, policies and restrictions. Subject to review by the Board, the Investment Manager will (a) when appropriate, allocate and reallocate a Portfolio’s assets among subadvisers; and (b) monitor and evaluate the performance of subadvisers.

4. A Portfolio will not make any ineligible subadviser changes without the approval of the shareholders of the applicable Portfolio, which in the case of a master fund will include voting instructions provided by shareholders of the feeder fund investing in such master fund or other voting arrangements that comply with section 12(d)(1)(E)(iii)(aa) of the 1940 Act.

5. A Portfolio will inform shareholders, and if the Portfolio is a master fund, shareholders of any feeder funds, of the hiring of a new subadviser within 90 days after the hiring of the new subadviser pursuant to the Modified Notice and Access Procedures.

6. At all times, at least a majority of the Board will be Independent Trustees, and the selection and nomination of new or additional Independent Trustees will be placed within the discretion of the then-existing Independent Trustees.

7. Independent legal counsel, as defined in rule 0-1(a)(6) under the 1940 Act, will be engaged to represent the Independent Trustees. The selection of such counsel will be within the discretion of the then-existing Independent Trustees.

8. The Investment Manager will provide the Board, no less frequently than quarterly, with information about the profitability of the Investment Manager on a per Portfolio basis. The information will reflect the impact on profitability of the hiring or termination of any subadviser during the applicable quarter.

9. Whenever a subadviser is hired or terminated, the Investment Manager will provide the Board with information showing the expected impact on the profitability of the Investment Manager.

10. Whenever a subadviser change is proposed for a Portfolio with an affiliated subadviser or a wholly-owned subadviser, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, will make a separate finding, reflected in the Board minutes, that such change is in the best interests of the Portfolio and its shareholders, and if the Portfolio is a master fund, the best interests of any applicable feeder funds and their respective shareholders, and does not involve a conflict of interest from which the Investment Manager or the affiliated subadviser or wholly-owned subadviser derives an inappropriate advantage.

11. No Board member or officer of a Prudential investment company, a Portfolio, or a feeder fund that invests in a Portfolio that is a master fund, or director, manager or officer of the Investment Manager, will own directly or indirectly (other than through a pooled investment vehicle that is not controlled by such person) any interest in a subadviser except for (a) ownership of interests in the Investment Manager or any entity, other than a Wholly-Owned subadviser, that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the Investment Manager, or (b) ownership of less than 1% of the outstanding securities of any class of equity or debt of any publicly traded company that is either a subadviser or an entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, a subadviser.

12. Each Portfolio and any feeder fund that invests in a Portfolio that is a master fund will disclose an aggregate fee disclosure in its registration statement.

13. In the event the SEC adopts a rule under the 1940 Act providing substantially similar relief to that requested in the application, the requested order will expire on the effective date of that rule.

14. Any new Subadvisory Agreement or any amendment to a Portfolio’s existing Investment Management Agreement or Subadvisory Agreement that directly or indirectly results in an increase in the aggregate advisory fee rate payable by the Portfolio will be submitted to the Portfolio’s shareholders for approval.

Potential Conflicts. Under the manager-of-managers structure, the Investment Managers recommend the hiring and firing of subadvisers, determine the allocation of Portfolio assets among subadvisers for Portfolios with more than one subadviser, and report to the Board regarding subadviser performance. The Investment Managers also directly manage the assets for certain Portfolio sleeves or segments.

The Investment Managers may face potential conflicts inherent in serving as a manager-of-managers including, but not limited to: (i) an incentive to recommend that a Portfolio retain an affiliated subadviser; (ii) an incentive to recommend that a Portfolio retain a subadviser because the subadviser may provide distribution support or other services that benefit the Investment Managers or their affiliates or because of other relationships between the subadviser or its affiliates and the Investment Managers or their affiliates; (iii) an incentive to recommend that the Investment Managers provide direct management of assets for certain sleeves or segments; and (iv) an incentive to allocate assets among subadvisers of a single Portfolio based on profitability or other benefit to the Investment Managers or their affiliates.

To mitigate potential conflicts presented by these issues, the Investment Managers utilize the services of SIRG, a unit of PGIM Investments, which provides investment manager oversight, analysis and recommendations. SIRG provides its input to both the Investment Managers and the Board. SIRG representatives meet with the Board in connection with its quarterly meetings and any special meetings at which subadviser recommendations are made, and the Board makes the decision as to the retention of any subadviser. For recommendations involving a new subadviser or a replacement subadviser for a single asset class Portfolio or sleeve, SIRG conducts a search of qualified subadvisers and provides a recommendation. SIRG reviews with the Board the search process, finalists and the reasons for the recommendation. SIRG’s investment analysis process is applied in the same manner to both affiliated and unaffiliated subadvisers. The Board makes the final decision with respect to the retention of a new or replacement subadviser. For some Portfolios, the Investment Managers make a recommendation for a subadviser based on the design of a Portfolio, such as a Portfolio designed in consultation with a specific subadviser. In those cases, SIRG reviews the proposed subadviser and reports to the Board regarding its assessment of the subadviser.

To the extent a subadviser’s affiliation or other business relationship with Prudential is a factor in any subadviser recommendation, the Investment Managers discuss the relevant factors with the Board, which makes the final decision on any new or replacement subadviser. SIRG personnel are not involved in subadvisory fee negotiations.

Management Fees. The tables below set forth the applicable contractual management fee rate and the management fees received by the Investment Managers from the Trust for each Portfolio for the indicated fiscal years.

Management Fee Rates (effective July 1, 2015 and thereafter)
Portfolio	Contractual Fee Rate
AST Academic Strategies Asset Allocation Portfolio^†	Fund-of-Funds Segments/Sleeves: 0.72% of average daily net assets Non Fund-of-Funds Segments/Sleeves: 0.5525% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.5425% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.5325% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.5225% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5125% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4825% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4625% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Advanced Strategies Portfolio⁽¹⁾	0.6825% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.6725% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.6625% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.6525% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6425% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6125% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5925% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5725% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5525% on next $5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5325% over $20 billion of average daily net assets
AST AQR Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio	0.9325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.9225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.9125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.9025% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.8925% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.8625% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.8425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST AQR Large-Cap Portfolio	0.5825% of average daily net assets up to $300 million; 0.5725% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.5625% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.5525% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5425% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5125% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4925% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Balanced Asset Allocation Portfolio	0.15% of average daily net assets
AST BlackRock Global Strategies Portfolio	0.8325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.8225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.8125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.8025% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7925% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7625% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST BlackRock/Loomis Sayles Bond Portfolio	0.4825% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.4725% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.4625% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.4525% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4425% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4125% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.3925% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST BlackRock Low Duration Bond Portfolio	0.4825% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.4725% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.4625% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.4525% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4425% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4125% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.3925% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Bond Portfolio 2017*	0.4925% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.4725% on next $4.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4625% on next $5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4525% over $10 billion of average daily net assets

Management Fee Rates (effective July 1, 2015 and thereafter)
Portfolio	Contractual Fee Rate
AST Bond Portfolio 2018*	0.4925% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.4725% on next $4.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4625% on next $5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4525% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Bond Portfolio 2019*	0.4925% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.4725% on next $4.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4625% on next $5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4525% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Bond Portfolio 2020*	0.4925% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.4725% on next $4.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4625% on next $5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4525% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Bond Portfolio 2021*	0.4925% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.4725% on next $4.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4625% on next $5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4525% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Bond Portfolio 2022*	0.4925% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.4725% on next $4.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4625% on next $5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4525% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Bond Portfolio 2023*	0.4925% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.4725% on next $4.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4625% on next $5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4525% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Bond Portfolio 2024*	0.4925% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.4725% on next $4.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4625% on next $5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4525% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Bond Portfolio 2025*	0.4925% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.4725% on next $4.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4625% on next $5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4525% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Bond Portfolio 2026*	0.4925% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.4725% on next $4.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4625% on next $5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4525% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Bond Portfolio 2027*	0.4925% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.4725% on next $4.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4625% on next $5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4525% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Bond Portfolio 2028*	0.4925% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.4725% on next $4.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4625% on next $5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4525% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Capital Growth Asset Allocation Portfolio	0.15% of average daily net assets
AST ClearBridge Dividend Growth Portfolio	0.6825% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.6725% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.6625% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.6525% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6425% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6125% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5925% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Cohen & Steers Realty Portfolio	0.8325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.8225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.8125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.8025% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7925% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7625% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets

Management Fee Rates (effective July 1, 2015 and thereafter)
Portfolio	Contractual Fee Rate
AST FI Pyramis^® Quantitative Portfolio	0.6825% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.6725% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.6625% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.6525% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6425% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6125% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5925% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Global Real Estate Portfolio	0.8325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.8225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.8125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.8025% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7925% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7625% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Goldman Sachs Large-Cap Value Portfolio	0.5825% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.5725% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.5625% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.5525% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5425% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5125% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4925% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Goldman Sachs Mid-Cap Growth Portfolio	0.8325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.8225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.8125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.8025% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7925% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7625% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Goldman Sachs Multi-Asset Portfolio	0.7825% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.7725% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.7625% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.7525% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7425% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7125% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6925% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Goldman Sachs Small-Cap Value Portfolio	0.7825% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.7725% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.7625% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.7525% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7425% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7125% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6925% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Government Money Market Portfolio (formerly, AST Money Market Portfolio)	0.3325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.3225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.3125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.3025% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.2925% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.2625% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.2425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST High Yield Portfolio	0.5825% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.5725% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.5625% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.5525% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5425% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5125% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4925% over $10 billion of average daily net assets

Management Fee Rates (effective July 1, 2015 and thereafter)
Portfolio	Contractual Fee Rate
AST Hotchkis & Wiley Large-Cap Value Portfolio	0.5825% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.5725% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.5625% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.5525% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5425% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5125% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4925% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST International Growth Portfolio	0.8325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.8225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.8125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.8025% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7925% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7625% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST International Value Portfolio	0.8325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.8225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.8125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.8025% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7925% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7625% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Investment Grade Bond Portfolio^*	0.4925% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.4725% on next $4.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4625% on next $5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4525% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio	0.7825% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.7725% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.7625% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.7525% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7425% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7125% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6925% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST J.P. Morgan International Equity Portfolio	0.8325% of average daily net assets to $75 million; 0.6825% on next $225 million of average daily net assets; 0.6725% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.6625% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.6525% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6425% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6125% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5925% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST J.P. Morgan Strategic Opportunities Portfolio	0.8325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.8225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.8125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.8025% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7925% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7625% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Jennison Large-Cap Growth Portfolio	0.7325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.7225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.7125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.7025% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6925% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6625% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Loomis Sayles Large-Cap Growth Portfolio	0.7325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.7225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.7125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.7025% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6925% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6625% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets

Management Fee Rates (effective July 1, 2015 and thereafter)
Portfolio	Contractual Fee Rate
AST Lord Abbett Core Fixed Income Portfolio⁽²⁾	0.5300% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.5200% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.4850% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.4750% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.4500% on next $2.25 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4400% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4100% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.3900% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST MFS Global Equity Portfolio	0.8325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.8225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.8125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.8025% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7925% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7625% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST MFS Growth Portfolio	0.7325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.7225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.7125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.7025% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6925% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6625% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST MFS Large-Cap Value Portfolio	0.6825% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.6725% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.6625% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.6525% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6425% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6125% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5925% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Multi-Sector Fixed Income Portfolio	0.5325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.5225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.5125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.5025% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4925% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4625% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Neuberger Berman/LSV Mid-Cap Value Portfolio	0.7325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.7225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.7125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.7025% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.6525% on next $2.25 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6425% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6125% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5925% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST New Discovery Asset Allocation Portfolio	0.6825% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.6725% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.6625% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.6525% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6425% on next $750 million of average daily net assets; 0.6225% on next $2 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5925% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5725% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Parametric Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio	0.9325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.9225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.9125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.9025% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.8925% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.8625% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.8425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Preservation Asset Allocation Portfolio	0.15% of average daily net assets

Management Fee Rates (effective July 1, 2015 and thereafter)
Portfolio	Contractual Fee Rate
AST Prudential Core Bond Portfolio⁽³⁾	0.5325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.5225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.4875% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.4775% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.4525% on next $2.25 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4425% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4125% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.3925% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Prudential Growth Allocation Portfolio⁽¹⁾	0.6825% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.6725% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.6625% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.6525% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6425% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6125% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5925% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5725% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5525% on next $5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5325% over $20 billion of average daily net assets
AST QMA Large-Cap Portfolio	0.5825% of average daily net assets up to $300 million; 0.5725% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.5625% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.5525% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5425% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5125% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4925% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST QMA US Equity Alpha Portfolio	0.8325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.8225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.8125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.8025% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7925% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7625% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Quantitative Modeling Portfolio	0.25% of average daily net assets
AST RCM World Trends Portfolio	0.7825% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.7725% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.7625% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.7525% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7425% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7125% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6925% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Small-Cap Growth Portfolio	0.7325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.7225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.7125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.7025% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6925% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6625% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Small-Cap Growth Opportunities Portfolio	0.7825% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.7725% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.7625% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.7525% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7425% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7125% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6925% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Small-Cap Value Portfolio	0.7325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.7225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.7125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.7025% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6925% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6625% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets

Management Fee Rates (effective July 1, 2015 and thereafter)
Portfolio	Contractual Fee Rate
AST T. Rowe Price Asset Allocation Portfolio⁽¹⁾	0.6825% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.6725% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.6625% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.6525% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6425% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6125% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5925% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5725% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5525% on next $5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5325% over $20 billion of average daily net assets
AST T. Rowe Price Growth Opportunities Portfolio	0.7325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.7225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.7125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.7025% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6925% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6625% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Growth Portfolio	0.7325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.7225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.7125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.7025% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.6525% on next $2.25 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6425% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6125% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5925% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Value Portfolio (formerly, AST Value Equity Portfolio)	0.6825% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.6725% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.6625% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.6525% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6425% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6125% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5925% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST T. Rowe Price Natural Resources Portfolio	0.7325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.7225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.7125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.7025% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6925% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6625% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Templeton Global Bond Portfolio	0.6325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.6225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.6125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.6025% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5925% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5625 on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST WEDGE Capital Mid-Cap Value Portfolio	0.7825% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.7725% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.7625% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.7525% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7425% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7125% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6925% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Wellington Management Hedged Equity Portfolio	0.8325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.8225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.8125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.8025% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7925% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7625% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets

Management Fee Rates (effective July 1, 2015 and thereafter)
Portfolio	Contractual Fee Rate
AST Western Asset Core Plus Bond Portfolio	0.5325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.5225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.5125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.5025% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4925% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4625% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Western Asset Emerging Markets Debt Portfolio	0.6825% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.6725% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.6625% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.6525% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6425% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6125% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5925% over $10 billion of average daily net assets

*The contractual investment management fee for each of the AST Bond Portfolio 2017, AST Bond Portfolio 2018, AST Bond Portfolio 2019, AST Bond Portfolio 2020, AST Bond Portfolio 2021, AST Bond Portfolio 2022, AST Bond Portfolio 2023, AST Bond Portfolio 2024, AST Bond Portfolio 2025, AST Bond Portfolio 2026, AST Bond Portfolio 2027, AST Bond Portfolio 2028 and AST Investment Grade Bond Portfolio is subject to certain breakpoints. The assets of each Portfolio will be aggregated for purposes of determining the fee rate applicable to each Portfolio.

^†For AST Academic Strategies Asset Allocation Portfolio, the management fee rate applicable to the fund-of-funds segments/sleeves is limited to assets invested in other portfolios of the Trust. The management fee rate applicable to the non fund-of-funds segments/sleeves excludes assets invested in other portfolios of the Trust. Portfolio assets invested in mutual funds other than the portfolios of the Trust are included in the management fee rate applicable to the non fund-of-funds segments/sleeves.

⁽¹⁾ Prior to July 1, 2016, the contractual management fee rate was: 0.6825% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.6725% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.6625% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.6525% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6425% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6125% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; and 0.5925% over $10 billion of average daily net assets.

⁽²⁾ Prior to November 1, 2016, the contractual management fee rate was: 0.6325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.6225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.6125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.6025% on next $2.50 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5925% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.5625% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; and 0.5425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets.

⁽³⁾ Prior to July 1, 2016, the contractual management fee rate was: 0.5325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.5225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.5125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.5025% on next $2.50 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4925% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.4625% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; and 0.4425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets.

Management Fee Rates (effective February 25, 2013 through June 30, 2015)
Portfolio	Contractual Fee Rate
AST Academic Strategies Asset Allocation Portfolio^†	Fund-of-Funds Segments/Sleeves: 0.72% of average daily net assets Non Fund-of-Funds Segments/Sleeves: 0.71% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.70% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.69% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.68% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.67% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.64% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.62% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Advanced Strategies Portfolio	0.84% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.83% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.82% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.81% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.80% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.77% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.75% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST AQR Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio	1.09% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 1.08% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 1.07% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 1.06% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 1.05% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 1.02% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 1.00% over $10 billion of average daily net assets

Management Fee Rates (effective February 25, 2013 through June 30, 2015)
Portfolio	Contractual Fee Rate
AST AQR Large-Cap Portfolio	0.74% of average daily net assets up to $300 million; 0.73% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.72% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.71% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.70% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.67% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.65% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Balanced Asset Allocation Portfolio	0.15% of average daily net assets
AST BlackRock Global Strategies Portfolio	0.99% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.98% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.97% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.96% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.95% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.92% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.90% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST BlackRock/Loomis Sayles Bond Portfolio	0.64% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.63% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.62% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.61% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.60% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.57% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.55% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST BlackRock Low Duration Bond Portfolio	0.64% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.63% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.62% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.61% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.60% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.57% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.55% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Bond Portfolio 2017*	0.65% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.63% on next $4.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.62% on next $5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.61% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Bond Portfolio 2018*	0.65% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.63% on next $4.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.62% on next $5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.61% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Bond Portfolio 2019*	0.65% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.63% on next $4.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.62% on next $5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.61% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Bond Portfolio 2020*	0.65% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.63% on next $4.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.62% on next $5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.61% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Bond Portfolio 2021*	0.65% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.63% on next $4.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.62% on next $5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.61% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Bond Portfolio 2022*	0.65% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.63% on next $4.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.62% on next $5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.61% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Bond Portfolio 2023*	0.65% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.63% on next $4.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.62% on next $5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.61% over $10 billion of average daily net assets

Management Fee Rates (effective February 25, 2013 through June 30, 2015)
Portfolio	Contractual Fee Rate
AST Bond Portfolio 2024*	0.65% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.63% on next $4.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.62% on next $5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.61% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Bond Portfolio 2025*	0.65% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.63% on next $4.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.62% on next $5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.61% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Bond Portfolio 2026*	0.65% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.63% on next $4.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.62% on next $5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.61% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Capital Growth Asset Allocation Portfolio	0.15% of average daily net assets
AST ClearBridge Dividend Growth Portfolio	0.84% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.83% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.82% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.81% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.80% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.77% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.75% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Cohen & Steers Realty Portfolio	0.99% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.98% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.97% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.96% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.95% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.92% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.90% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST FI Pyramis^® Quantitative Portfolio	0.84% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.83% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.82% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.81% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.80% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.77% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.75% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Global Real Estate Portfolio	0.99% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.98% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.97% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.96% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.95% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.92% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.90% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Goldman Sachs Large-Cap Value Portfolio	0.74% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.73% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.72% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.71% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.70% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.67% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.65% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Goldman Sachs Mid-Cap Growth Portfolio	0.99% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.98% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.97% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.96% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.95% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.92% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.90% over $10 billion of average daily net assets

Management Fee Rates (effective February 25, 2013 through June 30, 2015)
Portfolio	Contractual Fee Rate
AST Goldman Sachs Multi-Asset Portfolio ⁽¹⁾	0.94% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.93% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.92% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.91% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.90% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.87% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.85% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Goldman Sachs Small-Cap Value Portfolio	0.94% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.93% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.92% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.91% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.90% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.87% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.85% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Government Money Market Portfolio (formerly, AST Money Market Portfolio)	0.49% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.48% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.47% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.46% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.45% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.42% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.40% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST High Yield Portfolio	0.74% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.73% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.72% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.71% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.70% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.67% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.65% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Hotchkis & Wiley Large-Cap Value Portfolio	0.74% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.73% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.72% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.71% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.70% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.67% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.65% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST International Growth Portfolio	0.99% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.98% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.97% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.96% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.95% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.92% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.90% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST International Value Portfolio	0.99% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.98% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.97% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.96% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.95% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.92% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.90% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Investment Grade Bond Portfolio^*	0.65% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.63% on next $4.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.62% on next $5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.61% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio	0.94% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.93% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.92% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.91% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.90% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.87% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.85% over $10 billion of average daily net assets

Management Fee Rates (effective February 25, 2013 through June 30, 2015)
Portfolio	Contractual Fee Rate
AST J.P. Morgan International Equity Portfolio	0.99% of average daily net assets to $75 million; 0.84% on next $225 million of average daily net assets; 0.83% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.82% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.81% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.80% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.77% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.75% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST J.P. Morgan Strategic Opportunities Portfolio	0.99% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.98% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.97% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.96% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.95% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.92% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.90% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Jennison Large-Cap Growth Portfolio	0.89% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.88% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.87% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.86% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.85% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.82% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.80% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Loomis Sayles Large-Cap Growth Portfolio	0.89% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.88% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.87% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.86% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.85% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.82% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.80% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Lord Abbett Core Fixed Income Portfolio	0.79% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.78% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.77% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.76% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.75% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.72% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.70% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST MFS Global Equity Portfolio	0.99% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.98% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.97% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.96% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.95% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.92% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.90% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST MFS Growth Portfolio	0.89% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.88% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.87% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.86% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.85% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.82% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.80% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST MFS Large-Cap Value Portfolio	0.84% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.83% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.82% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.81% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.80% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.77% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.75% over $10 billion of average daily net assets

Management Fee Rates (effective February 25, 2013 through June 30, 2015)
Portfolio	Contractual Fee Rate
AST Multi-Sector Fixed Income Portfolio	0.69% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.68% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.67% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.66% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.65% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.62% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.60% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Neuberger Berman/LSV Mid-Cap Value Portfolio	0.89% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.88% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.87% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.86% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.81% on next $2.25 billion of average daily net assets; 0.80% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.77% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.75% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST New Discovery Asset Allocation Portfolio	0.84% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.83% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.82% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.81% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.80% on next $750 million of average daily net assets; 0.78% on next $2 billion of average daily net assets; 0.75% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.73% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Parametric Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio	1.09% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 1.08% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 1.07% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 1.06% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 1.05% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 1.02% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 1.00% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Preservation Asset Allocation Portfolio	0.15% of average daily net assets
AST Prudential Core Bond Portfolio	0.69% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.68% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.67% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.66% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.65% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.62% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.60% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Prudential Growth Allocation Portfolio	0.84% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.83% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.82% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.81% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.80% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.77% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.75% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST QMA Large-Cap Portfolio	0.74% of average daily net assets up to $300 million; 0.73% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.72% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.71% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.70% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.67% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.65% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST QMA US Equity Alpha Portfolio	0.99% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.98% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.97% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.96% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.95% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.92% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.90% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Quantitative Modeling Portfolio	0.25% of average daily net assets

Management Fee Rates (effective February 25, 2013 through June 30, 2015)
Portfolio	Contractual Fee Rate
AST RCM World Trends Portfolio⁽²⁾	0.94% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.93% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.92% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.91% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.90% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.87% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.85% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Small-Cap Growth Portfolio	0.89% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.88% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.87% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.86% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.85% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.82% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.80% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Small-Cap Growth Opportunities Portfolio	0.94% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.93% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.92% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.91% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.90% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.87% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.85% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Small-Cap Value Portfolio	0.89% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.88% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.87% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.86% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.85% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.82% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.80% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST T. Rowe Price Asset Allocation Portfolio	0.84% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.83% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.82% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.81% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.80% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.77% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.75% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST T. Rowe Price Growth Opportunities Portfolio	0.89% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.88% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.87% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.86% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.85% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.82% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.80% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Growth Portfolio	0.89% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.88% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.87% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.86% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.81% on next $2.25 billion of average daily net assets; 0.80% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.77% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.75% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Value Portfolio (formerly, AST Value Equity Portfolio)	0.84% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.83% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.82% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.81% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.80% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.77% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.75% over $10 billion of average daily net assets

Management Fee Rates (effective February 25, 2013 through June 30, 2015)
Portfolio	Contractual Fee Rate
AST T. Rowe Price Natural Resources Portfolio	0.89% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.88% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.87% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.86% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.85% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.82% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.80% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Templeton Global Bond Portfolio	0.79% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.78% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.77% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.76% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.75% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.72% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.70% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST WEDGE Capital Mid-Cap Value Portfolio	0.94% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.93% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.92% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.91% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.90% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.87% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.85% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Wellington Management Hedged Equity Portfolio	0.99% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.98% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.97% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.96% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.95% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.92% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.90% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Western Asset Core Plus Bond Portfolio	0.69% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.68% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.67% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.66% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.65% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.62% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.60% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Western Asset Emerging Markets Debt Portfolio	0.84% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.83% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.82% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.81% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.80% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.77% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.75% over $10 billion of average daily net assets

*The contractual investment management fee for each of the AST Bond Portfolio 2017, AST Bond Portfolio 2018, AST Bond Portfolio 2019, AST Bond Portfolio 2020, AST Bond Portfolio 2021, AST Bond Portfolio 2022, AST Bond Portfolio 2023, AST Bond Portfolio 2024, AST Bond Portfolio 2025, AST Bond Portfolio 2026 and AST Investment Grade Bond Portfolio is subject to certain breakpoints. The assets of each Portfolio will be aggregated for purposes of determining the fee rate applicable to each Portfolio.

Management Fees Paid by the Portfolios
Portfolio	2016	2015	2014
AST Academic Strategies Asset Allocation Portfolio	$35,224,246	$46,127,890	$54,566,824
AST Advanced Strategies Portfolio	50,510,473	60,738,244	66,477,361
AST AQR Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio	1,372,647	2,252,707	2,820,230
AST AQR Large-Cap Portfolio	11,247,945	11,662,110	13,470,663
AST Balanced Asset Allocation Portfolio	15,476,824	16,361,022	16,182,604
AST BlackRock Global Strategies Portfolio	17,875,797	20,616,616	22,076,635
AST BlackRock/Loomis Sayles Bond Portfolio	15,726,982	19,631,820	37,649,739
AST Blackrock Low Duration Bond Portfolio	3,063,658	4,722,856	6,229,464

Management Fees Paid by the Portfolios
Portfolio	2016	2015	2014
AST Bond Portfolio 2017	623,074	573,560	834,873
AST Bond Portfolio 2018	616,063	797,472	1,239,406
AST Bond Portfolio 2019	284,194	368,507	569,511
AST Bond Portfolio 2020	639,915	795,481	1,180,023
AST Bond Portfolio 2021	1,089,732	1,326,818	1,210,589
AST Bond Portfolio 2022	913,409	686,554	582,876
AST Bond Portfolio 2023	144,224	481,242	2,516,464
AST Bond Portfolio 2024	-#	318,203	1,272,974
AST Bond Portfolio 2025	1,478,500	2,244,875	175,309
AST Bond Portfolio 2026	800,973	377,339	None
AST Bond Portfolio 2027	478,054	None	None
AST Bond Portfolio 2028	None	None	None
AST Capital Growth Asset Allocation Portfolio	18,343,261	19,550,700	18,808,313
AST ClearBridge Dividend Growth Portfolio	7,244,350	6,232,491	10,352,043
AST Cohen & Steers Realty Portfolio	5,424,619	6,827,108	6,827,553
AST FI Pyramis^® Quantitative Portfolio	27,761,666	29,441,026	34,515,011
AST Global Real Estate Portfolio	3,864,885	5,611,530	6,282,765
AST Goldman Sachs Large-Cap Value Portfolio	10,307,547	11,262,301	12,030,139
AST Goldman Sachs Mid-Cap Growth Portfolio	8,698,473	6,831,577	6,145,117
AST Goldman Sachs Multi-Asset Portfolio	14,778,517	17,812,666	21,038,703
AST Goldman Sachs Small-Cap Value Portfolio	6,175,618	7,531,385	8,150,120
AST Government Money Market Portfolio (formerly, AST Money Market Portfolio)	1,879,540	-#	376,777
AST Hotchkis & Wiley Large-Cap Value Portfolio	7,140,400	9,353,671	9,700,255
AST High Yield Portfolio	7,588,975	9,632,029	9,151,649
AST International Growth Portfolio	16,332,631	21,140,189	26,576,024
AST International Value Portfolio	15,407,698	19,380,186	24,424,291
AST Investment Grade Bond Portfolio	30,614,254	11,501,135	7,518,693
AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio	21,828,369	26,312,866	27,997,461
AST J.P. Morgan International Equity Portfolio	2,579,750	3,441,086	3,937,190
AST J.P. Morgan Strategic Opportunities Portfolio	20,483,410	25,556,617	28,999,961
AST Jennison Large-Cap Growth Portfolio	6,178,977	8,262,592	6,570,359
AST Loomis Sayles Large-Cap Growth Portfolio	15,340,917	19,079,019	22,152,163
AST Lord Abbett Core Fixed Income Portfolio	6,747,353	8,471,975	7,983,439
AST MFS Global Equity Portfolio	5,011,439	6,029,140	6,132,623
AST MFS Growth Portfolio	8,105,580	10,050,399	11,987,343
AST MFS Large-Cap Value Portfolio	6,486,262	4,627,446	4,910,897
AST Multi-Sector Fixed Income Portfolio	32,708,922	21,172,399	11,941,241
AST Neuberger Berman/LSV Mid-Cap Value Portfolio	5,863,483	7,463,157	8,504,189
AST New Discovery Asset Allocation Portfolio	4,740,960	5,678,033	5,881,152
AST Parametric Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio	3,727,831	5,324,827	7,150,265
AST Prudential Core Bond Portfolio	15,153,067	21,063,777	21,520,357
AST Prudential Growth Allocation Portfolio	66,826,043	57,777,451	53,586,706
AST Preservation Asset Allocation Portfolio	10,007,303	10,834,875	11,390,677
AST QMA Large-Cap Portfolio	15,556,403	18,565,636	18,835,213
AST QMA US Equity Alpha Portfolio	4,864,770	5,524,898	5,069,892

Management Fees Paid by the Portfolios
Portfolio	2016	2015	2014
AST Quantitative Modeling Portfolio	2,351,528	1,976,278	1,358,778
AST RCM World Trends Portfolio	37,872,939	39,930,195	40,088,163
AST Small-Cap Growth Portfolio	5,025,123	6,474,773	7,550,442
AST Small-Cap Growth Opportunities Portfolio	5,344,391	7,117,773	7,548,239
AST Small-Cap Value Portfolio	6,687,206	8,338,326	10,248,914
AST T. Rowe Price Asset Allocation Portfolio	82,664,332	79,625,986	81,131,412
AST T. Rowe Price Growth Opportunities Portfolio	4,889,039	3,479,262	1,165,844
AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Growth Portfolio	11,510,965	15,098,366	15,525,998
AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Value Portfolio (formerly, AST Value Equity Portfolio)	2,822,829	4,801,505	6,261,218
AST T. Rowe Price Natural Resources Portfolio	3,382,579	4,370,216	5,894,243
AST Templeton Global Bond Portfolio	2,131,298	4,217,447	4,875,970
AST WEDGE Capital Mid-Cap Value Portfolio	2,709,721	3,695,575	4,126,786
AST Wellington Management Hedged Equity Portfolio	16,540,061	19,566,262	17,927,110
AST Western Asset Core Plus Bond Portfolio	12,107,222	14,366,631	16,450,428
AST Western Asset Emerging Markets Debt Portfolio	1,019,863	1,174,575	2,833,018

# The management fee amount waived exceeds the management fee that would otherwise be payable due to an expense cap.

FEE WAIVERS/SUBSIDIES. PGIM Investments may from time to time waive all or a portion of its management fee and/or subsidize all or a portion of the operating expenses of the Portfolios. Fee waivers and subsidies will increase a Portfolio's return.

PGIM Investments has agreed to waive a portion of its management fee and/or limit total expenses (expressed as an annual percentage of average daily net assets) for certain Portfolios of the Trust, as set forth in the table below. Unless otherwise noted, the expense limitations may be discontinued or otherwise modified at any time.

Fee Waivers & Expense Limitations
Portfolio	Fee Waiver and/or Expense Limitation
AST Academic Strategies Asset Allocation Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive 0.007% of its investment management fee through June 30, 2017. This waiver may not be terminated prior to June 30, 2017 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. In addition, the Manager has voluntarily agreed to waive a portion of the Portfolio’s investment management fee based on the aggregate assets of each Portfolio of the Trust managed as a fund-of-funds.* The Manager has also voluntarily agreed to reimburse expenses and/or waive fees so that the Portfolio’s “Underlying Fund Fees and Expenses” do not exceed 0.685% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets. For purposes of applying this voluntary expense cap, “Underlying Fund Fees and Expenses” shall not include, and the Manager shall not reimburse expenses or waive fees with respect to taxes, short sale interest and dividend expenses, brokerage commissions, and extraordinary expenses incurred by the relevant Underlying Funds. This waiver is voluntary and may be modified or terminated by the Manager at any time without notice.
AST Advanced Strategies Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive 0.017% of its investment management fee through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. The Manager has also voluntarily agreed to waive the Portfolio’s investment management fee to the extent Portfolio assets are invested in underlying portfolios to gain exposure to small-cap equity securities. This waiver is voluntary and may be modified or terminated by the Manager at any time without notice.
AST AQR Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio's investment management fee plus other expenses (exclusive in all cases of taxes, including stamp duty tax paid on foreign securities transactions, interest, brokerage commissions, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) do not exceed 1.42% of the Portfolio's average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.
AST AQR Large-Cap Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive 0.086% of its investment management fee through June 30, 2017. This waiver may not be terminated prior to June 30, 2017 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees.
AST Balanced Asset Allocation Portfolio	The Manager has voluntarily agreed to waive a portion of the Portfolio’s investment management fee based on the aggregate assets of each Portfolio of the Trust managed as a fund-of-funds.*
AST BlackRock/Loomis Sayles Bond Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive 0.035% of its investment management fee through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees.

Fee Waivers & Expense Limitations
Portfolio	Fee Waiver and/or Expense Limitation
AST BlackRock Low Duration Bond Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive 0.057% of its investment management fee through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees.
AST Bond Portfolio 2017	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio's investment management fee plus other expenses (exclusive in all cases of taxes, interest, brokerage commissions, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) do not exceed 0.93% of the Portfolio's average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.
AST Bond Portfolio 2018	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio's investment management fee plus other expenses (exclusive in all cases of taxes, interest, brokerage commissions, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) do not exceed 0.93% of the Portfolio's average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.
AST Bond Portfolio 2019	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio's investment management fee plus other expenses (exclusive in all cases of taxes, interest, brokerage commissions, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) do not exceed 0.93% of the Portfolio's average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.
AST Bond Portfolio 2020	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio's investment management fee plus other expenses (exclusive in all cases of taxes, interest, brokerage commissions, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) do not exceed 0.93% of the Portfolio's average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.
AST Bond Portfolio 2021	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio's investment management fee plus other expenses (exclusive in all cases of taxes, interest, brokerage commissions, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) do not exceed 0.93% of the Portfolio's average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.
AST Bond Portfolio 2022	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio's investment management fee plus other expenses (exclusive in all cases of taxes, interest, brokerage commissions, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) do not exceed 0.93% of the Portfolio's average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.
AST Bond Portfolio 2023	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio's investment management fee plus other expenses (exclusive in all cases of taxes, interest, brokerage commissions, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) do not exceed 0.93% of the Portfolio's average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.
AST Bond Portfolio 2024	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio's investment management fee plus other expenses (exclusive in all cases of taxes, interest, brokerage commissions, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) do not exceed 0.93% of the Portfolio's average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.

Fee Waivers & Expense Limitations
Portfolio	Fee Waiver and/or Expense Limitation
AST Bond Portfolio 2025	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio's investment management fee plus other expenses (exclusive in all cases of taxes, interest, brokerage commissions, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) do not exceed 0.93% of the Portfolio's average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.
AST Bond Portfolio 2026	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio's investment management fee plus other expenses (exclusive in all cases of taxes, interest, brokerage commissions, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) do not exceed 0.93% of the Portfolio's average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.
AST Bond Portfolio 2027	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio's investment management fee plus other expenses (exclusive in all cases of taxes, interest, brokerage commissions, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) do not exceed 0.93% of the Portfolio's average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.
AST Bond Portfolio 2028	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio's investment management fee plus other expenses (exclusive in all cases of taxes, interest, brokerage commissions, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) do not exceed 0.93% of the Portfolio's average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.
AST Capital Growth Asset Allocation Portfolio	The Manager has voluntarily agreed to waive a portion of the Portfolio’s investment management fee based on the aggregate assets of each Portfolio of the Trust managed as a fund-of-funds.*
AST ClearBridge Dividend Growth Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive 0.11% of its investment management fee through June 30, 2017. This waiver may not be terminated prior to June 30, 2017 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees.
AST Cohen & Steers Realty Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive 0.07% of its investment management fee through June 30, 2017. This waiver may not be terminated prior to June 30, 2017 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees.
AST Goldman Sachs Large-Cap Value Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive 0.013% of its investment management fee through June 30, 2018. In addition, the Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio's investment management fee plus other expenses (exclusive in all cases of taxes, including stamp duty tax paid on foreign securities transactions, interest, brokerage commissions, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) do not exceed 0.82% of the Portfolio's average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. These arrangements may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.
AST Goldman Sachs Mid-Cap Growth Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive 0.10% of its investment management fee through June 30, 2017. This waiver may not be terminated prior to June 30, 2017 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees.
AST Goldman Sachs Multi-Asset Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive 0.144% of its investment management fee through June 30, 2017. The Manager has also contractually agreed to waive an additional 0.007% of its investment management fee through June 30, 2018. In addition, the Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio's investment management fee plus other expenses (exclusive in all cases of taxes, including stamp duty tax paid on foreign securities transactions, interest, brokerage commissions, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) do not exceed 0.94% of the Portfolio's average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. These arrangements may not be terminated or modified without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee equal to the management fee of any acquired fund managed or subadvised by Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.
AST Goldman Sachs Small-Cap Value Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive 0.013% of its investment management fee through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees.

Fee Waivers & Expense Limitations
Portfolio	Fee Waiver and/or Expense Limitation
AST Government Money Market Portfolio (formerly, AST Money Market Portfolio)	The Manager has voluntarily agreed to limit the advisory fees of the Portfolio such that the 1-day yield (without gain or loss) does not fall below 0.00%. The waiver/reimbursement is voluntary and may be modified or terminated by the Manager at any time without notice. The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of the management fee for the Portfolio by implementing the following management fee schedule: 0.30% to $3.25 billion; 0.2925% on the next $2.75 billion; 0.2625% on the next $4 billion; and 0.2425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets. This waiver may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust's Board of Trustees.
AST International Growth Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive 0.011% of its investment management fee through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees.
AST Investment Grade Bond Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio's investment management fee plus other expenses (exclusive in all cases of taxes, interest, brokerage commissions, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) do not exceed 0.99% of the Portfolio's average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year. In addition, the Distributor has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its distribution and service (12b-1) fee. The waiver provides for a reduction in the distribution and service fee based on the average daily net assets of the Portfolio. This contractual waiver does not have an expiration or termination date, and may not be modified or discontinued.
AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio	The Manager has voluntarily agreed to reimburse expenses and/or waive fees to the extent that the Portfolio’s “Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses” exceed 0.23% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets. For purposes of applying this voluntary expense cap, “Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses” shall not include, and the Manager shall not reimburse expenses or waive fees with respect to taxes, short sale interest and dividend expenses, brokerage commissions, distribution fees and extraordinary expenses incurred by the relevant underlying non-affiliated portfolios. This arrangement will be monitored and applied daily based upon the Portfolio’s then-current holdings of the underlying non-affiliated portfolios and the expense ratios of the relevant underlying non-affiliated portfolios as of its most recent fiscal year end.
AST J.P. Morgan Strategic Opportunities Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive 0.011% of its investment management fee through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees.
AST Loomis Sayles Large-Cap Growth Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive 0.06% of its investment management fee through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees.
AST Lord Abbett Core Fixed Income Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive 0.018% of its investment management fee through June 30, 2017. This waiver may not be terminated prior to June 30, 2017 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees.
AST Multi-Sector Fixed Income Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio's investment management fee plus other expenses (exclusive in all cases of taxes, interest, brokerage commissions, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) do not exceed 0.83% of the Portfolio's average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.
AST Neuberger Berman/LSV Mid-Cap Value Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive 0.002% of its investment management fee through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees.
AST New Discovery Asset Allocation Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive 0.013% of its investment management fee through June 30, 2018. In addition, the Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio's investment management fee plus other expenses (exclusive in all cases of taxes, short sale interest and dividend expenses, brokerage commissions, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) do not exceed 1.08% of the Portfolio's average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. These arrangements may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.
AST Preservation Asset Allocation Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio's investment management fee plus other expenses (exclusive in all cases of taxes, including stamp duty tax paid on foreign securities transactions, interest, brokerage commissions, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) do not exceed 0.16% of the Portfolio's average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year. The Manager has also voluntarily agreed to waive a portion of the Portfolio’s investment management fee based on the aggregate assets of each Portfolio of the Trust managed as a fund-of-funds.*

Fee Waivers & Expense Limitations
Portfolio	Fee Waiver and/or Expense Limitation
AST Prudential Growth Allocation Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio's investment management fee plus other expenses (exclusive in all cases of taxes, including stamp duty tax paid on foreign securities transactions, interest, brokerage commissions, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) do not exceed 0.91% of the Portfolio's average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.
AST QMA Large-Cap Portfolio	The Manager has voluntarily agreed to waive two-thirds of the incremental increase in the net management fee received by the Manager as a result of the underlying voluntary subadviser fee discount. This waiver is voluntary and may be modified or terminated by the Manager at any time without notice.
AST Quantitative Modeling Portfolio	The Manager has voluntarily agreed to waive a portion of the Portfolio’s investment management fee based on the aggregate assets of each Portfolio of the Trust managed as a fund-of-funds.*
AST Small-Cap Growth Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive 0.004% of its investment management fee through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees.
AST T. Rowe Price Asset Allocation Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive 0.004% of its investment management fee through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees.
AST T. Rowe Price Growth Opportunities Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive 0.002% of its investment management fee through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees.
AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Growth Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive 0.01% of its investment management fee through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees.
AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Value Portfolio (formerly, AST Value Equity Portfolio)	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive 0.15% of its investment management fee through June 30, 2017. This waiver may not be terminated prior to June 30, 2017 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees.
AST T. Rowe Price Natural Resources Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive 0.002% of its investment management fee through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees.
AST WEDGE Capital Mid-Cap Value Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive 0.01% of its investment management fee through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees.
AST Western Asset Core Plus Bond Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive 0.04% of its investment management fees through June 30, 2017. This waiver may not be terminated prior to June 30, 2017 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees.
AST Western Asset Emerging Markets Debt Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive 0.05% of its investment management fee through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees.

* Fund of Fund Discount: The Manager has agreed to a voluntary fee waiver arrangement that applies across each of the following portfolios: AST Academic Strategies Asset Allocation Portfolio (Fund of Fund sleeve), AST Balanced Asset Allocation Portfolio, AST Capital Growth Asset Allocation Portfolio, AST Managed Alternatives Portfolio, AST Managed Equity Portfolio, AST Managed Fixed Income Portfolio, AST Preservation Asset Allocation Portfolio, and AST Quantitative Modeling Portfolio (collectively, the Fund of Fund Portfolios). This voluntary fee waiver arrangement may be terminated by the Manager at any time. As described below, this voluntary fee waiver will be applied to the effective management fee rates and will be based upon the combined average daily net assets of the Fund of Fund Portfolios.

—	Combined assets up to $10 billion: No fee reduction.
—	Combined assets between $10 billion and $25 billion: 1% reduction to effective fee rate.
—	Combined assets between $25 billion and $45 billion: 2.5% reduction to effective fee rate.
—	Combined assets between $45 billion and $65 billion: 5.0% reduction to effective fee rate.
—	Combined assets between $65 billion and $85 billion: 7.5% reduction to effective fee rate.
—	Combined assets between $85 billion and $105 billion: 10.0% reduction to effective fee rate.
—	Combined assets between $105 million and $125 billion: 12.5% reduction to effective fee rate.
—	Combined assets above $125 billion: 15.0% reduction to effective fee rate.

SUBADVISERS. The Investment Managers have entered into subadvisory agreements with each of the subadvisers named in the table appearing below. The subadvisory agreements provide that the subadvisers will furnish investment advisory services in connection with the management of each Portfolio. In connection therewith, each subadviser is obligated to keep certain books and records of the Trust. Under each subadvisory agreement, each subadviser, subject to the supervision of the Investment Managers, is responsible for managing the assets of a Portfolio in accordance with the Portfolio's investment objectives, investment program and policies. The subadvisers determine what securities and other instruments are purchased and sold for each Portfolio and are responsible for obtaining and evaluating financial data relevant to the Portfolio. The Investment Managers continue to have responsibility for all investment advisory services pursuant to the Management Agreement and supervise the subadvisers' performance of such services.

Pursuant to each subadvisory agreement, the Investment Managers pay each subadviser a fee. The tables below set forth the current fee rates and fees paid by the Investment Managers to each subadviser for the three most recent fiscal years. The fee rates represent the fees as a percentage of average daily net assets.

As discussed in the Prospectus, the Investment Managers employ each subadviser under a “manager of managers” structure that allows the Investment Managers to replace the subadvisers or amend a subadvisory agreement without seeking shareholder approval. The Investment Managers are authorized to select (with approval of the Board's independent trustees) one or more subadvisers to handle the actual day-to-day investment management of each Portfolio. The Investment Managers monitor each subadviser's performance through quantitative and qualitative analysis and periodically report to the Board as to whether each subadviser's agreement should be renewed, terminated or modified. It is possible that the Investment Managers will continue to be satisfied with the performance record of the existing subadvisers and not recommend any additional subadvisers. The Investment Managers are also responsible for allocating assets among the subadvisers if a Portfolio has more than one subadviser. In those circumstances, the allocation for each subadviser can range from 0% to 100% of the Portfolio's assets, and the Investment Managers can change the allocations without Board or shareholder approval. The Investment Managers will review the allocations periodically and may adjust them without prior notice. The annual update to the Trust's prospectus will reflect these adjustments. Shareholders will be notified of any new subadvisers or materially amended subadvisory agreements.

Portfolio Subadvisers and Fee Rates
Portfolio	Subadviser(s)	Fee Rate*
AST Academic Strategies Asset Allocation Portfolio	Pacific Investment Management Company LLC (PIMCO)	0.25% of average daily net assets (Applies to Inflation-Indexed Securities investment category)
	PIMCO	0.25% of average daily net assets (Applies to International Fixed income (Hedged) investment category)
	Western Asset Management Company—Western Asset Management Company Limited	0.40% of average daily net assets to $100 million; 0.20% of average daily net assets over $100 million (Applies to Emerging Markets Fixed Income investment category)
	Western Asset Management Company—Western Asset Management Company Limited	0.60% of average daily net assets to $100 million; 0.40% of average daily net assets over $100 million (Applies to Macro Opportunities investment category)
	Quantitative Management Associates LLC (QMA)	0.075% of average daily net assets of entire Portfolio (Applies only to overall asset allocation and direct management of Overlay investment strategy)
	QMA	1.00% of average daily net assets attributable to Long/Short Market Neutral investment category
	Jennison Associates LLC (Jennison)	0.60% of average daily net assets to $100 million; 0.55% of average daily net assets over $100 million (Applies only to assets attributable to Global Infrastructure investment category)
	CoreCommodity Management, LLC	0.60% of average daily net assets to $750 million; 0.55% of average daily net assets from $750 million to $1 billion; 0.50% of average daily net assets over $1 billion (Applies only to assets attributable to Commodities investment category)
	Morgan Stanley Investment Management, Inc. (Morgan Stanley)	0.55% of average daily net assets to $50 million; 0.525% of average daily net assets over $50 million to $200 million; 0.50% of average daily net assets over $200 million.
	AlphaSimplex Group, LLC	0.80% of average daily net assets to $100 million; 0.65% of average daily net assets over $100 million
	First Quadrant, L.P.	0.65% of average daily net assets to $100 million; 0.55% of average daily net assets from $100 million to $200 million; 0.50% of average daily net assets over $200 million
	AQR Capital Management, LLC (AQR)	0.80% of average daily net assets
AST Advanced Strategies Portfolio	Brown Advisory, LLC	0.30% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.25% of average daily net assets over $500 million to $1 billion; 0.20% of average daily net assets over $1 billion (domestic large cap growth category)
	Loomis Sayles & Company, L.P. (Loomis Sayles)	0.25% of average daily net assets (domestic large cap growth category)

Portfolio Subadvisers and Fee Rates
Portfolio	Subadviser(s)	Fee Rate*
	T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.	Sleeve average daily net assets up to $100 million: 0.50% of average daily net assets to $50 million; 0.45% of average daily net assets over $50 million to $100 million When Sleeve average daily net assets exceed $100 million: 0.40% on all assets When Sleeve average daily net assets exceed $200 million: 0.35% on all assets When Sleeve average daily net assets exceed $500 million: 0.325% on all assets up to $500 million; 0.30% over $500 million to $1 billion When Sleeve average daily net assets exceed $1 billion: 0.30% on all assets When Sleeve average daily net assets exceed $1.5 billion: 0.275% on all assets
	William Blair Investment Management, LLC (William Blair)	0.30% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.25% of average daily net assets over $500 million to $1 billion; 0.20% of average daily net assets over $1 billion (international growth category)
	LSV Asset Management (LSV)	0.45% of average daily net assets to $150 million; 0.425% of average daily net assets over $150 million to $300 million; 0.40% of average daily net assets from $300 million to $450 million; 0.375% of average daily net assets over $450 million to $750 million; 0.35% of average daily net assets over $750 million (international value category)
	PIMCO	0.25% of average daily net assets (hedged international bond category)
	PIMCO	0.49% of average daily net assets (Advanced Strategies I)
	Quantitative Management Associates LLC (QMA)	0.25% of the average daily net assets attributable to the Advanced Strategies II investment strategy
	QMA	0.025% of the average daily net assets of the entire Portfolio (Applies only to Additional Services)
	PGIM Fixed Income ^††	0.20% of sleeve average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.18% of sleeve average daily net assets from $500 million to $2 billion; 0.16% of sleeve average daily net assets over $2 billion (US fixed income category)
	PGIM Fixed Income	0.025% of the average daily net assets of the entire Portfolio (Applies only to Additional Services)
	Jennison	0.025% of the average daily net assets of the entire Portfolio (Applies only to Additional Services)
AST AQR Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio	AQR Capital Management, LLC (AQR)	0.50% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets to $250 million; 0.45% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets over $250 million to $500 million; 0.40% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets over $500 million
AST AQR Large-Cap Portfolio	AQR	0.17% of average daily net assets to $1 billion; 0.15% of average daily net assets from $1 billion to $2 billion; 0.13% of average daily net assets over $2 billion
AST Balanced Asset Allocation Portfolio	QMA	0.15% of average daily net assets for “management services” for the liquidity sleeves of the Portfolio and 0.04% of average daily net assets for “additional services”
AST BlackRock Global Strategies Portfolio	BlackRock Financial Management, Inc. (BlackRock Financial); BlackRock International Limited (BlackRock International)	0.50% of the Portfolio's average daily net assets to $250 million; 0.45% of the Portfolio's average daily net assets over $250 million to $1 billion; 0.40% of the Portfolio's average daily net assets over $1 billion to $2 billion; 0.375% of the Portfolio's average daily net assets over $2 billion

Portfolio Subadvisers and Fee Rates
Portfolio	Subadviser(s)	Fee Rate*
AST BlackRock/Loomis Sayles Bond Portfolio	BlackRock Financial; BlackRock International; BlackRock (Singapore) Limited (BlackRock Singapore)	0.22% on aggregate assets up to and including $500 million; 0.20% on aggregate assets from $500 million to $1 billion; 0.18% on aggregate assets from $1 billion to $1.5 billion; 0.14% on aggregate assets over $1.5 billion
	Loomis Sayles	0.23% of average daily net assets to $100 million; 0.18% of average daily net assets over $100 million to $500 million; 0.17% of average daily net assets over $500 million to $3.3 billion; 0.15% of average daily net assets over $3.3 billion
AST BlackRock Low Duration Bond Portfolio	BlackRock Financial	0.20% of average daily net assets to $250 million; 0.15% of average daily net assets over $250 million
AST Bond Portfolio 2017	PGIM Fixed Income	0.15% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.14% of the next $1.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.12% of average daily net assets over $2 billion
AST Bond Portfolio 2018	PGIM Fixed Income	0.15% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.14% of the next $1.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.12% of average daily net assets over $2 billion
AST Bond Portfolio 2019	PGIM Fixed Income	0.15% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.14% of the next $1.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.12% of average daily net assets over $2 billion
AST Bond Portfolio 2020	PGIM Fixed Income	0.15% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.14% of the next $1.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.12% of average daily net assets over $2 billion
AST Bond Portfolio 2021	PGIM Fixed Income	0.15% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.14% of the next $1.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.12% of average daily net assets over $2 billion
AST Bond Portfolio 2022	PGIM Fixed Income	0.15% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.14% of the next $1.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.12% of average daily net assets over $2 billion
AST Bond Portfolio 2023	PGIM Fixed Income	0.15% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.14% of the next $1.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.12% of average daily net assets over $2 billion
AST Bond Portfolio 2024	PGIM Fixed Income	0.15% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.14% of the next $1.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.12% of average daily net assets over $2 billion
AST Bond Portfolio 2025	PGIM Fixed Income	0.15% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.14% of the next $1.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.12% of average daily net assets over $2 billion
AST Bond Portfolio 2026	PGIM Fixed Income	0.15% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.14% of the next $1.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.12% of average daily net assets over $2 billion
AST Bond Portfolio 2027	PGIM Fixed Income	0.15% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.14% of the next $1.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.12% of average daily net assets over $2 billion
AST Bond Portfolio 2028	PGIM Fixed Income	0.15% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.14% of the next $1.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.12% of average daily net assets over $2 billion
AST Capital Growth Asset Allocation Portfolio	QMA	0.15% of average daily net assets for “management services” for the liquidity sleeves of the Portfolio and 0.04% of average daily net assets for “additional services”
AST ClearBridge Dividend Growth Portfolio	ClearBridge Investments, LLC	0.25% of average daily net assets to $250 million; 0.225% of average daily net assets over $250 million to $500 million; 0.20% of average daily net assets over $500 million
AST Cohen & Steers Realty Portfolio	Cohen & Steers Capital Management, Inc.	0.30% of average daily net assets to $350 million; 0.25% of average daily net assets over $350 million

Portfolio Subadvisers and Fee Rates
Portfolio	Subadviser(s)	Fee Rate*
AST FI Pyramis^® Quantitative Portfolio	FIAM LLC	0.35% of average daily net assets to $250 million; 0.30% of average daily net assets over $250 million to $500 million; 0.25% of average daily net assets over $500 million to $1 billion; 0.20% of average daily net assets over $1 billion;
AST Global Real Estate Portfolio	PGIM Real Estate	0.45% of average daily net assets to $50 million; 0.40% of average daily net assets over $50 million to $150 million; 0.35% of average daily net assets over $150 million
AST Goldman Sachs Large-Cap Value Portfolio	Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P. (GSAM)	0.25% of average daily net assets to $250 million; 0.23% of average daily net assets over $250 million to $750 million; 0.21% over $750 million
AST Goldman Sachs Mid-Cap Growth Portfolio	GSAM	0.28% of average daily net assets to $1 billion; 0.25% of average daily net assets over $1 billion
AST Goldman Sachs Multi-Asset Portfolio	GSAM	0.24% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.23% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.22% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.21% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.20% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.17% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.14% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Goldman Sachs Small-Cap Value Portfolio	GSAM	0.50% of average daily net assets
AST Government Money Market Portfolio (formerly, AST Money Market Portfolio)	PGIM Fixed Income	0.06% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.05% of average daily net assets above $500 million to $1 billion; 0.03% of average daily net assets above $1 billion to $2.5 billion; 0.02% of average daily net assets over $2.5 billion
AST High Yield Portfolio	J.P. Morgan Investment Management, Inc. (JPMorgan)	Sleeve average daily net assets up to $1 billion: 0.27% of average daily net assets When Sleeve average daily net assets exceed $1 billion: 0.25% on all assets
	PGIM Fixed Income^††	0.25% of average daily net assets
AST Hotchkis & Wiley Large-Cap Value Portfolio	Hotchkis and Wiley Capital Management, LLC	0.30% of average daily net assets
AST International Growth Portfolio	William Blair	0.30% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.25% of average daily net assets over $500 million to $1 billion; 0.20% of average daily net assets over $1 billion
	Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers LLC	0.375% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.325% of average daily net assets from $500 million to $1.5 billion; 0.300% of average daily net assets over $1.5 billion
	Jennison	0.375% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.325% of average daily net assets from $500 million to $1 billion; 0.30% of average daily net assets over $1 billion
AST International Value Portfolio	LSV	0.45% of average daily net assets to $150 million; 0.425% of average daily net assets over $150 million to $300 million; 0.40% of average daily net assets from $300 million to $450 million; 0.375% of average daily net assets over $450 million to $750 million; 0.35% of average daily net assets over $750 million
	Lazard Asset Management LLC	0.35% of average daily net assets on first $300 million; 0.30% of average daily net assets over $300 million
AST Investment Grade Bond Portfolio	PGIM Fixed Income	0.15% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.14% of the next $1.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.12% of average daily net assets over $2 billion
AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio	JPMorgan Security Capital Research & Management Inc.	0.35% of average daily net assets to $600 million; 0.32% of average daily net assets over $600 million
AST J.P. Morgan International Equity Portfolio	JPMorgan	0.35% of average daily net assets to $250 million; 0.33% of average daily net assets over $250 million but not exceeding $500 million; 0.30% of average daily net assets over $500 million

Portfolio Subadvisers and Fee Rates
Portfolio	Subadviser(s)	Fee Rate*
AST J.P. Morgan Strategic Opportunities Portfolio	JPMorgan	0.40% of average daily net assets to $3,000 million; 0.35% of average daily net assets on the next $3,000 million; 0.30% of average daily net assets over $6,000 million
AST Jennison Large-Cap Growth Portfolio	Jennison	0.30% of average daily net assets to $1 billion; 0.25% of average daily net assets from $1 billion to $1.5 billion; 0.20% of average daily net assets over $1.5 billion
AST Loomis Sayles Large-Cap Growth Portfolio	Loomis Sayles	0.25% of average daily net assets
AST Lord Abbett Core Fixed Income Portfolio	Lord, Abbett & Co. LLC	0.17% of average daily net assets to $250 million; 0.15% of average daily net assets over $250 million but not exceeding $1 billion; 0.13% of average daily net assets over $1 billion but not exceeding $2 billion; 0.12% of average daily net assets over $2 billion
AST MFS Global Equity Portfolio	Massachusetts Financial Services Company (MFS)	0.425% of average daily net assets
AST MFS Growth Portfolio	MFS	0.375% of combined average daily net assets up to $250 million; 0.325% of the next $250 million; 0.30% of the next $250 million 0.275% of the next $250 million; 0.25% of the next $500 million; 0.225% of combined average daily net assets over $1.5 billion
AST MFS Large-Cap Value Portfolio	MFS	0.35% of average daily net assets to $100 million; 0.30% of average daily net assets over $100 million to $500 million; 0.275% of average daily net assets over $500 million
AST Multi-Sector Fixed Income Portfolio	PGIM Fixed Income	0.15% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.14% of average daily net assets over $500 million to $2 billion; 0.12% of average daily net assets over $2 billion
AST Neuberger Berman/LSV Mid-Cap Value Portfolio	Neuberger Berman	0.40% of average daily net assets to $1 billion; 0.35% of average daily net assets over $1 billion
	LSV	0.40% of average daily net assets to $250 million; 0.35% of average daily net assets over $250 million
AST New Discovery Asset Allocation Portfolio	Epoch Investment Partners, Inc. (Epoch)	0.275% of average daily net assets to $1 billion; 0.20% of average daily net assets over $1 billion
	Affinity Investment Advisors, LLC (Affinity) (effective February 8, 2016)	0.25% of average daily net assets to $75 million; 0.225% of average daily net assets over $75 million to $150 million; 0.20% of average daily net assets over $150 million to $250 million; 0.19% of average daily net assets over $250 million
	EARNEST Partners, LLC (EARNEST)	0.45% of average daily net assets
	Thompson, Siegel & Walmsley LLC (TSW)	0.40% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.350% of average daily net assets over $500 million
	C.S. McKee, LP (C.S. McKee)	0.20% of average daily net assets to $100 million; 0.15% of average daily net assets over $100 million to $200 million; 0.10% of average daily net assets over $200 million
	Parametric Portfolio Associates LLC (Parametric)	0.10% of average daily net assets
	Longfellow Investment Management Co. LLC (Longfellow)	0.20% of average daily net assets to $100 million; 0.18% of average daily net assets over $100 million to $200 million; 0.16% of average daily net assets over $200 million
	Boston Advisors, LLC (Boston)	0.325% of average daily net assets to $50 million; 0.225% of average daily net assets over $50 million to $100 million; 0.20% of average daily net assets over $100 million to $250 million; 0.185% of average daily net assets over $250 million
AST Parametric Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio	Parametric	0.50% of average daily net assets to $250 million; 0.45% of average daily net assets from $250 million to $500 million; 0.40% of average daily net assets over $500 million

Portfolio Subadvisers and Fee Rates
Portfolio	Subadviser(s)	Fee Rate*
AST Preservation Asset Allocation Portfolio	QMA	0.15% of average daily net assets for “management services” for the liquidity sleeves of the Portfolio and 0.04% of average daily net assets for “additional services”
AST Prudential Core Bond Portfolio	PGIM Fixed Income^††	0.15% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.14% of average daily net assets over $500 million to $1 billion; 0.12% of average daily net assets over $1 billion
AST Prudential Growth Allocation Portfolio	QMA	0.30% of average daily net assets to $250 million; 0.25% of average daily net assets over $250 million to $500 million; 0.22% of average daily net assets over $500 million to $750 million; 0.20% of average daily net assets over $750 million
	PGIM Fixed Income^††	0.15% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.14% of the next $500 million; 0.12% of average daily net assets over $1 billion
AST QMA Large-Cap Portfolio	QMA	0.15% of average daily net assets to $1.5 billion; 0.14% of average daily net assets over $1.5 billion
AST QMA US Equity Alpha Portfolio	QMA	0.45% of average daily net assets to $250 million; 0.40% of average daily net assets over $250 million
AST Quantitative Modeling Portfolio	QMA	0.06% of average daily net assets
AST RCM World Trends Portfolio	Allianz Global Investors US LLC	0.35% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.30% of average daily net assets over $500 million to $1 billion; 0.26% of average daily net assets over $1 billion
AST Small-Cap Growth Portfolio	UBS Asset Management (Americas) Inc.	0.40% of average daily net assets
	Emerald Mutual Fund Advisers Trust	0.45% of average daily net assets to $100 million; 0.40% of average daily net assets over $100 million
AST Small-Cap Growth Opportunities Portfolio	Victory Capital Management Inc.^†	0.55% of average daily net assets to $100 million; 0.50% of average daily net assets over $100 million but not exceeding $200 million; 0.45% of average daily net assets over $200 million but not exceeding $250 million; 0.40% of average daily net assets over $250 million but not exceeding $300 million; 0.35% of average daily net assets over $300 million
	Wellington Management Company LLP	0.46% of average daily net assets
AST Small-Cap Value Portfolio	JPMorgan	0.40% of average daily net assets
	LMCG Investments, LLC	0.40% of average daily net assets
AST T. Rowe Price Asset Allocation Portfolio	T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.	0.50% of average daily net assets to $25 million; 0.35% of average daily net assets over $25 million to $50 million; 0.26% of average daily net assets over $50 million to $10 billion; 0.25% of average daily net asset over $10 billion
AST T. Rowe Price Growth Opportunities Portfolio	T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. T. Rowe Price International, Ltd. T. Rowe Price Hong Kong, Limited T. Rowe Price International, Ltd. - Tokyo	0.35% of average daily net assets to $1 billion; 0.325% on next $1 billion of average daily net assets; 0.30% on next $1 billion of average daily net assets; 0.275% over $3 billion of average daily net assets
AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Growth Portfolio	T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.	Portfolio average daily net assets up to $1 billion: 0.40% of average daily net assets to $250 million; 0.375% of average daily net assets over $250 million to $500 million; 0.35% of average daily net assets from $500 million to $1 billion Portfolio average daily net assets exceed $1 billion: 0.35% of average daily net assets to $1 billion; 0.325% of average daily net assets over $1 billion

Portfolio Subadvisers and Fee Rates
Portfolio	Subadviser(s)	Fee Rate*
AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Value Portfolio (formerly, AST Value Equity Portfolio)	T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.	Portfolio daily net assets up to $100 million: 0.50% of average daily net assets to $50 million; 0.45% of average daily net assets over $50 million to $100 million When Portfolio average daily net assets exceed $100 million: 0.40% of average daily net assets When Portfolio average daily net assets exceed $200 million: 0.35% of average daily net assets When Portfolio average daily net assets exceed $500 million: 0.325% on all assets up to $500 million; 0.30% of average daily net assets over $500 million When Portfolio average daily net assets exceed $1 billion: 0.30% of average daily net assets When Portfolio average daily net assets exceed $1.5 billion: 0.275% of average daily net assets
AST T. Rowe Price Natural Resources Portfolio	T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.	0.60% of average daily net assets to $20 million; 0.50% of average daily net assets over $20 million to $50 million; — provided, however, average daily net assets exceed $50 million, 0.50% on all assets without reference to the breakpoint schedule set forth above
AST Templeton Global Bond Portfolio	Franklin Advisers, Inc.	0.40% of average daily net assets to $100 million; 0.36% of average daily net assets over $100 million to $250 million; 0.33% of average daily net assets over $250 million to $500 million; 0.30% of average daily net assets over $500 million
AST WEDGE Capital Mid-Cap Value Portfolio	WEDGE Capital Management, LLP (WEDGE)	0.75% of average daily net assets to $10 million; 0.65% of average daily net assets over $10 million to $25 million; 0.50% of average daily net assets over $25 million to $100 million; 0.40% of average daily net assets over $100 million to $150 million; 0.30% of average daily net assets over $150 million to $400 million; 0.20% of average daily net assets over $400 million
AST Wellington Management Hedged Equity Portfolio	Wellington Management Company LLP (Wellington Management)	0.45% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.425% of average daily net assets over $500 million to $1.5 billion; 0.40% of average daily net assets over $1.5 billion to $3 billion; 0.375% of average daily net assets over $3 billion
AST Western Asset Core Plus Bond Portfolio	Western Asset Management Company—Western Asset Management Company Limited	0.225% of average daily net assets on the first $300 million; 0.150% of average daily net assets to $2 billion; 0.100% of average daily net assets on amounts over $2 billion
AST Western Asset Emerging Markets Debt Portfolio	Western Asset Management Company—Western Asset Management Company Limited	0.40% of average daily net assets to $100 million; 0.20% of average daily net assets over $100 million

^†Victory Capital Management Inc. assumed subadviser responsibilities for a portion of the assets of the Portfolio on July 29, 2016, when it acquired RS Investment Management Co. LLC.

^††PGIM Limited, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of PGIM, serves as a sub-subadviser to the Portfolio pursuant to a sub-subadvisory agreement with PGIM. PGIM Limited provides investment advisory services with respect to securities in certain foreign markets. The fee for PGIM Limited’s services is paid by PGIM, not the Portfolio or the Investment Managers.

Aggregation Notes to Subadviser Fee Rate Table:

* For purposes of calculating the fee payable to certain subadvisers, the assets managed by the subadviser will be aggregated with one or more other Portfolios. Each aggregation arrangement is set out below:

Brown Advisory, LLC (Brown): For purposes of calculating the subadvisory fee payable to Brown, the assets managed by Brown in the following will be aggregated: (i) AST Advanced Strategies Portfolio; (ii) the Prudential Series Fund (PSF) Global Portfolio; (iii) other future large-cap growth accounts under which Brown provides substantially similar advisory or subadvisory services and which PGIM Investments and/or ASTIS, as applicable, mutually agree in writing, may be included in determining the level of average daily net assets for purposes of the fee calculation.

First Quadrant, L.P: For purposes of calculating the fee payable to First Quadrant with respect to the currency sleeve of the AST Academic Strategies Asset Allocation Portfolio, the assets managed by First Quadrant in the global macro sleeve of the AST Academic Strategies Asset Allocation Portfolio will be aggregated with the assets managed by First Quadrant in the currency sleeve of the AST Academic Strategies Asset Allocation Portfolio.

Jennison Associates LLC (Jennison): For purposes of calculating the subadvisory fee payable to Jennison, the assets managed by Jennison in the AST International Growth Portfolio of the Advanced Series Trust will be aggregated with the assets managed by Jennison in the SP International Growth Portfolio of The Prudential Series Fund and any other portfolio subadvised by Jennison on behalf of PGIM Investments or ASTIS pursuant to substantially the same investment strategy.

In addition, for purposes of calculating the subadvisory fee payable to Jennison, the assets managed by Jennison in the AST Academic Strategies Asset Allocation Portfolio will be aggregated with the assets managed by Jennison in the AST Jennison Global Infrastructure Portfolio and any other portfolio subadvised by Jennison on behalf of PGIM Investments or ASTIS pursuant to substantially the same investment strategy.

LSV: For purposes of calculating the advisory fee payable to LSV, the assets managed by LSV in the AST International Value Portfolio of the Trust will be aggregated with the assets managed by LSV in: (i) the AST Advanced Strategies Portfolio of Advanced Series Trust; (ii) the Global Portfolio of PSF; (iii) the Target International Equity Portfolio of the Target Portfolio Trust; and (iv) and any other portfolio subadvised by LSV on behalf of AST and/or PGIM Investments pursuant to substantially the same investment strategy.

Lazard: For purposes of the subadvisory fee calculation, the assets managed by Lazard in the AST International Value Portfolio will be aggregated with: assets in any other retail and insurance funds/portfolios that are subadvised by Lazard, managed by PGIM Investments and/or ASTIS, and have substantially the same international investment strategy (i.e. the Target International Equity Portfolio of the Target Portfolio Trust); and assets of certain insurance company separate accounts managed by Lazard for the Retirement business of Prudential and its affiliates.

PGIM Fixed Income: The assets of the AST Government Money Market Portfolio and the assets of the Government Money Market Portfolio of PSF will be aggregated.

The combined average daily net assets of the AST Bond Portfolio 2017, AST Bond Portfolio 2018, AST Bond Portfolio 2019, AST Bond Portfolio 2020, AST Bond Portfolio 2021, AST Bond Portfolio 2022, AST Bond Portfolio 2023, AST Bond Portfolio 2024, AST Bond Portfolio 2025, AST Bond Portfolio 2026, AST Bond Portfolio 2027, AST Bond Portfolio 2028 and the AST Investment Grade Bond Portfolio will include the assets of future portfolios of the Trust that are subadvised by PGIM Fixed Income pursuant to target maturity or constant duration investment strategies that are used in connection with non-discretionary asset transfers under certain living benefit programs.

The assets managed by PGIM Fixed Income in the AST Prudential Growth Allocation Portfolio will be aggregated with the assets managed by PGIM Fixed Income in the AST Prudential Core Bond Portfolio for purposes of calculating the subadvisory fee payable to PGIM Fixed Income for these portfolios.

T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (T. Rowe Price): For purposes of calculating the subadvisory fee payable to T .Rowe Price, the large cap value strategy assets managed by T. Rowe Price will be aggregated with the large cap value strategy assets managed by T. Rowe Price for all other Prudential entities, including the assets of certain insurance company separate accounts managed by T. Rowe Price for the Retirement business of Prudential and its affiliates.

WEDGE: For purposes of calculating the subadvisory fee payable to WEDGE, the assets managed by WEDGE for the AST WEDGE Capital Mid-Cap Value Portfolio will be aggregated with the assets managed by WEDGE for all other Prudential entities, including the assets of certain insurance company separate accounts managed by WEDGE for the Retirement business of Prudential and its affiliates.

Western Asset Management Company (Western Asset) and Western Asset Management Company Limited (WAML): For purposes of calculating the subadvisory fee payable to Western Asset with respect to the AST Western Asset Core Plus Bond Portfolio, the assets managed by Western Asset in the AST Western Asset Core Plus Bond Portfolio will be aggregated with the assets managed by WAML in the AST Western Asset Core Plus Bond Portfolio. For purposes of calculating the subadvisory fee payable to WAML with respect to the AST Western Asset Core Plus Bond Portfolio, the assets managed by WAML in the AST Western Asset Core Plus Bond Portfolio will be aggregated with the assets managed by Western Asset in the AST Western Asset Core Plus Bond Portfolio. For purposes of calculating the subadvisory fee payable to Western Asset with respect to the AST Western Asset Emerging Markets Debt Portfolio, the assets managed by Western Asset in the AST Western Asset Emerging Markets Debt Portfolio will be aggregated with the assets managed by WAML in the AST Western Asset Emerging Markets Debt Portfolio. For purposes of calculating the subadvisory fee payable to WAML with respect to the AST Western Asset Emerging Markets Debt Portfolio, the assets managed by WAML in the AST Western Asset Emerging Markets Debt Portfolio will be aggregated with the assets managed by Western Asset in the AST Western Asset Emerging Markets Debt Portfolio. The assets of the AST Western Asset Core Bond Portfolio are aggregated with the assets of certain insurance company separate accounts managed by Western Asset, WAML or their affiliates for the Retirement business of Prudential and its affiliates (Other Accounts) to determine the fees payable to Western Asset, WAML or their affiliates for the Other Accounts. The assets of the Other Accounts are not aggregated with the assets of the AST Western Asset Core Bond Portfolio to determine the fees paid to Western Asset and WAML for the AST Western Asset Core Bond Portfolio.

William Blair: The assets in the Advanced Strategies Portfolio will be aggregated with the assets managed by William Blair in the Global Portfolio of the Prudential Series Fund (PSF), in the SP International Growth Portfolio of PSF, the AST International Growth Portfolio and in any other portfolio subadvised by William Blair on behalf of the Investment Managers, pursuant to substantially the same investment strategy.

Notes to Subadviser Fee Rate Table:

AQR: AQR has agreed to implementation of a voluntary subadvisory fee waiver arrangement (the “AQR Waiver”) that applies to the assets of the AQR Large-Cap Portfolio whereby AQR will voluntarily waive 0.01% of the subadvisory fee on assets of the AQR Large-Cap Portfolio.

Franklin Advisers/Franklin Mutual/Templeton Global (“Franklin Adviser Subadvisers”): The Franklin Adviser Subadvisers have agreed to a voluntary subadvisory fee waiver arrangement, as follows: With respect to all existing and future Portfolios for which the Franklin Adviser Subadvisers provide subadvisory services, the subadvisory fee rates would be discounted according to the following schedule:

—	Combined assets up to $500 million: No discount.
—	Combined assets of $500 million up to $1 billion: 2.5% fee discount applied to the same percentage of the overall subadvisory fees as the percentage of combined assets that fall into this tier.
—	Combined assets of $1 billion to $1.5 billion: 5.0% fee discount applied to the same percentage of the overall subadvisory fees as the percentage of combined assets that fall into this tier.
—	Combined assets of $1.5 billion to $2.5 billion: 7.5% fee discount applied to the same percentage of the overall subadvisory fees as the percentage of combined assets that fall into this tier.
—	Combined assets of $2.5 billion and above: 10.0% fee discount applied to the same percentage of the overall subadvisory fees as the percentage of combined assets that fall into this tier. Note: The overall reduction/discount in the actual subadvisory fees is limited to $1.5 million per calendar year.

GSAM: GSAM has agreed to a voluntary subadvisory fee waiver arrangement that will apply across each of the portfolios or sleeves of portfolios subadvised by GSAM that are managed the Investment Managers. As described below, this voluntary group fee waiver will be applied to the effective subadvisory fees paid by the Investment Managers to GSAM, and will be based upon the combined average daily net assets of all of the portfolios (or sleeves thereof) subadvised by GSAM that are managed by the Investment Managers.

—	Combined assets up to $1 billion: 2.5% fee reduction
—	Combined assets between $1 billion and $2.5 billion: 5.0% fee reduction
—	Combined assets between $2.5 billion and $5.0 billion: 7.5% fee reduction
—	Combined assets above $5.0 billion: 10.0% fee reduction

Neuberger Berman: Neuberger Berman has agreed to a voluntary subadvisory fee waiver arrangement that will apply across each of the portfolios or sleeves of portfolios managed by Neuberger Berman (AST Neuberger Berman/LSV Mid-Cap Value Portfolio, AST Neuberger Berman Long/Short Portfolio and the sleeves of the AST International Growth Portfolio and the PSF SP International Growth Portfolio (collectively, the Neuberger Berman Portfolios). This voluntary fee waiver arrangement may be terminated by Neuberger Berman at any time. As described below, this voluntary group fee waiver will be applied to the effective subadvisory fees paid by ASTIS and/or PGIM Investments to Neuberger Berman and will be based upon the combined average daily net assets of the Neuberger Berman Portfolios. The investment management fees paid by each Neuberger Berman Portfolio will remain unchanged.

—	Combined assets up to $750 million: No fee reduction.
—	Combined assets between $750 million and $1.5 billion: 5% reduction to effective subadvisory fee.
—	Combined assets between $1.5 billion and $3 billion: 7.5% reduction to effective subadvisory fee.
—	Combined assets above $3 billion: 10% reduction to effective subadvisory fee.

QMA: The Manager will pay QMA a fee for providing additional advisory services to the AST Academic Strategies Asset Allocation Portfolio and the AST Advanced Strategies Portfolio, including but not limited to asset allocation advice (Additional Services).

In addition, QMA has agreed to a voluntary subadvisory fee waiver agreement (the QMA Waiver) that applies to the following AST Portfolios subadvised by QMA: AST Academic Strategies Asset Allocation Portfolio (market neutral sleeve), AST Prudential Flexible Multi-Strategy Portfolio (130/30 sleeve and market neutral sleeve), AST Prudential Growth Allocation Portfolio (QMA sleeve), AST QMA International Core Equity Portfolio, AST QMA Large-Cap Portfolio and AST QMA US Equity Alpha Portfolio (the Six Portfolios).

The QMA Waiver discounts QMA’s combined annualized subadvisory fees that it receives with respect to the assets it manages in the Six Portfolios. The size of the fee discount varies depending on the amount of such combined annual subadvisory fees.

Combined Annualized Subadviser Fees Received	Percentage Fee Waiver
Up to $5 million	0% Fee Reduction
$5 million to $7.5 million	2.5% Fee Reduction
$7.5 million to $10 million	5% Fee Reduction
$10 million to $12.5 million	7.5% Fee Reduction
$12.5 million to $15 million	12.5% Fee Reduction
Over $15 million	15% Fee Reduction

T. Rowe Price: T. Rowe Price has agreed to a voluntary subadvisory fee waiver arrangement for the following Portfolios:

- Advanced Series Trust AST T. Rowe Price Asset Allocation Portfolio

- Advanced Series Trust AST T. Rowe Price Diversified Real Growth Portfolio

- Advanced Series Trust AST T. Rowe Price Growth Opportunities Portfolio

- Advanced Series Trust AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Growth Portfolio

- Advanced Series Trust AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Value Portfolio

- Advanced Series Trust AST T. Rowe Price Natural Resources Portfolio

- Advanced Series Trust AST Advanced Strategies Portfolio

- The Prudential Series Fund Global Portfolio

T. Rowe Price has agreed to reduce the monthly subadvisory fee for each Portfolio listed above (or the portion thereof subadvised by T. Rowe Price) by the following percentages based on the combined average daily net assets of the listed Portfolios (or the portion thereof subadvised by T. Rowe Price) and the assets of certain insurance company separate accounts managed by T. Rowe Price for the Retirement business of Prudential and its affiliates (the “other accounts”):

- Combined assets up to $1 billion: 2.5% fee reduction.

- Combined assets on the next $1.5 billion: 5.0% fee reduction

- Combined assets on the next $2.5 billion: 7.5% fee reduction

- Combined assets on the next $5.0 billion: 10.0% fee reduction.

- Combined assets above $10.0 billion: 12.5% fee reduction.

Western Asset Management Company (Western Asset) and Western Asset Management Company Limited (WAML): With respect to the Macro Opportunities sleeve of the AST Academic Strategies Asset Allocation Portfolio, Western Asset and WAML have agreed to implementation of a voluntary subadvisory fee waiver arrangement, whereby Western Asset and WAML will voluntarily waive 0.50% of the subadvisory fee on assets of the Macro Opportunities sleeve to the extent that the total aggregate assets managed by Western Asset and WAML with respect to any funds or portfolios managed by the Investment Managers are at least $1.5 billion.

Subadvisory Fees Paid by PGIM Investments
Portfolio	Subadviser	2016	2015	2014
AST Academic Strategies Portfolio	PIMCO (Applies to Inflation-Indexed Securities assets only)	$469,456	$417,089	$474,899
	PIMCO (Applies to International Fixed income (Hedged) assets only)	878,024	953,833	953,344
	PIMCO (Applies to Emerging Markets Fixed Income assets only)*	N/A	N/A	N/A
	Western Asset Management Company—Western Asset Management Company Ltd. (Applies to Emerging Markets Fixed Income assets only)	558,756	693,793	810,813
	Western Asset Management Company—Western Asset Management Company Ltd.(Applies to Macro Opportunities sleeve assets only)	773,062	768,444	371,151
	CoreCommodity Management, LLC	1,069,668	1,151,403	1,674,889
	QMA (For overall asset allocation and direct management of Overlay investment strategy)	4,157,652	5,114,830	5,808,419
	QMA (Fee applies only to assets attributable to Long/Short Market Neutral investment category)	927,680	866,096	1,169,147
	Jennison	1,436,755	1,817,509	2,528,456
	J.P. Morgan Investment Management, Inc. (JPMorgan)	637,917	666,075	828,296
	AlphaSimplex Group	755,550	761,477	854,115
	First Quadrant, L.P. (Global Macro Segment only)	572,751	951,119	1,322,583
	First Quadrant, L.P. (Currency Segment only)	1,064,645	962,186	1,146,855
	AQR Capital Management, LLC	1,034,886	1,691,902	2,004,511
AST Advanced Strategies Portfolio	Brown Advisory, LLC	1,613,614	1,994,498	1,894,647
	T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.	3,521,435	3,913,313	4,177,698
	William Blair	1,708,709	1,964,072	1,979,157
	Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P.	1,805,015	1,830,051	1,786,514

Subadvisory Fees Paid by PGIM Investments
Portfolio	Subadviser	2016	2015	2014
	LSV	2,558,165	2,923,359	2,900,569
	QMA	5,083,716	5,505,600	5,407,454
	PGIM Fixed Income (US Fixed Income Sleeve)****	1,997,915	1,929,692	N/A
	PIMCO (US Fixed Income Sleeve)*	N/A	12,323	2,064,590
	PIMCO (Hedged International Bond Sleeve)	2,650,195	2,579,298	2,327,034
	PIMCO (Advanced Strategies I)	3,374,245	3,441,641	3,636,512
AST AQR Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio	AQR Capital Management, LLC	736,004	1,102,841	1,289,315
AST AQR Large-Cap Portfolio	AQR Capital Management, LLC	4,024,792	4,197,999	3,814,385
AST Balanced Asset Allocation Portfolio	QMA	5,215,323	5,531,866	5,476,732
AST BlackRock Global Strategies Portfolio	BlackRock Financial, BlackRock International	9,096,166	9,479,421	9,491,246
AST BlackRock/Loomis Sayles Bond Portfolio	PIMCO*	N/A	50,942	14,166,261
	BlackRock Financial, BlackRock International, BlackRock Singapore	4,024,165	3,635,844	N/A
	Loomis Sayles	2,667,075	3,410,485	N/A
AST BlackRock Low Duration Bond Portfolio	PIMCO*	N/A	1,206,860	2,489,534
	BlackRock Financial	1,228,585	690,742	N/A
AST Bond Portfolio 2017	PGIM Fixed Income	167,540	139,013	179,760
AST Bond Portfolio 2018	PGIM Fixed Income	165,499	191,866	266,897
AST Bond Portfolio 2019	PGIM Fixed Income	81,535	89,879	122,622
AST Bond Portfolio 2020	PGIM Fixed Income	171,722	192,904	253,976
AST Bond Portfolio 2021	PGIM Fixed Income	292,485	322,440	260,984
AST Bond Portfolio 2022	PGIM Fixed Income	245,166	171,226	125,556
AST Bond Portfolio 2023	PGIM Fixed Income	54,710	120,872	541,869
AST Bond Portfolio 2024	PGIM Fixed Income	14,003	87,450	273,929
AST Bond Portfolio 2025	PGIM Fixed Income	395,392	562,225	46,682
AST Bond Portfolio 2026	PGIM Fixed Income	215,828	100,522	N/A
AST Bond Portfolio 2027	PGIM Fixed Income	129,316	N/A	N/A
AST Bond Portfolio 2028	PGIM Fixed Income	N/A	N/A	N/A
AST Capital Growth Asset Allocation Portfolio	QMA	6,434,249	6,856,504	6,589,988
AST ClearBridge Dividend Growth Portfolio	ClearBridge Investments, LLC	2,801,085	2,095,276	3,100,941
AST Cohen & Steers Realty Portfolio	Cohen & Steers Capital Management, Inc.	1,974,535	2,218,686	2,120,076
AST FI Pyramis® Quantitative Portfolio	FIAM LLC	10,360,178	9,869,527	8,647,409
	First Trust Advisors, L.P.*	N/A	N/A	1,122,652
AST Global Real Estate	PGIM Real Estate	1,731,866	2,260,220	2,338,111
AST Goldman Sachs Large-Cap Value Portfolio	GSAM	3,793,363	3,636,810	3,529,957
AST Goldman Sachs Mid-Cap Growth Portfolio	GSAM	3,112,940	2,170,851	1,807,200
AST Goldman Sachs Multi-Asset Portfolio	GSAM	4,932,479	5,433,167	6,003,524
AST Goldman Sachs Small-Cap Value Portfolio	GSAM	3,885,866	4,312,071	4,317,414
AST Government Money Market Portfolio (formerly, AST Money Market Portfolio)	PGIM Fixed Income	475,631	473,015	505,501
AST High Yield Portfolio	JPMorgan	1,412,784	1,605,510	1,524,499
	PGIM Fixed Income****	2,055,656	2,258,975	2,125,435
AST Hotchkis & Wiley Large-Cap Value Portfolio	Hotchkis and Wiley Capital Management, LLC	3,792,977	4,364,552	4,033,206
AST International Growth Portfolio	William Blair	1,616,516	1,675,837	1,475,856
	Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers LLC	2,198,599	2,476,828	2,819,683
	Jennison	2,806,274	3,505,513	4,605,141
AST International Value Portfolio	LSV	4,182,509	4,751,394	5,281,864

Subadvisory Fees Paid by PGIM Investments
Portfolio	Subadviser	2016	2015	2014
	Lazard	2,367,990	2,699,187	345,208
	Thornburg Investment Management, Inc.*	N/A	N/A	2,944,726
AST Investment Grade Bond Portfolio	PGIM Fixed Income	8,171,479	2,914,684	1,616,440
AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio	JPMorgan	9,396,582	10,231,687	9,970,756
AST J.P. Morgan International Equity Portfolio	JPMorgan	1,245,974	1,493,787	1,558,732
AST J.P. Morgan Strategic Opportunities Portfolio	JPMorgan	10,273,359	11,907,124	12,518,734
AST Jennison Large-Cap Growth Portfolio	Jennison	2,572,591	3,111,124	2,238,055
AST Loomis Sayles Large-Cap Growth Portfolio	Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P.	5,908,917	6,531,658	6,874,114
AST Lord Abbett Core Fixed Income Portfolio	Lord, Abbett & Co. LLC	2,808,825	2,967,171	2,519,079
AST MFS Global Equity Portfolio	MFS	2,579,523	2,832,286	2,651,923
AST MFS Growth Portfolio	MFS	3,516,888	3,810,133	4,045,393
AST MFS Large-Cap Value Portfolio	MFS	2,843,348	1,859,307	1,795,118
AST Multi-Sector Fixed Income Portfolio	PGIM Fixed Income	8,345,072	4,877,781	2,550,112
AST Neuberger Berman/LSV Mid-Cap Value Portfolio	Neuberger Berman	1,216,019	1,374,708	1,427,298
	LSV	1,905,004	2,130,204	2,214,911
AST New Discovery Asset Allocation Portfolio	Epoch	370,859	350,884	270,853
	Security Investors, LLC	15,031	303,236	325,642
	Brown Advisory, LLC*	N/A	N/A	230,275
	EARNEST	147,683	201,909	203,327
	TSW	390,992	370,153	336,326
	Bradford & Marzec*	N/A	N/A	165,382
	C.S. McKee	155,737	192,442	245,081
	Parametric	64,612	74,161	63,365
	Vision	20,124	29,504	33,240
	Longfellow	230,372	218,074	13,253
	Affinity	259,631	N/A	N/A
	Boston	205,069	N/A	N/A
AST Parametric Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio	Parametric	1,928,820	2,474,332	3,018,090
AST Preservation Asset Allocation Portfolio	QMA	3,220,194	3,522,646	3,730,210
AST Prudential Core Bond Portfolio	PGIM Fixed Income****	4,010,356	4,786,988	4,314,291
AST Prudential Growth Allocation Portfolio	PGIM Fixed Income****	3,558,656	2,230,825	1,633,680
	QMA	13,580,375	11,101,529	9,614,712
AST QMA Large-Cap Portfolio	QMA	3,534,282	3,681,054	3,323,952
AST QMA US Equity Alpha Portfolio	QMA	2,108,492	2,180,649	1,855,284
AST Quantitative Modeling Portfolio	QMA	567,781	474,307	326,107
AST RCM World Trends Portfolio	Allianz Global Investors US LLC	13,834,417	13,165,689	11,761,124
AST Small-Cap Growth Portfolio	Eagle Asset Management, Inc.*	466,629	1,782,775	2,034,072
	Emerald Mutual Fund Advisers Trust	1,392,963	1,541,993	1,498,686
	UBS Securities	993,867	N/A	N/A
AST Small-Cap Growth Opportunities Portfolio	RS Investment Management Co. LLC	1,329,418	1,607,672	137,860
	Wellington Management Company LLP	1,963,079	2,289,022	184,499
	Federated Equity Management Company of Pennsylvania^, *	N/A	N/A	3,122,518
AST Small-Cap Value Portfolio	JPMorgan	2,246,054	2,209,842	2,137,995
	LMCG Investments, LLC	1,473,353	1,387,185	1,271,442
	ClearBridge Investments LLC*	N/A	571,446	1,285,407

Subadvisory Fees Paid by PGIM Investments
Portfolio	Subadviser	2016	2015	2014
AST T. Rowe Price Asset Allocation Portfolio	T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.	31,579,658	27,338,403	25,362,424
AST T. Rowe Price Growth Opportunities Portfolio	T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. T. Rowe Price International, Ltd. T. Rowe Price Hong Kong, Limited T. Rowe Price International, Ltd. - Tokyo	2,166,198	1,408,788	425,345
AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Growth Portfolio	T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.	5,253,441	6,402,295	5,958,491
AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Value Portfolio (formerly, AST Value Equity Portfolio)	Herndon Capital Management, LLC*	838,285	1,629,054	1,737,643
	T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.	382,950	N/A	N/A
AST T. Rowe Price Natural Resources Portfolio	T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.	2,174,783	2,538,324	3,171,412
AST Templeton Global Bond Portfolio	Franklin Advisers, Inc.	1,228,941	1,877,651	2,028,314
AST WEDGE Capital Mid-Cap Value Portfolio	EARNEST Partners LLC*	N/A	326,391	691,639
	WEDGE Capital Management, LLP	1,351,816	1,344,712	1,100,314
AST Wellington Management Hedged Equity Portfolio	Wellington Management Company LLP	8,667,009	9,301,836	8,851,462
AST Western Asset Core Plus Bond Portfolio	Western Asset Management Company—Western Asset Management Company Ltd.	4,341,678	4,932,328	4,596,015
AST Western Asset Emerging Markets Debt Portfolio	Western Asset Management Company—Western Asset Management Company Ltd.	522,487	527,590	918,723

* No longer a subadviser to the Portfolio.

** Federated Global Investment Management Corp. serves as sub-subadviser pursuant to a subadvisory agreement. Federated Advisory Services Company, an affiliate of Federated Equity Management Company of Pennsylvania and Federated Global Investment Management Corp., provides research, quantitative analysis, equity trading and transaction settlement and certain support services. The fee for Federated Advisory Service Company’s services is not paid by the Trust.

*** Security Capital serves as a Sub-Subadviser pursuant to a sub-subadvisory agreement. Security Capital, an affiliate of JPMorgan, provides investment advisory services with respect to investments in real estate investment trusts. The fee for Security Capital’s services is paid by JPMorgan, not the Portfolio or the Investment Managers

**** PGIM Limited, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of PGIM, serves as a sub-subadviser to the Portfolio pursuant to a sub-subadvisory agreement with PGIM. PGIM Limited provides investment advisory services with respect to securities in certain foreign markets. The fee for PGIM Limited’s services is paid by PGIM, not the Portfolio or the Investment Managers.

PORTFOLIO MANAGERS: OTHER ACCOUNTS

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE PORTFOLIO MANAGERS—Other Accounts and Portfolio Ownership. The following tables set forth information about each Portfolio and accounts other than the Portfolio for which each Portfolio's portfolio managers (the Portfolio Managers) are primarily responsible for day-to-day portfolio management as of the Trust's most recently completed fiscal year. The table shows, for each portfolio manager, the number of accounts managed and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. For each category, the number of accounts and total assets in the accounts whose fees are based on performance is indicated in italics typeface. The tables also set forth the dollar range of equity securities of each Portfolio of the Trust beneficially owned by the Portfolio Managers as of the Trust's most recently completed fiscal year.

AST Academic Strategies Asset Allocation Portfolio
Adviser/Subadvisers	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies*	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles*	Other Accounts*	Ownership of Portfolio Securities
PGIM Investments LLC	Brian Ahrens	12/$41,728,337,821.68	None	None	None
	Andrei O. Marinich, CFA	12/$41,728,337,821.68	None	None	None
Quantitative Management Associates LLC	Marcus Perl	33/$68,239,749,438	5/$1,517,683,066	21/$1,884,026,913	None
	Edward F. Keon, Jr.	32/$67,751,926,833	5/$1,517,683,066	19/$1,639,245,804	None
	Ted Lockwood	33/$68,269,232,696	5/$1,517,683,066	22/$1,910,309,104 1/$26,282,190	None
	Edward L. Campbell, CFA	32/$67,751,926,833	5/$1,517,683,066	19/$1,639,245,804	None
	Joel M. Kallman, CFA	32/$67,751,926,833	5/$1,517,683,066	19/$1,639,245,804	None
	Devang Gambhirwala	15/$11,064,394,672	10/$3,006,786,902	46/$$5,958,158,402 5/$1,393,218,251	None
Jennison Associates LLC	Shaun Hong	8/$7,046,621,000	N/A	N/A	None
	Ubong “Bobby” Edemeka	8/$7,046,621,000	N/A	N/A	None

AST Academic Strategies Asset Allocation Portfolio
Adviser/Subadvisers	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies*	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles*	Other Accounts*	Ownership of Portfolio Securities
	Brannon Cook	8/$7,046,621,000	N/A	N/A	None
Pacific Investment Management Company LLC	Mihir Worah	40/$143,859.61 million	38/$19,718.51 million 1/$164.96 million	57/$22,048.67 million 6/1779.72 million	None
	Jeremie Banet	17/$26,587.06 million	5/$880.69 million 1/$64.05 million	6/$1,704.27 million 1/$75.98 million	None
	Andrew Balls	9/$11,687.67 million	7/$12,132.60 million	29/$21,074.98 million 5/$1,844.12 million	None
	Sachin Gupta	14/$13,018.78 million	21/$8,604.07 million	25/$8,193.66 million 3/$675.81 million	None
	Lorenzo Pagani, PhD	8/$10,888.63 million	16/$5,156.89 million 5/$767.16 million	39/$10,481.23 million 12/$2,582.88 million	None
CoreCommodity Management, LLC	Adam De Chiara	4/$108,361,142	5/$1,637,186,902 4/$1,540,152,250	10/$1,473,390,850.62 13/$1,239,968,505	None
First Quadrant	Jeppe Ladekarl	5/$1,180,747,829.49	7/$557,865,186.34 5/$328,310,469.64	15/$11,446,228,070.47 5/$2,061,963,281.60	None
	Dori Levanoni	5/$1,180,747,829.49	7/$557,865,186.34 5/$328,310,469.64	17/$11,551,547,906.58 7/$2,167,283,117.71	None
AlphaSimplex Group, LLC	Andrew W. Lo	3/$4,867,135,000	N/A	8/$128,597,000	None
	Alexander D. Healy	5/$4,972,941,000	1/$72,842,000	8/$128,597,000	None
	Peter A. Lee	4/$4,950,560,000	1/$72,842,000	2/$30,038,000	None
	Philippe P. Lüdi	4/$4,950,560,000	1/$72,842,000	2/$30,038,000	None
	Robert W. Sinnott	4/$4,950,560,000	1/$72,842,000	2/$30,038,000	None
AQR Capital Management, LLC	Andrea Frazzini, PhD, MS	36/$17,236,617,171	28/$16,563,959,909 19/$12,713,523,730	33/$13,424,116,696 8/$1,336,053,502	None
	Jacques A. Friedman, MS	43/$26,452,440,950	46/$23,562,635,692 33/$17,791,602,223	113/$55,528,853,396 35/$14,958,971,963	None
	Ronen Israel, MA	33/$18,290,679,826	66/$38,085,943,405 54/$30,578,910,006	63/$28,600,324,797 21/$8,724,264,586	None
	Michael Katz, PhD, AM	11/$9,039,867,518	24/$11,138,841,001 22/$10,318,528,196	4/$2,485,956,008 2/$573,642,292	None
Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc.	Cyril Moullé-Berteaux	5/$624 million	5/$2,519 million	9/$4,728 million*	None
	Mark Bavoso	5/$624 million	2/$59 million	8/$4,633 million*	None
	Sergei Parmenov	4/$285 million	5/$2,519 million	8/$4,633 million*	None
Western Asset Management Company / Western Asset Management Company Ltd.	S. Kenneth Leech	100/$151,481,049,287	271/$82,435,959,301 7/$1,587,321,702	613/$188,457,949,226 66/$18,473,544,741	None
	Chia-Liang Lian	24/$35,294,060,564	41/$14,152,593,438 1/$115,241,938	158/$30,260,793,871 32/$7,605,330,569	None
	Gordon S. Brown	4/$1,992,013,113	18/$3,681,284,792 1/$115,241,938	75/$24,633,894,662 7/$5,048,444,175	None
	Prashant Chandran	7/$1,018,516,983	3/$5,665,530,941	4/$1,249,134,379 1/$318,785,486	None
	Kevin Ritter	4/$1,498,534,287	8/$1,090,617,510	36/$2,977,294,221	None

AST Advanced Strategies Portfolio
Adviser/Subadvisers	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies*	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles*	Other Accounts*	Ownership of Portfolio Securities
PGIM Investments LLC	Brian Ahrens	12/$38,691,158,237.69	None	None	None
	Andrei O. Marinich, CFA	12/$38,691,158,237.69	None	None	None
Brown Advisory, LLC	Kenneth M. Stuzin, CFA	6/$5,546,082,239	4/$832,541,085	518/$4,867,406,858 5/$339,018,773	None

AST Advanced Strategies Portfolio
Adviser/Subadvisers	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies*	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles*	Other Accounts*	Ownership of Portfolio Securities
Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P.	Aziz Hamzaogullari, CFA	17/$16,203,445,259	11/$2,406,806,664 1/$533,318,053	91/$$10,137,418,815	None
T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc	Mark Finn, CFA, CPA	7/$14,275,655,029	4/$6,834,622,669	30/$5,456,845,018	None
	John D. Linehan, CFA	14/$40,788,776,014	6/$9,141,522,636	31/$6,037,736,624	None
	Heather McPherson	5/$9,829,796,170	2/$1,390,886,048	25/$4,384,750,828	None
William Blair Investment Management, LLC	Simon Fennell	11/$7,517,469,557	15/$2,768,893,963	42/$7,670,308,843	None
	Kenneth J. McAtamney	7/$1,394,228,439	15/$1,554,231,858	13/$3,209,430,145	None
LSV Asset Management	Josef Lakonishok	36/$17,132,841,466	59/$20,020,111,810 8/$633,634,648	441/$59,152,166,724 43/$8,592,734,436	None
	Menno Vermeulen, CFA	36/$17,132,841,466	59/$20,020,111,810 8/$633,634,648	441/$59,152,166,724 43/$8,592,734,436	None
	Puneet Mansharamani, CFA	36/$17,132,841,466	59/$20,020,111,810 8/$633,634,648	441/$59,152,166,724 43/$8,592,734,436	None
	Greg Sleight	36/$17,132,841,466	59/$20,020,111,810 8/$633,634,648	441/$59,152,166,724 43/$8,592,734,436	None
	Guy Lakonishok, CFA	36/$17,132,841,466	59/$20,020,111,810 8/$633,634,648	441/$59,152,166,724 43/$8,592,734,436	None
Quantitative Management Associates LLC	Marcus Perl	33/$65,199,991,526	5/$1,517,683,066	21/$1,884,026,913	None
	Edward L. Campbell, CFA	32/$64,712,168,921	5/$1,517,683,066	19/$1,639,245,804	None
	Joel M. Kallman, CFA	32/$64,712,168,921	5/$1,517,683,066	19/$1,639,245,804	None
PGIM Fixed Income/PGIM Limited	Michael J. Collins, CFA	29/$49,520,060,521	11/$7,984,294,508	70/$18,657,029,107	None
	Richard Piccirillo	38/$44,584,241,721	27/$11,349,424,505 2/$0	125/$46,686,714,015	None
	Gregory Peters	14/$35,830,102,468	9/$3,351,532,122	35/$16,299,449,532	None
	Robert Tipp, CFA	24/$27,184,617,116	20/$10,046,436,120 1/$386,725	85/$19,964,107,366	None
Pacific Investment Management Company LLC	Mihir Worah	40/$143,295.83 million	38/$19,718.51 million 1/$164.96 million	57/$22,048.67 million 6/1779.72 million	None
	Jeremie Banet	17/$26,587.06 million	5/$880.69 million 1/$64.05 million	6/$1,704.27 million 1/$75.98 million	None
	Andrew Balls	9/$11,687.67 million	7/$12,132.60 million	29/$21,074.98 million 5/$1,844.12 million	None
	Sachin Gupta	14/$13,018.78 million	21/$8,604.07 million	25/$8,193.66 million 3/$675.81 million	None
	Lorenzo Pagani, PhD	8/$10,888.63 million	16/$5,156.89 million 5/$767.16 million	39/$10,481.23 million 12/$2,582.88 million	None

AST AQR Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Portfolio Securities
AQR Capital Management, LLC	Cliff Asness, PhD	38/$26,382,363,971	48/$25,995,567,081 37/$20,400,482,514	76/$33,797,526,736 26/$10,057,905,671	None
	Jacques Friedman	43/$26,387,860,473	46/$23,562,635,692 33/$17,791,602,223	113/$55,528,853,396 35/$14,958,971,963	None
	Michael Katz, PhD, AM	10/$8,876,427,958	24/$11,138,841,001 22/$10,318,528,196	4/$2,485,956,008 2/$573,642,292	None
	Oktay Kurbanov	3/$637,659,688	16/$6,910,316,993 13/$6,123,158,859	31/$18,229,821,101 7/$4,633,966,465

AST AQR Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Portfolio Securities
	John Liew, PhD	21/$23,003,063,063	39/$20,218,221,734 31/$15,128,166,990	32/$14,499,753,194 10/$5,135,469,962	None

AST AQR Large-Cap Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
AQR Capital Management, LLC	Cliff Asness	38/$23,598,010,803	48/$25,995,567,081 37/$20,400,482,514	76/$33,797,526,736 26/$10,057,905,671	None
	John Liew	43/$23,603,507,304	46/$23,562,635,692 33/$17,791,602,223	113/$55,528,853,396 35/$14,958,971,963	None
	Jacques Friedman	21/$20,218,709,895	39/$20,218,221,734 31/$15,128,166,990	32/$14,499,753,194 10/$5,135,469,962	None

AST Balanced Asset Allocation Portfolio
Adviser/Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies*	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles*	Other Accounts*	Ownership of Fund Securities
PGIM Investments LLC	Brian Ahrens	12/$36,572,220,114.59	None	None	None
	Andrei O. Marinich, CFA	12/$36,572,220,114.59	None	None	None
Quantitative Management Associates LLC	Marcus Perl	33/$63,081,295,681	5/$1,517,683,066	21/$1,884,026,913	None
	Edward L. Campbell, CFA	32/$62,593,473,076	5/$1,517,683,066	19/$1,639,245,804	None
	Joel M. Kallman, CFA	32/$62,593,473,076	5/$1,517,683,066	19/$1,639,245,804	None

AST BlackRock Global Strategies Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Manager	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
BlackRock Financial Management, Inc., BlackRock International Limited	Phil Green	18/$14.07 billion	20/$3.73 billion	4/$4.16 billion 1/$1.70 billion	None

AST BlackRock/Loomis Sayles Bond Portfolio
Subadvisers	Portfolio Manager	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
BlackRock Financial Management, Inc., BlackRock International Limited, BlackRock (Singapore) Limited	Bob Miller	13/$46.46 billion	11/$12.08 billion	1/$625.6 million	None
	Rick Rieder	10/$45.61 billion	15/$12.78 billion	2/$502.0 million 1/$241.0 million	None
	David Rogal	9/$44.28 billion	8/$9.71 billion	1/$625.6 million	None
Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P.	Peter Palfrey	2/$5,980,294,833	6/$4,354,754,443	59/$12,763,301,282 1/$113,994,049	None
	Rick Raczkowski	2/$5,980,294,833	11/$13,658,912,277	90/$17,908,998,915 3/$4,658,802,559	None

AST BlackRock Low Duration Bond Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Manager	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
BlackRock, Financial Management, Inc.	Thomas Musmanno, CFA	12/$11.57 billion	13/$5.13 billion 1/$1.75 billion	135/$52.75 billion	None
	Scott MacLellan, CFA	12/$11.57 billion	13/$5.13 billion 1/$1.75 billion	137/$58.59 billion	None

AST Bond Portfolio 2017
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
PGIM Fixed Income	Richard Piccirillo	38/$45,464,969,418	27/$11,349,424,505 2/$0	125/$46,686,714,015	None
	Malcolm Dalrymple	32/$27,075,581,232	19/$3,706,784,973	70/$17,590,512,538 1/$90,405,429	None

AST Bond Portfolio 2017
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
	Erik Schiller, CFA	37/$13,190,561,886	27/$9,661,364,575 2/$2,070,023,296	138/$36,652,253,295 2/$587,170,802	None
	David Del Vecchio	31/$27,053,148,243	19/$3,706,784,973	70/$17,590,512,538 1/$90,405,429	None

AST Bond Portfolio 2018
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
PGIM Fixed Income	Richard Piccirillo	38/$45,480,706,319	27/$11,349,424,505 2/$0	125/$46,686,714,015	None
	Malcolm Dalrymple	32/$27,091,318,133	19/$3,706,784,973	70/$17,590,512,538 1/$90,405,429	None
	Erik Schiller, CFA	37/$13,206,298,787	27/$9,661,364,575 2/$2,070,023,296	138/$36,652,253,295 2/$587,170,802	None
	David Del Vecchio	31/$27,068,885,144	19/$3,706,784,973	70/$17,590,512,538 1/$90,405,429	None

AST Bond Portfolio 2019
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
PGIM Fixed Income	Richard Piccirillo	38/$45,541,150,095	27/$11,349,424,505 2/$0	125/$46,686,714,015	None
	Malcolm Dalrymple	32/$27,151,761,909	19/$3,706,784,973	70/$17,590,512,538 1/$90,405,429	None
	Erik Schiller, CFA	37/$13,266,742,563	27/$9,661,364,575 2/$2,070,023,296	138/$36,652,253,295 2/$587,170,802	None
	David Del Vecchio	31/$27,129,328,920	19/$3,706,784,973	70/$17,590,512,538 1/$90,405,429	None

AST Bond Portfolio 2020
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
PGIM Fixed Income	Richard Piccirillo	38/$45,480,260,166	27/$11,349,424,505 2/$0	125/$46,686,714,015	None
	Malcolm Dalrymple	32/$27,090,871,980	19/$3,706,784,973	70/$17,590,512,538 1/$90,405,429	None
	Erik Schiller, CFA	37/$13,205,852,634	27/$9,661,364,575 2/$2,070,023,296	138/$36,652,253,295 2/$587,170,802	None
	David Del Vecchio	31/$27,068,438,991	19/$3,706,784,973	70/$17,590,512,538 1/$90,405,429	None

AST Bond Portfolio 2021
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
PGIM Fixed Income	Richard Piccirillo	38/$45,394,367,339	27/$11,349,424,505 2/$0	125/$46,686,714,015	None
	Malcolm Dalrymple	32/$27,004,979,153	19/$3,706,784,973	70/$17,590,512,538 1/$90,405,429	None
	Erik Schiller, CFA	37/$13,119,959,807	27/$9,661,364,575 2/$2,070,023,296	138/$36,652,253,295 2/$587,170,802	None
	David Del Vecchio	31/$26,982,546,164	19/$3,706,784,973	70/$17,590,512,538 1/$90,405,429	None

AST Bond Portfolio 2022
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
PGIM Fixed Income	Richard Piccirillo	38/$45,423,960,089	27/$11,349,424,505 2/$0	125/$46,686,714,015	None
	Malcolm Dalrymple	32/$27,034,571,903	19/$3,706,784,973	70/$17,590,512,538 1/$90,405,429	None
	Erik Schiller, CFA	37/$13,149,552,557	27/$9,661,364,575 2/$2,070,023,296	138/$36,652,253,295 2/$587,170,802	None
	David Del Vecchio	31/$27,012,138,914	19/$3,706,784,973	70/$17,590,512,538 1/$90,405,429	None

AST Bond Portfolio 2023
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
PGIM Fixed Income	Richard Piccirillo	38/$45,541,011,295	27/$11,349,424,505 2/$0	125/$46,686,714,015	None
	Malcolm Dalrymple	32/$27,151,623,109	19/$3,706,784,973	70/$17,590,512,538 1/$90,405,429	None
	Erik Schiller, CFA	37/$13,266,603,763	27/$9,661,364,575 2/$2,070,023,296	138/$36,652,253,295 2/$587,170,802	None
	David Del Vecchio	31/$27,129,190,120	19/$3,706,784,973	70/$17,590,512,538 1/$90,405,429	None

AST Bond Portfolio 2024
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
PGIM Fixed Income	Richard Piccirillo	38/$45,592,849,140	27/$11,349,424,505 2/$0	125/$46,686,714,015	None
	Malcolm Dalrymple	32/$27,203,460,954	19/$3,706,784,973	70/$17,590,512,538 1/$90,405,429	None
	Erik Schiller, CFA	37/$13,318,441,608	27/$9,661,364,575 2/$2,070,023,296	138/$36,652,253,295 2/$587,170,802	None
	David Del Vecchio	31/$27,181,027,965	19/$3,706,784,973	70/$17,590,512,538 1/$90,405,429	None

AST Bond Portfolio 2025
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
PGIM Fixed Income	Richard Piccirillo	38/$45,567,347,304	27/$11,349,424,505 2/$0	125/$46,686,714,015	None
	Malcolm Dalrymple	32/$27,177,959,118	19/$3,706,784,973	70/$17,590,512,538 1/$90,405,429	None
	Erik Schiller, CFA	37/$13,292,939,772	27/$9,661,364,575 2/$2,070,023,296	138/$36,652,253,295 2/$587,170,802	None
	David Del Vecchio	31/$27,155,526,129	19/$3,706,784,973	70/$17,590,512,538 1/$90,405,429	None

AST Bond Portfolio 2026
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
PGIM Fixed Income	Richard Piccirillo	38/$45,251,375,464	27/$11,349,424,505 2/$0	125/$46,686,714,015	None
	Malcolm Dalrymple	32/$26,861,987,278	19/$3,706,784,973	70/$17,590,512,538 1/$90,405,429	None
	Erik Schiller, CFA	37/$12,976,967,932	27/$9,661,364,575 2/$2,070,023,296	138/$36,652,253,295 2/$587,170,802	None
	David Del Vecchio	31/$26,839,554,289	19/$3,706,784,973	70/$17,590,512,538 1/$90,405,429	None

AST Bond Portfolio 2027
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
PGIM Fixed Income	Richard Piccirillo	38/$45,191,633,642	27/$11,349,424,505 2/$0	125/$46,686,714,015	None
	Malcolm Dalrymple	32/$26,802,245,456	19/$3,706,784,973	70/$17,590,512,538 1/$90,405,429	None
	Erik Schiller, CFA	37/$12,917,226,110	27/$9,661,364,575 2/$2,070,023,296	138/$36,652,253,295 2/$587,170,802	None
	David Del Vecchio	31/$26,779,812,467	19/$3,706,784,973	70/$17,590,512,538 1/$90,405,429	None

AST Bond Portfolio 2028
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities*
PGIM Fixed Income	Richard Piccirillo	39/$45,600,847,269	27/$11,349,424,505 2/$0	125/$46,686,714,015	None
	Malcolm Dalrymple	33/$27,211,459,083	19/$3,706,784,973	70/$17,590,512,538 1/$90,405,429	None
	Erik Schiller, CFA	38/$13,326,439,737	27/$9,661,364,575 2/$2,070,023,296	138/$36,652,253,295 2/$587,170,802	None
	David Del Vecchio	32/$27,189,026,094	19/$3,706,784,973	70/$17,590,512,538 1/$90,405,429	None

AST Capital Growth Asset Allocation Portfolio
Adviser/Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies*	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles*	Other Accounts*	Ownership of Fund Securities
PGIM Investments LLC	Brian Ahrens	12/$34,413,485,159.10	None	None	None
	Andrei O. Marinich, CFA	12/$34,413,485,159.10	None	None	None
Quantitative Management Associates LLC	Marcus Perl	33/$60,925,396,649	5/$1,517,683,066	21/$1,884,026,913	None
	Edward L. Campbell, CFA	32/$60,437,574,044	5/$1,517,683,066	19/$1,639,245,804	None
	Joel M. Kallman, CFA	32/$60,437,574,044	5/$1,517,683,066	19/$1,639,245,804	None

AST ClearBridge Dividend Growth Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
ClearBridge Investments, LLC	Harry Cohen	2/$5,970,914,973	1/$123,593,346	29,415/$9,471,491,225	None
	Michael Clarfeld	7/$9,876,713,565	2/$588,883,433	28,890/$8,360,570,116	None
	Peter Vanderlee	8/$10,878,672,751	6/$1,826,383,767	30,924/$8,885,163,869	None
	Scott Glasser	N/A	N/A	N/A	None

*Note: Harry Cohen is expected to transition off of the Portfolio on or about December 31, 2017. Scott Glasser is expected to become co-portfolio manager on or about December 31, 2017. Additional information pertaining to Scott Glasser will be provided prior to this transition.

AST Cohen & Steers Realty Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
Cohen & Steers Capital Management, Inc.	Jon Cheigh	8/$10,571,702,546	22/$3,399,211,363	16/$3,531,899,249	None
	Thomas Bohjalian, CFA	7/$15,211,652,089	7/$13,249,535,716	21/$2,846,615,452	None
	Jason Yablon	9/$15,674,040,254	1/$136,804,548	5/$2,094,379,596	None

AST FI Pyramis® Quantitative Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
FIAM LLC	Ognjen Sosa, CAIA	None	7/$471 million	31/$6,391 million	None
	Shiuan-Tung Peng, CFA	None	6/$406 million	32/$6,493 million	None
	Edward Heilbron	None	7/$471 million	51/$11,524 million	None

AST FI Pyramis® Quantitative Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
	Catherine Pena, CFA	None	4/$152 million	35/$7,202 million	None

AST Global Real Estate Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
PGIM Real Estate	Marc Halle	7/$3,154,944,027	N/A	7/$875,746,262	None
	Rick J. Romano	7/$3,154,944,027	N/A	7/$875,746,262	None
	Michael Gallagher	7/$3,154,944,027	N/A	7/$875,746,262	None
	Kwok Wing Cheong	7/$3,154,944,027	N/A	7/$875,746,262	None

AST Goldman Sachs Large-Cap Value Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P.	Sean Gallagher	12/$9,836 million	1/$142 million	26/$2,338 million	None
	John Arege, CFA	6/$2,218 million	1/$460 million	24/$4,407 million	None
	Charles “Brook” Dane, CFA	8/$3,294 million	2/$331 million	18/$851 million	None

AST Goldman Sachs Mid-Cap Growth Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P.	Steve Barry	19/$8,007 million	10/$2,044 million	3/$101 million	None
	Ashley Woodruff, CFA	4/$3,222 million	1/$18 million	None	None

AST Goldman Sachs Multi-Asset Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P.	Kane Brenan	None	None	3/$5,427 million	None
	Raymond Chan	4/$36 million	9/$2,870 million	1/$48 million	None
	Christopher Lvoff	4/$36 million	None	1/$686 million	None

AST Goldman Sachs Small-Cap Value Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P.	Sally Pope Davis	6/$8,153 million	None	15/$2,146 million	None
	Robert Crystal	6/$8,153 million	None	15/$2,146 million	None
	Sean A. Butkus	6/$8,153 million	None	15/$2,146 million	None

AST High Yield Portfolio
Subadvisers	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
J.P. Morgan Investment Management, Inc.	William J. Morgan	11/$18,854,482	18/$8,861,101 1/$43,138	11/$1,511,103 1/$282,990	None
	James P. Shanahan	15/$27,697,233	21/$5,172,477 1/$43,138	15/$2,067,194 2/$531,306	None
PGIM Fixed Income/PGIM Limited	Robert Cignarella, CFA	29/$16,895,118,902	18/$4,384,525,667	103/$14,493,505,476 1/$0	None
	Michael J. Collins, CFA	29/$49,803,819,245	11/$7,984,294,508	70/$18,657,029,107	None
	Terence Wheat, CFA	29/$16,463,143,811	18/$4,384,525,667	109/$15,300,857,096 1/$0	None
	Robert Spano, CFA, CPA	29/$16,463,143,811	18/$4,384,525,667	108/$15,300,461,949 1/$0	None
	Ryan Kelly, CFA	29/$16,463,143,811	18/$4,384,525,667	107/$15,258,026,233 1/$0	None
	Brian Clapp, CFA	29/$16,463,145,183	18/$4,384,525,667	103/$14,054,353,564 1/$0	None

AST High Yield Portfolio
Subadvisers	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
	Daniel Thorogood, CFA	29/$16,463,145,183	18/$4,384,525,667	105/$14,971,864,578 1/$0	None

AST Hotchkis & Wiley Large-Cap Value Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
Hotchkis and Wiley Capital Management, LLC	Sheldon Lieberman	13/$13.9 billion 1/$6.6 billion	8/$936.8 million 1/$63.2 million	68/$9.8 billion 4/$772.8 million	None
	George Davis	13/$13.9 billion 1/$6.6 billion	8/$936.8 million 1/$63.2 million	68/$9.8 billion 4/$772.8 million	None
	Scott McBride	13/$13.9 billion 1/$6.6 billion	8/$936.8 million 1/$63.2 million	68/$9.8 billion 4/$772.8 million	None
	Patricia McKenna	13/$13.9 billion 1/$6.6 billion	8/$936.8 million 1/$63.2 million	68/$9.8 billion 4/$772.8 million	None
	Judd Peters	13/$13.9 billion 1/$6.6 billion	8/$936.8 million 1/$63.2 million	68/$9.8 billion 4/$772.8 million	None

AST International Growth Portfolio
Subadvisers	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
William Blair Investment Management, LLC	Simon Fennell	11/$7,587,684,019	15/$2,768,893,963	42/$7,670,308,843	None
	Kenneth J. McAtamney	7/$1,464,442,901	15/$1,554,231,858	13/$3,209,430,145	None
Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers LLC	Benjamin Segal, CFA	7/$2,112 million	6/$310 million	978/$3,507 million 3/$349 million	None
	Elias Cohen, CFA	3/$607 million	1/$73 million	3/$367 million 2/$219 million	None
Jennison Associates LLC	Mark Baribeau	4/$329,400,000	4/$559,188,000	5/$594,208,000 3/$302,991,000	None
	Thomas Davis	3/$319,297,000	4/$559,188,000	5/$594,820,000 1/$187,976,000	None

AST International Value Portfolio
Subadvisers	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
LSV Asset Management	Josef Lakonishok	36/$16,698,460,844	59/$20,020,111,810 8/$633,634,648	441/$59,152,166,724 43/$8,592,734,436	None
	Menno Vermeulen, CFA	36/$16,698,460,844	59/$20,020,111,810 8/$633,634,648	441/$59,152,166,724 43/$8,592,734,436	None
	Puneet Mansharamani, CFA	36/$16,698,460,844	59/$20,020,111,810 8/$633,634,648	441/$59,152,166,724 43/$8,592,734,436	None
	Greg Sleight	36/$16,698,460,844	59/$20,020,111,810 8/$633,634,648	441/$59,152,166,724 43/$8,592,734,436	None
	Guy Lakonishok, CFA	36/$16,698,460,844	59/$20,020,111,810 8/$633,634,648	441/$59,152,166,724 43/$8,592,734,436	None
Lazard Asset Management LLC	Michael G. Fry	10/$7,596,167,438 1/$3,007,813,925	12/$2,240,102,139	168/$14,032,188,787 1/$91,942,320	None
	Michael A. Bennett	13/$14,656,497,806 1/$3,007,813,925	15/$2,801,845,530	212/$20,266,067,432 1/$91,942,320	None
	Kevin J. Matthews	10/$7,596,167,438 1/$3,007,813,925	12/$2,240,102,139	168/$14,032,188,787 1/$91,942,320	None
	Michael Powers	10/$7,596,167,438 1/$3,007,813,925	12/$2,240,102,139	168/$14,032,188,787 1/$91,942,320	None
	John R. Reinsberg	12/$11,638,406,417	17/$2,185,920,732	84/$13,107,990,326 2/$358,385,239	None

AST Investment Grade Bond Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
PGIM Fixed Income	Richard Piccirillo	38/$40,480,558,721	27/$11,349,424,505 2/$0	125/$46,686,714,015	None
	Malcolm Dalrymple	32/$22,091,170,535	19/$3,706,784,973	70/$17,590,512,538 1/$90,405,429	None
	Erik Schiller, CFA	37/$8,206,151,189	27/$9,661,364,575 2/$2,070,023,296	138/$36,652,253,295 2/$587,170,802	None
	David Del Vecchio	31/$22,068,737,546	19/$3,706,784,973	70/$17,590,512,538 1/$90,405,429	None

AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio
Subadvisers	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
J.P. Morgan Investment Management, Inc.	Patrik Jakobson	2/$2,743,132	N/A	N/A	None
	Jeffrey Geller	36/$77,378,806	36/$26,247,189	5/$5,647,429	None
	Nicole Goldberger	4/$5,361,798	4/$393,838	18/$8,495,695	None
	Michael Feser	9/$19,783,048	N/A	N/A	None
Security Capital Research & Management Incorporated	Anthony R. Manno, Jr.	5/$938,439,659	2/$849,911,586	170/$2,487,770,126 3/$282,121,942	None
	Kenneth D. Statz	5/$938,439,659	2/$849,911,586	170/$2,487,770,126 3/$282,121,942	None
	Kevin W. Bedell	5/$938,439,659	2/$849,911,586	170/$2,487,770,126 3/$282,121,942	None

AST J.P. Morgan International Equity Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Manager	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
J.P. Morgan Investment Management, Inc.	James WT Fisher	4/$3,877,582	11/$3,416,650	14/$3,635,577 6/$1,523,523	None
	Tom Murray	6/$4,346,602	11/$3,453,310	15/$3,784,226 5/$1,338,214	None
	Shane Duffy	7/$4,357,624	11/$3,453,310	15/$3,784,226 5/$1,338,214	None

*Note: James WT Fisher has announced his intention to retire from JPMIM effective during the fourth quarter of 2017.

AST J.P. Morgan Strategic Opportunities Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
J.P. Morgan Investment Management, Inc.	Patrik Jakobson	2/$3,207,655	N/A	N/A	None
	Jeffrey Geller	36/$77,843,328	36/$26,247,189	5/$5,647,429	None
	Nicole Goldberger	4/$5,826,321	4/$393,838	18/$8,495,695	None
	Michael Feser	9/$20,247,571	N/A	N/A	None

AST Jennison Large-Cap Growth Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
Jennison Associates LLC	Michael A. Del Balso	10/$14,193,071,000	5/$1,637,778,000	2/$102,083,000	None
	Mark Shattan	N/A	1/$1,204,992,000	13/$1,481,736,000	None

AST Loomis Sayles Large-Cap Growth Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Manager	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P.	Aziz Hamzaogullari, CFA	17/$14,731,825,524	11/$2,406,806,664 1/$533,318,053	91/$10,137,418,815	None

AST Lord Abbett Core Fixed Income Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts*	Ownership of Fund Securities
Lord, Abbett & Co. LLC	Kewjin Yuoh	12/$55,615.3 million	12/$1,406.3 million	2,649/$3,551.7 million	None
	Robert A. Lee	20/$79,044.1 million	21/$4,283.5 million	4,830/$5,326.8 million	None
	Andrew H. O'Brien, CFA	12/$54,940.7 million	13/$1,417.4 million	2,649/$3,551.7 million	None
	Leah G. Traub, PhD	14/$55,336.1 million	13/$1,417.4 million	2,649/$3,551.7 million	None

AST MFS Global Equity Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
Massachusetts Financial Services Company*	David Mannheim	5/$4.3 billion	15/$22.6 billion	95/$42.8 billion 9/$2.1 billion*	None
	Roger Morley	5/$4.3 billion	16/$22.7 billion	95/$42.8 billion 9/$2.1 billion*	None
	Ryan McAllister	5/$4.3 billion	16/$22.7 billion	95/$42.8 billion 9/$2.1 billion*	None

AST MFS Growth Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Manager	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
Massachusetts Financial Services Company	Eric Fischman	6/$18.9 billion	1/$76.1 million	14/$2.6 billion	None
	Matthew Sabel	9/$18.9 billion	1/$76.1 million	15/$2.0 billion	None
	Paul Gordon*	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

*Note: Paul Gordon is expected to become co-portfolio manager in July 2017. Additional information pertaining to Paul Gordon will be provided prior to July 2017.

AST MFS Large-Cap Value Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
Massachusetts Financial Services Company	Nevin Chitkara	16/$66.3 billion	8/$7.2 billion	40/$19.4 billion	None
	Steven Gorham	15/$66.2 billion	8/$6.7 billion	40/$19.4 billion	None

AST Multi-Sector Fixed Income Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
PGIM Fixed Income	Edward H. Blaha, CFA	1/$22,432,989	13/$3,928,165,928	80/$43,430,858,864 3/$1,895,733,371	None
	Steven A. Kellner, CFA	3/$10,646,998,862	13/$3,928,165,928	85/$44,990,894,738 3/$1,895,733,371	None
	Rajat Shah, CFA	1/$22,432,989	13/$3,928,165,928	84/$44,916,926,035 3/$1,895,733,371	None

AST Neuberger Berman/LSV Mid-Cap Value Portfolio
Subadvisers	Portfolio Manager	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers LLC	Michael Greene	3/$424 million	None	108/$153 million	None
LSV Asset Management	Josef Lakonishok	36/$17,288,965,986	59/$20,020,111,810 8/$633,634,648	441/$59,152,166,724 43/$8,592,734,436	None
	Menno Vermeulen, CFA	36/$17,288,965,986	59/$20,020,111,810 8/$633,634,648	441/$59,152,166,724 43/$8,592,734,436	None
	Puneet Mansharamani, CFA	36/$17,288,965,986	59/$20,020,111,810 8/$633,634,648	441/$59,152,166,724 43/$8,592,734,436	None
	Greg Sleight	36/$17,288,965,986	59/$20,020,111,810 8/$633,634,648	441/$59,152,166,724 43/$8,592,734,436	None
	Guy Lakonishok, CFA	36/$17,288,965,986	59/$20,020,111,810 8/$633,634,648	441/$59,152,166,724 43/$8,592,734,436	None

AST New Discovery Asset Allocation Portfolio
Adviser/Subadvisers	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
PGIM Investments LLC	Brian Ahrens, CFA	12/$46,418,170,583.52	None	None	None
	Andrei O. Marinich, CFA	12/$46,418,170,583.52	None	None	None
C.S. McKee	Greg Melvin	2/$236.34 million	2/$54.20 million	364/$9,030.50 million	None
	Bryan Johanson	2/$236.34 million	2/$54.20 million	327/$8,893.27 million	None
	Brian Allen	2/$236.34 million	2/$54.20 million	327/$8,893.27 million	None
	Jack White	2/$236.34 million	2/$54.20 million	327/$8,893.27 million	None
	Andrew Faderewski	2/$236.34 million	2/$54.20 million	327/$8,893.27 million	None
EARNEST	Paul Viera	8/$3,128.2 million	30/$2,340.4 million	132/$9,287.0 million 6/$1,195.0 million	None
Epoch	David N. Pearl	8/$2,2,338 million	24/$9,776 million	62/$7,321 million 8/$1,374 million	None
	Michael A. Welhoelter, CFA	21/$11,617 million	45/$14,040 million 1/$32 million	127/$14,896 million 11/$1,765 million	None
	John P. Reddan, CFA	None	None	2/$325 million	None
Longfellow Investment Management Co. LLC	Barbara J. McKenna, CFA	3/$346 million	2/$432 million	42/$4,724 million	None
	David C. Stuehr, CFA	3/$346 million	2/$432 million	32/$197 million	None
Parametric Portfolio Associates LLC	Justin Henne, CFA	32/$820 million	4/$2,937 million	54/$9,847 million	None
	Daniel Wamre, CFA	None	4/$2,937 million	54/$9,847 million	None
TSW	Brandon Harrell, CFA	7/$5.9 billion	4/$1.1 billion	14/$3.3 billion	None
Affinity Investment Advisors, LLC	Gregory R Lai, CFA	1/$5.0 million	N/A	200/$1.1 billion	None
	Michael Petrino	1/$5.0 million	N/A	200/$1.1 billion	None
Boston Advisors, LLC	Douglas A. Riley, CFA	9/$2,719,943,275	6/$131,461,756	9/$168,282,507	None
	Michael J. Vogelzang, CFA	10/$2,765,029,308	6/$131,461,756	99/$344,036,216	None
	David Hanna	10/$2,765,029,308	6/$131,461,756	37/$68,666,214	None

AST Parametric Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
Parametric Portfolio Associates^® LLC	Thomas Seto	29/$21,068 million	12/$3,579 million	28,893/$67,418 million	None
	Timothy Atwill, PhD, CFA	9/$6,280 million	6/$3,172 million	66/$4,134 million	None

AST Preservation Asset Allocation Portfolio
Adviser/Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies*	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles*	Other Accounts*	Ownership of Fund Securities
PGIM Investments LLC	Brian Ahrens	12/$40,564,337,889.45	None	None	None
	Andrei O. Marinich, CFA	12/$40,564,337,889.45	None	None	None
Quantitative Management Associates LLC	Marcus Perl	33/$67,074,392,104	5/$1,517,683,066	21/$1,884,026,913	None
	Edward L. Campbell, CFA	32/$66,586,569,499	5/$1,517,683,066	19/$1,639,245,804	None
	Joel M. Kallman, CFA	32/$66,586,569,499	5/$1,517,683,066	19/$1,639,245,804	None

AST Prudential Core Bond Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
PGIM Fixed Income/PGIM Limited	Michael J. Collins, CFA	29/$47,393,254,307	11/$7,984,294,508	70/$18,657,029,107	None
	Richard Piccirillo	38/$42,457,435,507	27/$11,349,424,505 2/$0	125/$46,686,714,015	None
	Gregory Peters	14/$33,703,296,254	9/$3,351,532,122	35/$16,299,449,532	None

AST Prudential Growth Allocation
Subadvisers	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies*	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles*	Other Accounts*	Ownership of Fund Securities
PGIM Fixed Income/PGIM Limited	Michael J. Collins, CFA	29/$47,733,047,968	11/$7,984,294,508	70/$18,657,029,107	None
	Richard Piccirillo	38/$42,797,229,168	27/$11,349,424,505 2/$0	125/$46,686,714,015	None
	Gregory Peters	14/$34,043,089,915	9/$3,351,532,122	35/$16,299,449,532	None
Quantitative Management Associates, LLC	Stacie Mintz	14/$15,919,309,219	10/$3,006,786,902	44/$5,713,377,293 5/$1,393,218,251	None
	Edward F Keon, Jr.	32/$73,094,663,986	5/$1,517,683,066	19/$1,639,245,804	None
	Jacob Pozharny, PhD	6/$2,436,724,639	7/$2,302,973,978	33/$6,592,946,783 12/$2,841,196,761	None
	Edward L. Campbell, CFA	32/$73,094,663,986	5/$1,517,683,066	19/$1,639,245,804	None
	Joel Kallman, CFA	32/$73,094,663,986	5/$1,517,683,066	19/$1,639,245,804	None

AST QMA Large-Cap Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies*	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles*	Other Accounts*	Ownership of Fund Securities
Quantitative Management Associates LLC	Devang Gambhirwala	15/$13,553,509,694	10/$3,006,786,902	46/$5,958,158,402 5/$1,393,218,251	None
	Stacie L. Mintz, CFA	14/$13,065,687,089	10/$3,006,786,902	44/$5,713,377,293 5/$1,393,218,251	None

AST QMA US Equity Alpha Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies*	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles*	Other Accounts*	Ownership of Fund Securities
Quantitative Management Associates LLC	Stacie L. Mintz, CFA	14/$15,358,408,900	10/$3,006,786,902	44/$5,713,377,293 5/$1,393,218,251	None
	Devang Gambhirwala	15/$15,846,231,506	10/$3,006,786,902	46/$5,958,158,402 5/$1,393,218,251	None

AST Quantitative Modeling Portfolio
Adviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies*	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles*	Other Accounts*	Ownership of Fund Securities
PGIM Investments LLC	Brian Ahrens	12/$46,140,752,880.99	None	None	None
	Andrei O. Marinich, CFA	12/$46,140,752,880.99	None	None	None
Quantitative Management Associates LLC	Marcus Perl	33/$72,650,234,413	5/$1,517,683,066	21/$1,884,026,913	None
	Edward F. Keon, Jr.	32/$72,162,411,808	5/$1,517,683,066	19/$1,639,245,804	None
	Ted Lockwood	33/$72,679,717,671	5/$1,517,683,066	22/$1,910,309,104 1/$26,282,190	None
	Edward L. Campbell, CFA	32/$72,162,411,808	5/$1,517,683,066	19/$1,639,245,804	None
	Rory Cummings, CFA	32/$72,162,411,808	5/$1,517,683,066	19/$1,639,245,804	None

AST RCM World Trends Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
Allianz Global Investors U.S. LLC	Dr. Herold Rohweder	None	9/$478 million	4/$1,105 million	None
	Dr. Matthias Müller	None	9/$478 million	4/$1,105 million	None
	Giorgio Carlino	5/$869 million	9/$478 million	4/$1,105 million	None
	Dr. Michael Stamos	5/$869 million	9/$478 million	4/$1,105 million	None
	Claudio Marsala	9/$616 million	9/$478 million	4/$1,105 million	None

AST Small-Cap Growth Portfolio
Subadvisers	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
UBS Asset Management (Americas) Inc.	David Wabnik	1/$172 million	1/$76 million	7/$349 million 2/$256 million	None

AST Small-Cap Growth Portfolio
Subadvisers	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
	Samuel Kim	1/$172 million	1/$76 million	7/$349 million 2/$256 million	None
Emerald Mutual Fund Advisers Trust	Kenneth G. Mertz II, CFA	4/$2.1 billion	None	38/$2.2 billion	None
	Stacey L. Sears	3/$1.7 billion	None	38/$2.2 billion	None
	Joseph W. Garner	3/$1.7 billion	None	38/$2.2 billion	None

AST Small-Cap Growth Opportunities Portfolio
Subadvisers	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
Victory Capital Management Inc.	Stephen J. Bishop	10/$5,860,000,000	None	8/$420,000,000 2/$96,000,000	None
	Melissa Chadwick-Dunn	9/$5,720,000,000	None	8/$420,000,000 2/$96,000,000	None
	D. Scott Tracy, CFA	9/$5,720,000,000	None	8/$420,000,000 2/$96,000,000	None
	Christopher W. Clark, CFA	10/$5,860,000,000	None	8/$420,000,000 2/$96,000,000	None
Wellington Management Company LLP	Mammen Chally, CFA	14/$9,615,585,291	4/$154,315,375	10/$1,018,506,685 1/$193,682,037	None
	David A. Siegle, CFA	14/$9,615,585,291	3/$151,024,809	10/$1,018,506,685 1/$193,682,037	None
	Douglas W. McLane, CFA	15/$9,676,900,111	3/$151,024,809	10/$1,018,506,685 1/$193,682,037	None

AST Small-Cap Value Portfolio
Subadvisers	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
J.P. Morgan Investment Management, Inc.	Dennis Ruhl	25/$15,103,613	9/$2,795,562 2/$1,236,496	22/$1,668,282	None
	Phillip D. Hart	16/$8,432,153	3/$972,209	11/$1,626,847	None
LMCG Investments, LLC	R. Todd Vingers, CFA	6/$951,326,097	16/$263,576,038	73/$1,249,831,168	None

AST T. Rowe Price Asset Allocation Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.	Charles Shriver, CFA	11/$21,034,281,697	17/$3,283,929,663	6/$1,407,998,476	None
	Toby M. Thompson, CFA, CAIA	3/$1,485,943,775	16/$3,231,680,085	5/$470,501,648	None

AST T. Rowe Price Growth Opportunities Portfolio
Subadvisers	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc./ T. Rowe Price International, Ltd.	Charles Shriver, CFA	11/$34,410,529,419	17/$3,283,929,663	6/$1,407,998,476	None
	Toby Thompson, CFA, CAIA	3/$14,862,191,497	16/$3,231,680,085	5/$470,501,648	None

AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Growth Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Manager	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.	Taymour Tamaddon, CFA	None	None	None	None

AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Value Portfolio (formerly, AST Value Equity Portfolio)
Subadviser	Portfolio Manager	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.	Mark S. Finn, CFA, CPA	7/$14,795,321,433	4/$6,834,622,669	30/$5,456,845,018	None
	John D. Linehan, CFA	14/$41,308,442,419	6/$9,141,522,636	31/$6,037,736,624	None

AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Value Portfolio (formerly, AST Value Equity Portfolio)
Subadviser	Portfolio Manager	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
	Heather K. McPherson	5/$10,349,462,574	2/$1,390,886,048	25/$4,384,750,828	None

AST T. Rowe Price Natural Resources Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Manager	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.	Shawn Driscoll	1/$3,625,672,754	2/$456,203,949	2/$102,637,575	None

AST Templeton Global Bond Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
Franklin Advisers, Inc.	Michael Hasenstab, PhD	17/$57,310.1 million	42/$62,349.7 million 2/$301.3 million	18/$5,903.7 million 2/$2,411.6 million	None
	Christine Zhu	2/$1,777.3 million	5/$8,991.2 million	7/$2,683.8 million 1/$1,946.9 million	None

AST Wedge Capital Mid-Cap Value Portfolio
Subadvisers	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
WEDGE Capital Management, LLP	Brian J. Pratt, CFA	3/$644,000,000	3/$573,000,000	216/$6,720,000,000	None
	Caldwell Calame, CFA	3/$644,000,000	3/$573,000,000	216/$6,720,000,000	None
	John Norman	3/$644,000,000	3/$573,000,000	216/$6,720,000,000	None

AST Wellington Management Hedged Equity Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
Wellington Management Company LLP	Kent M. Stahl, CFA	12/$15,859,340,559	5/$383,429,045 1/$5,344,037	3/$4,402,321,269 1/$2,005,046,039	None
	Gregg R. Thomas, CFA	12/$15,859,340,559	6/$1,098,882,384 2/$720,660,477	3/$4,402,321,269 1/$2,005,046,039	None

AST Western Asset Core Plus Bond Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
Western Asset Management Company/Western Asset Management Company Limited	S. Kenneth Leech	100/$151,481,049,287	271/$82,435,959,301 7/$1,587,321,702	613/$188,457,949,226 66/$18,473,544,741	None
	Mark S. Lindbloom	21/$41,054,242,607	21/$11,416,670,931	156/$37,638,570,409 28/$7,411,819,109	None
	Chia-Liang Lian	24/$35,294,060,564	41/$14,152,593,438 1/$115,241,938	158/$30,260,793,871 32/$7,605,330,569	None
	Carl L. Eichstaedt	17/$38,352,620,969	24/$12,179,030,898	155/$46,710,604,489 28/$7,583,401,163	None
	Michael C. Buchanan	44/$42,765,492,585	88/$36,410,361,229 3/$1,149,356,626	241/$78,520,141,715 30/$11,484,259,479	None
	Julien A. Scholnick	8/$27,827,838,573	7/$3,617,000,897	44/$10,453,308,221 1/$93,139,510	None

AST Western Asset Emerging Markets Debt Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Fund Securities
Western Asset Management Company—Western Asset Management Company Ltd.	S. Kenneth Leech	100/$151,481,049,287	271/$82,435,959,301 7/$1,587,321,702	613/$188,457,949,226 66/$18,473,544,741	None
	Chia-Liang Lian	24/$35,294,060,564	41/$14,152,593,438 1/$115,241,938	158/$30,260,793,871 32/$7,605,330,569	None
	Gordon S. Brown	4/$1,992,013,113	18/$3,681,284,792 1/$115,241,938	75/$24,633,894,662 7/$5,048,444,175	None
	Kevin Ritter	4/$1,498,534,287	8/$1,090,617,510	36/$2,977,294,221	None

Notes to Other Account Tables:

First Quadrant

⁽¹⁾ Includes market values for fully funded portfolios and the notional values for margin funded portfolios, all actively managed by First Quadrant and non-discretionary portfolios managed by joint venture partners using First Quadrant, L.P. investment signals. First Quadrant is defined in this context as the combination of all discretionary portfolios of First Quadrant, L.P. and its joint venture partners, but only wherein FQ has full investment discretion over the portfolios. When calculating number of accounts managed for registered investment companies, First Quadrant counts sub-strategies managed for any one registered investment company separately. Therefore there may be two accounts managed and enumerated for one registered investment company.
CoreCommodity

* The information presented above (current as of December 31, 2016) is designed to provide additional information about CoreCommodity, the portfolio manager of CoreCommodity responsible for the Portfolio's investments, and the means by which such person is compensated for his services. Assets are measured at notional value for managed accounts, and net asset value for pooled vehicles. Investors in private investment funds have the option of choosing a performance fee.

Jennison

* Other Accounts excludes the assets and number of accounts in wrap fee programs that are managed using model portfolios.

** Excludes performance fee accounts.

Lord Abbett

*Does not include “Other Accounts” representing $772.3 million, for which Lord Abbett provides investment models to managed account sponsors.
MFS

* With respect to the accounts identified in the table above, Mr. Mannheim manages 9 other accounts with assets totaling $2.1 billion, Mr. McAllister manages 9 other accounts with assets totaling $2.1 billion, and Mr. Morley manages 9 other accounts with assets totaling $2.1 billion, for which the advisory fees are based in part on the performance of the accounts. Performance fees for any particular account are paid to MFS, not the portfolio manager, and the portfolio manager`s compensation is not determined by reference to the level of performance fees received by MFS.

MSIM

*3 accounts with total assets of $2,214 million are subject to an advisory fee that is also based on the performance of the account.

Neuberger Berman

⁽¹⁾ Registered Investment Companies include all mutual funds managed by the portfolio manager.

⁽²⁾ Other Accounts include: Institutional Separate Accounts, Sub-Advised Accounts, and Managed Accounts (WRAP)

*”Other Accounts” includes without limitation managed accounts, which are counted as one account per strategy per managed account platform.

**A portion of certain accounts may be managed by other portfolio managers; however, the total assets of such accounts are included above even though the portfolio manager listed above is not involved in the day-to-day management of the entire account.

QMA:

“Other Pooled Investment Vehicles” includes commingled insurance company separate accounts, commingled trust funds and other commingled investment vehicles. “Other Accounts” includes single client accounts, managed accounts (which are counted as one account per managed account platform), asset allocation clients, and accounts of affiliates. The assets in certain accounts have been estimated due to the availability of information only at the end of calendar quarters.

* Accounts are managed on a team basis. If a portfolio manager is a member of a team, any account managed by that team is included in the number of accounts and total assets for such portfolio manager (even if such portfolio manager is not primarily involved in the day-to-day management of the account).

WEDGE

* WEDGE utilizes a team-based approach in which the portfolio managers are jointly and primarily responsible for the day-to-day management of investment accounts.

PORTFOLIO MANAGERS: COMPENSATION & CONFLICTS POLICIES

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE PORTFOLIO MANAGERS—COMPENSATION AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Set forth below, for each portfolio manager, is an explanation of the structure of and method(s) used by each subadviser to determine, portfolio manager compensation. Also set forth below, for each portfolio manager, is an explanation of any material conflicts of interest that may arise between a portfolio manager's management of a Portfolio's investments and investments in other accounts.

Affinity Investment Advisors, LLC

COMPENSATION. The portfolio managers are paid a base salary and a discretionary bonus. Portfolio managers are eligible for equity ownership, which is determined solely by the discretion of Affinity’s directors, and is intended to reward the efforts of employees through a tie-in to the long term success of the firm.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. In addition to sub-advising the Fund, the Sub-Adviser manages assets for other separately managed accounts and another 40 Act Fund. Many of the Sub-Adviser’s clients participate in investment programs that have investment objectives, policies and strategies that are substantially similar to the Fund. Other clients of the Sub-Adviser may have differing investment programs, objectives, policies and strategies. In general, when a portfolio manager has responsibility for managing more than one account, potential conflicts of interest may arise. Those conflicts could include preferential treatment of one account over others in terms of allocation of resources or of investment opportunities. For instance, the Sub-Adviser may receive fees from certain accounts that are higher than the fee it receives from the Fund, or the Sub-Adviser could receive performance-based fees on certain accounts. The procedures to address conflicts of interest, if any, are described below.

The Sub-Adviser attempts to avoid conflicts of interest that may arise as a result of the management of multiple client accounts. From time to time, a portfolio manager may recommend or cause a client to invest in a security or other instrument in which another client of the Sub-Adviser has an ownership position. The Sub-Adviser has adopted certain procedures intended to treat all client accounts in a fair and equitable manner. To the extent that the portfolio manager seeks to purchase or sell the same security or other instrument for multiple client accounts, the Sub-Adviser may aggregate, or bunch, these orders where the portfolio manager deems this to be

appropriate and consistent with applicable regulatory requirements. When a bunched order is filled in its entirety, each participating client account will participate at the average share prices for the bunched order. When a bunched order is only partially filled, the securities or other instruments purchased will be allocated on a pro-rata basis to each account participating in the bunched order based upon the initial amount requested for the account, subject to certain exceptions. Each participating account will receive the average share price for the bunched order on the same business day.

AlphaSimplex Group, LLC

COMPENSATION. All AlphaSimplex investment professionals, including portfolio managers, may receive compensation in three ways: salary, year-end bonuses, and supplemental bonuses. The bonus amounts are decided by the AlphaSimplex Compensation Committee. As a retention tool, AlphaSimplex has implemented a three-year deferral of a significant portion of bonus amounts for senior professionals.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Conflicts of interest may arise in the allocation of investment opportunities and the allocation of aggregated orders among the Fund and other accounts managed by a portfolio manager. A portfolio manager potentially could give favorable treatment to some accounts for a variety of reasons, including favoring larger accounts, accounts that pay higher fees, accounts that pay performance-based fees, accounts of affiliated companies and accounts in which the portfolio manager has an interest. Such favorable treatment could lead to more favorable investment opportunities or allocations for some accounts. AlphaSimplex's goal is to meet its fiduciary obligation with respect to all clients and AlphaSimplex has adopted policies and procedures to mitigate the effects of the conflicts described above.

AQR Capital Management, LLC

COMPENSATION.

Compensation for Portfolio Managers that are Principals of AQR: The compensation for each of the portfolio managers that are a Principal of AQR, as applicable, is in the form of distributions based on the net income generated by AQR, as applicable, and each Principal’s relative ownership in AQR, as applicable. Net income distributions are a function of assets under management and performance of the funds and accounts managed by the AQR, as applicable. A Principal’s relative ownership in AQR, as applicable, is based on cumulative research, leadership and other contributions to AQR, as applicable. There is no direct linkage between assets under management, performance and compensation. However, there is an indirect linkage in that superior performance tends to attract assets and thus increase revenues. Each portfolio manager is also eligible to participate in a 401(k) retirement plan which is offered to all employees of AQR, as applicable.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Each of the portfolio managers is also responsible for managing other accounts in addition to the respective Portfolio or Portfolios which the portfolio manager manages, including other accounts of AQR or its affiliates. Other accounts may include, without limitation, separately managed accounts for foundations, endowments, pension plans, and high net-worth families; registered investment companies; unregistered investment companies relying on either Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act (such companies are commonly referred to as “hedge funds”); foreign investment companies; and may also include accounts or investments managed or made by the portfolio managers in a personal or other capacity (“Proprietary Accounts”). Management of other accounts in addition to the Portfolios can present certain conflicts of interest, as described below.

From time to time, potential conflicts of interest may arise between a portfolio manager’s management of the investments of a Portfolio, on the one hand, and the management of other accounts, on the other. The other accounts might have similar investment objectives or strategies as the Portfolios, or otherwise hold, purchase, or sell securities that are eligible to be held, purchased or sold by the Portfolios. Because of their positions with the Portfolios, the portfolio managers know the size, timing and possible market impact of a Portfolio’s trades. It is theoretically possible that the portfolio managers could use this information to the advantage of other accounts they manage and to the possible detriment of a Portfolio.

A potential conflict of interest may arise as a result of a portfolio manager’s management of a number of accounts (including Proprietary Accounts) with similar investment strategies. Often, an investment opportunity may be suitable for both a Portfolio and other accounts, but may not be available in sufficient quantities for both the Portfolio and the other accounts to participate fully. Similarly, there may be limited opportunity to sell an investment held by a Portfolio and another account. In addition, different account guidelines and/or differences within particular investment strategies may lead to the use of different investment practices for portfolios with a similar investment strategy. The portfolio managers will not necessarily purchase or sell the same securities at the same time, same direction, or in the same proportionate amounts for all eligible accounts, particularly if different accounts have materially different amounts of capital under management by AQR, different amounts of investable cash available, different strategies, or different risk tolerances. As a result, although AQR manage numerous accounts and/or portfolios with similar or identical investment objectives, or may manage accounts with different objectives that trade in the same securities, the portfolio decisions relating to these accounts, and the performance resulting from such decisions, may differ from account to account.

Whenever decisions are made to buy or sell securities by the Portfolio and one or more of the other accounts (including Proprietary Accounts) simultaneously, AQR or the portfolio manager may aggregate the purchases and sales of the securities and will allocate the securities transactions in a manner that it believes to be equitable under the circumstances. To this end, AQR has adopted policies and procedures that are intended to ensure that investment opportunities are allocated equitably among accounts over time. As a result of the allocations, there may be instances where a Portfolio will not participate in a transaction that is allocated among other accounts or a Portfolio may not be allocated the full amount of the securities sought to be traded. While these aggregation and allocation policies could have a detrimental effect on the price or amount of the securities available to the Portfolio from time to time, it is the opinion of AQR, as applicable, that the overall benefits outweigh any disadvantages that may arise from this practice. Subject to applicable laws and/or account restrictions, AQR may buy, sell or hold securities for other accounts while entering into a different or opposite investment decision for the Portfolios.

AQR and the Portfolios’ portfolio managers may also face a conflict of interest where some accounts pay higher fees to AQR than others, such as by means of performance fees. Specifically, the entitlement to a performance fee in managing one or more accounts may create an incentive for AQR to take risks in managing assets that it would not otherwise take in the absence of such arrangements. Additionally, since performance fees reward AQR for performance in accounts which are subject to such fees, AQR may have an incentive to favor these accounts over those that have only fixed asset-based fees with respect to areas such as trading opportunities, trade allocation, and allocation of new investment opportunities.

AQR has implemented specific policies and procedures (e.g., a code of ethics and trade allocation policies) that seek to address potential conflicts of interest that may arise in connection with the management of the Portfolios and other accounts and that are designed to ensure that all client accounts are treated fairly and equitably over time.

BLACKROCK, INC. AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES

COMPENSATION OF PORTFOLIO MANAGERS. The discussion below describes the portfolio managers’ compensation as of December 31, 2016.

BlackRock’s financial arrangements with its portfolio managers, its competitive compensation and its career path emphasis at all levels reflect the value senior management places on key resources. Compensation may include a variety of components and may vary from year to year based on a number of factors. The principal components of compensation include a base salary, a performance-based discretionary bonus, participation in various benefits programs and one or more of the incentive compensation programs established by BlackRock.

Base compensation. Generally, portfolio managers receive base compensation based on their position with the firm.

Discretionary Incentive Compensation – Messrs. Christofel, Fredericks, Green and Shingler

Discretionary incentive compensation is a function of several components: the performance of BlackRock, Inc., the performance of the portfolio manager’s group within BlackRock, the investment performance, including risk-adjusted returns, of the firm’s assets under management or supervision by that portfolio manager, and the individual’s performance and contribution to the overall performance of these portfolios and BlackRock. Among other things, BlackRock’s Chief Investment Officers make a subjective determination with respect to each portfolio manager’s compensation based on the performance of the Funds and other accounts managed by each portfolio manager. Performance of multi-asset class funds is generally measured on a pre-tax basis over various time periods including 1-, 3- and 5- year periods, as applicable. The performance of Messrs. Christofel, Fredericks, Green and Shingler is not measured against a specific benchmark.

Discretionary Incentive Compensation – Messrs. MacLellan, Miller, Musmanno, Rieder and Rogal

Discretionary incentive compensation is a function of several components: the performance of BlackRock, Inc., the performance of the portfolio manager’s group within BlackRock, the investment performance, including risk-adjusted returns, of the firm’s assets under management or supervision by that portfolio manager relative to predetermined benchmarks, and the individual’s performance and contribution to the overall performance of these portfolios and BlackRock. In most cases, these benchmarks are the same as the benchmark or benchmarks against which the performance of the Funds or other accounts managed by the portfolio managers are measured. Among other things, BlackRock’s Chief Investment Officers make a subjective determination with respect to each portfolio manager’s compensation based on the performance of the Funds and other accounts managed by each portfolio manager relative to the various benchmarks. Performance of fixed income funds is measured on a pre-tax and/or after-tax basis over various time periods including 1-, 3- and 5- year periods, as applicable. With respect to these portfolio managers, such benchmarks for the Funds and other accounts are:

Portfolio Manager	Benchmarks
Scott MacLellan Tom Musmanno	A combination of market-based indices (e.g., Bloomberg Barclays US Aggregate Bond Index), certain customized indices and certain fund industry peer groups.
Bob Miller Rick Rieder David Rogal	A combination of market-based indices (e.g., Bloomberg Barclays US Aggregate Bond Index), certain customized indices and certain fund industry peer groups.

Distribution of Discretionary Incentive Compensation. Discretionary incentive compensation is distributed to portfolio managers in a combination of cash and BlackRock, Inc. restricted stock units which vest ratably over a number of years. For some portfolio managers, discretionary incentive compensation is also distributed in deferred cash awards that notionally track the returns of select BlackRock investment products they manage and that vest ratably over a number of years. The BlackRock, Inc. restricted stock units, upon vesting, will be settled in BlackRock, Inc. common stock. Typically, the cash portion of the discretionary incentive compensation, when combined with base salary, represents more than 60% of total compensation for the portfolio managers. Paying a portion of discretionary incentive compensation in BlackRock, Inc. stock puts compensation earned by a portfolio manager for a given year “at risk” based on BlackRock’s ability to sustain and improve its performance over future periods. Providing a portion of discretionary incentive compensation in deferred cash awards that notionally track the BlackRock investment products they manage provides direct alignment with investment product results.

Long-Term Incentive Plan Awards — From time to time long-term incentive equity awards are granted to certain key employees to aid in retention, align their interests with long-term shareholder interests and motivate performance. Equity awards are generally granted in the form of BlackRock, Inc. restricted stock units that, once vested, settle in BlackRock, Inc. common stock. The portfolio managers of these Funds have unvested long-term incentive awards.

Deferred Compensation Program — A portion of the compensation paid to eligible United States-based BlackRock employees may be voluntarily deferred at their election for defined periods of time into an account that tracks the performance of certain of the firm’s investment products. Any portfolio manager who is either a managing director or director at BlackRock with compensation above a specified threshold is eligible to participate in the deferred compensation program.

Other Compensation Benefits. In addition to base salary and discretionary incentive compensation, portfolio managers may be eligible to receive or participate in one or more of the following:

Incentive Savings Plans — BlackRock, Inc. has created a variety of incentive savings plans in which BlackRock employees are eligible to participate, including a 401(k) plan, the BlackRock Retirement Savings Plan (RSP), and the BlackRock Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP). The employer contribution components of the RSP include a company match equal to 50% of the first 8% of eligible pay contributed to the plan capped at $5,000 per year, and a company retirement contribution equal to 3-5% of eligible compensation up to the Internal Revenue Service limit ($265,000 for 2016). The RSP offers a range of investment options, including registered investment companies and collective investment funds managed by the firm. BlackRock contributions follow the investment direction set by participants for their own contributions or, absent participant investment direction, are invested into a target date fund that corresponds to, or is closest to, the year in which the participant attains age 65. The ESPP allows for investment in BlackRock common stock at a 5% discount on the fair market value of the stock on the purchase date. Annual participation in the ESPP is limited to the purchase of 1,000 shares of common stock or a dollar value of $25,000 based on its fair market value on the purchase date. All of the eligible portfolio managers are eligible to participate in these plans.

advice or services concerning securities of companies of which any of BlackRock’s (or its affiliates’ or significant shareholders’) officers, directors or employees are directors or officers, or companies as to which BlackRock or any of its affiliates or significant shareholders or the officers, directors and employees of any of them has any substantial economic interest or possesses material non-public information. Certain portfolio managers also may manage accounts whose investment strategies may at times be opposed to the strategy utilized for a fund. It should also be noted that Messrs. MacLellan, Miller, Musmanno, Rieder and Rogal may be managing hedge fund and/or long only accounts, or may be part of a team managing hedge fund and/or long only accounts, subject to incentive fees. Messrs. MacLellan, Miller, Musmanno, Rieder and Rogal may therefore be entitled to receive a portion of any incentive fees earned on such accounts.

As a fiduciary, BlackRock owes a duty of loyalty to its clients and must treat each client fairly. When BlackRock purchases or sells securities for more than one account, the trades must be allocated in a manner consistent with its fiduciary duties. BlackRock attempts to allocate investments in a fair and equitable manner among client accounts, with no account receiving preferential treatment. To this end, BlackRock has adopted policies that are intended to ensure reasonable efficiency in client transactions and provide BlackRock with sufficient flexibility to allocate investments in a manner that is consistent with the particular investment discipline and client base, as appropriate.

Boston Advisors, LLC

COMPENSATION. Portfolio Managers listed above who are directly responsible for service to the Fund receive a base salary and bonus. Additionally, each member named above has an equity ownership interest in Boston Advisors. Bonus is based on a percent of salary subject to achievement of internally established goals and relative performance of composite products managed by the portfolio manager as measured against industry peer group rankings established by Evestment Alliance. Performance is account weighted, time weighted and evaluated on a pre-tax, annual basis. Discretionary bonuses may also be given and are dependent upon individual contribution to firm profitability and overall firm-wide profitability. The method used to determine the portfolio manager’s compensation does not differ with respect to distinct institutional products managed by institutional portfolio manager. Regarding the compensation of Michael J. Vogelzang, as President of Boston Advisors, his compensation is based on the profitability of the firm. Mr. Vogelzang’s compensation is not directly linked to the performance of the Fund or other Accounts.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Boston Advisors manages multiple separately managed accounts for institutional and individual clients (“Accounts”) in addition to mutual funds, each of which may have distinct investment objectives, some similar to the Fund and others different. Managing multiple accounts will typically present a conflict of interest. For example, at times Boston Advisors may determine that an investment opportunity may be appropriate for only some Accounts or may decide that certain of the Accounts should take differing positions with respect to a particular security. In these cases, Boston Advisors may place separate transactions for one or more separate Accounts, which may affect the market price of the security or the execution of the transaction, or both, to the detriment of one Account over another, including the Fund. Also, Boston Advisors may receive a greater advisory fee for managing an Account than received for advising the Fund which may create an incentive to allocate more favorable transactions to such Accounts. Additionally, Boston Advisors may, from time to time, recommend an Account purchase shares of the Fund or Boston Advisors or its affiliates may buy or sell for itself, or other Accounts, investments that it recommends on behalf of the Fund. Boston Advisors utilizes soft dollars whereby it may purchase research and services using commission dollars generated by the Fund. Often, the research and services purchased using the Fund’s commissions benefit other Accounts of Boston Advisors. Soft dollars may create an actual or perceived conflict of interest whereas Boston Advisors may have an incentive to initiate more transactions to generate soft dollar credits or may select only those brokers willing to offer soft dollar credits when placing transactions for the Fund.

To mitigate these inherent conflicts of interest, Boston Advisors has adopted policies designed to address the potential conflicts of interest. Specifically, Boston Advisors has adopted trade aggregation and rotation policies designed for fair and equitable treatment across all client accounts. Additionally, the Compliance department conducts surveillance to detect incidents of preferential treatment that may occur for more favored clients. Also, Boston Advisors has appointed a soft dollar committee to oversee all aspects of Boston Advisors’ soft dollar practices and a best execution committee who routinely reviews the execution quality of large institutional accounts to ensure consistency in quality and cost.

Further, all institutional client accounts, including the Fund, receive the same access to personnel, services, research and advice. Our institutional investment process is designed to benefit all client accounts. All institutional accounts are managed by a member(s) of the institutional team, each of which rely on the same institutional investment process. The institutional investment process uses research which is shared firm-wide for all products and accounts. Finally, because trades placed for the Fund will be block traded with the other institutional Large Cap Growth accounts they are averaged price so that no account receives preferential treatment.

To avoid conflicts associated with accounts that have performance based fees, Boston Advisors does not manage accounts which have performance based fees.

Brown Advisory, LLC.

COMPENSATION. Brown Advisory compensates its portfolio managers with a compensation package that includes a base salary and variable incentive bonus. The incentive bonus is subjective. It takes into consideration a number of factors including but not limited to performance, client satisfaction and service and the profitability of the business. Portfolio managers who are members of Brown Advisory’s management team may maintain a significant equity interest in the Brown Advisory enterprise. When evaluating a portfolio manager’s performance, Brown Advisory compares the pre-tax performance of a portfolio manager’s accounts to a relative broad-based market index over a trailing 1-, 3- and 5-year time period. The performance bonus is distributed at calendar year-end based on, among other things, the pre-tax investment return over the prior 1-, 3- and 5-year periods.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Brown Advisory may manage accounts in addition to the Portfolio, including proprietary accounts, employee accounts, separate accounts, private funds, long-short funds and other pooled investment vehicles. Such accounts may have different fee arrangements than the Portfolio, including performance-based fees. Management of such accounts may create conflicts of interest including but not limited to the bunching and allocation of transactions and allocation of investment opportunities. Brown Advisory may give advice and take action with respect to any of its other clients which may differ from advice given, or the timing or nature of action taken, with respect to the Portfolio; however, Brown Advisory seeks as a matter of policy, to achieve best execution and to the extent practical, to allocate investment opportunities over a period of time on a fair and equitable basis. Brown Advisory has adopted a Code of Ethics and other policies and procedures which we believe to be reasonably designed to ensure that clients are not harmed by potential or actual conflicts of interest; however, no policy or procedures can guarantee detection, avoidance or amelioration for every situation where a potential or actual conflict of interest may arise.

ClearBridge Investments, LLC

COMPENSATION. ClearBridge’s portfolio managers participate in a competitive compensation program that is designed to attract and retain outstanding investment professionals and closely align the interests of its investment professionals with those of its clients and overall firm results. The total compensation program includes a significant incentive component that rewards high performance standards, integrity, and collaboration consistent with the firm’s values. Portfolio manager compensation is reviewed and modified each year as appropriate to reflect changes in the market and to ensure the continued alignment with the goals stated above. ClearBridge’s portfolio managers and other investment professionals receive a combination of base compensation and discretionary compensation, comprising a cash incentive award and deferred incentive plans described below.

Base salary compensation. Base salary is fixed and primarily determined based on market factors and the experience and responsibilities of the investment professional within the firm.

Discretionary compensation. In addition to base compensation managers may receive discretionary compensation.

Discretionary compensation can include:

■	Cash Incentive Award.
■	ClearBridge’s Deferred Incentive Plan (CDIP) – a mandatory program that typically defers 15% of discretionary year-end compensation into ClearBridge managed products. For portfolio managers, one-third of this deferral tracks the performance of their primary managed product, one-third tracks the performance of a composite portfolio of the firm’s new products and one-third can be elected to track the performance of one or more of ClearBridge managed funds. Consequently, portfolio managers can have two-thirds of their CDIP award tracking the performance of their primary managed product.
■	For centralized research analysts, two-thirds of their deferral is elected to track the performance of one of more of ClearBridge managed funds, while one-third tracks the performance of the new product composite.
■	ClearBridge then makes a company investment in the proprietary managed funds equal to the deferral amounts by fund. This investment is a company asset held on the balance sheet and paid out to the employees in shares subject to vesting requirements.
■	Legg Mason Restricted Stock Deferral – a mandatory program that typically defers 5% of discretionary year-end compensation into Legg Mason restricted stock. The award is paid out to employees in shares subject to vesting requirements.
■	Legg Mason Restricted Stock and Stock Option Grants – a discretionary program that may be utilized as part of the total compensation program. These special grants reward and recognize significant contributions to our clients, shareholders and the firm and aid in retaining key talent.

Several factors are considered by ClearBridge Senior Management when determining discretionary compensation for portfolio managers. These include but are not limited to:

■

Investment performance. A portfolio manager’s compensation is linked to the pre-tax investment performance of the fund/accounts managed by the portfolio manager. Investment performance is calculated for 1-, 3-, and 5-year periods measured against the applicable product benchmark (e.g., a securities index and, with respect to a fund, the benchmark set forth in the fund’s Prospectus) and relative to applicable industry peer groups. The greatest weight is generally placed on 3- and 5-year performance;

■	Appropriate risk positioning that is consistent with ClearBridge’s investment philosophy and the Investment Committee/CIO approach to generation of alpha;
■	Overall firm profitability and performance;
■	Amount and nature of assets managed by the portfolio manager;
■	Contributions for asset retention, gathering and client satisfaction;
■	Contribution to mentoring, coaching and/or supervising;
■	Contribution and communication of investment ideas in ClearBridge’s Investment Committee meetings and on a day to day basis; and
■	Market compensation survey research by independent third parties.

POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.

Potential conflicts of interest may arise when the fund’s portfolio managers also have day-to-day management responsibilities with respect to one or more other funds or other accounts, as is the case for the fund’s portfolio managers.

The subadviser and the fund have adopted compliance policies and procedures that are designed to address various conflicts of interest that may arise for the subadviser and the individuals that each employs. For example, the subadviser seeks to minimize the effects of competing interests for the time and attention of portfolio managers by assigning portfolio managers to manage funds and accounts that share a similar investment style. The subadviser has also adopted trade allocation procedures that are designed to facilitate the fair allocation of investment opportunities among multiple funds and accounts. There is no guarantee, however, that the policies and procedures adopted by the subadviser and the fund will be able to detect and/or prevent every situation in which an actual or potential conflict may appear. These potential conflicts include:

Allocation of Limited Time and Attention. A portfolio manager who is responsible for managing multiple funds and/or accounts may devote unequal time and attention to the management of those funds and/or accounts. The effects of this potential conflict may be more pronounced where funds and/or accounts overseen by a particular portfolio manager have different investment strategies.

Allocation of Investment Opportunities. If a portfolio manager identifies an investment opportunity that may be suitable for multiple funds and/or accounts, the opportunity may be allocated among these several funds or accounts, which may limit a fund’s ability to take full advantage of the investment opportunity. The subadviser has adopted policies and procedures to ensure that all accounts, including the fund, are treated equitably.

Pursuit of Differing Strategies. At times, a portfolio manager may determine that an investment opportunity may be appropriate for only some of the funds and/or accounts for which he or she exercises investment responsibility, or may decide that certain of the funds and/or accounts should take differing positions with respect to a particular security. In these cases, the portfolio manager may place separate transactions for one or more funds or accounts which may affect the market price of the security or the execution of the transaction, or both, to the detriment or benefit of one or more other funds and/or accounts.

Selection of Broker/Dealers. In addition to executing trades, some broker/dealers provide brokerage and research services (as those terms are defined in Section 28(e) of the 1934 Act), which may result in the payment of higher brokerage fees than might have otherwise been available. These services may be more beneficial to certain funds or accounts than to others. For this reason, the subadviser has formed a brokerage committee that reviews, among other things, the allocation of brokerage to broker/dealers, best execution and soft dollar usage.

Variation in Compensation. A conflict of interest may arise where the financial or other benefits available to the portfolio manager differ among the funds and/or accounts that he or she manages. If the structure of the manager’s management fee (and the percentage paid to the subadviser) differs among funds and/or accounts (such as where certain funds or accounts pay higher management fees or performance-based management fees), the portfolio manager might be motivated to help certain funds and/or accounts over others. The portfolio manager might be motivated to favor funds and/or accounts in which he or she has an interest or in which the manager and/or its affiliates have interests. Similarly, the desire to maintain assets under management or to enhance the portfolio manager’s performance record or to derive other rewards, financial or otherwise, could influence the portfolio manager in affording preferential treatment to those funds and/or accounts that could most significantly benefit the portfolio manager.

CoreCommodity Management, LLC

COMPENSATION STRUCTURE

The portfolio manager’s compensation consists of the following:

Base Salary - The portfolio manager receives a fixed base salary. Base salaries are determined by considering experience and expertise and may be reviewed for adjustment annually.

Bonus – The portfolio manager is eligible to receive bonuses, which may be significantly more than his base salary, upon attaining certain performance objectives based on measures of individual, group or department success. Achievement of these goals is an important, but not exclusive, element of the bonus decision process. The portfolio manager also serves as a Co-President of CoreCommodity, and his compensation depends in large part on the profitability of CoreCommodity as a whole rather than being triggered by the performance of any one program or client account.

Other Compensation – The portfolio manager may also participate in benefit plans and programs available generally to all employees. He also receives, indirectly, compensation from an affiliate, CoreCommodity Indexes, LLC, which acts as an index sponsor to certain indexes.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Compensation. CoreCommodity could receive substantial compensation in the form of management fees even in the event the Fund/Portfolio loses value.

Advisory Time. CoreCommodity and its key personnel, including the portfolio manager, devote as much of their time to the business of the Fund/Portfolio and client accounts as in their judgment is reasonably required. However, they also provide investment advisory services for other clients (including managed accounts as well as other pooled accounts) and engage in other business ventures in which a Fund/Portfolio has no interest. As a result of these separate business activities CoreCommodity may have conflicts of interest in allocating management time, services, and functions among a Fund/Portfolio and other business ventures or clients.

By way of example, the same investment professionals for the Fund/Portfolio may perform services for other accounts. In addition, the same investment professional may implement one or more strategies or versions of a strategy for managed accounts or via collective investment vehicles such as hedge funds or commodity pools managed in parallel with a Fund/Portfolio. Further, the same investment professionals may implement other strategies related to or different from the Fund/Portfolio, including but not limited to discretionary trading strategies with an investment objective of seeking absolute returns and/or an objective of seeking significant outperformance compared to an index.

In addition, Mr. De Chiara also performs other services for CoreCommodity. For example, he acts as Co-President of CoreCommodity.

Other Clients; Allocation of Investment Opportunities. CoreCommodity is responsible for the investment decisions made on behalf of a Fund/Portfolio. As described above, there are no restrictions on the ability of CoreCommodity to exercise discretion over any number of accounts of other clients following the same or different investment objectives, philosophies and strategies as those used for a Fund/Portfolio. As a general matter, it would not be expected that accounts or collective investment vehicles with different portfolio managers would share information relating to potential transactions. Therefore, one collective investment vehicle or account may trade prior to and at a better price than another Fund/Portfolio or account trading in the same instrument.

These situations may involve conflicts between the interest of CoreCommodity or its related persons, on the one hand, and the interests of CoreCommodity’s clients (including a Fund/Portfolio), on the other.

A Fund/Portfolio may experience returns that differ from other accounts in the same strategy due to, among other factors: (a) regulatory constraints on the ability of a Fund/Portfolio to have exposure to certain contracts; (b) a Fund/Portfolio 's selection of clearing broker, which affects access to markets and exchanges (and, accordingly, instruments); (c) the effect of intra-month adjustments to the trading level of a Fund/Portfolio; (d) the manner in which a Fund/Portfolio 's cash reserves are invested; (e) the size of a Fund/Portfolio's account; (f) a Fund/Portfolio's functional currency, and (g) the effective date of the investment. Additionally, certain markets may not be liquid enough to be traded for a Fund/Portfolio.

Side-by-Side Management.

As described above, the portfolio manager may also act as investment professional for certain other CoreCommodity accounts (including collective investment vehicles and managed accounts described below) (“Other Accounts”). Other Accounts may have negotiated terms different from the terms applicable to a Fund/Portfolio. While these Other Accounts may trade the same and/or similar instruments as traded by a Fund/Portfolio, they may be distinguished from one another by their investment objectives, investment methodology, degrees of leverage, relative size, available capital, tax considerations, fee terms or other investment or trading parameters. Accordingly, the portfolio manager, on behalf of CoreCommodity, may cause purchases or sales to be effected for one or more Other Accounts while not causing such purchases or sales to be effected for a Fund/Portfolio, or alternatively may cause

purchases or sales to be effected for a Fund/Portfolio while not causing such purchases or sales to be effected for one or more Other Accounts. He also may determine to use substantially different degrees of leverage in Other Accounts when effecting a transaction, when maintaining a position, or in conducting the Other Account's activities generally. Discretion as to which collective investment vehicles or accounts will receive allocations of particular positions may occur whether investment opportunities are limited or unlimited, and opportunities to participate in transactions may not necessarily be allocated among a Fund/Portfolio and Other Accounts in any particular proportion. For example but without limitation, client accounts, in trading a new, experimental or different methodology, may enter the same markets earlier than (either days before or on the same day as) a Fund/Portfolio and Other Accounts.

CoreCommodity trades on behalf of many client accounts. We receive performance-based incentive fees from some accounts. Some accounts, such as the registered investment companies, are not subject to any form of performance-based fee. As a result, we have a possible conflict of interest, because we can potentially receive proportionately greater compensation from those accounts that pay us incentive fees than from those accounts that pay us management fees only. We have an incentive to:

■	direct the best investment ideas or give favorable allocation to those accounts that pay performance-based fees;
■	use trades by an account that does not pay performance-based fees to benefit those accounts that do pay performance-based fees, such as where a private fund sells short before a sale by an account that does not pay incentive fees, or a private fund sells a security only after an account that does not pay incentive fees has made a large purchase of the security; and
■	benefit those accounts paying a performance-based fee over those clients that do not pay performance-based fees and which have a different and potentially conflicting investment strategy.

We owe a fiduciary duty to our clients not to favor one account over another, without regard to the types and amounts of fees paid by those accounts. In light of the possible conflicts of interest described above, we have allocation policies and procedures in place to ensure that accounts are treated fairly. Where we determine to trade for more than one account in the same instruments, we generally aggregate the trades and cause the accounts to trade pari passu with each other.

The following are CoreCommodity's current specific allocation approaches. If multiple accounts qualify for participation in the purchase of a specific security or investment opportunity by a particular portfolio group, CoreCommodity will, in general, allocate the instruments among the accounts for which the instrument or investment opportunity is appropriate, on a fair and equitable basis. Common trades on the same day among securities accounts managed by the same portfolio management group generally are allocated on the basis of the relative assets committed to the strategy at the average price per share among such accounts. Common trades (defined as same contract, same month or, separately, same spread, same month(s)) on the same day among commodity futures accounts managed by the same portfolio management group generally are aggregated and randomly allocated across such strategies by fill upon execution. We may change these particular approaches from time to time to account for different markets, different investment instruments or other circumstances.

Personal Account Trading Policy. The policies of CoreCommodity require that CoreCommodity’s employees do not trade securities or commodities for their own account, except for (i) government and municipal securities, open-ended mutual funds and registered commodity pools not managed by us, or (ii) otherwise with pre-approval from CoreCommodity’s compliance personnel. Without limiting the foregoing, CoreCommodity may under certain circumstances permit an employee to maintain a position in an investment even if a Fund/Portfolio trades the instrument. The records of such trading, whether under the current or a new policy, will not be made available to a Fund/Portfolio for inspection.

Interested Transactions

The proprietary activities or portfolio strategies of CoreCommodity and its employees, or the activities or strategies used for accounts managed by CoreCommodity for other customer accounts could conflict with the transactions and strategies employed on behalf of a Fund/Portfolio and affect the prices and availability of the instruments in which a Fund/Portfolio invests.

A Fund/Portfolio may invest in futures that are components of CoreCommodity’s proprietary indices, and certain Indices used or referenced in a Fund/Portfolio may be the same as or similar to proprietary indices used by CoreCommodity. The methodologies used by CoreCommodity in making investment decisions for a Fund/Portfolio may rely on, be the same as or be related to the methodologies used by CoreCommodity to design, modify and operate its proprietary indices or trading strategies. CoreCommodity may change or discontinue operation of its proprietary indices or trading strategies at any time. CoreCommodity may receive index fees with respect to CoreCommodity sponsored indexes. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all employees of CoreCommodity when trading for their own accounts will do so in accordance with the Personal Account Trading Policy set forth above.

Position Limits. CoreCommodity may be required to aggregate, for position limit purposes, the futures positions held in the Fund/Portfolio with positions held in other accounts such as in Other Accounts. This aggregation of positions could require CoreCommodity to liquidate or modify positions for some or all of its accounts, and such liquidation or modification may adversely affect certain or all client accounts (including a Fund/Portfolio). CoreCommodity may have an incentive to favor certain other accounts over others when liquidating positions or adjusting trading strategies in the context of such limits.

General. CoreCommodity may, without prior notice to a Fund/Portfolio, arrange, recommend, and/or effect transactions in which, or provide services in circumstances where, CoreCommodity has, directly or indirectly, a material interest or relationship with another party that may present a potential conflict with CoreCommodity’s duty to a Fund/Portfolio. Certain of those transactions and services are described herein.

Cohen & Steers Capital Management, Inc. (Cohen & Steers).

COMPENSATION. Cohen & Steers's compensation of portfolio managers and other investment professionals has three primary components: (1) a base salary, (2) an annual cash bonus and (3) annual stock-based compensation consisting generally of restricted stock units of Cohen & Steers's parent, Cohen & Steers, Inc. (CNS). Cohen & Steers's investment professionals, including the portfolio managers, also receive certain retirement, insurance and other benefits that are broadly available to all of their employees. Compensation of Cohen & Steers's investment professionals is reviewed primarily on an annual basis.

Method to Determine Compensation. Cohen & Steers compensates their portfolio managers based primarily on the scale and complexity of their portfolio management responsibilities and the total return performance of funds and accounts managed by a portfolio manager versus appropriate peer groups or benchmarks. In evaluating the performance of a portfolio manager, primary emphasis is normally placed on one- and three-year performance, with secondary consideration of performance over longer periods of time. Performance is evaluated on a pre-tax and pre-expense basis. In addition to rankings within peer groups of funds on the basis of absolute performance, consideration may also be given to risk-adjusted performance. For portfolio managers responsible for multiple funds and accounts, investment performance is evaluated on an aggregate basis. Portfolio managers are also evaluated on the basis of their success in managing their dedicated team of analysts. Base compensation for portfolio managers of Cohen & Steers varies in line with the portfolio manager's seniority and position with the firm.

Salaries, bonuses and stock-based compensation are also influenced by the operating performance of Cohen & Steers and CNS. While the annual salaries of Cohen & Steers's portfolio managers are fixed, cash bonuses and stock based compensation may fluctuate significantly from year to year, based on changes in manager performance and other factors.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Although the potential for conflicts of interest exist when an investment adviser and portfolio managers manage other accounts that invest in securities in which the Fund may invest or that may pursue a strategy similar to one of the Fund’s strategies, Cohen & Steers has procedures in place that are designed to ensure that all accounts are treated fairly and that the Fund is not disadvantaged. For example, a portfolio manager may have conflicts of interest in allocating management time, resources and investment opportunities among the Fund and the other accounts or vehicles he advises. In addition, due to differences in the investment strategies or restrictions among the Fund and the other accounts, a portfolio manager may take action with respect to another account that differs from the action taken with respect to the Fund. In some cases, another account managed by a portfolio manager may provide more revenue to Cohen & Steers. While this may appear to create additional conflicts of interest for the portfolio manager in the allocation of management time, resources and investment opportunities, Cohen & Steers strives to ensure that portfolio managers endeavor to exercise their discretion in a manner that is equitable to all interested persons. In this regard, in the absence of specific account-related impediments (such as client-imposed restrictions or lack of available cash), it is the policy of Cohen & Steers to allocate investment ideas pro rata to all accounts with the same primary investment objective, except where an allocation would not produce a meaningful position size.

Certain of the portfolio managers may from time to time manage one or more accounts on behalf of Cohen & Steers, as applicable, and its affiliated companies (the CNS Accounts). Certain securities held and traded in the CNS Accounts also may be held and traded in one or more client accounts. It is the policy of Cohen & Steers, however, not to put the interests of the CNS Accounts ahead of the interests of client accounts. Cohen & Steers may aggregate orders of client accounts with those of the CNS Accounts; however, under no circumstances will preferential treatment be given to the CNS Accounts. For all orders involving the CNS Accounts, purchases or sales will be allocated prior to trade placement, and orders that are only partially filled will be allocated across all accounts in proportion to the shares each account, including the CNS Accounts, was designated to receive prior to trading, except as noted below. As a result, it is expected that the CNS Accounts will receive the same average price as other accounts included in the aggregated order. Shares will not be allocated or re-allocated to the CNS Accounts after trade execution or after the average price is known. In the event so few shares of an order are executed that a pro-rata allocation is not practical, a rotational system of allocation may be used; however, the CNS Accounts will never be part of that rotation or receive shares of a partially filled order other than on a pro-rata basis.

100

Because certain CNS Accounts are managed with a cash management objective, it is possible that a security will be sold out of the CNS Accounts but continue to be held for one or more client accounts. In situations when this occurs, such security will remain in a client account only if the portfolio manager, acting in its reasonable judgment and consistent with its fiduciary duties, believes this is appropriate for, and consistent with the objectives and profile of, the client account.

Certain accounts managed by Cohen & Steers may compensate Cohen & Steers using performance based fees. Orders for these accounts will be aggregated, to the extent possible, with any other account managed by Cohen & Steers, regardless of the method of compensation. In the event such orders are aggregated, allocation of partially-filled orders will be made on a pro-rata basis in accordance with pre-trade indications. An account’s fee structure is not considered when making allocation decisions.

Finally, the structure of a portfolio manager’s compensation may give rise to potential conflicts of interest. A portfolio manager’s base pay and bonus tend to increase with additional and more complex responsibilities that include increased assets under management. As such, there may be an indirect relationship between a portfolio manager’s marketing or sales efforts and his or her bonus.

Cohen & Steers adopted certain compliance procedures that are designed to address the above conflicts as well as other types of conflicts of interests. However, there is no guarantee that such procedures will detect each and every situation where a conflict arises.

C.S. McKee, LP

COMPENSATION. All employees at C.S. McKee are compensated in accordance with an annual compensation package comprising elements predicated upon both individual and corporate achievements.

Compensation for portfolio managers takes several forms:

■	A salary that is competitive based upon responsibility and geographic (Southwest Pennsylvania) area.
■	Incentive compensation that is based upon several elements, including 1 and 3 year net-of-fee outperformance hurdles relative to the appropriate benchmark index and achieving top quartile universe ranking. Incentives are not attained until performance exceeds the benchmarks by an amount approximating fees.
■	Ownership that takes the form of directly held limited partnership interests in the firm.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Every access person shall notify the compliance officer of the C.S. McKee of any personal conflict of interest relationship which may involve a Fund or Portfolio, such as the existence of any economic relationship between their transactions and securities held or to be acquired by any Portfolio or Fund. C.S. McKee’s compliance officer shall notify the compliance officer of a Fund of any personal conflict of interest relationship which may involve the Fund. Such notification shall occur in the pre-clearance process.

EARNEST Partners LLC

COMPENSATION. All EARNEST Partners personnel are paid a salary and a discretionary bonus. A portion of the bonus may consist of profit sharing and/or deferred compensation. The Company also matches a portion of employees' 401(k) contributions, if any. The bonus is a function of client satisfaction with respect to investment results and service. Equity ownership is another component of compensation for the portfolio managers. The firm is employee-owned.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. EARNEST Partners may be responsible for managing one or more of the Portfolios in addition to other client accounts which may include, but are not limited to, proprietary accounts, separate accounts and other pooled investment vehicles. EARNEST Partners may manage other client accounts which may have higher fee arrangements than the Portfolio(s) and/or may also have performance-based fees. Side-by-side management of these other client accounts may create potential conflicts of interest which may relate to, among other things, the allocation of investment opportunities and the aggregation and allocation of transactions.

EARNEST Partners seeks best execution with respect to all securities transactions and to aggregate and allocate the securities to client accounts in a manner that EARNEST Partners believes to be fair and equitable. EARNEST Partners has implemented policies and procedures that it believes are reasonably designed to mitigate and manage the potential conflicts of interest that may arise from side-by-side management. Specifically, EARNEST Partners manages client accounts to model portfolios that are approved by its investment committee, and aggregates and then allocates securities transactions to client accounts in a manner that EARNEST Partners believes to be fair and equitable.

Emerald Mutual Fund Advisers Trust (Emerald)

COMPENSATION. Emerald has a company-wide compensation/incentive plan that includes function-specific performance reviews and corresponding incentive payments. The firm’s Compensation Committee (which is comprised of members of Emerald’s board of managers) can adjust an individual’s salary based on job performance.

101

Portfolio managers are evaluated quarterly based on one and three year rolling period investment performance relative to appropriate benchmark and peer group. In addition, evaluation involves profitability of product and other duties such as research, client servicing, etc. Research personnel are evaluated based on performance, adherence to the research process, idea generation, communication skills (both oral and written) and other team-oriented assignments. Administrative, operations and compliance staff receive performance incentives based on semi-annual performance reviews. In addition, Emerald maintains a “firm-wide” discretionary annual bonus plan, where Emerald’s employees are compensated by operating units including portfolio management, research, marketing, client servicing, operations and staff support. All employees share in the potential profit and growth of the company through a tax deferred retirement plan (ESOP). Upon adoption of the ESOP plan in October 2012, key employees all signed employment contracts. All other employees are subject to a six year vesting cycle.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. There are no material conflicts of interest regarding portfolio manager’s management of the Fund’s investments on the one hand and the investments of other accounts for which the portfolio manager is responsible on the other hand. All similar accounts trade together, and allocations are known prior to trade execution. In the event of partial fill on a trade order, the shares are pro-rated among accounts based on order size.

Epoch Investment Partners, Inc.

COMPENSATION. Epoch seeks to maintain a compensation program that is competitively positioned to attract, retain and motivate all employees. Epoch employees receive a base salary and an annual performance bonus, which is reviewed and determined annually by Epoch's Operating Committee with input from the employee's supervisor and Epoch's Human Resources Department. The level of compensation for each employee is based on a number of factors including individual performance, firm performance and marketplace compensation analysis and information.

For senior employees, a portion of their annual performance bonus is deferred, typically with a three-year vesting schedule, and invested in Epoch-managed investment vehicles, Epoch Performance Units and TD Restricted Stock Units. In addition, Managing Directors are eligible to participate in Epoch's Long-Term Incentive Plan, which is designed to reward superior long-term business performance over a multi-year period.

Investment team members are compensated based on the performance of their strategy, their contribution to that performance, the overall performance of the firm, and corporate citizenship. The Operating Committee reviews product performance, including risk-adjusted returns over one- and three-year periods in assessing an investment professional’s performance and compensation. Each portfolio manager and analyst’s security selection and weighting recommendations are also reviewed on an annual basis.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. In Epoch’s view, conflicts of interest may arise in managing the Fund’s portfolio investments, on the one hand, and the portfolios of Epoch’s other clients and/or accounts (together, the Accounts), on the other. Set forth below is a brief description of some of the material conflicts that may arise and Epoch’s policy or procedure for handling them. Although Epoch has designed such procedures to prevent and address conflicts, there is no guarantee that such procedures will detect every situation in which a conflict arises.

The management of multiple Accounts inherently means there may be competing interests for the portfolio management team’s time and attention. Epoch seeks to minimize this by utilizing one investment approach (i.e., focus on free-cash flow), and by managing all Accounts on a strategy specific basis. Thus, all Accounts, whether they be fund accounts, institutional accounts or individual accounts are managed using the same investment discipline, strategy and proprietary investment model as the Fund.

If the portfolio management team identifies a limited investment opportunity that may be suitable for more than one Account, the Fund may not be able to take full advantage of that opportunity. However, Epoch has adopted procedures for allocating portfolio transactions across Accounts so that each Account is treated fairly. First, all orders are allocated among portfolios of the same or similar mandates at the time of trade creation/ initial order preparation. Factors affecting allocations include availability of cash to existence of client imposed trading restrictions or prohibitions, and the tax status of the account. The only changes to the allocations made at the time of the creation of the order, are if there is a partial fill for an order. Depending upon the size of the execution, Epoch may choose to allocate the executed shares through pro-rata breakdown, or on a random basis. As with all trade allocations each Account generally receives pro rata allocations of any new issue or IPO security that is appropriate for its investment objective. Permissible reasons for excluding an account from an otherwise acceptable IPO or new issue investment include the account having FINRA restricted person status, lack of available cash to make the purchase, or a client imposed trading prohibition on IPOs or on the business of the issuer.

102

With respect to securities transactions for the Accounts, Epoch determines which broker to use to execute each order, consistent with its duty to seek best execution. Epoch will bunch or aggregate like orders where to do so will be beneficial to the Accounts. However, with respect to certain Accounts, Epoch may be limited by the client with respect to the selection of brokers or may be instructed to direct trades through a particular broker. In these cases, Epoch may place separate, non-simultaneous, transactions for the Fund and another Account, which may temporarily affect the market price of the security or the execution of the transaction to the detriment one or the other.

Conflicts of interest may arise when members of the portfolio management team transact personally in securities investments made or to be made for the Fund or other Accounts. To address this, Epoch has adopted a written Code of Ethics designed to prevent and detect personal trading activities that may interfere or conflict with client interests (including Fund shareholders’ interests) or its current investment strategy. The Code of Ethics generally requires that most transactions in securities by Epoch’s Access Persons and their family members (as defined in the Code), whether or not such securities are purchased or sold on behalf of the Accounts, be cleared prior to execution by appropriate approving parties and compliance personnel. Securities transactions for Access Persons’ personal accounts also are subject to quarterly transaction reporting and annual holdings reporting requirements.

Epoch manages some Accounts under performance based fee arrangements. Epoch recognizes that this type of incentive compensation creates the risk for potential conflicts of interest. This structure may create an inherent pressure to allocate investments having a greater potential for higher returns to accounts of those clients paying the higher performance fee. To prevent conflicts of interest associated with managing accounts with different compensation structures, Epoch generally requires portfolio decisions to be made on a product specific basis. Epoch also requires pre-allocation of all client orders based on specific fee-neutral criteria set forth above. Additionally, Epoch requires average pricing of all aggregated orders. Finally, Epoch has adopted a policy prohibiting Portfolio Managers (and all employees) from placing the investment interests of one client or a group of clients with the same investment objectives above the investment interests of any other client or group of clients with the same or similar investment objectives.

FIAM LLC

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

PORTFOLIO MANAGER COMPENSATION.

Shiuan-Tung Peng, Ognjen Sosa, Catherine Pena, and Edward Heilbron are the portfolio managers for the AST FI Pyramis® Quantitative Portfolio and receive compensation for their services. As of December 31, 2016, portfolio manager compensation generally consists of a fixed base salary determined periodically (typically annually), a bonus, in certain cases, participation in several types of equity-based compensation plans, and, if applicable, relocation plan benefits. A portion of the portfolio manager's compensation may be deferred based on criteria established by FIAM LLC or at the election of the portfolio manager.

The portfolio manager's base salary is determined by level of responsibility and tenure at FIAM LLC or its affiliates. The portfolio manager’s bonus is based on several components. The primary components of the portfolio manager’s bonus are based on (i) the pre-tax investment performance of the portfolio manager's fund(s) and account(s) measured against a benchmark index (which may be a customized benchmark index developed by FIAM LLC) assigned to each fund or account, (ii) how the portfolio manager allocates the assets of funds and accounts among their asset classes, which results in monthly impact scores, as described below, and (iii) the investment performance of other funds and accounts. The pre-tax investment performance of the portfolio manager's fund(s) and account(s) is weighted according to his tenure on those fund(s) and account(s) and the average asset size of those fund(s) and account(s) over his tenure. Each component is calculated separately over the portfolio manager's tenure on those fund(s) and account(s) over a measurement period that initially is contemporaneous with his tenure, but that eventually encompasses rolling periods of up to five years for the comparison to a benchmark index. The portfolio manager also receives a monthly impact score for

103

each month of his tenure as manager of a fund or account. The monthly impact scores are weighted according to his tenure on his fund(s) and account(s) and the average asset size of those fund(s) and account(s) over his tenure. The bonus is based on the aggregate impact scores for applicable annual periods eventually encompassing periods of up to five years. A smaller, subjective component of the portfolio manager’s bonus is based on his overall contribution to management of FIAM LLC and its affiliates.

The portion of the portfolio managers’ bonuses that is linked to the investment performance of AST FI Pyramis® Quantitative Portfolio is based on the fund's pre-tax investment performance relative to the performance of the fund's customized benchmark index (described below), on which the fund's target asset allocation is based. The portion of the portfolio managers’ bonuses that is based on impact scores is based on how each allocates fund assets, which are represented by the components of the composite index, the components of which are 27% S&P 500 Index, 5.5% Russell 2000 Index, 32.5% MSCI EAFE Index (net tax), and 35% Bloomberg Barclays US Aggregate Index. The portfolio managers’ bonuses are based on the percentage of each fund actually invested in each asset class. The percentage overweight or percentage underweight in each asset class relative to the neutral mix is multiplied by the performance of the index that represents that asset class over the measurement period, resulting in a positive or negative impact score.

The portfolio managers are also compensated under equity-based compensation plans linked to increases or decreases in the net asset value of the stock of FMR LLC, FMR’s parent company. FMR LLC is a diverse financial services company engaged in various activities that include fund management, brokerage, retirement, and employer administrative services. If requested to relocate their primary residence, portfolio managers also may be eligible to receive benefits, such as home sale assistance and payment of certain moving expenses, under relocation plans for most full-time employees of FMR LLC and its affiliates.

FIRST QUADRANT

COMPENSATION. First Quadrant’s compensation consists of a base salary, cash bonus, and annual award of temporal profit shares (TPS). TPS is an intermediate-term incentive program designed to give researchers, as well as other employees, complete transparency to a share of the firm’s profits. Other incentives include a 401(k) & Profit Sharing plan, paid vacation, floating holidays and sick time and health benefits including dental, vision, life insurance and long-term care. In addition to compensation and benefit plans, individuals are encouraged to broaden their skills and increase their contributions to the firm which in turn is rewarded with salary increases as well as job growth. Accordingly, FQ provides educational assistance to any active full time employee who has been with the firm for at least six months (i.e. CFA program and Graduate program). Bonuses are entirely at the discretion of First Quadrant’s management, and based on individual employee performance. While performance is measured wherever measurement is appropriate, no formulas are used to directly tie bonus payouts to individual portfolio performance. This is to ensure that full discretion remains in the hands of management to avoid any potential creation of unintended incentives. Risk is taken into account in evaluating performance, but note that risk levels in portfolios managed by First Quadrant are determined systematically, i.e., the level of risk taken in portfolios is not at the discretion of portfolio managers. In addition to individual performance, overall firm performance carries an important weight in the bonus decision as well. All employees are evaluated at mid-year and annually; and salary increases and bonuses are made annually on a calendar-year basis.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. First Quadrant is aware that conflicts of interest may arise and that every effort should be made to prevent them. Should they develop, they must be corrected immediately. We consider conflicts of interest, among other things, to be circumstances that would (i) compromise the impartiality and integrity of the services we provide, (ii) disadvantage a Client relative to other clients and (iii) create an advantage for the firm over a Client, or for one Client over another. The firm’s structure and business activities are of a nature such that the potential for conflicts of interest has been minimized. Detailed information about First Quadrant is disclosed in its Form ADV, specifically in Part 2A; however, we would like to highlight the following: First Quadrant’s investment approach is systematic in nature. Computer models are the primary source of trading decisions and the results are monitored daily. Although the results can be overridden by the investment team under certain circumstances, the systematic nature of First Quadrant’s process means it is less likely to be exposed to the levels of “subjectivity” risk that decisions made by individuals would be. Trade allocations are made on an objective basis and according to preset computerized allocations and standardized exceptions. The methodologies would normally consist of pro-rata allocation or allocation utilizing fair trade allocation algorithms. The firm maintains and enforces personal trading policies and procedures, which have been designed to minimize conflicts of interest between client and employee trades.

FRANKLIN ADVISERS, INC.

Portfolio managers that provide investment services to the Fund may also provide services to a variety of other investment products, including other funds, institutional accounts and private accounts. The advisory fees for some of such other products and accounts may be different than that charged to the Fund and may include performance based compensation. This may result in fees that are higher (or lower) than the advisory fees paid by the Fund. As a matter of policy, each fund or account is managed solely for the benefit of the beneficial owners thereof. As discussed below, the separation of the trading execution function from the portfolio management function and the application of objectively based trade allocation procedures help to mitigate potential conflicts of interest that may arise as a result of the portfolio managers managing accounts with different advisory fees.

104

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. The management of multiple funds, including the Fund, and accounts may also give rise to potential conflicts of interest if the funds and other accounts have different objectives, benchmarks, time horizons, and fees as the portfolio manager must allocate his or her time and investment ideas across multiple funds and accounts. The investment manager seeks to manage such competing interests for the time and attention of portfolio managers by having portfolio managers focus on a particular investment discipline. Most other accounts managed by a portfolio manager are managed using the same investment strategies that are used in connection with the management of the Fund. Accordingly, portfolio holdings, position sizes, and industry and sector exposures tend to be similar across similar portfolios, which may minimize the potential for conflicts of interest. As noted above, the separate management of the trade execution and valuation functions from the portfolio management process also helps to reduce potential conflicts of interest. However, securities selected for funds or accounts other than the Fund may outperform the securities selected for the Fund. Moreover, if a portfolio manager identifies a limited investment opportunity that may be suitable for more than one fund or other account, the Fund may not be able to take full advantage of that opportunity due to an allocation of that opportunity across all eligible funds and other accounts. The investment manager seeks to manage such potential conflicts by using procedures intended to provide a fair allocation of buy and sell opportunities among funds and other accounts.

The structure of a portfolio manager’s compensation may give rise to potential conflicts of interest. A portfolio manager’s base pay and bonus tend to increase with additional and more complex responsibilities that include increased assets under management. As such, there may be an indirect relationship between a portfolio manager’s marketing or sales efforts and his or her bonus.

Finally, the management of personal accounts by a portfolio manager may give rise to potential conflicts of interest. While the funds and the investment manager have adopted a code of ethics which they believe contains provisions designed to prevent a wide range of prohibited activities by portfolio managers and others with respect to their personal trading activities, there can be no assurance that the code of ethics addresses all individual conduct that could result in conflicts of interest.

The investment manager and the Fund have adopted certain compliance procedures that are designed to address these, and other, types of conflicts. However, there is no guarantee that such procedures will detect each and every situation where a conflict arises.

COMPENSATION. For the Funds, the investment manager seeks to maintain a compensation program that is competitively positioned to attract, retain and motivate top-quality investment professionals. Portfolio managers receive a base salary, a cash incentive bonus opportunity, an equity compensation opportunity, and a benefits package. Portfolio manager compensation is reviewed annually and the level of compensation is based on individual performance, the salary range for a portfolio manager’s level of responsibility and Franklin Templeton guidelines. Portfolio managers are provided no financial incentive to favor one fund or account over another. Each portfolio manager’s compensation consists of the following three elements:

Base salary Each portfolio manager is paid a base salary.

Annual bonus Annual bonuses are structured to align the interests of the portfolio manager with those of the Fund’s shareholders. Each portfolio manager is eligible to receive an annual bonus. Bonuses generally are split between cash (50% to 65%) and restricted shares of Resources stock (17.5% to 25%) and mutual fund shares (17.5% to 25%). The deferred equity-based compensation is intended to build a vested interest of the portfolio manager in the financial performance of both Resources and mutual funds advised by the investment manager. The bonus plan is intended to provide a competitive level of annual bonus compensation that is tied to the portfolio manager achieving consistently strong investment performance, which aligns the financial incentives of the portfolio manager and Fund shareholders. The Chief Investment Officer of the investment manager and/or other officers of the investment manager, with responsibility for the Fund, have discretion in the granting of annual bonuses to portfolio managers in accordance with Franklin Templeton guidelines. The following factors are generally used in determining bonuses under the plan:

■	Investment performance. Primary consideration is given to the historic investment performance of all accounts managed by the portfolio manager over the 1, 3 and 5 preceding years measured against risk benchmarks developed by the fixed income management team. The pre-tax performance of each fund managed is measured relative to a relevant peer group and/or applicable benchmark as appropriate.
■	Non-investment performance. The more qualitative contributions of the portfolio manager to the investment manager’s business and the investment management team, including business knowledge, productivity, customer service, creativity, and contribution to team goals, are evaluated in determining the amount of any bonus award.
■	Responsibilities. The characteristics and complexity of funds managed by the portfolio manager are factored in the investment manager’s appraisal.

Additional long-term equity-based compensation Portfolio managers may also be awarded restricted shares or units of Resources stock or restricted shares or units of one or more mutual funds. Awards of such deferred equity-based compensation typically vest over time, so as to create incentives to retain key talent.

Portfolio managers also participate in benefit plans and programs available generally to all employees of the investment manager.

105

FRANKLIN MUTUAL ADVISERS, LLC

Portfolio managers that provide investment services to the Fund may also provide services to a variety of other investment products, including other funds, institutional accounts and private accounts. The advisory fees for some of such other products and accounts may be different than that charged to the Fund and may include performance based compensation (as noted in the chart above, if any). This may result in fees that are higher (or lower) than the advisory fees paid by the Fund. As a matter of policy, each fund or account is managed solely for the benefit of the beneficial owners thereof. As discussed below, the separation of the trading execution function from the portfolio management function and the application of objectively based trade allocation procedures help to mitigate potential conflicts of interest that may arise as a result of the portfolio managers managing accounts with different advisory fees.

Finally, the management of personal accounts by a portfolio manager may give rise to potential conflicts of interest. While the funds and the investment manager have adopted a code of ethics which they believe contains provisions reasonably necessary to prevent a wide range of prohibited activities by portfolio managers and others with respect to their personal trading activities, there can be no assurance that the code of ethics addresses all individual conduct that could result in conflicts of interest.

COMPENSATION. The investment manager seeks to maintain a compensation program that is competitively positioned to attract, retain and motivate top-quality investment professionals. Portfolio managers receive a base salary, a cash incentive bonus opportunity, an equity compensation opportunity, and a benefits package. Portfolio manager compensation is reviewed annually and the level of compensation is based on individual performance, the salary range for a portfolio manager’s level of responsibility and Franklin Templeton guidelines. Portfolio managers are provided no financial incentive to favor one fund or account over another. Each portfolio manager’s compensation consists of the following three elements:

Base salary Each portfolio manager is paid a base salary.

•

Investment performance. Primary consideration is given to the historic investment performance over the 1, 3 and 5 preceding years of all accounts managed by the portfolio manager. The pre-tax performance of each fund managed is measured relative to a relevant peer group and/or applicable benchmark as appropriate.

106

•	Non-investment performance. The more qualitative contributions of the portfolio manager to the investment manager’s business and the investment management team, including business knowledge, contribution to team efforts, mentoring of junior staff, and contribution to the marketing of the Fund, are evaluated in determining the amount of any bonus award.
•	Research. Where the portfolio management team also has research responsibilities, each portfolio manager is evaluated on the number and performance of recommendations over time.
•	Responsibilities. The characteristics and complexity of funds managed by the portfolio manager are factored in the investment manager’s appraisal.

Portfolio managers also participate in benefit plans and programs available generally to all employees of the investment manager.

GOLDMAN SACHS ASSET MANAGEMENT, L.P.

PORTFOLIO MANAGERS' COMPENSATION. Compensation for GSAM portfolio managers is comprised of a base salary and discretionary variable compensation. The base salary is fixed from year to year. Year-end discretionary variable compensation is primarily a function of each portfolio manager's individual performance and his or her contribution to overall team performance; the performance of GSAM and Goldman Sachs & Co. (Goldman Sachs); the team's net revenues for the past year which in part is derived from advisory fees, and for certain accounts, performance-based fees; and anticipated compensation levels among competitor firms. Portfolio managers are rewarded, in part, for their delivery of investment performance, measured on a pre-tax basis, which is reasonably expected to meet or exceed the expectations of clients and fund shareholders in terms of: excess return over an applicable benchmark, peer group ranking, risk management and factors specific to certain funds such as yield or regional focus. Performance is judged over 1-, 3- and 5-year time horizons.

The benchmarks for these Portfolios are: AST Goldman Sachs Small-Cap Value Portfolio (Russell 2000^® Index); AST Goldman Sachs Large Cap Value (Russell 1000^® Value Index); AST Goldman Sachs Multi-Asset Portfolio (50% MSCI World Index (GD), 50% Bloomberg Barclays US Aggregate Bond Index); and AST Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Growth (S&P MidCap 400 Index ).

The discretionary variable compensation for portfolio managers is also significantly influenced by: (1) effective participation in team research discussions and process; and (2) management of risk in alignment with the targeted risk parameter and investment objective of the fund. Other factors may also be considered including: (1) general client/shareholder orientation and (2) teamwork and leadership. Portfolio managers may receive equity-based awards as part of their discretionary variable compensation.

Other Compensation. In addition to base salary and discretionary variable compensation, the Investment Adviser has a number of additional benefits in place including (1) a 401k program that enables employees to direct a percentage of their pretax salary and bonus income into a tax-qualified retirement plan; and (2) investment opportunity programs in which certain professionals may participate subject to certain eligibility requirements.

107

transactions in the same types of securities, currencies and instruments as the funds. Goldman Sachs and its affiliates will not have any obligation to make available any information regarding their proprietary activities or strategies, or the activities or strategies used for other accounts managed by them, for the benefit of the management of the Portfolios. The results of a Portfolio’s investment activities, therefore, may differ from those of Goldman Sachs, its affiliates, and other accounts managed by Goldman Sachs and it is possible that a Portfolio could sustain losses during periods in which Goldman Sachs and its affiliates and other accounts achieve significant profits on their trading for proprietary or other accounts. In addition, a Portfolio may enter into transactions in which Goldman Sachs or its other clients have an adverse interest. For example, a Portfolio may take a long position in a security at the same time that Goldman Sachs or other accounts managed by the GSAM take a short position in the same security (or vice versa). These and other transactions undertaken by Goldman Sachs, its affiliates or Goldman Sachs advised clients may, individually or in the aggregate, adversely impact a Portfolio. Transactions by one or more Goldman Sachs advised clients or the GSAM may have the effect of diluting or otherwise disadvantaging the values, prices or investment strategies of a Portfolio. A Portfolio’s activities may be limited because of regulatory restrictions applicable to Goldman Sachs and its affiliates, and/or their internal policies designed to comply with such restrictions. As a global financial services firm, Goldman Sachs also provides a wide range of investment banking and financial services to issuers of securities and investors in securities. Goldman Sachs, its affiliates and others associated with it may create markets or specialize in, have positions in and effect transactions in, securities of issuers held by a Portfolio, and may also perform or seek to perform investment banking and financial services for those issuers. Goldman Sachs and its affiliates may have business relationships with and purchase or distribute or sell services or products from or to, distributors, consultants and others who recommend a Portfolio or who engage in transactions with or for a Portfolio.

A Portfolio may make brokerage and other payments to Goldman Sachs and its affiliates in connection with a Portfolio’s portfolio investment transactions, in accordance with applicable law.

Hotchkis and Wiley Capital Management, LLC (HWCM).

COMPENSATION DISCLOSURE. Portfolio Managers of the Portfolio are supported by the full research team of HWCM. The investment team, including portfolio managers, is compensated in various forms, which may include a base salary, a bonus, profit sharing and equity ownership. Compensation is used to reward, attract and retain high quality investment professionals.

The investment team is evaluated and accountable at three levels. The first level is individual contribution to the research and decision-making process, including the quality and quantity of work achieved. The second level is teamwork, generally evaluated through contribution within sector teams. The third level pertains to overall portfolio and firm performance.

Fixed salaries and discretionary bonuses for investment professionals are determined by the Chief Executive Officer of HWCM using tools which may include annual evaluations, compensation surveys, feedback from other employees and advice from members of HWCM's Executive and Compensation Committees. The amount of the bonus is determined by the total amount of HWCM's bonus pool available for the year, which is generally a function of revenues. No investment professional receives a bonus that is a pre-determined percentage of revenues or net income. Compensation is thus subjective rather than formulaic.

The portfolio managers own equity in HWCM. HWCM believes that the employee ownership structure of HWCM will be a significant factor in ensuring a motivated and stable employee base going forward. HWCM believes that the combination of competitive compensation levels and equity ownership provides HWCM with a demonstrable advantage in the retention and motivation of employees. Portfolio managers who own equity in HWCM receive their pro rata share of HWCM's profits. Investment professionals may also receive contributions under HWCM's profit sharing/401(k) plan.

Finally, HWCM maintains a bank of unallocated equity to be used for those individuals whose contributions to the firm grow over time. If any owner should retire or leave the firm, HWCM has the right to repurchase their ownership to place back in the equity bank. This should provide for smooth succession through the gradual rotation of HWCM's ownership from one generation to the next.

HWCM believes that its compensation structure/levels are more attractive than the industry norm, which is illustrated by the firm's lower-than-industry-norm investment personnel turnover.

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. The Portfolio is managed by HWCM’s investment team (Investment Team). The Investment Team also manages institutional accounts and other mutual funds in several different investment strategies. The portfolios within an investment strategy are managed using a target portfolio; however, each portfolio may have different restrictions, cash flows, tax and other relevant considerations which may preclude a portfolio from participating in certain transactions for that investment strategy. Consequently, the performance of portfolios may vary due to these different considerations. The Investment Team may place transactions for one investment strategy that are directly or indirectly contrary to investment decisions made on behalf of another investment strategy. HWCM may be restricted from purchasing more than a limited percentage of the outstanding shares of a company or otherwise restricted from trading in a company’s securities due to other regulatory limitations. If a company is a viable

108

investment for more than one investment strategy, HWCM has adopted policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that all of its clients are treated fairly and equitably. Additionally, potential and actual conflicts of interest may also arise as a result of HWCM’s other business activities and HWCM’s possession of material non-public information about an issuer.

HWCM utilizes soft dollars to obtain brokerage and research services, which may create a conflict of interest in allocating clients’ brokerage business. Research services may benefit certain accounts more than others. Certain accounts may also pay a less proportionate amount of commissions for research services. HWCM will make decisions involving soft dollars in a manner that satisfies the requirements of Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

POTENTIAL CONFLICTS. The potential for conflicts of interest exists when portfolio managers manage other accounts with similar investment objectives and strategies as the Fund (“Similar Accounts”). Potential conflicts may include, for example, conflicts between investment strategies and conflicts in the allocation of investment opportunities. Responsibility for managing JPMorgan’s and its affiliates’ clients’ portfolios is organized according to investment strategies within asset classes. Generally, client portfolios with similar strategies are managed by portfolio managers in the same portfolio management group using the same objectives, approach and philosophy. Underlying sectors or strategy allocations within a larger portfolio are likewise managed by portfolio managers who use the same approach and philosophy as similarly managed portfolios. Therefore, portfolio holdings, relative position sizes and industry and sector exposures tend to be similar across similar portfolios and strategies, which minimizes the potential for conflicts of interest.

JPMorgan and/or its affiliates (“JPMorgan Chase”) perform investment services, including rendering investment advice, to varied clients. JPMorgan, JPMorgan Chase and its or their directors, officers, agents, and/or employees may render similar or differing investment advisory services to clients and may give advice or exercise investment responsibility and take such other action with respect to any of its other clients that differs from the advice given or the timing or nature of action taken with respect to another client or group of clients. It is JPMorgan’s policy, to the extent practicable, to allocate, within its reasonable discretion, investment opportunities among clients over a period of time on a fair and equitable basis. One or more of JPMorgan’s other client accounts may at any time hold, acquire, increase, decrease, dispose, or otherwise deal with positions in investments in which another client account may have an interest from time-to-time.

JPMorgan, JPMorgan Chase, and any of its or their directors, partners, officers, agents or employees, may also buy, sell, or trade securities for their own accounts or the proprietary accounts of JPMorgan and/or JPMorgan Chase. JPMorgan and/or JPMorgan Chase, within their discretion, may make different investment decisions and other actions with respect to their own proprietary accounts than those made for client accounts, including the timing or nature of such investment decisions or actions. Further, JPMorgan is not required to purchase or sell for any client account securities that it, JPMorgan Chase, and any of its or their employees, principals, or agents may purchase or sell for their own accounts or the proprietary accounts of JPMorgan, or JPMorgan Chase or its clients.

JPMorgan and/or its affiliates may receive more compensation with respect to certain Similar Accounts than that received with respect to the Fund or may receive compensation based in part on the performance of certain Similar Accounts. This may create a potential conflict of interest for JPMorgan and its affiliates or the portfolio managers by providing an incentive to favor these Similar Accounts when, for example, placing securities transactions. In addition, JPMorgan or its affiliates could be viewed as having a conflict of interest to the extent that JPMorgan or an affiliate has a proprietary investment in Similar Accounts, the portfolio managers have personal investments in Similar Accounts or the Similar Accounts are investment options in JPMorgan’s or its affiliates’ employee benefit plans. Potential conflicts of interest may arise with both the aggregation and allocation of securities transactions and allocation of investment opportunities because of market factors or investment restrictions imposed upon JPMorgan and its affiliates by law, regulation, contract or internal policies. Allocations of aggregated trades, particularly trade orders that were only partially completed due to limited availability and allocation of investment opportunities generally, could raise a potential conflict of interest, as JPMorgan or its affiliates may have an incentive to allocate securities that are expected to increase in value to favored accounts. Initial public offerings, in particular, are frequently of very limited availability. JPMorgan and its affiliates may be perceived as causing accounts they manage to participate in an offering to increase JPMorgan’s and its affiliates’ overall allocation of securities in that offering. A potential conflict of interest also may be perceived to arise if transactions in one account closely follow related transactions in a different account, such as when a purchase increases the value of securities previously purchased by another account, or when a sale in one account lowers the sale price received in a sale by a second account. If JPMorgan or its affiliates manage accounts that engage in short sales of securities of the type in which the Fund invests, JPMorgan or its affiliates could be seen as harming the performance of the Fund for the benefit of the accounts engaging in short sales if the short sales cause the market value of the securities to fall.

As an internal policy matter, JPMorgan or its affiliates may from time to time maintain certain overall investment limitations on the securities positions or positions in other financial instruments JPMorgan or its affiliates will take on behalf of its various clients due to, among other things, liquidity concerns and regulatory restrictions. Such policies may preclude the Fund from purchasing particular securities or financial instruments, even if such securities or financial instruments would otherwise meet the Fund’s objectives.

109

The goal of JPMorgan and its affiliates is to meet their fiduciary obligation with respect to all clients. JPMorgan and its affiliates have policies and procedures that seek to manage conflicts. JPMorgan and its affiliates monitor a variety of areas, including compliance with fund guidelines, review of allocation decisions and compliance with JPMorgan’s Codes of Ethics and JPMorgan Chase and Co.’s Code of Conduct. With respect to the allocation of investment opportunities, JPMorgan and its affiliates also have certain policies designed to achieve fair and equitable allocation of investment opportunities among its clients over time. For example: Orders for the same equity security traded through a single trading desk or system are aggregated on a continual basis throughout each trading day consistent with JPMorgan’s and its affiliates’ duty of best execution for their clients. If aggregated trades are fully executed, accounts participating in the trade will be allocated their pro rata share on an average price basis. Partially completed orders generally will be allocated among the participating accounts on a pro-rata average price basis, subject to certain limited exceptions. For example, accounts that would receive a de minimis allocation relative to their size may be excluded from the order. Another exception may occur when thin markets or price volatility require that an aggregated order be completed in multiple executions over several days. If partial completion of the order would result in an uneconomic allocation to an account due to fixed transaction or custody costs, JPMorgan and its affiliates may exclude small orders until 50% of the total order is completed. Then the small orders will be executed. Following this procedure, small orders will lag in the early execution of the order, but will be completed before completion of the total order.

Purchases of money market instruments and fixed income securities cannot always be allocated pro-rata across the accounts with the same investment strategy and objective. However, the Adviser and its affiliates attempt to mitigate any potential unfairness by basing non-pro rata allocations traded through a single trading desk or system upon objective predetermined criteria for the selection of investments and a disciplined process for allocating securities with similar duration, credit quality and liquidity in the good faith judgment of the Adviser or its affiliates so that fair and equitable allocation will occur over time.

PORTFOLIO MANAGER COMPENSATION. JPMorgan’s portfolio managers participate in a competitive compensation program that is designed to attract, retain and motivate talented people and closely link the performance of investment professionals to client investment objectives. JPMorgan manages compensation on a total compensation basis, the components being base salary fixed from year to year and a variable discretionary incentive award. Base salaries are reviewed annually and awarded based on individual performance and business results taking into account level and scope of position, experience and market competitiveness. The variable discretionary performance based incentive award consists of cash incentives and deferred compensation which includes mandatory notional investments (as described below) in selected mutual funds advised by JPMorgan or its affiliates (“Mandatory Investment Plan”). These elements reflect individual performance and the performance of JPMorgan’s business as a whole. Each portfolio manager’s performance is formally evaluated annually based on a variety of factors including the aggregate size and blended performance of the portfolios such portfolio manager manages, individual contribution relative to client risk and return objectives, and adherence with JPMorgan’s compliance, risk and regulatory procedures. In evaluating each portfolio manager’s performance with respect to the mutual funds he or she manages, the pre-tax performance of the funds (or the portion of the funds managed by the portfolio manager) is compared to the appropriate market peer group and to the competitive indices JPMorgan has identified for the investment strategy over one, three and five year periods (or such shorter time as the portfolio manager has managed the funds). Investment performance is generally more heavily weighted to the long-term.

Deferred compensation granted as part of an employee’s annual incentive compensation comprises from 0% to 60% of a portfolio manager’s total performance based incentive. As the level of incentive compensation increases, the percentage of compensation awarded in deferred incentives also increases. JPMorgan’s portfolio managers are required to notionally invest a certain percentage of their deferred compensation (typically 20% to 50% depending on the level of compensation) into the selected funds they manage. The remaining portion of the non-cash incentive is elective and may be notionally invested in any of the other mutual funds available in the Mandatory Investment Plan or will take the form of a JPMorgan restricted stock unit award. When these awards vest over time, the portfolio manager receives cash equal to the market value of the notional investment in the selected mutual funds or shares of JPMorgan common stock.

JENNISON ASSOCIATES LLC

COMPENSATION. Jennison seeks to maintain a highly competitive compensation program designed to attract and retain outstanding investment professionals, which include portfolio managers and research analysts, and to align the interests of its investment professionals with those of its clients and overall firm results. Jennison recognizes individuals for their achievements and contributions and continues to promote those who exemplify the same goals and level of commitment that are benchmarks of the organization. Investment professionals are compensated with a combination of base salary and cash bonus. Overall firm profitability determines the size of the investment professional compensation pool. In general, the cash bonus represents most of an investment professional’s compensation.

110

Jennison sponsors a profit sharing retirement plan for all eligible employees. The contribution to the profit sharing retirement plan for portfolio managers is based on a percentage of the portfolio manager’s total compensation, subject to a maximum determined by applicable law. In addition to eligibility to participate in retirement and welfare plans, senior investment professionals, including portfolio managers and senior research analysts, are eligible to participate in a voluntary deferred compensation program where all or a portion of the cash bonus can be deferred. Participants in the deferred compensation plan are permitted to allocate the deferred amounts among various options that track the gross-of-fee pre-tax performance of accounts or composites of accounts managed by Jennison.

Investment professionals’ total compensation is determined through a subjective process that evaluates numerous qualitative and quantitative factors. Not all factors are applicable to every investment professional, and there is no particular weighting or formula for considering the factors.

The factors reviewed for the portfolio manager[s] are listed below.

The quantitative factors reviewed for the portfolio manager[s] may include:

■

One-, three-, five-year and longer term pre-tax investment performance groupings of accounts managed by the portfolio manager in the same strategy (composite) relative to market conditions, pre-determined passive indices and industry peer group data for the product strategy (e.g., large cap growth, large cap value) for which the portfolio manager is responsible. Some portfolio managers may manage or contribute ideas to more than one product strategy, and the performance of the other product strategies is also considered in determining the portfolio manager’s overall compensation.

■

The investment professional’s contribution to client portfolio’s pre-tax one-, three-, five-year and longer-term performance from the investment professional’s recommended stocks relative to market conditions, the strategy’s passive benchmarks, and the investment professional’s respective coverage universes.

The qualitative factors reviewed for the portfolio manager[s] may include:

■	The quality of the portfolio manager’s investment ideas and consistency of the portfolio manager’s judgment;
■	Historical and long-term business potential of the product strategies;
■	Qualitative factors such as teamwork and responsiveness; and
■	Individual factors such as years of experience and responsibilities specific to the individual’s role such as being a team leader or supervisor are also factored into the determination of an investment professional’s total compensation.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Jennison manages accounts with asset-based fees alongside accounts with performance-based fees. This side-by-side management can create an incentive for Jennison and its investment professionals to favor one account over another. Specifically, Jennison has the incentive to favor accounts for which it receives performance fees, and possibly take greater investment risks in those accounts, in order to bolster performance and increase its fees.

Other types of side-by-side management of multiple accounts can also create incentives for Jennison to favor one account over another. Examples are detailed below, followed by a discussion of how Jennison addresses these conflicts.

■	Long only accounts/long-short accounts: Jennison manages accounts in strategies that only hold long securities positions as well as accounts in strategies that are permitted to sell securities short. Jennison may hold a long position in a security in some client accounts while selling the same security short in other client accounts. For example, Jennison permits quantitatively hedged strategies to short securities that are held long in other strategies. Additionally, Jennison permits securities that are held long in quantitatively derived strategies to be shorted by other strategies. The strategies that sell a security short held long by another strategy could lower the price for the security held long. Similarly, if a strategy is purchasing a security that is held short in other strategies, the strategies purchasing the security could increase the price of the security held short.
■	Multiple strategies: Jennison may buy or sell, or may direct or recommend that one client buy or sell, securities of the same kind or class that are purchased or sold for another client, at prices that may be different. Jennison may also, at any time, execute trades of securities of the same kind or class in one direction for an account and in the opposite direction for another account, due to differences in investment strategy or client direction. Different strategies effecting trading in the same securities or types of securities may appear as inconsistencies in Jennison’s management of multiple accounts side-by-side.
■	Affiliated accounts/unaffiliated accounts and seeded/nonseeded accounts and accounts receiving asset allocation assets from affiliated investment advisers: Jennison manages accounts for its affiliates and accounts in which it has an interest alongside unaffiliated accounts. Jennison could have an incentive to favor its affiliated accounts over unaffiliated accounts. Additionally, Jennison’s affiliates may provide initial funding or otherwise invest in vehicles managed by Jennison. When an affiliate provides “seed capital” or other capital for a fund or account, it may do so with the intention of redeeming all or part of its interest at a particular future point in time or when it deems that sufficient additional capital has been invested in that fund or account. Jennison typically requests seed capital to start a track record for a new strategy or product. Managing “seeded” accounts alongside “non-seeded” accounts can create an incentive to favor the “seeded” accounts to establish a track record for a new strategy or product. Additionally, Jennison’s affiliated investment advisers could allocate their asset allocation clients’ assets to Jennison. Jennison could favor accounts used by its affiliate for their asset allocation clients to receive more assets from the affiliate.

111

■	Non-discretionary accounts or models: Jennison provides non-discretionary model portfolios to some clients and manages other portfolios on a discretionary basis. Recommendations for some non-discretionary models that are derived from discretionary portfolios are communicated after the discretionary portfolio has traded. The non-discretionary clients could be disadvantaged if Jennison delivers the model investment portfolio to them after Jennison initiates trading for the discretionary clients, or vice versa.
■	Higher fee paying accounts or products or strategies: Jennison receives more revenues from (1) larger accounts or client relationships than smaller accounts or client relationships and from (2) managing discretionary accounts than advising nondiscretionary models and from (3) non-wrap fee accounts than from wrap fee accounts and from (4) charging higher fees for some strategies than others. The differences in revenue that Jennison receives could create an incentive for Jennison to favor the higher fee paying or higher revenue generating account or product or strategy over another.
■	Personal interests: The performance of one or more accounts managed by Jennison’s investment professionals is taken into consideration in determining their compensation. Jennison also manages accounts that are investment options in its employee benefit plans such as its defined contribution plans or deferred compensation arrangements and where its employees may have personally invested alongside other accounts where there is no personal interest. These factors could create an incentive for Jennison to favor the accounts where it has a personal interest over accounts where Jennison does not have a personal interest.

How Jennison Addresses These Conflicts of Interest

The conflicts of interest described above could create incentives for Jennison to favor one or more accounts or types of accounts over others in the allocation of investment opportunities, time, aggregation and timing of investments. Portfolios in a particular strategy with similar objectives are managed similarly to the extent possible. Accordingly, portfolio holdings and industry and sector exposure tend to be similar across a group of accounts in a strategy that have similar objectives, which tends to minimize the potential for conflicts of interest among accounts within a product strategy. While these accounts have many similarities, the investment performance of each account will be different primarily due to differences in guidelines, individual portfolio manager’s decisions, timing of investments, fees, expenses and cash flows.

Additionally, Jennison has developed policies and procedures that seek to address, mitigate and assess these conflicts of interest. Jennison cannot guarantee, however, that its policies and procedures will detect and prevent, or lead to the disclosure of, each and every situation in which a conflict may arise.

■	Jennison has adopted trade aggregation and allocation procedures that seek to treat all clients (including affiliated accounts) fairly and equitably. These policies and procedures address the allocation of limited investment opportunities, such as initial public offerings (IPOs) and new issues, the allocation of transactions across multiple accounts, and the timing of transactions between its non-wrap accounts and its wrap fee accounts.
■	Jennison has policies that limit the ability to short securities in portfolios that primarily rely on its fundamental research and investment processes (fundamental portfolios) if the security is held long in other fundamental portfolios.
■	Jennison has adopted procedures to review allocations or performance dispersion between accounts with performance fees and non-performance fee based accounts and to review overlapping long and short positions among long accounts and long-short accounts.
■	Jennison has adopted a code of ethics and policies relating to personal trading.
■	Jennison provides disclosure of these conflicts as described in its Form ADV.

Lazard Asset Management LLC

COMPENSATION. Lazard Asset Management LLC (Lazard) portfolio managers are generally responsible for managing multiple types of accounts that may, or may not, invest in securities in which the Portfolio may invest or pursue a strategy similar to a Portfolio's strategies. Portfolio managers responsible for managing the Portfolio may also manage sub-advised registered investment companies, collective investment trusts, unregistered funds and/or other pooled investment vehicles, separate accounts, separately managed account programs (often referred to as “wrap accounts”) and model portfolios.

Lazard compensates portfolio managers by a competitive salary and bonus structure, which is determined both quantitatively and qualitatively. Salary and bonus are paid in cash, stock and restricted interests in funds managed by Lazard or its affiliates. Portfolio managers are compensated on the performance of the aggregate group of portfolios managed by the teams of which they are a member rather than for a specific fund or account. Various factors are considered in the determination of a portfolio manager's compensation. All of the portfolios managed by a portfolio manager are comprehensively evaluated to determine his or her positive and consistent performance contribution over time. Further factors include the amount of assets in the portfolios as well as qualitative aspects that reinforce Lazard's investment philosophy.

112

Total compensation is generally not fixed, but rather is based on the following factors: (i) leadership, teamwork and commitment, (ii) maintenance of current knowledge and opinions on companies owned in the portfolio; (iii) generation and development of new investment ideas, including the quality of security analysis and identification of appreciation catalysts; (iv) ability and willingness to develop and share ideas on a team basis; and (v) the performance results of the portfolios managed by the investment teams of which the portfolio manager is a member.

Variable bonus is based on the portfolio manager's quantitative performance as measured by his or her ability to make investment decisions that contribute to the pre-tax absolute and relative returns of the accounts managed by the teams of which the portfolio manager is a member, by comparison of each account to a predetermined benchmark (as set forth in the prospectus or other governing document) over the current fiscal year and the longer-term performance of such account, as well as performance of the account relative to peers. The variable bonus for the Portfolio's portfolio management team in respect of its management of the Portfolio is determined by reference to the corresponding indices listed below. The portfolio manager's bonus also can be influenced by subjective measurement of the manager's ability to help others make investment decisions. A portion of a portfolio manager's variable bonus is awarded under a deferred compensation arrangement pursuant to which the portfolio manager may allocate certain amounts awarded among certain Portfolios, in shares that vest in two to three years. Certain portfolio managers' bonus compensation may be tied to a fixed percentage of revenue or assets generated by the accounts managed by such portfolio management teams.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. As an investment adviser, Lazard serves as a fiduciary to its clients. As such, Lazard is obligated to place its clients’ interests before its own. Due to the nature of the investment advisory business, conflicts of interests do arise. For example, conflicts may arise with regard to personal securities transactions, the use of clients’ commissions to obtain research and brokerage services, errors, trade allocations, performance fee accounts, and the use of solicitors.

In recognition of these potential conflicts of interest, Lazard has established written policies and procedures so that it can operate its business within applicable regulatory guidelines.

Please see Lazard Asset Management’s Form ADV Part 2A, which is available on the SEC website, for a more detailed description of Lazard’s business relationships.

LMCG Investments, LLC.

COMPENSATION. Portfolio managers at LMCG are compensated through a combination of base salary and incentive bonus. LMCG’s incentive bonus plan for investment teams is a revenue-share model based on strategy performance relative to a peer group universe of retail and institutional managers. The incentive formula is based on the teams’ performance rankings within the universe for a blended time period which includes one year, three years, five years and since inception performance. Incentive bonuses are not calculated on specific client or specific fund assets.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. LMCG’s portfolio managers are often responsible for managing one or more funds as well as other accounts, including proprietary accounts, separate accounts and other pooled investment vehicles. A portfolio manager may also manage a separate account or other pooled investment vehicle which may have materially higher fee arrangements than the Fund and may also have a performance-based fee. The side-by-side management of these funds may raise potential conflicts of interest relating to the allocation of investment opportunities and the aggregation and allocation of trades. LMCG has fiduciary responsibility to manage all client accounts in a fair and equitable manner. It seeks to provide best execution of all securities transactions and aggregate and then allocate securities to client accounts in a fair and timely manner. Similarly, trading in securities by LMCG personnel for their own accounts potentially could conflict with the interest of clients. LMCG has policies and procedures in place to detect, monitor and resolve these and other potential conflicts of interest that are inherent to its business as a registered investment adviser.

Longfellow Investment Management Co. LLC

COMPENSATION. Longfellow’s professionals receive a base salary that considers their responsibilities and their experience. They also are awarded a significant annual bonus based upon their specific contributions to the success and profitability of the firm. Longfellow is 100% owned by 5 employees. Owners receive a portion of the firm’s profits in addition to base salary and bonus.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Actual or potential conflicts of interest may arise when a portfolio manager has management responsibilities to more than one account. This would include devotion of unequal time and attention to the management of the accounts and the inability to allocate limited investment opportunities across a broad array of accounts. Longfellow has adopted policies and procedures to address such conflicts.

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. (Loomis Sayles)

113

MATERIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Conflicts of interest may arise in the allocation of investment opportunities and the allocation of aggregated orders among the Funds and other accounts managed by the portfolio managers. A portfolio manager potentially could give favorable treatment to some accounts for a variety of reasons, including favoring larger accounts, accounts that pay higher fees, accounts that pay performance-based fees, accounts of affiliated companies and accounts in which the portfolio manager has an interest. Such favorable treatment could lead to more favorable investment opportunities or allocations for some accounts. Loomis Sayles makes investment decisions for all accounts (including institutional accounts, mutual funds, hedge funds and affiliated accounts) based on each account’s availability of other comparable investment opportunities and Loomis Sayles’ desire to treat all accounts fairly and equitably over time. Loomis Sayles maintains trade allocation and aggregation policies and procedures to address these potential conflicts. Conflicts of interest also may arise to the extent a portfolio manager short sells a stock in one client account but holds that stock long in other accounts, including the Funds, or sells a stock for some accounts while buying the stock for others, and through the use of “soft dollar arrangements,” which are discussed in the Loomis Sayles’ Brokerage Allocation Policies and Procedures and Loomis Sayles’ Trade Aggregation and Allocation Policies and Procedures.”

PORTFOLIO MANAGER COMPENSATION. Loomis Sayles believes that portfolio manager compensation should be driven primarily by the delivery of consistent and superior long-term performance for its clients. Portfolio manager compensation is made up primarily of three main components: base salary, variable compensation and a long-term incentive program. Although portfolio manager compensation is not directly tied to assets under management, a portfolio manager’s base salary and/or variable compensation potential may reflect the amount of assets for which the manager is responsible relative to other portfolio managers. Loomis Sayles also offers a profit sharing plan. Base salary is a fixed amount based on a combination of factors, including industry experience, firm experience, job performance and market considerations. Variable compensation is an incentive-based component and generally represents a significant multiple of base salary. Variable compensation is based on four factors: investment performance, profit growth of the firm, profit growth of the manager’s business unit and team commitment. Investment performance is the primary component of total variable compensation and generally represents at least 60% of the total for fixed-income managers and 70% for equity managers. The other three factors are used to determine the remainder of variable compensation, subject to the discretion of the Chief Investment Officer (“CIO”) and senior management. The CIO and senior management evaluate these other factors annually.

Equity Managers. While mutual fund performance and asset size do not directly contribute to the compensation calculation, investment performance for equity managers is measured by comparing the performance of Loomis Sayles’ institutional composites to the performance of the applicable Morningstar peer group and/or the Lipper universe. Generally speaking the performance of the respective product’s fund is compared against the applicable Morningstar peer group and/or the Lipper universe. If the majority of the assets in the product are contained in the mutual fund that comparison will drive compensation. To the extent the majority of assets managed in the fund strategy are for institutional separate accounts, the Evestment Alliance institutional peer group will also be used as an additional comparison. In situations where substantially all of the assets for the strategy are institutional, the institutional peer group will be used as the primary method of comparison. A manager’s performance relative to the peer group for the 1, 3 and 5 year periods (or since the start of the manager’s tenure, if shorter) is used to calculate the amount of variable compensation payable due to performance. The 1 year may be eliminated for some products (large cap growth, all cap growth, and global growth). Longer-term performance (3 and 5 (or 10 years for large cap growth, all cap growth, and global growth) years or since the start of the manager’s tenure, if shorter) combined is weighted more than shorter-term performance (1 year or 3 years for large cap growth, all cap growth, and global growth). In addition, the performance measurement for equity compensation incorporates a consistency metric using longer term (3, 5, etc.) rolling return compared to the peer group over a sustained measurement period (5, 7, etc. years). The exact method may be adjusted to a product’s particular style. If a manager is responsible for more than one product, the rankings of each product are weighted based on relative revenue of accounts represented in each product. The external benchmark used for the investment style utilized for the AST Advanced Strategies Portfolio and the AST Loomis Sayles Large-Cap Growth Portfolio is the Russell 1000 Growth Index.

In cases where the institutional peer groups are used, Loomis Sayles believes they represent the most competitive product universe while closely matching the investment styles offered by the Loomis Sayles fund.

Fixed-Income Managers. While mutual fund performance and asset size do not directly contribute to the compensation calculation, investment performance for fixed-income managers is measured by comparing the performance of Loomis Sayles’ institutional composite (pre-tax and net of fees) in the manager’s style to the performance of an external benchmark and a customized peer group. The customized peer group is created by Loomis Sayles and is made up of institutional managers in the particular investment style. A manager’s relative performance for the past five years, or seven years for some products, is used to calculate the amount of variable compensation payable due to performance. To ensure consistency, Loomis Sayles analyzes the five or seven year performance on a rolling three year basis. If a manager is responsible for more than one product, the rankings of each product are weighted based on relative revenue size of accounts represented in each product.

114

Loomis Sayles uses both an external benchmark and a customized peer group as a point of comparison for fixed-income manager performance because it believes they represent an appropriate combination of the competitive fixed-income product universe and the investment styles offered by Loomis Sayles. The external benchmark used for the investment style utilized for the AST Blackrock/Loomis Sayles Bond Portfolio is the Bloomberg Barclays US Aggregate Bond Index.

In addition to the compensation described above, portfolio managers may receive additional compensation based on the overall growth of their strategies.

General

Most mutual funds are not included in the Loomis Sayles’ strategy composites, so unlike managed accounts, fund performance and asset size in those cases would not directly contribute to this calculation. However, each fund managed by Loomis Sayles employs strategies endorsed by Loomis Sayles and fits into the product category for the relevant investment style. Loomis Sayles may adjust compensation if there is significant dispersion among the returns of the composite and accounts not included in the composite.

Loomis Sayles has developed and implemented two distinct long-term incentive plans to attract and retain investment talent. The plans supplement existing compensation. The first plan has several important components distinguishing it from traditional equity ownership plans:

■	the plan grants units that entitle participants to an annual payment based on a percentage of company earnings above an established threshold;
■	upon retirement, a participant will receive a multi-year payout for his or her vested units; and
■	participation is contingent upon signing an award agreement, which includes a non-compete covenant.

The second plan is similarly constructed although the participants’ annual participation in company earnings is deferred for two years from the time of award and is only payable if the portfolio manager remains at Loomis Sayles. In this plan, there is no post-retirement payments or non-compete covenants.

Senior management expects that the variable compensation portion of overall compensation will continue to remain the largest source of income for those investment professionals included in the plan. The plan is initially offered to portfolio managers and over time the scope of eligibility is likely to widen. Management has full discretion on what units are issued and to whom.

Portfolio managers also participate in the Loomis Sayles profit sharing plan, in which Loomis Sayles makes a contribution to the retirement plan of each employee based on a percentage of base salary (up to a maximum amount). The portfolio managers also participate in the Loomis Sayles defined benefit pension plan, which applies to all Loomis Sayles employees who joined the firm prior to May 3, 2003. The defined benefit is based on years of service and base compensation (up to a maximum amount).

Lord, Abbett & Co. LLC.

COMPENSATION OF PORTFOLIO MANAGERS. When used in this section, the term “fund” refers to the Portfolio, as well as any other registered investment companies, pooled investment vehicles and accounts managed by a portfolio manager. Each portfolio manager receives compensation from Lord Abbett consisting of salary, bonus and profit sharing plan contributions. The level of base compensation takes into account the portfolio manager's experience, reputation and competitive market rates.

Fiscal year-end bonuses, which can be a substantial percentage of overall compensation, are determined after an evaluation of various factors. These factors include the portfolio manager's investment results and style consistency, the dispersion among funds with similar objectives, the risk taken to achieve the fund returns and similar factors. In considering the portfolio manager's investment results, Lord Abbett's senior management may evaluate the Portfolio's performance against one or more benchmarks from among the Portfolio's primary benchmark and any supplemental benchmarks as disclosed in the prospectus, indexes disclosed as performance benchmarks by the portfolio manager's other accounts, and other indexes within one or more of the Portfolio's peer groups maintained by rating agencies, as well as the Portfolio's peer group. In particular, investment results are evaluated based on an assessment of the portfolio manager's one-, three-, and five-year investment returns on a pre-tax basis versus both the benchmark and the peer groups. Finally, there is a component of the bonus that reflects leadership and management of the investment team. The evaluation does not follow a formulaic approach, but rather is reached following a review of these factors. No part of the bonus payment is based on the portfolio manager's assets under management, the revenues generated by those assets, or the profitability of the portfolio manager's team. Lord Abbett does not manage hedge funds. In addition, Lord Abbett may designate a bonus payment of a manager for participation in the firm's senior incentive compensation plan, which provides for a deferred payout over a five-year period. The plan's earnings are based on the overall asset growth of the firm as a whole. Lord Abbett believes this incentive focuses portfolio managers on the impact their fund's performance has on the overall reputation of the firm as a whole and encourages exchanges of investment ideas among investment professionals managing different mandates.

115

Lord Abbett provides a 401(k) profit-sharing plan for all eligible employees. Contributions to a portfolio manager's profit-sharing account are based on a percentage of the portfolio manager's total base and bonus paid during the fiscal year, subject to a specified maximum amount. The assets of this profit-sharing plan are entirely invested in Lord Abbett-sponsored funds.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Conflicts of interest may arise in connection with the portfolio managers’ management of the investments of the Portfolio and the investments of the other accounts included in the table above. Such conflicts may arise with respect to the allocation of investment opportunities among the Portfolio and other accounts with similar investment objectives and policies. A portfolio manager potentially could use information concerning the Portfolio's transactions to the advantage of other accounts and to the detriment of the Portfolio. To address these potential conflicts of interest, Lord Abbett has adopted and implemented a number of policies and procedures. Lord Abbett has adopted Policies and Procedures Relating to Soft Dollars, as well as Evaluation of Proprietary Research –Policy and Procedures. The objective of these policies and procedures is to ensure the fair and equitable treatment of transactions and allocation of investment opportunities on behalf of all accounts managed by Lord Abbett. In addition, Lord Abbett's Code of Ethics sets forth general principles for the conduct of employee personal securities transactions in a manner that avoids any actual or potential conflicts of interest with the interests of Lord Abbett's clients including the Portfolio. Moreover, Lord Abbett's Insider Trading and Receipt of Material Non-Public Information Policy and Procedure sets forth procedures for personnel to follow when they have inside information. Lord Abbett is not affiliated with a full service broker-dealer and therefore does not execute any portfolio transactions through such an entity, a structure that could give rise to additional conflicts. Lord Abbett does not conduct any investment bank functions and does not manage any hedge funds. Lord Abbett does not believe that any material conflicts of interest exist in connection with the portfolio managers’ management of the investments of the Portfolio and the investments of the other accounts referenced in the table above.

LSV Asset Management.

PORTFOLIO MANAGER COMPENSATION. The Portfolio Managers’ compensation consists of a salary and discretionary bonus. Each of the Portfolio Managers is a Partner of LSV and thereby receives a portion of the overall profit of the firm as part of his ownership interests. The bonus is based upon the profitability of the firm and individual performance. Individual performance is subjective and may be based on a number of factors, such as the individual’s leadership and contribution to the strategic planning and development of the investment group.

POTENTIAL CONFLICTS. The same team of Portfolio Managers is responsible for the day-to-day management of all of LSV's accounts. Accounts or funds with performance-based fees and accounts or funds in which employees may be invested could create an incentive to favor those accounts or funds over other accounts or funds in the allocation of investment opportunities. LSV has procedures designed to ensure that all clients are treated fairly and to prevent the these potential conflicts from influencing the allocation of investment opportunities among clients. On a quarterly basis, LSV's Forensic Testing Committee, consisting of the Chief Compliance Officer, Compliance Officer, Chief Operating Officer and Compliance Analyst, reviews, among other things, allocations of investment opportunities among clients and allocation of partially filled block trades.

Massachusetts Financial Services Company.

COMPENSATION. Portfolio manager compensation is reviewed annually. As of December 31, 2016, portfolio manager total cash compensation is a combination of base salary and performance bonus:

■	Base Salary—Base salary represents a smaller percentage of portfolio manager total cash compensation than performance bonus.
■	Performance Bonus—Generally, the performance bonus represents more than a majority of portfolio manager total cash compensation.

The performance bonus is based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative factors, generally with more weight given to the former and less weight given to the latter.

The quantitative portion is based on the pre-tax performance of assets managed by the portfolio manager over one-, three-, and five-year periods relative to peer group universes and/or indices (“benchmarks”). As of December 31, 2016, the following benchmarks were used to measure the following portfolio managers’ performance for the following Portfolios:

AST MFS Global Equity Portfolio
Portfolio Manager: David Mannheim
Benchmark(s): MSCI World Index (net div)

Portfolio Manager: Roger Morley
Benchmark(s): MSCI World Index (net div)

116

Portfolio Manager: Ryan McAllister
Benchmark(s): MSCI World Index (net div)

AST MFS Growth Portfolio
Portfolio Manager: Eric Fischman
Benchmark(s): Russell 1000® Growth Index

Portfolio Manager: Matthew Sabel
Benchmark(s): Russell 1000® Growth Index

AST MFS Large-Cap Value Portfolio
Portfolio Manager: Nevin Chitkara
Benchmark: Russell 1000® Value Index

Portfolio Manager: Steven Gorham
Benchmark: Russell 1000® Value Index

Additional or different benchmarks, including versions of indices, custom indices, and linked indices that combine performance of different indices for different portions of the time period may also be used. Primary weight is given to portfolio performance over a three-year time period with lesser consideration given to portfolio performance over one- and five-year periods (adjusted as appropriate if the portfolio manager has served for less than five years).

The qualitative portion is based on the results of an annual internal peer review process (conducted by other portfolio managers, analysts, and traders) and management's assessment of overall portfolio manager contributions to investor relations and the investment process (distinct from fund and other account performance). This performance bonus may be in the form of cash and/or a deferred cash award, at the discretion of management. A deferred cash award is issued for a cash value and becomes payable over a three-year vesting period if the portfolio manager remains in the continuous employ of MFS or its affiliates. During the vesting period, the value of the unfunded deferred cash award will fluctuate as though the portfolio manager had invested the cash value of the award in an MFS Fund(s) selected by the portfolio manager. A selected fund may be, but is not required to be, a fund that is managed by the portfolio manager.

Portfolio managers also typically benefit from the opportunity to participate in the MFS Equity Plan. Equity interests and/or options to acquire equity interests in MFS or its parent company are awarded by management, on a discretionary basis, taking into account tenure at MFS, contribution to the investment process and other factors.

Finally, portfolio managers also participate in benefit plans (including a defined contribution plan and health and other insurance plans) and programs available generally to other employees of MFS. The percentage such benefits represent of any portfolio manager's compensation depends upon the length of the individual's tenure at MFS and salary level, as well as other factors.

POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. MFS seeks to identify potential conflicts of interest resulting from a portfolio manager's management of both the Portfolio and other accounts, and has adopted policies and procedures designed to address such potential conflicts.

The management of multiple funds and accounts (including proprietary accounts) gives rise to conflicts of interest if the funds and accounts have different objectives and strategies, benchmarks, time horizons and fees as a portfolio manager must allocate his or her time and investment ideas across multiple funds and accounts. In certain instances there are securities which are suitable for the Portfolio as well as for accounts of MFS or its subsidiaries with similar investment objectives. MFS’ trade allocation policies may give rise to conflicts of interest if the Portfolio's orders do not get fully executed or are delayed in getting executed due to being aggregated with those of other accounts of MFS or its subsidiaries. A portfolio manager may execute transactions for another fund or account that may adversely affect the value of the Portfolio's investments. Investments selected for funds or accounts other than the Portfolio may outperform investments selected for the Portfolio.

When two or more clients are simultaneously engaged in the purchase or sale of the same security, the securities are allocated among clients in a manner believed by MFS to be fair and equitable to each. Allocations may be based on many factors and may not always be pro rata based on assets managed. The allocation methodology could have a detrimental effect on the price or volume of the security as far as the Fund is concerned.

117

MFS and/or a portfolio manager may have a financial incentive to allocate favorable or limited opportunity investments or structure the timing of investments to favor accounts other than the Portfolio, for instance, those that pay a higher advisory fee and/or have a performance adjustment and/or include an investment by the portfolio manager.

Morgan Stanley Investment Management, Inc.

COMPENSATION. Morgan Stanley’s compensation structure is based on a total reward system of base salary and incentive compensation, which is paid either in the form of cash bonus, or for employees meeting the specified deferred compensation eligibility threshold, partially as a cash bonus and partially as mandatory deferred compensation. Deferred compensation granted to Investment Management employees are generally granted as a mix of deferred cash awards under the Investment Management Alignment Plan (IMAP and equity-based awards in the form of stock units. The portion of incentive compensation granted in the form of a deferred compensation award and the terms of such awards are determined annually by the Compensation, Management Development and Succession Committee of the Morgan Stanley Board of Directors.

Base salary compensation. Generally, portfolio managers receive base salary compensation based on the level of their position with the Adviser.

Incentive compensation. In addition to base compensation, portfolio managers may receive discretionary year-end compensation.

Incentive compensation may include:

■	Cash Bonus.
■	Deferred Compensation:

■	A mandatory program that defers a portion of incentive compensation into restricted stock units or other awards based on Morgan Stanley common stock or other plans that are subject to vesting and other conditions.
■	IMAP is a cash-based deferred compensation plan designed to increase the alignment of participants’ interests with the interests of the Advisor’s clients. For eligible employees, a portion of their deferred compensation is mandatorily deferred into IMAP on an annual basis. Awards granted under IMAP are notionally invested in referenced funds available pursuant to the plan, which are funds advised by Investment Management. Portfolio managers are required to notionally invest a minimum of 25% of their account balance in the designated funds that they manage and are included in the IMAP notional investment fund menu.
■	Deferred compensation awards are typically subject to vesting over a multi-year period and are subject to cancellation through the payment date for competition, cause (i.e., any act or omission that constitutes a breach of obligation to the Company, including failure to comply with internal compliance, ethics or risk management standards, and failure or refusal to perform duties satisfactorily, including supervisory and management duties), disclosure of proprietary information, and solicitation of employees or clients. Awards are also subject to clawback through the payment date if an employee’s act or omission (including with respect to direct supervisory responsibilities) causes a restatement of the Firm’s consolidated financial results, constitutes a violation of the Firm’s global risk management principles, policies and standards, or causes a loss of revenue associated with a position on which the employee was paid and the employee operated outside of internal control policies.

Investment Management compensates employees based on principles of pay-for-performance, market competitiveness and risk management. Eligibility for, and the amount of any, discretionary compensation is subject to a multi-dimensional process. Specifically, consideration is given to one or more of the following factors, which can vary by portfolio management team and circumstances:

■	Revenue and profitability of the business and/or each fund/accounts managed by the portfolio manager
■	Revenue and profitability of the Firm
■	Return on equity and risk factors of both the business units and Morgan Stanley
■	Assets managed by the portfolio manager
■	External market conditions
■	New business development and business sustainability
■	Contribution to client objectives
■	The pre-tax investment performance of the funds/accounts managed by the portfolio manager (which may, in certain cases, be measured against the applicable benchmark(s) and/or peer group(s) over one, three and five-year periods.
■	Individual contribution and performance

Further, the Firm’s Global Incentive Compensation Discretion Policy requires compensation managers to consider only legitimate, business related factors when exercising discretion in determining variable incentive compensation, including adherence to Morgan Stanley’s core values, conduct, disciplinary actions in the current performance year, risk management and risk outcomes.

Other Accounts Managed by the Portfolio Managers

118

Because the portfolio managers may manage assets for other investment companies, pooled investment vehicles and/or other accounts (including institutional clients, pension plans and certain high net worth individuals), there may be an incentive to favor one client over another resulting in conflicts of interest. For instance, the Adviser and/or Sub- Advisers may receive fees from certain accounts that are higher than the fee it receives from the Fund, or it may receive a performance-based fee on certain accounts. In those instances, the portfolio managers may have an incentive to favor the higher and/or performance-based fee accounts over the Fund. In addition, a conflict of interest could exist to the extent the Adviser and/or Sub-Advisers have proprietary investments in certain accounts, where portfolio managers have personal investments in certain accounts or when certain accounts are investment options in the Adviser’s and/or Sub-Advisers’ employee benefits and/or deferred compensation plans. The portfolio manager may have an incentive to favor these accounts over others. If the Adviser and/or Sub-Advisers manage accounts that engage in short sales of securities of the type in which the Fund invests, the Adviser and/or Sub-Advisers could be seen as harming the performance of the Fund for the benefit of the accounts engaging in short sales if the short sales cause the market value of the securities to fall. The Adviser and/or Sub-Advisers have adopted trade allocation and other policies and procedures that they believe are reasonably designed to address these and other conflicts of interest.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Because the portfolio managers may manage assets for other investment companies, pooled investment vehicles, and/or other accounts (including institutional clients, pension plans and certain high net worth individuals), there may be an incentive to favor one client over another resulting in conflicts of interest. For instance, the Sub-Adviser may receive fees from certain accounts that are higher than the fee it receives from the Fund, or it may receive a performance-based fee on certain accounts. In those instances, the portfolio managers may have an incentive to favor the higher and/or performance-based fee accounts over the Fund. In addition, a conflict of interest could exist to the extent the Sub-Adviser has proprietary investments in certain accounts, where portfolio managers have personal investments in certain accounts or when certain accounts are investment options in the Sub-Adviser’s employee benefits and/or deferred compensation plans. The portfolio manager may have an incentive to favor these accounts over others. If the Sub-Adviser manages accounts that engage in short sales of securities of the type in which the Fund invests, the Sub-Adviser could be seen as harming the performance of the Fund for the benefit of the accounts engaging in short sales if the short sales cause the market value of the securities to fall. The Sub-Adviser has adopted trade allocation and other policies and procedures that it believes are reasonably designed to address these and other conflicts of interest.

Brokerage Selection

MSIM, as the Fund’s sub-adviser, is responsible for decisions to buy and sell securities for the Fund, for broker-dealer selection and for negotiation of commission rates. MSIM is prohibited from directing brokerage transactions on the basis of the referral of clients or the sale of shares of advised investment companies. Purchases and sales of securities on a stock exchange are effected through brokers who charge a commission for their services. In the OTC market, securities may be traded as agency transactions through broker dealers or traded on a “net” basis with dealers acting as principal for their own accounts without a stated commission, although the price of the security usually includes profit to the dealer. In underwritten offerings, securities are purchased at a fixed price that includes an amount of compensation to the underwriter, generally referred to as the underwriter’s concession or discount. When securities are purchased or sold directly from or to an issuer, no commissions or discounts are paid.

On occasion, the Fund may purchase certain money market instruments directly from an issuer without payment of a commission or concession. Money market instruments are generally traded on a “net” basis with dealers acting as principal for their own accounts without a stated commission, although the price of the security usually includes a profit to the dealer.

The Fund anticipates that certain of its transactions involving foreign securities will be effected on foreign securities exchanges. There is also generally less government supervision and regulation of foreign securities exchanges and brokers than in the United States. MSIM serves as investment adviser to a number of clients, including other investment companies. MSIM attempts to equitably allocate purchase and sale transactions among the Fund and other client accounts. To that end, MSIM considers various factors, including respective investment objectives, relative size of portfolio holdings of the same or comparable securities, availability of cash for investment, size of investment commitments generally held and the opinions of the persons responsible for managing the Fund and other client accounts.

MSIM selects the brokers or dealers that will execute the purchases and sales of investment securities for the Fund. Selection of approved brokers for execution is based on three main criteria: access to liquidity, provision of capital and quality of execution. MSIM effects transactions with those broker-dealers under the obligation to seek best execution. MSIM may place portfolio transactions with those brokers and dealers who also furnish research and other services to the Fund and/or MSIM. Services provided may include certain research services (as described below), as well as effecting securities transactions and performing functions incidental thereto (such as clearance, settlement and custody).

119

MSIM and its affiliated investment advisers have established commission sharing arrangements under a commission management program (the “Commission Management Program” or “CMP”), pursuant to which execution and research costs or a portion of those costs are decoupled in accordance with applicable laws, rules and regulations.

“Approved Equity CMP Partner Brokers” are those executing brokers with which MSIM or its affiliated investment advisers have agreement(s) to accrue research commission credits for the benefit of clients. Over a certain time period, the research credits are pooled at the Approved Equity CMP Partner Brokers and a third party vendor (also known as the “CMP Aggregator”) who will, under MSIM’s supervision, act as the administrator of certain CMP related activities which may include reconciliation of research credits with brokers, as well as holding research credits in an account for purposes of distribution to applicable research providers at a later time. These research credits are subsequently used to pay for eligible research services.

Under the CMP, MSIM and its affiliated investment advisers select approved equity brokers (which include MSIM’s affiliates) for execution services and after accumulation of commissions at such brokers, MSIM and/or its affiliated investment advisers instruct these approved equity brokers to transfer a predetermined percentage of commissions to an aggregator. MSIM and/or its affiliated investment advisers then instruct the aggregator to utilize these balances to pay for eligible research provided by executing brokers or third-party research providers on MSIM’s and its affiliated investment advisers’ Approved Research Provider List. Generally, MSIM and its affiliated investment advisers will direct the aggregator and/or approved equity broker to record research credits based upon a previously agreed-upon allocation and will periodically instruct the aggregator and/or approved equity broker to direct specified dollar amounts from that pool to pay for eligible research services provided by third-party research providers and/or executing brokers. The research credits are pooled among MSIM and its affiliated investment advisers and allocated on behalf of both MSIM and its affiliated investment advisers. Likewise, the research services obtained under the CMP are shared among MSIM and its affiliated investment advisers.

For those costs not decoupled, but retained by broker-dealers, MSIM also effects transactions with brokers which directly pay for proprietary research services provided in accordance with Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “1934 Act”). Such transactions include equity transactions effected on an agency basis.

Transactions involving client accounts managed by two or more affiliated investment advisers may be aggregated and executed using the services of broker-dealers that provide third-party benefits/research so long as all client accounts involved in the transaction benefit from one or more of the services offered by such broker-dealer.

The research services received include those of the nature described above and other services that aid MSIM in fulfilling its investment decision-making responsibilities, including (a) furnishing advice as to the value of securities, the advisability of investing in, purchasing or selling securities, and the availability of securities or purchasers or sellers of securities; and (b) furnishing analyses and reports concerning issuers, industries, securities, economic factors and trends, portfolio strategy, and the performance of accounts. Where a particular item has both research and non-research related uses, MSIM will make a reasonable allocation of the cost of the item between research and non-research uses and will only pay for the portion of the cost allocated to research uses with client brokerage transactions.

Certain investment professionals and other employees of MSIM are also officers of affiliated investment advisers and may provide investment advisory services to clients of such affiliated investment advisers. Research services furnished or paid for by brokers through whom MSIM effects transactions for a particular account may be used by MSIM or its affiliated investment advisers in servicing its other accounts, and not all such services may be used for the benefit of the client which pays the brokerage commission that results in the receipt of such research services. Commissions paid to brokers providing research services may be higher than those charged by brokers not providing such services.

MSIM’s personnel also provide research and trading support to personnel of certain affiliated investment advisers. Research related costs may be shared by affiliated investment advisers and may benefit the clients of such affiliated investment advisers.

Research services that benefit MSIM may be received in connection with commissions generated by clients of its affiliated investment advisers.

MSIM and its affiliated investment advisers make a good faith determination of the value of research services in accordance with Section 28(e) of the 1934 Act, UK Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority Rules and other relevant regulatory requirements.

MSIM and certain of its affiliates currently serve as an investment adviser to a number of clients, including other investment companies, and may in the future act as investment adviser to others. It is the practice of MSIM and its affiliates to cause purchase and sale transactions (including transactions in certain initial and secondary public offerings) to be allocated among clients whose assets

120

they manage (including the Fund) in such manner they deem equitable. In making such allocations among the Fund and other client accounts, various factors may be considered, including the respective investment objectives, the relative size of portfolio holdings of the same or comparable securities, the availability of cash for investment, the size of investment commitments generally held and the opinions of the persons responsible for managing the Fund and other client accounts. MSIM and its affiliates may operate one or more order placement facilities and each facility will implement order allocation in accordance with the procedures described above. From time to time, each facility may transact in a security at the same time as other facilities are trading in that security.

Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers LLC

COMPENSATION. Neuberger Berman's compensation philosophy is one that focuses on rewarding performance and incentivizing our employees. We are also focused on creating a compensation process that we believe is fair, transparent, and competitive with the market.

Compensation for Portfolio Managers consists of fixed (salary) and variable (bonus) compensation but is more heavily weighted on the variable portion of total compensation and is paid from a team compensation pool made available to the portfolio management team with which the Portfolio Manager is associated. The size of the team compensation pool is determined based on a formula that takes into consideration a number of factors including the pre-tax revenue that is generated by that particular portfolio management team, less certain adjustments. The bonus portion of the compensation for a Portfolio Manager is discretionary and is determined on the basis of a variety of criteria, including investment performance (including the aggregate multi-year track record), utilization of central resources (including research, sales and operations/support), business building to further the longer term sustainable success of the investment team, effective team/people management, and overall contribution to the success of NB Group. Certain Portfolio Managers may manage products other than mutual funds, such as high net worth separate accounts. For the management of these accounts, a Portfolio Manager may generally receive a percentage of pre-tax revenue determined on a monthly basis less certain deductions. The percentage of revenue a Portfolio Manager receives will vary based on certain revenue thresholds. Neuberger Berman has policies and procedures in place to monitor and manage any conflicts of interest that may arise as a result of this structure.

The terms of our long-term retention incentives are as follows:

Employee-Owned Equity. Certain employees (i.e., senior leadership and investment professionals) participate in Neuberger Berman’s equity ownership structure, which was designed to incentivize and retain key personnel. Most equity issuances are subject to vesting.

In addition, in prior years certain employees may have elected to have a portion of their compensation delivered in the form of equity, which, in certain instances, is vested upon issuance and in other instances vesting aligns with the vesting of our Contingent Compensation Plan (vesting over 3 years).

For confidentiality and privacy reasons, we cannot disclose individual equity holdings or program participation.

Contingent Compensation. Neuberger Berman established the Neuberger Berman Group Contingent Compensation Plan (the “CCP”) to serve as a means to further align the interests of our employees with the success of the firm and the interests of our clients, and to reward continued employment. Under the CCP, a percentage of a participant’s total compensation is contingent and tied to the performance of a portfolio of Neuberger Berman investment strategies as specified by the firm on an employee-by-employee basis. By having a participant’s contingent compensation tied to Neuberger Berman investment strategies, each employee is given further incentive to operate as a prudent risk manager and to collaborate with colleagues to maximize performance across all business areas. In the case of Portfolio Managers, the CCP is currently structured so that such employees have exposure to the investment strategies of their respective teams as well as the broader Neuberger Berman portfolio. Subject to satisfaction of certain conditions of the CCP (including conditions relating to continued employment), contingent compensation amounts vest over three years. Neuberger Berman determines annually which employees participate in the program based on total compensation for the applicable year.

Restrictive Covenants. Most investment professionals, including Portfolio Managers, are subject to notice periods and restrictive covenants which include employee and client non-solicit restrictions as well as restrictions on the use of confidential information. In addition, depending on participation levels, certain senior professionals who have received equity have also agreed to additional notice and transition periods and, in some cases, non-compete restrictions.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Actual or apparent conflicts of interest may arise when a Portfolio Manager has day-to-day management responsibilities with respect to more than one fund or other account. The management of multiple funds and accounts (including proprietary accounts) may give rise to actual or potential conflicts of interest if the funds and accounts have different or similar objectives, benchmarks, time horizons, and fees, as the Portfolio Manager must allocate his or her time and investment ideas across multiple funds and accounts. The Portfolio Manager may execute transactions for another fund or account that may adversely impact the value of securities held by a fund, and which may include transactions that are directly contrary to the positions taken by a fund.

121

For example, a Portfolio Manager may engage in short sales of securities for another account that are the same type of securities in which a fund it manages also invests. In such a case, the Portfolio Manager could be seen as harming the performance of the Fund for the benefit of the account engaging in short sales if the short sales cause the market value of the securities to fall. Additionally, if a Portfolio Manager identifies a limited investment opportunity that may be suitable for more than one fund or other account, a fund may not be able to take full advantage of that opportunity. Further, Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers (“NBIA”) may take an investment position or action for a fund or account that may be different from, inconsistent with, or have different rights than (e.g., voting rights, dividend or repayment priorities or other features that may conflict with one another), an action or position taken for one or more other funds or accounts, including a fund, having similar or different objectives. A conflict may also be created by investing in different parts of an issuer’s capital structure (e.g., equity or debt, or different positions in the debt structure). Those positions and actions may adversely impact, or in some instances benefit, one or more affected accounts, including the funds. Potential conflicts may also arise because portfolio decisions and related actions regarding a position held for a fund or another account may not be in the best interests of a position held by another fund or account having similar or different objectives. If one account were to buy or sell portfolio securities shortly before another account bought or sold the same securities, it could affect the price paid or received by the second account. Securities selected for funds or accounts other than a fund may outperform the securities selected for the fund. Finally, a conflict of interest may arise if NBIA and a Portfolio Manager have a financial incentive to favor one account over another, such as a performance-based management fee that applies to one account but not all funds or accounts for which the Portfolio Manager is responsible. In the ordinary course of operations certain businesses within the Neuberger Berman organization (the “Firm”) may seek access to material non-public information. For instance, certain loan portfolio managers may utilize material non-public information in purchasing loans and from time to time, may be offered the opportunity on behalf of applicable clients to participate on a creditors committee, which participation may provide access to material non-public information. The Firm maintains procedures that address the process by which material non-public information may be acquired intentionally by the Firm. When considering whether to acquire material non-public information, the Firm will take into account the interests of all clients and will endeavor to act fairly to all clients. The intentional acquisition of material non-public information may give rise to a potential conflict of interest since the Firm may be prohibited from rendering investment advice to clients regarding the public securities of such issuer and thereby potentially limiting the universe of public securities that the Firm, including a fund, may purchase or potentially limiting the ability of the Firm, including a fund, to sell such securities. Similarly, where the Firm declines access to (or otherwise does not receive) material non-public information regarding an issuer, the portfolio managers may base investment decisions for its clients, including a fund, with respect to loan assets of such issuer solely on public information, thereby limiting the amount of information available to the portfolio managers in connection with such investment decisions.

NBIA has adopted certain compliance procedures which are designed to address these types of conflicts. However, there is no guarantee that such procedures will detect each and every situation in which a conflict arises.

Parametric Portfolio Associates LLC.

COMPENSATION.

Parametric believes that its compensation packages, which are described below, are adequate to attract and retain high-caliber professional employees. Please note that compensation for investment professionals is not based directly on investment performance or assets managed, but rather on the overall performance of responsibilities. In this way, the interests of portfolio managers are aligned with the interests of investors without providing incentive to take undue or insufficient investment risk. It also removes a potential motivation for fraud.

Parametric Compensation Structure. Compensation of investment professionals has three primary components: (1) a base salary; (2) an annual cash bonus; and (3) annual equity-based compensation.

Parametric investment professionals also receive certain retirement, insurance and other benefits that are broadly available to Parametric employees. Compensation of Parametric professionals are reviewed on an annual basis. Stock-based compensation awards and adjustments in base salary and bonuses are typically paid and/or put into effect at, or shortly after, the firm’s fiscal year-end, October 31.

Method Parametric uses to Determine Compensation. Parametric seeks to compensate investment professionals commensurate with responsibilities and performance while remaining competitive with other firms within the investment management industry.

Salaries, bonuses and stock-based compensation are also influenced by the operating performance of Parametric and its parent company, Eaton Vance Corp. (“EVC”). Cash bonuses are determined based on a target percentage of Parametric’s profits. While the salaries of investment professionals are comparatively fixed, cash bonuses and stock-based compensation may fluctuate from year-to-year, based on changes in financial performance and other factors. Parametric also offers opportunities to move within the organization, as well as incentives to grow within the organization by promotion.

122

Additionally, Parametric participates in compensation surveys that benchmark salaries against other firms in the industry. This data is reviewed, along with a number of other factors, so that compensation remains competitive with other firms in the industry.

The firm also maintains the following arrangements:

■	Employment contracts for key investment professionals and senior leadership.
■	Eligible employees receive Eaton Vance equity grants that vest over a 5-year period from grant date. The vesting schedule for each grant is 10% in year 1, 15% in year 2, 20% in year 3, 25% in year 4, and 30% in year 5.
■	Ownership stake in Parametric Equity Plans for key employees.
■	Profit Sharing that vests over a 5-year period from employee’s start date. The vesting schedule for the Profit Sharing is 20% per year from the employee’s start date.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. It is possible that conflicts of interest may arise in connection with a portfolio manager's management of the investments of the Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio on the one hand and the investments of other accounts for which the portfolio manager is responsible on the other. For example, a portfolio manager may have conflicts of interest in allocating management time, resources and investment opportunities among the Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio and other accounts he or she advises. In addition, due to differences in the investment strategies or restrictions between a Fund or Portfolio and the other accounts, a portfolio manager may take action with respect to another account that differs from the action taken with respect to the Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio. In some cases, another account managed by a portfolio manager may compensate the investment adviser based on the performance of the securities held by that account. The existence of such a performance based fee may create additional conflicts of interest for the portfolio manager in the allocation of management time, resources and investment opportunities. Whenever conflicts of interest arise, the portfolio manager will endeavor to exercise his or her discretion in a manner that he or she believes is equitable to all interested persons. Parametric has adopted several policies and procedures designed to address these potential conflicts including: a code of ethics; and policies which govern Parametric's trading practices, including among other things the aggregation and allocation of trades among clients, brokerage allocation, cross trades and best execution on the performance of the securities held by that account. The existence of such a performance based fee may create additional conflicts of interest for the portfolio manager in the allocation of management time, resources and investment opportunities. Whenever conflicts of interest arise, the portfolio manager will endeavor to exercise his or her discretion in a manner that he or she believes is equitable to all interested persons. Parametric has adopted several policies and procedures designed to address these potential conflicts including: a code of ethics; and policies which govern Parametric's trading practices, including among other things the aggregation and allocation of trades among clients, brokerage allocation, cross trades and best execution.

Pacific Investment Management Company LLC.

PORTFOLIO MANAGER COMPENSATION. PIMCO’s approach to compensation seeks to provide professionals with a Total Compensation Plan and process that is driven by PIMCO’s mission and values. Key Principles on Compensation Philosophy include:

■	PIMCO’s pay practices are designed to attract and retain high performers;
■	PIMCO’s pay philosophy embraces a corporate culture of rewarding strong performance, a strong work ethic, and meritocracy;
■	PIMCO’s goal is to ensure key professionals are aligned to PIMCO’s long-term success through equity participation; and
■	PIMCO’s “Discern and Differentiate” discipline guides total compensation levels.

The Total Compensation Plan consists of three components. The compensation program for portfolio managers is designed to align with clients’ interests, emphasizing each portfolio manager’s ability to generate long-term investment success for PIMCO’s clients. A portfolio manager’s compensation is not based solely on the performance of any Fund or any other account managed by that portfolio manager:

Base Salary – Base salary is determined based on core job responsibilities, positions/levels and market factors. Base salary levels are reviewed annually, when there is a significant change in job responsibilities or position, or a significant change in market levels.

Performance Bonus – Performance bonuses are designed to reward risk-adjusted performance and contributions to PIMCO’s broader investment process. The compensation process is not formulaic and the following non-exhaustive list of qualitative and quantitative criteria are considered when determining the total compensation for portfolio managers:

■

Performance measured over a variety of longer- and shorter-term periods, including 5-year, 4-year, 3-year, 2-year and 1-year dollar-weighted and account-weighted, pre-tax total and risk-adjusted investment performance as judged against the applicable benchmarks (which may include internal investment performance-related benchmarks) for each account managed by a portfolio manager (including the Funds) and relative to applicable industry peer groups; greatest emphasis is placed on 5-year and 3-year performance, followed by 1-year performance;

■

Consistency of investment performance across portfolios of similar mandate and guidelines, rewarding low dispersion and consistency of outperformance;

123

■	Appropriate risk positioning and risk management mindset which includes consistency with PIMCO’s investment philosophy, the Investment Committee’s positioning guidance, absence of defaults, and appropriate alignment with client objectives;
■	Contributions to mentoring, coaching and/or supervising members of team;
■	Collaboration, idea generation, and contribution of investment ideas in the context of PIMCO’s investment process, Investment Committee meetings, and day-to-day management of portfolios;
■	With much lesser importance than the aforementioned factors: amount and nature of assets managed by the portfolio manager, contributions to asset retention, and client satisfaction.

PIMCO’s partnership culture further rewards strong long term risk adjusted returns with promotion decisions almost entirely tied to long term contributions to the investment process. 10-year performance can also be considered, though not explicitly as part of the compensation process.

Deferred Compensation – Long Term Incentive Plan (“LTIP”) and/or M Options which is awarded to key professionals. Employees who reach a total compensation threshold are delivered their annual compensation in a mix of cash and/or deferred compensation. PIMCO incorporates a progressive allocation of deferred compensation as a percentage of total compensation, which is in line with market practices.

■

The LTIP provides participants with deferred cash awards that appreciate or depreciate based on PIMCO’s operating earnings over a rolling three-year period. The plan provides a link between longer term company performance and participant pay, further motivating participants to make a long term commitment to PIMCO’s success.

■

The M Unit program provides mid-to-senior level employees with the potential to acquire an equity stake in PIMCO over their careers and to better align employee incentives with the Firm’s long-term results. In the program, options are awarded and vest over a number of years and may convert into PIMCO equity which shares in the profit distributions of the Firm. M Units are non-voting common equity of PIMCO and provide a mechanism for individuals to build a significant equity stake in PIMCO over time.

Participation in LTIP and M Unit program is contingent upon continued employment at PIMCO.

Profit Sharing Plan. Portfolio managers who are Managing Directors of PIMCO receive compensation from a non-qualified profit sharing plan consisting of a portion of PIMCO’s net profits. Portfolio managers who are Managing Directors receive an amount determined by the Compensation Committee, based upon an individual’s overall contribution to the firm.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. From time to time, potential and actual conflicts of interest may arise between a portfolio manager’s management of the investments of a Portfolio, on the one hand, and the management of other accounts, on the other. Potential and actual conflicts of interest may also arise as a result of PIMCO’s other business activities and PIMCO’s possession of material non-public information about an issuer. Other accounts managed by a portfolio manager might have similar investment objectives or strategies as the Funds, track the same index a Portfolio tracks or otherwise hold, purchase, or sell securities that are eligible to be held, purchased or sold by the Funds. The other accounts might also have different investment objectives or strategies than the Funds. Potential and actual conflicts of interest may also arise as a result of PIMCO serving as investment adviser to accounts that invest in the Funds. In this case, such conflicts of interest could in theory give rise to incentives for PIMCO to, among other things, vote proxies or redeem shares of a Portfolio in a manner beneficial to the investing account but detrimental to the Fund. Conversely, PIMCO’s duties to the Funds, as well as regulatory or other limitations applicable to the Funds, may affect the courses of action available to PIMCO-advised accounts (including certain Funds) that invest in the Funds in a manner that is detrimental to such investing accounts.

Because PIMCO is affiliated with Allianz, a large multi-national financial institution, conflicts similar to those described below may occur between the Funds or other accounts managed by PIMCO and PIMCO’s affiliates or accounts managed by those affiliates. Those affiliates (or their clients), which generally operate autonomously from PIMCO, may take actions that are adverse to the Funds or other accounts managed by PIMCO. In many cases, PIMCO will not be in a position to mitigate those actions or address those conflicts, which could adversely affect the performance of the Funds or other accounts managed by PIMCO.

Knowledge and Timing of Fund Trades. A potential conflict of interest may arise as a result of the portfolio manager’s day-to-day management of a Portfolio. Because of their positions with the Funds, the portfolio managers know the size, timing and possible market impact of a Portfolio’s trades. It is theoretically possible that the portfolio managers could use this information to the advantage of other accounts they manage and to the possible detriment of a Portfolio.

Investment Opportunities. A potential conflict of interest may arise as a result of the portfolio manager’s management of a number of accounts with varying investment guidelines. Often, an investment opportunity may be suitable for both a Portfolio and other accounts managed by the portfolio manager, but may not be available in sufficient quantities for both the Fund and the other accounts to participate fully. In addition, regulatory issues applicable to PIMCO or one or more Funds or other accounts may result in certain

124

Funds not receiving securities that may otherwise be appropriate for them. Similarly, there may be limited opportunity to sell an investment held by a Portfolio and another account. PIMCO has adopted policies and procedures reasonably designed to allocate investment opportunities on a fair and equitable basis over time.

Under PIMCO’s allocation procedures, investment opportunities are allocated among various investment strategies based on individual account investment guidelines and PIMCO’s investment outlook. PIMCO has also adopted additional procedures to complement the general trade allocation policy that are designed to address potential conflicts of interest due to the side-by-side management of the Funds and certain pooled investment vehicles, including investment opportunity allocation issues.

Conflicts potentially limiting a Portfolio’s investment opportunities may also arise when the Fund and other PIMCO clients invest in different parts of an issuer’s capital structure, such as when the Fund owns senior debt obligations of an issuer and other clients own junior tranches of the same issuer. In such circumstances, decisions over whether to trigger an event of default, over the terms of any workout, or how to exit an investment may result in conflicts of interest. In order to minimize such conflicts, a portfolio manager may avoid certain investment opportunities that would potentially give rise to conflicts with other PIMCO clients or PIMCO may enact internal procedures designed to minimize such conflicts, which could have the effect of limiting a Portfolio’s investment opportunities. Additionally, if PIMCO acquires material non-public confidential information in connection with its business activities for other clients, a portfolio manager may be restricted from purchasing securities or selling securities for a Portfolio. Moreover, a Portfolio or other account managed by PIMCO may invest in a transaction in which one or more other Funds or accounts managed by PIMCO are expected to participate, or already have made or will seek to make, an investment. Such Funds or accounts may have conflicting interests and objectives in connection with such investments, including, for example and without limitation, with respect to views on the operations or activities of the issuer involved, the targeted returns from the investment, and the timeframe for, and method of, exiting the investment. When making investment decisions where a conflict of interest may arise, PIMCO will endeavor to act in a fair and equitable manner as between a Portfolio and other clients; however, in certain instances the resolution of the conflict may result in PIMCO acting on behalf of another client in a manner that may not be in the best interest, or may be opposed to the best interest, of a Portfolio.

Performance Fees. A portfolio manager may advise certain accounts with respect to which the advisory fee is based entirely or partially on performance. Performance fee arrangements may create a conflict of interest for the portfolio manager in that the portfolio manager may have an incentive to allocate the investment opportunities that he or she believes might be the most profitable to such other accounts instead of allocating them to a Portfolio. PIMCO has adopted policies and procedures reasonably designed to allocate investment opportunities between the Funds and such other accounts on a fair and equitable basis over time.

PGIM INVESTMENTS LLC

PORTFOLIO MANAGER COMPENSATION. Prudential provides compensation opportunities to eligible employees to motivate and reward the achievement of outstanding results by providing market-based programs that:

■	Attract and reward highly qualified employees
■	Align with critical business goals and objectives
■	Link to the performance results relevant to the business segment and Prudential
■	Retain top performers
■	Pay for results and differentiate levels of performance
■	Foster behaviors and contributions that promote Prudential's success

The components of compensation for a Vice President in PGIM Investments consists of base salary, annual incentive compensation and long term incentive compensation.

Base Pay Overview: The Prudential compensation structure is organized in grades, each with its own minimum and maximum base pay (i.e., salary). The grades reflect pay patterns in the market. Each job in the plan—from CEO through an entry-level job—is included in one of the grades. The main determinant of placement in the base pay structure is market data. On an annual basis, Corporate Compensation collects and analyzes market data to determine if any change to the placement of job in the structure is necessary to maintain market competitiveness. If necessary, structural compensation changes (e.g., increases to base pay minimum and maximums) will be effective on the plan's effective date for base pay increases.

Annual Incentive Compensation Overview: The plan provides an opportunity for all participants to share in the annual results of Prudential, as well as the results of their division or profit center. Results are reviewed and incentive payments are made as early as practicable after the close of the plan year. Incentive payments are awarded based on organizational performance—which determines the available dollar amounts—and individual performance. Individual performance will be evaluated on the basis of contributions relative to others in the organization. Incentive payments are granted from a budgeted amount of money that is made available by the Company. Initial budgets are developed by determining the competitive market rates for incentives as compared to our comparator

125

companies. Each organization's budget pool may be increased or decreased based on organizational performance. Organizational performance is determined by a review of performance relative to our comparator group, as well as key measures indicated in our business plan, such as Return on Required Equity (RORE), earnings and revenue growth.

Long Term Incentive Compensation Overview: In addition, executives at the Vice President level and above are eligible to participate in a long term incentive program to provide an ownership stake in Prudential Financial. Long-Term incentives currently consist of restricted stock and stock options. The stock options vest ¹⁄3 per year over 3 years and the restricted stock vests 100% at the end of 3 years.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. PGIM Investments follows Prudential Financial's policies on business ethics, personal securities trading by investment personnel, and information barriers and has adopted a code of ethics, allocation policies, supervisory procedures and conflicts of interest policies, among other policies and procedures, which are designed to ensure that clients are not harmed by these potential or actual conflicts of interests; however, there is no guarantee that such policies and procedures will detect and ensure avoidance, disclosure or mitigation of each and every situation in which a conflict may arise.

PGIM FIXED INCOME

COMPENSATION. General. An investment professional’s base salary is based on market data relative to similar positions as well as the past performance, years of experience and scope of responsibility of the individual. Incentive compensation, including the annual cash bonus, the long-term equity grant and grants under our long-term incentive plans, is primarily based on such person’s contribution to our goal of providing investment performance to clients consistent with portfolio objectives, guidelines and risk parameters and market- based data such as compensation trends and levels of overall compensation for similar positions in the asset management industry. In addition, an investment professional’s qualitative contributions to the organization are considered in determining incentive compensation. Incentive compensation is not solely based on the performance of, or value of assets in, any single account or group of client accounts.

Cash Bonus

An investment professional’s annual cash bonus is paid from an annual incentive pool. The pool is developed as a percentage of our operating income and may be refined by factors such as:

■	business development initiatives, measured primarily by growth in operating income; and/or
■	investment performance of portfolios: (i) relative to appropriate peer groups and/or (ii) as measured against relevant investment indices.

Long-Term Compensation

Long-term compensation consists of Prudential Financial, Inc. (Prudential Financial) restricted stock grants under our long-term incentive plan and targeted long-term incentive plan. Grants under our long-term incentive plan and targeted long-term incentive plan, are participation interests in notional accounts with a beginning value of a specified dollar amount. The value attributed to these notional accounts increases or decreases over a defined period of time based, in part (and wholly, in the case of targeted long-term incentive awards), on the performance of (a) one or more investment composites or (b) commingled investment vehicles, each representing a number of our investment strategies. An investment composite is an aggregation of accounts with similar investment strategies. Our long-term incentive plan is designed to more closely align compensation with investment performance and the growth of our business. In addition, our targeted long-term incentive plan is designed to align the interests of certain of our investment professionals with the performance of a particular long-short composite or commingled investment vehicle. Both the restricted stock and participation interests are subject to vesting requirements.

Conflicts Related to Long-Term Compensation

The performance of many client accounts is not reflected in the calculation of changes in the value of participation interests under our long-term incentive plan. In addition, the performance of only a small number of our investment strategies is covered under our targeted long-term incentive plan. This may be because the composite representing the strategy in which the account is managed is not one of the composites included in the calculation or because the account is excluded from a specified composite due to guideline restrictions or other factors. As a result of the long-term incentive plan and targeted long-term incentive plan, our portfolio managers from time to time have financial interests related to the investment performance of some, but not all, of the accounts they manage. To address potential conflicts related to these financial interests, we have procedures, including trade allocation and supervisory review procedures, designed to confirm that each of our client accounts is managed in a manner that is consistent with our fiduciary obligations, as well as with the account’s investment objectives, investment strategies and restrictions. For example, the chief

126

investment officer/head of PGIM Fixed Income reviews performance among similarly managed accounts on a quarterly basis during meetings typically attended by members of PGIM Fixed Income’s senior leadership team, chief compliance officer or his designee, and senior portfolio managers.

Conflicts of Interest. Like other investment advisers, PGIM Fixed Income is subject to various conflicts of interest in the ordinary course of its business. PGIM Fixed Income strives to identify potential risks, including conflicts of interest, that are inherent in its business, and conducts annual conflict of interest reviews. When actual or potential conflicts of interest are identified, PGIM Fixed Income seeks to address such conflicts through one or more of the following methods:

■	elimination of the conflict;
■	disclosure of the conflict; or
■	management of the conflict through the adoption of appropriate policies and procedures.

PGIM Fixed Income follows the policies of Prudential Financial on business ethics, personal securities trading by investment personnel, and information barriers. PGIM Fixed Income has adopted a code of ethics, allocation policies and conflicts of interest policies, among others, and has adopted supervisory procedures to monitor compliance with its policies. PGIM Fixed Income cannot guarantee, however, that its policies and procedures will detect and prevent, or assure disclosure of, each and every situation in which a conflict may arise.

Side-by-Side Management of Accounts and Related Conflicts of Interest. PGIM Fixed Income’s side-by-side management of multiple accounts can create conflicts of interest. Examples are detailed below, followed by a discussion of how PGIM Fixed Income addresses these conflicts.

■	Performance Fees— PGIM Fixed Income manages accounts with asset-based fees alongside accounts with performance-based fees. This side-by-side management may be deemed to create an incentive for PGIM Fixed Income and its investment professionals to favor one account over another. Specifically, PGIM Fixed Income could be considered to have the incentive to favor accounts for which it receives performance fees, and possibly take greater investment risks in those accounts, in order to bolster performance and increase its fees.
■	Affiliated accounts— PGIM Fixed Income manages accounts on behalf of its affiliates as well as unaffiliated accounts. PGIM Fixed Income could be considered to have an incentive to favor accounts of affiliates over others.
■	Large accounts—large accounts typically generate more revenue than do smaller accounts and certain of PGIM Fixed Income’s strategies have higher fees than others. As a result, a portfolio manager could be considered to have an incentive when allocating scarce investment opportunities to favor accounts that pay a higher fee or generate more income for PGIM Fixed Income.
■	Long only and long/short accounts— PGIM Fixed Income manages accounts that only allow it to hold securities long as well as accounts that permit short selling. PGIM Fixed Income may, therefore, sell a security short in some client accounts while holding the same security long in other client accounts. These short sales could reduce the value of the securities held in the long only accounts. In addition, purchases for long only accounts could have a negative impact on the short positions.
■	Securities of the same kind or class— PGIM Fixed Income may buy or sell for one client account securities of the same kind or class that are purchased or sold for another client at prices that may be different. PGIM Fixed Income may also, at any time, execute trades of securities of the same kind or class in one direction for an account and in the opposite direction for another account due to differences in investment strategy or client direction. Different strategies trading in the same securities or types of securities may appear as inconsistencies in PGIM Fixed Income’s management of multiple accounts side-by-side.
■	Financial interests of investment professionals— PGIM Fixed Income investment professionals may invest in investment vehicles that it advises. Also, certain of these investment vehicles are options under the 401(k) and deferred compensation plans offered by Prudential Financial. In addition, the value of grants under PGIM Fixed Income’s long-term incentive plan is affected by the performance of certain client accounts. As a result, PGIM Fixed Income investment professionals may have financial interests in accounts managed by PGIM Fixed Income or that are related to the performance of certain client accounts.
■	Non-discretionary accounts or models— PGIM Fixed Income provides non-discretionary investment advice and non-discretionary model portfolios to some clients and manages others on a discretionary basis. Trades in non-discretionary accounts could occur before, in concert with, or after PGIM Fixed Income executes similar trades in its discretionary accounts. The non-discretionary clients may be disadvantaged if PGIM Fixed Income delivers the model investment portfolio or investment advice to them after it initiates trading for the discretionary clients, or vice versa.

How PGIM Fixed Income Addresses These Conflicts of Interest. PGIM Fixed Income has developed policies and procedures designed to address the conflicts of interest with respect to its different types of side-by-side management described above.

■

The head of PGIM Fixed Income and its chief investment officer periodically review and compare performance and performance attribution for each client account within its various strategies.

■

In keeping with PGIM Fixed Income’s fiduciary obligations, its policy with respect to trade aggregation and allocation is to treat all of its accounts fairly and equitably over time. PGIM Fixed Income’s trade management oversight committee, which generally meets quarterly, is responsible for providing oversight with respect to trade aggregation and allocation. PGIM Fixed Income has compliance procedures with respect to its aggregation and allocation policy that include independent monitoring by its compliance group of the timing, allocation and aggregation of trades and the allocation of investment opportunities. In addition, its compliance

127

group reviews a sampling of new issue allocations and related documentation each month to confirm compliance with the allocation procedures. PGIM Fixed Income’s compliance group reports the results of the monitoring processes to its trade management oversight committee. PGIM Fixed Income’s trade management oversight committee reviews forensic reports of new issue allocation throughout the year so that new issue allocation in each of its strategies is reviewed at least once during each year. This forensic analysis includes such data as: (i) the number of new issues allocated in the strategy; (ii) the size of new issue allocations to each portfolio in the strategy; and (iii) the profitability of new issue transactions. The results of these analyses are reviewed and discussed at PGIM Fixed Income’s trade management oversight committee meetings. PGIM Fixed Income’s trade management oversight committee also reviews forensic reports on the allocation of trading opportunities in the secondary market. The procedures above are designed to detect patterns and anomalies in PGIM Fixed Income’s side-by-side management and trading so that it may assess and improve its processes.

■

PGIM Fixed Income has policies and procedures that specifically address its side-by-side management of long/short and long only portfolios. These policies address potential conflicts that could arise from differing positions between long/short and long only portfolios. In addition, lending opportunities with respect to securities for which the market is demanding a slight premium rate over normal market rates are allocated to long only accounts prior to allocating the opportunities to long/short accounts.

Conflicts Related to PGIM Fixed Income’s Affiliations. As an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Prudential Financial, PGIM Fixed Income is part of a diversified, global financial services organization. PGIM Fixed Income is affiliated with many types of US and non-US financial service providers, including insurance companies, broker-dealers, commodity trading advisors, commodity pool operators and other investment advisers. Some of its employees are officers of some of these affiliates.

■	Conflicts Arising Out of Legal Restrictions. PGIM Fixed Income may be restricted by law, regulation or contract as to how much, if any, of a particular security it may purchase or sell on behalf of a client, and as to the timing of such purchase or sale. These restrictions may apply as a result of its relationship with Prudential Financial and its other affiliates. For example, PGIM Fixed Income’s holdings of a security on behalf of its clients may, under some SEC rules, be aggregated with the holdings of that security by other Prudential Financial affiliates. These holdings could, on an aggregate basis, exceed certain reporting thresholds that are monitored, and PGIM Fixed Income may restrict purchases to avoid exceeding these thresholds. In addition, PGIM Fixed Income could receive material, non-public information with respect to a particular issuer and, as a result, be unable to execute transactions in securities of that issuer for its clients. For example, PGIM Fixed Income’s bank loan team often invests in private bank loans in connection with which the borrower provides material, non-public information, resulting in restrictions on trading securities issued by those borrowers. PGIM Fixed Income has procedures in place to carefully consider whether to intentionally accept material, non-public information with respect to certain issuers. PGIM Fixed Income is generally able to avoid receiving material, non-public information from its affiliates and other units within PGIM by maintaining information barriers. In some instances, it may create an isolated information barrier around a small number of its employees so that material, non-public information received by such employees is not attributed to the rest of PGIM Fixed Income.
■	Conflicts Related to Outside Business Activity. From time to time, certain of PGIM Fixed Income employees or officers may engage in outside business activity, including outside directorships. Any outside business activity is subject to prior approval pursuant to PGIM Fixed Income’s personal conflicts of interest and outside business activities policy. Actual and potential conflicts of interest are analyzed during such approval process. PGIM Fixed Income could be restricted in trading the securities of certain issuers in client portfolios in the unlikely event that an employee or officer, as a result of outside business activity, obtains material, nonpublic information regarding an issuer. The head of PGIM Fixed Income serves on the board of directors of the operator of an electronic trading platform. PGIM Fixed Income has adopted procedures to address the conflict relating to trading on this platform. The procedures include independent monitoring by PGIM Fixed Income’s chief investment officer and chief compliance officer and reporting on PGIM Fixed Income’s use of this platform to the President of PGIM.
■	Conflicts Related to Investment of Client Assets in Affiliated Funds. PGIM Fixed Income may invest client assets in funds that it manages or sub-advises for an affiliate. PGIM Fixed Income may also invest cash collateral from securities lending transactions in these funds. These investments benefit both PGIM Fixed Income and its affiliate.
■	PICA General Account. Because of the substantial size of the general account of The Prudential Insurance Company of America (PICA), trading by PICA’s general account, including PGIM Fixed Income’s trades on behalf of the account, may affect market prices. Although PGIM Fixed Income doesn’t expect that PICA’s general account will execute transactions that will move a market frequently, and generally only in response to unusual market or issuer events, the execution of these transactions could have an adverse effect on transactions for or positions held by other clients.

Conflicts Related to Securities Holdings and Other Financial Interests

■

Securities Holdings. PGIM, Prudential Financial, PICA’s general account and accounts of other affiliates of PGIM Fixed Income (collectively, affiliated accounts) hold public and private debt and equity securities of a large number of issuers and may invest in some of the same companies as other client accounts but at different levels in the capital structure. These investments can result in conflicts between the interests of the affiliated accounts and the interests of PGIM Fixed Income’s clients. For example: (i) Affiliated accounts can hold the senior debt of an issuer whose subordinated debt is held by PGIM Fixed Income’s clients or hold secured debt of an issuer whose public unsecured debt is held in client accounts. In the event of restructuring or insolvency, the affiliated accounts as holders of senior debt may exercise remedies and take other actions that are not in the interest of, or are adverse to, other clients that are the holders of junior debt. (ii) To the extent permitted by applicable law, PGIM Fixed Income may also invest client assets in offerings of securities the proceeds of which are used to repay debt obligations held in affiliated accounts or other

128

	client accounts. PGIM Fixed Income’s interest in having the debt repaid creates a conflict of interest. PGIM Fixed Income has adopted a refinancing policy to address this conflict. PGIM Fixed Income may be unable to invest client assets in the securities of certain issuers as a result of the investments described above.
■	Conflicts Related to the Offer and Sale of Securities. Certain of PGIM Fixed Income’s employees may offer and sell securities of, and interests in, commingled funds that it manages or sub-advises. There is an incentive for PGIM Fixed Income’s employees to offer these securities to investors regardless of whether the investment is appropriate for such investor since increased assets in these vehicles will result in increased advisory fees to it. In addition, such sales could result in increased compensation to the employee.
■	Conflicts Related to Long-Term Compensation. The performance of many client accounts is not reflected in the calculation of changes in the value of participation interests under PGIM Fixed Income’s long-term incentive plan. This may be because the composite representing the strategy in which the account is managed is not one of the composites included in the calculation or because the account is excluded from a specified composite due to guideline restrictions or other factors. As a result of the long-term incentive plan, PGIM Fixed Income’s portfolio managers from time to time have financial interests related to the investment performance of some, but not all, of the accounts they manage. To address potential conflicts related to these financial interests, PGIM Fixed Income has procedures, including trade allocation and supervisory review procedures, designed to ensure that each of its client accounts is managed in a manner that is consistent with PGIM Fixed Income’s fiduciary obligations, as well as with the account’s investment objectives, investment strategies and restrictions. For example, PGIM Fixed Income’s chief investment officer reviews performance among similarly managed accounts with the head of PGIM Fixed Income on a quarterly basis.
■	Other Financial Interests. PGIM Fixed Income and its affiliates may also have financial interests or relationships with issuers whose securities it invests in for client accounts. These interests can include debt or equity financing, strategic corporate relationships or investments, and the offering of investment advice in various forms. For example, PGIM Fixed Income may invest client assets in the securities of issuers that are also its advisory clients.

In general, conflicts related to the securities holdings and financial interests described above are addressed by the fact that PGIM Fixed Income makes investment decisions for each client independently considering the best economic interests of such client.

Conflicts Related to Valuation and Fees.

When client accounts hold illiquid or difficult to value investments, PGIM Fixed Income faces a conflict of interest when making recommendations regarding the value of such investments since its management fees are generally based on the value of assets under management. PGIM Fixed Income believes that its valuation policies and procedures mitigate this conflict effectively and enable it to value client assets fairly and in a manner that is consistent with the client’s best interests.

PGIM Real Estate.

COMPENSATION. PGIM Real Estate’s compensation philosophy is to provide a competitive total compensation package that engages, motivates and retains top talent while rewarding the achievement of outstanding business results obtained while modeling our Principles and Leadership Competencies.

PGIM Real Estate’s Portfolio Managers are compensated based on the overall performance of PGIM Real Estate, Portfolio Investment Performance relative to benchmarks and absolute and relative levels of individual performance and contribution.

There are generally three elements of total compensation: base salary, annual incentive cash bonus and long term compensation.

Base salary levels are reviewed annually to determine if adjustments are required due to individual performance, job scope change and/or a comparison to market compensation data.

Annual cash bonus awards are determined based on individual contributions to firm performance and relative placement in the market range. The annual cash bonus pool is determined by senior management based on several PGIM Real Estate financial performance measures and other factors including investment performance and organization/talent development.

Individuals at the Vice President level and above are also eligible to receive long term compensation in the form of an annual long term grant. The grant is a combination of deferred cash and Prudential Restricted Stock and cliff vests in three years. During that period, the value of the grant increases or decreases based on the performance of the accounts on which the participant works directly and the performance of all discretionary equity real estate accounts that PGIM Real Estate manages. The increase or decrease in the award for individuals who do not work directly on specific portfolios, e.g., research, transactions and client relations, is based on the performance of all the accounts under management.

Additional, select senior managers are eligible to participate in an incentive fee sharing program (carried interest) for closed-end funds.

129

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. PGIM Real Estate is a division of PGIM, Inc. (PGIM), which is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Prudential Financial and is part of a full scale global financial services organization, affiliated with insurance companies, investment advisers and broker-dealers. PGIM Real Estate's portfolio managers are often responsible for managing multiple accounts, including accounts of affiliates, institutional accounts, mutual funds, insurance company separate accounts and various pooled investment vehicles, such as commingled trust funds and unregistered funds. These affiliations and portfolio management responsibilities may cause potential and actual conflicts of interest. PGIM Real Estate aims to conduct itself in a manner it considers to be the most fair and consistent with its fiduciary obligations to all of its clients, including the Fund.

Management of multiple accounts and funds side-by-side may raise potential conflicts of interest relating to the allocation of investment opportunities, the aggregation and allocation of trades and cross trading. PGIM Real Estate has developed policies and procedures designed to address these potential conflicts of interest.

There may be restrictions imposed by law, regulation or contract regarding how much, if any, of a particular security PGIM Real Estate may purchase or sell on behalf of a Fund, and as to the timing of such purchase or sale. Such restrictions may come into play as a result of PGIM Real Estate’s relationship with Prudential Financial and its other affiliates. The Fund may be prohibited from engaging in transactions with its affiliates even when such transactions may be beneficial for the Fund. Certain affiliated transactions are permitted in accordance with procedures adopted by the Fund and reviewed by the Independent Trustees of the Fund.

PGIM Real Estate may come into possession of material, non-public information with respect to a particular issuer and as a result be unable to execute purchase or sale transactions in securities of such issuer for a Fund. PGIM Real Estate, on behalf of client portfolios, engages in real estate and other transactions with REITs and real estate operating companies and may thereby obtain material, non-public information about issuers, resulting in restrictions in trading in securities of such issuers. PGIM Real Estate generally is able to avoid certain other potential conflicts due to the possession of material, non-public information by maintaining information barriers to prevent the transfer of this information between units of PGIM Real Estate and PGIM as well as between affiliates and PGIM.

Certain affiliates of PGIM Real Estate develop and may publish credit research that is independent from the research developed within PGIM Real Estate. PGIM Real Estate may hold different opinions on the investment merits of a given security, issuer or industry such that PGIM Real Estate may be purchasing or holding a security for the Fund and an affiliated entity may be selling or recommending a sale of the same security or other securities of the issuer. Conversely, PGIM Real Estate may be selling a security for the Fund and an affiliated entity may be purchasing or recommending a buy of the same security or other securities of the same issuer. In addition, PGIM Real Estate's affiliated broker-dealers or investment advisers may be executing transactions in the market in the same securities as the Fund at the same time. PGIM Real Estate may cause securities transactions to be executed for the Fund concurrently with authorizations to purchase or sell the same securities for other accounts managed by PGIM Real Estate, including proprietary accounts or accounts of affiliates. In these instances, the executions of purchases or sales, where possible, are allocated equitably among the various accounts (including the Fund).

PGIM Real Estate may buy or sell, or may direct or recommend that one client buy or sell, securities of the same kind or class that are purchased or sold for the Fund, at prices which may be different. In addition, PGIM Real Estate may, at any time, execute trades of securities of the same kind or class in one direction for an account and trade in the opposite direction or not trade for any other account, including the Portfolio, due to differences in investment strategy or client direction.

The fees charged to advisory clients by PGIM Real Estate may differ depending upon a number of factors including, but not limited to, the unit providing the advisory services, the particular strategy, the size of a portfolio being managed, the relationship with the client, the origination and service requirements and the asset class involved. Fees may also differ based on account type (e.g., commingled accounts, trust accounts, insurance company separate accounts, and corporate, bank or trust-owned life insurance products). Fees are negotiable so one client with similar investment objectives or goals may be paying a higher fee than another client. Fees paid by certain clients may also be higher due to performance based fees which increase based on the performance of a portfolio above an established benchmark.

Large clients generate more revenue for PGIM Real Estate than do smaller accounts. A portfolio manager may be faced with a conflict of interest when allocating scarce investment opportunities given the benefit to PGIM Real Estate of favoring accounts that pay a higher fee or generate more income for PGIM. To address this conflict of interest, PGIM Real Estate has adopted allocation policies as well as supervisory procedures that are intended to fairly allocate investment opportunities among competing client accounts. PGIM Real Estate manages certain funds that are subject to incentive compensation on a side-by-side basis with other accounts including the Fund.

PGIM Real Estate has implemented policies and procedures to address potential conflicts of interest arising out of such side-by-side management.

130

Conflicts of interest may also arise regarding proxy voting. A committee of senior business representatives together with relevant regulatory personnel oversees the proxy voting process and monitors potential conflicts of interest relating to proxy voting.

PGIM Real Estate and certain of its affiliates engage in various activities related to investment in real estate. For example, PGIM Real Estate or any of its affiliates may enter into financing arrangements with issuers of real estate securities, including the making of loans secured by the assets or by the credit of the issuer of the real estate securities and may, in certain circumstances, exercise of creditor or other remedies, against the issuer of such real estate securities in connection with such financing arrangements. In addition, PGIM Real Estate or any of its affiliates may buy or sell, or may direct or recommend that another person buy or sell, securities of the same kind or class, or from the same issuer as are purchased or sold for this or any other account under the direction of PGIM Real Estate or any of its affiliates. PGIM Real Estate or its affiliates as a part of its direct investment in real estate on behalf of clients, may obtain material non-public information regarding an issuer of securities that the fund may hold or wish to hold. As a consequence of these activities, PGIM Real Estate's ability to purchase or sell, or to chose the timing of purchase or sale of, real estate securities of a given issuer may be restricted by contract or by applicable laws, including ERISA or federal securities laws.

Prudential Financial and the general account of The Prudential Insurance Company of America (PICA) may at times have various levels of financial or other interests in companies whose securities may be purchased or sold in PGIM's client accounts, including the Portfolio. These financial interests may at any time be in potential or actual conflict or may be inconsistent with positions held or actions taken by PGIM on behalf of the Fund. These interests can include loan servicing, debt or equity financing, services related to advising on merger and acquisition issues, strategic corporate relationships or investments and the offering of investment advice in various forms. Thus PGIM may invest Fund assets in the securities of companies with which PGIM or an affiliate of PGIM has a financial relationship, including investment in the securities of companies that are advisory clients of PGIM.

PGIM Real Estate follows Prudential Financial's policies on business ethics, personal securities trading by investment personnel, and information barriers and has adopted a code of ethics, allocation policies, supervisory procedures and conflicts of interest policies, among other policies and procedures, which are designed to ensure that clients are not harmed by these potential and actual conflicts of interests; however, there is no guarantee that such policies and procedures will detect and will ensure avoidance or disclosure of each and every situation in which a conflict may arise.

QUANTITATIVE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES LLC (QMA)

COMPENSATION. QMA’s investment professionals are compensated through a combination of base salary, a performance-based annual cash incentive bonus and an annual long-term incentive grant. QMA regularly utilizes third party surveys to compare its compensation program against leading asset management firms to monitor competitiveness.

An investment professional’s incentive compensation, including both the annual cash bonus and long-term incentive grant, is largely driven by a person’s contribution to QMA’s goal of providing investment performance to clients consistent with portfolio objectives, guidelines and risk parameters. In addition, a person’s qualitative contributions would also be considered in determining compensation. An investment professional’s long-term incentive grant is currently divided into two components: (i) 80% of the value of the grant is subject to increase or decrease based on the annual performance of certain QMA strategies, and (ii) 20% of the value of the grant consists of stock options and/or restricted stock of Prudential Financial, Inc. (QMA’s ultimate parent company). The long-term incentive grants are subject to vesting requirements. The incentive compensation of each investment professional is not based solely or directly on the performance of the Fund (or any other individual account managed by QMA) or the value of the assets of the Fund (or any other individual account managed by QMA).

The annual cash bonus pool is determined quantitatively based on two primary factors: 1) investment performance of composites representing QMA’s various investment strategies on a 1-year and 3-year basis relative to appropriate market peer groups and the indices against which QMA’s strategies are managed, and 2) business results as measured by QMA’s pre-tax income.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Like other investment advisers, QMA is subject to various conflicts of interest in the ordinary course of its business. QMA strives to identify potential risks, including conflicts of interest, that are inherent in its business, and conducts annual conflict of interest reviews. When actual or potential conflicts of interest are identified, QMA seeks to address such conflicts through one or more of the following methods:

■	Elimination of the conflict;
■	Disclosure of the conflict; or
■	Management of the conflict through the adoption of appropriate policies and procedures.

131

QMA follows Prudential Financial’s policies on business ethics, personal securities trading, and information barriers. QMA has adopted a code of ethics, allocation policies and conflicts of interest policies, among others, and has adopted supervisory procedures to monitor compliance with its policies. QMA cannot guarantee, however, that its policies and procedures will detect and prevent, or result in the disclosure of, each and every situation in which a conflict may arise.

Side-by-Side Management of Accounts and Related Conflicts of Interest. Side-by-side management of multiple accounts can create incentives for QMA to favor one account over another. Examples are detailed below, followed by a discussion of how QMA addresses these conflicts.

■	Asset-Based Fees vs. Performance-Based Fees; Other Fee Considerations. QMA manages accounts with asset-based fees alongside accounts with performance-based fees. Asset-based fees are calculated based on the value of a client’s portfolio at periodic measurement dates or over specified periods of time. Performance-based fees are generally based on a share of the capital appreciation of a portfolio, and may offer greater upside potential to an investment manager than asset-based fees, depending on how the fees are structured. This side-by-side management can create an incentive for QMA and its investment professionals to favor one account over another. Specifically, QMA has the incentive to favor accounts for which it receives performance fees, and possibly take greater investment risks in those accounts, in order to bolster performance and increase its fees. In addition, since fees are negotiable, one client may be paying a higher fee than another client with similar investment objectives or goals. In negotiating fees, QMA takes into account a number of factors including, but not limited to, the investment strategy, the size of a portfolio being managed, the relationship with the client, and the required level of service. Fees may also differ based on account type. For example, fees for commingled vehicles, including those that QMA subadvises, may differ from fees charged for single client accounts.
■	Long Only/Long-Short Accounts. QMA manages accounts that only allow it to hold securities long as well as accounts that permit short selling. QMA may, therefore, sell a security short in some client accounts while holding the same security long in other client accounts, creating the possibility that QMA is taking inconsistent positions with respect to a particular security in different client accounts.
■	Compensation/Benefit Plan Accounts/Other Investments by Investment Professionals. QMA manages certain funds and strategies whose performance is considered in determining long-term incentive plan benefits for certain investment professionals. Investment professionals involved in the management of those accounts in these strategies have an incentive to favor them over other accounts they manage in order to increase their compensation. Additionally, QMA’s investment professionals may have an interest in funds in those strategies if the funds are chosen as options in their 401(k) or deferred compensation plans offered by Prudential or if they otherwise invest in those funds directly.
■	Affiliated Accounts. QMA manages accounts on behalf of its affiliates as well as unaffiliated accounts. QMA could have an incentive to favor accounts of affiliates over others.
■	Non-Discretionary Accounts or Models. QMA provides non-discretionary model portfolios to some clients and manages other portfolios on a discretionary basis. The non-discretionary clients may be disadvantaged if QMA delivers the model investment portfolio to them after it initiates trading for the discretionary clients, or vice versa.
■	Large Accounts. Large accounts typically generate more revenue than do smaller accounts. As a result, a portfolio manager has an incentive when allocating scarce investment opportunities to favor accounts that pay a higher fee or generate more income for QMA.
■	Securities of the Same Kind or Class. QMA may buy or sell, or may direct or recommend that one client buy or sell, securities of the same kind or class that are purchased or sold for another client, at prices that may be different. QMA may also, at any time, execute trades of securities of the same kind or class in one direction for an account and in the opposite direction for another account, due to differences in investment strategy or client direction. Different strategies effecting trading in the same securities or types of securities may appear as inconsistencies in QMA’s management of multiple accounts side-by-side.

How QMA Addresses These Conflicts of Interest. The conflicts of interest described above with respect to different types of side-by-side management could influence QMA’s allocation of investment opportunities as well as its timing, aggregation and allocation of trades. QMA has developed policies and procedures designed to address these conflicts of interest. QMA's Conflicts of Interest and related policies stress that investment decisions are to be made in accordance with the fiduciary duties owed to each account without giving consideration to QMA or QMA personnel's pecuniary, investment or other financial interests.

In keeping with its fiduciary obligations, QMA’s policies with respect to allocation and aggregation are to treat all of its accounts fairly and equitably. QMA’s investment strategies generally require that QMA invest its clients’ assets in securities that are publicly traded. QMA generally does not participate in initial public offerings. QMA's investment strategies are team managed, reducing the likelihood that one portfolio would be favored over other portfolios managed by the team. These factors significantly reduce the risk that QMA could favor one client over another in the allocation of investment opportunities. QMA’s compliance procedures with respect to these policies include independent reviews by its compliance unit of the timing, allocation and aggregation of trades and the allocation of investment opportunities. These procedures are designed to detect patterns and anomalies in QMA’s side-by-side management and trading so that QMA may take measures to correct or improve its processes. QMA’s trade management oversight committee, which consists of senior members of its management team, reviews trading patterns on a periodic basis.

132

QMA rebalances portfolios periodically with frequencies that vary with market conditions and investment objectives and may differ across portfolios in the same strategy based on variations in portfolio characteristics and constraints. QMA may aggregate trades for all portfolios rebalanced on any given day, where appropriate and consistent with its duty of best execution. Orders are generally allocated at the time of the transaction, or as soon as possible thereafter, on a pro rata basis equal to each account’s appetite for the issue when such appetite can be determined. As mentioned above, QMA’s compliance unit performs periodic reviews to determine that all portfolios are rebalanced consistently, over time, within all equity strategies.

With respect to QMA’s management of long-short and long only accounts, the security weightings (positive or negative) in each account are always determined by a quantitative algorithm. An independent review is performed by the compliance unit to assess whether any such positions would represent a departure from the quantitative algorithm used to derive the positions in each portfolio. QMA’s review is also intended to identify situations where QMA would seem to have conflicting views of the same security in different portfolios, although such views may actually be reasonable and consistent due to differing portfolio constraints.

QMA’s Relationships with Affiliates and Related Conflicts of Interest. As an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Prudential Financial, QMA is part of a diversified, global financial services organization. It is affiliated with many types of financial service providers, including broker-dealers, insurance companies, commodity pool operators and other investment advisers. Some of its employees are officers of some of these affiliates.

Conflicts Related to QMA’s Affiliations.

Conflicts Arising Out of Legal Restrictions. QMA may be restricted by law, regulation or contract as to how much, if any, of a particular security it may purchase or sell on behalf of a client, and as to the timing of such purchase or sale. These restrictions may apply as a result of QMA’s relationship with Prudential Financial and its other affiliates. For example, QMA’s holdings of a security on behalf of its clients are required, under some SEC rules, be aggregated with the holdings of that security by other Prudential Financial affiliates. These holdings could, on an aggregate basis, exceed certain reporting thresholds. QMA tracks these aggregate holdings and may restrict purchases to avoid crossing such thresholds. In addition, QMA could receive material, non-public information with respect to a particular issuer from an affiliate and, as a result, be unable to execute purchase or sale transactions in securities of that issuer for its clients. QMA is generally able to avoid receiving material, non-public information from its affiliates by maintaining information barriers to prevent the transfer of information between affiliates.

The Fund may be prohibited from engaging in transactions with its affiliates even when such transactions may be beneficial for the Fund. Certain affiliated transactions are permitted in accordance with procedures adopted by the Fund and reviewed by the independent board members of the Fund.

Conflicts Arising Out of Certain Vendor Agreements. QMA and its affiliates, from time to time, have service agreements with various vendors that are also investment consultants. Under these agreements, QMA or its affiliates compensate the vendors for certain services, including software, market data and technology services. QMA’s clients may also retain these vendors as investment consultants. The existence of service agreements between these consultants and QMA may provide an incentive for the investment consultants to favor QMA when they advise their clients. QMA does not, however, condition its purchase of services from consultants upon their recommending QMA to their clients. QMA will provide clients with information about services that QMA or its affiliates obtain from these consultants upon request. QMA retains third party advisors and other service providers to provide various services for QMA as well as for funds that QMA manages or subadvises. A service provider may provide services to QMA or one of its funds while also providing services to PGIM, Inc. (PGIM) other PGIM-advised funds, or affiliates of PGIM, and may negotiate rates in the context of the overall relationship. QMA may benefit from negotiated fee rates offered to its funds and vice-versa. There is no assurance that QMA will be able to obtain advantageous fee rates from a given service provider negotiated by its affiliates based on their relationship with the service provider, or that it will know of such negotiated fee rates.

Conflicts Related to QMA’s Asset Allocation Services. QMA performs asset allocation services as subadviser for affiliated mutual funds managed or co-managed by the Investment Manager, including for some Portfolios offered by the Fund. QMA may, under these arrangements, allocate assets to an asset class within which funds or accounts that QMA directly manages will be selected. In these circumstances, QMA receives both an asset allocation fee and a management fee. As a result, QMA has an incentive to allocate assets to an asset class that it manages in order to increase its fees. To help mitigate this conflict, the compliance group monitors the asset allocation to determine that the investments were made within the established guidelines by asset class.

133

In certain arrangements QMA subadvises mutual funds for the Investment Manager through a program where they have selected QMA as a manager, resulting in QMA’s collection of subadvisory fees from them. The Investment Manager also selects managers for some of QMA’s asset allocation products and, in certain cases, is compensated by QMA for these services under service agreements. The Investment Manager and QMA may have a mutual incentive to continue these types of arrangements that benefit both companies. These and other types of conflicts of interest are reviewed to verify that appropriate oversight is performed.

Conflicts Arising Out of Securities Holdings and Other Financial Interests. QMA, Prudential Financial, Inc., the general account of the Prudential Insurance Company of America (PICA) and accounts of other affiliates of QMA (collectively, affiliated accounts) may, at times, have financial interests in, or relationships with, companies whose securities QMA may hold, purchase or sell in its client accounts. This may occur, for example, because affiliated accounts hold public and private debt and equity securities of a large number of issuers and may invest in some of the same companies as QMA’s client accounts. At any time, these interests and relationships could be inconsistent or in potential or actual conflict with positions held or actions taken by QMA on behalf of its client accounts. For instance, QMA may invest client assets in the equity of companies whose debt is held by an affiliate. QMA may also invest in the securities of one or more clients for the accounts of other clients. While these conflicts cannot be eliminated, QMA has implemented policies and procedures, including adherence to PGIM’s information barrier policy, that are designed to ensure that investments of clients are managed in their best interests.

Certain of QMA’s employees may offer and sell securities of, and units in, commingled funds that QMA manages or subadvises. Employees may offer and sell securities in connection with their roles as registered representatives of Prudential Investment Management Services LLC (a broker-dealer affiliate), or as officers, agents, or approved persons of other affiliates. There is an incentive for QMA’s employees to offer these securities to investors regardless of whether the investment is appropriate for such investor since increased assets in these vehicles will result in increased advisory fees to QMA. In addition, although sales commissions are not paid for such activities, such sales could result in increased compensation to the employee. To mitigate this conflict, QMA performs suitability checks on new clients as well as on an annual basis with respect to all clients.

A portion of the long-term incentive grant of some of QMA’s investment professionals will increase or decrease based on the annual performance of several of QMA’s strategies over a defined time period. Consequently, some of QMA’s portfolio managers from time to time have financial interests in the accounts they advise. To address potential conflicts related to these financial interests, QMA has procedures, including supervisory review procedures, designed to verify that each of its accounts is managed in a manner that is consistent with QMA’s fiduciary obligations, as well as with the account’s investment objectives, investment strategies and restrictions. Specifically, QMA’s chief investment officer will perform a comparison of trading costs between the advised accounts whose performance is considered in connection with the long-term incentive grant and other accounts, to verify that such costs are consistent with each other or otherwise in line with expectations. The results of the analysis are discussed at a trade management meeting.

Conflicts of Interest in the Voting Process. Occasionally, a conflict of interest may arise in connection with proxy voting. For example, the issuer of the securities being voted may also be a client of QMA. When QMA identifies an actual or potential conflict of interest between QMA and its clients, QMA votes in accordance with the policy of its proxy voting facilitator rather than its own policy. In that manner, QMA seeks to maintain the independence and objectivity of the vote.

Allianz Global Investors U.S. LLC

COMPENSATION. AllianzGI US’s compensation system is designed to support its corporate values and culture. While AllianzGI US acknowledges the importance of financial incentives and seeks to pay top quartile compensation for top quartile performance, it also believes that compensation is only one of a number of critically important elements that allow the emergence of a strong, winning culture that attracts, retains and motivates talented investors and teams.

The primary components of compensation at AllianzGI US are the base salary and an annual discretionary variable compensation payment. This variable compensation component typically comprises a cash bonus that pays out immediately as well as a deferred component, for members of staff whose variable compensation exceeds a certain threshold. The deferred component for most recipients would be a notional award of the Long Term Incentive Program (LTIP); for members of staff whose variable compensation exceeds an additional threshold, the deferred compensation is itself split 50%/50% between the LTIP and a Deferral into Funds program (DIF). Deferral rates increase in line with the overall variable compensation and can reach up to 42%. Overall awards, splits and components are regularly reviewed to ensure they meet industry best practice and, where applicable, at a minimum comply with regulatory standards.

134

Base salary typically reflects scope, responsibilities and experience required in a particular role, be it on the investment side or any other function in the company. Base compensation is regularly reviewed against peers with the help of compensation survey data. Base compensation is typically a greater percentage of total compensation for more junior positions, while for the most senior roles it will be a comparatively small component, often capped and only adjusted every few years.

Discretionary variable compensation is primarily designed to reflect the achievements of an individual against set goals, over a certain time period. For an investment professional these goals will typically be 70% quantitative and 30% qualitative. The former will reflect a weighted average of investment performance over a three-year rolling time period (one-year (25%) and three year (75%) results) and the latter reflects contributions to broader team goals, contributions made to client review meetings, product development or product refinement initiatives. Portfolio managers have their performance metric aligned with the benchmarks of the client portfolios they manage.

The LTIP element of the variable compensation cliff vests three years after each (typically annual) award. Its value is directly tied to the operating result of AllianzGI US over the three year period of the award.

The DIF element of the variable compensation cliff vests three years after each (typically annual) award and enables these members of staff to invest in a range of AllianzGI US funds (investment professionals are encouraged to invest into their own funds or funds where they may be influential from a research or product group relationship perspective). Again, the value of the DIF awards is determined by the growth of the fund(s) value over the three year period covering each award.

Assuming an annual deferral of 33% over a three year period, a typical member of AllianzGI US’s staff will have roughly one year’s variable compensation (3x33%) as a deferred component “in the bank.” Three years after the first award, and for as long as deferred components were awarded without break, cash payments in each year will consist of the annual cash bonus for that current year’s performance as well as a payout from LTIP/DIF commensurate with the prior cumulative three-year performance.

There are a small number of revenue sharing arrangements that generate variable compensation for specialist investment teams, as well as commission payments for a limited number of members of staff in distribution. These payments are subject to the same deferral rules and deferred instruments as described above for the discretionary compensation element.

In addition to competitive compensation, the firm’s approach to retention includes providing a challenging career path for each professional, a supportive culture to ensure each employee’s progress and a full benefits package.

POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Like other investment professionals with multiple clients, a portfolio manager for a Fund may face certain potential conflicts of interest in connection with managing both the Fund and other accounts at the same time. The paragraphs below describe some of these potential conflicts, which AllianzGI US believes are faced by investment professionals at most major financial firms.

AllianzGI US has adopted compliance policies and procedures that address certain of these potential conflicts. The management of accounts with different advisory fee rates and/or fee structures, including accounts that pay advisory fees based on account performance (“performance fee accounts”), may raise potential conflicts of interest by creating an incentive to favor higher-fee accounts. These potential conflicts may include, among others:

■	The most attractive investments could be allocated to higher-fee accounts or performance fee accounts.
■	The trading of higher-fee accounts could be favored as to timing and/or execution price. For example, higher -fee accounts could be permitted to sell securities earlier than other accounts when a prompt sale is desirable or to buy securities at an earlier and more opportune time.
■	The investment management team could focus their time and efforts primarily on higher-fee accounts due to a personal stake in compensation.

When AllianzGI US considers the purchase or sale of a security to be in the best interests of a Fund as well as other accounts, AllianzGI US’s trading desk may, to the extent permitted by applicable laws and regulations, aggregate the securities to be sold or purchased. Aggregation of trades may create the potential for unfairness to a Fund or another account if one account is favored over another in allocating the securities purchased or sold—for example, by allocating a disproportionate amount of a security that is likely to increase in value to a favored account. AllianzGI US considers many factors when allocating securities among accounts, including the account’s investment style, applicable investment restrictions, availability of securities, available cash and other current holdings. AllianzGI US attempts to allocate investment opportunities among accounts in a fair and equitable manner. However, accounts are not assured of participating equally or at all in particular investment allocations due to such factors as noted above. “Cross trades,” in which one AllianzGI US account sells a particular security to another account (potentially saving transaction costs for both accounts), may also pose a potential conflict of interest when cross trades are effected in a manner perceived to favor one client over another. For

135

example, AllianzGI US may cross a trade between aperformance fee account and a fixed fee account that results in a benefit to the performance fee account and a detriment to the fixed fee account. AllianzGI US has adopted compliance procedures that provide that all cross trades are to be made at an independent current market price, as required by law.

Another potential conflict of interest may arise from the different investment objectives and strategies of a Fund and other accounts. For example, another account may have a shorter-term investment horizon or different investment objectives, policies or restrictions than a Fund. Depending on another account’s objectives or other factors, a portfolio manager may give advice and make decisions that may differ from advice given, or the timing or nature of decisions made, with respect to a Fund. In addition, investment decisions are subject to suitability for the particular account involved. Thus, a particular security may not be bought or sold for certain accounts even though it was bought or sold for other accounts at the same time. More rarely, a particular security may be bought for one or more accounts managed by a portfolio manager when one or more other accounts are selling the security (including short sales). There may be circumstances when purchases or sales of portfolio securities for one or more accounts may have an adverse effect on other accounts. AllianzGI US maintains trading policies designed to provide portfolio managers an opportunity to minimize the effect that short sales in one portfolio may have on holdings in other portfolios.

A portfolio manager who is responsible for managing multiple funds and/or accounts may devote unequal time and attention to the management of those funds and/or accounts. As a result, the portfolio manager may not be able to formulate as complete a strategy or identify equally attractive investment opportunities for each of those accounts as might be the case if he or she were to devote substantially more attention to the management of a single fund. The effects of this potential conflict may be more pronounced where funds and/or accounts overseen by a particular portfolio manager have different investment strategies.

A Fund’s portfolio manager(s) may be able to select or influence the selection of the broker/dealers that are used to execute securities transactions for the Fund. In addition to executing trades, some brokers and dealers provide AllianzGI US with brokerage and research services (as those terms are defined in Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934), which may result in the payment of higher brokerage fees than might have otherwise been available. These services may be more beneficial to certain funds or accounts than to others. In order to be assured of continuing to receive services considered of value to its clients, AllianzGI US has adopted a brokerage allocation policy embodying the concepts of Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Although the payment of brokerage commissions is subject to the requirement that the portfolio manager determines in good faith that the commissions are reasonable in relation to the value of the brokerage and research services provided to the Fund and the Sub-Adviser’s other clients, a portfolio manager’s decision as to the selection of brokers and dealers could yield disproportionate costs and benefits among the funds and/or accounts that he or she manages.

A Fund’s portfolio manager(s) may also face other potential conflicts of interest in managing a Fund, and the description above is not a complete description of every conflict that could be deemed to exist in managing both the Funds and other accounts. In addition, a Fund’s portfolio manager may also manage other accounts (including their personal assets or the assets of family members) in their personal capacity.

AllianzGI US’s investment personnel, including each Fund’s portfolio manager, are subject to restrictions on engaging in personal securities transactions pursuant to AllianzGI US’s Code of Business Conduct and Code of Ethics (the “Code”), which contain provisions and requirements designed to identify and address conflicts of interest between personal investment activities and the interests of the Funds. The Code is designed to ensure that the personal securities transactions, activities and interests of the employees of AllianzGI US will not interfere with (i) making decisions in the best interest of advisory clients (including the Funds) or (ii) implementing such decisions while, at the same time, allowing employees to invest for their own accounts.

Security Capital Research & Management Incorporated

Compensation. JPMorgan Investment Management Inc. (“JPMIM”) pays Security Capital a fee based on the assets under management of the AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio as set forth in an investment sub-advisory agreement between Security Capital and JPMIM. Security Capital pays its investment professionals out of its total revenues and other resources, including the sub-advisory fees earned with respect to the AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio. The following information relates to the period ended December 31, 2016.

The principal form of compensation of Security Capital's professionals is a base salary and annual bonus. Base salaries are fixed for each portfolio manager. Each professional is paid a cash salary and, in addition, a year-end bonus based on achievement of specific objectives that the professional's manager and the professional agree upon at the commencement of the year. The annual bonus is paid partially in cash and partially in either: (i) restricted stock of Security Capital's parent company, JPMorgan Chase & Co., (ii) in self-directed parent company mutual funds, and/or (iii) mandatory notional investment in selected mutual funds advised by Security Capital, all vesting over a three-year period (50% each after the second and third years). The annual bonus is a function of Security Capital achieving its financial, operating and investment performance goals, as well as the individual achieving measurable objectives

136

specific to that professional's role within the firm and the investment performance of all accounts managed by the portfolio manager. None of the portfolio managers' compensation is based on the performance of, or the value of assets held in, the AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio.

Conflicts of Interest. The portfolio managers' management of other accounts may give rise to potential conflicts of interest in connection with their management of the AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio investments, on the one hand, and the investments of the other accounts, on the other. The other accounts managed by Security Capital's portfolio managers include other registered mutual funds and separately managed accounts. The other accounts might have similar investment objectives as the AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio or hold, purchase or sell securities that are eligible to be held, purchased or sold by the AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio. While the portfolio managers' management of other accounts may give rise to the following potential conflicts of interest, Security Capital does not believe that the conflicts, if any, are material or, to the extent any such conflicts are material, Security Capital believes that it has designed policies and procedures to manage those conflicts in an appropriate way.

A potential conflict of interest may arise as a result of the portfolio managers' day-to-day management of the AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio. Because of their positions with the AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio, the portfolio managers know the size, timing and possible market impact of AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio trades. It is theoretically possible that the portfolio managers could use this information to the advantage of other accounts they manage and to the possible detriment of the AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio. However, Security Capital has adopted policies and procedures reasonably designed to allocate investment opportunities on a fair and equitable basis over time.

A potential conflict of interest may arise as a result of the portfolio managers' management of the AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio and other accounts, which, in theory, may allow them to allocate investment opportunities in a way that favors other accounts over the AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio. This conflict of interest may be exacerbated to the extent that Security Capital or the portfolio managers receive, or expect to receive, greater compensation from their management of the other accounts than from the AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio. Notwithstanding this theoretical conflict of interest, it is Security Capital's policy to manage each account based on its investment objectives and related restrictions and, as discussed above, Security Capital has adopted policies and procedures reasonably designed to allocate investment opportunities on a fair and equitable basis over time and in a manner consistent with each account's investment objectives and related restrictions. For example, while the portfolio managers may buy for other accounts securities that differ in identity or quantity from securities bought for the AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio, such securities might not be suitable for the AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio given its investment objectives and related restrictions.

T. ROWE PRICE ASSOCIATES, INC.
T. ROWE PRICE INTERNATIONAL LTD
T. ROWE PRICE INTERNATIONAL LTD – TOKYO, A DIVISION OF T. ROWE PRICE INTERNATIONAL
T. ROWE PRICE HONG KONG LIMITED (COLLECTIVELY, T. ROWE PRICE)

PORTFOLIO MANAGER COMPENSATION STRUCTURE. Portfolio manager compensation consists primarily of a base salary, a cash bonus, and an equity incentive that usually comes in the form of restricted stock grant. Compensation is variable and is determined based on the following factors:

Investment performance over 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year periods is the most important input. The weightings for these time periods are generally balanced and are applied consistently across similar strategies. T. Rowe Price (and T. Rowe Price Hong Kong, T. Rowe Price Singapore, and T. Rowe Price International, as appropriate), evaluate performance in absolute, relative, and risk-adjusted terms. Relative performance and risk-adjusted performance are typically determined with reference to the broad-based index (e.g., S&P 500) and the Lipper index (e.g., Large-Cap Growth) set forth in the total returns table in the fund’s prospectus, although other benchmarks may be used as well. Investment results are also measured against comparably managed funds of competitive investment management firms. The selection of comparable funds is approved by the applicable investment steering committee and is the same as the selection presented to the directors of the T. Rowe Price Funds in their regular review of fund performance. Performance is primarily measured on a pretax basis though tax efficiency is considered.

Compensation is viewed with a long-term time horizon. The more consistent a manager’s performance over time, the higher the compensation opportunity. The increase or decrease in a fund’s assets due to the purchase or sale of fund shares is not considered a material factor. In reviewing relative performance for fixed-income funds, a fund’s expense ratio is usually taken into account. Contribution to T. Rowe Price’s overall investment process is an important consideration as well. Leveraging ideas and investment insights across the global investment platform; working effectively with and mentoring others; and other contributions to our clients, the firm or our culture are important components of T. Rowe Price’s long-term success and are highly valued.

137

All employees of T. Rowe Price, including portfolio managers, participate in a 401(k) plan sponsored by T. Rowe Price Group. In addition, all employees are eligible to purchase T. Rowe Price common stock through an employee stock purchase plan that features a limited corporate matching contribution. Eligibility for and participation in these plans is on the same basis for all employees. Finally, all vice presidents of T. Rowe Price Group, including all portfolio managers, receive supplemental medical/hospital reimbursement benefits.

This compensation structure is used for all portfolios managed by the portfolio manager.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Portfolio managers at T. Rowe Price and its affiliates typically manage multiple accounts. These accounts may include, among others, mutual funds, separate accounts (assets managed on behalf of institutions such as pension funds, colleges and universities, foundations), offshore funds and common trust accounts. Portfolio managers make investment decisions for each portfolio based on the investment objectives, policies, practices and other relevant investment considerations that the managers believe are applicable to that portfolio. Consequently, portfolio managers may purchase (or sell) securities for one portfolio and not another portfolio. T. Rowe Price and its affiliates have adopted brokerage and trade allocation policies and procedures which they believe are reasonably designed to address any potential conflicts associated with managing multiple accounts for multiple clients. Also, as disclosed under the “Portfolio Manager Compensation” above, our portfolio managers' compensation is determined in the same manner with respect to all portfolios managed by the portfolio manager.

T. Rowe Price funds may, from time to time, own shares of Morningstar, Inc. Morningstar is a provider of investment research to individual and institutional investors, and publishes ratings on mutual funds, including the T. Rowe Price Funds. T. Rowe Price manages the Morningstar retirement plan and T. Rowe Price and its affiliates pay Morningstar for a variety of products and services. In addition, Morningstar may provide investment consulting and investment management services to clients of T. Rowe Price or its affiliates.

TEMPLETON GLOBAL ADVISORS LIMITED

138

Base salary Each portfolio manager is paid a base salary.

■	Investment performance. Primary consideration is given to the historic investment performance over the 1, 3 and 5 preceding years of all accounts managed by the portfolio manager. The pre-tax performance of each fund managed is measured relative to a relevant peer group and/or applicable benchmark as appropriate.
■	Research. Where the portfolio management team also has research responsibilities, each portfolio manager is evaluated on the number and performance of recommendations over time, productivity and quality of recommendations, and peer evaluation.
■	Non-investment performance. For senior portfolio managers, there is a qualitative evaluation based on leadership and the mentoring of staff.
■	Responsibilities. The characteristics and complexity of funds managed by the portfolio manager are factored in the investment manager’s appraisal.

Portfolio managers also participate in benefit plans and programs available generally to all employees of the investment manager.

Thompson, Siegel & Walmsley LLC (TSW)

PORTFOLIO MANAGER COMPENSATION: For each portfolio manager, TSW’s compensation structure includes the following components: base salary, annual bonus, retirement plan employer contribution and access to a voluntary income deferral plan and participation in the TSW equity plan.

Base Salary. Each portfolio manager is paid a fixed base salary, which varies among portfolio managers depending on the experience and responsibilities of the portfolio manager as well as employment market conditions and competitive industry standards.

Bonus. Each portfolio manager is eligible to receive an annual discretionary bonus. Targeted bonus amounts vary among portfolio managers based on the experience level and responsibilities of the portfolio manager. Bonus amounts are discretionary and based on an assessment of the portfolio manager’s meeting specific job responsibilities and goals. Investment performance versus peer groups and benchmarks are taken into consideration.

Retirement Plan Employer Contribution. All employees are eligible to receive an annual retirement plan employer contribution under a qualified retirement plan, subject to IRS limitations. The contributions are made as a percent of eligible compensation and are at the sole discretion of TSW.

Deferred Compensation Plan. Portfolio managers meeting certain requirements are also eligible to participate in a voluntary, nonqualified deferred compensation plan that allows participants to defer a portion of their income on a pre-tax basis and potentially earn tax-deferred returns.

Equity Plan. Key employees may be awarded deferred TSW equity grants. In addition, key employees may purchase TSW equity directly.

139

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. TSW seeks to minimize actual or potential conflicts of interest that may arise from its management of the Fund and management of non-Fund accounts. TSW has designed and implemented policies and procedures to address (although may not eliminate) potential conflicts of interest, including, among others, performance based fees; hedge funds; aggregation, allocation, and best execution or orders; TSW’s Code of Ethics which requires personnel to act solely in the best interest of their clients and imposes certain restrictions on the ability of Access Persons to engage in personal securities transactions for their own account(s), and procedures to ensure soft dollar arrangements meet the necessary requirements of Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. TSW seeks to treat all clients fairly and to put clients’ interests first.

UBS Asset Management (Americas) Inc.

PORTFOLIO MANAGER COMPENSATION. UBS Asset Management’s compensation and benefits programs are designed to provide its investment professionals with incentives to excel and to promote an entrepreneurial, performance-oriented culture with clear accountability. They also align the interests of investment professionals with those of our clients and other stakeholders.

In general, the total compensation received by the portfolio managers and analysts at UBS Asset Management consists of two elements: a fixed component (base salary and benefits) and an annual discretionary performance award that is correlated with investment performance.

Fixed component (base salary and benefits):

■	Set with the aim of being competitive in the industry and monitored and adjusted periodically with reference to the relevant local labor market in order to remain so.
■	The fixed component is used to recognize the experience, skills and knowledge that each portfolio manager or analyst brings to their role.

Performance award:

■	Determined annually on a discretionary basis.
■	Based on the individual’s financial and non-financial contribution—as assessed through a rigorous performance assessment process—as well as on the performance of their respective function, of UBS Asset Management and of UBS as a whole.
■	Delivered in cash and, when total compensation is over a defined threshold, partly in deferral vehicles.
■	For awards subject to deferral, the deferred amount is calculated using graduated marginal deferral rates, which increase as the value of the performance award increases.
■	Deferred amounts are then delivered via two deferral vehicles – 75% in the UBS Asset Management Equity Ownership Plan (AM EOP) and 25% in the Deferred Contingent Capital Plan (DCCP):

■

AM EOP awards vest over five years with 40% of the award vesting in year two, 40% in year three and 20% in year five, provided the vesting conditions, including continued service, are met and the awards have not been forfeited on or before the vesting dates. The Notional Funds awarded under the AM EOP are aligned to selected UBS Asset Management funds. They provide for a high level of transparency and correlation between an employee’s compensation and the investment performance of UBS Asset Management. This alignment with UBS Asset Management funds enhances the alignment of investment professionals’ and other employees’ interests with those of our clients.

■

The DCCP was introduced for performance year 2012 onwards as a key component of UBS's compensation framework to align compensation incentives with the capital strength of the firm. Awards under the DCCP vest 100% in year five, subject to vesting conditions, including continued employment, and subject to forfeiture.

140

The DCCP aligns the interests of our key employees with the interests of external investors and, alongside the AM EOP, ensures an appropriate balance between client and other stakeholder alignment.

For our Equities, Fixed Income, Multi-Asset and Passive investment areas:

From January 1, 2015, UBS Asset Management introduced a new Key Performance Indicator (KPI)-led model for each business area, aligning our business steering logic with our strategic priorities. For our investment areas, sustainable investment performance is a major component of the KPI model.

Portfolio managers’ performance awards are subject to detailed KPIs, mainly focused on investment performance of relevant client portfolios and funds, and also including some other factors such as risk management and client focus. Investment performance is assessed annually over rolling one, three and five years against benchmark, performance target and peers. This ensures that the interests of portfolio managers are aligned with those of our clients. In addition, we evaluate our passive strategies in terms of how closely the performance of the strategies tracks their respective benchmarks over time.

For analysts, performance awards are, in general, based on the performance of some combination of model and/or client portfolios, generally evaluated over one and three years. This is coupled with a qualitative assessment of their contribution considering factors such as the quality of their research, stock recommendations and their communication within and between teams and with portfolio managers.

Of all amounts deferred, 75% is granted in the AM EOP. Within the AM EOP, 50% of the Notional Funds amount is allocated to a core balanced fund aligned to a diversified range of internally managed funds. The other 50% is aligned to the most representative fund managed by/contributed to by the investment professional to further align their interests with those of our clients and other stakeholders.

POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. UBS AM's management of the Portfolio and other accounts could result in potential conflicts of interest if the Portfolio and other accounts have different objectives, benchmarks and fees because the portfolio management team must allocate its time and investment expertise across multiple accounts, including the Portfolio. A portfolio manager and his or her team manage the Portfolio and other accounts utilizing a model portfolio approach that groups similar accounts within a model portfolio. UBS AM manages accounts according to the appropriate model portfolio, including where possible, those accounts that have specific investment restrictions. Accordingly, portfolio holdings, position sizes and industry and sector exposures tend to be similar across accounts, which may minimize the potential for conflicts of interest.

If a portfolio manager identifies a limited investment opportunity that may be suitable for more than one account or model portfolio, the Portfolio may not be able to take full advantage of that opportunity due to an allocation of filled purchase or sale orders across all eligible model portfolios and accounts. To deal with these situations, UBS AM has adopted procedures for allocating portfolio trades across multiple accounts to provide fair treatment to all accounts.

The management of personal accounts by a portfolio manager may also give rise to potential conflicts of interest. UBS AM has adopted a Code of Ethics that governs such personal trading but there is no assurance that the Code will adequately address all such conflicts.

UBS Group AG (“UBS”), the parent company of UBS AM, is a worldwide full-service investment banking, broker-dealer, asset management and financial services organization. As a result, UBS AM and UBS (including, for these purposes, their directors, partners, officers and employees) worldwide, including the entities and personnel who may be involved in the investment activities and business operations of the Portfolio, are engaged in businesses and have interests other than that of managing the Portfolio. These activities and interests include potential multiple advisory, transactional, financial, consultative, and other interests in transactions, companies, securities and other instruments that may be engaged in, purchased or sold by the Portfolio. To address these potential conflicts, UBS and UBS AM have established various policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to detect and prevent these potential conflicts of interest and prevent clients from being disadvantaged.

UBS conducts extensive broker-dealer, banking and other activities around the world and provides investment banking, broker-dealer, prime brokerage, administrative and other services to clients which may involve markets and securities in which the Funds invest. These activities will give UBS broad access to the current status of certain markets and investments. As a result of the activities described in this paragraph and the access and knowledge arising from those activities, parts of UBS may be in possession of information in respect of markets and investments, which, if known to UBS AM, might cause UBS AM to seek to dispose of, retain or increase interests in investments held by the Portfolio or acquire certain positions on behalf of the Portfolio. UBS will be under no duty to make any such information available to the Portfolio or personnel of UBS AM making investment decisions on behalf of the Portfolio and maintains information barriers designed to prevent the misuse of such information. In general, UBS AM personnel making investment decisions will make decisions based solely upon information known by such decision makers without regard to information known by other UBS personnel.

141

In conformance with the Portfolio's investment objectives and subject to compliance with applicable law, UBS AM may purchase securities for the Funds during an underwriting or other offering of securities in which a broker-dealer affiliate acts as a manager, co-manager, underwriter or placement agent, or receives a benefit in the form of management, underwriting, or other fees. Affiliates of UBS AM may act in other capacities in such offerings for which a fee, compensation, or other benefit will be received. From time to time, affiliates of UBS AM will be current investors in companies engaged in an offering of securities which UBS AM may purchase on behalf of its clients. Such purchases may provide a direct or indirect benefit to UBS AM's affiliates acting as a selling shareholder.

UBS AM may purchase or sell, or recommend for purchase or sale, for the Portfolio or its other accounts securities of companies: (i) with respect to which its affiliates act as an investment banker or financial adviser; (ii) with which its affiliates have other confidential relationships; (iii) in which its affiliates maintain a position; (iv) for which its affiliates make a market; or (v) in which it or its officers, directors or employees or those of its affiliates own securities or otherwise have an interest. Except to the extent prohibited by law or regulation or by client instruction, UBS AM may recommend to the Portfolio or its other clients, or purchase for the Portfolio or its other clients, securities of issuers in which UBS has an interest.

From time to time and subject to client approval, UBS AM may rely on certain affiliates to execute trades for the Portfolio or its other accounts. For each security transaction effected by a UBS affiliate, UBS AM may compensate and such UBS affiliate may retain such compensation for effecting the transaction, and UBS AM may receive affiliated group credit for generating such business.

Transactions undertaken by UBS or client accounts managed by UBS (“Client Accounts”) may adversely impact the Portfolio. UBS and one or more Client Accounts may buy or sell positions while the Portfolio is undertaking the same or a differing, including potentially opposite, strategy, which could disadvantage the Portfolio.

Victory Capital Management Inc. (“Victory Capital”)

Victory Capital’s portfolio managers are often responsible for managing one or more mutual funds as well as other accounts, such as separate accounts, and other pooled investment vehicles, such as collective trust funds or unregistered hedge funds. A portfolio manager may manage other accounts which have materially higher fee arrangements than the Portfolio and may, in the future, manage other accounts which have a performance-based fee. A portfolio manager also may make personal investments in accounts they manage or support. The side-by-side management of the Portfolio along with other accounts may raise potential conflicts of interest by incenting a portfolio manager to direct a disproportionate amount of: (1) their attention; (2) limited investment opportunities, such as less liquid securities or initial public offerings; and/or (3) desirable trade allocations, to such other accounts. In addition, to assist in the investment decision-making process for its clients, including the Portfolio, Victory Capital may use brokerage commissions generated from securities transactions to obtain research and/or brokerage services from broker-dealers. Thus, Victory Capital may have an incentive to select a broker that provides research through the use of brokerage, rather than paying for execution only. Certain other trading practices, such as cross-trading between the Portfolio and another account, also may raise conflict of interest issues. Victory Capital has policies and procedures in place, including an internal review process, that are intended to mitigate those conflicts.

Victory Capital has designed the structure of its portfolio managers’ compensation to (1) align portfolio managers’ interests with those of Victory Capital’s clients with an emphasis on long-term, risk-adjusted investment performance, (2) help Victory Capital attract and retain high-quality investment professionals, and (3) contribute to Victory Capital’s overall financial success.

Each of the Victory Capital portfolio managers receives a base salary plus an annual incentive bonus for managing the Portfolio, separate accounts, other investment companies, pooled investment vehicles and other accounts (including any accounts for which Victory Capital receives a performance fee) (together, “Accounts”). A portfolio manager’s base salary is dependent on the manager’s level of experience and expertise. Victory Capital monitors each manager’s base salary relative to salaries paid for similar positions with peer firms by reviewing data provided by various consultants that specialize in competitive salary information. Such data, however, is not considered to be a definitive benchmark. Each of the portfolio management teams employed by Victory Capital (including RS Investments) may earn incentive compensation based on a percentage of Victory Capital’s revenue attributable to fees paid by Accounts managed by the team. The chief investment officer of each team, in coordination with Victory Capital, determines the allocation of the incentive compensation earned by the team among the team’s portfolio managers by establishing a “target” incentive for each portfolio manager based on the manager’s level of experience and expertise in the manager’s investment style. Individual performance is based on objectives established annually using performance metrics such as portfolio structure and positioning, research, stock selection, asset growth, client retention, presentation skills, marketing to prospective clients and contribution to Victory Capital’s philosophy and values, such as leadership, risk management and teamwork. The annual incentive bonus also factors in individual investment performance of each portfolio manager’s portfolio or client accounts relative to a selected

142

peer group(s). The overall performance results for a manager are based on the composite performance of all Accounts managed by that manager on a combination of one, three and five year rolling performance periods as compared to the performance information of a peer group of similarly-managed competitors.

Victory Capital’s portfolio managers may participate in the equity ownership plan of Victory Capital’s parent company. There is an ongoing annual equity pool granted to certain employees based on their contribution to the firm. Eligibility for participation in these incentive programs depends on the manager’s performance and seniority.

Wedge Capital Management, LLP

COMPENSATION. Incentive compensation plans have been structured to reward all professionals for their contribution to the overall growth and profitability of the firm. Compensation is not directly tied to fund performance or growth in assets for any fund or other account managed by a portfolio manager. General Partners, including Brian J. Pratt and John Norman, are compensated via a percentage of the firm's net profitability following a peer review, which focuses on performance in their specific area of responsibility, as well as their contribution to the general management of the firm, and their importance to the firm in the future. Other investment professionals, including Caldwell Calame, receive a competitive salary and bonus based on the firm's investment and business success and their specific contribution to that record.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. During the normal course of managing assets for multiple clients of varying types and asset levels, WEDGE will inevitably encounter conflicts of interest that could, if not properly addressed, be harmful to one or more of its clients. Those of a material nature that are encountered most frequently surround security selection, brokerage selection, employee personal securities trading, proxy voting and the allocation of securities. WEDGE is therefore, forced to consider the possible personal conflicts that occur for an analyst and portfolio manager as well as those for the firm when a security is recommended for purchase or sale. When trading securities, WEDGE must address the issues surrounding the selection of brokers to execute trades considering the personal conflicts of the trader and the firm's conflict to obtain best execution of client transactions versus offsetting the cost of research or enhancing its relationship with a broker for potential future gain. And finally, WEDGE must consider the implications that a limited supply or demand for a particular security poses on the allocation of that security across accounts.

To mitigate these conflicts and ensure its clients are not negatively impacted by the adverse actions of WEDGE or its employees, WEDGE has implemented a series of policies including its Personal Security Trading Policy, Proxy Voting Policy, Equity Trading Policy, Trading Error Policy, and others designed to prevent and detect conflicts when they occur. WEDGE reasonably believes that these and other policies combined with the periodic review and testing performed by its compliance professionals adequately protects the interests of its clients.

Wellington Management Company LLP

Portfolio Manager Compensation

Wellington Management Company LLP (Wellington Management) receives a fee based on the assets under management of a Portfolio as set forth in the Investment Subadvisory Agreement between Wellington Management and the Manager on behalf of a Portfolio. Wellington Management pays its investment professionals out of its total revenues, including the advisory fees earned with respect to a Portfolio. The following information is as of December 31, 2016.

Wellington Management’s compensation structure is designed to attract and retain high-caliber investment professionals necessary to deliver high quality investment management services to its clients. Wellington Management’s compensation of the Fund’s managers listed in the prospectus who are primarily responsible for the day-to-day management of a Portfolio (the “Investment Professional”) includes a base salary and incentive components. The base salary for each Investment Professional who is a partner (a “Partner”) of Wellington Management Group LLP, the ultimate holding company of Wellington Management, is generally a fixed amount that is determined by the managing partners of Wellington Management Group LLP. The base salary for the other Investment Professionals is determined by the Investment Professionals’ experience and performance in their role as an Investment Professional. Base salaries for Wellington management’s employees are reviewed annually and may be adjusted based on the recommendation of an Investment Professional’s manager, using guidelines established by Wellington Management's Compensation Committee, which has final oversight responsibility for base salaries of employees of the firm. Each Investment Professional, with the exception of Stahl and Thomas, is eligible to receive an incentive payment based on the revenues earned by Wellington Management from the Fund managed by the Investment Professional and generally each other account managed by such Investment Professional. The Investment Professional's incentive payment relating to the Fund is linked to the gross pre-tax performance of the Fund managed by the Investment Professional compared to the benchmark index and/or peer group identified below over one, three, and five year periods,

143

with an emphasis on three year results. Wellington Management applies similar incentive compensation structures (although the benchmarks or peer groups, time periods and rates may differ) to other accounts managed by the Investment Professional, including accounts with performance fees.

Portfolio-based incentives across all accounts managed by an investment professional can, and typically do, represent a significant portion of an investment professional's overall compensation; incentive compensation varies significantly by individual and can vary significantly from year to year. The Investment Professionals may also be eligible for bonus payments based on their overall contribution to Wellington Management’s business operations. Senior management at Wellington Management may reward individuals as it deems appropriate based on other factors. Each Partner is eligible to participate in a Partner-funded tax qualified retirement plan, the contributions to which are made pursuant to an actuarial formula. Messrs. Chally, Stahl, Soukas, Sullivan and Thomas are Partners.

Portfolio	Benchmark Index and/or Peer Group for Incentive Period
AST Small Cap Growth Opportunities Portfolio	Russell 2000 Growth Index
AST Wellington Management Global Bond Portfolio	Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Bond Hedged to USD
AST Wellington Management Total Return Portfolio	Bloomberg Barclays US TIPS (1-10) Yr Index

Potential Conflicts

Individual investment professionals at Wellington Management manage multiple accounts for multiple clients. These accounts may include mutual funds, separate accounts (assets managed on behalf of institutions, such as pension funds, insurance companies, foundations, or separately managed account programs sponsored by financial intermediaries), bank common trust accounts, and hedge funds. A Portfolio’s managers listed in the prospectus who are primarily responsible for the day-to-day management of a Portfolio (“Investment Professionals”) generally manage accounts in several different investment styles. These accounts may have investment objectives, strategies, time horizons, tax considerations and risk profiles that differ from those of a Portfolio. The Investment Professionals make investment decisions for each account, including a Portfolio, based on the investment objectives, policies, practices, benchmarks, cash flows, tax and other relevant investment considerations applicable to that account. Consequently, the Investment Professionals may purchase or sell securities, including IPOs, for one account and not another account, and the performance of securities purchased for one account may vary from the performance of securities purchased for other accounts. Alternatively, these accounts may be managed in a similar fashion to a Portfolio and thus the accounts may have similar, and in some cases nearly identical, objectives, strategies and/or holdings to that of a Portfolio.

An Investment Professional or other investment professionals at Wellington Management may place transactions on behalf of other accounts that are directly or indirectly contrary to investment decisions made on behalf of a Portfolio, or make investment decisions that are similar to those made for a Portfolio, both of which have the potential to adversely impact a Portfolio depending on market conditions. For example, an investment professional may purchase a security in one account while appropriately selling that same security in another account. Similarly, an Investment Professional may purchase the same security for a Portfolio and one or more other accounts at or about the same time. In those instances the other accounts will have access to their respective holdings prior to the public disclosure of a Portfolio’s holdings. In addition, some of these accounts have fee structures, including performance fees, which are or have the potential to be higher, in some cases significantly higher, than the fees Wellington Management receives for managing a Portfolio. Messrs. Chally, Siegle, McLane, Stahl, Sullivan and Thomas also manage accounts which pay performance allocations to Wellington Management or its affiliates. Because incentive payments paid by Wellington Management to the Investment Professionals are tied to revenues earned by Wellington Management and, where noted, to the performance achieved by the manager in each account, the incentives associated with any given account may be significantly higher or lower than those associated with other accounts managed by a given Investment Professional. Finally, the Investment Professionals may hold shares or investments in the other pooled investment vehicles and/or other accounts identified above.

Wellington Management’s goal is to meet its fiduciary obligation to treat all clients fairly and provide high quality investment services to all of its clients. Wellington Management has adopted and implemented policies and procedures, including brokerage and trade allocation policies and procedures, which it believes address the conflicts associated with managing multiple accounts for multiple clients. In addition, Wellington Management monitors a variety of areas, including compliance with primary account guidelines, the allocation of IPOs, and compliance with the firm’s Code of Ethics, and places additional investment restrictions on investment professionals who manage hedge funds and certain other accounts. Furthermore, senior investment and business personnel at Wellington Management periodically review the performance of Wellington Management’s investment professionals. Although

144

Wellington Management does not track the time an investment professional spends on a single account, Wellington Management does periodically assess whether an investment professional has adequate time and resources to effectively manage the investment professional’s various client mandates.

Western Asset Management Company
Western Asset Management Company Limited

PORTFOLIO MANAGER COMPENSATION. At Western Asset and WAML (together, WAMCO), one compensation methodology covers all products and functional areas, including portfolio managers. WAMCO's philosophy is to reward its employees through Total Compensation. Total Compensation is reflective of the external market value for skills, experience, ability to produce results, and the performance of one's group and WAMCO as a whole.

Discretionary bonuses make up the variable component of total compensation. These are structured to reward sector specialists for contributions to WAMCO as well as relative performance of their specific portfolios/product and are determined by the professional's job function and performance as measured by a formal review process.

For portfolio managers, the formal review process includes a thorough review of portfolios they were assigned to lead or with which they were otherwise involved, and includes not only investment performance, but maintaining a detailed knowledge of client portfolio objectives and guidelines, monitoring of risks and performance for adherence to these parameters, execution of asset allocation consistent with current Firm and portfolio strategy, and communication with clients. In reviewing investment performance, one, three, and five year annualized returns are measured against appropriate market peer groups and to each fund's benchmark index.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. WAMCO has adopted compliance policies and procedures to address a wide range of potential conflicts of interest that could directly impact client portfolios. For example, potential conflicts of interest may arise in connection with the management of multiple portfolios (including portfolios managed in a personal capacity). These could include potential conflicts of interest related to the knowledge and timing of a portfolio’s trades, investment opportunities and broker selection. Portfolio managers are privy to the size, timing, and possible market impact of a portfolio’s trades.

It is possible that an investment opportunity may be suitable for both a portfolio and other accounts managed by a portfolio manager, but may not be available in sufficient quantities for both the portfolio and the other accounts to participate fully. Similarly, there may be limited opportunity to sell an investment held by a portfolio and another account. A conflict may arise where the portfolio manager may have an incentive to treat an account preferentially as compared to a portfolio because the account pays a performance-based fee or the portfolio manager, the Advisers or an affiliate has an interest in the account. WAMCO has adopted procedures for allocation of portfolio transactions and investment opportunities across multiple client accounts on a fair and equitable basis over time. All eligible accounts that can participate in a trade share the same price on a pro-rata allocation basis to ensure that no conflict of interest occurs. Trades are allocated among similarly managed accounts to maintain consistency of portfolio strategy, taking into account cash availability, investment restrictions and guidelines, and portfolio composition versus strategy.

With respect to securities transactions, the Adviser determines which broker or dealer to use to execute each order, consistent with their duty to seek best execution of the transaction. However, with respect to certain other accounts (such as pooled investment vehicles that are not registered investment companies and other accounts managed for organizations and individuals), WAMCO may be limited by the client with respect to the selection of brokers or dealers or may be instructed to direct trades through a particular broker or dealer. In these cases, trades for a portfolio in a particular security may be placed separately from, rather than aggregated with, such other accounts. Having separate transactions with respect to a security may temporarily affect the market price of the security or the execution of the transaction, or both, to the possible detriment of a portfolio or the other account(s) involved. Additionally, the management of multiple portfolios and/or other accounts may result in a portfolio manager devoting unequal time and attention to the management of each portfolio and/or other account. WAMCO’s team approach to portfolio management and block trading approach works to limit this potential risk.

WAMCO also maintains a gift and entertainment policy to address the potential for a business contact to give gifts or host entertainment events that may influence the business judgment of an employee. Employees are permitted to retain gifts of only a nominal value and are required to make reimbursement for entertainment events above a certain value. All gifts (except those of a de minimus value) and entertainment events that are given or sponsored by a business contact are required to be reported in a gift and entertainment log which is reviewed on a regular basis for possible issues.

Employees of WAMCO have access to transactions and holdings information regarding client accounts and WAMCO’s overall trading activities. This information represents a potential conflict of interest because employees may take advantage of this information as they trade in their personal accounts. Accordingly, WAMCO maintains a Code of Ethics that is compliant with Rule 17j-1 and Rule 204A-1

145

to address personal trading. In addition, the Code of Ethics seeks to establish broader principles of good conduct and fiduciary responsibility in all aspects of WAMCO’s business. The Code of Ethics is administered by the Legal and Compliance Department and monitored through WAMCO’s compliance monitoring program.

WAMCO may also face other potential conflicts of interest with respect to managing client assets, and the description above is not a complete description of every conflict of interest that could be deemed to exist. WAMCO also maintains a compliance monitoring program and engages independent auditors to conduct a SSAE16/ISAE 3402 audit on an annual basis. These steps help to ensure that potential conflicts of interest have been addressed.

William Blair Investment Management, LLC

COMPENSATION. The compensation of William Blair portfolio managers is based on the firm's mission: “to achieve success for its clients.” The Fund's portfolio managers are partners of William Blair, and their compensation consists of a base salary, a share of the firm's profits and, in some instances, a discretionary bonus. Each portfolio manager’s compensation is determined by the head of William Blair's Investment Management Department, subject to the approval of the firm's Executive Committee. The base salary is fixed and each portfolio manager’s ownership stake can vary over time based upon the portfolio manager’s sustained contribution to the firm's revenue, profitability, long-term investment performance, intellectual capital and brand reputation. In addition, the discretionary bonus (if any) is based, in part, on the long-term investment performance, profitability and assets under management of all accounts managed by each portfolio manager, including the Fund.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Since the portfolio managers manage other accounts in addition to the Fund, conflicts of interest may arise in connection with the portfolio managers' management of a Portfolio's investments on the one hand and the investments of such other accounts on the other hand. However, William Blair has adopted policies and procedures designed to address such conflicts, including, among others, policies and procedures relating to allocation of investment opportunities, soft dollars and aggregation of trades. William Blair also has adopted a Code of Ethics which requires employees to act solely in the best interest of clients and imposes certain restrictions on the ability of its employees to engage in personal securities transactions for their own accounts.

OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS

CUSTODIAN. The Bank of New York Mellon Corp., One Wall Street, New York, New York 10286 serves as Custodian for the Trust's portfolio securities and cash, and in that capacity, maintains certain financial accounting books and records pursuant to an agreement with the Trust. Subcustodians provide custodial services for any foreign assets held outside the United States.

TRANSFER AGENT AND SHAREHOLDER SERVICING AGENT. Prudential Mutual Fund Services LLC (PMFS), 655 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102, serves as the transfer and dividend disbursing agent of the Trust. PMFS is an affiliate of PGIM Investments. PMFS provides customary transfer agency services to the Trust, including the handling of shareholder communications, the processing of shareholder transactions, the maintenance of shareholder account records, the payment of dividends and distributions, and related functions. For these services, PMFS receives compensation from the Trust and is reimbursed for its transfer agent expenses which include an annual fee per shareholder account, a monthly inactive account fee per shareholder account and its out-of-pocket expenses; including but not limited to postage, stationery, printing, allocable communication expenses and other costs.

BNY Mellon Asset Servicing (U.S.) Inc. (BNYAS) serves as sub-transfer agent to the Trust. PMFS has contracted with BNYAS, 301 Bellevue Parkway, Wilmington, Delaware 19809, to provide certain administrative functions to the Transfer Agent. PMFS will compensate BNYAS for such services.

INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM. KPMG LLP, 345 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10154, served as the Trust's independent registered public accounting firm for the five fiscal years ended December 31, 2016, and in that capacity will audit the annual financial statements for the Trust for the next fiscal year.

SECURITIES LENDING AGENT. Goldman Sachs Bank USA, doing business as Goldman Sachs Agency Lending (GSAL), serves as the securities lending agent for the Trust, and in that role administers the Portfolios' securities lending program. Prior to on or about July 6, 2016, PGIM, Inc. served as the securities lending agent. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, the securities lending agent received a portion of the amount earned by lending securities. The amounts earned by PGIM, Inc. and/or GSAL, as applicable, for services as securities lending agent for the Portfolios are set forth in the table below.

Compensation Received by the Agent for Securities Lending
Portfolio	Amount
AST Academic Strategies Portfolio	$25,831
AST Advanced Strategies Portfolio	$137,443
AST AQR Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio	$2,038

146

Compensation Received by the Agent for Securities Lending
Portfolio	Amount
AST AQR Large-Cap Portfolio	$12,500
AST Balanced Asset Allocation Portfolio	None
AST BlackRock Global Strategies Portfolio	$34,930
AST BlackRock/Loomis Sayles Bond Portfolio	$4,756
AST BlackRock Low Duration Bond Portfolio	$1,320
AST Bond Portfolio 2017	$483
AST Bond Portfolio 2018	$240
AST Bond Portfolio 2019	None
AST Bond Portfolio 2020	$130
AST Bond Portfolio 2021	$270
AST Bond Portfolio 2022	$39
AST Bond Portfolio 2023	$38
AST Bond Portfolio 2024	$4
AST Bond Portfolio 2025	$572
AST Bond Portfolio 2026	$603
AST Bond Portfolio 2027	$305
AST Bond Portfolio 2028	N/A
AST Capital Growth Asset Allocation Portfolio	None
AST ClearBridge Dividend Growth Portfolio	$20,980
AST Cohen & Steers Realty Portfolio	$10,225
AST FI Pyramis^® Quantitative Portfolio	$69,135
AST Global Real Estate Portfolio	$7,385
AST Goldman Sachs Large-Cap Value Portfolio	$21,105
AST Goldman Sachs Mid-Cap Growth Portfolio	$65,382
AST Goldman Sachs Multi-Asset Portfolio	$16,094
AST Goldman Sachs Small-Cap Value Portfolio	$28,154
AST Government Money Market Portfolio (formerly, AST Money Market Portfolio)	None
AST High Yield Portfolio	$41,868
AST Hotchkis & Wiley Large-Cap Value Portfolio	$38,233
AST International Growth Portfolio	$86,904
AST International Value Portfolio	$58,365
AST Investment Grade Bond Portfolio	$38,583
AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio	$46,827
AST J.P. Morgan International Equity Portfolio	$1,666
AST J.P. Morgan Strategic Opportunities Portfolio	$6,274
AST Jennison Large-Cap Growth Portfolio	$48,078
AST Loomis Sayles Large-Cap Growth Portfolio	$48,979
AST Lord Abbett Core Fixed Income Portfolio	$15,780
AST MFS Global Equity Portfolio	$11,735
AST MFS Growth Portfolio	$9,466
AST MFS Large-Cap Value Portfolio	$13,185
AST Multi-Sector Fixed Income Portfolio	$33,298
AST Neuberger Berman/LSV Mid-Cap Value Portfolio	$34,937
AST New Discovery Asset Allocation Portfolio	$959
AST Parametric Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio	$1,469

147

Compensation Received by the Agent for Securities Lending
Portfolio	Amount
AST Preservation Asset Allocation Portfolio	None
AST Prudential Core Bond Portfolio	$10,437
AST Prudential Growth Allocation Portfolio	$87,185
AST QMA Large-Cap Portfolio	$13,749
AST QMA US Equity Alpha Portfolio	None
AST Quantitative Modeling Portfolio	None
AST RCM World Trends Portfolio	$109,200
AST Small-Cap Growth Portfolio	$128,717
AST Small-Cap Growth Opportunities Portfolio	$67,984
AST Small-Cap Value Portfolio	$5,796
AST T. Rowe Price Asset Allocation Portfolio	$244,166
AST T. Rowe Price Growth Opportunities Portfolio	$36,303
AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Growth Portfolio	$115,671
AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Value Portfolio (formerly, AST Value Equity Portfolio)	$16,737
AST T. Rowe Price Natural Resources Portfolio	$20,486
AST Templeton Global Bond Portfolio	None
AST WEDGE Capital Mid-Cap Value Portfolio	$9,260
AST Wellington Management Hedged Equity Portfolio	$29,941
AST Western Asset Core Plus Bond Portfolio	$28,328
AST Western Asset Emerging Markets Debt Portfolio	$3,561

Prudential Financial, Inc. (Prudential), the parent company of the Manager, self-reported in February 2016 to the SEC and certain other regulators that, in some cases, it failed to maximize securities lending income for certain of the Trust’s Portfolios due to a long-standing restriction benefitting Prudential. The Board was not notified of the restriction until after it had been removed. Prudential paid each of the affected Portfolios an amount equal to the estimated loss associated with the unauthorized restriction. At the Board’s direction, this payment occurred on June 30, 2016. The estimated opportunity loss was calculated by an independent consultant hired by Prudential whose calculation methodology was subsequently reviewed by a consultant retained by the independent trustees of the Portfolios. The amount of opportunity loss payment to each of the Portfolios is disclosed in the Trust’s annual report to shareholders in the respective Portfolios’ “Statement of Changes in Net Assets” and “Financial Highlights” as “Capital Contributions”. In addition to the above, Prudential has paid and continues to directly pay certain legal, audit and other charges in connection with the matter on behalf of the Portfolios. The SEC staff and other regulators are currently reviewing the matter.

DISTRIBUTOR. The Trust has distribution arrangements with PAD, pursuant to which PAD serves as the distributor for the shares of each Portfolio. PAD is an affiliate of the Investment Managers.

The Trust’s distribution agreement with respect to the Trust and the Portfolios (Distribution Agreement) has been approved by the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with respect to each Portfolio. The Distribution Agreement will remain in effect from year to year provided that the Distribution Agreement’s continuance is approved annually by (i) a majority of the Independent Trustees who are not parties to the agreement and, if applicable, who have no direct or indirect financial interest in the operation of the Shareholder Services and Distribution Plan (the 12b-1Plan) or any such related agreement, by a vote cast in person at a meeting called for the purpose of voting on such Agreements and (ii) either by a vote of a majority of the Trustees or a majority of the outstanding voting securities (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the Trust, as applicable.

The Trust has adopted the 12b-1Plan in the manner prescribed under Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act. Under the 12b-1Plan, each Portfolio (except for AST Balanced Asset Allocation Portfolio, AST Capital Growth Asset Allocation Portfolio, AST Preservation Asset Allocation Portfolio, and AST Quantitative Modeling Portfolio) is authorized to pay PAD an annual shareholder services and distribution fee of 0.25% of each Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

148

12b-1Plan, the fee is intended to compensate PAD and its affiliates for various services rendered and expenses incurred in connection with activities intended to result in the sale or servicing of the shares of the covered Portfolios. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following:

■	printing and mailing of prospectuses, statements of additional information, supplements, proxy statement materials, and annual and semi-annual reports for current owners of variable life or variable annuity contracts indirectly investing in the shares (the Contracts);
■	reconciling and balancing separate account investments in the Portfolios;
■	reconciling and providing notice to the Trust of net cash flow and cash requirements for net redemption orders;
■	confirming transactions;
■	providing Contract owner services related to investments in the Portfolios, including assisting the Trust with proxy solicitations, including providing solicitation and tabulation services, and investigating and responding to inquiries from Contract owners that relate to the Portfolios;
■	providing periodic reports to the Trust and regarding the Portfolios to third-party reporting services;
■	paying compensation to and expenses, including overhead, of employees of PAD and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries that engage in the distribution of the shares including, but not limited to, commissions, service fees and marketing fees;
■	printing and mailing of prospectuses, statements of additional information, supplements and annual and semi-annual reports for prospective Contract owners;
■	paying expenses relating to the development, preparation, printing and mailing of advertisements, sales literature, and other promotional materials describing and/or relating to the Portfolios;
■	paying expenses of holding seminars and sales meetings designed to promote the distribution of the shares;
■	paying expenses of obtaining information and providing explanations to Contract owners regarding investment objectives, policies, performance and other information about the Trust and its Portfolios;
■	paying expenses of training sales personnel regarding the Portfolios; and
■	providing other services and bearing other expenses for the benefit of the Portfolios, including activities primarily intended to result in the sale of shares of the Trust.

The 12b-1Plan is of a type known as a “compensation” plan because payments are made for services rendered to the covered Portfolios of the Trust regardless of the level of actual expenditures by PAD. However, as part of their oversight of the operations of the Trust and the 12b-1Plan, the Trustees consider and examine all payments made to PAD and all expenditures by PAD for purposes of reviewing operations under the 12b-1Plan. As required under Rule 12b-1, the 12b-1Plan provides that PAD and any other person(s) authorized to direct the disposition of monies paid or payable by the Portfolios pursuant to the 12b-1Plan or any related agreement will provide to the Board, and the Trustees shall review, at least quarterly, a written report of the amounts so expended and the purposes for which such expenditures were made. Fees payable to PAD under the 12b-1Plan are accrued daily and paid bi-weekly.

The 12b-1Plan and any related agreement will continue in effect, with respect to each Portfolio, for a period of more than one year only so long as such continuance is specifically approved at least annually by a vote of (a) the Board and (b) the Trust’s Independent Trustees, cast in person at a meeting called for the purpose of voting on the 12b-1Plan or such agreement, as applicable. In addition, the 12b-1Plan and any related agreement may be terminated at any time with respect to any Portfolio by vote of a majority of the Independent Trustees or by vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities representing the shares of that Portfolio. The 12b-1Plan may not be amended to increase materially the amount of distribution and shareholder service fees permissible with respect to any Portfolio until it has been approved by the Board and by a vote of at least a majority of the outstanding voting securities representing the shares of that Portfolio.

The amounts received by PAD from each Portfolio pursuant to the 12b-1 Plan during the most recently completed fiscal year are set out in the table below:

Amounts Received by PAD
Portfolio Name	Amount
AST Academic Strategies Portfolio	$5,963,641
AST Advanced Strategies Portfolio	$20,179,101
AST AQR Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio	$368,002
AST AQR Large-Cap Portfolio	$7,134,983
AST Balanced Asset Allocation Portfolio	None
AST BlackRock Global Strategies Portfolio	$5,520,497
AST BlackRock/Loomis Sayles Bond Portfolio	$9,353,977

149

Amounts Received by PAD
Portfolio Name	Amount
AST BlackRock Low Duration Bond Portfolio	$1,839,308
AST Bond Portfolio 2017	$331,460
AST Bond Portfolio 2018	$327,737
AST Bond Portfolio 2019	$161,510
AST Bond Portfolio 2020	$340,431
AST Bond Portfolio 2021	$579,732
AST Bond Portfolio 2022	$485,925
AST Bond Portfolio 2023	$108,123
AST Bond Portfolio 2024	$27,745
AST Bond Portfolio 2025	$783,633
AST Bond Portfolio 2026	$426,118
AST Bond Portfolio 2027	$254,280
AST Bond Portfolio 2028	None
AST Capital Growth Asset Allocation Portfolio	None
AST ClearBridge Dividend Growth Portfolio	$3,266,982
AST Cohen & Steers Realty Portfolio	$1,799,535
AST FI Pyramis^® Quantitative Portfolio	$11,856,472
AST Global Real Estate Portfolio	$1,165,619
AST Goldman Sachs Large-Cap Value Portfolio	$4,704,609
AST Goldman Sachs Mid-Cap Growth Portfolio	$3,053,045
AST Goldman Sachs Multi-Asset Portfolio	$6,403,161
AST Goldman Sachs Small-Cap Value Portfolio	$2,035,368
AST Government Money Market Portfolio (formerly, AST Money Market Portfolio)	$2,709,842
AST High Yield Portfolio	$3,363,790
AST Hotchkis & Wiley Large-Cap Value Portfolio	$3,160,814
AST International Growth Portfolio	$5,116,185
AST International Value Portfolio	$4,751,619
AST Investment Grade Bond Portfolio	$13,865,206
AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio	$7,200,455
AST J.P. Morgan International Equity Portfolio	$906,041
AST J.P. Morgan Strategic Opportunities Portfolio	$6,420,850
AST Jennison Large-Cap Growth Portfolio	$2,143,714
AST Loomis Sayles Large-Cap Growth Portfolio	$5,908,917
AST Lord Abbett Core Fixed Income Portfolio	$4,920,817
AST MFS Global Equity Portfolio	$1,517,366
AST MFS Growth Portfolio	$2,829,388
AST MFS Large-Cap Value Portfolio	$2,425,771
AST Multi-Sector Fixed Income Portfolio	$16,448,066
AST Neuberger Berman/LSV Mid-Cap Value Portfolio	$2,038,657
AST New Discovery Asset Allocation Portfolio	$1,793,060
AST Parametric Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio	$1,002,122
AST Preservation Asset Allocation Portfolio	None
AST Prudential Core Bond Portfolio	$8,079,030
AST Prudential Growth Allocation Portfolio	$26,608,584
AST QMA Large-Cap Portfolio	$7,157,104

150

Amounts Received by PAD
Portfolio Name	Amount
AST QMA US Equity Alpha Portfolio	$1,472,237
AST Quantitative Modeling Portfolio	None
AST RCM World Trends Portfolio	$12,677,324
AST Small-Cap Growth Portfolio	$1,742,002
AST Small-Cap Growth Opportunities Portfolio	$1,726,030
AST Small-Cap Value Portfolio	$2,324,628
AST T. Rowe Price Asset Allocation Portfolio	$34,330,723
AST T. Rowe Price Growth Opportunities Portfolio	$1,692,132
AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Growth Portfolio	$4,219,459
AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Value Portfolio (formerly, AST Value Equity Portfolio)	$1,337,965
AST T. Rowe Price Natural Resources Portfolio	$1,163,282
AST Templeton Global Bond Portfolio	$843,895
AST WEDGE Capital Mid-Cap Value Portfolio	$878,597
AST Wellington Management Hedged Equity Portfolio	$5,104,381
AST Western Asset Core Plus Bond Portfolio	$7,791,695
AST Western Asset Emerging Markets Debt Portfolio	$403,108

PORTFOLIO TRANSACTIONS & BROKERAGE

The Trust has adopted a policy pursuant to which the Trust and its Investment Managers, subadvisers, and principal underwriter are prohibited from directly or indirectly compensating a broker-dealer for promoting or selling Trust shares by directing brokerage transactions to that broker. The Trust has adopted procedures for the purpose of deterring and detecting any violations of the policy. The policy permits the Trust, the Investment Managers, and the subadvisers to use selling brokers to execute transactions in portfolio securities so long as the selection of such selling brokers is the result of a decision that executing such transactions is in the best interest of the Trust and is not influenced by considerations about the sale of Portfolio shares.

The Investment Managers are responsible for decisions to buy and sell securities, futures contracts and options on such securities and futures for the Trust, the selection of brokers, dealers and futures commission merchants to effect the transactions and the negotiation of brokerage commissions, if any. On a national securities exchange, broker-dealers may receive negotiated brokerage commissions on Trust portfolio transactions, including options, futures, and options on futures transactions and the purchase and sale of underlying securities upon the exercise of options. On a foreign securities exchange, commissions may be fixed. For purposes of this section, the term “Investment Managers” includes the investment subadvisers. Orders may be directed to any broker or futures commission merchant including, to the extent and in the manner permitted by applicable laws, affiliates of the Investment Managers and/or subadvisers (an affiliated broker). Brokerage commissions on US securities, options and futures exchanges or boards of trade are subject to negotiation between the Investment Managers and the broker or futures commission merchant.

In the over-the-counter market, securities are generally traded on a “net” basis with dealers acting as principal for their own accounts without a stated commission, although the price of the security usually includes a profit to the dealer. In underwritten offerings, securities are purchased at a fixed price which includes an amount of compensation to the underwriter, generally referred to as the underwriter's concession or discount. On occasion, certain money market instruments and US government agency securities may be purchased directly from the issuer, in which case no commissions or discounts are paid. The Trust will not deal with an affiliated broker in any transaction in which an affiliated broker acts as principal except in accordance with the rules of the SEC.

In placing orders for portfolio securities of the Trust, the Investment Managers’ overriding objective is to obtain the best possible combination of favorable price and efficient execution. The Investment Managers seek to effect such transaction at a price and commission that provides the most favorable total cost of proceeds reasonably attainable in the circumstances. The factors that the Investment Managers may consider in selecting a particular broker, dealer or futures commission merchant (firms) are the Investment Managers’ knowledge of negotiated commission rates currently available and other current transaction costs; the nature of the portfolio transaction; the size of the transaction; the desired timing of the trade; the activity existing and expected in the market for the particular transaction; confidentiality; the execution, clearance and settlement capabilities of the firms; the availability of research and research related services provided through such firms; the Investment Managers’ knowledge of the financial stability of the firms; the

151

Investment Managers’ knowledge of actual or apparent operational problems of firms; and the amount of capital, if any, that would be contributed by firms executing the transaction. Given these factors, the Trust may pay transaction costs in excess of that which another firm might have charged for effecting the same transaction.

When the Investment Managers select a firm that executes orders or is a party to portfolio transactions, relevant factors taken into consideration are whether that firm has furnished research and research-related products and/or services, such as research reports, research compilations, statistical and economic data, computer data bases, quotation equipment and services, research-oriented computer software, hardware and services, reports concerning the performance of accounts, valuations of securities, investment related periodicals, investment seminars and other economic services and consultations. Such services are used in connection with some or all of the Investment Managers’ investment activities; some of such services, obtained in connection with the execution of transactions for one investment account, may be used in managing other accounts, and not all of these services may be used in connection with the Trust. The Investment Managers maintain an internal allocation procedure to identify those firms who have provided them with research and research-related products and/or services, and the amount that was provided, and to endeavor to direct sufficient commissions to them to ensure the continued receipt of those services that the Investment Managers believe provide a benefit to the Trust and its other clients. The Investment Managers make a good faith determination that the research and/or service is reasonable in light of the type of service provided and the price and execution of the related portfolio transactions.

When the Investment Managers deem the purchase or sale of equities to be in the best interests of the Trust or its other clients, including Prudential, the Investment Managers may, but are under no obligation to, aggregate the transactions in order to obtain the most favorable price or lower brokerage commissions and efficient execution. In such event, allocation of the transactions, as well as the expenses incurred in the transaction, will be made by the Investment Managers in the manner they consider to be most equitable and consistent with its fiduciary obligations to its clients. The allocation of orders among firms and the commission rates paid are reviewed periodically by the Trust's Board of Trustees. Portfolio securities may not be purchased from any underwriting or selling syndicate of which any affiliated broker, during the existence of the syndicate, is a principal underwriter (as defined in the 1940 Act), except in accordance with rules of the SEC. This limitation, in the opinion of the Trust, will not significantly affect the Trust's ability to pursue its present investment objective. However, in the future in other circumstances, the Trust may be at a disadvantage because of this limitation in comparison to other funds with similar objectives but not subject to such limitations.

Subject to the above considerations, an affiliated broker may act as a broker or futures commission merchant for the Trust. In order for an affiliated broker to effect any portfolio transactions for the Trust, the commissions, fees or other remuneration received by the affiliated broker must be reasonable and fair compared to the commissions, fees or other remuneration paid to other firms in connection with comparable transactions involving similar securities or futures being purchased or sold on an exchange or board of trade during a comparable period of time. This standard would allow the affiliated broker to receive no more than the remuneration which would be expected to be received by an unaffiliated firm in a commensurate arm's-length transaction. Furthermore, the Trustees of the Trust, including a majority of the non-interested Trustees, have adopted procedures which are reasonably designed to provide that any commissions, fees or other remuneration paid to the affiliated broker (or any affiliate) are consistent with the foregoing standard. In accordance with Section 11 (a) of the 1934 Act, an affiliated broker may not retain compensation for effecting transactions on a national securities exchange for the Trust unless the Trust has expressly authorized the retention of such compensation. The affiliated broker must furnish to the Trust at least annually a statement setting forth the total amount of all compensation retained by it from transactions effected for the Trust during the applicable period. Brokerage transactions with an affiliated broker are also subject to such fiduciary standards as may be imposed upon the broker by applicable law. Transactions in options by the Trust will be subject to limitations established by each of the exchanges governing the maximum number of options which may be written or held by a single investor or group of investors acting in concert, regardless of whether the options are written or held on the same or different exchanges or are written or held in one or more accounts or through one or more brokers. Thus, the number of options which the Trust may write or hold may be affected by options written or held by the Investment Managers and other investment advisory clients of the Investment Managers. An exchange may order the liquidation of positions found to be in excess of these limits, and it may impose certain other sanctions.

Each Portfolio of the Trust participates in a voluntary commission recapture program available through Russell Implementation Services, Inc. (Russell). Subadvisers that choose to participate in the program retain the responsibility to seek best execution and are under no obligation to place any specific trades with a broker available through the program (each, a designated broker). A portion of commissions on trades executed through designated brokers is rebated to a Portfolio as a credit that can be used by the Portfolio to pay expenses of the Portfolio.

The tables below set forth information concerning the payment of brokerage commissions by the Trust, including the amount of brokerage commissions paid to any affiliated broker for the three most recently completed fiscal years:

152

Total Brokerage Commissions Paid by the Trust
Portfolio	2016	2015	2014
AST Academic Strategies Asset Allocation Portfolio	1,006,917	$1,664,166	$2,966,507
AST Advanced Strategies Portfolio	2,067,605	1,642,859	1,862,385
AST AQR Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio	69,488	93,230	218,186
AST AQR Large-Cap Portfolio	55,297	47,827	15,417
AST Balanced Asset Allocation Portfolio	None	None	None
AST BlackRock Global Strategies Portfolio	993,976	624,252	817,943
AST BlackRock/Loomis Sayles Bond Portfolio	26,899	15,363	2,474
AST BlackRock Low Duration Bond Portfolio	1,031	None	2,273
AST Bond Portfolio 2017	12,445	17,983	15,563
AST Bond Portfolio 2018	10,147	22,698	23,610
AST Bond Portfolio 2019	6,278	12,315	11,527
AST Bond Portfolio 2020	12,606	26,554	26,106
AST Bond Portfolio 2021	21,869	48,041	30,100
AST Bond Portfolio 2022	23,525	32,226	16,875
AST Bond Portfolio 2023	5,320	31,852	44,791
AST Bond Portfolio 2024	1,394	18,586	23,042
AST Bond Portfolio 2025	54,837	109,035	6,793
AST Bond Portfolio 2026	24,047	23,314	None
AST Bond Portfolio 2027	17,978	None	None
AST Bond Portfolio 2028	None	None	None
AST Capital Growth Asset Allocation Portfolio	None	None	None
AST ClearBridge Dividend Growth Portfolio	376,031	429,131	336,248
AST Cohen & Steers Realty Portfolio	705,437	641,756	528,201
AST FI Pyramis® Quantitative Portfolio	2,398,551	2,079,638	10,452,829
AST Global Real Estate Portfolio	626,777	769,022	782,786
AST Goldman Sachs Large-Cap Value Portfolio	3,153,964	2,044,510	1,500,070
AST Goldman Sachs Mid-Cap Growth Portfolio	794,066	710,670	431,194
AST Goldman Sachs Multi-Asset Portfolio	204,206	187,441	299,695
AST Goldman Sachs Small-Cap Value Portfolio	768,856	629,969	602,258
AST Government Money Market Portfolio (formerly, AST Money Market Portfolio)	None	None	None
AST Hotchkis & Wiley Large-Cap Value Portfolio	854,100	760,198	536,044
AST High Yield Portfolio	2,564	1,464	1,564
AST International Growth Portfolio	2,649,402	2,925,620	3,687,464
AST International Value Portfolio	687,763	970,612	2,238,696
AST Investment Grade Bond Portfolio	1,216,786	450,840	141,840
AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio	1,170,028	929,041	1,077,965
AST J.P. Morgan International Equity Portfolio	77,529	70,413	71,461
AST J.P. Morgan Strategic Opportunities Portfolio	1,141,859	1,168,433	1,076,691
AST Jennison Large-Cap Growth Portfolio	331,438	322,085	202,242
AST Loomis Sayles Large-Cap Growth Portfolio	384,769	594,558	621,155
AST Lord Abbett Core Fixed Income Portfolio	None	1,998	None
AST MFS Global Equity Portfolio	155,180	93,677	109,013
AST MFS Growth Portfolio	183,026	311,260	427,771
AST MFS Large-Cap Value Portfolio	260,942	67,215	88,757
AST Multi-Sector Fixed Income Portfolio	None	None	None

153

Total Brokerage Commissions Paid by the Trust
Portfolio	2016	2015	2014
AST Neuberger Berman/LSV Mid-Cap Value Portfolio	265,464	353,656	274,110
AST New Discovery Asset Allocation Portfolio	288,467	269,852	248,670
AST Parametric Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio	436,820	344,170	350,103
AST Prudential Core Bond Portfolio	357,397	528,658	269,298
AST Prudential Growth Allocation Portfolio	5,284,899	11,331,207	10,270,293
AST Preservation Asset Allocation Portfolio	None	None	None
AST QMA Large-Cap Portfolio	1,060,524	6,788,475	5,409,171
AST QMA US Equity Alpha Portfolio	567,691	3,037,958	2,375,897
AST Quantitative Modeling Portfolio	None	None	None
AST RCM World Trends Portfolio	1,069,729	981,633	836,549
AST Small-Cap Growth Portfolio	949,211	941,237	1,336,531
AST Small-Cap Growth Opportunities Portfolio	774,306	888,266	2,062,193
AST Small-Cap Value Portfolio	915,751	1,101,162	817,764
AST T. Rowe Price Asset Allocation Portfolio	2,441,281	2,714,343	2,019,182
AST T. Rowe Price Growth Opportunities Portfolio	307,801	176,474	98,185
AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Growth Portfolio	420,454	427,072	579,874
AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Value Portfolio (formerly, AST Value Equity Portfolio)	739,918	619,322	561,224
AST T. Rowe Price Natural Resources Portfolio	539,919	560,790	574,441
AST Templeton Global Bond Portfolio	None	None	None
AST WEDGE Capital Mid-Cap Value Portfolio	216,933	388,573	155,673
AST Wellington Management Hedged Equity Portfolio	1,340,087	1,444,990	1,826,531
AST Western Asset Core Plus Bond Portfolio	781,827	384,559	203,829
AST Western Asset Emerging Markets Debt Portfolio	None	None	None

Brokerage Commissions Paid to Affiliated Brokers: Fiscal Year 2016
Portfolio	Commissions Paid	Broker Name	% of Commissions Paid to Broker	% of Dollar Amt. of Transactions Involving Commissions Effected through Broker
AST Academic Strategies Asset Allocation Portfolio	74	J.P. Morgan Securities LLC	0.01%	0.00%
AST FI Pyramis^® Quantitative Portfolio	13	Fidelity Capital Management Corp	0.00%	0.00%
	3,296	National Financial Services LLC	0.14%	0.05%
AST Goldman Sachs Small-Cap Value Portfolio	23,400	Goldman Sachs & Co.	3.04%	1.63%
AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio	1,899	J.P. Morgan Securities LLC	0.16%	0.04%
AST Small-Cap Growth Portfolio	1,438	UBS Financial Services, Inc.	0.15%	0.27%

AST Small-Cap Value Portfolio	172	J.P. Morgan Securities LLC	0.02%	0.02%

Brokerage Commissions Paid to Affiliated Brokers: Fiscal Year 2015
Portfolio	Commissions Paid	Broker Name	% of Commissions Paid to Broker	% of Dollar Amt. of Transactions Involving Commissions Effected through Broker
AST Goldman Sachs Mid-Cap Growth Portfolio	$839	Goldman Sachs & Co.	0.12%	0.22%
AST Goldman Sachs Small-Cap Value Portfolio	7,835	Goldman Sachs & Co.	1.24%	0.97%
AST J.P. Morgan International Equity Portfolio	$103	J.P. Morgan Securities LLC.	0.15%	0.10%

Brokerage Commissions Paid to Affiliated Brokers: Fiscal Year 2014
Portfolio	Commissions Paid	Broker Name	% of Commissions Paid to Broker	% of Dollar Amt. of Transactions Involving Commissions Effected through Broker
AST Academic Strategies Asset Allocation Portfolio	$65	J.P. Morgan Securities LLC	0.00%	0.00%

154

Brokerage Commissions Paid to Affiliated Brokers: Fiscal Year 2014
Portfolio	Commissions Paid	Broker Name	% of Commissions Paid to Broker	% of Dollar Amt. of Transactions Involving Commissions Effected through Broker
AST FI Pyramis^® Quantitative Portfolio	2,138	Fidelity Capital Management Corp.	0.02%	0.03%
	989	National Financial Services LLC	0.01%	0.01%
AST Goldman Sachs Large-Cap Value Portfolio	1,561	Goldman Sachs & Co.	0.10%	0.11%
AST Goldman Sachs Mid-Cap Growth Portfolio	2,294	Goldman Sachs & Co.	0.53%	1.23%
AST Goldman Sachs Small-Cap Value Portfolio	13,820	Goldman Sachs & Co.	2.29%	1.95%
AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio	533	J.P. Morgan Securities LLC	0.05%	0.01%
AST J.P. Morgan Strategic Opportunities Portfolio	651	J.P. Morgan Securities LLC	0.06%	0.01%
AST New Discovery Asset Allocation Portfolio	286	Guggenheim Securities LLC	0.12%	0.05%
AST Small-Cap Growth Portfolio	10,840	Raymond James & Associates Inc.	0.81%	0.71%

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

FUND HISTORY. The Trust is a managed, open-end investment company organized as a Massachusetts business trust, the separate Portfolios of which are diversified, unless otherwise indicated. Formerly, the Trust was known as the Henderson International Growth Fund, which consisted of only one Portfolio (The Henderson International Growth Fund is currently known as the AST J.P. Morgan International Equity Portfolio (formerly known as the AST Strong International Equity Portfolio, the AST AIM International Equity Portfolio, the AST Putnam International Equity Portfolio and the Seligman Henderson International Equity Portfolio)).The investment manager was Henderson International, Inc. Shareholders of what was, at the time, the Henderson International Growth Fund, approved certain changes in a meeting held April 17, 1992. These changes included engagement of a new investment manager, engagement of a Subadviser and election of new Trustees. Subsequent to that meeting, the new Trustees adopted a number of resolutions, including, but not limited to, resolutions renaming the Trust. Since that time the Trustees have adopted a number of resolutions, including, but not limited to, making new Portfolios available and adopting forms of Investment Management Agreements and subadvisory Agreements between the Investment Managers and the Trust and the Investment Managers and each subadviser, respectively.

The AST AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Portfolio (formerly known as the AST Alliance Growth and Income Portfolio and as the AST Lord Abbett Growth and Income Portfolio) was first offered as of May 1, 1992. The AST Government Money Market Portfolio (formerly known as the AST Money Market Portfolio) was first offered as of November 4, 1992. The AST Neuberger Berman Mid-Cap Value Portfolio (formerly known as the Federated Utility Income Portfolio) and the AST UBS Dynamic Alpha Portfolio (formerly known as the AST Global Allocation Portfolio, the DeAM Global Allocation Portfolio, the AIM Balanced Portfolio, the AST Putnam Balanced Portfolio and the AST Phoenix Balanced Asset Portfolio) were first offered as of May 1, 1993. The AST High Yield Portfolio (formerly known as the Goldman Sachs High Yield Portfolio and the AST Federated High Yield Portfolio), the AST T. Rowe Price Asset Allocation Portfolio, AST Small-Cap Growth Portfolio (formerly known as the AST State Street Research Small-Cap Growth Portfolio, the AST Small-Cap Growth Portfolio (formerly known as the PBHG Small-Cap Growth Portfolio), the AST Janus Small-Cap Growth Portfolio and the Founders Capital Appreciation Portfolio), the Large-Cap Value Portfolio (formerly known as the AST Hotchkis Wiley Large-Cap Value Portfolio and the AST INVESCO Capital Income Portfolio) and the AST BlackRock/Loomis Sayles Bond Portfolio (formerly known as the AST PIMCO Total Return Bond Portfolio) were first offered as of December 31, 1993. The AST T. Rowe Price Global Bond Portfolio (formerly known as the AST Scudder International Bond Portfolio) was first offered as of May 1, 1994.

The AST International Value Portfolio (formerly known as the AST LSV International Value Portfolio, the AST DeAM International Equity Portfolio, the AST Founders Passport Portfolio and the Seligman Henderson International Small Cap Portfolio), the AST T. Rowe Price Natural Resources Portfolio and the AST PIMCO Limited Maturity Bond Portfolio were first offered as of May 2, 1995. The AST AllianceBernstein Large-Cap Growth Portfolio (formerly known as the AST Alliance Growth Portfolio, AST Oppenheimer Large-Cap Growth Portfolio, and the Robertson Stephens Value + Growth Portfolio) was first offered as of May 2, 1996. The AST International Growth Portfolio (formerly known as the AST William Blair International Growth Portfolio and the AST Janus Overseas Growth Portfolio), the AST Small-Cap Value Portfolio (formerly known as the AST Gabelli Small-Cap Value Portfolio and the AST T. Rowe Price Small Company Value Portfolio) and the AST American Century Income & Growth Portfolio (formerly known as the AST Putnam Value Growth Income Portfolio) were first offered as of January 2, 1997. The AST Marsico Capital Growth Portfolio was first offered as of December 22, 1997. The AST Goldman Sachs Small-Cap Value Portfolio (formerly known as the AST Lord Abbett Small Cap Value Portfolio), the AST Cohen & Steers Realty Portfolio, and the AST QMA US Equity Alpha Portfolio (formerly known as the AST AllianceBernstein Managed Index 500 Portfolio, the AST Sanford Bernstein Managed Index 500 Portfolio and as the AST Bankers Trust Managed Index 500 Portfolio) were first offered as of January 2, 1998. The AST Neuberger Berman Small-Cap Growth Portfolio (formerly known as the AST DeAM Small-Cap Growth Portfolio and the AST Scudder Small-Cap Growth Portfolio) was first offered as

155

of January 4, 1999. The AST MFS Global Equity Portfolio and the AST MFS Growth Portfolio were first offered as of October 18, 1999. The AST Goldman Sachs Mid-Cap Growth Portfolio (formerly known as the AST Janus Mid-Cap Growth Portfolio) was first offered as of May 1, 2000. The AST Small-Cap Growth Opportunities Portfolio (formerly known as the AST Federated Aggressive Growth Portfolio), the AST Mid-Cap Value Portfolio (formerly known as the AST Gabelli All-Cap Value Portfolio), the AST DeAM Large-Cap Value Portfolio (formerly known as the Janus Strategic Value Portfolio) and the AST Lord Abbett Core Fixed Income Portfolio (formerly, the AST Lord Abbett Bond-Debenture Portfolio) were first offered on October 23, 2000. The AST AllianceBernstein Core Value (formerly known as the AST Sanford Bernstein Core Value) Portfolio was first offered on May 1, 2001.

Effective as of December 2, 2005, the AST Alger All-Cap Growth Portfolio and the AST AllianceBernstein Growth + Value Portfolio were reorganized into the AST Neuberger Berman Mid-Cap Growth Portfolio and the AST AllianceBernstein Managed Index 500 Portfolio, respectively, and ceased to exist.

The AST Aggressive Asset Allocation Portfolio, the AST Capital Growth Asset Allocation Portfolio, the AST Academic Strategies Asset Allocation Portfolio (formerly the AST Balanced Asset Allocation Portfolio), the AST Balanced Asset Allocation Portfolio (formerly the AST Conservative Asset Allocation Portfolio, and the AST Preservation Asset Allocation Portfolio were each first offered on or about December 5, 2005.

The AST Advanced Strategies Portfolio, the AST First Trust Balanced Target Portfolio and the AST First Trust Capital Appreciation Target Portfolio were each first offered on or about March 20, 2006.

The AST Western Asset Core Plus Bond Portfolio, the AST CLS Growth Asset Allocation Portfolio, the AST CLS Moderate Asset Allocation Portfolio, the AST Horizon Growth Asset Allocation Portfolio, the AST Horizon Moderate Asset Allocation Portfolio, and the AST Niemann Capital Growth Asset Allocation Portfolio were each first offered on or about November 17, 2007.

The AST Bond Portfolio 2018, the AST Bond Portfolio 2019, and the AST Investment Grade Bond Portfolio were each first offered on or about January 28, 2008.

The AST Global Real Estate Portfolio and the AST Parametric Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio were each first offered on or about April 28, 2008.

The AST Focus Four Plus Portfolio was first offered on or about July 21, 2008.

Effective as of July 18, 2008, the AST DeAM Small-Cap Value Portfolio was reorganized into the AST Small-Cap Value Portfolio.

The AST Bond Portfolio 2016 and the AST Bond Portfolio 2020 were each first offered on or about January 2, 2009.

Effective as of November 13, 2009, the AST Focus Four Plus Portfolio was reorganized into the AST First Trust Capital Appreciation Target Portfolio.

The AST Bond Portfolio 2017 and the AST Bond Portfolio 2021 were each first offered on or about January 14, 2010.

The AST Jennison Large-Cap Growth Portfolio and the AST Boston Partners Large-Cap Value Portfolio (formerly known as the AST Jennison Large-Cap Value Portfolio) were each first offered on or about November 16, 2009.

Effective as of March 15, 2010, the AST UBS Dynamic Alpha Portfolio was renamed as the AST J.P. Morgan Strategic Opportunities Portfolio.

Effective as of May 1, 2010, the AST DeAM Large-Cap Value Portfolio was renamed the AST Value Portfolio. Effective as of July 16, 2010, the AST Value Portfolio was renamed as the AST BlackRock Value Portfolio. Effective as of May 1, 2011, the AST Lord Abbett Bond-Debenture Portfolio was renamed the AST Lord Abbett Core Fixed Income Portfolio.

The AST Bond Portfolio 2022 was first offered on or about January 3, 2011.

The AST BlackRock Global Strategies Portfolio and the AST Quantitative Modeling Portfolio were each first offered on or about May 2, 2011.

Effective as of April 29, 2011, the AST Aggressive Asset Allocation Portfolio was renamed the AST Wellington Management Hedged Equity Portfolio.

156

The AST Neuberger Berman Small-Cap Growth Portfolio was reorganized (merged) into the AST Federated Aggressive Growth Portfolio (now known as the AST Small-Cap Growth Opportunities Portfolio) on April 29, 2011.

The AST Prudential Core Bond Portfolio was first offered on or about October 17, 2011.

The AST Bond Portfolio 2023 was first offered on or about January 3, 2012.

The AST American Century Income & Growth Portfolio was reorganized (merged) into the AST New Discovery Asset Allocation Portfolio on April 30, 2012. The AST New Discovery Asset Allocation Portfolio was first offered on April 30, 2012.

Effective as of April 27, 2012, the AST CLS Growth Asset Allocation Portfolio was re-named the AST Schroders Global Tactical Portfolio.

Effective as of August 20, 2012, the AST Horizon Growth Asset Allocation Portfolio was re-named the AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio.

The AST MFS Large-Cap Value Portfolio and the AST Western Asset Emerging Markets Debt Portfolio were first offered on or about August 20, 2012.

The AST Bond Portfolio 2024 was first offered on or about January 2, 2013.

Effective as of December 17, 2012, the AST CLS Moderate Asset Allocation Portfolio was re-named AST Moderate Asset Allocation Portfolio.

The AST ClearBridge Dividend Growth Portfolio, AST AQR Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio, AST QMA Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio, and AST Multi-Sector Fixed Income Portfolio were each first offered on or about February 25, 2013.

Effective on or about April 29, 2013, the following Portfolios were re-named: AST T. Rowe Price Global Bond Portfolio was re-named AST Templeton Global Bond Portfolio. AST Horizon Moderate Asset Allocation Portfolio was re-named AST Goldman Sachs Multi-Asset Portfolio. AST First Trust Capital Appreciation Target Portfolio was re-named AST Prudential Growth Allocation Portfolio. AST Moderate Asset Allocation Portfolio was re-named AST RCM World Trends Portfolio.

Effective on or about April 29, 2013, the following new Portfolios of the Trust commenced operations: AST AQR Large-Cap Portfolio, AST BlackRock iShares ETF Portfolio, AST Defensive Asset Allocation Portfolio, and AST QMA Large-Cap Portfolio.

Effective on or about July 15, 2013, the following Portfolios were re-named: AST BlackRock Value Portfolio was re-named AST Herndon Large-Cap Value Portfolio. AST Marsico Capital Growth Portfolio was re-named AST Loomis Sayles Large-Cap Growth Portfolio.

Effective on or about November 4, 2013, the AST Long Duration Bond Portfolio was re-named as AST Multi-Sector Fixed Income Portfolio.

The AST Bond Portfolio 2025 was first offered on or about January 2, 2014.

The AST T. Rowe Price Growth Opportunities Portfolio was first offered on or about February 10, 2014.

Effective on or about February 10, 2014, the AST First Trust Balanced Target Portfolio was re-named as AST FI Pyramis^® Quantitative Portfolio.

Effective on or about February 10, 2014, the AST Goldman Sachs Concentrated Growth Portfolio was reorganized (merged) into the AST Loomis Sayles Large-Cap Growth Portfolio.

The following Portfolios were first offered on or about April 28, 2014: AST BlackRock Multi-Asset Income Portfolio, AST FQ Absolute Return Currency Portfolio, AST Franklin Templeton K2 Global Absolute Return Portfolio, AST Goldman Sachs Global Growth Allocation Portfolio, AST Goldman Sachs Strategic Income Portfolio, AST Jennison Global Infrastructure Portfolio, AST Managed Equity Portfolio, AST Managed Fixed Income Portfolio, AST Prudential Flexible Multi-Strategy Portfolio, and AST T. Rowe Price Diversified Real Growth Portfolio.

The AST Legg Mason Diversified Growth Portfolio was first offered on or about November 24, 2014.

157

Effective on November 24, 2014, the AST Jennison Large-Cap Value Portfolio was re-named as AST Boston Partners Large-Cap Value Portfolio.

Effective on November 24, 2014, the AST Federated Aggressive Growth Portfolio was re-named as AST Small-Cap Growth Opportunities Portfolio.

The AST Bond Portfolio 2026 was first offered on January 2, 2015.

The AST QMA International Core Equity Portfolio was first offered on January 5, 2015.

Effective on January 5, 2015, the AST PIMCO Total Return Bond Portfolio was re-named as AST BlackRock/Loomis Sayles Bond Portfolio.

The following Portfolios were first offered on or about July 13, 2015: AST AB Global Bond Portfolio, AST Columbia Adaptive Risk Allocation Portfolio, AST Emerging Managers Diversified Portfolio, AST Goldman Sachs Global Income Portfolio, AST Managed Alternatives Portfolio, AST Morgan Stanley Multi-Asset Portfolio, AST Neuberger Berman Long/Short Portfolio, AST Wellington Management Global Bond Portfolio, and AST Wellington Management Real Total Return Portfolio.

Effective on July 13, 2015, the AST PIMCO Limited Maturity Bond Portfolio was re-named as AST BlackRock Low Duration Bond Portfolio.

Effective on or about October 19, 2015, the AST FI Pyramis^® Asset Allocation Portfolio was reorganized (merged) into the AST T. Rowe Price Asset Allocation Portfolio.

Effective on or about October 19, 2015, the AST Franklin Templeton Founding Funds Allocation Portfolio was reorganized (merged) into the AST Prudential Growth Allocation Portfolio.

Effective on or about October 19, 2015, the AST Franklin Templeton Founding Funds Plus Portfolio was reorganized (merged) into the AST RCM World Trends Portfolio.

Effective on or about October 19, 2015, the AST Neuberger Berman Core Bond Portfolio was reorganized (merged) into the AST Lord Abbett Core Fixed-Income Portfolio.

Effective on or about October 19, 2015, the AST Neuberger Berman Mid-Cap Growth Portfolio was reorganized (merged) into the AST Goldman Sachs Mid-Cap Growth Portfolio.

Effective on or about October 19, 2015, the AST Schroders Multi-Asset World Strategies Portfolio was reorganized (merged) into the AST Schroders Global Tactical Portfolio.

Effective on or about October 19, 2015, the AST T. Rowe Price Equity Income Portfolio was reorganized (merged) into the AST Goldman Sachs Large-Cap Value Portfolio.

The AST Bond Portfolio 2027 was first offered on January 4, 2016.

Effective on or about April 25, 2016, the AST Mid-Cap Value Portfolio was re-named as AST WEDGE Capital Mid-Cap Value Portfolio.

Effective on or about April 25, 2016, the AST Large-Cap Value Portfolio was re-named as AST Hotchkis &Wiley Large-Cap Value Portfolio.

Effective on or about September 12, 2016, the AST Money Market Portfolio was re-named as AST Government Money Market Portfolio.

Effective on or about September 12, 2016, the AST Herndon Large-Cap Value Portfolio was re-named as AST Value Equity Portfolio.

Effective on or about May 1, 2017, the AST QMA Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio was reorganized (merged) into the AST AQR Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio.

Effective on or about May 1, 2017, the AST Boston Partners Large-Cap Value Portfolio was reorganized (merged) into the AST Goldman Sachs Large-Cap Value Portfolio.

158

Effective on or about May 1, 2017, the AST BlackRock iShares ETF Portfolio was reorganized (merged) into the AST Goldman Sachs Multi-Asset Portfolio.

Effective on or about May 1, 2017, the AST Defensive Asset Allocation Portfolio was reorganized (merged) into the AST Preservation Asset Allocation Portfolio.

Effective on or about May 1, 2017, the AST Schroders Global Tactical Portfolio was reorganized (merged) into the AST Prudential Growth Allocation Portfolio.

Effective on or about May 1, 2017, the AST Value Equity Portfolio was re-named as AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Value Portfolio.

If approved by the Trustees, the Trust may add more Portfolios and may cease to offer any existing Portfolios in the future.

Effective as of May 1, 2007, the Trust changed its name from American Skandia Trust to Advanced Series Trust.

DESCRIPTION OF SHARES AND ORGANIZATION. As of the date of this SAI, the beneficial interest in the Trust is divided into 90 separate Portfolios, each offering one class of shares.

The Trust's Second Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust, dated December 1, 2005, which governs certain Trust matters, permits the Trust's Board of Trustees to issue multiple classes of shares, and within each class, an unlimited number of shares of beneficial interest with a par value of $.001 per share. Each share entitles the holder to one vote for the election of Trustees and on all other matters that are not specific to one class of shares, and to participate equally in dividends, distributions of capital gains and net assets of each applicable Portfolio. Only shareholders of shares of a specific Portfolio may vote on matters specific to that Portfolio. Shares of one class may not bear the same economic relationship to the Trust as shares of another class. In the event of dissolution or liquidation, holders of shares of a Portfolio will receive pro rata, subject to the rights of creditors, the proceeds of the sale of the assets held in such Portfolio less the liabilities attributable to such Portfolio. Shareholders of a Portfolio will not be liable for the expenses, obligations or debts of another Portfolio.

No preemptive or conversion rights apply to any of the Trust's shares. The Trust's shares, when issued, will be fully paid, non-assessable and transferable. The Trustees may at any time create additional series of shares without shareholder approval.

Generally, there will not be annual meetings of shareholders of any Portfolio of the Trust. A Trustee may, in accordance with certain rules of the SEC, be removed from office when the holders of record of not less than two-thirds of the outstanding shares either present a written declaration to the Trust's custodian or vote in person or by proxy at a meeting called for this purpose. In addition, the Trustees will promptly call a meeting of shareholders to remove a Trustee(s) when requested to do so in writing by record holders of not less than 10% of the outstanding shares. Finally, the Trustees shall, in certain circumstances, give such shareholders access to a list of the names and addresses of all other shareholders or inform them of the number of shareholders and the cost of mailing their request.

Under Massachusetts law, shareholders could, under certain circumstances, be held liable for the obligations of the Trust. However, the Declaration of Trust disclaims shareholder liability for acts or obligations of the Trust and requires that notice of such disclaimer be given in each agreement, obligation or instrument entered into or executed by the Trust or the Trustees to all parties, and each party thereto must expressly waive all rights of action directly against shareholders. The Declaration of Trust provides for indemnification out of the Trust's property for all loss and expense of any shareholder of the Trust held liable on account of being or having been a shareholder. Thus, the risk of a shareholder incurring financial loss on account of shareholder liability is limited to circumstances in which the Trust would be unable to meet its obligations wherein the complaining party was held not to be bound by the disclaimer.

The Declaration of Trust further provides that the Trustees will have no personal liability to any person in connection with the Trust property or affairs of the Trust except for that arising from his bad faith, willful misfeasance, gross negligence or reckless disregard of his duty to that person. All persons must look solely to the Trust property for satisfaction of claims of any nature arising in connection with the Trust's affairs. In general, the Declaration of Trust provides for indemnification by the Trust of the Trustees and officers of the Trust except with respect to any matter as to which the Trustee or officer acted in bad faith, or with willful misfeasance, gross negligence or reckless disregard of his duties.

159

redemption will not have an adverse effect upon investment performance. Prudential will vote its shares in the same manner and in the same proportion as the shares held by the separate accounts that invest in the Trust, which in turn, are generally voted in accordance with instructions from Contract owners.

PRINCIPAL SHAREHOLDERS

To the knowledge of the Trust, the following persons/entities owned beneficially or of record 5% or more of the Portfolios of the Trust as of April 3, 2017. As of April 3, 2017, the Trustees and Officers of the Trust, as a group owned less than 1% of the outstanding shares of beneficial interest of the Trust.

Portfolio Name	Shareholder Name/Address	No. Shares / % of Portfolio
AST Academic Strategies Asset Allocation	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	228,531,354.384 / 57.36%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	147,697,525.089 / 37.07%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLNJ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	21,809,060.373 / 5.47%
AST Advanced Strategies	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	378,287,272.147 / 72.93%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	102,337,335.527 / 19.73%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLNJ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	37,920,247.968 / 7.31%
AST AQR Emerging Markets Equity	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST ACADEMIC STRATEGIES ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	8,446,011.564 / 63.94%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST CAPITAL GROWTH ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	1,674,629.355 / 12.68%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST BALANCED ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	1,064,741.386 / 8.06%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	896,452.365 / 6.79%
AST AQR Large-Cap	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST CAPITAL GROWTH ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	93,381,774.506 / 49.58%

160

Portfolio Name	Shareholder Name/Address	No. Shares / % of Portfolio
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST BALANCED ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	61,793,833.308 / 32.81%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST PRESERVATION ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	22,555,260.514 / 11.98%
AST Balanced Asset Allocation	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	456,189,504.116 / 68.48%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	162,303,170.613 / 24.36%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLNJ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	46,341,207.146 / 6.96%
AST BlackRock Global Strategies	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	158,602,419.169 / 87.20%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLNJ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	13,836,073.442 / 7.61%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	9,376,509.424 / 5.16%
AST BlackRock/Loomis Sayles Bond	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	131,293,307.815 / 46.79%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	93,470,201.866 / 33.31%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLNJ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	15,469,157.798 / 5.51%
AST BlackRock Low Duration Bond	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	32,466,962.657 / 53.32%

161

Portfolio Name	Shareholder Name/Address	No. Shares / % of Portfolio
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	1,173,254.854 / 38.76%
AST Bond Portfolio 2026	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	16,286,646.716 / 55.58%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	10,827,362.630 / 36.95%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLNJ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	2,116,320.069 / 7.22%
AST Bond Portfolio 2027	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	21,453,949.069 / 60.62%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	12,060,074.334 / 34.08%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLNJ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	1,842,234.303 / 5.21%
AST Bond Portfolio 2028	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ SEED ACCOUNT ATTN PUBLIC INVESTMENT OPS 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	300,000.000 / 59.92%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NJ PLNJ SEED ACCOUNT ATTN PUBLIC INVESTMENTS OPS 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	200,000.000 / 39.95%
AST Capital Growth Asset Allocation	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	487,097,586.287 / 61.30%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	268,038,773.760 / 33.73%
AST ClearBridge Dividend Growth	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST CAPITAL GROWTH ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	41,698,251.262 / 42.25%

164

Portfolio Name	Shareholder Name/Address	No. Shares / % of Portfolio
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST BALANCED ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	27,199,622.690 / 27.56%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST PRESERVATION ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	9,694,654.179 / 9.82%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST ACADEMIC STRATEGIES ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	8,055,865.326 / 8.16%
AST Cohen & Steers Realty	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	23,128,862.754 / 39.34%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST ACADEMIC STRATEGIES ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	15,070,557.911 / 25.63%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	14,114,969.526 / 24.01%
	PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO OF AMERICA PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL PRUBENEFIT FUNDING ATTN TESSIE BUSINELLI 80 LIVINGSTON AVENUE BUILDING, ROS 3 ROSELAND NJ 07068-0000	3,858,916.969 / 6.56%
AST FI Pyramis® Quantitative	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	259,919,552.775 / 69.92%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	83,289,956.503 / 22.40%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLNJ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	28,447,292.000 / 7.65%
AST Global Real Estate	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST ACADEMIC STRATEGIES ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	24,158,766.556 / 70.35%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	6,352,166.767 / 18.50%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	2,933,238.642 / 8.54%

165

Portfolio Name	Shareholder Name/Address	No. Shares / % of Portfolio
AST Goldman Sachs Large-Cap Value	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	24,366,632.208 / 39.85%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	18,239,362.751 / 29.83%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST CAPITAL GROWTH ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	7,945,413.729 / 12.99%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST BALANCED ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	5,250,124.026 / 8.59%
AST Goldman Sachs Mid-Cap Growth	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	68,616,339.081 / 43.26%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	58,699,231.166 / 37.01%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST ACADEMIC STRATEGIES ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	12,749,568.475 / 8.04%
AST Goldman Sachs Multi-Asset	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	143,479,977.966 / 70.49%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	45,907,417.288 / 22.55%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLNJ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	14,111,675.397 / 6.93%
AST Goldman Sachs Small-Cap Value	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	15,145,147.665 / 34.34%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	9,724,509.977 / 22.05%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST CAPITAL GROWTH ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	5,106,247.357 / 11.58%

166

Portfolio Name	Shareholder Name/Address	No. Shares / % of Portfolio
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST ACADEMIC STRATEGIES ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	4,332,527.223 / 9.82%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST BALANCED ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	3,889,514.169 / 8.82%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST ADVANCED STRATEGIES PORTFOLIO ATTN TED LOCKWOOD & EDWARD CAMPBELL 2 GATEWAY CTR 6TH FL NEWARK NJ 07102-5008	2,318,187.645 / 5.26%
AST Government Money Market (formerly, AST Money Market)	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	559,288,984.410 / 57.01%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	241,540,238.570 / 24.62%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST PRESERVATION ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	71,982,507.870 / 7.34%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST BALANCED ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	50,822,290.740 / 5.18%
AST Hotchkis & Wiley Large-Cap Value	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	17,830,896.781 / 31.54%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST CAPITAL GROWTH ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	12,524,904.606 / 22.15%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	10,827,357.403 / 19.15%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST BALANCED ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	8,284,082.333 / 14.65%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST PRESERVATION ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	2,938,411.214 / 5.20%
AST High Yield	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST ACADEMIC STRATEGIES ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	33,412,257.499 / 26.43%

167

Portfolio Name	Shareholder Name/Address	No. Shares / % of Portfolio
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	21,885,635.508 / 17.31%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	21,569,007.591 / 17.06%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST PRESERVATION ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	16,428,784.633 / 13.00%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST BALANCED ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	15,668,249.248 / 12.40%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST CAPITAL GROWTH ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	11,540,358.049 / 9.13%
AST International Growth	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST CAPITAL GROWTH ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	47,781,134.725 / 31.48%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST BALANCED ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	30,938,660.796 / 20.38%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	22,759,802.400 / 14.99%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST ACADEMIC STRATEGIES ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	18,009,470.006 / 11.86%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	14,825,674.976 / 9.77%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST PRESERVATION ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	11,078,819.696 / 7.30%
AST International Value	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST CAPITAL GROWTH ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	37,507,982.536 / 32.98%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST BALANCED ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	24,403,195.449 / 21.46%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST ACADEMIC STRATEGIES ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	20,886,161.576 / 18.36%

168

Portfolio Name	Shareholder Name/Address	No. Shares / % of Portfolio
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	10,312,833.155 / 9.07%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST PRESERVATION ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	8,856,729.777 / 7.79%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	6,725,301.272 / 5.91%
AST Investment Grade Bond	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	303,318,097.938 / 55.28%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	221,143,113.143 / 40.31%
AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	158,787,382.489 / 74.32%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	41,429,254.830 / 19.39%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLNJ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	13,419,030.134 / 6.28%
AST J.P. Morgan International Equity	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	8,024,846.394 / 52.13%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	6,386,177.400 / 41.49%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLNJ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	980,317.380 / 6.37%
AST J.P. Morgan Strategic Opportunities	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	86,148,154.551 / 59.73%

169

Portfolio Name	Shareholder Name/Address	No. Shares / % of Portfolio
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	48,114,821.665 / 33.36%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLNJ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	9,831,328.641 / 6.82%
AST Jennison Large-Cap Growth	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST CAPITAL GROWTH ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	10,736,378.212 / 32.89%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	7,269,458.527 / 22.27%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST BALANCED ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	7,047,155.501 / 21.59%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST PRESERVATION ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	2,473,334.445 / 7.58%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	2,385,610.575 / 7.31%
AST Loomis Sayles Large-Cap Growth	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	23,223,422.390 / 38.74%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST CAPITAL GROWTH ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	11,678,746.639 / 19.48%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	11,020,799.091 / 18.38%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST BALANCED ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	7,667,173.508 / 12.79%
AST Lord Abbett Core Fixed Income	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	53,701,035.964 / 37.33%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	22,778,471.971 / 15.83%

170

Portfolio Name	Shareholder Name/Address	No. Shares / % of Portfolio
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST PRESERVATION ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	19,833,647.444 / 13.79%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST BALANCED ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	19,567,955.969 / 13.60%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST CAPITAL GROWTH ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	14,246,625.444 / 9.90%
AST MFS Global Equity	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	22,567,694.367 / 60.67%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	12,748,666.276 / 34.27%
AST MFS Growth	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST CAPITAL GROWTH ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	13,596,193.630 / 28.75%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	10,809,884.916 / 22.86%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST BALANCED ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	8,909,657.166 / 18.84%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	7,625,945.973 / 16.13%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST PRESERVATION ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	3,115,789.694 / 6.59%
AST MFS Large-Cap Value	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST CAPITAL GROWTH ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	25,863,651.664 / 38.67%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST BALANCED ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	17,078,728.392 / 25.53%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	7,450,678.772 / 11.14%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST PRESERVATION ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	6,035,072.290 / 9.02%

171

Portfolio Name	Shareholder Name/Address	No. Shares / % of Portfolio
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	4,179,755.128 / 6.25%
AST Multi-Sector Fixed Income	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	628,987,849.627 / 87.13%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLNJ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	92,943,728.385 / 12.87%
AST Neuberger Berman/LSV Mid-Cap Value	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	12,229,723.961 / 40.71%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	11,223,150.935 / 37.36%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST ACADEMIC STRATEGIES ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	3,704,910.096 / 12.33%
AST New Discovery Asset Allocation	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	40,465,307.459 / 71.24%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	12,123,032.930 / 21.34%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLNJ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	4,199,452.592 / 7.39%
AST Parametric Emerging Markets Equity	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	22,097,142.015 / 46.07%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	11,432,658.650 / 23.83%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST ACADEMIC STRATEGIES ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	8,214,875.018 / 17.13%

172

Portfolio Name	Shareholder Name/Address	No. Shares / % of Portfolio
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLNJ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	2,609,620.617 / 5.44%
AST Preservation Asset Allocation	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	282,467,454.889 / 64.97%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	120,748,299.865 / 27.77%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLNJ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	30,792,934.213 / 7.08%
AST Prudential Core Bond	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST PRESERVATION ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	71,319,199.475 / 29.03%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST BALANCED ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	71,319,199.475 / 28.62%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST CAPITAL GROWTH ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	51,180,446.579 / 20.84%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	21,992,665.281 / 8.95%
AST Prudential Growth Allocation	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	542,845,290.927 / 67.76%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	211,030,758.440 / 26.34%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLNJ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	46,469,033.016 / 5.80%
AST QMA Large-Cap	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST CAPITAL GROWTH ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	91,427,703.992 / 49.67%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST BALANCED ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	60,441,827.328 / 32.84%

173

Portfolio Name	Shareholder Name/Address	No. Shares / % of Portfolio
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST PRESERVATION ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	22,036,435.852 / 11.97%
AST QMA US Equity Alpha	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	9,214,054.183 / 36.62%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	7,335,585.533 / 29.15%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST ACADEMIC STRATEGIES ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	6,813,112.951 / 27.08%
AST Quantitative Modeling	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	62,645,790.948 / 84.41%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	9,583,494.277 / 12.91%
AST RCM World Trends	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	306,841,000.134 / 77.04%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	60,276,591.630 / 15.13%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLNJ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	31,086,074.785 / 7.80%
AST Small-Cap Growth	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	6,688,030.030 / 32.16%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	4,047,620.879 / 19.47%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST CAPITAL GROWTH ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	3,783,038.802 / 18.19%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST BALANCED ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	2,486,257.251 / 11.96%

174

Portfolio Name	Shareholder Name/Address	No. Shares / % of Portfolio
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST ADVANCED STRATEGIES PORTFOLIO ATTN TED LOCKWOOD & EDWARD CAMPBELL 2 GATEWAY CTR 6TH FL NEWARK NJ 07102-5008	1,457,980.951 / 7.01%
AST Small-Cap Growth Opportunities Portfolio	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	14,158,260.535 / 31.33%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	9,441,624.849 / 20.89%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST CAPITAL GROWTH ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	8,223,349.869 / 18.20%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST BALANCED ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	5,611,834.250 / 12.42%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST ADVANCED STRATEGIES PORTFOLIO ATTN TED LOCKWOOD & EDWARD CAMPBELL 2 GATEWAY CTR 6TH FL NEWARK NJ 07102-5008	3,319,390.661 / 7.35%
AST Small-Cap Value	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	10,866,699.824 / 27.01%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST CAPITAL GROWTH ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	8,030,413.308 / 19.96%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	5,738,925.296 / 14.26%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST BALANCED ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	4,932,072.065 / 12.26%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST ACADEMIC STRATEGIES ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	4,036,023.308 / 10.03%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST ADVANCED STRATEGIES PORTFOLIO ATTN TED LOCKWOOD & EDWARD CAMPBELL 2 GATEWAY CTR 6TH FL NEWARK NJ 07102-5008	3,584,950.598 / 8.91%
AST T. Rowe Price Asset Allocation	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	414,627,204.326 / 74.80%

175

Portfolio Name	Shareholder Name/Address	No. Shares / % of Portfolio
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	96,668,621.654 / 17.44%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLNJ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	42,842,856.602 / 7.73%
AST T. Rowe Price Growth Opportunities	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	73,606,367.786 / 92.46%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLNJ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	5,999,094.852 / 7.54%
AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Growth	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	26,066,905.581 / 35.45%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	19,566,004.766 / 26.61%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST CAPITAL GROWTH ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	12,203,513.738 / 16.60%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST BALANCED ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	8,026,315.488 / 10.91%
AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Value (formerly, AST Value Equity)	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST CAPITAL GROWTH ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	22,874,870.573 / 35.64%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST BALANCED ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	15,085,293.051 / 23.51%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	9,072,797.925 / 14.14%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	6,176,337.276 / 9.62%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST PRESERVATION ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	5,337,165.653 / 8.32%

176

Portfolio Name	Shareholder Name/Address	No. Shares / % of Portfolio
AST T. Rowe Price Natural Resources	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	13,435,545.408 / 44.44%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	6,906,207.226 / 22.84%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST CAPITAL GROWTH ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	3,244,831.700 / 10.73%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST ACADEMIC STRATEGIES ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	2,133,908.834 / 7.06%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST BALANCED ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	2,126,920.108 / 7.04%
AST Templeton Global Bond	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	16,339,630.939 / 51.95%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	13,493,679.702 / 42.90%
AST WEDGE Capital Mid-Cap Value	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST ACADEMIC STRATEGIES ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	5,348,167.708 / 31.25%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	4,942,974.404 / 28.88%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	3,875,318.405 / 22.64%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST CAPITAL GROWTH ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	1,252,148.063 / 7.32%
AST Wellington Management Hedged Equity	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	116,809,260.969 / 75.63%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	27,191,043.429 / 17.61%

177

Portfolio Name	Shareholder Name/Address	No. Shares / % of Portfolio
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLNJ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	10,308,902.052 / 6.67%
AST Western Asset Core Plus Bond	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	53,337,464.411 / 22.47%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST PRESERVATION ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	46,057,467.553 / 19.40%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST BALANCED ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	45,390,433.459 / 19.12%
	PRU ANNUITY LIFE ASSURANCE CORP PALAC – ANNUITY ATTN: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON STREET NEWARK NJ 07102	39,327,120.591 / 16.57%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST CAPITAL GROWTH ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	33,040,700.134 / 13.92%
AST Western Asset Emerging Markets Debt	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST PRESERVATION ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	2,512,398.888 / 30.96%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST BALANCED ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	2,314,641.397 / 28.52%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST CAPITAL GROWTH ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO 655 BROAD STREET 17TH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102	1,624,689.381 / 20.02%
	ADVANCED SERIES TRUST AST LEGG MASON DIVERSIFIED GROWTH PORTFOLIO ATTN SCOTT ROUSE 880 3RD AVE FL 7 NEW YORK NY 10022-4730	520,676.931 / 6.42%
	PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAZ ANNUITY ATTN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 7TH FLOOR 213 WASHINGTON ST NEWARK NJ 07102-0000	465,273.798 / 5.73%

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

The financial statements of the Trust for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 have been incorporated into this SAI by reference to the annual report to shareholders. Such financial statements have been audited by KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, whose reports thereon are included in the Trust’s annual report to shareholders. KPMG LLP’s principal business address is 345 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10154.

The Trust's Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2016 can be obtained without charge by calling (800) 778-2255 or by writing to the Trust at 655 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102.

178

PART II

INVESTMENT RISKS & CONSIDERATIONS

Set forth below are descriptions of some of the types of investments and investment strategies that a Portfolio may use, and the risks and considerations associated with those investments and investment strategies. A Portfolio may invest in the types of investments and investment strategies that are consistent with its investment objective, policies and any limitations described in the prospectus and in the SAI.

AST ACADEMIC STRATEGIES ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO, AST ADVANCED STRATEGIES PORTFOLIO, AST HIGH YIELD PORTFOLIO, AST BLACKROCK LOW DURATION BOND PORTFOLIO, AND AST BLACKROCK/LOOMIS SAYLES BOND PORTFOLIO: With respect to futures contracts, (which are cash settled contracts and are marked to market on a daily basis), the Portfolio may segregate or earmark liquid assets in an amount equal to the Portfolio's daily marked to market (net) obligation, if any, (or in other words the Portfolio's daily net liability, if any).

AST GOLDMAN SACHS LARGE-CAP VALUE PORTFOLIO: The Portfolio will have a non-fundamental investment policy to invest, under normal circumstances, at least 80% of the value of its net assets in large capitalization companies. For these purposes, large capitalization companies are those that have market capitalizations, at the time of purchase, within the market capitalization range of the Russell 1000^® Value Index. As of January 31, 2017, the median market capitalization of the Russell 1000® Value Index was approximately $8.22 billion and the largest company by capitalization was approximately $691.25 billion.

The size of the companies in the Russell 1000^® Value Index will change with market conditions. If the market capitalization of a company held by the Portfolio moves outside the range of the Russell 1000^® Value Index, the Portfolio may, but is not required to, sell the securities.

Although the Portfolio will invest primarily in publicly-traded US securities, it may invest in foreign securities, including securities quoted in foreign currencies and emerging country securities. The Portfolio may also invest in fixed income securities, such as government, corporate, and bank debt obligations.

AST COHEN & STEERS REALTY PORTFOLIO: Short sales may not at any one time exceed 25% of the Portfolio's net assets; the value of securities of any one issuer in which the Portfolio is short may not exceed the lesser of 2% of the Portfolio's net assets or 2% of the securities of any class of issuer.

AST GLOBAL REAL ESTATE PORTFOLIO: The Portfolio will normally invest at least 80% of its investable assets (net assets plus any borrowings made for investment purposes) in equity-related securities of real estate companies. This means that the Portfolio will concentrate its investments in companies that derive at least 50% of their revenues from the ownership, construction, financing, management or sale of commercial, industrial or residential real estate or companies that have at least 50% of their assets in these types of real estate-related areas. The Portfolio may invest up to 15% of its net assets in ownership interests in commercial real estate through investments in private real estate. The Portfolio will execute its strategy of acquiring ownership interests in commercial real estate through investments in, for example, single member limited liability companies where the Portfolio is the sole member, joint ventures, other equity-linked investments, and mezzanine debt.

AST GOLDMAN SACHS MID-CAP GROWTH PORTFOLIO: The Portfolio may invest up to 25% of net assets in foreign currency-denominated securities and not publicly traded in the US. The Portfolio will not invest more than 5% of assets in inverse floaters. The Portfolio will not enter into futures contracts or options on futures if the aggregate amount of the Portfolio's commitments under such contracts and options would exceed the value of the Portfolio's total assets. The Portfolio may invest in foreign forward currency contracts up to the value of the Portfolio's assets.

AST GOLDMAN SACHS SMALL-CAP VALUE PORTFOLIO: Unlisted options, together with other illiquid securities, are subject to a limit of 15% of the Portfolio's net assets. Premiums paid for foreign currency put options will not exceed 5% of the Portfolio's net assets. The Portfolio does not intend to write covered call options with respect to securities with an aggregate market value of more than 5% of its gross assets at the time the option is written. The Portfolio will not write puts having an aggregate exercise price of greater than 25% of net Portfolio assets. The Portfolio will not purchase options on stocks not held in the Portfolio's portfolio, and will not write call options on stocks or stock indices if after such purchase, the aggregate premiums paid for such options would exceed 20% of net Portfolio assets.

179

The Portfolio may make short sales of securities or maintain a short position, provided that when a short position is open the Portfolio owns an equal amount of such securities or securities convertible or exchangeable for securities of the same issuer (without payment of additional consideration). Not more than 25% of Portfolio's net assets may be subject to short sales; the Portfolio does not intend to have more than 5% of net assets (determined at the time of the short sale) subject to short sales against-the-box. The Portfolio has no present intention to commit more than 5% of gross assets to investing in debt securities.

AST HOTCHKIS & WILEY LARGE-CAP VALUE PORTFOLIO: The Portfolio may borrow for temporary or emergency purposes in amounts not exceeding 10% of total Portfolio assets. No more than 25% of total Portfolio assets can be held as collateral for short sales at any one time.

AST INTERNATIONAL GROWTH PORTFOLIO: The Portfolio may invest up to 10% of assets in zero coupon bonds, pay-in-kind and step securities.

AST INTERNATIONAL VALUE PORTFOLIO: The Portfolio will not enter into futures and options where the aggregate initial margins and premiums exceed 5% of the fair market value of its total assets after taking into account unrealized profits and losses on options entered into. The Portfolio may invest up to 5% of total assets in fixed income securities which are unrated or rated below investment grade at either time of purchase or as a result of a reduction in rating after purchase.

AST J.P. MORGAN INTERNATIONAL EQUITY PORTFOLIO: Investments in REITs will not exceed 5% of total Portfolio assets. Reverse repurchase agreements may not exceed 10% of total Portfolio assets. The Portfolio will not engage in leverage, and will not purchase additional securities while borrowings from banks exceed 5% of total Portfolio assets. The Portfolio will not enter into forward contracts, futures contracts or options unless it owns an offsetting position in securities, currencies, or other options, forward contracts or futures contracts or it has cash or liquid assets with value sufficient to covert its potential obligations. The Portfolio will not write options if, after such sale, the aggregate value of securities or obligations underlying the outstanding options exceeds 20% of the Portfolio's total assets, and will not purchase options if at the time of the investment the aggregate premiums paid for the options exceeds 5% of total Portfolio assets.

AST J.P. MORGAN STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITIES PORTFOLIO: The Portfolio intends to use futures, forward agreements, options, swaps and other derivatives (collectively Derivatives) to the extent permitted by the prospectus and shall not be limited by any contrary disclosure contained in Part II. The Portfolio is not subject to the “Limitation on Currency Hedging” discussed in Part II and may engage in such hedging to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act.

AST LOOMIS SAYLES LARGE-CAP GROWTH PORTFOLIO: The Portfolio will not enter into any futures contracts or options on futures contracts if the aggregate amount of the Portfolio's commitments under outstanding futures contract positions and options on futures contracts would exceed the Portfolio's total assets. The Portfolio will not invest more than 5% in high yield/high risk (junk bonds) and mortgage and asset-backed securities. The Portfolio will not enter into any interest rate swap, cap or floor transaction unless the unsecured senior debt or the claims-paying ability of the other party thereto is rated in one of the three highest rating categories of at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization at the time of entering into the transaction.

AST LORD ABBETT CORE FIXED INCOME PORTFOLIO: The Portfolio may invest directly in foreign currencies or hold financial instruments that provide exposure to foreign currencies, in particular “hard currencies,” or may invest in securities that trade in, or receive revenues in, foreign currencies. The Portfolio may invest up to 5% of its net assets in securities issued by non-US entities and denominated in currencies other than the US dollar. The Portfolio, with respect to 5% of its net assets, may engage in spot transactions and may use forward contracts to protect against uncertainty in the level of future exchange rates. The Portfolio, with respect to up to 5% of its net assets, may take positions in options on foreign currencies to hedge against the risk that foreign exchange rate fluctuations will affect the value of foreign securities the Portfolio holds or intends to purchase. The Portfolio may invest up to 5% of its net assets in convertible securities. The Portfolio may invest up to 5% of its net assets in municipal bonds that, at the time of purchase, are investment grade or determined by Lord Abbett to be of comparable quality. The Portfolio will not purchase an option if, as a result of such purchase, more than 10% of its net assets would be invested in premiums for such options, (2) may write covered put options to the extent that cover for such options does not exceed 15% of the Portfolio's net assets, and (3) may only sell (write) covered call options with respect to securities having an aggregate market value of less than 25% of the Portfolio's net assets at the time an option is written. The Portfolio may invest up to 5% of its net assets in structured notes and collateralized loan obligations (“CLOs”) (all tranches), a type of asset-backed security.

180

The Portfolio will not enter into short sales (except short sales against-the-box) if immediately after such sale the aggregate value of all collateral plus the amount in a segregated account exceeds one-third of the value of the Portfolio's net assets. The Portfolio will not enter into futures and related options that do not constitute bona fide hedging positions if, immediately thereafter, the aggregate initial margin deposits plus premiums paid by it for open options positions, less the amount by which such options are “in the money,” would exceed 5% of total Portfolio assets.

The Portfolio may invest up to 10% of its net assets in Senior Loans. A Senior Loan is typically originated, negotiated and structured by a US or foreign commercial bank, insurance company, finance company or other financial institution (the Agent) for a group of loan investors (Loan Investors). The Agent typically administers and enforces the Senior Loan on behalf of the other Loan Investors in the syndicate. In addition, an institution, typically but not always the Agent, holds any collateral on behalf of the Loan Investors.

Senior Loans primarily include senior floating rate loans and secondarily senior floating rate debt obligations (including those issued by an asset-backed pool), and interests therein. Loan interests primarily take the form of assignments purchased in the primary or secondary market. Loan interests may also take the form of participation interests in, or novations of, a Senior Loan. Such loan interests may be acquired from US or foreign commercial banks, insurance companies, finance companies or other financial institutions who have made loans or are Loan Investors or from other investors in loan interests.

AST GOVERNMENT MONEY MARKET PORTFOLIO (FORMERLY, AST MONEY MARKET PORTFOLIO): The Portfolio may invest in certain government supported asset-backed notes in reliance on no-action relief issued by the SEC that such securities may be considered as government securities for purposes of compliance with the diversification requirements under Rule 2a-7.

AST NEUBERGER BERMAN/LSV MID-CAP VALUE PORTFOLIO: The Portfolio will limit counterparties in OTC options transactions to dealers with at least $20 million in net worth as reported in their latest financial statements. The Portfolio may invest in lower-rated foreign debt securities subject to the Portfolio's 15% limitation on lower-rated debt securities. The Portfolio may not purchase any foreign currency-denominated securities if, after such purchase more than 10% of total Portfolio assets would be invested in such securities. Where the Portfolio engages in foreign forward currency contracts for hedging purposes, it will not enter in such contracts to sell currency or maintain a net exposure to such contracts if their consummation would obligate the Portfolio to deliver an amount of foreign currency in excess of the value of its portfolio securities or other assets denominated in that currency. The Portfolio will generally not enter into foreign forward currency contracts with a term of greater than one year.

The Portfolio may write and purchase covered call and put options on foreign currencies in amounts not exceeding 5% of net assets. The Portfolio may invest up to 5% of net assets in zero coupon bonds.

AST SMALL-CAP GROWTH PORTFOLIO: The Portfolio may not purchase any foreign-currency denominated securities if after such purchase more than 10% of total assets would be invested in such securities. The Portfolio will generally not enter into a foreign forward contract with a duration of more than one year. The Portfolio may write and purchase covered call and put options on foreign currencies in amounts not exceeding 5% of net assets.

AST SMALL-CAP GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES PORTFOLIO: The Portfolio will not engage in short sales if the market value of all Portfolio securities sold short would exceed 25% of net assets of the Portfolio. The value of the securities of any one issuer which may be shorted is limited to the lesser of 2% of the value of the Portfolio's net assets or 2% of the securities of any class of the issuer. Short sales against-the-box are not subject to these limits.

AST SMALL-CAP VALUE PORTFOLIO: The Portfolio's investments in junk bonds are limited to 5% of total assets. The Portfolio will not write a covered call option or put option if, as a result, the aggregate market value of all portfolio securities or currencies covering call or put options exceeds 25% of the market value of the Portfolio's net assets.

AST T. ROWE PRICE ASSET ALLOCATION PORTFOLIO: The Portfolio will not write a covered call option or put option if, as a result, the aggregate market value of all portfolio securities or currencies covering call or put options exceeds 25% of the market value of the Portfolio's net assets. The Portfolio will not commit more than 5% of its assets to premiums when purchasing call and put options.

The Portfolio may also invest in TIPS, or Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities. TIPS are inflation-linked securities issued by the US government. Inflation-linked securities are income-generating instruments whose interest and principal payments are adjusted for inflation—a sustained increase in prices that erodes the purchasing power of money. Inflation linked bonds are also issued by corporations, US government agencies, states, and foreign countries. The inflation adjustment, which is typically applied monthly to the principal of the bond, follows a designated inflation index, such as the consumer price index (CPI). A fixed coupon rate is applied to the inflation adjusted principal so that as inflation rises, both the principal value and the interest payments increase. This can

181

provide investors with a hedge against inflation, as it helps preserve the purchasing power of your investment. Because of this inflation-adjustment feature, inflation-protected bonds typically have lower yields than conventional fixed-rate bonds. Municipal inflation bonds generally have a fixed principal amount and the inflation component is reflected in the nominal coupon.

Inflation-protected bonds normally will decline in price when real interest rates rise. (A real interest rate is calculated by subtracting the inflation rate from a nominal interest rate. For example, if a 10-year Treasury note is yielding 5% and rate of inflation is 2%, the real interest rate is 3%.) If inflation is negative, the principal and income of an inflation-protected bond will decline and could result in losses for the portfolio.

AST T. ROWE PRICE LARGE-CAP GROWTH PORTFOLIO: The Portfolio may invest up to 5% of assets in warrants and rights. The Portfolio may invest up to 15% of total assets in securities of foreign issuers. The Portfolio will not sell a call or put option written by it if, as a result of the sale, the aggregate of the Portfolio's portfolio securities subject to outstanding call or put options (valued at the lower of the option price or market value of such securities) would exceed 15% of the Portfolio's total assets. The aggregate cost of all outstanding options purchased and held by the Portfolio, including options on market indices, will at no time exceed 10% of the Portfolio's total assets.

AST T. ROWE PRICE LARGE-CAP VALUE PORTFOLIO (FORMERLY, AST VALUE EQUITY PORTFOLIO): The Portfolio may write call and put options up to 25% of net assets and may purchase put and call options so long as no more than 5% of net assets invested in premiums on such options. The Portfolio will not engage in OTC options if the amount invested by the Portfolio in other illiquid securities exceeds 15% of net Portfolio assets. The Portfolio will not invest more than 5% of assets in inverse floaters.

For some loans, such as revolving credit facility loans (revolvers), a Loan Investor may have certain obligations pursuant to the Loan Agreement that may include the obligation to make additional loans in certain circumstances. The Portfolio generally will reserve against these contingent obligations by segregating or otherwise designating a sufficient amount of permissible liquid assets. Delayed draw term loans are similar to revolvers, except that once drawn upon by the borrower during the commitment period, they remain permanently drawn and become term loans. A prefunded L/C term loan is a facility created by the Borrower in conjunction with an Agent, with the loan backed by letters of credit. Each participant in a prefunded L/C term loan fully funds its commitment amount to the Agent for the facility.

AST T. ROWE PRICE NATURAL RESOURCES PORTFOLIO: The Portfolio will not write covered call or put options if, as a result, the aggregate market value of all portfolio securities covering call or put options exceeds 25% of the Portfolio's net assets. The Portfolio will not commit more than 5% of total assets to premiums when purchasing call or put options. The Portfolio may invest up to 50% of total assets in US dollar-denominated and non-US dollar-denominated securities of foreign issuers.

AST TEMPLETON GLOBAL BOND PORTFOLIO: The Portfolio may invest up to 25% of assets in below investment-grade high risk bonds and invest up to 100% of its assets in emerging market securities. The Portfolio may invest up to 30% of its assets in mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities. The Portfolio will generally not invest more than 5% of its assets in any individual corporate issuer. However, the Portfolio may place assets in bank deposits or other short-term bank instruments with a maturity of up to 30 days provided that the bank has a short term credit rating of A1+ (or if unrated, the equivalent as determined by the subadviser); and the Portfolio may not maintain more than 10% of total assets with any single bank. The Portfolio may maintain more than 5% of its total assets, including cash and currencies, in custodial accounts or deposits of the Trust’s custodian or subcustodians. To hedge risks, or for the purpose of enhancing returns, the Portfolio may invest in exchange traded and over-the-counter currency options, options on currency futures, fixed income total return swaps, options on credit default swaps, credit linked notes, CDOs (all tranches), CLOs (all tranches) and inflation index swaps. The Portfolio will not write covered call or put options if, as a result, the aggregate market value of all portfolio securities covering call or put options exceeds 25% of the Portfolio's net assets. The Portfolio will not commit more than 5% of total assets to premiums when purchasing call or put options.

AST WEDGE CAPITAL MID-CAP VALUE PORTFOLIO: The Portfolio may invest up to 25% of assets in more speculative convertible debt securities with a rating of or equivalent of B or better by SP. The Portfolio may invest up to 5% of assets in junk bonds. The Portfolio may pledge, mortgage or hypothecate up to 20% of assets to secure permissible borrowings.

AST WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT HEDGED EQUITY PORTFOLIO: The Portfolio will seek to achieve its investment objective by investing in a broadly diversified portfolio of common stocks while also pursuing an equity index option overlay. The equity index option overlay involves the purchase of put options on the S&P 500 Index and the sale of call and put options on the S&P 500 Index.

Under normal circumstances, the Portfolio currently expects to be fully invested and will invest at least 80% of its net assets in the common stocks of small, medium and large companies. The Portfolio's policy of investing at least 80% of its net assets in common stocks is a non-fundamental policy of the Portfolio and may be changed by the Board without shareholder approval. The Portfolio may

182

also invest up to 30% of its assets in the equity securities of foreign issuers and non-dollar denominated securities, including companies that conduct their principal business activities in emerging markets or whose securities are traded principally on exchanges in emerging markets. The Portfolio may trade securities actively.

The equity index option overlay strategy is designed to help mitigate capital losses in adverse market environments over a short period of time and employs a put/spread collar to meet this goal. To reduce the Portfolio's risk of loss due to a sharp decline in the value of the general equity market over a short period of time, the Portfolio intends to purchase index put options on the S&P 500 with respect to a substantial portion of the value of its common stock holdings. In order to help lessen the cost of the long put protection, the equity index option strategy will also involve the sale of call options on the S&P 500 Index and the sale of a deeper “out-of-the-money” put option on the S&P 500 Index with respect to a significant portion of the Portfolio's common stock holdings. The Portfolio may use options based upon other indices if Wellington Management deems this appropriate in particular market circumstances or based on the Portfolio's common stock holdings.

ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES. Certain Portfolios may invest in asset-backed securities. Asset-backed securities directly or indirectly represent a participation interest in, or are secured by and payable from, a stream of payments generated by particular assets such as motor vehicle or credit card receivables. Payments of principal and interest may be guaranteed up to certain amounts and for a certain time period by a letter of credit issued by a financial institution unaffiliated with the entities issuing the securities. Asset-backed securities may be classified as pass-through certificates or collateralized obligations.

Pass-through certificates are asset-backed securities which represent an undivided fractional ownership interest in an underlying pool of assets. Pass-through certificates usually provide for payments of principal and interest received to be passed through to their holders, usually after deduction for certain costs and expenses incurred in administering the pool. Because pass-through certificates represent an ownership interest in the underlying assets, the holders thereof bear directly the risk of any defaults by the obligors on the underlying assets not covered by any credit support.

Asset-backed securities issued in the form of debt instruments, also known as collateralized obligations, are generally issued as the debt of a special purpose entity organized solely for the purpose of owning such assets and issuing such debt. Such assets are most often trade, credit card or automobile receivables. The assets collateralizing such asset-backed securities are pledged to a trustee or custodian for the benefit of the holders thereof. Such issuers generally hold no assets other than those underlying the asset-backed securities and any credit support provided. As a result, although payments on such asset-backed securities are obligations of the issuers, in the event of defaults on the underlying assets not covered by any credit support, the issuing entities are unlikely to have sufficient assets to satisfy their obligations on the related asset-backed securities.

Credit-Related Asset-Backed Securities. This type of asset-backed security is collateralized by a basket of underlying corporate bonds or other securities, including junk bonds. Unlike the traditional asset-backed securities described above, these asset-backed securities often do have the benefit of a security interest or ownership interest in the related collateral. With a credit-related asset-backed security, the underlying bonds have the risk of being prepaid prior to maturity. Although generally not pre-payable at any time, some of the underlying bonds may have call options, while others may have maturity dates that are earlier than the asset-backed security itself. As with traditional asset-backed securities described above, the Portfolio bears the risk of loss of the resulting increase or decrease in yield to maturity after a prepayment of an underlying bond. However, the primary risk associated with credit-related asset-backed securities is the potential loss of principal associated with losses on the underlying bonds.

Collateralized Loan Obligations (CLOs). This type of asset-backed security is a trust typically collateralized by a pool of loans, which may include, among others, domestic and foreign senior secured loans, senior unsecured loans, and subordinate corporate loans, as well as loans rated below investment grade or equivalent unrated loans. The risks of an investment in a CLO depend largely on the quality of the underlying loans and may be characterized by the Portfolio as illiquid securities.

For credit-related asset-backed securities and CLOs, the cash flows from the trust are split into two or more portions, called tranches, varying in risk and yield. The riskiest portion is the “equity” tranche which bears the bulk of defaults from the bonds or loans in the trust and serves to protect the other, more senior tranches from default in all but the most severe circumstances. Since it is partially protected from defaults, a senior tranche from a trust typically has higher ratings and lower yields than their underlying securities, and can be rated investment grade. Despite the protection from the equity tranche, other tranches can experience substantial losses due to actual defaults, increased sensitivity to defaults due to collateral default and disappearance of protecting tranches, market anticipation of defaults, as well as aversion to particular underlying assets as a class.

Government Money Market Portfolio: AST Government Money Market Portfolio (the Government Money Market Portfolio) may choose to invest in certain government-supported asset-backed notes in reliance on no-action relief issued by the SEC that such securities may be considered government securities for purposes of compliance with the diversification requirements under Rule 2a-7.

183

BORROWING AND LEVERAGE. A Portfolio may borrow up to 33¹⁄3% of the value of its total assets (calculated at the time of the borrowing). The Portfolio may pledge up to 33¹⁄3% of its total assets to secure these borrowings. If a Portfolio's asset coverage for borrowings falls below 300%, the Portfolio will take prompt action to reduce its borrowings. If a Portfolio borrows to invest in securities, any investment gains made on the securities in excess of interest paid on the borrowing will cause the net asset value of the shares to rise faster than would otherwise be the case. On the other hand, if the investment performance of the additional securities purchased fails to cover their cost (including any interest paid on the money borrowed) to the Portfolio, the net asset value of the Portfolio's shares will decrease faster than would otherwise be the case. This is the speculative factor known as “leverage.”

A Portfolio may borrow from time to time, at the investment subadviser's discretion, to take advantage of investment opportunities, when yields on available investments exceed interest rates and other expenses of related borrowing, or when, in the investment adviser's opinion, unusual market conditions otherwise make it advantageous for the Portfolio to increase its investment capacity. A Portfolio will only borrow when there is an expectation that it will benefit a Portfolio after taking into account considerations such as interest income and possible losses upon liquidation. Borrowing by a Portfolio creates an opportunity for increased net income but, at the same time, creates risks, including the risks associated with leveraging. A Portfolio may borrow through forward rolls, dollar rolls or reverse repurchase agreements, although no Portfolio currently has any intention of doing so, except for portfolios managed by PIMCO.

CONVERTIBLE SECURITIES. Convertible securities entitle the holder to receive interest payments paid on corporate debt securities or the dividend preference on a preferred stock until such time as the convertible security matures or is redeemed or until the holder elects to exercise the conversion privilege. The characteristics of convertible securities make them appropriate investments for an investment company seeking a high total return from capital appreciation and investment income. These characteristics include the potential for capital appreciation as the value of the underlying common stock increases, the relatively high yield received from dividend or interest payments as compared to common stock dividends and decreased risks of decline in value relative to the underlying common stock due to their fixed income nature. As a result of the conversion feature, however, the interest rate or dividend preference on a convertible security is generally less than would be the case if the securities were issued in nonconvertible form.

In analyzing convertible securities, the subadviser(s) will consider both the yield on the convertible security relative to its credit quality and the potential capital appreciation that is offered by the underlying common stock, among other things.

Convertible securities are issued and traded in a number of securities markets. Even in cases where a substantial portion of the convertible securities held by a Portfolio are denominated in US dollars, the underlying equity securities may be quoted in the currency of the country where the issuer is domiciled. With respect to convertible securities denominated in a currency different from that of the underlying equity securities, the conversion price may be based on a fixed exchange rate established at the time the security is issued. As a result, fluctuations in the exchange rate between the currency in which the debt security is denominated and the currency in which the share price is quoted will affect the value of the convertible security. As described below, a Portfolio is authorized to enter into foreign currency hedging transactions in which it may seek to reduce the effect of such fluctuations.

Apart from currency considerations, the value of convertible securities is influenced by both the yield of nonconvertible securities of comparable issuers and by the value of the underlying common stock. The value of a convertible security viewed without regard to its conversion feature (i.e., strictly on the basis of its yield) is sometimes referred to as its “investment value.” To the extent interest rates change, the investment value of the convertible security typically will fluctuate. However, at the same time, the value of the convertible security will be influenced by its “conversion value,” which is the market value of the underlying common stock that would be obtained if the convertible security were converted. Conversion value fluctuates directly with the price of the underlying common stock. If, because of a low price of the common stock the conversion value is substantially below the investment value of the convertible security, the price of the convertible security is governed principally by its investment value.

To the extent the conversion value of a convertible security increases to a point that approximates or exceeds its investment value, the price of the convertible security will be influenced principally by its conversion value. A convertible security will sell at a premium over the conversion value to the extent investors place value on the right to acquire the underlying common stock while holding a fixed income security. The yield and conversion premium of convertible securities issued in Japan and the Euromarket are frequently determined at levels that cause the conversion value to affect their market value more than the securities' investment value.

184

security, convert it into the underlying common stock or sell it to a third party. Certain convertible debt securities may provide a put option to the holder, which entitles the holder to cause the security to be redeemed by the issuer at a premium over the stated principal amount of the debt security under certain circumstances.

Synthetic convertible securities may be either (i) a debt security or preferred stock that may be convertible only under certain contingent circumstances or that may pay the holder a cash amount based on the value of shares of underlying common stock partly or wholly in lieu of a conversion right (a Cash-Settled Convertible), (ii) a combination of separate securities chosen by the subadviser(s) in order to create the economic characteristics of a convertible security, i.e., a fixed income security paired with a security with equity conversion features, such as an option or warrant (a Manufactured Convertible) or (iii) a synthetic security manufactured by another party.

Synthetic convertible securities may include either Cash-Settled Convertibles or Manufactured Convertibles. Cash-Settled Convertibles are instruments that are created by the issuer and have the economic characteristics of traditional convertible securities but may not actually permit conversion into the underlying equity securities in all circumstances. As an example, a private company may issue a Cash-Settled Convertible that is convertible into common stock only if the company successfully completes a public offering of its common stock prior to maturity and otherwise pays a cash amount to reflect any equity appreciation. Manufactured Convertibles are created by the subadviser(s) by combining separate securities that possess one of the two principal characteristics of a convertible security, i.e., fixed income (fixed income component) or a right to acquire equity securities (convertibility component). The fixed income component is achieved by investing in nonconvertible fixed income securities, such as nonconvertible bonds, preferred stocks and money market instruments. The convertibility component is achieved by investing in call options, warrants, or other securities with equity conversion features (equity features) granting the holder the right to purchase a specified quantity of the underlying stocks within a specified period of time at a specified price or, in the case of a stock index option, the right to receive a cash payment based on the value of the underlying stock index.

A Manufactured Convertible differs from traditional convertible securities in several respects. Unlike a traditional convertible security, which is a single security having a unitary market value, a Manufactured Convertible is comprised of two or more separate securities, each with its own market value. Therefore, the total “market value” of such a Manufactured Convertible is the sum of the values of its fixed income component and its convertibility component.

More flexibility is possible in the creation of a Manufactured Convertible than in the purchase of a traditional convertible security. Because many corporations have not issued convertible securities, the subadviser(s) may combine a fixed income instrument and an equity feature with respect to the stock of the issuer of the fixed income instrument to create a synthetic convertible security otherwise unavailable in the market. The subadviser(s) may also combine a fixed income instrument of an issuer with an equity feature with respect to the stock of a different issuer when the subadviser(s) believe such a Manufactured Convertible would better promote a Portfolio's objective than alternate investments. For example, the subadviser(s) may combine an equity feature with respect to an issuer's stock with a fixed income security of a different issuer in the same industry to diversify the Portfolio's credit exposure, or with a US Treasury instrument to create a Manufactured Convertible with a higher credit profile than a traditional convertible security issued by that issuer. A Manufactured Convertible also is a more flexible investment in that its two components may be purchased separately and, upon purchasing the separate securities, “combined” to create a Manufactured Convertible. For example, a Portfolio may purchase a warrant for eventual inclusion in a Manufactured Convertible while postponing the purchase of a suitable bond to pair with the warrant pending development of more favorable market conditions.

The value of a Manufactured Convertible may respond differently to certain market fluctuations than would a traditional convertible security with similar characteristics. For example, in the event a Portfolio created a Manufactured Convertible by combining a short-term US Treasury instrument and a call option on a stock, the Manufactured Convertible would likely outperform a traditional convertible of similar maturity that is convertible into that stock during periods when Treasury instruments outperform corporate fixed income securities and underperform during periods when corporate fixed income securities outperform Treasury instruments.

CORPORATE LOANS. Commercial banks and other financial institutions make corporate loans to companies that need capital to grow or restructure. Borrowers generally pay interest on corporate loans at rates that change in response to changes in market interest rates such as the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) or the prime rate of US banks. As a result, the value of corporate loan investments is generally less responsive to shifts in market interest rates. Because the trading market for corporate loans is less developed than the secondary market for bonds and notes, a Portfolio may experience difficulties from time to time in selling its corporate loans. Borrowers frequently provide collateral to secure repayment of these obligations. 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 corporate loans, holds collateral and accepts payments of principal and interest. If the agent develops financial problems, a Portfolio may not recover its investment, or there might be a delay in the Portfolio's recovery. By investing in a corporate loan, a Portfolio becomes a member of the syndicate.

185

As in the case of junk bonds, the corporate loans in which a Portfolio may invest can be expected to provide higher yields than higher-rated fixed income securities but may be subject to greater risk of loss of principal and income. There are, however, some significant differences between corporate loans and junk bonds. Corporate loans are frequently secured by pledges of liens and security interests in the assets of the borrower, and the holders of corporate loans are frequently the beneficiaries of debt service subordination provisions imposed on the borrower's bondholders. These arrangements are designed to give corporate loan investors preferential treatment over junk bond investors in the event of a deterioration in the credit quality of the issuer. Even when these arrangements exist, however, there can be no assurance that the principal and interest owed on the corporate loans will be repaid in full. Corporate loans generally bear interest at rates set at a margin above a generally recognized base lending rate that may fluctuate on a day-to-day basis, in the case of the Prime Rate of a US bank, or that may be adjusted on set dates, typically 30 days but generally not more than one year, in the case of LIBOR. Consequently, the value of corporate loans held by a Portfolio may be expected to fluctuate significantly less than the value of fixed rate junk bond instruments as a result of changes in the interest rate environment. On the other hand, the secondary dealer market for corporate loans is not as well developed as the secondary dealer market for junk bonds, and therefore presents increased market risk relating to liquidity and pricing concerns.

A Portfolio may acquire interests in corporate loans by means of a novation, assignment or participation. In a novation, a Portfolio would succeed to all the rights and obligations of the assigning institution and become a contracting party under the credit agreement with respect to the debt obligation. As an alternative, a Portfolio may purchase an assignment, in which case the Portfolio may be required to rely on the assigning institution to demand payment and enforce its rights against the borrower but would otherwise typically be entitled to all of such assigning institution's rights under the credit agreement. Participation interests in a portion of a debt obligation typically result in a contractual relationship only with the institution selling the participation interest and not with the borrower. In purchasing a loan participation, a Portfolio generally will have no right to enforce compliance by the borrower with the terms of the loan agreement, nor any rights of set-off against the borrower, and the Portfolio may not directly benefit from the collateral supporting the debt obligation in which it has purchased the participation. As a result, a Portfolio will assume the credit risk of both the borrower and the institution selling the participation to the Portfolio.

CYBER SECURITY AND OPERATIONAL RISK. With the increasing use of technology and computer systems in general and, in particular, the Internet to conduct necessary business functions, each Portfolio and its service providers is susceptible to operational, information security and related risks. These risks, which are often collectively referred to as “cyber security” risks, may include deliberate or malicious attacks, as well as unintentional events and occurrences. Cyber security is generally defined as the technology, operations and related protocol surrounding and protecting a user’s computer hardware, network, systems and applications and the data transmitted and stored therewith. These measures ensure the reliability of a user’s systems, as well as the security, availability, integrity, and confidentiality of data assets.

Deliberate cyber attacks can include, but are not limited to, gaining unauthorized access to computer systems in order to misappropriate and/or disclose sensitive or confidential information; deleting, corrupting or modifying data; and causing operational disruptions. 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 (in order to prevent access to computer networks). In addition to deliberate breaches engineered by external actors, cyber security risks can also result from the conduct of malicious, exploited or careless insiders, whose actions may result in the destruction, release or disclosure of confidential or proprietary information stored on an organization’s systems.

Cyber security failures or breaches, whether deliberate or unintentional, arising from a Portfolio’s third-party service providers (e.g., custodians, financial intermediaries, transfer agents), subadvisers, shareholder usage of unsecure systems to access personal accounts, as well as breaches suffered by the issuers of securities in which the Portfolio invests, may cause significant disruptions in the business operations of the Portfolio. Potential impacts may include, but are not limited to, potential financial losses for the Portfolio and the issuers’ securities, the inability of shareholders to conduct transactions with the Portfolio, an inability of the Portfolio to calculate net asset value (NAV), and disclosures of personal or confidential shareholder information.

In addition to direct impacts on Portfolio shareholders, cyber security failures by a Portfolio and/or its service providers and others may result in regulatory inquiries, regulatory proceedings, regulatory and/or legal and litigation costs to the Portfolio, and reputational damage. The Portfolio may incur reimbursement and other expenses, including the costs of litigation and litigation settlements and additional compliance costs. The Portfolio may also incur considerable expenses in enhancing and upgrading computer systems and systems security following a cyber security failure.

186

been completely anticipated and identified or can be protected against. Furthermore, the Portfolio cannot control or assure the efficacy of the cyber security plans and systems implemented by third-party service providers, the subadvisers, and the issuers in which a Portfolio invests.

A Portfolio’s investments or its service providers may be negatively impacted due to operational risks arising from factors such as processing errors and human errors, inadequate or failed internal or external processes, failures in systems and technology, changes in personnel, and errors caused by third-party service providers or trading counterparties. In particular, these errors or failures as well as other technological issues may adversely affect the Portfolios’ ability to calculate their NAVs in a timely manner, including over a potentially extended period. Although the Portfolios attempt to minimize such failures through controls and oversight, it is not possible to identify all of the operational risks that may affect a Portfolio or to develop processes and controls that completely eliminate or mitigate the occurrence of such failures. A Portfolio and its shareholders could be negatively impacted as a result.

DEBT SECURITIES. Debt securities, such as bonds, involve credit risk. This is the risk that the issuer will not make timely payments of principal and interest. The degree of credit risk depends on the issuer's financial condition and on the terms of the bonds. Changes in an issuer's credit rating or the market's perception of an issuer's creditworthiness may also affect the value of a Portfolio's investment in that issuer. Credit risk is reduced to the extent a Portfolio limits its debt investments to US Government securities. All debt securities, however, are subject to interest rate risk. This is the risk that the value of the security may fall when interest rates rise. In general, the market price of debt securities with longer maturities will go up or down more in response to changes in interest rates than the market price of shorter-term securities.

DEPOSITARY RECEIPTS. A Portfolio may invest in the securities of foreign issuers in the form of Depositary Receipts or other securities convertible into securities of foreign issuers. Depositary Receipts may not necessarily be denominated in the same currency as the underlying securities into which they may be converted. American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) and American Depositary Shares (ADSs) are receipts or shares typically issued by an American bank or trust company that evidence ownership of underlying securities issued by a foreign corporation. European Depositary Receipts (EDRs) are receipts issued in Europe that evidence a similar ownership arrangement. Global Depositary Receipts (GDRs) are receipts issued throughout the world that evidence a similar arrangement. Generally, ADRs and ADSs, in registered form, are designed for use in the US securities markets, and EDRs, in bearer form, are designed for use in European securities markets. GDRs are tradable both in the United States and in Europe and are designed for use throughout the world. A Portfolio may invest in unsponsored Depositary Receipts. The issuers of unsponsored Depositary Receipts are not obligated to disclose material information in the United States, and, therefore, there may be less information available regarding such issuers and there may not be a correlation between such information and the market value of the Depositary Receipts. Depositary Receipts are generally subject to the same risks as the foreign securities that they evidence or into or for which they may be converted or exchanged, as well as the risks associated with foreign investments.

DERIVATIVES. A Portfolio may use instruments referred to as derivatives. Derivatives are financial instruments the value of which is derived from another security, a commodity (such as gold or oil), a currency or an index (a measure of value or rates, such as the S&P 500 Index or the prime lending rate). Derivatives allow a Portfolio to increase or decrease the level of risk to which the Portfolio is exposed more quickly and efficiently than transactions in other types of instruments. Each Portfolio may use derivatives for hedging purposes. Certain Portfolios may also use derivatives to seek to enhance returns. The use of a derivative is speculative if the Portfolio is primarily seeking to achieve gains, rather than offset the risk of other positions. When the Portfolio invests in a derivative for speculative purposes, the Portfolio will be fully exposed to the risks of loss of that derivative, which may sometimes be greater than the Derivative's cost. No Portfolio may use any derivative to gain exposure to an asset or class of assets that it would be prohibited by its investment restrictions from purchasing directly.

The use of derivative instruments involves risks different from, and/or possibly greater than, the risks associated with investing directly in the underlying assets or references. The use of derivative instruments is a highly specialized activity that involves investment techniques and risks different from those associated with ordinary portfolio securities transactions. If the portfolio manager is incorrect in the forecasts of security or market values, interest rates or currency exchange rates, as applicable, the investment performance of a Portfolio would be less favorable than it would have been if derivative instruments were not used. Potential losses from certain derivative instruments are unlimited. Derivative instruments can be highly volatile, illiquid, subject to counterparty risk and difficult to value. There is also the risk that changes in the value of a derivative instrument held by a Portfolio for hedging purposes may not correlate with the Portfolio’s investments which are intended to be hedged, which could impact Portfolio performance. A Portfolio may choose not to invest in derivative instruments because of their cost, limited availability or other reasons.

In 2015, the SEC proposed a new rule related to the use of derivatives by registered investment companies, which, if adopted by the SEC as proposed, may limit the Portfolio’s ability to engage in transactions that involve potential future payment obligations (including derivatives such as forwards, futures, swaps and written options) and may limit the ability of the Portfolio to invest in accordance with its stated investment strategy.

187

EXCHANGE-TRADED FUNDS. A Portfolio may invest in Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs). ETFs, which may be unit investment trusts or mutual funds, typically hold portfolios of securities designed to track the performance of various broad securities indexes or sectors of such indexes. ETFs provide another means, in addition to futures and options on indexes, of including stock index exposure in these Portfolios' investment strategies. A Portfolio will indirectly bear its proportionate share of any management fees and other expenses paid by such ETF. In addition, an investment in an ETF generally presents the same primary risks as an investment in a conventional fund (i.e., one that is not exchange-traded) that has the same investment objectives, strategies, and policies.

HEDGING. Hedging is a strategy in which a derivative or security is used to offset the risks associated with other Portfolio holdings. Losses on the other investment may be substantially reduced by gains on a Derivative that reacts in an opposite manner to market movements. While hedging can reduce losses, it can also reduce or eliminate gains or cause losses if the market moves in a different manner than anticipated by a Portfolio or if the cost of the derivative outweighs the benefit of the hedge. Hedging also involves the risk that changes in the value of the derivative will not match those of the holdings being hedged as expected by a Portfolio, in which case any losses on the holdings being hedged may not be reduced or may be increased. The inability to close options and futures positions also could have an adverse impact on a Portfolio's ability to hedge effectively its portfolio. There is also a risk of loss by the Portfolio of margin deposits or collateral in the event of bankruptcy of a broker with whom the Portfolio has an open position in an option, a futures contract or a related option. There can be no assurance that a Portfolio's hedging strategies will be effective or that hedging transactions will be available to a Portfolio. No Portfolio is required to engage in hedging transactions and each Portfolio may choose not to do so.

INDEXED AND INVERSE SECURITIES. A Portfolio may invest in securities the potential return of which is based on an index or interest rate. As an illustration, a Portfolio may invest in a security whose value is based on changes in a specific index or that pays interest based on the current value of an interest rate index, such as the prime rate. A Portfolio may also invest in a debt security that returns principal at maturity based on the level of a securities index or a basket of securities, or based on the relative changes of two indices. In addition, certain Portfolios may invest in securities the potential return of which is based inversely on the change in an index or interest rate (that is, a security the value of which will move in the opposite direction of changes to an index or interest rate). For example, a Portfolio may invest in securities that pay a higher rate of interest when a particular index decreases and pay a lower rate of interest (or do not fully return principal) when the value of the index increases. If a Portfolio invests in such securities, it may be subject to reduced or eliminated interest payments or loss of principal in the event of an adverse movement in the relevant interest rate, index or indices. Indexed and inverse securities may involve credit risk, and certain indexed and inverse securities may involve leverage risk, liquidity risk and currency risk. A Portfolio may invest in indexed and inverse securities for hedging purposes or to seek to increase returns. When used for hedging purposes, indexed and inverse securities involve correlation risk. (Furthermore, where such a security includes a contingent liability, in the event of such an adverse movement, a Portfolio may be required to pay substantial additional margin to maintain the position.)

INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERINGS. Each Portfolio may invest in initial public offerings (IPOs). An IPO is the first sale of stock by a private company to the public. IPOs are often issued by smaller, younger companies seeking capital to expand, but can also be done by large privately owned companies looking to become publicly traded.

In an IPO, the issuer obtains the assistance of an underwriting firm, which helps it determine what type of security to issue (common or preferred), best offering price and time to bring it to market. The volume of IPOs and the levels at which the newly issued stocks trade in the secondary market are affected by the performance of the stock market overall. If IPOs are brought to the market, availability may be limited and a Portfolio may not be able to buy any shares at the offering price, or if it is able to buy shares, it may not be able to buy as many shares at the offering price as it would like.

Investing in IPOs entails risks. Importantly, the prices of securities involved in IPOs are often subject to greater and more unpredictable price changes than more established stocks. It is difficult to predict what the stock will do on its initial day of trading and in the near future since there is often little historical data with which to analyze the company. Also, most IPOs are of companies going through a transitory growth period, and they are therefore subject to additional uncertainty regarding their future value.

188

SWAP AGREEMENTS. Certain Portfolios may enter into swap transactions, including but not limited to, interest rate, index, credit default, total return and, to the extent that it may invest in foreign currency-denominated securities, currency exchange rate swap agreements. In addition, certain Portfolios may enter into options on swap agreements (swap options). These swap transactions are entered into in an attempt to obtain a particular return when it is considered desirable to do so, possibly at a lower cost to the Portfolio than if a Portfolio had invested directly in an instrument that yielded that desired return.

Swap agreements are two party contracts entered into primarily by institutional investors for periods typically ranging from a few weeks to more than one year. In a standard “swap” transaction, two parties agree to exchange the returns (or differentials in rates of return) earned or realized on or calculated with respect to particular predetermined investments or instruments, which may be adjusted for an interest factor. The gross returns to be exchanged or “swapped” between the parties are generally calculated with respect to a “notional amount,” that is, the return on or increase in value of a particular dollar amount invested at a particular interest rate or in a “basket” of securities representing a particular index or other investments or instruments.

Most swap agreements entered into by a Portfolio would calculate the obligations of the parties to the agreement on a “net basis.” Consequently a Portfolio's current obligations (or rights) under a swap agreement will generally be equal only to the net amount to be paid or received under the agreement based on the relative values of the positions held by each party to the agreement (the net amount). The Portfolio's current obligations under a swap agreement will be accrued daily (offset against any amounts owed to the Portfolio) and any accrued but unpaid net amounts owed to a swap counterparty will be covered by the segregation of liquid assets.

To the extent that a Portfolio enters into swaps on other than a net basis, the amount maintained in a segregated account will be the full amount of the Portfolio's obligations, if any, with respect to such swaps, accrued on a daily basis. Inasmuch as segregated accounts are established for these hedging transactions, the investment adviser and the Portfolio believe such obligations do not constitute senior securities and, accordingly, will not treat them as being subject to its borrowing restrictions. If there is a default by the other party to such a transaction, the Portfolio will have contractual remedies pursuant to the agreement related to the transaction. Since swaps are individually negotiated, the Portfolio expects to achieve an acceptable degree of correlation between its rights to receive a return on its portfolio securities and its rights and obligations to receive and pay a return pursuant to swaps. The Portfolio will enter into swaps only with parties meeting creditworthiness standards of the investment subadviser. The investment subadviser will monitor the creditworthiness of such parties.

CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP AGREEMENTS AND SIMILAR INSTRUMENTS. Certain Portfolios may enter into credit default swap agreements and similar agreements, and may also buy credit-linked securities. The credit default swap agreement or similar instrument may have as reference obligations one or more securities that are not currently held by a Portfolio. The protection “buyer” in a credit default contract may be obligated to pay the protection “seller” an up front or a periodic stream of payments over the term of the contract provided generally that no credit event on a reference obligation has occurred. If a credit event occurs, the seller generally must pay the buyer the “par value” (full notional value) of the swap in exchange for an equal face amount of deliverable obligations of the reference entity described in the swap, or the seller may be required to deliver the related net cash amount, if the swap is cash settled. A Portfolio may be either the buyer or seller in the transaction. If a Portfolio is a buyer and no credit event occurs, the Portfolio recovers nothing if the swap is held through its termination date. However, if a credit event occurs, the buyer may elect to receive the full notional value of the swap in exchange for an equal face amount of deliverable obligations of the reference entity that may have little or no value. As a seller, a Portfolio generally receives an up front payment or a fixed rate of income throughout the term of the swap, provided that there is no credit event. If a credit event occurs, generally the seller must pay the buyer the full notional value of the swap in exchange for an equal face amount of deliverable obligations of the reference entity that may have little or no value.

Credit default swaps and similar instruments involve greater risks than if a Portfolio had invested in the reference obligation directly, since, in addition to general market risks, they are subject to illiquidity risk, counterparty risk and credit risks. A Portfolio will enter into credit default swap agreements and similar instruments only with counterparties who are rated investment grade quality by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization at the time of entering into such transaction or whose creditworthiness is believed by the subadviser(s) to be equivalent to such rating. A buyer also will lose its investment and recover nothing should no credit event occur and the swap is held to its termination date. If a credit event were to occur, the value of any deliverable obligation received by the seller, coupled with the up front or periodic payments previously received, may be less than the full notional value it pays to the buyer, resulting in a loss of value to the Portfolio. When a Portfolio acts as a seller of a credit default swap or a similar instrument, it is exposed to many of the same risks of leverage since, if a credit event occurs, the seller may be required to pay the buyer the full notional value of the contract net of any amounts owed by the buyer related to its delivery of deliverable obligations.

189

CREDIT LINKED SECURITIES. Among the income producing securities in which a Portfolio may invest are credit linked securities, which are issued by a limited purpose trust or other vehicle that, in turn, invests in a derivative instrument or basket of derivative instruments, such a credit default swaps, interest rate swaps and other securities, in order to provide exposure to certain fixed income markets. For instance, a Portfolio may invest in credit linked securities as a cash management tool in order to gain exposure to a certain market and/or to remain fully invested when more traditional income producing securities are not available.

Like an investment in a bond, investments in these credit linked securities represent the right to receive periodic income payments (in the form of distributions) and payment of principal at the end of the term of the security. However, these payments are conditioned on the issuer's receipt of payments from, and the issuer's potential obligations to, the counterparties to the derivative instruments and other securities in which the issuer invests. For instance, the issuer may sell one or more credit default swaps, under which the issuer would receive a stream of payments over the term of the swap agreements provided that no event of default has occurred with respect to the referenced debt obligation upon which the swap is based. If a default occurs, the stream of payments may stop and the issuer would be obligated to pay the counterparty the par (or other agreed upon value) of the referenced debt obligation. This, in turn, would reduce the amount of income and principal that a Portfolio would receive. A Portfolio's investments in these instruments are indirectly subject to the risks associated with derivatives. It is also expected that the securities will be exempt from registration under the 1933 Act. Accordingly, there may be no established trading market for the securities and they may constitute illiquid investments.

TOTAL RETURN SWAP AGREEMENTS. Certain Portfolios may enter into total return swap agreements. Total return swap agreements are contracts in which one party agrees to make periodic payments based on the change in market value of the underlying assets, which may include a specified security, basket of securities or securities indices during the specified period, in return for periodic payments based on a fixed or variable interest rate or the total return from other underlying assets. Total return swap agreements may be used to obtain exposure to a security or market without owning or taking physical custody of such security or market. Total return swap agreements may effectively add leverage to a Portfolio because, in addition to its total net assets, the Portfolio would be subject to investment exposure on the notional amount of the swap. Total return swap agreements entail the risk that a party will default on its payment obligations to a Portfolio thereunder. Swap agreements also bear the risk that the Portfolio will not be able to meet its obligation to the counterparty. Generally, the Portfolio will enter into total return swaps on a net basis (i.e., the two payment streams are netted out with a Portfolio receiving or paying, as the case may be, only the net amount of the two payments). The net amount of the excess, if any, of a Portfolio's obligations over its entitlements with respect to each total return swap will be accrued on a daily basis, and an amount of cash or liquid instruments having an aggregate net asset value at least equal to the accrued excess will be segregated by a Portfolio. If the total return swap transaction is entered into on other than a net basis, the full amount of a Portfolio's obligations will be accrued on a daily basis, and the full amount of the Portfolio's obligations will be segregated by a Portfolio in an amount equal to or greater than the market value of the liabilities under the total return swap agreement or the amount it would have cost the Portfolio initially to make an equivalent direct investment, plus or minus any amount a Portfolio is obligated to pay or is to receive under the total return swap agreement.

Unless otherwise noted, a Portfolio's net obligations in respect of all swap agreements (i.e., the aggregate net amount owed by the Portfolio) is limited to 15% of its net assets. This limitation does not apply to the AST Bond Portfolios (2017 -2028) and AST Investment Grade Bond Portfolio

NON-STANDARD WARRANTS. From time to time, a Portfolio may use synthetic foreign equity securities derivatives in the form non-standard warrants, often referred to as low exercise price warrants or participatory notes or low exercise price options (LEPOs), to gain indirect exposure to issuers in certain countries, such as India. These securities are issued by banks and other financial institutions. The buyer of a low exercise price warrant effectively pays the full value of the underlying common stock at the outset. LEPOs are different from standard warrants in that they do not give their holders the right to receive a security of the issuer upon exercise. Rather, LEPOs pay the holder the difference in price of the underlying security between the date the LEPO was purchased and the date it is sold. LEPOs entail the same risks as other over-the counter derivatives. These include the risk that the counterparty or issuer of the LEPO may not be able to fulfill its obligations, that the holder and counterparty or issuer may disagree as to the meaning or application of contractual terms, or that the instrument may not perform as expected. Additionally, while LEPOs may be listed on an exchange, there is no guaranty that a liquid market will exist or that the counterparty or issuer of a LEPO will be willing to repurchase the LEPO when a Portfolio wishes to sell it.

OPTIONS ON SECURITIES AND SECURITIES INDEXES. A Portfolio may invest in options on individual securities, baskets of securities or particular measurements of value or rate (an index), such as an index of the price of treasury securities or an index representative of short term interest rates.

Such investments may be made on exchanges and in the over-the-counter (OTC) markets. In general, exchange-traded options have standardized exercise prices and expiration dates and require the parties to post margin against their obligations, and the performance of the parties' obligations in connection with such options is guaranteed by the exchange or a related clearing corporation. OTC

190

options have more flexible terms negotiated between the buyer and the seller, but generally do not require the parties to post margin and are subject to greater credit risk. OTC options also involve greater liquidity risk. See “Additional Risk Factors of OTC Transactions; Limitations on the Use of OTC Derivatives” below.

A Portfolio will write only “covered” options. A written option is covered if, so long as a Portfolio is obligated the option, it (1) owns an offsetting position in the underlying security or currency or (2) segregates cash or other liquid assets, in an amount equal to or greater than its obligation under the option.

CALL OPTIONS. A Portfolio may purchase call options on any of the types of securities or instruments in which it may invest. A call option gives a Portfolio the right to buy, and obligates the seller to sell, the underlying security at the exercise price at any time during the option period. A Portfolio also may purchase and sell call options on indices. Index options are similar to options on securities except that, rather than taking or making delivery of securities underlying the option at a specified price upon exercise, an index option gives the holder the right to receive cash upon exercise of the option if the level of the index upon which the option is based is greater than the exercise price of the option.

Each Portfolio may only write (i.e., sell) covered call options on the securities or instruments in which it may invest and to enter into closing purchase transactions with respect to certain of such options. A covered call option is an option in which a Portfolio either owns an offsetting position in the underlying security or currency, or the Portfolio segregates cash or other liquid assets in an amount equal to or greater than its obligation under the option. The principal reason for writing call options is the attempt to realize, through the receipt of premiums, a greater return than would be realized on the securities alone. By writing covered call options, a Portfolio gives up the opportunity, while the option is in effect, to profit from any price increase in the underlying security above the option exercise price. In addition, a Portfolio's ability to sell the underlying security will be limited while the option is in effect unless the Portfolio enters into a closing purchase transaction. A closing purchase transaction cancels out a Portfolio's position as the writer of an option by means of an offsetting purchase of an identical option prior to the expiration of the option it has written. Covered call options also serve as a partial hedge to the extent of the premium received against the price of the underlying security declining.

PUT OPTIONS. A Portfolio may purchase put options to seek to hedge against a decline in the value of its securities or to enhance its return. By buying a put option, a Portfolio acquires a right to sell such underlying securities or instruments at the exercise price, thus limiting the Portfolio's risk of loss through a decline in the market value of the securities or instruments until the put option expires. The amount of any appreciation in the value of the underlying securities or instruments will be partially offset by the amount of the premium paid for the put option and any related transaction costs. Prior to its expiration, a put option may be sold in a closing sale transaction and profit or loss from the sale will depend on whether the amount received is more or less than the premium paid for the put option plus the related transaction costs. A closing sale transaction cancels out a Portfolio's position as the purchaser of an option by means of an offsetting sale of an identical option prior to the expiration of the option it has purchased. A Portfolio also may purchase uncovered put options.

Each Portfolio may write (i.e., sell) put options on the types of securities or instruments that may be held by the Portfolio, provided that such put options are covered, meaning that such options are secured by segregated, liquid instruments. A Portfolio will receive a premium for writing a put option, which increases the Portfolio's return. A Portfolio will not sell puts if, as a result, more than 25% of the Portfolio's net assets would be required to cover its potential obligations under its hedging and other investment transactions.

FUTURES. A Portfolio may engage in transactions in futures and options thereon. Futures are standardized, exchange-traded contracts which obligate a purchaser to take delivery, and a seller to make delivery, of a specific amount of an asset at a specified future date at a specified price. No price is paid upon entering into a futures contract. Rather, upon purchasing or selling a futures contract a Portfolio is required to deposit collateral (margin) equal to a percentage (generally less than 10%) of the contract value. Each day thereafter until the futures position is closed, the Portfolio will pay additional margin representing any loss experienced as a result of the futures position the prior day or be entitled to a payment representing any profit experienced as a result of the futures position the prior day. Futures involve substantial leverage risk.

The sale of a futures contract limits a Portfolio's risk of loss through a decline in the market value of portfolio holdings correlated with the futures contract prior to the futures contract's expiration date. In the event the market value of the portfolio holdings correlated with the futures contract increases rather than decreases, however, a Portfolio will realize a loss on the futures position and a lower return on the portfolio holdings than would have been realized without the purchase of the futures contract.

191

The purchase of a futures contract may protect a Portfolio from having to pay more for securities as a consequence of increases in the market value for such securities during a period when the Portfolio was attempting to identify specific securities in which to invest in a market the Portfolio believes to be attractive. In the event that such securities decline in value or a Portfolio determines not to complete an anticipatory hedge transaction relating to a futures contract, however, the Portfolio may realize a loss relating to the futures position.

A Portfolio is also authorized to purchase or sell call and put options on futures contracts including financial futures and stock indices in connection with its hedging activities. Generally, these strategies would be used under the same market and market sector conditions (i.e., conditions relating to specific types of investments) in which the Portfolio entered into futures transactions. A Portfolio may purchase put options or write (i.e., sell) call options on futures contracts and stock indices rather than selling the underlying futures contract in anticipation of a decrease in the market value of its securities. Similarly, a Portfolio can purchase call options, or write put options on futures contracts and stock indices, as a substitute for the purchase of such futures to hedge against the increased cost resulting from an increase in the market value of securities which the Portfolio intends to purchase.

A Portfolio may only write “covered” put and call options on futures contracts. A Portfolio will be considered “covered” with respect to a call option it writes on a futures contract if the Portfolio owns the assets that are deliverable under the futures contract or an option to purchase that futures contract having a strike price equal to or less than the strike price of the “covered” option and having an expiration date not earlier than the expiration date of the “covered” option, or if it segregates for the term of the option cash or other liquid assets equal to the fluctuating value of the optioned future. A Portfolio will be considered “covered” with respect to a put option it writes on a futures contract if it owns an option to sell that futures contract having a strike price equal to or greater than the strike price of the “covered” option, or if it segregates for the term of the option cash or other liquid assets at all times equal in value to the exercise price of the put (less any initial margin deposited by the Portfolio with its custodian with respect to such option). There is no limitation on the amount of a Portfolio's assets that can be segregated.

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

Each Portfolio, except AST AQR Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio, has filed a notice of exemption from regulation as a “commodity pool,” and the Investment Managers have filed a notice of exemption from registration as a “commodity pool operator” with respect to each Portfolio, under applicable rules issued by the CFTC under the Commodity Exchange Act (the CEA). In order to continue to claim the “commodity pool” exemption, a Portfolio is limited in its ability to use futures, options and swaps subject to regulation under the CEA for purposes other than bona fide hedging, which is narrowly defined. With respect to transactions other than for bona fide hedging purposes, either: (1) the aggregate initial margin and premiums required to establish a Portfolio’s positions in such investments may not exceed 5% of the liquidation value of the Portfolio’s assets, or (2) the aggregate net notional value of such instruments may not exceed 100% of the liquidation value of the Portfolio’s assets. In addition to meeting one of the foregoing trading limitations, a Portfolio may not market itself as a commodity pool or otherwise as a vehicle for trading in the futures, options or swaps markets.

Based on the trading strategy for AST AQR Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio, each such Portfolio shall be considered a “commodity pool” and the Investment Managers shall be considered a “commodity pool operator” with respect to the Portfolio under the CEA. Compliance with applicable CFTC disclosure, reporting and recordkeeping regulations may increase the Portfolios’ gross expenses.

FOREIGN EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS. A Portfolio may engage in spot and forward foreign exchange transactions and currency swaps, purchase and sell options on currencies and purchase and sell currency futures and related options thereon (collectively, Currency Instruments) for purposes of hedging against the decline in the value of currencies in which its portfolio holdings are denominated against the US dollar or, with respect to certain Portfolios, to seek to enhance returns. Such transactions could be effected with respect to hedges on non-US dollar denominated securities owned by a Portfolio, sold by a Portfolio but not yet delivered, or committed or anticipated to be purchased by a Portfolio. As an illustration, a Portfolio may use such techniques to hedge the stated value in US dollars of an investment in a yen-denominated security. In such circumstances, for example, the Portfolio may purchase a foreign currency put option enabling it to sell a specified amount of yen for dollars at a specified price by a future date. To the extent the hedge is successful, a loss in the value of the yen relative to the dollar will tend to be offset by an increase in the value of the put option. To offset, in whole or in part, the cost of acquiring such a put option, the Portfolio may also sell a call option which, if exercised, requires it to sell a specified amount of yen for dollars at a specified price by a future date (a technique called a straddle).

192

By selling such a call option in this illustration, the Portfolio gives up the opportunity to profit without limit from increases in the relative value of the yen to the dollar. “Straddles” of the type that may be used by a Portfolio are considered to constitute hedging transactions and are consistent with the policies described above. No Portfolio will attempt to hedge all of its foreign portfolio positions.

FORWARD FOREIGN EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS. Forward foreign exchange transactions are OTC contracts to purchase or sell a specified amount of a specified currency or multinational currency unit at a price and future date set at the time of the contract. Spot foreign exchange transactions are similar but require current, rather than future, settlement. A Portfolio will enter into foreign exchange transactions for purposes of hedging either a specific transaction or a portfolio position, or, with respect to certain Portfolios, to seek to enhance returns. A Portfolio may enter into a foreign exchange transaction for purposes of hedging a specific transaction by, for example, purchasing a currency needed to settle a security transaction or selling a currency in which the Portfolio has received or anticipates receiving a dividend or distribution. A Portfolio may enter into a foreign exchange transaction for purposes of hedging a portfolio position by selling forward a currency in which a portfolio position of the Portfolio is denominated or by purchasing a currency in which the Portfolio anticipates acquiring a portfolio position in the near future. A Portfolio may also hedge portfolio positions through currency swaps, which are transactions in which one currency is simultaneously bought for a second currency on a spot basis and sold for the second currency on a forward basis. Forward foreign exchange transactions involve substantial currency risk, and also involve credit and liquidity risk.

CURRENCY FUTURES. A Portfolio may also seek to enhance returns or hedge against the decline in the value of a currency against the US dollar through use of currency futures or options thereon. Currency futures are similar to forward foreign exchange transactions except that futures are standardized, exchange-traded contracts. See “Futures” above. Currency futures involve substantial currency risk, and also involve leverage risk.

CURRENCY OPTIONS. A Portfolio may also seek to enhance returns or hedge against the decline in the value of a currency against the US dollar through the use of currency options. Currency options are similar to options on securities, but in consideration for an option premium the writer of a currency option is obligated to sell (in the case of a call option) or purchase (in the case of a put option) a specified amount of a specified currency on or before the expiration date for a specified amount of another currency. A Portfolio may engage in transactions in options on currencies either on exchanges or OTC markets. See “Types of Options” above and “Additional Risk Factors of OTC Transactions; Limitations on the Use of OTC Derivatives” below. Currency options involve substantial currency risk, and may also involve credit, leverage or liquidity risk.

LIMITATIONS ON CURRENCY HEDGING. Most Portfolios will not speculate in Currency Instruments although certain Portfolios may use such instruments to seek to enhance returns. Accordingly, except for portfolios managed by PIMCO and PGIM, a Portfolio will not hedge a currency in excess of the aggregate market value of the securities that it owns (including receivables for unsettled securities sales), or has committed to or anticipates purchasing, which are denominated in such currency. A Portfolio may, however, hedge a currency by entering into a transaction in a Currency Instrument denominated in a currency other than the currency being hedged (a “cross-hedge”). A Portfolio will only enter into a cross-hedge if the Investment Managers believe that (i) there is a demonstrable high correlation between the currency in which the cross-hedge is denominated and the currency being hedged, and (ii) executing a cross-hedge through the currency in which the cross-hedge is denominated will be significantly more cost-effective or provide substantially greater liquidity than executing a similar hedging transaction by means of the currency being hedged.

RISK FACTORS IN HEDGING FOREIGN CURRENCY RISKS. Hedging transactions involving Currency Instruments involve substantial risks, including correlation risk. While a Portfolio's use of Currency Instruments to effect hedging strategies is intended to reduce the volatility of the net asset value of the Portfolio's shares, the net asset value of the Portfolio's shares will fluctuate. Moreover, although Currency Instruments will be used with the intention of hedging against adverse currency movements, transactions in Currency Instruments involve the risk that anticipated currency movements will not be accurately predicted and that the Portfolio's hedging strategies will be ineffective. To the extent that a Portfolio hedges against anticipated currency movements that do not occur, the Portfolio may realize losses and decrease its total return as the result of its hedging transactions. Furthermore, a Portfolio may only engage in hedging activities from time to time and may not be engaging in hedging activities when movements in currency exchange rates occur.

193

its trading of forward contracts, if any, a Portfolio will be subject to the risk of bank or dealer failure and the inability of, or refusal by, a bank or dealer to perform with respect to such contracts. Any such default would deprive the Portfolio of any profit potential or force the Portfolio to cover its commitments for resale, if any, at the then market price and could result in a loss to the Portfolio.

It may not be possible for a Portfolio to hedge against currency exchange rate movements, even if correctly anticipated, in the event that (i) the currency exchange rate movement is so generally anticipated that the Portfolio is not able to enter into a hedging transaction at an effective price, or (ii) the currency exchange rate movement relates to a market with respect to which Currency Instruments are not available and it is not possible to engage in effective foreign currency hedging. The cost to a Portfolio of engaging in foreign currency transactions varies with such factors as the currencies involved, the length of the contract period and the market conditions then prevailing. Since transactions in foreign currency exchange usually are conducted on a principal basis, no fees or commissions are involved.

RISK FACTORS IN DERIVATIVES. Derivatives are volatile and involve significant risks. In addition to the risks described in the Prospectus, the use of Derivatives for hedging purposes involves correlation risk. If the value of the Derivative moves more or less than the value of the hedged instruments, a Portfolio will experience a gain or loss that will not be completely offset by movements in the value of the hedged instruments.

A Portfolio intends to enter into transactions involving Derivatives only if there appears to be a liquid secondary market for such instruments or, in the case of illiquid instruments traded in OTC transactions, such instruments satisfy the criteria set forth below under “Additional Risk Factors of OTC Transactions; Limitations on the Use of OTC Derivatives.” However, there can be no assurance that, at any specific time, either a liquid secondary market will exist for a Derivative or the Portfolio will otherwise be able to sell such instrument at an acceptable price. It may therefore not be possible to close a position in a Derivative without incurring substantial losses, if at all.

FOREIGN INVESTMENT RISKS. Certain Portfolios may invest in foreign equity and/or debt securities. Foreign debt securities include certain foreign bank obligations and US dollar or foreign currency-denominated obligations of foreign governments or their subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities, international agencies and supranational entities.

Foreign Market Risk. Portfolios that may invest in foreign securities offer the potential for more diversification than a Portfolio that invests only in the United States because securities traded on foreign markets have often (though not always) performed differently than securities in the United States. However, such investments involve special risks not present in US investments that can increase the chances that a Portfolio will lose money. In particular, a Portfolio is subject to the risk that, because there are generally fewer investors on foreign exchanges and a smaller number of shares traded each day, it may be difficult for the Portfolio to buy and sell securities on those exchanges. In addition, prices of foreign securities may fluctuate more than prices of securities traded in the United States.

Foreign Economy Risk. The economies of certain foreign markets often do not compare favorably with that of the United States with respect to such issues as growth of gross national product, reinvestment of capital, resources, and balance of payments position. Certain such economies may rely heavily on particular industries or foreign capital and are more vulnerable to diplomatic developments, the imposition of economic sanctions against a particular country or countries, changes in international trading patterns, trade barriers, and other protectionist or retaliatory measures. Investments in foreign markets may also be adversely affected by governmental actions such as the imposition of capital controls, nationalization of companies or industries, expropriation of assets, or the imposition of punitive taxes. In addition, the governments of certain countries may prohibit or impose substantial restrictions on foreign investing in their capital markets or in certain industries. Any of these actions could severely affect security prices, impair a Portfolio's ability to purchase or sell foreign securities or transfer the Portfolio's assets or income back into the United States, or otherwise adversely affect a Portfolio's operations. Other foreign market risks include foreign exchange controls, difficulties in pricing securities, defaults on foreign government securities, difficulties in enforcing favorable legal judgments in foreign courts, and political and social instability. Legal remedies available to investors in certain foreign countries may be less extensive than those available to investors in the United States or other foreign countries.

Currency Risk and Exchange Risk. Securities in which a Portfolio invests may be denominated or quoted in currencies other than the US dollar. Changes in foreign currency exchange rates will affect the value of a Portfolio's portfolio. Generally, when the US dollar rises in value against a foreign currency, a security denominated in that currency loses value because the currency is worth fewer US dollars. Conversely, when the US dollar decreases in value against a foreign currency, a security denominated in that currency gains value because the currency is worth more US dollars. This risk, generally known as “currency risk,” means that a stronger US dollar will reduce returns for US investors while a weak US dollar will increase those returns.

194

Governmental Supervision and Regulation/Accounting Standards. Many foreign governments supervise and regulate stock exchanges, brokers and the sale of securities less than does the United States. Some countries may not have laws to protect investors comparable to the US securities laws. For example, some foreign countries may have no laws or rules against insider trading. Insider trading occurs when a person buys or sells a company's securities based on nonpublic information about that company. Accounting standards in other countries are not necessarily the same as in the United States. If the accounting standards in another country do not require as much detail as US accounting standards, it may be harder for Portfolio management to completely and accurately determine a company's financial condition.

Certain Risks of Holding Portfolio Assets Outside the United States. A Portfolio generally holds its foreign securities and cash in foreign banks and securities depositories. Some foreign banks and securities depositories may be recently organized or new to the foreign custody business. In addition, there may be limited or no regulatory oversight over their operations. Also, the laws of certain countries may put limits on a Portfolio's ability to recover its assets if a foreign bank or depository or issuer of a security or any of their agents goes bankrupt. In addition, it is often more expensive for a Portfolio to buy, sell and hold securities in certain foreign markets than in the United States. The increased expense of investing in foreign markets reduces the amount a Portfolio can earn on its investments and typically results in a higher operating expense ratio for the Portfolio as compared to investment companies that invest only in the United States.

Settlement Risk. Settlement and clearance procedures in certain foreign markets differ significantly from those in the United States. Foreign settlement procedures and trade regulations also may involve certain risks (such as delays in payment for or delivery of securities) not typically generated by the settlement of US investments. Communications between the United States and emerging market countries may be unreliable, increasing the risk of delayed settlements or losses of security certificates. Settlements in certain foreign countries at times have not kept pace with the number of securities transactions; these problems may make it difficult for a Portfolio to carry out transactions. If a Portfolio cannot settle or is delayed in settling a purchase of securities, it may miss attractive investment opportunities and certain of its assets may be uninvested with no return earned thereon for some period. If a Portfolio cannot settle or is delayed in settling a sale of securities, it may lose money if the value of the security then declines or, if it has contracted to sell the security to another party, the Portfolio could be liable to that party for any losses incurred.

Dividends or interest on, or proceeds from the sale of, foreign securities may be subject to foreign withholding taxes, thereby reducing the amount available for distribution to shareholders.

Certain transactions in Derivatives (such as futures transactions or sales of put options) involve substantial leverage risk and may expose a Portfolio to potential losses, which exceed the amount originally invested by the Portfolio. When a Portfolio engages in such a transaction, the Portfolio will deposit in a segregated account at its custodian liquid securities with a value at least equal to the Portfolio's exposure, on a mark-to-market basis, to the transaction (as calculated pursuant to requirements of the SEC). Such segregation will ensure that a Portfolio has assets available to satisfy its obligations with respect to the transaction, but will not limit the Portfolio's exposure to loss.

Additional Risk Factors of OTC Transactions; Limitations on the Use of OTC Derivatives. Certain Derivatives traded in OTC markets, including indexed securities, swaps and OTC options, involve substantial liquidity risk. The absence of liquidity may make it difficult or impossible for a Portfolio to sell such instruments promptly at an acceptable price. The absence of liquidity may also make it more difficult for a Portfolio to ascertain a market value for such instruments. A Portfolio will, therefore, acquire illiquid OTC instruments (i) if the agreement pursuant to which the instrument is purchased contains a formula price at which the instrument may be terminated or sold, or (ii) for which the Investment Managers anticipate the Portfolio can receive on each business day at least two independent bids or offers, unless a quotation from only one dealer is available, in which case that dealer's quotation may be used.

Because Derivatives traded in OTC markets are not guaranteed by an exchange or clearing corporation and generally do not require payment of margin, to the extent that a Portfolio has unrealized gains in such instruments or has deposited collateral with its counterparty the Portfolio is at risk that its counterparty will become bankrupt or otherwise fail to honor its obligations. A Portfolio will attempt to minimize the risk that a counterparty will become bankrupt or otherwise fail to honor its obligations by engaging in transactions in Derivatives traded in OTC markets only with financial institutions that appear to have substantial capital or that have provided the Portfolio with a third-party guaranty or other credit enhancement.

195

governments, central banks and others, including austerity measures and reforms, may not work, may result in social unrest and may limit future growth and economic recovery or have other unintended consequences. Further defaults or restructurings by governments and others of their debt could have additional adverse effects on economies, financial markets and asset valuations around the world. In addition, in June 2016, the United Kingdom voted to withdraw from the European Union (commonly referred to as “Brexit”), and one or more other countries may withdraw from the European Union and/or abandon the euro, the common currency of the European Union. The impact of these actions, especially if they occur in a disorderly fashion, is not clear but could be significant and far-reaching. Brexit may have a significant impact on the economies of the United Kingdom and Europe as well as the broader global economy, which may cause increased volatility and illiquidity in global financial markets, and potentially lower economic growth in these and other markets. In addition, Brexit may cause other member states to contemplate withdrawing from the EU, which would likely prolong political and economic instability in the region and cause additional market disruption. Whether or not a Portfolio invests in securities of issuers located in Europe or with significant exposure to European issuers or countries, these events could result in losses to the Portfolio, as there may be negative effects on the value and liquidity of the Portfolio’s investments and/or the Portfolio's ability to enter into certain transactions.

DISTRESSED SECURITIES. A Portfolio may invest in securities, including corporate loans purchased in the secondary market, which are the subject of bankruptcy proceedings or otherwise in default as to the repayment of principal and/or interest at the time of acquisition by the Portfolio or are rated in the lower rating categories (Ca or lower by Moody's and CC or lower by S&P or Fitch) or which, if unrated, are in the judgment of the Investment Managers of equivalent quality (Distressed Securities). Investment in Distressed Securities is speculative and involves significant risks. Distressed Securities frequently do not produce income while they are outstanding and may require a Portfolio to bear certain extraordinary expenses in order to protect and recover its investment.

A Portfolio will generally make such investments only when the Investment Managers believe it is reasonably likely that the issuer of the Distressed Securities will make an exchange offer or will be the subject of a plan of reorganization pursuant to which the Portfolio will receive new securities. However, there can be no assurance that such an exchange offer will be made or that such a plan of reorganization will be adopted. In addition, a significant period of time may pass between the time at which a Portfolio makes its investment in Distressed Securities and the time that any such exchange offer or plan of reorganization is completed. During this period, it is unlikely that a Portfolio will receive any interest payments on the Distressed Securities, the Portfolio will be subject to significant uncertainty as to whether or not the exchange offer or plan of reorganization will be completed and the Portfolio may be required to bear certain extraordinary expenses to protect and recover its investment. Even if an exchange offer is made or plan of reorganization is adopted with respect to Distressed Securities held by a Portfolio, there can be no assurance that the securities or other assets received by a Portfolio in connection with such exchange offer or plan of reorganization will not have a lower value or income potential than may have been anticipated when the investment was made. Moreover, any securities received by a Portfolio upon completion of an exchange offer or plan of reorganization may be restricted as to resale. As a result of a Portfolio's participation in negotiations with respect to any exchange offer or plan of reorganization with respect to an issuer of Distressed Securities, the Portfolio may be restricted from disposing of such securities.

ILLIQUID OR RESTRICTED SECURITIES. Each Portfolio (other than the Government Money Market Portfolio) generally may invest up to 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities. The Government Money Market Portfolio may invest up to 5% of its net assets in illiquid securities. An illiquid security is one that may not be sold or disposed of in the ordinary course of business within seven days at approximately the price used to determine the Portfolio's net asset value. Illiquid securities include, but are not limited to, certain securities sold in private placements with restrictions on resale and not traded, repurchase agreements maturing in more than seven days, and other investment determined not to be readily marketable. The 15% and 5% limits are applied as of the date a Portfolio purchases an illiquid security. It is possible that a Portfolio's holding of illiquid securities could exceed the 15% limit (5% for the Government Money Market Portfolio), for example as a result of market developments or redemptions.

Each Portfolio may purchase certain restricted securities that can be resold to institutional investors and which may be determined to be liquid pursuant to the procedures of the Portfolios. In many cases, those securities are traded in the institutional market under Rule 144A under the 1933 Act and are called Rule 144A securities. Securities determined to be liquid under these procedures are not subject to the 15% and 5% limits.

Investments in illiquid securities involve more risks than investments in similar securities that are readily marketable. Illiquid securities may trade at a discount from comparable, more liquid securities. Investment of a Portfolio's assets in illiquid securities may restrict the ability of the Portfolio to dispose of its investments in a timely fashion and for a fair price as well as its ability to take advantage of market opportunities. The risks associated with illiquidity will be particularly acute where a Portfolio's operations require cash, such as when a Portfolio has net redemptions, and could result in the Portfolio borrowing to meet short-term cash requirements or incurring losses on the sale of illiquid investments.

196

Illiquid securities are often restricted securities sold in private placement transactions between issuers and their purchasers and may be neither listed on an exchange nor traded in other established markets. In many cases, the privately placed securities may not be freely transferable under the laws of the applicable jurisdiction or due to contractual restrictions on resale. To the extent privately placed securities may be resold in privately negotiated transactions, the prices realized from the sales could be less than those originally paid by the Portfolio or less than the fair value of the securities. In addition, issuers whose securities are not publicly traded may not be subject to the disclosure and other investor protection requirements that may be applicable if their securities were publicly traded. If any privately placed securities held by a Portfolio are required to be registered under the securities laws of one or more jurisdictions before being resold, the Portfolio may be required to bear the expenses of registration. Private placement investments may involve investments in smaller, less seasoned issuers, which may involve greater risks than investments in more established companies. These issuers may have limited product lines, markets or financial resources, or they may be dependent on a limited management group. In making investments in private placement securities, a Portfolio may obtain access to material non-public information, which may restrict the Portfolio's ability to conduct transactions in those securities.

In October 2016, the SEC adopted a new rule that regulates the management of liquidity risk by certain investment companies registered under the 1940 Act, such as the Portfolios. The new rule may impact the Portfolios’ performance and ability to achieve their respective investment objectives. The Investment Manager continues to evaluate the potential impact of this new rule, which has a compliance date of December 1, 2018 as it relates to the Portfolios.

INVESTMENT IN EMERGING MARKETS. Certain Portfolios may invest in the securities of issuers domiciled in various countries with emerging capital markets. Specifically, a country with an emerging capital market includes, but is not necessarily limited to, any country that the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation, the United Nations or its authorities has determined to have a low or middle income economy. In addition, the subadviser has broad discretion to identify or determine those countries that it considers to qualify as emerging markets. Countries with emerging markets can be found in regions such as Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and Africa. Investments in emerging markets may be more susceptible to the risks associated with foreign investments.

Such capital markets are emerging in a dynamic political and economic environment brought about by events over recent years that have reshaped political boundaries and traditional ideologies. In such a dynamic environment, there can be no assurance that these capital markets will continue to present viable investment opportunities for a Portfolio. In the past, governments of such nations have expropriated substantial amounts of private property, and most claims of the property owners have never been fully settled. There is no assurance that such expropriations will not reoccur. In such an event, it is possible that a Portfolio could lose the entire value of its investments in the affected markets. In addition to withholding taxes on investment income, some countries with emerging markets may impose differential capital gains taxes on foreign investors.

Restrictions on Certain Investments. A number of publicly traded closed-end investment companies have been organized to facilitate indirect foreign investment in developing countries, and certain of such countries, such as Thailand, South Korea, Chile and Brazil have specifically authorized such Portfolios. There also are investment opportunities in certain of such countries in pooled vehicles that resemble open-end investment companies. In accordance with the 1940 Act, a Portfolio may invest up to 10% of its total assets in securities of other investment companies, not more than 5% of which may be invested in any one such company. In addition, under the 1940 Act, a Portfolio may not own more than 3% of the total outstanding voting stock of any investment company. These restrictions on investments in securities of investment companies may limit opportunities for a Portfolio to invest indirectly in certain developing countries. New shares of certain investment companies may at times be acquired only at market prices representing premiums to their net asset values. If a Portfolio acquires shares of other investment companies, shareholders would bear both their proportionate share of expenses of the Portfolio (including management and advisory fees) and, indirectly, the expenses of such other investment companies. See also “Investments in Other Investment Companies.”

Restrictions on Foreign Investments in Asia-Pacific Countries. Some developing Asia-Pacific countries prohibit or impose substantial restrictions on investments in their capital markets, particularly their equity markets, by foreign entities such as a Portfolio. As illustrations, certain countries may require governmental approval prior to investments by foreign persons or limit the amount of investment by foreign persons in a particular company or limit the investment by foreign persons to only a specific class of securities of a company which may have less advantageous terms (including price) than securities of the company available for purchase by nationals. There can be no assurance that a Portfolio will be able to obtain required governmental approvals in a timely manner. In addition, changes to restrictions on foreign ownership of securities subsequent to a Portfolio's purchase of such securities may have an adverse effect on the value of such shares. Certain countries may restrict investment opportunities in issuers or industries deemed important to national interests.

197

the name of the Portfolio. Re-registration may in some instances not be able to occur on a timely basis, resulting in a delay during which a Portfolio may be denied certain of its rights as an investor, including rights as to dividends or to be made aware of certain corporate actions. There also may be instances where a Portfolio places a purchase order but is subsequently informed, at the time of re-registration, that the permissible allocation of the investment to foreign investors has been filled, depriving the Portfolio of the ability to make its desired investment at that time.

Substantial limitations may exist in certain countries with respect to a Portfolio's ability to repatriate investment income, capital or the proceeds of sales of securities by foreign investors. A Portfolio could be adversely affected by delays in, or a refusal to grant, any required governmental approval for repatriation of capital, as well as by the application to the Portfolio of any restrictions on investments. For example, in September 1998, Malaysia imposed currency controls that limited a Portfolio's ability to repatriate proceeds of Malaysian investments. It is possible that Malaysia, or certain other countries may impose similar restrictions or other restrictions relating to their currencies or to securities of issuers in those countries. To the extent that such restrictions have the effect of making certain investments illiquid, securities may not be available to meet redemptions. Depending on a variety of financial factors, the percentage of a Portfolio's portfolio subject to currency controls may increase. In the event other countries impose similar controls, the portion of the Portfolio's assets that may be used to meet redemptions may be further decreased. Even where there is no outright restriction on repatriation of capital, the mechanics of repatriation may affect certain aspects of the operations of a Portfolio. For example, investments may be withdrawn from the People's Republic of China only in US or Hong Kong dollars and only at an exchange rate established by the government once each week. In certain countries, banks or other financial institutions may be among the leading companies or have actively traded securities. The 1940 Act restricts a Portfolio's investments in any equity securities of an issuer that, in its most recent fiscal year, derived more than 15% of its revenues from “securities related activities,” as defined by the rules thereunder. These provisions may restrict a Portfolio's investments in certain foreign banks and other financial institutions.

Risk of Investing through Stock Connect. China A-shares (“A-shares”) are equity securities of companies based in mainland China that trade on Chinese stock exchanges such as the Shanghai Stock Exchange (“SSE”) and the Shenzhen Stock Exchange (“SZSE”). Foreign investment in A-shares on the SSE and SZSE has historically not been permitted, other than through a license granted under regulations in the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) known as the Qualified Foreign Institutional Investor and Renminbi (“RMB”) Qualified Foreign Institutional Investor systems. Each license permits investment in A-shares only up to a specified quota.

Investment in eligible A-shares listed and traded on the SSE is also permitted through the Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect program (“Stock Connect”). Stock Connect is a securities trading and clearing program established by Hong Kong Securities Clearing Company Limited (“HKSCC”), the SSE and China Securities Depository and Clearing Corporation Limited (“CSDCC”) that aims to provide mutual stock market access between the PRC and Hong Kong by permitting investors to trade and settle shares on each market through their local exchanges. Certain Portfolios may invest in A-shares through Stock Connect or on such other stock exchanges in China which participate in Stock Connect from time to time. Under Stock Connect, the Portfolio’s trading of eligible A-shares listed on the SSE would be effectuated through its Hong Kong broker.

Although no individual investment quotas or licensing requirements apply to investors in Stock Connect, trading through Stock Connect’s Northbound Trading Link is subject to aggregate and daily investment quota limitations that require that buy orders for A-shares be rejected once the remaining balance of the relevant quota drops to zero or the daily quota is exceeded (although the Portfolio will be permitted to sell A-shares regardless of the quota balance). These limitations may restrict the Portfolio from investing in A-shares on a timely basis, which could affect the Portfolio’s ability to effectively pursue its investment strategy. Investment quotas are also subject to change.

Investment in eligible A-shares through Stock Connect is subject to trading, clearance and settlement procedures that could pose risks to the Portfolio. A-shares purchased through Stock Connect generally may not be sold or otherwise transferred other than through Stock Connect in accordance with applicable rules. For example, PRC regulations require that in order for an investor to sell any A-shares on a certain trading day, there must be sufficient A-shares in the investor’s account before the market opens on that day. If there are insufficient A-shares in the investor’s account, the sell order will be rejected by the SSE. The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong (“SEHK”) carries out pre-trade checking on sell orders of certain stocks listed on the SSE market (“SSE Securities”) of its participants (i.e., stock brokers) to ensure that this requirement is satisfied. While shares must be designated as eligible to be traded under Stock Connect, those shares may also lose such designation, and if this occurs, such shares may be sold but cannot be purchased through Stock Connect. In addition, Stock Connect will only operate on days when both the Chinese and Hong Kong markets are open for trading and when banks in both markets are open on the corresponding settlement days. Therefore, an investment in A-shares through Stock Connect may subject the Portfolio to a risk of price fluctuations on days where the Chinese market is open, but Stock Connect is not trading. Moreover, day (turnaround) trading is not permitted on the A-shares market. If an investor buys A-shares on day “T,” the investor will only be able to sell the A-shares on or after day T+1. Further, since all trades of eligible Stock Connect A-shares must be settled in RMB, investors must have timely access to a reliable supply of offshore RMB, which cannot be guaranteed.

198

A-shares held through the nominee structure under Stock Connect will be held through HKSCC as nominee on behalf of investors. The precise nature and rights of the Portfolio as the beneficial owner of the SSE Securities through HKSCC as nominee is not well defined under PRC law. There is lack of a clear definition of, and distinction between, legal ownership and beneficial ownership under PRC law and there have been few cases involving a nominee account structure in the PRC courts. The exact nature and methods of enforcement of the rights and interests of the Portfolio under PRC law is also uncertain. In the unlikely event that HKSCC becomes subject to winding up proceedings in Hong Kong there is a risk that the SSE Securities may not be regarded as held for the beneficial ownership of the Portfolio or as part of the general assets of HKSCC available for general distribution to its creditors. Notwithstanding the fact that HKSCC does not claim proprietary interests in the SSE Securities held in its omnibus stock account in the CSDCC, the CSDCC as the share registrar for SSE listed companies will still treat HKSCC as one of the shareholders when it handles corporate actions in respect of such SSE Securities. HKSCC monitors the corporate actions affecting SSE Securities and keeps participants of Central Clearing and Settlement System (“CCASS”) informed of all such corporate actions that require CCASS participants to take steps in order to participate in them. Investors may only exercise their voting rights by providing their voting instructions to the HKSCC through participants of the CCASS. All voting instructions from CCASS participants will be consolidated by HKSCC, who will then submit a combined single voting instruction to the relevant SSE-listed company.

The Portfolio’s investments through Stock Connect’s Northbound Trading Link are not covered by Hong Kong’s Investor Compensation Portfolio. Hong Kong’s Investor Compensation Portfolio is established to pay compensation to investors of any nationality who suffer pecuniary losses as a result of default of a licensed intermediary or authorized financial institution in relation to exchange-traded products in Hong Kong. In addition, since the Portfolio is carrying out Northbound trading through securities brokers in Hong Kong but not PRC brokers, it is not protected by the China Securities Investor Protection Portfolio in the PRC.

Market participants are able to participate in Stock Connect subject to meeting certain information technology capability, risk management and other requirements as may be specified by the relevant exchange and/or clearing house. Further, the “connectivity” in Stock Connect requires the routing of orders across the border of Hong Kong and the PRC. This requires the development of new information technology systems on the part of the SEHK and exchange participants. There is no assurance that these systems will function properly or will continue to be adapted to changes and developments in both markets. In the event that the relevant systems fail to function properly, trading in A-shares through Stock Connect could be disrupted.

Stock Connect launched on November 17, 2014 and is in its initial stages. The current regulations are untested and there is no certainty as to how they will be applied or interpreted going forward. In addition, the current regulations are subject to change and there can be no assurance that Stock Connect will not be discontinued. New regulations may be issued from time to time by the regulators and stock exchanges in PRC and Hong Kong in connection with operations, legal enforcement and cross-border trades under Stock Connect. The Portfolio may be adversely affected as a result of such changes. Furthermore, the securities regimes and legal systems of PRC and Hong Kong differ significantly and issues may arise based on these differences. In the event that the relevant systems fail to function properly, trading in both markets through Stock Connect could be disrupted and the Portfolio’s ability to achieve its investment objective may be adversely affected. In addition, the Portfolio’s investments in A-shares through Stock Connect are generally subject to Chinese securities regulations and listing rules, among other restrictions. Further, different fees, costs and taxes are imposed on foreign investors acquiring A-shares obtained through Stock Connect, and these fees, costs and taxes may be higher than comparable fees, costs and taxes imposed on owners of other securities providing similar investment exposure.

A-Share Market Suspension Risk. A-shares may only be bought from, or sold to, the Portfolio at times when the relevant A-shares may be sold or purchased on the relevant Chinese stock exchange. The A-shares market has historically had a higher propensity for trading suspensions than many other global equity markets. Trading suspensions in certain stocks could lead to greater market execution risk and costs for the Portfolio. The SSE currently applies a daily price limit, set at 10%, of the amount of fluctuation permitted in the prices of A-shares during a single trading day. The daily price limit refers to price movements only and does not restrict trading within the relevant limit. There can be no assurance that a liquid market on an exchange will exist for any particular A-share or for any particular time.

INVESTMENT IN OTHER INVESTMENT COMPANIES. Each Portfolio may invest in other investment companies, including exchange-traded funds. In accordance with the 1940 Act, a Portfolio may invest up to 10% of its total assets in securities of other investment companies. In addition, under the 1940 Act, a Portfolio may not own more than 3% of the total outstanding voting stock of any investment company and not more than 5% of the value of the Portfolio's total assets may be invested in securities of any investment company. (These limits do not restrict a Feeder Fund from investing all of its assets in shares of its Master Portfolio).

199

Portfolio acquires shares in investment companies, shareholders would bear both their proportionate share of expenses in the Portfolio (including management and advisory fees) and, indirectly, the expenses of such investment companies (including management and advisory fees). Investments by a Portfolio in wholly-owned investment companies created under the laws of certain countries will not be deemed an investment in other investment companies.

JUNK BONDS. Junk bonds are debt securities that are rated below investment grade by the major rating agencies or are unrated securities that the Investment Managers believe are of comparable quality. Although junk bonds generally pay higher rates of interest than investment grade bonds, they are high risk investments that may cause income and principal losses for a Portfolio. The major risks in junk bond investments include the following:

■	Junk bonds are issued by less credit worthy companies. These securities are vulnerable to adverse changes in the issuer's industry and to general economic conditions. Issuers of junk bonds may be unable to meet their interest or principal payment obligations because of an economic downturn, specific issuer developments or the unavailability of additional financing.
■	The issuers of junk bonds may have a larger amount of outstanding debt relative to their assets than issuers of investment grade bonds. If the issuer experiences financial stress, it may be unable to meet its debt obligations. The issuer's ability to pay its debt obligations also may be lessened by specific issuer developments, or the unavailability of additional financing.
■	Junk bonds are frequently ranked junior to claims by other creditors. If the issuer cannot meet its obligations, the senior obligations are generally paid off before the junior obligations.
■	Junk bonds frequently have redemption features that permit an issuer to repurchase the security from a Portfolio before it matures. If an issuer redeems the junk bonds, a Portfolio may have to invest the proceeds in bonds with lower yields and may lose income.
■	Prices of junk bonds are subject to extreme price fluctuations. Negative economic developments may have a greater impact on the prices of junk bonds than on other higher rated fixed income securities.
■	Junk bonds may be less liquid than higher rated fixed income securities even under normal economic conditions. There are fewer dealers in the junk bond market, and there may be significant differences in the prices quoted for junk bonds by the dealers. Because they are less liquid, judgment may play a greater role in valuing certain of a Portfolio's portfolio securities than in the case of securities trading in a more liquid market.
■	A Portfolio may incur expenses to the extent necessary to seek recovery upon default or to negotiate new terms with a defaulting issuer.

LIQUIDATION OF PORTFOLIOS. Each Portfolio reserves the right to discontinue offering shares at any time, to merge or reorganize itself, or to cease operations and liquidate at any time.

MONEY MARKET INSTRUMENTS. Certain Portfolios may invest in money market instruments. Money market instruments include cash equivalents and short-term obligations of US banks, certificates of deposit, short-term obligations issued or guaranteed by the US Government or its agencies. Money market instruments also include bankers' acceptances, commercial paper, certificates of deposit and Eurodollar obligations issued or guaranteed by bank holding companies in the US, their subsidiaries and foreign branches, by foreign banking institutions, and by the World Bank and other multinational instrumentalities, as well as commercial paper and other short-term obligations of, and variable amount master demand notes, variable rate notes and similar agreements issued by, US and foreign corporations.

MONEY MARKET FUND REFORM. In July 2014, the SEC adopted amendments to Rule 2a-7 under the 1940 Act. Rule 2a-7 imposes quality, liquidity and other requirements on any registered mutual fund that holds itself out to the public as a money market fund. The Government Money Market Portfolio is subject to Rule 2a-7. Compliance with the various provisions of the amendments took effect over the course of 2015 and 2016. The new regulations impact money market funds differently depending upon the types of investors that will be permitted to invest in a fund, and the types of securities in which a fund may invest.

“Retail” money market funds have policies and procedures reasonably designed to limit their beneficial owners to natural persons. All other money market funds are considered to be “institutional” money market funds. Retail and institutional money market funds are further classified by their investments. “Prime” money market funds are permitted to invest primarily in corporate or other non-government securities, “US government” money market funds are required to invest a very high percentage of their assets in US government securities and “municipal” money market funds are required to invest significantly in municipal securities.

Under the revised rule, institutional prime money market funds and institutional municipal money market funds are required to value their portfolio securities using market-based factors, and sell and redeem shares at prices based on a floating net asset value. A floating net asset value is calculated by rounding to the fourth decimal place in the case of a money market fund with a $1.0000 share price. Retail money market funds and institutional US government money market funds are not subject to the floating net asset value requirement.

200

Under the revised rule, any type of money market fund is permitted to impose a discretionary liquidity fee of up to 2% on redemptions or temporarily suspend redemptions (also known as “gate”) if the money market fund’s weekly liquid assets (as defined in Rule 2a-7) fall below 30% of the fund’s total assets and the money market fund’s board of trustees determines that the fee or gate is in the fund’s best interests. Once imposed, a discretionary liquidity fee or redemption gate will remain in effect until the fund’s board of trustees determines that the fee or gate is no longer in the fund’s best interests or the next business day after the fund’s weekly liquid assets return to 30% of the fund’s total assets, whichever occurs first. Regardless, the redemption gate is required to be lifted no later than the 10th business day after the gate is imposed, and a money market fund may not impose a redemption gate for more than 10 business days in any rolling 90-calendar day period.

Under the revised rule, any type of money market fund (except for US government money market funds) is required to impose a liquidity fee of 1% on all redemptions if the money market fund’s weekly liquid assets (as defined in Rule 2a-7) fall below 10% of the fund’s total assets, unless the fund’s board of trustees determines that the fee is not in the fund’s best interests, or that a lower or higher (up to 2%) liquidity fee is in the fund’s best interests.

Other requirements of the revised rule include enhanced website disclosure obligations, the adoption of a new form for disclosure of certain material events (such as the imposition of liquidity fees or redemption gates), stronger diversification requirements and enhanced stress testing.

Pursuant to investment policy changes approved by the Board, effective September 12, 2016, the Government Money Market Portfolio (formerly known as the AST Money Market Portfolio) is managed as a US government money market fund under Rule 2a-7, which means that it invests at least 99.5% or more of its assets in cash, government securities, and/or repurchase agreements that are fully collateralized with cash or other government securities. At the election of the Board, the Government Money Market Portfolio is not subject to a liquidity fee and/or a redemption gate on redemptions, which might apply to other types of money market funds should certain triggering events specified in Rule 2a-7 occur. However, the Board reserves the right, with notice to shareholders, to change the policy with respect to liquidity fees and/or redemption gates, thereby permitting the Portfolio to impose such fees and gates in the future.

MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES. Investing in mortgage-backed securities involves certain unique risks in addition to those generally associated with investing in fixed income securities and in the real estate industry. Mortgage-backed securities are “pass-through” securities, meaning that principal and interest payments made by the borrower on the underlying mortgages are passed through to a Portfolio. The value of mortgage-backed securities, like that of traditional fixed income securities, typically increases when interest rates fall and decreases when interest rates rise. However, mortgage-backed securities differ from traditional fixed income securities because of their potential for prepayment without penalty. The price paid by a Portfolio for its mortgage-backed securities, the yield the Portfolio expects to receive from such securities and the average life of the securities are based on a number of factors, including the anticipated rate of prepayment of the underlying mortgages. In a period of declining interest rates, borrowers may prepay the underlying mortgages more quickly than anticipated, thereby reducing the yield to maturity and the average life of the mortgage-backed securities. Moreover, when a Portfolio reinvests the proceeds of a prepayment in these circumstances, it will likely receive a rate of interest that is lower than the rate on the security that was prepaid.

To the extent that a Portfolio purchases mortgage-backed securities at a premium, mortgage foreclosures and principal prepayments may result in a loss to the extent of the premium paid. If a Portfolio buys such securities at a discount, both scheduled payments of principal and unscheduled prepayments will increase current and total returns and will accelerate the recognition of income which, when distributed to shareholders, will be taxable as ordinary income. In a period of rising interest rates, prepayments of the underlying mortgages may occur at a slower than expected rate, creating maturity extension risk. This particular risk may effectively change a security that was considered short or intermediate-term at the time of purchase into a long-term security. Since long-term securities generally fluctuate more widely in response to changes in interest rates than shorter-term securities, maturity extension risk could increase the inherent volatility of the Portfolio. Under certain interest rate and prepayment scenarios, a Portfolio may fail to recoup fully its investment in mortgage-backed securities notwithstanding any direct or indirect governmental or agency guarantee.

Most mortgage-backed securities are issued by Federal government agencies such as the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae), or by government sponsored enterprises such as the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) or the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae). Principal and interest payments on mortgage-backed securities issued by the Federal government and some Federal government agencies, such as Ginnie Mae, are guaranteed by the Federal government and backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Mortgage-backed securities issued by other government agencies or government sponsored enterprises, such as Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae, are backed only by the credit of the government agency or enterprise and are not backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. While certain mortgage-related securities receive government or private support, there is no assurance that such support will remain in place in the future. Additionally, mortgage-backed securities issued by government agencies or sponsored enterprises like Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae generally have

201

very little credit risk, but may be subject to substantial interest rate risks. Private mortgage-backed securities are issued by private corporations rather than government agencies and are subject to credit risk and interest rate risk. Some mortgage-backed securities, including those issued by government agencies and government-sponsored enterprises, may be based on pools of loans that are originated by an affiliate of the Manager.

In September 2008, the US Treasury placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under conservatorship and appointed the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to manage their daily operations. In addition, the US Treasury entered into purchase agreements with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to provide them with capital in exchange for senior preferred stock. Pass-through securities issued by Fannie Mae are guaranteed as to timely payment of principal and interest by Fannie Mae. Participation certificates representing interests in mortgages from Freddie Mac’s national portfolio are guaranteed as to the timely payment of interest and principal by Freddie Mac. Private, government, or government-related entities may create mortgage loan pools offering pass-through investments in addition to those described above. The mortgages underlying these securities may be alternative mortgage instruments (that is, mortgage instruments whose principal or interest payments may vary or whose terms to maturity may be shorter than customary).

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES. Certain Portfolios may, from time to time, invest in municipal bonds including general obligation and revenue bonds. General obligation bonds are secured by the issuer's pledge of its faith, credit and taxing power for the payment of principal and interest, whereas revenue bonds are payable only from the revenues derived from a particular facility or class of facilities or, in some cases, from the proceeds of a special excise or other specific revenue source. A Portfolio may also invest in municipal notes including tax, revenue and bond anticipation notes which are issued to obtain Portfolios for various public purposes.

Municipal securities include notes and bonds issued by or on behalf of states, territories and possessions of the United States and their political subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities and the District of Columbia, the interest on which is generally eligible for exclusion from federal income tax and, in certain instances, applicable state or local income and personal property taxes. Such securities are traded primarily in the over-the-counter market.

The interest rates payable on certain municipal bonds and municipal notes are not fixed and may fluctuate based upon changes in market rates. Municipal bonds and notes of this type are called “variable rate” obligations. The interest rate payable on a variable rate obligation is adjusted either at predesignated intervals or whenever there is a change in the market rate of interest on which the interest rate payable is based. Other features may include the right whereby a Portfolio may demand prepayment of the principal amount of the obligation prior to its stated maturity (a demand feature) and the right of the issuer to prepay the principal amount prior to maturity. The principal benefit of a variable rate obligation is that the interest rate adjustment minimizes changes in the market value of the obligation. As a result, the purchase of variable rate obligations should enhance the ability of a Portfolio to maintain a stable NAV per share and to sell an obligation prior to maturity at a price approximating the full principal amount of the obligation.

Variable or floating rate securities include participation interests therein and inverse floaters. Floating rate securities normally have a rate of interest that is set as a specific percentage of a designated base rate, such as the rate on Treasury Bonds or Bills. The interest rate on floating rate securities changes whenever there is a change in the designated base interest rate. Variable rate securities provide for a specific periodic adjustment in the interest rate based on prevailing market rates and generally would allow a Portfolio to demand payment of the obligation on short notice at par plus accrued interest, which amount may, at times, be more or less than the amount the Portfolio paid for them. Some floating rate and variable rate securities have maturities longer than 397 calendar days but afford the holder the right to demand payment at dates earlier than the final maturity date. Such floating rate and variable rate securities will be treated as having maturities equal to the demand date or the period of adjustment of the interest rate whichever is longer.

An inverse floater is a debt instrument with a floating or variable interest rate that moves in the opposite direction of the interest rate on another security or the value of an index. Changes in the interest rate on the other security or index inversely affect the residual interest rate paid on the inverse floater, with the result that the inverse floater's price will be considerably more volatile than that of a fixed rate bond. Generally, income from inverse floating rate bonds will decrease when short-term interest rates increase, and will increase when short-term interest rates decrease. Such securities have the effect of providing a degree of investment leverage, since they may increase or decrease in value in response to changes, as an illustration, in market interest rates at a rate that is a multiple (typically two) of the rate at which fixed-rate, long-term, tax-exempt securities increase or decrease in response to such changes. As a result, the market values of such securities generally will be more volatile than the market values of fixed-rate tax-exempt securities. While inverse floaters may expose a Portfolio to leverage risk, they do not constitute borrowings for purposes of a Portfolio's restrictions on borrowings. For additional information relating to inverse floaters, please see “Indexed and Inverse Securities.”

REAL ESTATE RELATED SECURITIES. Although no Portfolio may invest directly in real estate, certain Portfolios may invest in equity securities of issuers that are principally engaged in the real estate industry. Therefore, an investment in such a Portfolio is 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

202

of mortgage Portfolios 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 a Portfolio's investments are concentrated geographically, by property type or in certain other respects, the Portfolio may be subject to certain of the foregoing risks to a greater extent. Investments by a Portfolio in securities of companies providing mortgage servicing will be subject to the risks associated with refinancings and their impact on servicing rights. In addition, if a Portfolio receives rental income or income from the disposition of real property acquired as a result of a default on securities the Portfolio owns, the receipt of such income may adversely affect the Portfolio's ability to retain its tax status as a regulated investment company because of certain income source requirements applicable to regulated investment companies under the Code.

REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUSTS (REITS). Investing in REITs involves certain unique risks in addition to those risks associated with investing in the real estate industry in general. Equity REITs may be affected by changes in the value of the underlying property owned by the REITs, while mortgage REITs may be affected by the quality of any credit extended. REITs are dependent upon management skills, may not be diversified geographically or by property type, and are subject to heavy cash flow dependency, default by borrowers and self-liquidation. REITs must also meet certain requirements under the Code to avoid entity level tax and be eligible to pass-through certain tax attributes of their income to shareholders. REITs are consequently subject to the risk of failing to meet these requirements for favorable tax treatment and of failing to maintain their exemptions from registration under the 1940 Act. REITs are also subject to the risks of changes in the Code, affecting their tax status.

REITs (especially mortgage REITs) are also subject to interest rate risks. When interest rates decline, the value of a REIT's investment in fixed rate obligations can be expected to rise. Conversely, when interest rates rise, the value of a REIT's investment in fixed rate obligations can be expected to decline. In contrast, as interest rates on adjustable rate mortgage loans are reset periodically, yields on a REIT's investments in such loans will gradually align themselves to reflect changes in market interest rates, causing the value of such investments to fluctuate less dramatically in response to interest rate fluctuations than would investments in fixed rate obligations.

Investing in certain REITs involves risks similar to those associated with investing in small capitalization companies. These REITs may have limited financial resources, may trade less frequently and in limited volume and may be subject to more abrupt or erratic price movements than larger company securities. Historically, small capitalization stocks, such as these REITs, have been more volatile in price than the larger capitalization stocks included in the S&P 500 Index. The management of a REIT may be subject to conflicts of interest with respect to the operation of the business of the REIT and may be involved in real estate activities competitive with the REIT. REITs may own properties through joint ventures or in other circumstances in which the REIT may not have control over its investments. REITs may incur significant amounts of leverage.

REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS. A Portfolio may invest in securities pursuant to repurchase agreements. A Portfolio will enter into repurchase agreements only with parties meeting creditworthiness standards as set forth in the Portfolio's repurchase agreement procedures.

Under such agreements, the other party agrees, upon entering into the contract with a Portfolio, to repurchase the security at a mutually agreed-upon time and price in a specified currency, thereby determining the yield during the term of the agreement. This results in a fixed rate of return insulated from market fluctuations during such period, although such return may be affected by currency fluctuations. In the case of repurchase agreements, the prices at which the trades are conducted do not reflect accrued interest on the underlying obligation. Such agreements usually cover short periods, such as under one week. Repurchase agreements may be construed to be collateralized loans by the purchaser to the seller secured by the securities transferred to the purchaser.

In the case of a repurchase agreement, as a purchaser, a Portfolio will require all repurchase agreements to be fully collateralized at all times by cash or other liquid assets in an amount at least equal to the resale price. The seller is required to provide additional collateral if the market value of the securities falls below the repurchase price at any time during the term of the repurchase agreement. In the event of default by the seller under a repurchase agreement construed to be a collateralized loan, the underlying securities are not owned by the Portfolio but only constitute collateral for the seller's obligation to pay the repurchase price. Therefore, the Portfolio may suffer time delays and incur costs or possible losses in connection with disposition of the collateral.

A Portfolio may participate in a joint repurchase agreement account with other investment companies managed by PGIM Investments pursuant to an order of the SEC. On a daily basis, any uninvested cash balances of the Portfolio may be aggregated with those of such investment companies and invested in one or more repurchase agreements. Each Portfolio participates in the income earned or accrued in the joint account based on the percentage of its investment.

203

DOLLAR ROLLS. Certain Portfolios may enter into dollar rolls. In a dollar roll, a Portfolio sells securities for delivery in the current month and simultaneously contracts to repurchase substantially similar (same type and coupon) securities on a specified future date from the same party. During the roll period, a Portfolio foregoes principal and interest paid on the securities. A Portfolio is compensated by the difference between the current sale price and the forward price for the future purchase (often referred to as the drop) as well as by the interest earned on the cash proceeds of the initial sale. The Portfolio will establish a segregated account in which it will maintain cash or other liquid assets, marked to market daily, having a value equal to its obligations in respect of dollar rolls.

Dollar rolls involve the risk that the market value of the securities retained by the Portfolio may decline below the price of the securities, the Portfolio has sold but is obligated to repurchase under the agreement. In the event the buyer of securities under a dollar roll files for bankruptcy or becomes insolvent, the Portfolio's use of the proceeds of the agreement may be restricted pending a determination by the other party, or its trustee or receiver, whether to enforce the Portfolio's obligation to repurchase the securities. Cash proceeds from dollar rolls may be invested in cash or other liquid assets.

SECURITIES LENDING. Unless otherwise noted, the Portfolio may lend its portfolio securities to brokers, dealers and other financial institutions subject to applicable regulatory requirements and guidance, including the requirements that: (1) the aggregate market value of securities loaned will not at any time exceed 33 1/3% of the total assets of the Portfolio; (2) the borrower pledge and maintain with the Portfolio collateral consisting of cash, an irrevocable letter of credit, or securities issued or guaranteed by the US Government having at all times a value of not less than 100% of the value of the securities lent; and (3) the loan be made subject to termination by the Portfolio at any time. Goldman Sachs Bank USA d/b/a Goldman Sachs Agency Lending (GSAL) serves as securities lending agent for the Portfolio, and in that role administers the Portfolio’s securities lending program. As compensation for these services, GSAL receives a portion of any amounts earned by the Portfolio through lending securities.

The Portfolio may invest the cash collateral and/or it may receive a fee from the borrower. To the extent that cash collateral is invested, it will be invested in an affiliated prime money market fund and will be subject to market depreciation or appreciation. The Portfolio will be responsible for any loss that results from this investment of collateral.

On termination of the loan, the borrower is required to return the securities to the Portfolio, and any gain or loss in the market price during the loan would inure to the Portfolio. If the borrower defaults on its obligation to return the securities lent because of insolvency or other reasons, the Portfolio could experience delays and costs in recovering the securities lent or in gaining access to the collateral. In such situations, the Portfolio may sell the collateral and purchase a replacement investment in the market. There is a risk that the value of the collateral could decrease below the value of the replacement investment by the time the replacement investment is purchased.

During the time portfolio securities are on loan, the borrower will pay the Portfolio an amount equivalent to any dividend or interest paid on such securities. Voting or consent rights which accompany loaned securities pass to the borrower. However, all loans may be terminated at any time to facilitate the exercise of voting or other consent rights with respect to matters considered to be material. The Portfolio bears the risk that there may be a delay in the return of the securities which may impair the Portfolio’s ability to exercise such rights.

SECURITIES OF SMALLER OR EMERGING GROWTH COMPANIES. Investment in smaller or emerging growth companies involves greater risk than is customarily associated with investments in more established companies. The securities of smaller or emerging growth companies may be subject to more abrupt or erratic market movements than larger, more established companies or the market average in general. These companies may have limited product lines, markets or financial resources, or they may be dependent on a limited management group.

While smaller or emerging growth company issuers may offer greater opportunities for capital appreciation than large cap issuers, investments in smaller or emerging growth companies may involve greater risks and thus may be considered speculative. The Investment Managers believe that properly selected companies of this type have the potential to increase their earnings or market valuation at a rate substantially in excess of the general growth of the economy. Full development of these companies and trends frequently takes time.

Small cap and emerging growth securities will often be traded only in the over-the-counter market or on a regional securities exchange and may not be traded every day or in the volume typical of trading on a national securities exchange. As a result, the disposition by a Portfolio of portfolio securities to meet redemptions or otherwise may require a Portfolio to make many small sales over a lengthy period of time, or to sell these securities at a discount from market prices or during periods when, in the Investment Managers’ judgment, such disposition is not desirable.

204

While the process of selection and continuous supervision by the Investment Managers does not, of course, guarantee successful investment results, it does provide access to an asset class not available to the average individual due to the time and cost involved. Careful initial selection is particularly important in this area as many new enterprises have promise but lack certain of the factors necessary to prosper. Investing in small cap and emerging growth companies requires specialized research and analysis. In addition, many investors cannot invest sufficient assets in such companies to provide wide diversification.

Small companies are generally little known to most individual investors although some may be dominant in their respective industries. The Investment Managers believe that relatively small companies will continue to have the opportunity to develop into significant business enterprises. A Portfolio may invest in securities of small issuers in the relatively early stages of business development that have a new technology, a unique or proprietary product or service, or a favorable market position. Such companies may not be counted upon to develop into major industrial companies, but Portfolio management believes that eventual recognition of their special value characteristics by the investment community can provide above-average long-term growth to the portfolio.

Equity securities of specific small cap issuers may present different opportunities for long-term capital appreciation during varying portions of economic or securities markets cycles, as well as during varying stages of their business development. The market valuation of small cap issuers tends to fluctuate during economic or market cycles, presenting attractive investment opportunities at various points during these cycles.

Smaller companies, due to the size and kinds of markets that they serve, may be less susceptible than large companies to intervention from the Federal government by means of price controls, regulations or litigation.

SHORT SALES AND SHORT SALES AGAINST-THE-BOX. Certain Portfolios may make short sales of securities, either as a hedge against potential declines in value of a portfolio security or to realize appreciation when a security that the Portfolio does not own declines in value. When a Portfolio makes a short sale, it borrows the security sold short and delivers it to the broker-dealer through which it made the short sale. A Portfolio may have to pay a fee to borrow particular securities and is often obligated to turn over any payments received on such borrowed securities to the lender of the securities. The Trust may not be able to limit any losses resulting from share price volatility if the security indefinitely continues to increase in value at such specified time.

Certain Portfolios may also make short sales against-the-box. A short sale against-the-box is a short sale in which a Portfolio owns an equal amount of the securities sold short, or securities convertible or exchangeable for, with or without payment of any further consideration, such securities. However, if further consideration is required in connection with the conversion or exchange, cash or other liquid assets, in an amount equal to such consideration must be segregated on a Portfolio's records or with its Custodian.

SOVEREIGN DEBT. Investment in sovereign debt can involve a high degree of risk. The governmental entity that controls the repayment of sovereign debt may not be able or willing to repay the principal and/or interest when due in accordance with the terms of such debt. A governmental entity's willingness or ability to repay principal and interest due in a timely manner may be affected by, among other factors, its cash flow situation, the extent of its foreign reserves, the availability of sufficient foreign exchange on the date a payment is due, the relative size of the debt service burden to the economy as a whole, the government entity's policy towards the International Monetary Fund and the political constraints to which a government entity may be subject. Governmental entities may also be dependent on expected disbursements from foreign governments, multilateral agencies and others abroad to reduce principal and interest arrearages on their debt. The commitment on the part of these governments, agencies and others to make such disbursements may be conditioned on the implementation of economic reforms and/or economic performance and the timely service of such debtor's obligations. Failure to implement such reforms, achieve such levels of economic performance or repay principal or interest when due may result in the cancellation of such third parties' commitments to lend Portfolios to the governmental entity, which may further impair such debtor's ability or willingness to timely service its debts. Consequently, governmental entities may default on their sovereign debt. Holders of sovereign debt may be requested to participate in the rescheduling of such debt and to extend further loans to government entities. In the event of a default by a governmental entity, there may be few or no effective legal remedies for collecting on such debt.

205

STANDBY COMMITMENT AGREEMENTS. A Portfolio may enter into standby commitment agreements. These agreements commit a Portfolio, for a stated period of time, to purchase a stated amount of securities that may be issued and sold to that Portfolio at the option of the issuer. The price of the security is fixed at the time of the commitment. At the time of entering into the agreement the Portfolio is paid a commitment fee, regardless of whether or not the security is ultimately issued. A Portfolio will enter into such agreements for the purpose of investing in the security underlying the commitment at a price that is considered advantageous to the Portfolio. A Portfolio will limit its investment in such commitments so that the aggregate purchase price of securities subject to such commitments, together with the value of portfolio securities subject to legal restrictions on resale that affect their marketability, will not exceed 15% of its net assets taken at the time of the commitment. A Portfolio segregates liquid assets in an aggregate amount equal to the purchase price of the securities underlying the commitment. There can be no assurance that the securities subject to a standby commitment will be issued, and the value of the security, if issued, on the delivery date may be more or less than its purchase price. Since the issuance of the security underlying the commitment is at the option of the issuer, the Portfolio may bear the risk of a decline in the value of such security and may not benefit from any appreciation in the value of the security during the commitment period. The purchase of a security subject to a standby commitment agreement and the related commitment fee will be recorded on the date on which the security can reasonably be expected to be issued, and the value of the security thereafter will be reflected in the calculation of a Portfolio's net asset value. The cost basis of the security will be adjusted by the amount of the commitment fee. In the event the security is not issued, the commitment fee will be recorded as income on the expiration date of the standby commitment.

STRIPPED SECURITIES. Stripped securities are created when the issuer separates the interest and principal components of an instrument and sells them as separate securities. In general, one security is entitled to receive the interest payments on the underlying assets (the interest only or “IO” security) and the other to receive the principal payments (the principal only or “PO” security). Some stripped securities may receive a combination of interest and principal payments. The yields to maturity on IOs and POs are sensitive to the expected or anticipated rate of principal payments (including prepayments) on the related underlying assets, and principal payments may have a material effect on yield to maturity. If the underlying assets experience greater than anticipated prepayments of principal, a Portfolio may not fully recoup its initial investment in IOs. Conversely, if the underlying assets experience less than anticipated prepayments of principal, the yield on POs could be adversely affected. Stripped securities may be highly sensitive to changes in interest rates and rates of prepayment.

STRUCTURED NOTES. Certain Portfolios may invest in structured notes. The values of the structured notes in which a Portfolio will invest may be linked to equity securities or equity indices or other instruments or indices(reference instruments). These notes differ from other types of debt securities in several respects. The interest rate or principal amount payable at maturity may vary based on changes in the value of the equity security, instrument,or index. A structured note may be positively or negatively indexed; that is, its value or interest rate may increase or decrease if the value of the reference instrument increases. Similarly, its value may increase or decrease if the value of the reference instrument decreases. Further, the change in the principal amount payable with respect to, or the interest rate of, a structured note may be a multiple of the percentage change (positive or negative) in the value of the underlying reference instrument(s).

Investments in structured notes involve certain risks, including the credit risk of the issuer and the normal risks of price changes in response to changes in interest rates. Further, in the case of certain structured notes, a decline or increase in the value of the reference instrument may cause the interest rate to be reduced to zero, and any further declines or increases in the reference instrument may then reduce the principal amount payable on maturity. The percentage by which the value of the structured note decreases may be far greater than the percentage by which the value of the reference instrument increases or decreases. Finally, these securities may be less liquid than other types of securities, and may be more volatile than their underlying reference instruments.

SUPRANATIONAL ENTITIES. A Portfolio may invest in debt securities of supranational entities . Examples include the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the World Bank), the European Steel and Coal Community, the Asian Development Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. The government members, or “stockholders,” usually make initial capital contributions to the supranational entity and in many cases are committed to make additional capital contributions if the supranational entity is unable to repay its borrowings.

TEMPORARY DEFENSIVE STRATEGY AND SHORT-TERM INVESTMENTS. Each Portfolio may temporarily invest without limit in money market instruments, including commercial paper of US corporations, certificates of deposit, bankers' acceptances and other obligations of domestic banks, and obligations issued or guaranteed by the US government, its agencies or its instrumentalities, as part of a temporary defensive strategy or to maintain liquidity to meet redemptions. Money market instruments typically have a maturity of one year or less as measured from the date of purchase.

A Portfolio also may temporarily hold cash or invest in money market instruments pending investment of proceeds from new sales of Portfolio shares or during periods of portfolio restructuring.

206

TRACERS AND TRAINS. Tradable Custodial Receipts or TRACERS represent an interest in a basket of investment grade corporate credits. Targeted Return Index Securities or TRAINS represent an interest in a basket of high yield securities of varying credit quality. Interests in TRACERS and TRAINS provide a cost-effective alternative to purchasing individual issues.

WARRANTS AND RIGHTS. Warrants and rights are securities permitting, but not obligating, the warrant holder to subscribe for other securities. Buying a warrant does not make a Portfolio a shareholder of the underlying stock. The warrant holder has no right to dividends or votes on the underlying stock. A warrant does not carry any right to assets of the issuer, and for this reason investment in warrants may be more speculative than other equity-based investments.

WHEN ISSUED SECURITIES, DELAYED DELIVERY SECURITIES AND FORWARD COMMITMENTS. A Portfolio may purchase or sell securities that it is entitled to receive on a when issued basis. A Portfolio may also purchase or sell securities on a delayed delivery basis or through a forward commitment. These transactions involve the purchase or sale of securities by a Portfolio at an established price with payment and delivery taking place in the future. A Portfolio enters into these transactions to obtain what is considered an advantageous price to the Portfolio at the time of entering into the transaction. No Portfolio has established any limit on the percentage of its assets that may be committed in connection with these transactions. When a Portfolio purchases securities in these transactions, the Portfolio segregates liquid securities in an amount equal to the amount of its purchase commitments.

There can be no assurance that a security purchased on a when issued basis will be issued or that a security purchased or sold through a forward commitment will be delivered. The value of securities in these transactions on the delivery date may be more or less than the Portfolio's purchase price. The Portfolio may bear the risk of a decline in the value of the security in these transactions and may not benefit from an appreciation in the value of the security during the commitment period.

US GOVERNMENT SECURITIES. Certain Portfolios may invest in adjustable rate and fixed rate US Government securities. US Government securities are instruments issued or guaranteed by the US Treasury or by an agency or instrumentality of the US Government. US Government guarantees do not extend to the yield or value of the securities or a Portfolio's shares. Not all US Government securities are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Some are supported only by the credit of the issuing agency.

US Treasury securities include bills, notes, bonds and other debt securities issued by the US Treasury. These instruments are direct obligations of the US Government and, as such, are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. They differ primarily in their interest rates, the lengths of their maturities and the dates of their issuances. US Government guarantees do not extend to the yield or value of the securities or a Portfolio’s shares.

Securities issued by agencies of the US Government or instrumentalities of the US Government, including those which are guaranteed by Federal agencies or instrumentalities, may or may not be backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Obligations of the Ginnie Mae, the Farmers Home Administration and the Small Business Administration are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. In the case of securities not backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, a Portfolio must look principally to the agency issuing or guaranteeing the obligation for ultimate repayment and may not be able to assert a claim against the United States if the agency or instrumentality does not meet its commitments.

Certain Portfolios may also invest in component parts of US Government securities, namely either the corpus (principal) of such obligations or one or more of the interest payments scheduled to be paid on such obligations. These obligations may take the form of (1) obligations from which the interest coupons have been stripped; (2) the interest coupons that are stripped; (3) book-entries at a Federal Reserve member bank representing ownership of obligation components; or (4) receipts evidencing the component parts (corpus or coupons) of US Government obligations that have not actually been stripped. Such receipts evidence ownership of component parts of US Government obligations (corpus or coupons) purchased by a third party (typically an investment banking firm) and held on behalf of the third party in physical or book-entry form by a major commercial bank or trust company pursuant to a custody agreement with the third party. A Portfolio may also invest in custodial receipts held by a third party that are not US Government securities. US Government securities may be affected by changing interest rates.

ZERO COUPON SECURITIES, PAY-IN-KIND SECURITIES AND DEFERRED PAYMENT SECURITIES. Certain Portfolios may invest in zero coupon securities. Zero coupon securities are securities that are sold at a discount to par value and on which interest payments are not made during the life of the security. The discount approximates the total amount of interest the security will accrue and compound over the period until maturity on the particular interest payment date at a rate of interest reflecting the market rate of the security at the time of issuance. Upon maturity, the holder is entitled to receive the par value of the security. While interest payments are not made on such securities, holders of such securities are deemed to have received income (phantom income) annually, notwithstanding that cash may not be received currently. The effect of owning instruments that do not make current interest payments is that a fixed yield is earned not only on the original investment but also, in effect, on all discount accretion during the life of the

207

obligations. This implicit reinvestment of earnings at the same rate eliminates the risk of being unable to invest distributions at a rate as high as the implicit yield on the zero coupon bond, but at the same time eliminates the holder's ability to reinvest at higher rates in the future. For this reason, some of these securities may be subject to substantially greater price fluctuations during periods of changing market interest rates than are comparable securities that pay interest currently, which fluctuation increases the longer the period to maturity. These investments benefit the issuer by mitigating its need for cash to meet debt service, but also require a higher rate of return to attract investors who are willing to defer receipt of cash.

A Portfolio accrues income with respect to these securities for Federal income tax and accounting purposes prior to the receipt of cash payments. Zero coupon securities may be subject to greater fluctuation in value and lesser liquidity in the event of adverse market conditions than comparable rated securities paying cash interest at regular intervals. In addition to the above-described risks, there are certain other risks related to investing in zero coupon securities. During a period of severe market conditions, the market for such securities may become even less liquid. In addition, as these securities do not pay cash interest, a Portfolio's investment exposure to these securities and their risks, including credit risk, will increase during the time these securities are held in the Portfolio's portfolio. Further, to maintain its qualification for pass-through treatment under the Federal tax laws, a Portfolio is required to distribute income to its shareholders and, consequently, may have to dispose of its portfolio securities under disadvantageous circumstances to generate the cash, or may have to leverage itself by borrowing the cash to satisfy these distributions, as they relate to the income accrued but not yet received. The required distributions will result in an increase in a Portfolio's exposure to such securities.

Pay-in-kind securities are securities that have interest payable by delivery of additional securities. Upon maturity, the holder is entitled to receive the aggregate par value of the securities. Deferred payment securities are securities that remain a zero coupon security until a predetermined date, at which time the stated coupon rate becomes effective and interest becomes payable at regular intervals. Holders of these types of securities are deemed to have received income (phantom income) annually, notwithstanding that cash may not be received currently. The effect of owning instruments which do not make current interest payments is that a fixed yield is earned not only on the original investment but also, in effect, on all discount accretion during the life of the obligations. This implicit reinvestment of earnings at the same rate eliminates the risk of being unable to invest distributions at a rate as high as the implicit yield on the zero coupon bond, but at the same time eliminates the holder's ability to reinvest at higher rates in the future. For this reason, some of these securities may be subject to substantially greater price fluctuations during periods of changing market interest rates than are comparable securities which pay interest currently, which fluctuation increases the longer the period to maturity. These investments benefit the issuer by mitigating its need for cash to meet debt service, but also require a higher rate of return to attract investors who are willing to defer receipt of cash. Zero coupon, pay-in-kind and deferred payment securities may be subject to greater fluctuation in value and lesser liquidity in the event of adverse market conditions than comparable rated securities paying cash interest at regular intervals.

In addition to the above described risks, there are certain other risks related to investing in zero coupon, pay-in-kind and deferred payment securities. During a period of severe market conditions, the market for such securities may become even less liquid. In addition, as these securities do not pay cash interest, the Portfolio's investment exposure to these securities and their risks, including credit risk, will increase during the time these securities are held in the Portfolio's portfolio. Further, to maintain its qualification for pass-through treatment under the federal tax laws, the Portfolio is required to distribute income to its shareholders and, consequently, may have to dispose of its portfolio securities under disadvantageous circumstances to generate the cash, or may have to leverage itself by borrowing the cash to satisfy these distributions, as they relate to the distribution of phantom income and the value of the paid-in-kind interest. The required distributions will result in an increase in the Portfolio's exposure to such securities.

NET ASSET VALUES

Any purchase or sale of Portfolio shares is made at the net asset value, or NAV, of such shares. The price at which a purchase or redemption is made is based on the next calculation of the NAV after the order is received in good order. The NAV of each Portfolio is typically determined on each day the NYSE is open for trading as of the close of the exchange's regular trading session (which is generally 4:00 p.m. New York time). The Trust will not treat an intraday unscheduled disruption in NYSE trading as a closure of the NYSE and will price its shares as of 4:00 p.m. if the particular disruption directly affects only the NYSE. The NYSE is closed on most national holidays and Good Friday. The Trust does not price, and shareholders will not be able to purchase or redeem, the Trust's shares on days when the NYSE is closed but the primary markets for the Trust's foreign securities are open, even though the value of these securities may have changed. Conversely, the Trust will ordinarily price its shares, and shareholders may purchase and redeem shares, on days that the NYSE is open but foreign securities markets are closed.

208

use of fair value pricing most commonly occurs with securities that are primarily traded outside of the US because such securities present time-zone arbitrage opportunities when events or conditions affecting the prices of specific securities or the prices of securities traded in such markets generally occur after the close of the foreign markets but prior to the time that a Portfolio determines its NAV.

The Trust may also use fair value pricing with respect to US traded securities if, for example, trading in a particular security is halted and does not resume before a Portfolio calculates its NAV or the exchange on which a security is traded closes early. In addition, fair value pricing is used for securities where the pricing agent or principal market maker does not provide a valuation or methodology or provides a valuation or methodology that, in the judgment of the Investment Managers (or subadviser) does not represent fair value. Different valuation methods may result in differing values for the same security. The fair value of a portfolio security that a Portfolio uses to determine its NAV may differ from the security's published or quoted price. If a Portfolio needs to implement fair value pricing after the NAV publishing deadline but before shares of the Portfolio are processed, the NAV you receive or pay may differ from the published NAV price. For purposes of computing each Portfolio's NAV, we will value the each Portfolio's futures contracts 15 minutes after the close of regular trading on the NYSE. Except when we fair value securities, we normally value each foreign security held by the Trust as of the close of the security's primary market.

Fair value pricing procedures are designed to result in prices for a Portfolio's securities and its NAV that are reasonable in light of the circumstances which make or have made market quotations unavailable or unreliable, and to reduce arbitrage opportunities available to short-term traders. There is no assurance, however, that fair value pricing will more accurately reflect the market value of a security than the market price of such security on that day or that it will prevent dilution of a Portfolio's NAV by short-term traders. In the event that the fair valuation of a security results in a change of $0.01 or more to a Portfolio’s NAV per share and/or in the aggregate results in a change of one half of one percent or more of a Portfolio’s daily NAV, the Board of Trustees shall promptly be notified, in detail, of the fair valuation, and the fair valuation will be reported on at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting. Also, the Board of Trustees receives, on an interim basis, minutes of the meetings of the Trust’s Valuation Committee that occur between regularly scheduled Board meetings.

The NAV for each of the Portfolios other than the Government Money Market Portfolio is determined by a simple calculation. It's the total value of a Portfolio (assets minus liabilities) divided by the total number of shares outstanding. As explained below, the Government Money Market Portfolio uses the amortized cost method of valuation, which is designed to permit the Government Money Market Portfolio to maintain a stable NAV of $1 per share. Although the price of each share is designed to remain the same, the Government Money Market Portfolio issues additional shares when dividends are declared.

To determine a Portfolio's NAV, its holdings are valued as follows:

Equity securities for which the primary market is on an exchange (whether domestic or foreign) shall be valued at the last sale price on such exchange or market on the day of valuation or, if there was no sale on such day, at the mean between the last bid and asked prices on such day or at the last bid price on such day in the absence of an asked price. Securities included within the NASDAQ market shall be valued at the NASDAQ official closing price (NOCP) on the day of valuation, or if there was no NOCP issued, at the last sale price on such day. Securities included within the NASDAQ market for which there is no NOCP and no last sale price on the day of valuation shall be valued at the mean between the last bid and asked prices on such day or at the last bid price on such day in the absence of an asked price. Equity securities that are not sold on an exchange or NASDAQ are generally valued by an independent pricing agent or principal market maker.

A Portfolio may own securities that are primarily listed on foreign exchanges that trade on weekends or other days when the Portfolios do not price their shares. Therefore, the value of a Portfolio's assets may change on days when shareholders cannot purchase or redeem Portfolio shares.

All Short-term Debt Securities held by the Government Money Market Portfolio are valued at amortized cost. The amortized cost valuation method is widely used by mutual funds. It means that the security is valued initially at its purchase price and then decreases in value by equal amounts each day until the security matures. It almost always results in a value that is extremely close to the actual market value. The Trust's Board of Trustees has established procedures to monitor whether any material deviation between valuation and market value occurs and if so, will promptly consider what action, if any, should be taken to prevent unfair results to Contract owners.

For each Portfolio other than the Government Money Market Portfolio, short-term debt securities, including bonds, notes, debentures and other debt securities, and money market instruments such as certificates of deposit, commercial paper, bankers' acceptances and obligations of domestic and foreign banks for which market quotations are readily available, are valued by an independent pricing agent or principal market maker (if available, otherwise a primary market dealer).

209

Convertible debt securities that are traded in the over-the-counter market, including listed convertible debt securities for which the primary market is believed by PGIM Investments or a subadviser to be over-the-counter, are valued on the day of valuation at an evaluated bid price provided by an independent pricing agent or, in the absence of valuation provided by an independent pricing agent, at the bid price provided by a principal market maker or primary market dealer.

Other debt securities—those that are not valued on an amortized cost basis—are valued using an independent pricing service. Options on stock and stock indexes that are traded on a national securities exchange are valued at the last sale price on such exchange on the day of valuation or, if there was no such sale on such day, at the mean between the most recently quoted bid and asked prices on such exchange.

Futures contracts and options on futures contracts are valued at the last sale price at the close of the commodities exchange or board of trade on which they are traded. If there has been no sale that day, the securities will be valued at the mean between the most recently quoted bid and asked prices on that exchange or board of trade.

Forward currency exchange contracts are valued at the cost of covering or offsetting such contracts calculated on the day of valuation. Securities which are valued in accordance herewith in a currency other than US dollars shall be converted to US dollar equivalents at a rate obtained from a recognized bank, dealer or independent service on the day of valuation.

Over-the-counter (OTC) options are valued at the mean between bid and asked prices provided by a dealer (which may be the counterparty). A subadviser will monitor the market prices of the securities underlying the OTC options with a view to determining the necessity of obtaining additional bid and ask quotations from other dealers to assess the validity of the prices received from the primary pricing dealer.

TAXATION

This discussion of federal income tax consequences applies to the Participating Insurance Companies because they are the direct shareholders of the Trust. Contract owners should consult their Contract prospectus for information relating to the tax matters applicable to their Contracts. In addition, variable contract owners may wish to consult with their own tax advisors as to the tax consequences of investments in the Trust, including the application of state and local taxes.

Each Portfolio currently intends to be treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. As a result, each Portfolio's income, gains, losses, deductions, and credits will be “passed through” pro rata directly to the Participating Insurance Companies and retain the same character for federal income tax purposes. Distributions may be made to the various separate accounts of the Participating Insurance Companies in the form of additional shares (not in cash).

Under Code Section 817(h), a segregated asset account upon which a variable annuity contract or variable life insurance policy is based must be “adequately diversified.” A segregated asset account will be adequately diversified if it satisfies one of two alternative tests set forth in Treasury regulations. For purposes of these alternative diversification tests, a segregated asset account investing in shares of a regulated investment company will be entitled to “look-through” the regulated investment company to its pro rata portion of the regulated investment company's assets, provided the regulated investment company satisfies certain conditions relating to the ownership of its shares. The Trust intends to satisfy these ownership conditions. Further, the Trust intends that each Portfolio separately will be adequately diversified. Accordingly, a segregated asset account investing solely in shares of a Portfolio will be adequately diversified, and a segregated asset account investing in shares of one or more Portfolios and shares of other adequately diversified funds generally will be adequately diversified.

The foregoing discussion of federal income tax consequences is based on tax laws and regulations in effect on the date of this SAI, and is subject to change by legislative or administrative action. A description of other tax considerations generally affecting the Trust and its shareholders is found in the section of the Prospectus entitled “Federal Income Taxes.” No attempt is made to present a detailed explanation of the tax treatment of the Trust or its shareholders. No attempt is made to present a detailed explanation of state or local tax matters. The discussion herein and in the Prospectus is not intended as a substitute for careful tax planning.

DISCLOSURE OF PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS

PORTFOLIOS OTHER THAN THE GOVERNMENT MONEY MARKET PORTFOLIO. Each Portfolio's portfolio holdings as of the end of the second and fourth fiscal quarters are made public, as required by law, in the Trust's annual and semi-annual reports. These reports are filed with the SEC on Form N-CSR and mailed to shareholders within 60 days after the end of the second and fourth fiscal quarters. The Trust's annual and semi-annual reports are posted on the Trust's website. Each Portfolio's portfolio holdings as of the end of the first and third fiscal quarters are made public and filed with the SEC on Form N-Q within 60 days after the end of the Portfolio's first and third fiscal quarters. In addition, the Trust may provide a full list of each Portfolio's portfolio holdings as of the end of each month on its website no sooner than approximately three business days prior to the end of the following month. The Trust may also

210

release, at a sleeve level and/or the composite level, each Portfolio's top ten holdings (or in the case of a fund of funds the complete list of portfolio funds and/or the top ten holdings of the portfolio funds), and summary statistics regarding sectors, countries and/or industries and other characteristics, as of each month end, with all such information posted to the Trust’s website approximately 15 days after the end of the month, unless noted otherwise herein.

In addition to the forgoing, the AST Quantitative Modeling Portfolio may disclose on its website on both the 15th day of each month and the last day of each month a percentage breakdown of its assets that are invested in Equity Underlying Portfolios (as defined in its Prospectus) versus Debt-Money Market Underlying Portfolios (as defined in its Prospectus). Such information for the AST Quantitative Modeling Portfolio shall be as of a date at least five calendar days prior to its release. If the 15th day or the last day of any particular month is a non-business day, such holdings information for the AST Quantitative Modeling Portfolio shall be provided as of the immediately preceding business day.

GOVERNMENT MONEY MARKET PORTFOLIO. The Government Money Market Portfolio will release complete portfolio holdings and certain other portfolio information to the SEC as filed on Form N-MFP and to its website as required by Rules 2a-7 and 301b-7 of the Investment Company Act of 1940.

When authorized by the Trust's Chief Compliance Officer and another officer of the Trust, portfolio holdings information may be disseminated more frequently or at different periods than as described above. The Trust has entered into ongoing arrangements to make available information about the Trust's portfolio holdings. Parties receiving this information may include intermediaries that distribute the Trust’s shares, third party providers of auditing, custody, proxy voting and other services for the Trust, rating and ranking organizations, and certain affiliated persons of the Trust, as described below. The procedures utilized to determine eligibility are set forth below:

Procedures for Release of Portfolio Holdings Information:

1. A request for release of Portfolio holdings shall be provided by such third party setting forth a legitimate business purpose for such release which shall specify the Portfolio, the terms of such release, and frequency (e.g., level of detail staleness). The request shall address whether there are any conflicts of interest between the Portfolio and the investment adviser, sub-adviser, principal underwriter or any affiliated person thereof and how such conflicts shall be dealt with to demonstrate that the disclosure is in the best interest of the shareholders of the Portfolio.

2. The request shall be forwarded to the Chief Compliance Officer of the Trust, or his delegate, for review and approval.

3. A confidentiality agreement in the form approved by an officer of the Trust must be executed with the recipient of the Portfolio holdings information.

4. An officer of the Portfolio shall approve the release and agreement. Copies of the release and agreement shall be sent to PGIM Investments’ law department.

5. Written notification of the approval shall be sent by such officer to PGIM Investments’ Fund Administration Department to arrange the release of Portfolio holdings information.

6. PGIM Investments’ Fund Administration Department shall arrange for the release of Portfolio holdings information by the Portfolio's custodian bank(s).

As of the date of this Statement of Additional Information, the Trust will provide:

1. Traditional External Recipients/Vendors

■	Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers LLC uses a third party called Syntel Inc. to assist with the custodial reconciliation process.
■	Full holdings on a daily basis to RiskMetrics Group, Broadridge and Glass, Lewis & Co (proxy voting administrator/agents) at the end of each day;
■	Full holdings on a daily basis to RickMetrics Group (securities class action claims services administrator) at the end of each day;
■	Full holdings on a daily basis to each Portfolio's subadviser(s) (as identified in the Trust’s prospectus), Custodian Bank (Bank of New York and/or PNC, as applicable), sub-custodian (Citibank, NA (foreign sub-custodian)) and accounting agents (which includes the Custodian Bank and any other accounting agent that may be appointed) at the end of each day. When a Portfolio has more than one subadviser, each subadviser receives holdings information only with respect to the “sleeve” or segment of the Portfolio for which the subadviser has responsibility;
■	Full holdings to a Portfolio's independent registered public accounting firm (KPMG LLP) as soon as practicable following the Portfolio's fiscal year-end or on an as-needed basis; and

211

■	Full holdings to financial printers (RR Donnelly and/or VG Reed, as applicable) as soon as practicable following the end of a Portfolio's quarterly, semi-annual and annual period ends.

2. Analytical Service Providers

■	Portfolio trades on a quarterly basis to Abel/Noser Corp. (an agency-only broker and transaction cost analysis company) as soon as practicable following a Portfolio's fiscal quarter-end;
■	Full holdings on a daily basis to FT Interactive Data (a fair value information service) at the end of each day;
■	Full holdings on a daily basis to FactSet Research Systems, Inc. and Lipper, Inc. (analytical services/investment research providers) at the end of each day;
■	Full holdings on a daily basis to Vestek (for preparation of fact sheets) at the end of each day (Target Funds and selected PGIM Investments Funds only);
■	Full holdings on a quarterly basis to Plexus (review of brokerage transactions) as soon as practicable following a Portfolio's fiscal quarter-end;
■	Full holdings on a daily basis to Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. (certain operational functions) (AST Wellington Management Hedged Equity Portfolio only) at the end of each day;
■	Full holdings on a daily basis to FactSet Research Systems Inc. (analytical services) (AST Wellington Management Hedged Equity Portfolio only) at the end of each day;
■	Full holdings on a daily basis to Glass, Lewis & Co. (proxy voting services) (AST Wellington Management Hedged Equity Portfolio only) at the end of each day;
■	Full holdings on a daily basis to Markit WSO Corporation (certain operational functions) (AST Wellington Management Hedged Equity Portfolio only) at the end of each day;
■	Full holdings on a daily basis to State Street Bank and Trust Company (certain operational functions) (AST Wellington Management Hedged Equity Portfolio only) at the end of each day;
■	Full holdings on a daily basis to Bloomberg LP (analytical services) (AST Wellington Management Hedged Equity Portfolio only) at the end of each day;
■	Full holdings on a daily basis to Moody's Analytics Knowledge Services (UK) Limited (formerly, Copal Partners (UK) Limited) (certain investment guideline monitoring and coding activities, as well as analytical services and reporting functions) (AST Wellington Management Hedged Equity Portfolio only) at the end of each day;
■	Full holdings on a daily basis to MSCI, Inc (analytical services) (AST Wellington Management Hedged Equity Portfolio only) at the end of each day;
■	Full holdings on a daily basis to Syntel Inc. (certain operational functions) (AST Wellington Management Hedged Equity Portfolio only) at the end of each day.

In each case, the information disclosed must be for a legitimate business purpose and is subject to a confidentiality agreement intended to prohibit the recipient from trading on or further disseminating such information (except for legitimate business purposes). Such arrangements will be monitored on an ongoing basis and will be reviewed by the Trust's Chief Compliance Officer and PGIM Investments’ Law Department on an annual basis.

In addition, certain authorized employees of PGIM Investments receive portfolio holdings information on a quarterly, monthly or daily basis or upon request, in order to perform their business functions. All PGIM Investments employees are subject to the requirements of the personal securities trading policy of Prudential Financial, Inc., which prohibits employees from trading on, or further disseminating confidential information, including portfolio holdings information.

In no instance may the Investment Manager or the Trust receive any compensation or consideration in exchange for the portfolio holdings information.

The Board of Trustees of the Trust has approved PGIM Investments’ Policy for the Dissemination of Portfolio Holdings. The Board shall, on a quarterly basis, be advised of any revisions to the list of detailing the recipients of the portfolio holdings information and the reason for such disclosure. The Board has delegated oversight of the Trust's disclosure of portfolio holdings to the Chief Compliance Officer.

Arrangements pursuant to which the Trust discloses non-public information with respect to its portfolio holdings do not provide for any compensation in return for the disclosure of the information.

There can be no assurance that the Trust's policies and procedures on portfolio holdings information will protect the Trust from the potential misuse of such information by individuals or entities that come into possession of the information.

212

PROXY VOTING

The Board has delegated to the Trust's investment manager, PGIM Investments, the responsibility for voting any proxies and maintaining proxy recordkeeping with respect to each Portfolio. The Trust authorizes the Manager to delegate, in whole or in part, its proxy voting authority to its investment subadviser or third party vendors consistent with the policies set forth below. The proxy voting process shall remain subject to the supervision of the Board, including any committee thereof established for that purpose.

The Manager and the Board view the proxy voting process as a component of the investment process and, as such, seek to ensure that all proxy proposals are voted with the primary goal of seeking the optimal benefit for each Portfolio. Consistent with this goal, the Board views the proxy voting process as a means to encourage strong corporate governance practices and ethical conduct by corporate management. The Manager and the Board maintain a policy of seeking to protect the best interests of each Portfolio should a proxy issue potentially implicate a conflict of interest between a Portfolio and the Manager or its affiliates.

The Manager delegates to each Portfolio's subadviser(s) the responsibility for voting each Portfolio's proxies. The subadviser is expected to identify and seek to obtain the optimal benefit for the Portfolio it manages, and to adopt written policies that meet certain minimum standards, including that the policies be reasonably designed to protect the best interests of a Portfolio and delineate procedures to be followed when a proxy vote presents a conflict between the interests of the Portfolio and the interests of the subadviser or its affiliates.

The Manager and the Board expect that the subadviser will notify the Manager and the Board at least annually of any such conflicts identified and confirm how the issue was resolved. In addition, the Manager expects that the subadviser will deliver to the Manager, or its appointed vendor, information required for filing the Form N-PX with the SEC. Information regarding how each Portfolio of the Trust voted proxies relating to its portfolio securities during the most recent twelve-month period ended June 30 is available on the Trust’s website and on the SEC's website at www.sec.gov.

CODES OF ETHICS

The Board of the Trust has adopted a Code of Ethics. In addition, the Investment Manager, investment subadviser(s) and Distributor have each adopted a Code of Ethics (the Codes). The Codes apply to access persons (generally, persons who have access to information about a Portfolio's investment program) and permit personnel subject to the Codes to invest in securities, including securities that may be purchased or held by a Portfolio. However, the protective provisions of the Codes prohibit certain investments and limit such personnel from making investments during periods when the Portfolio is making such investments. The Codes are on public file with, and are available from, the SEC.

APPENDIX I: DESCRIPTION OF BOND RATINGS

STANDARD & POOR'S RATINGS SERVICES (S&P)

Long-Term Issue Credit Ratings

AAA: An obligation rated AAA has the highest rating assigned by S&P. The obligor's capacity to meet its financial commitment on the obligation is extremely strong.

AA: An obligation rated AA differs from the highest rated obligations only in small degree. The obligor's capacity to meet its financial commitment on the obligation is very strong.

A: An obligation rated A is somewhat more susceptible to the adverse effects of changes in circumstances and economic conditions than obligations in higher-rated categories. However, the obligor's capacity to meet its financial commitment on the obligation is still strong.

BBB: An obligation rated BBB exhibits adequate protection parameters. However, adverse economic conditions or changing circumstances are more likely to lead to a weakened capacity of the obligor to meet its financial commitment on the obligation.

213

BB: An obligation rated BB is less vulnerable to nonpayment than other speculative issues. However, it faces major ongoing uncertainties or exposure to adverse business, financial, or economic conditions which could lead to the obligor's inadequate capacity to meet its financial commitment on the obligation.

B: An obligation rated B is more vulnerable to nonpayment than obligations rated BB, but the obligor currently has the capacity to meet its financial commitment on the obligation. Adverse business, financial, or economic conditions will likely impair the obligor's capacity or willingness to meet its financial commitment on the obligation.

CCC: An obligation rated CCC is currently vulnerable to nonpayment, and is dependent upon favorable business, financial, and economic conditions for the obligor to meet its financial commitment on the obligation. In the event of adverse business, financial, or economic conditions, the obligor is not likely to have the capacity to meet its financial commitment on the obligation.

CC: An obligation rated CC is currently highly vulnerable to nonpayment.

C: The C rating may be used to cover a situation where a bankruptcy petition has been filed or similar action has been taken, but payments on this obligation are being continued.

Plus (+) or Minus (–): The ratings from AA to CCC may be modified by the addition of a plus or minus sign to show relative standing within the major rating categories

Commercial Paper Ratings

A-1: This designation indicates that the degree of safety regarding timely payment is strong. Those issues determined to possess extremely strong safety characteristics are denoted with a plus sign (+) designation.

A-2: Capacity for timely payment on issues with this designation is satisfactory. However, the relative degree of safety is not as high as for issues designated A-1.

Notes Ratings

An S&P notes rating reflects the liquidity factors and market risks unique to notes. Notes due in three years or less will likely receive a notes rating. Notes maturing beyond three years will most likely receive a long-term debt rating. The following criteria will be used in making that assessment.

■	Amortization schedule-the longer the final maturity relative to other maturities the more likely it will be treated as a note.
■	Source of payment-the more dependent the issue is on the market for its refinancing, the more likely it will be treated as a note.

Note rating symbols are as follows:

SP-1: Strong capacity to pay principal and interest. An issue determined to possess a very strong capacity to pay debt service is given a plus (+) designation.

SP-2: Satisfactory capacity to pay principal and interest, with some vulnerability to adverse financial and economic changes over the term of the notes.

MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC. (MOODY'S)

Debt Ratings

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

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

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

214

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

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

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

Caa: Bonds which are rated Caa are of poor standing. Such issues may be in default or there may be present elements of danger with respect to principal or interest.

Ca: Bonds which are rated Ca represent obligations which are speculative in a high degree. Such issues are often in default or have other marked shortcomings.

C: Bonds which are rated C are the lowest-rated class of bonds, and issues so rated can be regarded as having extremely poor prospects of ever attaining any real investment standing.

Moody's applies numerical modifiers 1, 2, and 3 in each generic rating category from Aa to Caa. The modifier 1 indicates that the issuer is in the higher end of its letter rating category; the modifier 2 indicates a mid-range ranking; the modifier 3 indicates that the issuer is in the lower end of the letter ranking category.

Short-Term Ratings

Moody's short-term debt ratings are opinions of the ability of issuers to honor senior financial obligations and contracts. Such obligations generally have an original maturity not exceeding one year, unless explicitly noted.

PRIME-1: Issuers rated Prime-1 (or supporting institutions) have a superior ability for repayment of senior short-term debt obligations. Prime-1 repayment ability will often be evidenced by many of the following characteristics:

■	Leading market positions in well-established industries.
■	High rates of return on Portfolios employed.
■	Conservative capitalization structure with moderate reliance on debt and ample asset protection.
■	Broad margins in earnings coverage of fixed financial charges and high internal cash generation.
■	Well-established access to a range of financial markets and assured sources of alternate liquidity.

PRIME-2: Issuers rated Prime-2 (or supporting institutions) have a strong ability for repayment of senior short-term debt obligations. This normally will be evidenced by many of the characteristics cited above but to a lesser degree. Earnings trends and coverage ratios, while sound, may be more subject to variation. Capitalization characteristics, while still appropriate, may be more affected by external conditions. Ample alternate liquidity is maintained.

MIG 1: This designation denotes best quality. There is strong protection by established cash flows, superior liquidity support or demonstrated broad-based access to the market for refinancing.

MIG 2: This designation denotes high quality. Margins of protection are ample although not so large as in the proceeding group.

FITCH, INC.

International Long-Term Credit Ratings

AAA: Highest Credit Quality. AAA ratings denote the lowest expectation of credit risk. They are assigned only in case of exceptionally strong capacity for timely payment of financial commitments. This capacity is highly unlikely to be adversely affected by foreseeable events.

AA: Very High Credit Quality. AA ratings denote a very low expectation of credit risk. They indicate very strong capacity for timely payment of financial commitments. This capacity is not significantly vulnerable to foreseeable events.

A: High Credit Quality. A ratings denote a low expectation of credit risk. The capacity for timely payment of financial commitments is considered strong. This capacity may, nevertheless, be more vulnerable to changes in circumstances or in economic conditions than is the case for higher ratings.

215

BBB: Good Credit Quality. BBB ratings indicate that there is currently a low expectation of credit risk. The capacity for timely payment of financial commitments is considered adequate, but adverse changes in circumstances and in economic conditions are more likely to impair this capacity. This is the lowest investment-grade category.

BB: Speculative. BB ratings indicate that there is a possibility of credit risk developing, particularly as the result of adverse economic change over time; however, business or financial alternatives may be available to allow financial commitments to be met. Securities rated in this category are not investment grade.

B: Highly Speculative. B ratings indicate that significant credit risk is present, but a limited margin of safety remains. Financial commitments are currently being met; however, capacity for continued payment is contingent upon a sustained, favorable business and economic environment.

CCC, CC, C: High Default Risk. Default is a real possibility. Capacity for meeting financial commitments is solely reliant upon sustained, favorable business or economic developments. A CC rating indicates that default of some kind appears probable. C ratings signal imminent default.

International Short-Term Credit Ratings

F1: Highest Credit Quality. Indicates the strongest capacity for timely payment of financial commitments; may have an added “+” to denote any exceptionally strong credit feature.

F2: Good Credit Quality. A satisfactory capacity for timely payment of financial commitments, but the margin of safety is not as great as in the case of the higher ratings.

F3: Fair Credit Quality. The capacity for timely payment of financial commitments is adequate; however, near-term adverse changes could result in a reduction to non-investment grade.

B: Speculative. Minimal capacity for timely payment of financial commitments, plus vulnerability to near-term adverse changes in financial and economic conditions.

C: High Default Risk. Default is a real possibility. Capacity for meeting financial commitments is solely reliant upon a sustained, favorable business and economic investment.

Plus (+) or Minus (–): Plus or minus signs may be appended to a rating to denote relative status within major rating categories. Such suffixes are not added to the AAA long-term rating category, to categories below CCC, or to short-term ratings other than F1.

APPENDIX II: PROXY VOTING POLICIES OF THE SUBADVISERS

AFFINITY INVESTMENT ADVISORS, LLC

Proxy Voting Policy

The Client will retain discretion with respect to voting proxies, or will delegate discretion with respect to voting such proxies to a third party. The Custodian Bank of the Account will forward to the Client or its designee (including Affinity if Client delegates to the discretion to vote such proxies) any proxy materials it receives that pertains to the securities in the Account.

In the event Client delegates proxy voting discretion to Affinity then, unless otherwise given specific instructions in writing by Client, Affinity shall vote all proxies according to Glass Lewis & Co.’s Proxy Paper and Investment Manager Guidelines (Guidelines). The Guidelines are designed to maximize returns for investment managers by voting in a manner consistent with such managers’ active investment decision-making. The Guidelines are designed to increase investor’s potential financial gain through the use of the shareholder vote while also allowing management and the board discretion to direct the operations, including governance and compensation, of the firm. The Guidelines will ensure that all issues brought to shareholders are analyzed in light of the fiduciary responsibilities unique to investment advisors on behalf of Clients. The Guidelines will encourage the maximization of return for such Clients through identifying and avoiding financial, audit and corporate governance risks.

Affinity shall retain originals or copies of proxy materials it receives and a record of how it voted through Broadridge’s, (a third-party provider) Proxy Edge platform. In addition, other than forwarding to Client any materials received by Affinity with respect to legal actions (such as notices of bankruptcy and class action suits) pertaining to assets in the Account, Affinity will take no actions with respect to such legal actions, which remains the responsibility of the Client. Affinity will be responsible for voting with respect to corporate actions, such as tender offers and rights offering, involving the securities in the Account. The potential for conflicts of interests with respect to proxy votes is mitigated as result of the firm’s adoption of the Guidelines of a third-party provider.

216

Affinity is not required to vote every client proxy and refraining from voting should not necessarily be construed as a violation of Affinity’s fiduciary obligations. Affinity shall at no time ignore or neglect its proxy voting responsibilities. However, there may be times when refraining from voting is in the client’s best interest, such as when an adviser’s analysis of a particular client proxy reveals that the cost of voting the proxy may exceed the expected benefit to the client (i.e., casting a vote on a foreign security may require that the adviser engage a translator or travel to a foreign country to vote in person). Such position also complies with Interpretive Bulletin 94-2 of the DOL.

The portfolio management team shall be responsible for making voting decisions with respect to all client proxies, where a proxy is not voted in accordance with Glass Lewis recommendations. Such decisions shall be in writing and provided to the Chief Compliance Officer who will then ensure that such proxy votes are submitted in a timely manner.

Upon request, Affinity will provide any client a copy of the Guidelines along with detailed information on how individual proxies were voted.

ALPHASIMPLEX GROUP, LLC

The Adviser believes that proxy voting is an important right of shareholders and reasonable care and diligence must be undertaken to ensure that such rights are properly and timely exercised. However, the Adviser expects that the securities in which it will invest on behalf of the Fund (e.g., futures and forwards) will not have voting rights, and therefore, the Adviser does not expect to vote proxies for securities held by the Fund. If the Adviser does vote proxies with respect to the Fund's investments, it will vote in a manner that is consistent with what it believes to be the best interests of the Fund.

AQR CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC (“AQR”)

PROXY VOTING POLICY AND PROCEDURES

AS AMENDED: JULY 2016

LAST REVIEWED: JULY 2016

I. STATEMENT OF POLICY

Proxy voting is an important right of shareholders and reasonable care and diligence must be undertaken to ensure that such rights are properly and timely exercised. AQR Capital Management, LLC (“AQR”)¹ generally retains proxy voting authority with respect to securities purchased for its clients. Under such circumstances, AQR will seek to vote proxies in the best interest of its clients and in accordance with this Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures (the “Policy”).

II. USE OF THIRD-PARTY PROXY VOTING SERVICE

AQR has entered into an agreement with Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (“ISS”), an independent third-party proxy advisory firm that specializes in providing proxy voting services to institutional investment managers. AQR has instructed ISS to execute all proxies in accordance with the recommendations of ISS, unless instructed otherwise by AQR.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and its staff have expressed the view that although the voting of proxies remains the duty of an investment adviser registered with the SEC, an adviser may contract with a proxy advisory firm to perform certain functions with respect to proxy voting so long as the adviser ascertains, among other things, whether the proxy advisory firm has the capacity and competence to adequately analyze proxy issues. In this regard, an investment adviser could consider the adequacy and quality of the proxy advisory firm’s staffing and personnel; and the robustness of its policies and procedures regarding its ability to (i) ensure that its proxy voting recommendations are based on current and accurate information and (ii) identify and address any conflicts of interest and any other considerations that the investment adviser believes would be appropriate in considering the nature and quality of the services provided by the proxy advisory firm.

At a minimum annually, the Compliance Department will seek to ensure that a review of the capacity and competence of ISS is performed. Specifically, the Compliance Department will:

1. Review ISS’s proxy voting guidelines and assess the adequacy of the guidelines, including assessing whether the guidelines are reasonably designed to ensure that proxies are voted in the best interests of AQR’s clients;

2. Review a sample of ISS’s proxy votes to review whether ISS has complied with ISS’s proxy voting guidelines;

217

3. Require ISS to identify and provide AQR with information regarding any material business changes or conflicts of interest on an ongoing basis and address how any conflicts of interest have been addressed. If, as a result of the Compliance Department’s examination of ISS’s conflicts of interest, a determination is made that a material conflict of interest exists, AQR’s Chief Compliance Officer or designee (the “CCO”) will determine whether to follow ISS’s recommendation with respect to a proxy or take other action with respect to the proxy; and

4. Obtain a certification or other information from ISS regarding its independence and impartiality.

III. VOTING PROCEDURES

ISS is responsible for coordinating with AQR’s clients’ custodians to seek to ensure that all proxy materials received by custodians relating to a client’s securities are processed in a timely fashion. Proxies relating to securities held in client accounts will be sent directly to ISS. If a proxy is received by AQR and not sent directly to ISS, AQR will promptly forward it to ISS.

ISS will vote the proxy in accordance with the recommendation of ISS or any custom voting policy adopted by AQR, unless instructed otherwise by AQR in accordance with AQR’s voting guidelines (described below in Section IV).

IV. VOTING GUIDELINES

In the absence of specific voting guidelines from a client, AQR will seek to vote proxies in the best interests of each particular client, which may result in different voting results for proxies for the same issuer. AQR has instructed ISS to execute all proxies in accordance with the recommendations of ISS, unless instructed otherwise by AQR.

To the extent that AQR is voting a proxy itself and not utilizing ISS’s recommendation, AQR will be required to vote proxies in a way that, in AQR’s best judgment, is in the best interest of the AQR’s clients holding such securities. Unless prior approval is obtained from the CCO, the following guidelines will generally be adhered to when AQR is voting a proxy itself:

1. AQR shall not engage in conduct that involves an attempt to change or influence the control of a public company. In addition, all communications regarding proxy issues or corporate actions between companies or their agents, or with fellow shareholders, shall be for the sole purpose of expressing and discussing AQR's concerns for its advisory clients' interests and not for an attempt to influence or control management;

2. AQR will not announce its voting intentions and the reasons therefore; and

3. AQR shall not initiate a proxy solicitation or otherwise seek proxy-voting authority from any other public company shareholder.

AQR may abstain from voting a proxy in certain situations, including when:

1. The cost of voting a proxy outweighs the benefit of voting;

2. AQR is not given enough time to process the vote;

3. AQR has an outstanding sell order or intends to sell the applicable security prior to the voting date; or

4. There are legal restrictions on trading resulting from the exercise of a proxy.

V. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OF THE ADVISER

In the event that AQR intends to directly vote a proxy in a manner that is inconsistent with ISS’s recommendation, the Compliance Department will examine any conflicts that exist between the interests of AQR and its clients. This examination includes, but is not limited to, a review of any material economic interest, including outside business activities, of AQR, its personnel, and its affiliates with the issuer of the security in question.

If, as a result of the Compliance Department’s examination, a material conflict of interest is found to exist, AQR will determine whether:

1. Directly voting the meeting is in the best interests of the client;

2. ISS’s recommendation should be followed; or

3. The client should approve the ISS recommendation.

218

VI. DISCLOSURE

Upon request, AQR will furnish a copy of this Policy to the requesting client and information on how the client’s proxies were voted. If a client requests how the client’s proxies were voted, AQR will prepare a written response to the client that lists, with respect to each voted proxy that the client has inquired about:

1. The name of the issuer;

2. The proposal voted upon; and

3. The election made for the proposal.

VII. AQR Funds

On an annual basis, AQR will provide, or cause ISS to provide; to the AQR Funds’ administrator or other designee on a timely basis, any and all reports and information necessary to prepare and file Form N-PX, which is required by Rule 30b1-4 under the Investment Company Act of 1940.²

VIII. PROXY RECORDKEEPING

The Compliance Department will maintain files relating to this Policy in an easily accessible place. Under the services contract between AQR and ISS, ISS will maintain AQR’s proxy voting records. Records will be maintained and preserved for five years from the end of the fiscal year during which the last entry was made on a record, with records for the most recent two years kept in the offices of AQR. Records of the following will be included in the files:

1. A copy of the Policy, and any amendments thereto;

2. A copy of the ISS Proxy Voting Guidelines;

3. A copy of each proxy statement that AQR receives regarding client securities (AQR may rely on third parties or EDGAR);

4. A record of each vote cast; and

5. A copy of any document AQR created that was material to making a decision how to vote proxies, or that memorializes that decision.

IX. REVIEW OF POLICY AND PROCEDURES

The Compliance Department shall review, no less frequently than annually, the adequacy of this Policy to ensure it has been implemented effectively, including whether the Policy continues to be reasonably designed to ensure that proxies are voted in the best interests of its clients.

_____________________

¹The term “AQR” includes AQR Capital Management, LLC and CNH Partners, LLC and their respective investment advisory affiliates.

²Form N-PX is required to contain an AQR Fund’s complete proxy voting record for the most recent 12-month period ended June 30 and must be filed no later than August 31 of each year.

BLACKROCK, INC. AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES

These guidelines should be read in conjunction with BlackRock's Global Corporate Governance and Engagement Principles.

Introduction. BlackRock, Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, BlackRock) seek to make proxy voting decisions in the manner most likely to protect and promote the economic value of the securities held in client accounts. The following issue-specific proxy voting guidelines (the Guidelines) are intended to summarize BlackRock's general philosophy and approach to issues that may commonly arise in the proxy voting context for US Securities. These Guidelines are not intended to limit the analysis of individual issues at specific companies and are not intended to provide a guide to how BlackRock will vote in every instance. Rather, they share our view about corporate governance issues generally, and provide insight into how we typically approach issues that commonly arise on corporate ballots. They are applied with discretion, taking into consideration the range of issues and facts specific to the company and the individual ballot item.

219

Voting Guidelines. These guidelines are divided into six key themes which group together the issues that frequently appear on the agenda of annual and extraordinary meetings of shareholders.

The six key themes are:

■	Boards and directors
■	Auditors and audit-related issues
■	Capital structure, mergers, asset sales and other special transactions
■	Remuneration and benefits
■	Social, ethical and environmental issues
■	General corporate governance matters

BOARDS AND DIRECTORS.

Director elections. BlackRock generally supports board nominees in most uncontested elections. However, BlackRock may withhold votes from the entire board in certain situations, including, but not limited to:

■	Where a board fails to implement shareholder proposals that receive a majority of votes cast at a prior shareholder meeting, and the proposals, in our view, have a direct and substantial impact on shareholders' fundamental rights or long-term economic interests.
■	Where a board implements or renews a poison pill without seeking shareholder approval beforehand or within a reasonable period of time after implementation.

BlackRock may withhold votes from members of particular board committees (or prior members, as the case may be) in certain situations, including, but not limited to:

■	An insider or affiliated outsider who sits on any of the board's key committees (i.e., audit, compensation, nominating and governance), which we believe generally should be entirely independent. However, BlackRock will examine a board's complete profile when questions of independence arise prior to casting a withhold vote for any director. For controlled companies, as defined by the US stock exchanges, we will only vote against insiders or affiliates who sit on the audit committee, but not other key committees.
■	Members of the audit committee during a period when the board failed to facilitate quality, independent auditing.
■	Members of the audit committee where substantial accounting irregularities suggest insufficient oversight by that committee.
■	Members of the audit committee during a period in which we believe the company has aggressively accounted for its equity compensation plans.
■	Members of the compensation committee during a period in which executive compensation appears excessive relative to performance and peers, and where we believe the compensation committee has not already substantially addressed this issue.
■	Members of the compensation committee where the company has repriced options without contemporaneous shareholder approval.
■	The chair of the nominating committee, or where no chair exists, the nominating committee member with the longest tenure, where board members have previously received substantial withhold votes and the board has not taken appropriate action to respond to shareholder concerns. This may not apply in cases where BlackRock did not support the initial withhold vote.
■	The chair of the nominating committee, or where no chair exists, the nominating committee member with the longest tenure, where the board is not composed of a majority of independent directors. However, this would not apply in the case of a controlled company.

BlackRock may withhold votes from individual board members in certain situations, including, but not limited to:

■	Where BlackRock obtains evidence that casts significant doubt on a director's qualifications or ability to represent shareholders.
■	Where it appears the director has acted (at the company or at other companies) in a manner that compromises his or her reliability in representing the best long-term economic interests of shareholders.
■	Where a director has a pattern of attending less than 75% of combined board and applicable key committee meetings.

Age limits/term limits. We typically oppose limits on the pool of directors from which shareholders can choose their representatives, especially where those limits are arbitrary or unrelated to the specific performance or experience of the director in question.

Board size. We generally defer to the board in setting the appropriate size. We believe directors are generally in the best position to assess what size is optimal to ensure a board's effectiveness. However, we may oppose boards that appear too small to allow for effective shareholder representation or too large to function efficiently.

Classified board of directors/staggered terms. A classified board of directors is one that is divided into classes (generally three), each of which is elected on a staggered schedule (generally for three years). At each annual meeting, only a single class of directors is subject to reelection (generally one-third of the entire board).

220

We believe that classification of the board dilutes shareholders' right to evaluate promptly a board's performance and limits shareholder selection of their representatives. By not having the mechanism to immediately address concerns we may have with any specific director, we lose the ability to provide valuable feedback to the company. Furthermore, where boards are classified, director entrenchment is more likely, because review of board service generally only occurs every three years. Therefore, we typically vote against classification and for proposals to eliminate board classification.

Cumulative voting for directors. Cumulative voting allocates one vote for each share of stock held, times the number of directors subject to election. A shareholder may cumulate his/her votes and cast all of them in favor of a single candidate, or split them among any combination of candidates. By making it possible to use their cumulated votes to elect at least one board member, cumulative voting is typically a mechanism through which minority shareholders attempt to secure board representation.

BlackRock may support cumulative voting proposals at companies where the board is not majority independent. However, we may oppose proposals that further the candidacy of minority shareholders whose interests do not coincide with our fiduciary responsibility.

Director compensation and equity programs. We believe that compensation for independent directors should be structured to align the interests of the directors with those of shareholders, whom the directors have been elected to represent. We believe that independent director compensation packages based on the company's long-term performance and that include some form of long-term equity compensation are more likely to meet this goal; therefore, we typically support proposals to provide such compensation packages. However, we will generally oppose shareholder proposals requiring directors to own a minimum amount of company stock, as we believe that companies should maintain flexibility in administering compensation and equity programs for independent directors, given each company's and director's unique circumstances.

Indemnification of directors and officers. We generally support reasonable but balanced protection of directors and officers. We believe that failure to provide protection to directors and officers might severely limit a company's ability to attract and retain competent leadership. We generally support proposals to provide indemnification that is limited to coverage of legal expenses. However, we may oppose proposals that provide indemnity for: breaches of the duty of loyalty; transactions from which a director derives an improper personal benefit; and actions or omissions not in good faith or those that involve intentional misconduct.

Independent board composition. We generally support shareholder proposals requesting that the board consist of a two-thirds majority of independent outside directors, as we believe that an independent board faces fewer conflicts and is best prepared to protect shareholder interests.

Liability insurance for directors and officers. Proposals regarding liability insurance for directors and officers often appear separately from indemnification proposals. We will generally support insurance against liability for acts committed in an individual's capacity as a director or officer of a company following the same approach described above with respect to indemnification.

Limits on director removal. Occasionally, proposals contain a clause stipulating that directors may be removed only for cause. We oppose this limitation of shareholders' rights.

Majority vote requirements. BlackRock generally supports the concept of director election by majority vote. Majority voting standards assist in ensuring that directors who are not broadly supported by shareholders are not elected to serve as their representatives. However, we also recognize that there are many methods for implementing majority vote proposals. Where we believe that the company already has a sufficiently robust majority voting process in place, we may not support a shareholder proposal seeking an alternative mechanism.

Separation of chairman and CEO positions. We generally support shareholder proposals requesting that the positions of chairman and CEO be separated. We may consider the designation of a lead director to suffice in lieu of an independent chair, but will take into consideration the structure of that lead director's position and overall corporate governance of the company in such cases.

Shareholder access to the proxy. We believe that shareholders should have the opportunity, when necessary and under reasonable conditions, to nominate individuals to stand for election to the boards of the companies they own. In our view, securing a right of shareholders to nominate directors without engaging in a control contest can enhance shareholders' ability to participate meaningfully in the director election process, stimulate board attention to shareholder interests, and provide shareholders an effective means of directing that attention where it is lacking.

221

by taking into account the overall governance structure of the company as well as issues specific to that company that may necessitate greater board accountability. We also look for certain minimum ownership threshold requirements, stipulations that access can be used only in non-hostile situations, and reasonable limits on the number of board members that can be replaced through such a mechanism.

AUDITORS AND AUDIT-RELATED ISSUES. BlackRock recognizes the critical importance of financial statements that provide a complete and accurate portrayal of a company's financial condition. Consistent with our approach to voting on boards of directors, we seek to hold the audit committee of the board responsible for overseeing the management of the audit function at a company, and may withhold votes from the audit committee's members where the board has failed to facilitate quality, independent auditing. We take particular note of cases involving significant financial restatements or material weakness disclosures.

The integrity of financial statements depends on the auditor effectively fulfilling its role. To that end, we favor an independent auditor. In addition, to the extent that an auditor fails to reasonably identify and address issues that eventually lead to a significant financial restatement, or the audit firm has violated standards of practice that protect the interests of shareholders, we may also vote against ratification.

From time to time, shareholder proposals may be presented to promote auditor independence or the rotation of audit firms. We may support these proposals when they are consistent with our views as described above.

CAPITAL STRUCTURE, MERGERS, ASSET SALES AND OTHER SPECIAL TRANSACTIONS. In reviewing merger and asset sale proposals, BlackRock's primary concern is the best long-term economic interests of shareholders. While these proposals vary widely in scope and substance, we closely examine certain salient features in our analyses. The varied nature of these proposals ensures that the following list will be incomplete. However, the key factors that we typically evaluate in considering these proposals include:

■	Market premium: For mergers and asset sales, we make every attempt to determine the degree to which the proposed transaction represents a premium to the company's trading price. In order to filter out the effects of pre-merger news leaks on the parties' share prices, we consider a share price from a time period in advance of the merger announcement. In most cases, business combinations should provide a premium; benchmark premiums vary by industry and direct peer group. Where one party is privately held, we look to the comparable transaction analyses provided by the parties' financial advisors. For companies facing insolvency or bankruptcy, a market premium may not apply.
■	Strategic reason for transaction: There should be a favorable business reason for the combination.
■	Board approval/transaction history: Unanimous board approval and arm's-length negotiations are preferred. We examine transactions that involve dissenting boards or that were not the result of an arm's-length bidding process to evaluate the likelihood that a transaction is in shareholders' interests. We also seek to ensure that executive and/or board members' financial interests in a given transaction do not affect their ability to place shareholders' interests before their own.
■	Financial advisors' fairness opinions: We scrutinize transaction proposals that do not include the fairness opinion of a reputable financial advisor to evaluate whether shareholders' interests were sufficiently protected in the merger process.

Anti-greenmail provisions. Greenmail is typically defined as payments to a corporate raider to terminate a takeover attempt. It may also occasionally refer to payments made to a dissident shareholder in order to terminate a potential proxy contest or shareholder proposal. We typically view such payments as a misuse of corporate assets which denies shareholders the opportunity to review a matter of direct economic concern and potential benefit to them. Therefore, we generally support proposals to prevent boards from making greenmail payments. However, we generally will oppose provisions designed to limit greenmail payments that appear to unduly burden or prohibit legitimate use of corporate funds.

Blank check preferred. See Preferred Stock.

Eliminate preemptive rights. Preemptive rights give current shareholders the opportunity to maintain their current percentage ownership despite any subsequent equity offerings. These provisions are no longer common in the US, and may restrict management's ability to raise new capital.

We generally support the elimination of preemptive rights, but will often oppose the elimination of limited preemptive rights, (e.g., rights that would limit proposed issuances representing more than an acceptable level of dilution).

Equal voting rights. BlackRock supports the concept of equal voting rights for all shareholders. Some management proposals request authorization to allow a class of common stock to have superior voting rights over the existing common or to allow a class of common to elect a majority of the board. We oppose such differential voting power as it may have the effect of denying shareholders the opportunity to vote on matters of critical economic importance to them.

222

However, when a shareholder proposal requests to eliminate an existing dual-class voting structure, we seek to determine whether this action is warranted at that company at that time, and whether the cost of restructuring will have a clear economic benefit to shareholders. We evaluate these proposals on a case-by-case basis, and we consider the level and nature of control associated with the dual-class voting structure as well as the company's history of responsiveness to shareholders in determining whether support of such a measure is appropriate.

Fair price provisions. Originally drafted to protect shareholders from tiered, front-end-loaded tender offers, these provisions have largely evolved into anti-takeover devices through the imposition of supermajority vote provisions and high premium requirements. BlackRock examines proposals involving fair price provisions and generally votes in favor of those that appear designed to protect minority shareholders, but against those that appear designed to impose barriers to transactions or are otherwise against the economic interests of shareholders.

Increase in authorized common shares. BlackRock considers industry specific norms in our analysis of these proposals, as well as a company's history with respect to the use of its common shares. Generally, we are predisposed to support a company if the board believes additional common shares are necessary to carry out the firm's business. The most substantial concern we might have with an increase is the possibility of use of common shares to fund a poison pill plan that is not in the economic interests of shareholders. Therefore, we generally do not support increases in authorized common shares where a company has no stated use for the additional common shares and/or has a substantial amount of previously authorized common shares still available for issue that is sufficient to allow the company to flexibly conduct its operations, especially if the company already has a poison pill in place. We may also oppose proposals that include common shares with unequal voting rights.

Increase or issuance of preferred stock. These proposals generally request either authorization of a class of preferred stock or an increase in previously authorized preferred stock. Preferred stock may be used to provide management with the flexibility to consummate beneficial acquisitions, combinations or financings on terms not necessarily available via other means of financing. We generally support these proposals in cases where the company specifies the voting, dividend, conversion and other rights of such stock where the terms of the preferred stock appear reasonable.

However, we frequently oppose proposals requesting authorization of a class of preferred stock with unspecified voting, conversion, dividend distribution and other rights (“blank check” preferred stock) because they may serve as a transfer of authority from shareholders to the board and a possible entrenchment device. We generally view the board's discretion to establish voting rights on a when-issued basis as a potential anti-takeover device, as it affords the board the ability to place a block of stock with an investor sympathetic to management, thereby foiling a takeover bid without a shareholder vote. Nonetheless, where the company appears to have a legitimate financing motive for requesting blank check authority, has committed publicly that blank check preferred shares will not be used for anti-takeover purposes, has a history of using blank check preferred stock for financings, or has blank check preferred stock previously outstanding such that an increase would not necessarily provide further anti-takeover protection but may provide greater financing flexibility, we may support the proposal.

Poison pill plans. Also known as Shareholder Rights Plans, these plans generally involve issuance of call options to purchase securities in a target firm on favorable terms. The options are exercisable only under certain circumstances, usually accumulation of a specified percentage of shares in a relevant company or launch of a hostile tender offer. These plans are often adopted by the board without being subject to shareholder vote.

Poison pill proposals generally appear on the proxy as shareholder proposals requesting that existing plans be put to a vote. This vote is typically advisory and therefore non-binding. We generally vote in favor of shareholder proposals to rescind poison pills.

Where a poison pill is put to a shareholder vote, our policy is to examine these plans individually. Although we oppose most plans, we may support plans that include a reasonable 'qualifying offer clause.' Such clauses typically require shareholder ratification of the pill, and stipulate a sunset provision whereby the pill expires unless it is renewed. These clauses also tend to specify that an all cash bid for all shares that includes a fairness opinion and evidence of financing does not trigger the pill, but forces either a special meeting at which the offer is put to a shareholder vote, or the board to seek the written consent of shareholders where shareholders could rescind the pill in their discretion. We may also support a pill where it is the only effective method for protecting tax or other economic benefits that may be associated with limiting the ownership changes of individual shareholders.

Stock splits and reverse stock splits. We generally support stock splits that are not likely to negatively affect the ability to trade shares or the economic value of a share. We generally support reverse splits that are designed to avoid delisting or to facilitate trading in the stock, where the reverse split will not have a negative impact on share value (e.g. one class is reduced while others remain at pre-split levels). In the event of a proposal to reverse split that would not also proportionately reduce the company's authorized stock, we apply the same analysis we would use for a proposal to increase authorized stock.

223

REMUNERATION AND BENEFITS. We note that there are management and shareholder proposals related to executive compensation that appear on corporate ballots. We generally vote on these proposals as described below, except that we typically oppose shareholder proposals on issues where the company already has a reasonable policy in place that we believe is sufficient to address the issue. We may also oppose a shareholder proposal regarding executive compensation if the company's history suggests that the issue raised is not likely to present a problem for that company.

Adopt advisory resolutions on compensation committee reports. BlackRock generally opposes these proposals, put forth by shareholders, which ask companies to adopt advisory resolutions on compensation committee reports (otherwise known as Say-on-Pay). We believe that compensation committees are in the best position to make compensation decisions and should maintain significant flexibility in administering compensation programs, given their knowledge of the wealth profiles of the executives they seek to incentivize, the appropriate performance measures for the company, and other issues internal and/or unique to the company. In our view, shareholders have a sufficient and much more powerful “say-on-pay” today in the form of director elections, in particular with regards to members of the compensation committee.

Advisory resolutions on compensation committee reports. In cases where there is an advisory vote on compensation put forth by management, BlackRock will respond to the proposal as informed by our evaluation of compensation practices at that particular company, and in a manner that appropriately addresses the specific question posed to shareholders. On the question of support or opposition to executive pay practices our vote is likely to correspond with our vote on the directors who are compensation committee members responsible for making compensation decisions. Generally we believe these matters are best left to the compensation committee of the board and that shareholders should not dictate the terms of executive compensation. Our preferred approach to managing pay-for-performance disconnects is via a withhold vote for the compensation committee.

Claw back proposals. Claw back proposals are generally shareholder sponsored and seek recoupment of bonuses paid to senior executives if those bonuses were based on financial results that are later restated. We generally favor recoupment from any senior executive whose compensation was based on faulty financial reporting, regardless of that particular executive's role in the faulty reporting. We typically support these proposals unless the company already has a robust claw back policy that sufficiently addresses our concerns.

Employee stock purchase plans. An employee stock purchase plan (ESPP) gives the issuer's employees the opportunity to purchase stock in the issuer, typically at a discount to market value. We believe these plans can provide performance incentives and help align employees' interests with those of shareholders. The most common form of ESPP qualifies for favorable tax treatment under Section 423 of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 423 plans must permit all full-time employees to participate, carry restrictions on the maximum number of shares that can be purchased, carry an exercise price of at least 85 percent of fair market value on grant date with offering periods of 27 months or less, and be approved by shareholders. We will typically support qualified ESPP proposals.

Equity compensation plans. BlackRock supports equity plans that align the economic interests of directors, managers and other employees with those of shareholders. Our evaluation of equity compensation plans in a post-expensing environment is based on a company's executive pay and performance relative to peers and whether the plan plays a significant role in a pay-for-performance disconnect. We generally oppose plans that contain “evergreen” provisions allowing for the ongoing increase of shares reserved without shareholder approval. We also generally oppose plans that allow for repricing without shareholder approval. Finally, we may oppose plans where we believe that the company is aggressively accounting for the equity delivered through their stock plans.

Golden parachutes. Golden parachutes provide for compensation to management in the event of a change in control. We generally view this as encouragement to management to consider proposals that might be beneficial to shareholders. We normally support golden parachutes put to shareholder vote unless there is clear evidence of excess or abuse.

We may also support shareholder proposals requesting that implementation of such arrangements require shareholder approval. In particular, we generally support proposals requiring shareholder approval of plans that exceed 2.99 times an executive's current compensation.

Option exchanges. BlackRock may support a request to exchange underwater options under the following circumstances: the company has experienced significant stock price decline as a result of macroeconomic trends, not individual company performance; directors and executive officers are excluded; the exchange is value neutral or value creative to shareholders; and there is clear evidence that absent repricing the company will suffer serious employee incentive or retention and recruiting problems.

224

Pay-for-performance plans. In order for executive compensation exceeding $1 million to qualify for federal tax deductions, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) requires companies to link that compensation, for the Company's top five executives, to disclosed performance goals and submit the plans for shareholder approval. The law further requires that a compensation committee comprised solely of outside directors administer these plans. Because the primary objective of these proposals is to preserve the deductibility of such compensation, we generally favor approval in order to preserve net income.

Pay-for-superior-performance. These are typically shareholder proposals requesting that compensation committees adopt policies under which a portion of equity compensation requires the achievement of performance goals as a prerequisite to vesting. We generally believe these matters are best left to the compensation committee of the board and that shareholders should not set executive compensation or dictate the terms thereof. We may support these proposals if we have a substantial concern regarding the company's compensation practices over a significant period of time, the proposals are not overly prescriptive, and we believe the proposed approach is likely to lead to substantial improvement. However, our preferred approach to managing pay-for-performance disconnects is via a withhold vote for the compensation committee.

Supplemental executive retirement plans. BlackRock may support shareholder proposals requesting to put extraordinary benefits contained in Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans (SERP) agreements to a shareholder vote unless the company's executive pension plans do not contain excessive benefits beyond what is offered under employee-wide plans.

SOCIAL, ETHICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. See Global Corporate Governance and Engagement Principles.

GENERAL CORPORATE GOVERNANCE MATTERS.

Adjourn meeting to solicit additional votes. We generally support such proposals when the agenda contains items that we judge to be in shareholders' best long-term economic interests.

Bundled proposals. We believe that shareholders should have the opportunity to review substantial governance changes individually without having to accept bundled proposals. Where several measures are grouped into one proposal, BlackRock may reject certain positive changes when linked with proposals that generally contradict or impede the rights and economic interests of shareholders. The decision to support or oppose bundled proposals requires a balancing of the overall benefits and drawbacks of each element of the proposal.

Change name of corporation. We typically defer to management with respect to appropriate corporate names.

Confidential voting. Shareholders most often propose confidential voting as a means of eliminating undue management pressure on shareholders regarding their vote on proxy issues. We generally support proposals to allow confidential voting. However, we will usually support suspension of confidential voting during proxy contests where dissidents have access to vote information and management may face an unfair disadvantage.

Other business. We oppose giving companies our proxy to vote on matters where we are not given the opportunity to review and understand those measures and carry out an appropriate level of shareholder oversight.

Reincorporation. Proposals to reincorporate from one state or country to another are most frequently motivated by considerations of anti-takeover protections or cost savings. Where cost savings are the sole issue, we will typically favor reincorporating. In all instances, we will evaluate the changes to shareholder protection under the new charter/articles/by-laws to assess whether the move increases or decreases shareholder protections. Where we find that shareholder protections are diminished, we will support reincorporation if we determine that the overall benefits outweigh the diminished rights.

Shareholders' right to call a special meeting or act by written consent. In exceptional circumstances and with sufficiently broad support, shareholders should have the opportunity to raise issues of substantial importance without having to wait for management to schedule a meeting. We therefore believe that shareholders should have the right to call a special meeting or to solicit votes by written consent in cases where a reasonably high proportion of shareholders (typically a minimum of 15%) are required to agree to such a meeting/consent before it is called, in order to avoid misuse of this right and waste corporate resources in addressing narrowly supported interests. However, we may oppose this right in cases where the provision is structured for the benefit of a dominant shareholder to the exclusion of others.

Simple majority voting. We generally favor a simple majority voting requirement to pass proposals. Therefore we will support the reduction or the elimination of supermajority voting requirements to the extent that we determine shareholders' ability to protect their economic interests is improved. Nonetheless, in situations where there is a substantial or dominant shareholder, supermajority voting may be protective of public shareholder interests and we may therefore support supermajority requirements in those situations.

225

Stakeholder provisions. Stakeholder provisions introduce the concept that the board may consider the interests of constituencies other than shareholders when making corporate decisions. Stakeholder interests vary widely and are not necessarily consistent with the best long-term economic interests of all shareholders, whose capital is at risk in the ownership of a public company. We believe the board's fiduciary obligation is to ensure management is employing this capital in the most efficient manner so as to maximize shareholder value, and we oppose any provision that suggests the board should do otherwise.

BOSTON ADVISORS, LLC

Summary of Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

I. INTRODUCTION

Under the investment management contracts between Boston Advisors, LLC (“BA”) and most of our clients, the client retains exclusive voting authority over the securities in the client’s portfolio and we do not have any role in proxy voting. BA assumes responsibility for voting proxies when requested by a client and with respect to clients subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).

II. STATEMENTS OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

A. Policy Statement. The Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”), requires us to, at all times, act solely in the best interest of our clients. We have adopted and implemented these Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures, which we believe, are reasonably designed to ensure that proxies are voted in the best interest of clients, in accordance with our fiduciary duties and Rule 206(4)-6 under the Advisers Act.

While retaining final authority to determine how each proxy is voted, BA has reviewed and determined to follow in most instances the proxy voting policies and recommendations (the “Guidelines”) of Egan-Jones Proxy Services, a proxy research and consulting firm (“Egan-Jones”). Egan-Jones will track each proxy that BA is authorized to vote on behalf of our clients and will make a recommendation to management of BA as how it would vote such proxy in accordance with the Guidelines. Unless otherwise directed by BA, Egan-Jones will instruct Proxy-Edge, a proxy voting firm (“Proxy-Edge”) to vote on such matters on our behalf in accordance with its recommendations. BA will monitor the recommendations from Egan-Jones and may override specific recommendations or may modify the Guidelines in the future.

We have established these Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures in a manner that is generally intended to result in us voting proxies in an unbiased manner. All proxy votes are ultimately cast on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the recommendations made by Egan Jones.

B. Conflicts of Interest. If there is determined to be a material conflict between the interests of our clients on the one hand and our interests (including those of our affiliates, directors, officers, employees and other similar persons) on the other hand (a “potential conflict”) the matter shall be considered by management.

Proxy proposals that are “routine,” such as uncontested elections of directors, meeting formalities, and approval of an annual report/financial statements are presumed not to involve a material conflict of interest. Non- routine proxy proposals are presumed to involve a material conflict of interest, unless BA management determines that neither BA nor its personnel have such a conflict of interest. Non-routine proposals would typically include any contested matter, including a contested election of directors, a merger or sale of substantial assets, a change in the articles of incorporation that materially affects the rights of shareholders, and compensation matters for management (e.g., stock option plans and retirement plans).

If BA management determines that BA has a material conflict of interest then we shall vote the proxy according to the recommendation of Egan- Jones or, if applicable, the client’s proxy voting policies. BA management also reserves the right to vote a proxy using the following methods:

■	We may obtain instructions from the client on how to vote the proxy.
■	If we are able to disclose the conflict to the client, we may do so and obtain the client’s consent as to how we will vote on the proposal (or otherwise obtain instructions from the client on how the proxy should be voted).

We use commercially reasonable efforts to determine whether a potential conflict may exists, and a potential conflict shall be deemed to exist if and only if one or more of our senior investment staff actually knew or reasonably should have known of the potential conflict.

C. Limitations on Our Responsibilities

226

1. Limited Value. We may abstain from voting a client proxy if we conclude that the effect on client’s economic interests or the value of the portfolio holding is indeterminable or insignificant.

2. Unjustifiable Costs. We may abstain from voting a client proxy for cost reasons (e.g., costs associated with voting proxies of non-U.S. securities). In accordance with our fiduciary duties, we weigh the costs and benefits of voting proxy proposals relating to foreign securities and make an informed decision with respect to whether voting a given proxy proposal is prudent. Our decision takes into account the effect that the vote of our clients, either by itself or together with other votes, is expected to have on the value of our client’s investment and whether this expected effect would outweigh the cost of voting.

3. Special Client Considerations.

a. Mutual Funds. We will vote proxies of our mutual fund clients subject to the funds’ applicable investment restrictions.

b. ERISA Accounts. With respect our ERISA clients, we vote proxies in accordance with our duty of loyalty and prudence, compliance with the plan documents, as well as our duty to avoid prohibited transactions.

4. Client Direction. If a client has a proxy-voting policy and instructs us to follow it, we will comply with that policy upon receipt except when doing so would be contrary to the client’s economic interests or otherwise imprudent or unlawful. As a fiduciary to ERISA clients, we are required to discharge our duties in accordance with the documents governing the plan (insofar as they are consistent with ERISA), including statements of proxy voting policy. We will, on a best efforts basis, comply with each client’s proxy voting policy. If client policies conflict, we may vote proxies to reflect each policy in proportion to the respective client’s interest in any pooled account (unless voting in such a manner would be imprudent or otherwise inconsistent with applicable law).

D. Disclosure. A client for which we are responsible for voting proxies may obtain information from us, via Egan-Jones and Proxy Edge records, regarding how we voted the client’s proxies. Clients should contact their account manager to make such a request.

E. Review and Changes. We shall from time to time review these Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures and may adopt changes based upon our experience, evolving industry practices and developments in applicable laws and regulations. Unless otherwise agreed to with a client, we may change these Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures from time to time without notice to, or approval by, any client. Clients may request a current version of our Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures from their account manager.

F. Delegation. We may delegate our responsibilities under these Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures to a third party, other than Egan Jones provided that we retain final authority and fiduciary responsibility for proxy voting. If we so delegate our responsibilities, we shall monitor the delegate’s compliance with these Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.

G. Maintenance of Records. We maintain at our principal place of business the records required to be maintained by us with respect to proxies in accordance with the requirements of the Advisers Act and, with respect to our fund clients, the Investment Company Act of 1940. We may, but need not, maintain proxy statements that we receive regarding client securities to the extent that such proxy statements are available on the SEC’s EDGAR system. We also may rely upon a third party, such as Egan-Jones or Proxy Edge to maintain certain records required to be maintained by the Advisers Act.

BROWN ADVISORY, LLC.

Brown Advisory shall vote proxies consistent with its Proxy Policy, a summary of which follows. Generally, the firm’s research analysts vote actively recommended issuers and obtain research from a proxy service for recommendations for voting proxies of all other issues. Clients may, at any time, opt to change voting authorization. Upon notice that a client has revoked the firm’s authority to vote proxies, the firm will forward such materials to the party identified by client.

Routine Matters

Since the quality and depth of management is a primary factor considered when investing in an issuer, the recommendation of the issuer’s management on any issue will be given substantial weight. However, the position of the issuer’s management will not be supported in any situation where it is determined not to be in the best interests of the client.

Election of Directors: Proxies shall be voted for a management-proposed slate of directors unless there is a contested election of directors or there are other compelling corporate governance reasons for withholding votes for such directors. Management proposals to limit director liability consistent with state laws and director indemnification provisions shall be supported because it is important for companies to be able to attract qualified candidates.

Appointment of Auditors: Management recommendations shall generally be supported.

227

Changes in State of Incorporation or Capital Structure: Management recommendations about re-incorporation shall be supported unless the new jurisdiction in which the issuer is reincorporating has laws that would materially dilute the rights of shareholders of the issuer. Proposals to increase authorized common stock should be examined on a case-by-case basis. If the new shares will be used to implement a poison pill or another form of anti-takeover device, or if the issuance of new shares could excessively dilute the value of outstanding shares upon issuance, then such proposals should be evaluated to determine whether they are in the best interest of the client.

Non-Routine Matters

Corporate Restructurings, Mergers and Acquisitions: These proposals should be examined on a case-by-case basis because they are an extension of an investment decision.

Proposals Affecting Shareholder Rights: Proposals that seek to limit shareholder rights, such as the creation of dual classes of stock, generally should not be supported.

Anti-takeover Issues: Measures that impede takeovers or entrench management will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis taking into account the rights of shareholders and the potential effect on the value of the firm.

Executive Compensation: Although management recommendations should be given substantial weight, proposals relating to executive compensation plans, including stock option plans, should be examined on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the long-term interests of management and shareholders are properly aligned.

Social and Political Issues: These types of proposals should generally not be supported if they are not supported by management unless they would have a readily-determinable, positive financial effect on shareholder value and would not be burdensome or impose unnecessary or excessive costs on the issuer.

Conflicts of Interest

A “conflict of interest,” means any circumstance when the firm or one of its affiliates (including officers, directors and employees), or in the case where the firm serves as investment adviser to a fund, when the fund or the principal underwriter, or one or more of their affiliates (including officers, directors and employees), knowingly does business with, receives compensation from, or sits on the board of, a particular issuer or closely affiliated entity, and, therefore, may appear to have a conflict of interest between its own interests and the interests of clients or fund shareholders in how proxies of that issuer are voted. The firm should vote proxies relating to such issuers in accordance with the following procedures:

Routine Matters Consistent with Policy. The firm may vote proxies for routine matters as required by this Policy.

Immaterial Conflicts: The firm may vote proxies for non-routine matters consistent with this Policy if it determines that the conflict of interest is not material. A conflict of interest will be considered material to the extent that it is determined that such conflict has the potential to influence the firm’s decision-making in voting a proxy. Materiality determinations will be based upon an assessment of the particular facts and circumstances.

Material Conflicts and Non-Routine Matters: If the firm believes that (A) it has a material conflict and (B) that the issue to be voted upon is non-routine or is not covered by this Policy, the firm may abstain. The firm may also abstain from voting proxies in other circumstances, including, for example, if voting may be unduly burdensome or expensive, or otherwise not in the best economic interest of the clients, such as (by example and without limitation) when foreign proxy issuers impose unreasonable or expensive voting or holding requirements or when the costs to effect a vote would be uneconomic relative to the value of the client’s investment in the issuer.

CLEARBRIDGE INVESTMENTS, LLC.

Proxy Voting Guidelines Procedures Summary. ClearBridge is subject to the Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures that it has adopted to seek to ensure that it votes proxies relating to equity securities in the best interest of client accounts. The following is a brief overview of the policies.

ClearBridge votes proxies for each client account with respect to which it has been authorized or is required by law to vote proxies. In voting proxies, ClearBridge is guided by general fiduciary principles and seeks to act prudently and solely in the best interest of the beneficial owners of the accounts it manages. ClearBridge attempts to consider all factors that could affect the value of the investment and will vote proxies in the manner that it believes will be consistent with efforts to maximize shareholder values. ClearBridge may utilize an external service provider to provide it with information and/or a recommendation with regard to proxy votes. However, such recommendations do not relieve ClearBridge of its responsibility for the proxy vote.

228

In the case of a proxy issue for which there is a stated position in the policies, ClearBridge generally votes in accordance with such stated position. In the case of a proxy issue for which there is a list of factors set forth in the policies that ClearBridge considers in voting on such issue, ClearBridge considers those factors and votes on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the general principles set forth above. In the case of a proxy issue for which there is no stated position or list of factors that ClearBridge considers in voting on such issue, ClearBridge votes on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the general principles set forth above. Issues for which there is a stated position set forth in the policies or for which there is a list of factors set forth in the policies that ClearBridge considers in voting on such issues fall into a variety of categories, including election of directors, ratification of auditors, proxy and tender offer defenses, capital structure issues, executive and director compensation, mergers and corporate restructuring, and social and environmental issues. The stated position on an issue set forth in the policies can always be superseded, subject to the duty to act solely in the best interest of the beneficial owners of accounts, by the investment management professionals responsible for the account whose shares are being voted. There may be occasions when different investment teams vote differently on the same issue. An investment team (e.g., ClearBridge SAI investment team) may adopt proxy voting policies that supplement ClearBridge's Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures. In addition, in the case of Taft-Hartley clients, ClearBridge will comply with a client direction to vote proxies in accordance with Institutional Shareholder Services' (ISS) PVS Voting guidelines, which ISS represents to be fully consistent with AFL-CIO guidelines.

In furtherance of ClearBridge's goal to vote proxies in the best interest of clients, ClearBridge follows procedures designed to identify and address material conflicts that may arise between ClearBridge's interests and those of its clients before voting proxies on behalf of such clients. To seek to identify conflicts of interest, ClearBridge periodically notifies ClearBridge employees in writing that they are under an obligation (i) to be aware of the potential for conflicts of interest on the part of ClearBridge with respect to voting proxies on behalf of client accounts both as a result of their personal relationships or ClearBridge's business relationships or the personal or business relationships of other Legg Mason units' employees, and (ii) to bring conflicts of interest of which they become aware to the attention of ClearBridge's General Counsel/Chief Compliance Officer. ClearBridge also maintains and considers a list of significant ClearBridge relationships that could present a conflict of interest for ClearBridge in voting proxies.

ClearBridge generally takes the position that non-ClearBridge relationships between a Legg Mason affiliate and an issuer do not present a conflict of interest for ClearBridge in voting proxies with respect to such issuer. Such position is based on the fact that ClearBridge is operated as an independent business unit from other Legg Mason business units as well as on the existence of information barriers between ClearBridge and certain other Legg Mason business units.

ClearBridge's Proxy Committee reviews and addresses conflicts of interest. A proxy issue that will be voted in accordance with a stated ClearBridge position on such issue or in accordance with the recommendation of an independent third party is not brought to the attention of the Proxy Committee for a conflict of interest review because ClearBridge's position is that to the extent a conflict of interest issue exists, it is resolved by voting in accordance with a pre-determined policy or in accordance with the recommendation of an independent third party. With respect to a conflict of interest brought to its attention, the Proxy Committee first determines whether such conflict of interest is material. A conflict of interest is considered material to the extent that it is determined that such conflict is likely to influence, or appear to influence, ClearBridge's decision-making in voting proxies. If it is determined by the Proxy Committee that a conflict of interest is not material, ClearBridge may vote proxies notwithstanding the existence of the conflict.

If it is determined by the Proxy Committee that a conflict of interest is material, the Proxy Committee is responsible for determining an appropriate method to resolve such conflict of interest before the proxy affected by the conflict of interest is voted. Such determination is based on the particular facts and circumstances, including the importance of the proxy issue and the nature of the conflict of interest.

COHEN & STEERS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC.

General Proxy Voting Guidelines

Objectives

Voting rights are an important component of corporate governance. Cohen & Steers has three overall objectives in exercising voting rights:

■	Responsibility. Cohen & Steers shall seek to ensure that there is an effective means in place to hold companies accountable for their actions. While management must be accountable to its board, the board must be accountable to a company’s shareholders. Although accountability can be promoted in a variety of ways, protecting shareholder voting rights may be among our most important tools.
■	Rationalizing Management and Shareholder Concerns. Cohen & Steers seeks to ensure that the interests of a company’s management and board are aligned with those of the company’s shareholders. In this respect, compensation must be structured to reward the creation of shareholder value.

229

■

Shareholder Communication. Since companies are owned by their shareholders, Cohen & Steers seeks to ensure that management effectively communicates with its owners about the company’s business operations and financial performance. It is only with effective communication that shareholders will be able to assess the performance of management and to make informed decisions on when to buy, sell or hold a company’s securities.

General Principles

In exercising voting rights, Cohen & Steers shall conduct itself in accordance with the general principles set forth below.

■	The ability to exercise a voting right with respect to a security is a valuable right and, therefore, must be viewed as part of the asset itself.
■	In exercising voting rights, Cohen & Steers shall engage in a careful evaluation of issues that may materially affect the rights of shareholders and the value of the security.
■	Consistent with general fiduciary principles, the exercise of voting rights shall always be conducted with reasonable care, prudence and diligence.
■	In exercising voting rights on behalf of clients, Cohen & Steers shall conduct itself in the same manner as if Cohen & Steers were the constructive owner of the securities.
■	To the extent reasonably possible, Cohen & Steers shall participate in each shareholder voting opportunity.
■	Voting rights shall not automatically be exercised in favor of management-supported proposals.
■	Cohen & Steers, and its officers and employees, shall never accept any item of value in consideration of a favorable proxy voting decision.

General Guidelines

Set forth below are general guidelines that Cohen & Steers shall follow in exercising proxy voting rights:

■	Prudence. In making a proxy voting decision, Cohen & Steers shall give appropriate consideration to all relevant facts and circumstances, including the value of the securities to be voted and the likely effect any vote may have on that value. Since voting rights must be exercised on the basis of an informed judgment, investigation shall be a critical initial step.
■	Third Party Views. While Cohen & Steers may consider the views of third parties, Cohen & Steers shall never base a proxy voting decision solely on the opinion of a third party. Rather, decisions shall be based on a reasonable and good faith determination as to how best to maximize shareholder value.
■	Shareholder Value. Just as the decision whether to purchase or sell a security is a matter of judgment, determining whether a specific proxy resolution will increase the market value of a security is a matter of judgment as to which informed parties may differ. In determining how a proxy vote may affect the economic value of a security, Cohen & Steers shall consider both short-term and long-term views about a company’s business and prospects, especially in light of our projected holding period on the stock (e.g., Cohen & Steers may discount long-term views on a short-term holding).

Specific Guidelines

Uncontested Director Elections

Votes on director nominees should be made on a case-by-case basis using a “mosaic” approach, where all factors are considered in director elections and where no single issue is deemed to be determinative. For example, a nominee’s experience and business judgment may be critical to the long-term success of the portfolio company, notwithstanding the fact that he or she may serve on the board of more than four public companies. In evaluating nominees, we consider the following factors:

■	Whether the nominee attended less than 75 percent of the board and committee meetings without a valid excuse for the absences;
■	Whether the nominee is an inside or affiliated outside director and sits on the audit, compensation, or nominating committees;
■	Whether the board ignored a significant shareholder proposal that was approved by a majority of the votes cast in the previous year;
■	Whether the board, without shareholder approval, to our knowledge instituted a new poison pill plan, extended an existing plan, or adopted a new plan upon the expiration of an existing plan during the past year;
■	Whether the nominee is an inside or affiliated outside director and the full board serves as the audit, compensation, or nominating committee or the company does not have one of these committees;
■	Whether the nominee is an insider or affiliated outsider on boards that are not at least majority independent;
■	Whether the nominee is the CEO of a publicly-traded company who serves on more than two public boards;
■	Whether the nominee is the chairperson of a publicly-traded company who serves on more than two public boards;
■	Whether the nominee serves on more than four public company boards;
■	Whether the nominee serves on the audit committee where there is evidence (such as audit reports or reports mandated under the Sarbanes Oxley Act) that there exists material weaknesses in the company’s internal controls;

230

■	Whether the nominee serves on the compensation committee if that director was present at the time of the grant of backdated options or options the pricing or the timing of which we believe may have been manipulated to provide additional benefits to executives;
■	Whether the nominee has a material related party transaction or is believed by us to have a material conflict of interest with the portfolio company;
■	Whether the nominee (or the overall board) in our view has a record of making poor corporate or strategic decisions or has demonstrated an overall lack of good business judgment, including, among other things, whether the company’s total shareholder return is in the bottom 25% of its peer group over the prior five years;
■	Material failures of governance, stewardship, risk oversight, or fiduciary responsibilities at the company;
■	Failure to replace management as appropriate; and
■	Egregious actions related to a director's service on other boards that raise substantial doubt about his or her ability to effectively oversee management and serve the best interests of shareholders at any company.

Proxy Access

We recognize the importance of shareholder access to the ballot process as a means to ensure that boards do not become self-perpetuating and self-serving. However, we are also aware that some proposals may promote certain interest groups and could be disruptive to the nomination process. We vote on a case-by-case basis considering the proxy access terms in light of a company’s specific circumstances and we may support proxy access proposals when management and boards have displayed a lack of shareholder accountability.

Proxy Contests

Director Nominees in a Contested Election

By definition, this type of board candidate or slate runs for the purpose of seeking a significant change in corporate policy or control. Therefore, the economic impact of the vote in favor of or in opposition to that director or slate must be analyzed using a higher standard such as is normally applied to changes in control. Criteria for evaluating director nominees as a group or individually should also include: the underlying reason why the new slate (or individual director) is being proposed; performance; compensation; corporate governance provisions and takeover activity; criminal activity; attendance at meetings; investment in the company; interlocking directorships; inside, outside and independent directors; number of other board seats; and other experience. It is impossible to have a general policy regarding director nominees in a contested election.

Reimbursement of Proxy Solicitation Expenses

Decisions to provide full reimbursement for dissidents waging a proxy contest should be made on a case-by-case basis. In the absence of compelling reasons, Cohen & Steers will generally not support such proposals.

Ratification of Auditors

We vote for proposals to ratify auditors, auditor renumeration and/or proposals authorizing the board to fix audit fees unless an auditor has a financial interest in or association with the company, and is therefore not independent; there is reason to believe that the independent auditor has rendered an opinion that is neither accurate nor indicative of the company’s financial position; the name of the proposed auditor and/or fees paid to the audit firm are not disclosed by the company in a timely manner prior to the meeting; the auditors are being changed without explanation; or fees paid for non-audit related services are excessive and/or exceed limits set in local best practice recommendations or law.

In circumstances where fees for non-audit services include fees related to significant one-time capital structure events; initial public offerings; bankruptcy emergence, and spinoffs; and the company makes public disclosure of the amount and nature of those fees, then such fees may be excluded from the non-audit fees considered in determining whether non-audit related fees are excessive.

We vote on a case-by-case basis on auditor rotation proposals. Criteria for evaluating the rotation proposal include, but are not limited to: tenure of the audit firm; establishment and disclosure of a renewal process whereby the auditor is regularly evaluated for both audit quality and competitive price; length of the rotation period advocated in the proposal; and any significant audit related issues.

Generally, we vote against auditor indemnification and limitation of liability; however we recognize there may be situations where indemnification and limitations on liability may be appropriate.

Takeover Defenses

231

While we recognize that a takeover attempt can be a significant distraction for the board and management to deal with, the simple fact is that the possibility of a corporate takeover keeps management focused on maximizing shareholder value. As a result, Cohen & Steers opposes measures that are designed to prevent or obstruct corporate takeovers because they can entrench current management. The following are our guidelines on change of control issues:

Shareholder Rights Plans

We acknowledge that there are arguments for and against shareholder rights plans, also known as “poison pills.” Companies should put their case for rights plans to shareholders.

We review on a case-by-case basis management proposals to ratify a poison pill. We generally look for shareholder friendly features including a two- to three-year sunset provision, a permitted bid provision and a 20 percent or higher flip-in provision.

Greenmail

We vote for proposals to adopt anti-greenmail charter or bylaw amendments or otherwise restrict a company’s ability to make greenmail payments.

Unequal Voting Rights

Generally, we vote against dual-class recapitalizations as they offer an effective way for a firm to thwart hostile takeovers by concentrating voting power in the hands of management or other insiders. We support the one-share, one-vote principal for voting.

Classified Boards

We generally vote in favor of shareholder proposals to declassify a board of directors, although we acknowledge that a classified board may be in the long-term best interests of a company in certain situations, such as continuity of a strong board and management team or for certain types of companies. In voting on shareholder proposals to declassify a board of directors, we evaluate all facts and circumstances surrounding such proposal, including whether the shareholder proposing the de-classification has an agenda in making such proposal that may be at odds with the long-term best interests of the company or whether it would be in the best interests of the company to thwart a shareholder’s attempt to control the board of directors.

Cumulative Voting

Having the ability to cumulate our votes for the election of directors – that is, cast more than one vote for a director about whom they feel strongly – generally increases shareholders’ rights to effect change in the management of a corporation. However, we acknowledge that cumulative voting promotes special candidates who may not represent the interests of all, or even a majority, of shareholders. In voting on proposals to institute cumulative voting, we therefore evaluate all facts and circumstances surrounding such proposal and we generally vote against cumulative voting where the company has good corporate governance practices in place, including majority voting for board elections and classified boards.

Shareholder Ability to Call Special Meeting

Cohen & Steers votes on a case-by-case basis for shareholder proposals requesting companies to amend their governance documents (bylaws and/or charter) in order to allow shareholders to call special meetings. We recognize the importance on shareholder ability to call a special meeting and generally will vote for such shareholder proposals where the shareholder(s) making such proposal hold at least 20% of the company’s outstanding shares. However, we are also aware that some proposals are put forth in order to promote the agenda(s) of certain special interest groups and could be disruptive to the management of the company, and in those cases we will vote against such shareholder proposals.

Shareholder Ability to Act by Written Consent

We generally vote against proposals to allow or facilitate shareholder action by written consent. The requirement that all shareholders be given notice of a shareholders’ meeting and matters to be discussed therein seems to provide a reasonable protection of minority shareholder rights.

Shareholder Ability to Alter the Size of the Board

232

We generally vote for proposals that seek to fix the size of the board and vote against proposals that give management the ability to alter the size of the board without shareholder approval. While we recognize the importance of such proposals, we are however also aware that these proposals are sometimes put forth in order to promote the agenda(s) of certain special interest groups and could be disruptive to the management of the company.

Miscellaneous Board Provisions

Board Committees

Boards should delegate key oversight functions, such as responsibility for audit, nominating and compensation issues, to independent committees. The chairman and members of any committee should be clearly identified in the annual report. Any committee should have the authority to engage independent advisors where appropriate at the company’s expense.

Audit, nominating and compensation committees should consist solely of non-employee directors, who are independent of management.

Independent Chairman

We review on a case-by-case basis proposals requiring that the chairman’s position be filled by an independent director, taking into consideration the company’s current board leadership and governance structure; company performance, and any other factors that may be applicable.

Separate Chairman and CEO Role

We will generally vote for proposals looking to separate the CEO and Chairman roles. We do acknowledge, however, that under certain circumstances, it may be reasonable for the CEO and Chairman roles to be held by a single person.

Lead Directors and Executive Sessions

In cases where the CEO and Chairman roles are combined or the Chairman is not independent, we will vote for the appointment of a lead independent director and for regular executive sessions (board meetings taking place without the CEO/Chairman present).

Majority of Independent Directors

We vote for proposals that call for the board to be composed of a majority of independent directors. We believe that a majority of independent directors can be an important factor in facilitating objective decision making and enhancing accountability to shareholders.

Independent Committees

We vote for shareholder proposals requesting that the board’s audit, compensation, and nominating committees consist exclusively of independent directors.

Stock Ownership Requirements

We support measures requiring senior executives to hold a minimum amount of stock in a company (often expressed as a percentage of annual compensation), which may include restricted stock or restricted stock units.

Term of Office

We vote against shareholder proposals to limit the tenure of outside directors. Term limits pose artificial and arbitrary impositions on the board and could harm shareholder interests by forcing experienced and knowledgeable directors off the board.

Director and Officer Indemnification and Liability Protection

We generally support indemnification provisions that are consistent with the local jurisdiction in which the company has been formed. We vote in favor of proposals providing indemnification for directors and officers with respect to acts conducted in the normal course of business. We also vote in favor of proposals that expand coverage for directors and officers where, despite an

233

unsuccessful legal defense, the director or officer acted in good faith and in the best interests of the company and the director or officers’ legal expenses are covered. We vote against proposals that would expand indemnification beyond coverage of legal expenses to coverage of acts, such as gross negligence, that are more serious violations of fiduciary obligations.

Board Size

We generally vote for proposals to limit the size of the board to 15 members or less.

Majority Vote Standard

We generally vote for proposals asking for the board to initiate the appropriate process to amend the company’s governance documents (charter or bylaws) to provide that director nominees shall be elected by the affirmative vote of the majority of votes cast at an annual meeting of shareholders.

Supermajority Vote Requirements

We generally support proposals that seek to lower supermajority voting proposals.

Miscellaneous Governance Provisions

Disclosure of Board Nominees

We generally vote against the election of directors at companies if the names of the director nominees are not disclosed in a timely manner prior to the meeting. However, we recognize that companies in certain emerging markets may have a legitimate reason for not disclosing nominee names. In such a rare case, if a company discloses a legitimate reason why such nominee names should not be disclosed, we may vote for the nominees even if nominee names are not disclosed in a timely manner.

Disclosure of Board Compensation

We generally vote against the election of directors at companies if the compensation paid to such directors is not disclosed in a timely manner prior to the meeting. However, we recognize that companies in certain emerging markets may have a legitimate reason for not disclosing such compensation information. In such a rare case, if a company discloses a legitimate reason why such compensation should not be disclosed, we may vote for the nominees even if compensation is not disclosed in a timely manner.

Confidential Voting

We vote for shareholder proposals requesting that companies adopt confidential voting, use independent tabulators, and use independent inspectors of election as long as the proposals include clauses for proxy contests as follows: in the case of a contested election, management should be permitted to request that the dissident group honor its confidential voting policy. If the dissidents agree, the policy remains in place. If the dissidents do not agree, the confidential voting policy is waived.

We also vote for management proposals to adopt confidential voting.

Bundled Proposals

We review on a case-by-case basis bundled or “conditioned” proxy proposals. In the case of items that are conditioned upon each other, we examine the benefits and costs of the packaged items. In instances where the joint effect of the conditioned items is not in shareholders’ best interests, we vote against the proposals. If the combined effect is positive, we support such proposals. In the case of bundled director proposals, we will vote for the entire slate only if we would have otherwise voted for each director on an individual basis.

Date/Location of Meeting

We vote against shareholder proposals to change the date or location of the shareholders’ meeting. No one site will meet the needs of all shareholders.

Adjourn Meeting if Votes are Insufficient.

234

Open-end requests for adjournment of a shareholder meeting generally will not be supported. However, where management specifically states the reason for requesting an adjournment and the requested adjournment is necessary to permit a proposal that would otherwise be supported under this policy to be carried out, the adjournment request will be supported.

Other Business

Cohen & Steers will generally vote against proposals to approve other business where we cannot determine the exact nature of the proposal to be voted on.

Disclosure of Shareholder Proponents

We vote for shareholder proposals requesting that companies disclose the names of shareholder proponents. Shareholders may wish to contact the proponents of a shareholder proposal for additional information.

Capital Structure

Increase Additional Common Stock

We generally vote for increases in authorized shares, provided that the increase is not greater than three times the number of shares outstanding and reserved for issuance (including shares reserved for stock-related plans and securities convertible into common stock, but not shares reserved for any poison pill plan).

Votes generally are cast in favor of proposals to authorize additional shares of stock except where the proposal:

■	creates a blank check preferred stock; or
■	establishes classes of stock with superior voting rights.

Blank Check Preferred Stock

Votes generally are cast in opposition to management proposals authorizing the creation of new classes of preferred stock with unspecific voting, conversion, distribution and other rights, and management proposals to increase the number of authorized blank check preferred shares. We may vote in favor of this type of proposal when we receive assurances to our reasonable satisfaction that (i) the preferred stock was authorized by the board for the use of legitimate capital formation purposes and not for anti-takeover purposes, and (ii) no preferred stock will be issued with voting power that is disproportionate to the economic interests of the preferred stock. These representations should be made either in the proxy statement or in a separate letter from the company to Cohen & Steers.

Pre-emptive Rights

We believe that the governance and regulation of public equity markets allow for adequate shareholder protection against dilution. Further, we believe that companies should have more flexibility to issue shares without costly and time constraining rights offerings. As such, we do not believe that pre-emptive rights are necessary and as such, we generally vote for the issuance of equity shares without pre-emptive rights. On a limited basis, we will vote for shareholder pre-emptive rights where such pre-emptive rights are necessary, taking into account the best interests of the company’s shareholders.

We acknowledge that international local practices typically call for shareholder pre-emptive rights when a company seeks authority to issue shares (e.g., UK authority for the issuance of only up to 5% of outstanding shares without pre-emptive rights). While we would prefer that companies be permitted to issue shares without pre-emptive rights, in deference to international local practices, in markets outside the US we will approve issuance requests without pre-emptive rights for up to 100% of a company's outstanding capital.

Dual Class Capitalizations

Because classes of common stock with unequal voting rights limit the rights of certain shareholders, we vote against adoption of a dual or multiple class capitalization structure.

Restructurings/Recapitalizations

We review proposals to increase common and/or preferred shares and to issue shares as part of a debt restructuring plan on a case-by-case basis. In voting, we consider the following issues:

■	dilution—how much will ownership interest of existing shareholders be reduced, and how extreme will dilution to any future earnings be?

235

■	change in control—will the transaction result in a change in control of the company?
■	bankruptcy—generally, approve proposals that facilitate debt restructurings unless there are clear signs of self-dealing or other abuses.

Share Repurchase Programs

Boards may institute share repurchase or stock buy-back programs for a number of reasons. Cohen & Steers will generally vote in favor of such programs where the repurchase would be in the long-term best interests of shareholders, and where the company is not thought to be able to use the cash in a more useful way.

We will vote against such programs when shareholders’ interests could be better served by deployment of the cash for alternative uses, or where the repurchase is a defensive maneuver or an attempt to entrench management.

Targeted Share Placements

These shareholder proposals ask companies to seek stockholder approval before placing 10% or more of their voting stock with a single investor. The proposals are typically in reaction to the placement by various companies of a large block of their voting stock in an ESOP, parent capital fund or with a single friendly investor, with the aim of protecting themselves against a hostile tender offer. These proposals are voted on a case-by-case basis after reviewing the individual situation of the company receiving the proposal.

Executive and Director Compensation

Executive Compensation (“Say on Pay”)

Votes regarding shareholder “say on pay” are determined on a case-by-case basis. Generally, we believe that executive compensation should be tied to the long-term performance of the executive and the company both in absolute and relative to the peer group. We therefore monitor the compensation practices of portfolio companies to determine whether compensation to these executives is commensurate to the company’s total shareholder return (TSR) (i.e., we generally expect companies that pay their executives at the higher end of the pay range to also be performing commensurately well).

Further, pay elements that are not directly based on performance are generally evaluated on a case-by-case basis considering the context of a company's overall pay program and demonstrated pay-for-performance philosophy. The following list highlights certain negative pay practices that carry significant weight in this overall consideration and may result in adverse vote recommendations:

■	Repricing or replacing of underwater stock options/SARS without prior shareholder approval (including cash buyouts and voluntary surrender of underwater options);
■	Excessive perquisites or tax gross-ups;
■	New or extended agreements that provide for:

■	Change in Control (CIC) payments exceeding 3 times base salary and bonus;
■	CIC severance payments without involuntary job loss or substantial diminution of duties (“single” or “modified single” triggers);
■	CIC payments with excise tax gross-ups (including “modified” gross-ups).

Also, we generally vote for shareholder proposals that seek additional disclosure of executive and director pay information.

Frequency of Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (“Say When on Pay”)

We generally vote for annual advisory votes on compensation as we note that executive compensation is also evaluated on an annual basis by the company’s compensation committee.

Stock-based Incentive Plans

Votes with respect to compensation plans should be determined on a case-by-case basis depending on a combination of certain plan features and equity grant practices, where positive factors may counterbalance negative factors, and vice versa, as evaluated in three pillars:

■	Plan Cost: The total estimated cost of the company’s equity plans relative to industry/market cap peers, measured by the company's estimated Shareholder Value Transfer (SVT) in relation to peers and considering both:

■	SVT based on new shares requested plus shares remaining for future grants, plus outstanding unvested/unexercised grants; and
■	SVT based only on new shares requested plus shares remaining for future grants.

■	Plan Features:

■	Automatic single-triggered award vesting upon CIC;
■	Discretionary vesting authority;

236

■	Liberal share recycling on various award types;
■	Minimum vesting period for grants made under the plan.

■	Grant Practices:

■	The company’s three year burn rate relative to its industry/market cap peers;
■	Vesting requirements in most recent CEO equity grants (3-year look-back);
■	The estimated duration of the plan based on the sum of shares remaining available and the new shares requested, divided by the average annual shares granted in the prior three years;
■	The proportion of the CEO's most recent equity grants/awards subject to performance conditions;
■	Whether the company maintains a claw-back policy;
■	Whether the company has established post exercise/vesting share-holding requirements.

We will generally vote against the plan proposal if the combination of factors indicates that the plan is not, overall, in the shareholders’ interest, or if any of the following apply:

■	Awards may vest in connection with a liberal CIC;
■	The plan would permit repricing or cash buyout of underwater options without shareholder approval;
■	The plan is a vehicle for problematic pay practices or a pay-for-performance disconnect; or
■	Any other plan features that are determined to have a significant negative impact on shareholder interests.

Approval of Cash or Cash-and-Stock Bonus Plans

We vote for cash or cash-and-stock bonus plans to exempt the compensation from limits on deductibility under the provisions of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Reload/Evergreen Features

We will generally vote against plans that enable the issuance of reload options and that provide an automatic share replenishment (“evergreen”) feature.

Golden Parachutes

In general, the guidelines call for voting against “golden parachute” plans because they impede potential takeovers that shareholders should be free to consider. In particular, we oppose the use of employment contracts that result in cash grants of greater than three times annual compensation (salary and bonus) and generally withhold our votes at the next shareholder meeting for directors who to our knowledge approved golden parachutes.

Voting on Golden Parachutes in an Acquisition, Merger, Consolidation, or Proposed Sale

We vote on a case-by-case basis on proposals to approve the company's golden parachute compensation. Features that may lead to a vote against include:

■	Potentially excessive severance payments (cash grants of greater than three times annual compensation (salary and bonus));
■	Agreements that include excessive excise tax gross-up provisions;
■	Single trigger payments that will happen immediately upon a change in control, including cash payment and such items as the acceleration of performance-based equity despite the failure to achieve performance measures;
■	Single-trigger vesting of equity based on a definition of change in control that requires only shareholder approval of the transaction (rather than consummation);
■	Recent amendments or other changes that may make packages so attractive as to influence merger agreements that may not be in the best interests of shareholders;
■	In the case of a substantial gross-up from pre-existing/grandfathered contract: the element that triggered the gross-up (i.e., option mega-grants at low point in stock price, unusual or outsized payments in cash or equity made or negotiated prior to the merger); or
■	The company's assertion that a proposed transaction is conditioned on shareholder approval of the golden parachute advisory vote.

401(k) Employee Benefit Plans

We vote for proposals to implement a 401(k) savings plan for employees.

Employee Stock Purchase Plans

We support employee stock purchase plans, although we generally believe the discounted purchase price should be at least 85% of the current market price.

237

Option Expensing

We vote for shareholder proposals to expense fixed-price options.

Vesting

We believe that restricted stock awards normally should vest over at least a two-year period.

Option Repricing

Stock options generally should not be re-priced, and never should be re-priced without shareholder approval. In addition, companies should not issue new options, with a lower strike price, to make up for previously issued options that are substantially underwater. Cohen & Steers will vote against the election of any slate of directors that, to its knowledge, has authorized a company to re-price or replace underwater options during the most recent year without shareholder approval.

Stock Holding Periods

Generally vote against all proposals requiring executives to hold the stock received upon option exercise for a specific period of time.

Transferable Stock Options

Review on a case-by-case basis proposals to grant transferable stock options or otherwise permit the transfer of outstanding stock options, including cost of proposal and alignment with shareholder interests.

Recoup Bonuses

We vote on a case-by-case on shareholder proposals to recoup unearned incentive bonuses or other incentive payments made to senior executives if it is later determined that fraud, misconduct, or negligence significantly contributed to a restatement of financial results that led to the awarding of unearned incentive compensation.

Incorporation

Reincorporation Outside of the United States

Generally, we will vote against companies looking to reincorporate outside of the US

Voting on State Takeover Statutes

We review on a case-by-case basis proposals to opt in or out of state takeover statutes (including control share acquisition statutes, control share cash-out statutes, freezeout provisions, fair price provisions, stakeholder laws, poison pill endorsements, severance pay and labor contract provisions, antigreenmail provisions, and disgorgement provisions). In voting on these shareholder proposals, we evaluate all facts and circumstances surrounding such proposal, including whether the shareholder proposing such measure has an agenda in making such proposal that may be at odds with the long-term best interests of the company or whether it would be in the best interests of the company to thwart a shareholder’s attempt to control the board of directors.

Voting on Reincorporation Proposals

Proposals to change a company’s state of incorporation are examined on a case-by-case basis. In making our decision, we review management’s rationale for the proposal, changes to the charter/bylaws, and differences in the state laws governing the companies.

Mergers and Corporate Restructurings

Mergers and Acquisitions

Votes on mergers and acquisitions should be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account factors including the following: anticipated financial and operating benefits; offer price (cost vs. premium); prospects of the combined companies; how the deal was negotiated; and changes in corporate governance and their impact on shareholder rights.

We vote against proposals that require a super-majority of shareholders to approve a merger or other significant business combination. We support proposals that seek to lower super-majority voting requirements.

238

Nonfinancial Effects of a Merger or Acquisition

Some companies have proposed a charter provision which specifies that the board of directors may examine the nonfinancial effect of a merger or acquisition on the company. This provision would allow the board to evaluate the impact a proposed change in control would have on employees, host communities, suppliers and/or others. We generally vote against proposals to adopt such charter provisions. We feel it is the directors' fiduciary duty to base decisions solely on the financial interests of the shareholders.

Corporate Restructuring

Votes on corporate restructuring proposals, including minority squeezeouts, leveraged buyouts, “going private” proposals, spin-offs, liquidations, and asset sales, should be considered on a case-by-case basis. In evaluating these proposals and determining our votes, we are singularly focused on meeting our goal of maximizing long-term shareholder value.

Spin-offs

Votes on spin-offs should be considered on a case-by-case basis depending on the tax and regulatory advantages, planned use of sale proceeds, market focus, and managerial incentives.

Asset Sales

Votes on asset sales should be made on a case-by-case basis after considering the impact on the balance sheet/working capital, value received for the asset, and potential elimination of diseconomies.

Liquidations

Votes on liquidations should be made on a case-by-case basis after reviewing management’s efforts to pursue other alternatives, appraisal value of assets, and the compensation plan for executives managing the liquidation.

Appraisal Rights

We vote for proposals to restore, or provide shareholders with, rights of appraisal. Rights of appraisal provide shareholders who are not satisfied with the terms of certain corporate transactions the right to demand a judicial review in order to determine a fair value for their shares.

Changing Corporate Name

We vote for changing the corporate name.

Shareholder Rights

Our position on the rights of shareholders is as follows:

■	Shareholders should be given the opportunity to exercise their rights. Notification of opportunities for the exercise of voting rights should be given in good time.
■	Shareholders are entitled to submit questions to company management.
■	Minority shareholders should be protected as far as possible from the exercise of voting rights by majority shareholders.
■	Shareholders are entitled to hold company management as well as the legal person or legal entity accountable for any action caused by the company or company management for which the company, company management or legal entity should bear responsibility.

Environmental and Social Issues

We recognize that the companies in which we invest can enhance shareholder value and long-term profitability by adopting policies and procedures that promote corporate social and environmental responsibility. Because of the diverse nature of environmental and social shareholder proposals and the myriad ways companies deal with them, these proposals should be considered on a case-by-case basis. All such proposals are scrutinized based on whether they contribute to the creation of shareholder value, are reasonable and relevant, and provide adequate disclosure of key issues to shareholders. When evaluating social and environmental shareholder proposals, we tend to focus on the financial aspects of the social and environmental proposals, and we consider the following factors (in the order of importance as set forth below):

■	Whether adoption of the proposal is likely to have significant economic benefit for the company, such that shareholder value is enhanced or protected by the adoption of the proposal;

239

■	Whether the issues presented are more appropriately/effectively dealt with through governmental or company-specific action, as many social and environmental issues are more properly the province of government and broad regulatory action;
■	Whether the subject of the proposal is best left to the discretion of the board;
■	Whether the company has already responded in some appropriate manner to the request embodied in the proposal;
■	Whether the information requested concerns business issues that relate to a meaningful percentage of the company's business as measured by sales, assets, and earnings;
■	The degree to which the company's stated position on the issues raised in the proposal could affect its reputation or sales, or leave it vulnerable to a boycott or selective purchasing;
■	Whether implementation of the proposal’s request would achieve the proposal’s objectives;
■	Whether the requested information is available to shareholders either from the company or from a publicly available source; and
■	Whether providing this information would reveal proprietary or confidential information that would place the company at a competitive disadvantage.

CoreCommodity MANAGEMENT, LLC (CoreCommodity)

CoreCommodity may be responsible for voting on shareholder proxies and may do so only in accordance with the following Proxy Voting Procedures, in the best interest of a client and as agreed to by the advisory client.

General Guidelines

We rely on Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), a privately-held company, whose ultimate owner is Vestar Associates VI, LP, an affiliate of Vestar Capital Partners, a private equity firm based in New York, NY, to research, vote and record all proxy ballots for accounts over which we have proxy voting authority. We have adopted the ISS US Proxy Voting Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time.

In voting proxies, we are guided by general fiduciary principles. Our goal is to act prudently, solely in the best interest of the beneficial owners of the accounts we manage. We do not necessarily have an obligation to vote every proxy; for example we may forego voting proxies if the account no longer holds the position at the time of the vote, or the cost of voting (such as in the case of a vote regarding a foreign issuer that requires being physically present to vote) outweighs the anticipated benefit to the account. Similarly, in jurisdictions which permit “shareblocking” or require additional documentation to vote proxies (such as power of attorney), we may choose to refrain from voting. We only vote the proxies delivered to us from custodians and do not vote proxies for shares that are out on loan to third parties, and do not seek to recall such shares in order to vote them.

How We Vote

We generally vote proxies in accordance with the ISS recommendations, and have informed ISS to vote in accordance with these recommendations unless otherwise specified by us. A portfolio manager may request that securities under his management be voted differently from the ISS recommendations if he believes that such a vote would be in the best interest of the applicable client(s). Such vote requests will be subject to the conflict of interest review described below.

Conflicts Of Interest

In furtherance of our goal to vote proxies in the best interests of our clients, we follow procedures designed to identify and address material conflicts that may arise between our interests and those of our clients before voting proxies on behalf of such clients. Only votes which are not in accordance with the ISS recommendations are subject to these conflicts of interest procedures.

Procedures for Identifying Conflicts of Interest

We rely on the following to seek to identify conflicts of interest:

■	Personnel are under an obligation (i) to be aware of the potential for conflicts of interest on the part of CoreCommodity with respect to voting proxies on behalf of Accounts both as a result of a personal relationship and due to special circumstances that may arise during the conduct of our business, and (ii) to bring conflicts of interest of which they become aware to the attention of our compliance officer.
■	CoreCommodity is deemed to have a material conflict of interest in voting proxies relating to issuers that are our clients and that have historically accounted for or are projected to account for a material percentage of our annual revenues.
■	CoreCommodity shall not vote proxies relating to issuers on such list on behalf of Accounts until it has been determined that the conflict of interest is not material or a method for resolving such conflict of interest has been agreed upon and implemented.

Procedures for Assessing Conflicts of Interest and for Addressing Material Conflicts of Interest

240

All conflicts of interest identified pursuant to the procedures outlined above must be brought to the attention of the Compliance Officer for resolution. The Compliance Officer will work with appropriate CoreCommodity personnel to determine whether a conflict of interest is material. A conflict of interest will be considered material to the extent that it is determined that such conflict has the potential to influence our decision-making in voting the proxy. A conflict of interest shall be deemed material in the event that the issuer that is the subject of the proxy has a client relationship with us of the type described above. All other materiality determinations will be based on an assessment of the particular facts and circumstances. The Compliance Officer shall maintain a written record of all materiality determinations.

If it is determined that a conflict of interest is not material, we may vote proxies notwithstanding the existence of the conflict.

If it is determined that a conflict of interest is material, the Compliance Officer will work with appropriate CoreCommodity personnel to agree upon a method to resolve such conflict of interest before voting proxies affected by the conflict of interest. Such methods may include:

■	disclosing the conflict to clients and obtaining their consent before voting;
■	suggesting to clients that they engage another party to vote the proxy on their behalf; or
■	such other method as is deemed appropriate under the circumstances given the nature of the conflict.

Record Keeping And Oversight

We shall maintain the following records relating to proxy voting:

■	a copy of these policies and procedures;
■	a copy of each proxy form (as voted);
■	a copy of each proxy solicitation (including proxy statements) and related materials with regard to each vote;
■	documentation relating to the identification and resolution of conflicts of interest;
■	any documents created by us that were material to a proxy voting decision or that memorialized the basis for that decision; and
■	a copy of each written client request for information on how we voted proxies on behalf of the client, and a copy of any written response by us to any (written or oral) client request for information on how we voted proxies on behalf of the requesting client.

Such records shall be maintained and preserved in an easily accessible place for a period of not less than five years from the end of the fiscal year during which the last entry was made on such record, the first two years in our office.

In lieu of keeping copies of proxy statements, we may rely on proxy statements filed on the EDGAR system as well as on third party records of proxy statements and votes cast if the third party provides an undertaking to provide the documents promptly upon request.

Monitoring

These Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures will be reviewed on a periodic basis. As part of the review, we will (i) review the capacity and competency of ISS, including the ability of ISS to make recommendations based upon materially accurate information, and (ii) consider any changes at ISS that may create new conflicts of interest, in each case as deemed necessary by us to ensure that CoreCommodity, acting through ISS, continues to vote proxies in the best interests of clients. Part of such review may include the periodic sampling of proxy votes made by ISS on behalf of CoreCommodity, generally or with respect to particular types of proposals, as deemed necessary by us. We may arrange with ISS that ISS will update CoreCommodity of business changes that CoreCommodity considers relevant (i.e., with respect to ISS’ capacity and competency to provide proxy voting advice) and conflicts policies and procedures.

C.S. McKee, L.P.

Proxy Voting Policy

Objective: The objective of our proxy voting process is to maximize the long-term investment performance of our clients.

Policy: It is our policy to vote all proxy proposals in accordance with management recommendations except in instances where the effect of particular resolutions could adversely affect shareholder value. In such cases, it is our policy to vote against these proposals. Examples of proposals which could negatively impact shareholder interests include, but are not limited to the following:

1. Anti-takeover amendments such as fair price provisions and staggered board provisions.

2. Poison pill provisions designed to discourage another entity from seeking control.

3. Greenmail attempts.

241

4. Golden parachutes and related management entrenchment measures.

5. Oversized stock option grants and strike price revisions.

It is McKee’s practice to generally not recall securities unless there is a specific issue that we feel warrants forfeiting the securities lending income. It is generally believed that in most cases the certainty of the securities lending income outweighs the potential, but unknown benefit, of the proxy vote.

Procedure: Our procedure for processing proxy statements is as follows:

1. Upon receipt, all proxy material will be forwarded to the Investment Administrative Assistant for his/her review. Specifically, proxies will be reviewed for material conflict of interest and in such cases will be addressed by the Compliance Department to ensure that resolutions are voted in the best interest of shareholders.

2. If the proxy proposals are routine and contain no proposals adverse to the investment interests of our clients, the Investment Administrative Assistant will vote the resolutions in favor of management. The vote will be reviewed and signed by the CIO, or in his/her absence, by the senior equity portfolio manager.

3. If non-routine proposals or proposals considered to have a potentially negative investment performance impact are discovered, the Chief Investment Officer will review the particular resolutions thoroughly with the equity manager responsible for the investment.

4. After this review, if the Chief Investment Officer determines that specific proposals could have a negative investment performance effect, he will vote against those proposals.

5. The Chief Investment Officer will review any exceptional provisions which are of significant investment interest with the Chief Executive Officer before voting on those issues.

6. Copies of all proxy material, along with our voting record, will be maintained by the Investment Administrative Assistant.

7. The Chief Investment Officer will review our proxy voting record with the Chief Executive Officer annually, or more often if necessary.

EARNEST PARTNERS LLC

Proxy Policies

As a general rule, EARNEST Partners (the Adviser) will vote against actions which would reduce the rights or options of shareholders, reduce shareholder influence over the board of directors and management, reduce the alignment of interests between management and shareholders, or reduce the value of shareholders’ investments. A partial list of issues that may require special attention are as follows: classified boards, change of state of incorporation, poison pills, unequal voting rights plans, provisions requiring supermajority approval of a merger, executive severance agreements, and provisions limiting shareholder rights.

In addition, the following will generally be adhered to unless the Adviser is instructed otherwise in writing by the Client:

■	The Adviser will not actively engage in conduct that involves an attempt to change or influence the control of a portfolio company.
■	The Adviser will not announce its voting intentions or the reasons for a particular vote.
■	The Advisor will not participate in a proxy solicitation or otherwise seek proxy voting authority from any other portfolio company shareholder.
■	The Adviser will not act in concert with any other portfolio company shareholders in connection with any proxy issue or other activity involving the control or management of a portfolio company.
■	All communications with portfolio companies or fellow shareholders will be for the sole purpose of expressing and discussing the Adviser’s concerns for its Clients’ interests and not in an attempt to influence the control of management.

Proxy Procedures

The Adviser has designated a Proxy Director. The Proxy Director will consider each issue presented on each portfolio company proxy. The Proxy Director will also use available resources, including proxy evaluation services, to assist in the analysis of proxy issues. Proxy issues presented to the Proxy Director will be voted in accordance with the judgment of the Proxy Director, taking into account the general policies outlined above and the Adviser’s Proxy Voting Guidelines (currently ISS Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Proxy Voting Guidelines). Therefore, it is possible that actual votes may differ from these general policies and the Adviser’s Proxy Voting Guidelines. In the case where the Adviser believes it has a material conflict of interest with a Client, the Proxy Director will utilize the services of outside third party professionals (currently ISS Taft-Hartley Advisory Services) to assist in its analysis of voting issues and the

242

actual voting of proxies to ensure that a decision to vote the proxies was based on the Client’s best interest and was not the product of a conflict of interest. In general, ISS Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Proxy Voting Guidelines are based on a worker-owner view of long-term corporate value and conform to the AFL-CIO proxy voting policy. In the event the services of an outside third party professional are not available in connection with a conflict of interest, the Adviser will seek the advice of the Client.

A detailed description of the Adviser’s specific Proxy Voting Guidelines will be furnished upon written request. You may also obtain information about how the Adviser has voted with respect to portfolio company securities by calling, writing, or emailing us at:

EARNEST Partners
1180 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2300
Atlanta, GA 30309

invest@earnestpartners.com

404-815-8772

The Adviser reserves the right to change these policies and procedures at any time without notice.

EMERALD MUTUAL FUND ADVISERS TRUST

EMERALD ADVISERS, INC.

The following summary of voting policies applies to all proxies which either Emerald or Emerald Advisers, Inc. (collectively, EAI) is entitled to vote. In voting proxies, EAI will consider those factors which would affect the value of the investment and vote in the manner, which in its view, will best serve the economic interest of its clients. Consistent with this objective, EAI will exercise its vote in an activist pro-shareholder manner. EAI generally votes on various issues as described below.

I. Boards of Directors

A. Election of Directors. EAI has adopted the following policies regarding election of Directors:

■	Votes should be cast in favor of shareholder proposals asking that boards be comprised of a majority of outside directors.
■	Votes should be cast in favor of shareholder proposals asking that board audit, compensation and nominating committees be comprised exclusively of outside directors.
■	Votes should be cast against management proposals to re-elect the board if the board has a majority of inside directors.
■	Votes should be withheld for directors who have failed to attend 75% of board or committee meetings in cases where management does not provide adequate explanation for the absences.
■	Votes should be withheld for incumbent directors of poor performing companies; defining poor performing companies as those companies who have below average stock performance (vs. peer group/Wilshire 5000) and below average return on assets and operating margins.
■	Votes should be cast in favor of proposals to create shareholder advisory committees. These committees will represent shareholders’ views, review management, and provide oversight of the board and their directors.

B. Selection of Accountants. EAI will generally support a rotation of accountants to provide a truly independent audit. This rotation should generally occur every 4-5 years.

C. Incentive Stock Plans. EAI will generally vote against all excessive compensation and incentive stock plans which are not performance related.

D. Preemptive Rights. This is usually a shareholder request enabling shareholders to participate first in any new offering of common stock. EAI believes that preemptive rights would not add value to shareholders and would vote against such shareholder proposals.

II. Corporate Governance Issues

A. Provisions Restricting Shareholder Rights. These provisions would hamper shareholders ability to vote on certain corporate actions, such as changes in the bylaws, greenmail, poison pills, recapitalization plans, golden parachutes, and on any item that would limit shareholders’ right to nominate, elect, or remove directors. Policy: Vote Against management proposals to implement such restrictions and vote For shareholder proposals to eliminate them.

243

B. Anti-Shareholder Measures. These are measures designed to entrench management so as to make it more difficult to effect a change in control of the corporation. They are generally not in the best interests of shareholders since they do not allow for the most productive use of corporate assets.

1. Classification of the Board of Directors: Policy: Vote Against proposals to classify the Board and support proposals (usually shareholder initiated) to implement annual election of the Board.

2. Shareholder Rights Plans (Poison Pills): Anti-acquisition proposals of this sort come in a variety of forms. The most frequently used benefit is the right to buy shares at discount prices in the event of defined changes in corporate control. Policy: Vote Against proposals to adopt Shareholder Rights Plans, and vote For Shareholder proposals eliminating such plans.

3. Unequal Voting Rights: A takeover defense, also known as superstock, which gives holders disproportionate voting rights. EAI adheres to the One Share, One Vote philosophy, as all holders of common equity must be treated fairly and equally. Policy: Vote Against proposals creating different classes of stock with unequal voting privileges.

4. Supermajority Clauses: These are implemented by management requiring that an overly large proportion of shareholders (66-95% of shareholders rather than a simple majority) approve business combinations or mergers, or other measures affecting control. This is another way for management to make changes in control of the company more difficult. Policy: Vote Against management proposals to implement supermajority clauses and support shareholder proposals to eliminate them.

5. Increases in authorized shares and/or creation of new classes of common and preferred stock:

a. Increasing authorized shares. EAI will support management if it has a stated purpose for increasing the authorized number of common and preferred stock. However, in certain circumstances, it is apparent that management is proposing these increases as an anti-takeover measure. Policy: On a case by case basis, vote Against management if they attempt to increase the amount of shares that they are authorized to issue if their intention is to use the excess shares to discourage a beneficial business combination.

b. Creation of new classes of stock. Managements have proposed authorizing shares of new classes of stock, usually preferred stock, which the Board would be able to issue at their discretion. These “blank check” issues are designed specifically to inhibit a takeover, merger, or accountability to its shareholders. Policy: EAI would vote Against management in allowing the Board the discretion to issue any type of “blank check” stock without shareholder approval.

c. Compensation Plans (Incentive Plans). Policy: On a case by case basis, vote Against attempts by management to adopt proposals that are specifically designed to unduly benefit members of executive management in the event of an acquisition.

d. Cumulative Voting. Cumulative voting tends to serve special interests and not those of shareholders. Policy: EAI will vote Against any proposals establishing cumulative voting and For any proposal to eliminate it.

III. Other Issues

On other major issues involving questions of community interest or social concerns, EAI generally supports the position of management with certain exceptions involving companies in South Africa or Northern Ireland where EAI actively encourages corporations to act to promote responsible corporate activity.

EAI may manage a variety of corporate accounts that are publically traded. EAI will use Glass-Lewis recommendations to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest when voting proxies of its clients that are publically traded companies.

EPOCH INVESTMENT PARTNERS, INC.

Proxy Voting and Class Action Monitoring

Policy

Epoch maintains proxy voting authority for Client accounts, unless otherwise instructed by the client. Epoch votes proxies in a manner that it believes is most likely to enhance the economic value of the underlying securities held in Client accounts. Epoch will not respond to proxy solicitor requests unless Epoch determines that it is in the best interest of Clients to do so.

Epoch does not complete proofs-of-claim on behalf of Clients for current or historical holdings; however, Epoch will assist Clients with collecting information relevant to filing proofs-of-claim when such information is in the possession of Epoch.

244

In light of Epoch’s fiduciary duty to its Clients, and given the complexity of the issues that may be raised in connection with proxy votes, the Firm has retained Institutional Shareholder Services (“ISS”). ISS is an independent adviser that specializes in providing a variety of fiduciary-level proxy-related services to institutional investment managers. The services provided to the Firm include in-depth research, voting recommendations, vote execution and recordkeeping. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Firm will use its best judgment to vote proxies in the manner it deems to be in the best interests of its Clients. In the event that judgment differs from that of ISS, the Firm will memorialize the reasons supporting that judgment and retain a copy of those records for the Firm’s files. Additionally, the CCO will periodically review the voting of proxies to ensure that all such votes, particularly those diverging from the judgment of ISS, were voted consistent with the Firm’s fiduciary duties.

Procedures for Lent Securities and Issuers in Share-blocking Countries

At times, neither Epoch nor ISS will be allowed to vote proxies on behalf of Clients when those Clients have adopted a securities lending program. The Firm recognizes that Clients who have adopted securities lending programs have made a general determination that the lending program provides a greater economic benefit than retaining the ability to vote proxies. Notwithstanding this fact, in the event that the Firm becomes aware of a proxy voting matter that would enhance the economic value of the client’s position and that position is lent out, the Firm will make reasonable efforts to inform the Client that neither the Firm nor ISS is able to vote the proxy until the Client recalls the lent security.

In certain markets where share blocking occurs, shares must be “frozen” for trading purposes at the custodian or sub-custodian in order to vote. During the time that shares are blocked, any pending trades will not settle. Depending on the market, this period can last from one day to three weeks. Any sales that must be executed will settle late and potentially be subject to interest charges or other punitive fees. For this reason, in blocking markets, the Firm retains the right to vote or not, based on the determination of the Firm’s Investment Personnel. If the decision is made to vote, the Firm will process votes through ISS unless other action is required as detailed in this policy.

Procedures for Conflicts of Interest

Epoch has identified the following potential conflicts of interest:

■	Whether there are any business or personal relationships between Epoch, or an employee of Epoch, and the officers, directors or shareholder proposal proponents of a company whose securities are held in Client accounts that may create an incentive to vote in a manner that is not consistent with the best interests of Epoch’s Clients;
■	Whether Epoch has any other economic incentive to vote in a manner that is not consistent with the best interests of its Clients;

If a conflict of interest has been identified and Epoch intends to deviate from the proxy voting recommendation of ISS, then Epoch shall bring the proxy voting issue to the attention of affected Clients for guidance on how to vote the proxy.

Procedures for Proxy Solicitation

In the event that any officer or employee of Epoch receives a request to reveal or disclose Epoch’s voting intention on a specific proxy event, then the officer or employee must forward the solicitation to the CCO.

Procedures for Voting Disclosure

Upon request, Epoch will provide Clients with their specific proxy voting history.

Recordkeeping

Epoch must maintain the documentation described in the following section for a period of not less than five (5) years, the first two (2) years at its principal place of business. The Firm will be responsible for the following procedures and for ensuring that the required documentation is retained.

Client Request to Review Proxy Votes

The Client Service group will record the identity of the Client, the date of the request, and the disposition (e.g., provided a written or oral response to Client’s request, referred to third party, not a proxy voting Client, other dispositions, etc.) in a suitable place.

Furnish the information requested, free of charge, to the Client within a reasonable time period (within 10 business days). Maintain a copy of the written record provided in response to client’s written (including e-mail) or oral request.

Proxy Voting Records

245

■	The proxy voting record is periodically provided to Epoch by ISS.
■	Documents prepared or created by Epoch that were material to making a decision on how to vote, or that memorialized the basis for the decision.
■	Documentation or notes or any communications received from third parties, other industry analysts, third party service providers, company’s management discussions, etc. that were material in the basis for the decision.

Disclosure

■	The CCO will ensure that Part 2A of Form ADV is updated as necessary to reflect: (i) all material changes to this policy; and (ii) regulatory requirements related to proxy voting disclosure.

FIRST QUADRANT, L.P.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

Investment Advisers Act of 1940 Rule 206(4)-6 imposes a number of requirements on investment advisers that have voting authority with respect to securities held in their clients’ portfolios. As a fiduciary, First Quadrant owes its clients the duty of care and loyalty with respect to services undertaking on the clients’ behalves, including proxy voting. To satisfy its duty of loyalty, an adviser must cast the proxy votes in a manner consistent with the best interests of its clients, and must never put the adviser’s own interest above those of its clients. First Quadrant defines the best interest of a client to mean the best economic interest of the holders of the same or similar securities of the issuer held in the client’s account.

These written policies and procedures are designed to reasonably ensure that First Quadrant, L.P. (“First Quadrant”) votes proxies in the best interest of clients for whom First Quadrant has voting authority and describe how the adviser addresses material conflicts between its interests and those of its clients with respect to proxy voting.

First Quadrant utilizes the services of an independent outside proxy service, Glass Lewis & Co (“Glass Lewis”), to act as agent for the proxy process, to maintain records on proxy voting for our clients, and to provide independent research on corporate governance, proxy, and corporate responsibility issues. In addition, First Quadrant has adopted as its own policies those of Glass Lewis’ proxy voting guidelines.

First Quadrant maintains a Proxy Committee (the “Committee”), made up of senior members of the equity investment team, which is responsible for deciding what is in the best interests of each client when deciding how proxies are voted. The Committee meets at least annually to review, approve, and adopt as First Quadrant’s own policies, Glass Lewis proxy voting guidelines. Any changes to the Glass Lewis voting guidelines must be reviewed, approved, and adopted by the Committee when changes occur.

A copy of First Quadrant’s proxy voting policies is available upon request to its clients. Because circumstances differ between clients, some clients contractually reserve the right to vote their own proxies or contractually may direct First Quadrant to vote certain of their proxies in a specific manner, in which case the Committee will assume the responsibility for voting the proxies in accordance with the client’s desires.

First Quadrant’s Trade Operations Group will monitor corporate actions, ensuring notifications from custodians and/or information from Bloomberg or other electronic surveillance systems is recorded in our portfolio management and accounting systems.

Voting Client Proxies

When a new portfolio is opened and First Quadrant has ascertained either through language found within the investment management agreement or through written correspondence with the client that First Quadrant is responsible for voting proxies, a letter is sent to the custodian informing them that Glass Lewis will act as First Quadrant’s proxy voting agent and advising them to forward all proxy material pertaining to the portfolio to Glass Lewis for execution. Additionally, First Quadrant provides Glass Lewis with a list of the portfolios for which First Quadrant holds voting authority as needed.

Glass Lewis, as proxy voting agent for First Quadrant, is responsible for analyzing and voting each proxy in a timely manner, maintaining records of proxy statements received and votes cast, and providing reports to First Quadrant, upon request, concerning how proxies were voted for a client. First Quadrant’s Client Service Dept. is responsible for: setting up new portfolios; determining which portfolios First Quadrant has proxy voting responsibilities; ensuring the custodians and Glass Lewis are appropriately notified; receiving and forwarding to the Committee, and ultimately Glass Lewis, any direction received from a client to vote a proxy in a specific manner; and maintaining client documentation and any communications received by First Quadrant related to proxy voting, including records of all communications received from clients requesting information on how their proxies were voted and First Quadrant’s responses.

246

With respect to securities out on loan, please refer to Addendum A for specific policies and procedures regarding the voting of proxies.

Oversight of GLASS LEWIS

As First Quadrant retains ultimate responsibility for proxies voted by Glass Lewis, First Quadrant’s Proxy Committee will monitor Glass Lewis proxy voting to ensure it is completed in accordance with the proxy voting guidelines adopted by First Quadrant. First Quadrant’s Proxy Committee will also periodically review Glass Lewis’ business practices, procedures, and potential conflicts that may impact its ability to carry out the described responsibilities. This monitoring may be accomplished through discussions with Glass Lewis, document and record reviews, or a combination of these approaches.

Conflicts of Interest

The adoption of the Glass Lewis proxy voting policies provides pre-determined policies for voting proxies and thereby minimizes the potential conflict of interests that could affect the outcome of a vote. The intent of this policy is to minimize the discretion that First Quadrant may have to interpret what is in the best interest of any client or how to vote proxies in cases where First Quadrant has a material conflict of interest or the appearance of a material conflict of interest. However, under very limited circumstances First Quadrant will exercise discretion when it believes that the Glass Lewis’ proxy voting policy does not align with First Quadrant’s clients’ unique interests on the matters being voted on . First Quadrant’s Proxy Voting Committee will maintain the proper records when it decides to exercise the discretion and vote directly.

Providing Voting Information

First Quadrant will provide information to its clients on how their securities were voted for their specific portfolio(s). Clients should be directed to contact First Quadrant at 626-795-8220 or fqclientservice@firstquadrant.com for such information.

Policy last updated: October 2015

_____________________________

¹See Voting Client Proxies section for an explanation of this role.

ADDENDUM A

Securities on Loan

Investment advisers are required by the SEC to recall outstanding securities on loan in order to vote on material events, i.e. mergers and acquisitions which are contentious and controversial in nature. Since clients negotiate the terms of their securities lending program, which affords them the insight into the value of recalling outstanding shares of securities on loan, First Quadrant places the burden of the decision of recalling shares on the client and will treat all correspondences from clients affirming their desire to recall shares on loan as requests to First Quadrant’s Client Services Department.

In handling such matters, First Quadrant’s Portfolio Implementation Department will, as part of its research function, monitor for and identify occurrences of mergers and acquisitions which are controversial or contentious in nature. Once the occurrence of such mergers and acquisitions have been identified, Client Services will ascertain the appropriate time frame to recall the security, which will then be noted in a letter forwarded to all clients addressing, in particular, clients who have securities out on loan. The letter will request clients whose securities are out on loan to determine whether or not it is of an economic value to them to recall the shares out on loan for purposes of voting the proxy. If a client expresses his/her desire to recall securities out on loan, the client will be asked to provide a contact from their securities lending program to which First Quadrant can direct all recall requests, which will also allow the client to coordinate the recall with the custodial bank directly. Glass Lewis will also be contacted to coordinate any necessary aspects of the recall on its end. Once shares have been recalled, Glass Lewis will vote on the proxy according to the guidelines adopted by First Quadrant.

Franklin Advisers, Inc.
Templeton Global Advisors Limited

PROXY VOTING POLICIES & PROCEDURES
An SEC Compliance Rule Policy and Procedures*

RESPONSIBILITY OF INVESTMENT MANAGER TO VOTE PROXIES

247

Franklin Advisers, Inc. (hereinafter the “Investment Manager”) has delegated its administrative duties with respect to voting proxies for securities to the Proxy Group within Franklin Templeton Companies, LLC (the “Proxy Group”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Franklin Resources, Inc. Franklin Templeton Companies, LLC provides a variety of general corporate services to its affiliates, including, but not limited to, legal and compliance activities. Proxy duties consist of analyzing proxy statements of issuers whose stock is owned by any client (including both investment companies and any separate accounts managed by the Investment Manager) that has either delegated proxy voting administrative responsibility to the Investment Manager or has asked for information and/or recommendations on the issues to be voted.

The Proxy Group will process proxy votes on behalf of, and the Investment Manager votes proxies solely in the best interests of, separate account clients, the Investment Manager-managed investment company shareholders, or shareholders of funds that have appointed Franklin Templeton International Services S.à. r.l. (“FTIS S.à.r.l.”) as the Management Company, provided such funds or clients have properly delegated such responsibility in writing, or, where employee benefit plan assets subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, are involved (“ERISA accounts”), in the best interests of the plan participants and beneficiaries (collectively, “Advisory Clients”), unless (i) the power to vote has been specifically retained by the named fiduciary in the documents in which the named fiduciary appointed the Investment Manager or (ii) the documents otherwise expressly prohibit the Investment Manager from voting proxies. The Investment Manager recognizes that the exercise of voting rights on securities held by ERISA plans for which the Investment Manager has voting responsibility is a fiduciary duty that must be exercised with care, skill, prudence and diligence. The Investment Manager will inform Advisory Clients that have not delegated the voting responsibility but that have requested voting advice about the Investment Manager's views on such proxy votes. The Proxy Group also provides these services to other advisory affiliates of the Investment Manager.

The Investment Manager has adopted and implemented Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures (“Proxy Policies”) that it believes are reasonably designed to ensure that proxies are voted in the best interest of Advisory Clients in accordance with its fiduciary duties and rule 206(4)-6 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. To the extent that the Investment Manager has a subadvisory agreement with an affiliated investment manager (the “Affiliated Subadviser”) with respect to a particular Advisory Client, the Investment Manager may delegate proxy voting responsibility to the Affiliated Subadviser. The Investment Manager’s Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures are substantially similar to those of its affiliated investment managers. The Investment Manager may also delegate proxy voting responsibility to a Non-Affiliated Subadviser in certain limited situations as disclosed to fund shareholders (e.g., where an Investment Manager to a pooled investment vehicle has engaged an unaffiliated Subadviser to manage all or a portion of the assets).

HOW INVESTMENT MANAGER VOTES PROXIES

Fiduciary Considerations

All proxies received by the Proxy Group will be voted based upon the Investment Manager's instructions and/or policies. To assist it in analyzing proxies of equity securities, the Investment Manager subscribes to Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (“ISS”), an unaffiliated third party corporate governance research service that provides in-depth analyses of shareholder meeting agendas and vote recommendations. In addition, the Investment Manager subscribes to ISS’s Proxy Voting Service and Vote Disclosure Service. These services include receipt of proxy ballots, custodian bank relations, account maintenance, vote execution, ballot reconciliation, vote record maintenance, comprehensive reporting capabilities, and vote disclosure services. Also, the Investment Manager subscribes to Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC (“Glass Lewis”), an unaffiliated third party analytical research firm, to receive analyses and vote recommendations on the shareholder meetings of publicly held U.S. companies, as well as a limited subscription to its international research. Also, the Investment Manager has a supplemental subscription to Egan-Jones Proxy Services (“Egan-Jones”), an unaffiliated third party proxy advisory firm, to receive analyses and vote recommendations. Although analyses provided by ISS, Glass Lewis, Egan-Jones, and/or another independent third party proxy service provider (each a “Proxy Service”) are thoroughly reviewed and considered in making a final voting decision, the Investment Manager does not consider recommendations from a Proxy Service or any third party to be determinative of the Investment Manager's ultimate decision. Rather, the Investment Manager exercises its independent judgment in making voting decisions. . As a matter of policy, the officers, directors and employees of the Investment Manager and the Proxy Group will not be influenced by outside sources whose interests conflict with the interests of Advisory Clients.

For ease of reference, the Proxy Policies often refer to all Advisory Clients. However, our processes and practices seek to ensure that proxy voting decisions are suitable for individual Advisory Clients. For most proxy proposals, the Investment Manager’s evaluation should result in the same position being taken for all Advisory Clients. In some cases, however, the evaluation may result in an individual Advisory Client voting differently, depending upon the nature and objective of the fund or account, the composition of its portfolio and other factors.

Conflicts of Interest

248

All conflicts of interest will be resolved in the best interests of the Advisory Clients. The Investment Manager is an affiliate of a large, diverse financial services firm with many affiliates and makes its best efforts to avoid conflicts of interest. However, conflicts of interest can arise in situations where:

1. The issuer is a client¹ of the Investment Manager or its affiliates;

2. The issuer is a vendor whose products or services are material or significant to the business of the Investment Manager or its affiliates;²

3. The issuer is an entity participating to a material extent in the distribution of proprietary investment products advised, administered or sponsored by the Investment Manager or its affiliates (e.g., a broker, dealer or bank);³

4. The issuer is a significant executing broker dealer;⁴

5. An Access Person⁵ of the Investment Manager or its affiliates also serves as a director or officer of the issuer;

6. A director or trustee of Franklin Resources, Inc. or any of its subsidiaries or of a Franklin Templeton investment product, or an immediate family member⁶ of such director or trustee, also serves as an officer or director of the issuer; or

7. The issuer is Franklin Resources, Inc. or any of its proprietary investment products that are offered to the public as a direct investment.

Nonetheless, even though a potential conflict of interest may exist: (1) the Investment Manager may vote in opposition to the recommendations of an issuer’s management even if contrary to the recommendations of a third party proxy voting research provider; (2) if management has made no recommendations, the Proxy Group may defer to the voting instructions of the Investment Manager; and (3) with respect to shares held by Franklin Resources, Inc. or its affiliates for their own corporate accounts, such shares may be voted without regard to these conflict procedures.

Material conflicts of interest are identified by the Proxy Group based upon analyses of client, distributor, broker dealer, and vendor lists, information periodically gathered from directors and officers, and information derived from other sources, including public filings. The Proxy Group gathers and analyzes this information on a best efforts basis, as much of this information is provided directly by individuals and groups other than the Proxy Group, and the Proxy Group relies on the accuracy of the information it receives from such parties.

In situations where a material conflict of interest is identified between the Investment Manager or one of its affiliates and an issuer, the Proxy Group may vote consistent with the voting recommendation of a Proxy Service or send the proxy directly to the relevant Advisory Clients with the Investment Manager’s recommendation regarding the vote for approval.

Where the Proxy Group refers a matter to an Advisory Client, it may rely upon the instructions of a representative of the Advisory Client, such as the board of directors or trustees, a committee of the board, or an appointed delegate in the case of a U. S. registered investment company, a conducting officer in the case of a fund that has appointed FTIS S.à.r.l as its Management Company, the Independent Review Committee for Canadian investment funds, or a plan administrator in the case of an employee benefit plan. The Proxy Group may determine to vote all shares held by Advisory Clients of the Investment Manager and affiliated Investment Managers in accordance with the instructions of one or more of the Advisory Clients.

The Investment Manager may also decide whether to vote proxies for securities deemed to present conflicts of interest that are sold following a record date, but before a shareholder meeting date. The Investment Manager may consider various factors in deciding whether to vote such proxies, including the Investment Manager’s long-term view of the issuer’s securities for investment, or it may defer the decision to vote to the applicable Advisory Client. The Investment Manager also may be unable to vote, or choose not to vote, a proxy for securities deemed to present a conflict of interest for any of the reasons outlined in the first paragraph of the section of these policies entitled “Proxy Procedures.”

Where a material conflict of interest has been identified, but the items on which the Investment Manager’s vote recommendations differ from a Proxy Service relate specifically to (1) shareholder proposals regarding social or environmental issues, (2) “Other Business” without describing the matters that might be considered, or (3) items the Investment Manager wishes to vote in opposition to the recommendations of an issuer’s management, the Proxy Group may defer to the vote recommendations of the Investment Manager rather than sending the proxy directly to the relevant Advisory Clients for approval.

249

To avoid certain potential conflicts of interest, the Investment Manager will employ echo voting, if possible, in the following instances: (1) when a Franklin Templeton U.S. registered investment company invests in an underlying fund in reliance on any one of Sections 12(d)(1)(E), (F), or (G) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, (“1940 Act”), the rules thereunder, or pursuant to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) exemptive order thereunder; (2) when a Franklin Templeton U.S. registered investment company invests uninvested cash in affiliated money market funds pursuant to the rules under the 1940 Act or any exemptive orders thereunder (“cash sweep arrangement”); or (3) when required pursuant to the fund’s governing documents or applicable law. Echo voting means that the Investment Manager will vote the shares in the same proportion as the vote of all of the other holders of the fund’s shares.

In addition, with respect to an open-ended collective investment scheme formed as a Société d'investissement à capital variable (SICAV), in accordance with Luxembourg law, if one sub-fund (the “Acquirer”) has invested in another sub-fund of the SICAV (the “Target”), then the voting rights attached to the shares of the Target will be suspended for voting purposes as long as they are held by the Acquirer. Similarly, in accordance with Canadian law, Canadian mutual funds that are invested in another proprietary mutual fund are prohibited from voting the units of the underlying fund.

Weight Given Management Recommendations

One of the primary factors the Investment Manager considers when determining the desirability of investing in a particular company is the quality and depth of that company's management. Accordingly, the recommendation of management on any issue is a factor that the Investment Manager considers in determining how proxies should be voted. However, the Investment Manager does not consider recommendations from management to be determinative of the Investment Manager's ultimate decision. As a matter of practice, the votes with respect to most issues are cast in accordance with the position of the company's management. Each issue, however, is considered on its own merits, and the Investment Manager will not support the position of a company's management in any situation where it determines that the ratification of management's position would adversely affect the investment merits of owning that company's shares.

Engagement with Issuers

The Investment Manager believes that engagement with issuers is important to good corporate governance and to assist in making proxy voting decisions. The Investment Manager may engage with issuers to discuss specific ballot items to be voted on in advance of an annual or special meeting to obtain further information or clarification on the proposals. The Investment Manager may also engage with management on a range of environmental, social or corporate governance issues throughout the year.

THE PROXY GROUP

The Proxy Group is part of the Franklin Templeton Companies, LLC Legal Department and is overseen by legal counsel. Full-time staff members and support staff (which includes individuals that are employees of affiliates of Franklin Templeton Companies, LLC) are devoted to proxy voting administration and oversight and providing support and assistance where needed. On a daily basis, the Proxy Group will review each proxy upon receipt as well as any agendas, materials and recommendations that they receive from a Proxy Service or other sources. The Proxy Group maintains a log of all shareholder meetings that are scheduled for companies whose securities are held by the Investment Manager's managed funds and accounts. For each shareholder meeting, a member of the Proxy Group will consult with the research analyst that follows the security and provide the analyst with the agenda, analyses of one or more Proxy Services, recommendations and any other information provided to the Proxy Group. Except in situations identified as presenting material conflicts of interest, the Investment Manager's research analyst and relevant portfolio manager(s) are responsible for making the final voting decision based on their review of the agenda, analyses of one or more Proxy Services, proxy statements, their knowledge of the company and any other information publicly available.

In situations where the Investment Manager has not responded with vote recommendations to the Proxy Group by the deadline date, the Proxy Group may vote consistent with the vote recommendations of a Proxy Service. Except in cases where the Proxy Group is voting consistent with the voting recommendation of a Proxy Service, the Proxy Group must obtain voting instructions from the Investment Manager's research analyst, relevant portfolio manager(s), legal counsel and/or the Advisory Client prior to submitting the vote. In the event that an account holds a security that the Investment Manager did not purchase on its behalf, and the Investment Manager does not normally consider the security as a potential investment for other accounts, the Proxy Group may vote consistent with the voting recommendations of a Proxy Service or take no action on the meeting.

GENERAL PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES

250

The Investment Manager has adopted general guidelines for voting proxies as summarized below. In keeping with its fiduciary obligations to its Advisory Clients, the Investment Manager reviews all proposals, even those that may be considered to be routine matters. Although these guidelines are to be followed as a general policy, in all cases each proxy and proposal (including both management and shareholder proposals) will be considered based on the relevant facts and circumstances on a case-by-case basis. The Investment Manager may deviate from the general policies and procedures when it determines that the particular facts and circumstances warrant such deviation to protect the best interests of the Advisory Clients. These guidelines cannot provide an exhaustive list of all the issues that may arise nor can the Investment Manager anticipate all future situations. Corporate governance issues are diverse and continually evolving and the Investment Manager devotes significant time and resources to monitor these changes.

THE INVESTMENT MANAGER’S PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PRINCIPLES

The Investment Manager's proxy voting positions have been developed based on years of experience with proxy voting and corporate governance issues. These principles have been reviewed by various members of the Investment Manager's organization, including portfolio management, legal counsel, and the Investment Manager's officers. The Board of Directors of Franklin Templeton’s U.S.-registered investment companies will approve the proxy voting policies and procedures annually.

The following guidelines reflect what the Investment Manager believes to be good corporate governance and behavior:

Board of Directors: The election of directors and an independent board are key to good corporate governance. Directors are expected to be competent individuals and they should be accountable and responsive to shareholders. The Investment Manager supports an independent, diverse board of directors, and prefers that key committees such as audit, nominating, and compensation committees be comprised of independent directors. The Investment Manager supports boards with strong risk management oversight. The Investment Manager will generally vote against management efforts to classify a board and will generally support proposals to declassify the board of directors. The Investment Manager will consider withholding votes from directors who have attended less than 75% of meetings without a valid reason. While generally in favor of separating Chairman and CEO positions, the Investment Manager will review this issue on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration other factors including the company's corporate governance guidelines and performance. The Investment Manager evaluates proposals to restore or provide for cumulative voting on a case-by-case basis and considers such factors as corporate governance provisions as well as relative performance. The Investment Manager generally will support non-binding shareholder proposals to require a majority vote standard for the election of directors; however, if these proposals are binding, the Investment Manager will give careful review on a case-by-case basis of the potential ramifications of such implementation.

In the event of a contested election, the Investment Manager will review a number of factors in making a decision including management’s track record, the company’s financial performance, qualifications of candidates on both slates, and the strategic plan of the dissidents and/or shareholder nominees.

Ratification of Auditors: The Investment Manager will closely scrutinize the independence, role, and performance of auditors. On a case-by-case basis, The Investment Manager will examine proposals relating to non-audit relationships and non-audit fees. The Investment Manager will also consider, on a case-by-case basis, proposals to rotate auditors, and will vote against the ratification of auditors when there is clear and compelling evidence of a lack of independence, accounting irregularities or negligence attributable to the auditors. The Investment Manager may also consider whether the ratification of auditors has been approved by an appropriate audit committee that meets applicable composition and independence requirements.

Management & Director Compensation: A company's equity-based compensation plan should be in alignment with the shareholders' long-term interests. The Investment Manager believes that executive compensation should be directly linked to the performance of the company. The Investment Manager evaluates plans on a case-by-case basis by considering several factors to determine whether the plan is fair and reasonable. The Investment Manager reviews the ISS quantitative model utilized to assess such plans and/or the Glass Lewis evaluation of the plan. The Investment Manager will generally oppose plans that have the potential to be excessively dilutive, and will almost always oppose plans that are structured to allow the repricing of underwater options, or plans that have an automatic share replenishment “evergreen” feature. The Investment Manager will generally support employee stock option plans in which the purchase price is at least 85% of fair market value, and when potential dilution is 10% or less.

Severance compensation arrangements will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, although the Investment Manager will generally oppose “golden parachutes” that are considered excessive. The Investment Manager will normally support proposals that require that a percentage of directors' compensation be in the form of common stock, as it aligns their interests with those of the shareholders.

251

The Investment Manager will review non-binding say-on-pay proposals on a case-by-case basis, and will generally vote in favor of such proposals unless compensation is misaligned with performance and/or shareholders’ interests, the company has not provided reasonably clear disclosure regarding its compensation practices, or there are concerns with the company’s remuneration practices.

Anti-Takeover Mechanisms and Related Issues: The Investment Manager generally opposes anti-takeover measures since they tend to reduce shareholder rights. However, as with all proxy issues, the Investment Manager conducts an independent review of each anti-takeover proposal. On occasion, the Investment Manager may vote with management when the research analyst has concluded that the proposal is not onerous and would not harm Advisory Clients' interests as stockholders. The Investment Manager generally supports proposals that require shareholder rights plans (“poison pills”) to be subject to a shareholder vote. The Investment Manager will closely evaluate shareholder rights' plans on a case-by-case basis to determine whether or not they warrant support. The Investment Manager will generally vote against any proposal to issue stock that has unequal or subordinate voting rights. In addition, the Investment Manager generally opposes any supermajority voting requirements as well as the payment of “greenmail.” The Investment Manager usually supports “fair price” provisions and confidential voting. The Investment Manager will review a company’s proposal to reincorporate to a different state or country on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration financial benefits such as tax treatment as well as comparing corporate governance provisions and general business laws that may result from the change in domicile.

Changes to Capital Structure: The Investment Manager realizes that a company's financing decisions have a significant impact on its shareholders, particularly when they involve the issuance of additional shares of common or preferred stock or the assumption of additional debt. The Investment Manager will carefully review, on a case-by-case basis, proposals by companies to increase authorized shares and the purpose for the increase. The Investment Manager will generally not vote in favor of dual-class capital structures to increase the number of authorized shares where that class of stock would have superior voting rights. The Investment Manager will generally vote in favor of the issuance of preferred stock in cases where the company specifies the voting, dividend, conversion and other rights of such stock and the terms of the preferred stock issuance are deemed reasonable. The Investment Manager will review proposals seeking preemptive rights on a case-by-case basis.

Mergers and Corporate Restructuring: Mergers and acquisitions will be subject to careful review by the research analyst to determine whether they would be beneficial to shareholders. The Investment Manager will analyze various economic and strategic factors in making the final decision on a merger or acquisition. Corporate restructuring proposals are also subject to a thorough examination on a case-by-case basis.

Environmental and Social Issues: The Investment Manager considers environmental and social issues alongside traditional financial measures to provide a more comprehensive view of the value, risk and return potential of an investment. Companies may face significant financial, legal and reputational risks resulting from poor environmental and social practices, or negligent oversight of environmental or social issues. Franklin Templeton’s “Responsible Investment Principles and Policies” describes the Investment Manager’s approach to consideration of environmental, social and governance issues within the Investment Manager’s processes and ownership practices.

In the Investment Manager’s experience, those companies that are managed well are often effective in dealing with the relevant environmental and social issues that pertain to their business. As such, the Investment Manager will generally give management discretion with regard to environmental and social issues. However, in cases where management and the board have not demonstrated adequate efforts to mitigate material environmental or social risks, have engaged in inappropriate or illegal conduct, or have failed to adequately address current or emergent risks that threaten shareholder value, the Investment Manager may choose to support well-crafted shareholder proposals that serve to promote or protect shareholder value. This may include seeking appropriate disclosure regarding material environmental and social issues. The Investment Manager will review shareholder proposals on a case-by-case basis and may support those that serve to enhance value or mitigate risk, are drafted appropriately, and do not disrupt the course of business or require a disproportionate or inappropriate use of company resources.

The Investment Manager will consider supporting a shareholder proposal seeking disclosure and greater board oversight of lobbying and corporate political contributions if the Investment Manager believes that there is evidence of inadequate oversight by the company’s board, if the company’s current disclosure is significantly deficient, or if the disclosure is notably lacking in comparison to the company’s peers.

Governance Matters: The Investment Manager generally supports the right of shareholders to call special meetings and act by written consent. However, the Investment Manager will review such shareholder proposals on a case-by-case basis in an effort to ensure that such proposals do not disrupt the course of business or require a disproportionate or inappropriate use of company resources.

252

Proxy Access: In cases where the Investment Manager is satisfied with company performance and the responsiveness of management, it will generally vote against shareholder proxy access proposals not supported by management. In other instances, the Investment Manager will consider such proposals on a case-by-case basis, taking into account factors such as the size of the company, ownership thresholds and holding periods, nomination limits (e.g., number of candidates that can be nominated), the intentions of the shareholder proponent, and shareholder base.

Global Corporate Governance: The Investment Manager manages investments in countries worldwide. Many of the tenets discussed above are applied to the Investment Manager's proxy voting decisions for international investments. However, the Investment Manager must be flexible in these worldwide markets. Principles of good corporate governance may vary by country, given the constraints of a country’s laws and acceptable practices in the markets. As a result, it is on occasion difficult to apply a consistent set of governance practices to all issuers. As experienced money managers, the Investment Manager's analysts are skilled in understanding the complexities of the regions in which they specialize and are trained to analyze proxy issues germane to their regions.

PROXY PROCEDURES

The Proxy Group is fully cognizant of its responsibility to process proxies and maintain proxy records pursuant to SEC and Canadian Securities Administrators (“CSA”) rules and regulations. In addition, the Investment Manager understands its fiduciary duty to vote proxies and that proxy voting decisions may affect the value of shareholdings. Therefore, the Investment Manager will generally attempt to process every proxy it receives for all domestic and foreign securities. However, there may be situations in which the Investment Manager may be unable to successfully vote a proxy, or may chose not to vote a proxy, such as where: (i) a proxy ballot was not received from the custodian bank; (ii) a meeting notice was received too late; (iii) there are fees imposed upon the exercise of a vote and it is determined that such fees outweigh the benefit of voting; (iv) there are legal encumbrances to voting, including blocking restrictions in certain markets that preclude the ability to dispose of a security if the Investment Manager votes a proxy or where the Investment Manager is prohibited from voting by applicable law, economic or other sanctions, or other regulatory or market requirements, including but not limited to, effective Powers of Attorney; (v) additional documentation or the disclosure of beneficial owner details is required; (vi) the Investment Manager held shares on the record date but has sold them prior to the meeting date; (vii) a proxy voting service is not offered by the custodian in the market; (viii) due to either system error or human error, the Investment Manager’s intended vote is not correctly submitted; (ix) the Investment Manager believes it is not in the best interest of the Advisory Client to vote the proxy for any other reason not enumerated herein; or (x) a security is subject to a securities lending or similar program that has transferred legal title to the security to another person.

In some non-U.S. jurisdictions, even if the Investment Manager uses reasonable efforts to vote a proxy on behalf of its Advisory Clients, such vote or proxy may be rejected because of (a) operational or procedural issues experienced by one or more third parties involved in voting proxies in such jurisdictions; (b) changes in the process or agenda for the meeting by the issuer for which the Investment Manager does not have sufficient notice; or (c) the exercise by the issuer of its discretion to reject the vote of the Investment Manager. In addition, despite the best efforts of the Proxy Group and its agents, there may be situations where the Investment Manager’s votes are not received, or properly tabulated, by an issuer or the issuer’s agent.

The Investment Manager or its affiliates may, on behalf of one or more of the proprietary registered investment companies advised by the Investment Manager or its affiliates, determine to use its best efforts to recall any security on loan where the Investment Manager or its affiliates (a) learn of a vote on a material event that may affect a security on loan and (b) determine that it is in the best interests of such proprietary registered investment companies to recall the security for voting purposes. The Investment Manager will not generally make such efforts on behalf of other Advisory Clients, or notify such Advisory Clients or their custodians that the Investment Manager or its affiliates has learned of such a vote.

There may be instances in certain non-U.S. markets where split voting is not allowed. Split voting occurs when a position held within an account is voted in accordance with two differing instructions. Some markets and/or issuers only allow voting on an entire position and do not accept split voting. In certain cases, when more than one Franklin Templeton Investment Manager has accounts holding shares of an issuer that are held in an omnibus structure, the Proxy Group will seek direction from an appropriate representative of the Advisory Client with multiple Investment Managers (such as a conducting officer of the Management Company in the case of a SICAV), or the Proxy Group will submit the vote based on the voting instructions provided by the Investment Manager with accounts holding the greatest number of shares of the security within the omnibus structure.

253

The Investment Manager may vote against an agenda item where no further information is provided, particularly in non-U.S. markets. For example, if “Other Business” is listed on the agenda with no further information included in the proxy materials, the Investment Manager may vote against the item as no information has been provided prior to the meeting in order to make an informed decision. The Investment Manager may also enter a “withhold” vote on the election of certain directors from time to time based on individual situations, particularly where the Investment Manager is not in favor of electing a director and there is no provision for voting against such director.

If several issues are bundled together in a single voting item, the Investment Manager will assess the total benefit to shareholders and the extent that such issues should be subject to separate voting proposals.

The following describes the standard procedures that are to be followed with respect to carrying out the Investment Manager's proxy policy:

1.	The Proxy Group will identify all Advisory Clients, maintain a list of those clients, and indicate those Advisory Clients who have delegated proxy voting authority in writing to the Investment Manager. The Proxy Group will periodically review and update this list. If the agreement with an Advisory Client permits the Advisory Client to provide instructions to the Investment Manager regarding how to vote the client’s shares, the Investment Manager will make a best-efforts attempt to vote per the Advisory Client’s instructions.
2.	All relevant information in the proxy materials received (e.g., the record date of the meeting) will be recorded promptly by the Proxy Group in a database to maintain control over such materials.
3.	The Proxy Group will review and compile information on each proxy upon receipt of any agendas, materials, reports, recommendations from a Proxy Service, or other information. The Proxy Group will then forward this information to the appropriate research analyst for review and voting instructions.
4.	In determining how to vote, the Investment Manager's analysts and relevant portfolio manager(s) will consider the General Proxy Voting Guidelines set forth above, their in-depth knowledge of the company, any readily available information and research about the company and its agenda items, and the recommendations of a Proxy Service.
5.	The Proxy Group is responsible for maintaining the documentation that supports the Investment Manager’s voting decision. Such documentation may include, but is not limited to, any information provided by a Proxy Service and, with respect to an issuer that presents a potential conflict of interest, any board or audit committee memoranda describing the position it has taken. Additionally, the Proxy Group may include documentation obtained from the research analyst, portfolio manager and/or legal counsel; however, the relevant research analyst may, but is not required to, maintain additional documentation that was used or created as part of the analysis to reach a voting decision, such as certain financial statements of an issuer, press releases, or notes from discussions with an issuer’s management.
6.	After the proxy is completed but before it is returned to the issuer and/or its agent, the Proxy Group may review those situations including special or unique documentation to determine that the appropriate documentation has been created, including conflict of interest screening.
7.	The Proxy Group will make every effort to submit the Investment Manager's vote on all proxies to ISS by the cut-off date. However, in certain foreign jurisdictions or instances where the Proxy Group did not receive sufficient notice of the meeting, the Proxy Group will use its best efforts to send the voting instructions to ISS in time for the vote to be processed.
8.	With respect to proprietary products, the Proxy Group will file Powers of Attorney in all jurisdictions that require such documentation on a best efforts basis; the Proxy Group does not have authority to file Powers of Attorney on behalf of other Advisory Clients. On occasion, the Investment Manager may wish to attend and vote at a shareholder meeting in person. In such cases, the Proxy Group will use its best efforts to facilitate the attendance of the designated Franklin Templeton employee by coordinating with the relevant custodian bank.
9.	The Proxy Group prepares reports for each Advisory Client that has requested a record of votes cast. The report specifies the proxy issues that have been voted for the Advisory Client during the requested period and the position taken with respect to each issue. The Proxy Group sends one copy to the Advisory Client, retains a copy in the Proxy Group’s files and forwards a copy to either the appropriate portfolio manager or the client service representative. While many Advisory Clients prefer quarterly or annual reports, the Proxy Group will provide reports for any timeframe requested by an Advisory Client.
10.	If the Franklin Templeton Services, LLC Global Trade Services learns of a vote that may affect a security on loan from a

254

	proprietary registered investment company, Global Trade Services will notify the Investment Manager. If the Investment Manager decides that the vote is material and it would be in the best interests of shareholders to recall the security, the Investment Manager will advise Global Trade Services to contact the lending agent in an effort to retrieve the security. If so requested by the Investment Manager, Global Trade Services shall use its best efforts to recall any security on loan and will use other practicable and legally enforceable means to ensure that the Investment Manager is able to fulfill its fiduciary duty to vote proxies for proprietary registered investment companies with respect to such loaned securities. However, there can be no guarantee that the securities can be retrieved for such purposes. Global Trade Services will advise the Proxy Group of all recalled securities. Many Advisory Clients have entered into securities lending arrangements with agent lenders to generate additional revenue. Under normal circumstances, the Investment Manager will not make efforts to recall any security on loan for voting purposes on behalf of other Advisory Clients, or notify such clients or their custodians that the Investment Manager or its affiliates have learned of such a vote.
11.	The Proxy Group participates in Franklin Templeton Investment’s Business Continuity and Disaster Preparedness programs. The Proxy Group will conduct disaster recovery testing on a periodic basis in an effort to ensure continued operations of the Proxy Group in the event of a disaster. Should the Proxy Group not be fully operational, then the Proxy Group may instruct ISS to vote all meetings immediately due per the recommendations of the appropriate third-party proxy voting service provider.
12.	The Proxy Group, in conjunction with Legal Staff responsible for coordinating Fund disclosure, on a timely basis, will file all required Form N-PXs, with respect to proprietary U.S. registered investment companies, disclose that each fund’s proxy voting record is available on the Franklin Templeton web site, and will make available the information disclosed in each fund’s Form N-PX as soon as is reasonably practicable after filing Form N-PX with the SEC.
13.	The Proxy Group, in conjunction with Legal Staff responsible for coordinating Fund disclosure, will ensure that all required disclosure about proxy voting of the proprietary U.S. registered investment companies is made in such clients’ disclosure documents.
14.	The Proxy Group is subject to periodic review by Internal Audit, compliance groups, and external auditors.
15.	The Investment Manager will review the guidelines of each Proxy Service, with special emphasis on the factors they use with respect to proxy voting recommendations.
16.	The Proxy Group will update the proxy voting policies and procedures as necessary for review and approval by legal, compliance, investment officers, and/or other relevant staff.
17.	The Proxy Group will familiarize itself with the procedures of ISS that govern the transmission of proxy voting information from the Proxy Group to ISS and periodically review how well this process is functioning. The Proxy Group, in conjunction with the compliance department, will conduct periodic due diligence reviews of each Proxy Service via on-site visits or by written questionnaires. As part of the periodic due diligence process, the Investment Manager assesses the adequacy and quality of each Proxy Service’s staffing and personnel to ensure each Proxy Service has the capacity and competency to adequately analyze proxy issues and the ability to make proxy voting recommendations based on material accurate information. In the event the Investment Manager discovers an error in the research or voting recommendations provided by a Proxy Service, it will take reasonable steps to investigate the error and seek to determine whether the Proxy Service is taking reasonable steps to reduce similar errors in the future. In addition, the Investment Manager assesses the robustness of Proxy Service’s policies regarding (1) ensuring proxy voting recommendations are based on current and accurate information, and (2) identifying and addressing any conflicts of interest. To the extent enhanced disclosure of conflicts is required of Proxy Services, the Proxy Group will seek to ensure that each Proxy Service complies with such disclosure obligations and review the conflicts disclosed. The Investment Manager also considers the independence of each Proxy Service on an on-going basis.
18.	The Proxy Group will investigate, or cause others to investigate, any and all instances where these Procedures have been violated or there is evidence that they are not being followed. Based upon the findings of these investigations, the Proxy Group, if practicable, will recommend amendments to these Procedures to minimize the likelihood of the reoccurrence of non-compliance.
19.	At least annually, the Proxy Group will verify that:
a.	A sampling of proxies received by Franklin Templeton Investments has been voted in a manner consistent with the Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures;
b.	A sampling of proxies received by Franklin Templeton Investments has been voted in accordance with the instructions of the

255

	Investment Manager;
c.	Adequate disclosure has been made to clients and fund shareholders about the procedures and how proxies were voted in markets where such disclosures are required by law or regulation; and
d.	Timely filings were made with applicable regulators, as required by law or regulation, related to proxy voting.

The Proxy Group is responsible for maintaining appropriate proxy voting records. Such records will include, but are not limited to, a copy of all materials returned to the issuer and/or its agent, the documentation described above, listings of proxies voted by issuer and by client, each written client request for proxy voting policies/records and the Investment Manager’s written response to any client request for such records, and any other relevant information. The Proxy Group may use an outside service such as ISS to support this recordkeeping function. All records will be retained in either hard copy or electronic format for at least five years, the first two of which will be on-site. Advisory Clients may request copies of their proxy voting records by calling the Proxy Group collect at 1-954-527-7678, or by sending a written request to: Franklin Templeton Companies, LLC, 300 S.E. 2nd Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301, Attention: Proxy Group. The Investment Manager does not disclose to third parties (other than ISS) the proxy voting records of its Advisory Clients, except to the extent such disclosure is required by applicable law or regulation or court order. Advisory Clients may review the Investment Manager's proxy voting policies and procedures on-line at www.franklintempleton.com and may request additional copies by calling the number above. For U.S. proprietary registered investment companies, an annual proxy voting record for the period ending June 30 of each year will be posted to www.franklintempleton.com no later than August 31 of each year. For proprietary Canadian mutual fund products, an annual proxy voting record for the period ending June 30 of each year will be posted to www.franklintempleton.ca no later than August 31 of each year. The Proxy Group will periodically review the web site posting and update the posting when necessary. In addition, the Proxy Group is responsible for ensuring that the proxy voting policies, procedures and records of the Investment Manager are available as required by law and is responsible for overseeing the filing of such U.S. registered investment company voting records with the SEC.

PROCEDURES FOR MEETINGS INVOLVING FIXED INCOME SECURITIES

From time to time, certain custodians may process events for fixed income securities through their proxy voting channels rather than corporate action channels for administrative convenience. In such cases, the Proxy Group will receive ballots for such events on the ISS voting platform. The Proxy Group will solicit voting instructions from the Investment Manager for each account or fund involved. If the Proxy Group does not receive voting instructions from the Investment Manager, the Proxy Group will take no action on the event. The Investment Manager may be unable to vote a proxy for a fixed income security, or may choose not to vote a proxy, for the reasons described under the section entitled “Proxy Procedures.”

The Proxy Group will monitor such meetings involving fixed income securities for conflicts of interest in accordance with these procedures for fixed income securities. If a fixed income issuer is flagged as a potential conflict of interest, the Investment Manager may nonetheless vote as it deems in the best interests of its Advisory Clients. The Investment Manager will report such decisions on an annual basis to Advisory Clients as may be required.

As of January 2017

* Rule 38a-1 under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“1940 Act”) and Rule 206(4)-7 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) (together the “Compliance Rule”) require registered investment companies and registered investment advisers to, among other things, adopt and implement written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of the federal securities laws (“Compliance Rule Policies and Procedures”).

¹ For purposes of this section, a “client” does not include underlying investors in a collective investment trust, Canadian pooled fund, or other pooled investment vehicle managed by the Investment Manager or its affiliates. Sponsors of funds sub-advised by the Investment Manager or its affiliates will be considered a “client.”
² The top 50 vendors will be considered to present a potential conflict of interest.
³ The top 40 distributors (based on aggregate gross sales) will be considered to present a potential conflict of interest. In addition, any insurance company that has entered into a participation agreement with a Franklin Templeton entity to distribute the Franklin Templeton Variable Insurance Products Trust or other variable products will be considered to present a potential conflict of interest.
⁴ The top 40 executing broker-dealers (based on gross brokerage commissions and client commissions) will be considered to present a potential conflict of interest.
⁵“Access Person” shall have the meaning provided under the current Code of Ethics of Franklin Resources, Inc.
⁶ The term “immediate family member” means a person’s spouse; child residing in the person’s household (including step and adoptive children); and any dependent of the person, as defined in Section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 152).

256

GOLDMAN SACHS ASSET MANAGEMENT (“GSAM”)*

GSAM Global Proxy Voting Policy, Procedures and Guidelines

2017 Edition

March 2017

Table of Contents

Part I: Policy and Procedures

A. Guiding Principles

B. The Proxy Voting Process

C. Implementation

D. Conflicts of Interest

Part II: GSAM Proxy Voting Guidelines Summary

A. U.S. Proxy Items

Guidelines

B. Non-U.S. Proxy Items

Guidelines

Part I

A. Guiding Principles

Proxy voting and the analysis of corporate governance issues in general are important elements of the portfolio management services we provide to our advisory clients who have authorized us to address these matters on their behalf. Our guiding principles in performing proxy voting are to make decisions that favor proposals that in GSAM’s view maximize a company’s shareholder value and are not influenced by conflicts of interest. These principles reflect GSAM’s belief that sound corporate governance will create a framework within which a company can be managed in the interests of its shareholders.

GSAM has adopted the policies and procedures set out below regarding the voting of proxies (the “Policy”). GSAM periodically reviews this Policy to ensure it continues to be consistent with our guiding principles.

B. The Proxy Voting Process

Public Equity Investments

To implement these guiding principles for investments in publicly traded equities for which we have voting power on any record date, we follow customized proxy voting guidelines that have been developed by GSAM portfolio management (the “GSAM Guidelines”). The GSAM Guidelines embody the positions and factors GSAM generally considers important in casting proxy votes. They address a wide variety of individual topics, including, among other matters, shareholder voting rights, anti-takeover defenses, board structures, the election of directors, executive and director compensation, reorganizations, mergers, issues of corporate social responsibility and various shareholder proposals. Recognizing the complexity and fact-specific nature of many corporate governance issues, the GSAM Guidelines identify factors we consider in determining how the vote should be cast. A summary of the GSAM Guidelines is attached as Part II.

The principles and positions reflected in this Policy are designed to guide us in voting proxies, and not necessarily in making investment decisions. GSAM portfolio management teams (each, a “Portfolio Management Team”) base their determinations of whether to invest in a particular company on a variety of factors, and while corporate governance may be one such factor, it may not be the primary consideration.

Fundamental Equity and GS Investment Strategies Portfolio Management Teams

257

The Fundamental Equity and GS Investment Strategies Portfolio Management Teams view the analysis of corporate governance practices as an integral part of the investment research and stock valuation process. In forming their views on particular matters, these Portfolio Management Teams may consider applicable regional rules and practices, including codes of conduct and other guides, regarding proxy voting, in addition to the GSAM Guidelines and Recommendations (as defined below).

Quantitative Investment Strategies Portfolio Management Teams

The Quantitative Investment Strategies Portfolio Management Teams have decided to generally follow the GSAM Guidelines and Recommendations based on such Portfolio Management Teams’ investment philosophy and approach to portfolio construction, as well as their participation in the creation of the GSAM Guidelines. The Quantitative Investment Strategies Portfolio Management Teams may from time to time, however, review and individually assess any specific shareholder vote.

Fixed Income and Private Investments

Voting decisions with respect to client investments in fixed income securities and the securities of privately held issuers generally will be made by the relevant Portfolio Management Teams based on their assessment of the particular transactions or other matters at issue. Those Portfolio Management Teams may also adopt policies related to the fixed income or private investments they make that supplement this Policy.

Alternative Investment and Manager Selection (“AIMS”) and Externally Managed Strategies

Where GSAM places client assets with managers outside of GSAM, for example within GSAM’s AIMS business unit, such external managers generally will be responsible for voting proxies in accordance with the managers’ own policies. AIMS may, however, retain proxy voting responsibilities where it deems appropriate or necessary under prevailing circumstances. To the extent AIMS portfolio managers assume proxy voting responsibility with respect to publicly traded equity securities they will follow the GSAM Guidelines and Recommendations as discussed below unless an override is requested. Any other voting decision will be conducted in accordance with AIMS’ policies governing voting decisions with respect to non-publicly traded equity securities held by their clients.

C. Implementation

GSAM has retained a third-party proxy voting service (the “Proxy Service”) to assist in the implementation of certain proxy voting-related functions, including, without limitation, operational, recordkeeping and reporting services. Among its responsibilities, the Proxy Service prepares a written analysis and recommendation (a “Recommendation”) of each proxy vote that reflects the Proxy Service’s application of the GSAM Guidelines to the particular proxy issues. GSAM retains the responsibility for proxy voting decisions.

GSAM’s Portfolio Management Teams generally cast proxy votes consistently with the GSAM Guidelines and the Recommendations. Each Portfolio Management Team, however, may on certain proxy votes seek approval to diverge from the GSAM Guidelines or a Recommendation by following a process that seeks to ensure that override decisions are not influenced by any conflict of interest. As a result of the override process, different Portfolio Management Teams may vote differently for particular votes for the same company.

GSAM clients who have delegated voting responsibility to GSAM with respect to their account may from time to time contact their client representative if they would like to direct GSAM to vote in a particular manner for a particular solicitation. GSAM will use commercially reasonable efforts to vote according to the client’s request in these circumstances, however, GSAM’s ability to implement such voting instruction will be dependent on operational matters such as the timing of the request.

From time to time, GSAM’s ability to vote proxies may be affected by regulatory requirements and compliance, legal or logistical considerations. As a result, GSAM, from time to time, may determine that it is not practicable or desirable to vote proxies.

D. Conflicts of Interest

GSAM has implemented processes designed to prevent conflicts of interest from influencing its proxy voting decisions. These processes include information barriers as well as the use of the GSAM Guidelines and Recommendations and the override process described above in instances when a Portfolio Management Team is interested in voting in a manner that diverges from the initial Recommendation based on the GSAM Guidelines.

Part II

GSAM Proxy Voting Guidelines Summary

258

The following is a summary of the material GSAM Proxy Voting Guidelines (the “Guidelines”), which form the substantive basis of GSAM’s Policy and Procedures on Proxy Voting for Investment Advisory Clients (the “Policy”). As described in the main body of the Policy, one or more GSAM Portfolio Management Teams may diverge from the Guidelines and a related Recommendation on any particular proxy vote or in connection with any individual investment decision in accordance with the Policy.

A. US proxy items:

1. Operational Items

2. Board of Directors

3. Executive Compensation

4. Director Nominees and Proxy Access

5. Shareholder Rights and Defenses

6. Mergers and Corporate Restructurings

7. State of Incorporation

8. Capital Structure

9. Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) Issues

B. Non-U.S. proxy items:

1. Operational Items

2. Board of Directors

3. Compensation

4. Board Structure

5. Capital Structure

6. Mergers and Corporate Restructurings & Other

7. Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) Issues

U.S. Proxy Items

The following section is a summary of the Guidelines, which form the substantive basis of the Policy with respect to U.S. public equity investments.

1. Operational Items

Auditor Ratification

Vote FOR proposals to ratify auditors, unless any of the following apply within the last year:

■	An auditor has a financial interest in or association with the company, and is therefore not independent;
■	There is reason to believe that the independent auditor has rendered an opinion that is neither accurate nor indicative of the company’s financial position;
■	Poor accounting practices are identified that rise to a serious level of concern, such as: fraud; misapplication of GAAP; or material weaknesses identified in Section 404 disclosures; or
■	Fees for non-audit services are excessive (generally over 50% or more of the audit fees).

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on shareholder proposals asking companies to prohibit or limit their auditors from engaging in non-audit services or asking for audit firm rotation.

259

2. Board of Directors

The board of directors should promote the interests of shareholders by acting in an oversight and/or advisory role; the board should consist of a majority of independent directors and should be held accountable for actions and results related to their responsibilities.

When evaluating board composition, GSAM believes a diversity of ethnicity, gender and experience is an important consideration.

Classification of Directors

Where applicable, the New York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ Listing Standards definition is to be used to classify directors as inside directors, affiliated outside directors, or independent outside directors.

Additionally, GSAM will consider compensation committee interlocking directors to be affiliated (defined as CEOs who sit on each other’s compensation committees).

Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections

Vote on director nominees should be determined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from individual directors who:

■	Attend less than 75% of the board and committee meetings without a disclosed valid excuse for each of the last two years;
■	Sit on more than five public operating and/or holding company boards;
■	Are CEOs or CFOs of public companies who sit on the boards of more than two public companies besides their own—withhold only at their outside boards.

Other items considered for an AGAINST vote include specific concerns about the individual or the company, such as criminal wrongdoing or breach of fiduciary responsibilities, sanctions from government or authority, violations of laws and regulations, the presence of inappropriate related party transactions, or other issues related to improper business practices.

Vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from inside directors and affiliated outside directors (per the Classification of Directors above) in the case of operating and/or holding companies when:

■	The inside director or affiliated outside director serves on the Audit, Compensation or Nominating Committees; and
■	The company lacks an Audit, Compensation or Nominating Committee so that the full board functions as such committees and inside directors or affiliated outside directors are participating in voting on matters that independent committees should be voting on.

Vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from members of the appropriate committee for the following reasons (or independent chairman or lead director in cases of a classified board and members of appropriate committee are not up for re-election). Extreme cases may warrant a vote against the entire board.

■	Material failures of governance, stewardship, or fiduciary responsibilities at the company;
■	Egregious actions related to the director(s)’ service on other boards that raise substantial doubt about his or her ability to effectively oversee management and serve the best interests of shareholders at any company;
■	At the previous board election, any director received more than 50% withhold/against votes of the shares cast and the company has failed to address the underlying issue(s) that caused the high withhold/against vote (members of the Nominating or Governance Committees);
■	The board failed to act on a shareholder proposal that received approval of the majority of shares cast for the previous two consecutive years (a management proposal with other than a FOR recommendation by management will not be considered as sufficient action taken); an adopted proposal that is substantially similar to the original shareholder proposal will be deemed sufficient; (vote against members of the committee of the board that is responsible for the issue under consideration). If GSAM did not support the shareholder proposal in both years, GSAM will still vote against the committee member(s).

Vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from the members of the Audit Committee if:

■	The non-audit fees paid to the auditor are excessive (generally over 50% or more of the audit fees);
■	The company receives an adverse opinion on the company’s financial statements from its auditor and there is not clear evidence that the situation has been remedied;
■	There is persuasive evidence that the Audit Committee entered into an inappropriate indemnification agreement with its auditor that limits the ability of the company, or its shareholders, to pursue legitimate legal recourse against the audit firm; or
■	No members of the Audit Committee hold sufficient financial expertise.

260

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on members of the Audit Committee and/or the full board if poor accounting practices, which rise to a level of serious concern are identified, such as fraud, misapplication of GAAP and material weaknesses identified in Section 404 disclosures.

Examine the severity, breadth, chronological sequence and duration, as well as the company’s efforts at remediation or corrective actions, in determining whether negative vote recommendations are warranted against the members of the Audit Committee who are responsible for the poor accounting practices, or the entire board.

See section 3 on executive and director compensation for reasons to withhold from members of the Compensation Committee.

In limited circumstances, GSAM may vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from all nominees of the board of directors (except from new nominees who should be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis and except as discussed below) if:

■	The company’s poison pill has a dead-hand or modified dead-hand feature for two or more years. Vote against/withhold every year until this feature is removed; however, vote against the poison pill if there is one on the ballot with this feature rather than the director;
■	The board adopts or renews a poison pill without shareholder approval, does not commit to putting it to shareholder vote within 12 months of adoption (or in the case of an newly public company, does not commit to put the pill to a shareholder vote within 12 months following the IPO), or reneges on a commitment to put the pill to a vote, and has not yet received a withhold/against recommendation for this issue;
■	The board failed to act on takeover offers where the majority of the shareholders tendered their shares;
■	If in an extreme situation the board lacks accountability and oversight, coupled with sustained poor performance relative to peers.

Shareholder proposal regarding Independent Chair (Separate Chair/CEO)

Vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

GSAM will generally recommend a vote AGAINST shareholder proposals requiring that the chairman’s position be filled by an independent director, if the company satisfies 3 of the 4 following criteria:

■	Designated lead director, elected by and from the independent board members with clearly delineated and comprehensive duties;
■	Two-thirds independent board;
■	All independent “key” committees (audit, compensation and nominating committees); or
■	Established, disclosed governance guidelines.

Shareholder proposal regarding board declassification

GSAM will generally vote FOR proposals requesting that the board adopt a declassified structure in the case of operating and holding companies.

Majority Vote Shareholder Proposals

GSAM will vote FOR proposals requesting that the board adopt majority voting in the election of directors provided it does not conflict with the state law where the company is incorporated. GSAM also looks for companies to adopt a post-election policy outlining how the company will address the situation of a holdover director.

Cumulative Vote Shareholder Proposals

GSAM will generally support shareholder proposals to restore or provide cumulative voting in the case of operating and holding companies unless:

■	The company has adopted (i) majority vote standard with a carve-out for plurality voting in situations where there are more nominees than seats and (ii) a director resignation policy to address failed elections.

3. Executive Compensation

Pay Practices

261

or proper disclosure, egregious employment contracts, excessive severance and/or change in control provisions, repricing or replacing of underwater stock options/stock appreciation rights without prior shareholder approval, and excessive perquisites. A company should also have an appropriate balance of short-term vs. long-term metrics and the metrics should be aligned with business goals and objectives.

If the company maintains problematic or poor pay practices, generally vote:

■	AGAINST Management Say on Pay (MSOP) Proposals; or
■	AGAINST an equity-based incentive plan proposal if excessive non-performance-based equity awards are the major contributor to a pay-for-performance misalignment.
■	If no MSOP or equity-based incentive plan proposal item is on the ballot, vote AGAINST/WITHHOLD from compensation committee members.

Equity Compensation Plans

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on equity-based compensation plans. Evaluation takes into account potential plan cost, plan features and grant practices. While a negative combination of these factors could cause a vote AGAINST, other reasons to vote AGAINST the equity plan could include the following factors:

■	The plan permits the repricing of stock options/stock appreciation rights (SARs) without prior shareholder approval; or
■	There is more than one problematic material feature of the plan, which could include one of the following: unfavorable change-in-control features, presence of gross ups and options reload.

Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Say-on-Pay, MSOP) Management Proposals

Vote FOR annual frequency and AGAINST all proposals asking for any frequency less than annual.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on management proposals for an advisory vote on executive compensation. For U.S. companies, consider the following factors in the context of each company’s specific circumstances and the board’s disclosed rationale for its practices. In general more than one factor will need to be present in order to warrant a vote AGAINST.

Pay-for-Performance Disconnect:

■	GSAM will consider there to be a disconnect based on a quantitative assessment of the following: CEO pay vs. TSR and peers, CEO pay as a percentage of the median peer group or CEO pay vs. shareholder return over time.

Additional Factors Considered Include:

■	Board’s responsiveness if company received 70% or less shareholder support in the previous year’s MSOP vote;
■	Abnormally large bonus payouts without justifiable performance linkage or proper disclosure;
■	Egregious employment contracts;
■	Excessive perquisites or excessive severance and/or change in control provisions;
■	Repricing or replacing of underwater stock options without prior shareholder approval;
■	Excessive pledging or hedging of stock by executives;
■	Egregious pension/SERP (supplemental executive retirement plan) payouts;
■	Extraordinary relocation benefits;
■	Internal pay disparity;
■	Lack of transparent disclosure of compensation philosophy and goals and targets, including details on short-term and long-term performance incentives; and
■	Long-term equity-based compensation is 100% time-based.

Other Compensation Proposals and Policies

Employee Stock Purchase Plans — Non-Qualified Plans

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on nonqualified employee stock purchase plans taking into account the following factors:

■	Broad-based participation;
■	Limits on employee contributions;
■	Company matching contributions; and
■	Presence of a discount on the stock price on the date of purchase.

Option Exchange Programs/Repricing Options

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on management proposals seeking approval to exchange/reprice options, taking into consideration:

262

■	Historic trading patterns—the stock price should not be so volatile that the options are likely to be back “in-the-money” over the near term;
■	Rationale for the re-pricing;
■	If it is a value-for-value exchange;
■	If surrendered stock options are added back to the plan reserve;
■	Option vesting;
■	Term of the option—the term should remain the same as that of the replaced option;
■	Exercise price—should be set at fair market or a premium to market;
■	Participants—executive officers and directors should be excluded.

Vote FOR shareholder proposals to put option repricings to a shareholder vote.

Other Shareholder Proposals on Compensation

Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Frequency on Pay)

Vote FOR annual frequency.

Stock retention holding period

Vote FOR shareholder proposals asking for a policy requiring that senior executives retain a significant percentage of shares acquired through equity compensation programs if the policy requests retention for two years or less following the termination of their employment (through retirement or otherwise) and a holding threshold percentage of 50% or less.

Also consider:

■	Whether the company has any holding period, retention ratio, or officer ownership requirements in place and the terms/provisions of awards already granted.

Elimination of accelerated vesting in the event of a change in control

Vote AGAINST shareholder proposals seeking a policy eliminating the accelerated vesting of time-based equity awards in the event of a change-in-control.

Performance-based equity awards and pay-for-superior-performance proposals

Generally support unless there is sufficient evidence that the current compensation structure is already substantially performance-based. GSAM considers performance-based awards to include awards that are tied to shareholder return or other metrics that are relevant to the business.

Say on Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans (SERP)

Generally vote AGAINST proposals asking for shareholder votes on SERP.

4. Director Nominees and Proxy Access

Voting for Director Nominees (Management or Shareholder)

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on the election of directors of operating and holding companies in contested elections, considering the following factors:

■	Long-term financial performance of the target company relative to its industry;
■	Management’s track record;
■	Background of the nomination, in cases where there is a shareholder nomination;
■	Qualifications of director nominee(s);
■	Strategic plan related to the nomination and quality of critique against management;
■	Number of boards on which the director nominee already serves; and
■	Likelihood that the board will be productive as a result.

Proxy Access

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on shareholder or management proposals asking for proxy access.

263

GSAM may support proxy access as an important right for shareholders of operating and holding companies and as an alternative to costly proxy contests and as a method for GSAM to vote for directors on an individual basis, as appropriate, rather than voting on one slate or the other. While this could be an important shareholder right, the following factors will be taken into account when evaluating the shareholder proposals:

■	The ownership thresholds, percentage and duration proposed (GSAM generally will not support if the ownership threshold is less than 3%);
■	The maximum proportion of directors that shareholders may nominate each year (GSAM generally will not support if the proportion of directors is greater than 25%); and
■	Other restricting factors that when taken in combination could serve to materially limit the proxy access provision.

When evaluating companies that adopted proxy access either proactively or in response to a shareholder proposal, GSAM will take into account the factors listed above. A vote against governance committee members could result if provisions exist that materially limit the right to proxy access.

Reimbursing Proxy Solicitation Expenses

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to reimburse proxy solicitation expenses. When voting in conjunction with support of a dissident slate, vote FOR the reimbursement of all appropriate proxy solicitation expenses associated with the election.

5. Shareholders Rights and Defenses

Shareholder Ability to Act by Written Consent

In the case of operating and holding companies, generally vote FOR shareholder proposals that provide shareholders with the ability to act by written consent, unless:

■	The company already gives shareholders the right to call special meetings at a threshold of 25% or lower; and
■	The company has a history of strong governance practices.

Shareholder Ability to Call Special Meetings

In the case of operating and holding companies, generally vote FOR management proposals that provide shareholders with the ability to call special meetings.

In the case of operating and holding companies, generally vote FOR shareholder proposals that provide shareholders with the ability to call special meetings at a threshold of 25% or lower if the company currently does not give shareholders the right to call special meetings. However, if a company already gives shareholders the right to call special meetings at a threshold of at least 25%, vote AGAINST shareholder proposals to further reduce the threshold.

Advance Notice Requirements for Shareholder Proposals/Nominations

In the case of operating and holding companies, vote CASE-BY-CASE on advance notice proposals, giving support to proposals that allow shareholders to submit proposals/nominations reasonably close to the meeting date and within the broadest window possible, recognizing the need to allow sufficient notice for company, regulatory and shareholder review.

Poison Pills

Vote FOR shareholder proposals requesting that the company submit its poison pill to a shareholder vote or redeem it, unless the company has:

■	a shareholder-approved poison pill in place; or
■	adopted a policy concerning the adoption of a pill in the future specifying certain shareholder friendly provisions.

Vote FOR shareholder proposals calling for poison pills to be put to a vote within a time period of less than one year after adoption.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on management proposals on poison pill ratification, focusing on the features of the shareholder rights plan.

In addition, the rationale for adopting the pill should be thoroughly explained by the company. In examining the request for the pill, take into consideration the company’s existing governance structure, including: board independence, existing takeover defenses, and any problematic governance concerns.

6. Mergers and Corporate Restructurings

264

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on mergers and acquisitions taking into account the following based on publicly available information:

■	Valuation;
■	Market reaction;
■	Strategic rationale;
■	Management’s track record of successful integration of historical acquisitions;
■	Presence of conflicts of interest; and
■	Governance profile of the combined company.

7. State of Incorporation

Reincorporation Proposals

GSAM may support management proposals to reincorporate as long as the reincorporation would not substantially diminish shareholder rights. GSAM may not support shareholder proposals for reincorporation unless the current state of incorporation is substantially less shareholder friendly than the proposed reincorporation, there is a strong economic case to reincorporate or the company has a history of making decisions that are not shareholder friendly.

Exclusive venue for shareholder lawsuits

Generally vote FOR on exclusive venue proposals, taking into account:

■	Whether the company has been materially harmed by shareholder litigation outside its jurisdiction of incorporation, based on disclosure in the company's proxy statement;
■	Whether the company has the following good governance features:

■	Majority independent board;
■	Independent key committees;
■	An annually elected board;
■	A majority vote standard in uncontested director elections;
■	The absence of a poison pill, unless the pill was approved by shareholders; and/or
■	Separate Chairman CEO role or, if combined, an independent chairman with clearly delineated duties.

8. Capital Structure

Common and Preferred Stock Authorization

Generally vote FOR proposals to increase the number of shares of common stock authorized for issuance.

Generally vote FOR proposals to increase the number of shares of preferred stock, as long as there is a commitment to not use the shares for anti-takeover purposes.

9. Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) Issues

Overall Approach

GSAM recognizes that Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) factors can affect investment performance, expose potential investment risks and provide an indication of management excellence and leadership. When evaluating ESG proxy issues, GSAM balances the purpose of a proposal with the overall benefit to shareholders.

Shareholder proposals considered under this category could include, among others, reports on:

1) employee labor and safety policies;

2) impact on the environment of the company’s production or manufacturing operations;

3) societal impact of products manufactured;

4) risks throughout the supply chain or operations including labor practices, animal treatment practices within food production and conflict minerals; and

5) overall board structure, including diversity.

265

When evaluating environmental and social shareholder proposals, the following factors are generally considered:

■	The company’s current level of publicly available disclosure, including if the company already discloses similar information through existing reports or policies;
■	If the company has implemented or formally committed to the implementation of a reporting program based on Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines or a similar standard;
■	Whether adoption of the proposal is likely to enhance or protect shareholder value;
■	Whether the information requested concerns business issues that relate to a meaningful percentage of the company’s business;
■	The degree to which the company’s stated position on the issues raised in the proposal could affect its reputation or sales, or leave it vulnerable to a boycott or selective purchasing;
■	Whether the company has already responded in some appropriate manner to the request embodied in the proposal;
■	What other companies in the relevant industry have done in response to the issue addressed in the proposal;
■	Whether the proposal itself is well framed and the cost of preparing the report is reasonable;
■	Whether the subject of the proposal is best left to the discretion of the board;
■	Whether the company has material fines or violations in the area and if so, if appropriate actions have already been taken to remedy going forward;
■	Whether providing this information would reveal proprietary or confidential information that would place the company at a competitive disadvantage.

Environmental Sustainability, climate change reporting

Generally vote FOR proposals requesting the company to report on its policies, initiatives and oversight mechanisms related to environmental sustainability, or how the company may be impacted by climate change. The following factors will be considered:

■	The company’s current level of publicly available disclosure including if the company already discloses similar information through existing reports or policies;
■	If the company has formally committed to the implementation of a reporting program based on Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines or a similar standard within a specified time frame;
■	If the company’s current level of disclosure is comparable to that of its industry peers; and
■	If there are significant controversies, fines, penalties, or litigation associated with the company’s environmental performance.

Establishing goals or targets for emissions reduction

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals that call for the adoption of Greenhouse Gas (“GHG”) reduction goals from products and operations, taking into account:

■	Overly prescriptive requests for the reduction in GHG emissions by specific amounts or within a specific time frame;
■	Whether the industry is a material contributor to global GHG emissions and company disclosure is lacking;
■	Whether company disclosure lags behind industry peers;
■	Whether the company has been the subject of recent, significant violations, fines, litigation, or controversy related to GHG emissions;
■	The feasibility of reduction of GHGs given the company’s product line and current technology; and
■	Whether the company already provides meaningful disclosure on GHG emissions from its products and operations.

Political Contributions and Trade Association Spending/Lobbying Expenditures and Initiatives

GSAM generally believes that it is the role of boards and management to determine the appropriate level of disclosure of all types of corporate political activity. When evaluating these proposals, GSAM considers the prescriptive nature of the proposal and the overall benefit to shareholders along with a company’s current disclosure of policies, practices and oversight.

Generally vote AGAINST proposals asking the company to affirm political nonpartisanship in the workplace so long as:

■	There are no recent, significant controversies, fines or litigation regarding the company’s political contributions or trade association spending; and
■	The company has procedures in place to ensure that employee contributions to company-sponsored political action committees (PACs) are strictly voluntary and prohibits coercion.

Vote AGAINST proposals requesting increased disclosure of a company’s policies with respect to political contributions, lobbying and trade association spending as long as:

■	There is no significant potential threat or actual harm to shareholders’ interests;
■	There are no recent significant controversies or litigation related to the company’s political contributions or governmental affairs; and
■	There is publicly available information to assess the company’s oversight related to such expenditures of corporate assets.

266

GSAM generally will vote AGAINST proposals asking for detailed disclosure of political contributions or trade association or lobbying expenditures.

Vote AGAINST proposals barring the company from making political contributions. Businesses are affected by legislation at the federal, state, and local level and barring political contributions can put the company at a competitive disadvantage.

Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation

A company should have a clear, public Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) statement and/or diversity policy. Generally vote FOR proposals seeking to amend a company’s EEO statement or diversity policies to additionally prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

Labor and Human Rights Standards

Generally vote FOR proposals requesting a report on company or company supplier labor and/or human rights standards and policies, or on the impact of its operations on society, unless such information is already publicly disclosed considering:

■	The degree to which existing relevant policies and practices are disclosed;
■	Whether or not existing relevant policies are consistent with internationally recognized standards;
■	Whether company facilities and those of its suppliers are monitored and how;
■	Company participation in fair labor organizations or other internationally recognized human rights initiatives;
■	Scope and nature of business conducted in markets known to have higher risk of workplace labor/human rights abuse;
■	Recent, significant company controversies, fines, or litigation regarding human rights at the company or its suppliers;
■	The scope of the request; and
■	Deviation from industry sector peer company standards and practices.

Non-U.S. Proxy Items

The following section is a broad summary of the Guidelines, which form the basis of the Policy with respect to non-U.S. public equity investments. Applying these guidelines is subject to certain regional and country-specific exceptions and modifications and is not inclusive of all considerations in each market.

1. Operational Items

Financial Results/Director and Auditor Reports

Vote FOR approval of financial statements and director and auditor reports, unless:

■	There are concerns about the accounts presented or audit procedures used; or
■	The company is not responsive to shareholder questions about specific items that should be publicly disclosed.

Appointment of Auditors and Auditor Fees

Vote FOR the re-election of auditors and proposals authorizing the board to fix auditor fees, unless:

■	There are serious concerns about the accounts presented, audit procedures used or audit opinion rendered;
■	There is reason to believe that the auditor has rendered an opinion that is neither accurate nor indicative of the company’s financial position;
■	Name of the proposed auditor has not been published;
■	The auditors are being changed without explanation;
■	Non-audit-related fees are substantial or are in excess of standard annual audit-related fees; or
■	The appointment of external auditors if they have previously served the company in an executive capacity or can otherwise be considered affiliated with the company.

Appointment of Statutory Auditors

Vote FOR the appointment or re-election of statutory auditors, unless:

■	There are serious concerns about the statutory reports presented or the audit procedures used;
■	Questions exist concerning any of the statutory auditors being appointed; or
■	The auditors have previously served the company in an executive capacity or can otherwise be considered affiliated with the company.

Allocation of Income

267

Vote FOR approval of the allocation of income, unless:

■	The dividend payout ratio has been consistently low without adequate explanation; or
■	The payout is excessive given the company’s financial position.

Stock (Scrip) Dividend Alternative

Vote FOR most stock (scrip) dividend proposals.

Vote AGAINST proposals that do not allow for a cash option unless management demonstrates that the cash option is harmful to shareholder value.

Amendments to Articles of Association

Vote amendments to the articles of association on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Change in Company Fiscal Term

Vote FOR resolutions to change a company’s fiscal term unless a company’s motivation for the change is to postpone its annual general meeting.

Lower Disclosure Threshold for Stock Ownership

Vote AGAINST resolutions to lower the stock ownership disclosure threshold below 5% unless specific reasons exist to implement a lower threshold.

Amend Quorum Requirements

Vote proposals to amend quorum requirements for shareholder meetings on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Transact Other Business

Vote AGAINST other business when it appears as a voting item.

2. Board of Directors

Director Elections

Vote FOR management nominees taking into consideration the following:

■	Adequate disclosure has not been provided in a timely manner; or
■	There are clear concerns over questionable finances or restatements; or
■	There have been questionable transactions or conflicts of interest; or
■	There are any records of abuses against minority shareholder interests; or
■	The board fails to meet minimum corporate governance standards; or
■	There are reservations about:

■	Director terms
■	Bundling of proposals to elect directors
■	Board independence
■	Disclosure of named nominees
■	Combined Chairman/CEO
■	Election of former CEO as Chairman of the board
■	Overboarded directors
■	Composition of committees
■	Director independence
■	Number of directors on the board

■	Specific concerns about the individual or company, such as criminal wrongdoing or breach of fiduciary responsibilities; or
■	Repeated absences at board meetings have not been explained (in countries where this information is disclosed); or
■	Unless there are other considerations which may include sanctions from government or authority, violations of laws and regulations, or other issues related to improper business practice, failure to replace management, or egregious actions related to service on other boards.

268

Vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis in contested elections of directors, e.g., the election of shareholder nominees or the dismissal of incumbent directors, determining which directors are best suited to add value for shareholders.

The analysis will generally be based on, but not limited to, the following major decision factors:

■	Company performance relative to its peers;
■	Strategy of the incumbents versus the dissidents;
■	Independence of board candidates;
■	Experience and skills of board candidates;
■	Governance profile of the company;
■	Evidence of management entrenchment;
■	Responsiveness to shareholders;
■	Whether a takeover offer has been rebuffed;
■	Whether minority or majority representation is being sought.

Vote FOR employee and/or labor representatives if they sit on either the audit or compensation committee and are required by law to be on those committees.

Vote AGAINST employee and/or labor representatives if they sit on either the audit or compensation committee, if they are not required to be on those committees.

Classification of directors

Executive Director

■	Employee or executive of the company;
■	Any director who is classified as a non-executive, but receives salary, fees, bonus, and/or other benefits that are in line with the highest-paid executives of the company.

Non-Independent Non-Executive Director (NED)

■	Any director who is attested by the board to be a non-independent NED;
■	Any director specifically designated as a representative of a significant shareholder of the company;
■	Any director who is also an employee or executive of a significant shareholder of the company;
■	Beneficial owner (direct or indirect) of at least 10% of the company’s stock, either in economic terms or in voting rights (this may be aggregated if voting power is distributed among more than one member of a defined group, e.g., family members who beneficially own less than 10% individually, but collectively own more than 10%), unless market best practice dictates a lower ownership and/or disclosure threshold (and in other special market-specific circumstances);
■	Government representative;
■	Currently provides (or a relative provides) professional services to the company, to an affiliate of the company, or to an individual officer of the company or of one of its affiliates in excess of $10,000 per year;
■	Represents customer, supplier, creditor, banker, or other entity with which company maintains transactional/commercial relationship (unless company discloses information to apply a materiality test);
■	Any director who has conflicting or cross-directorships with executive directors or the chairman of the company;
■	Relative of a current employee of the company or its affiliates;
■	Relative of a former executive of the company or its affiliates;
■	A new appointee elected other than by a formal process through the General Meeting (such as a contractual appointment by a substantial shareholder);
■	Founder/co-founder/member of founding family but not currently an employee;
■	Former executive (5 year cooling off period);
■	Years of service is generally not a determining factor unless it is recommended best practice in a market and/or in extreme circumstances, in which case it may be considered; and
■	Any additional relationship or principle considered to compromise independence under local corporate governance best practice guidance.

Independent NED

■	No material connection, either directly or indirectly, to the company other than a board seat.

Employee Representative

■	Represents employees or employee shareholders of the company (classified as “employee representative” but considered a non-independent NED).

269

Discharge of Directors

Generally vote FOR the discharge of directors, including members of the management board and/or supervisory board, unless there is reliable information about significant and compelling controversies that the board is not fulfilling its fiduciary duties warranted by:

■	A lack of oversight or actions by board members which invoke shareholder distrust related to malfeasance or poor supervision, such as operating in private or company interest rather than in shareholder interest; or
■	Any legal issues (e.g., civil/criminal) aiming to hold the board responsible for breach of trust in the past or related to currently alleged actions yet to be confirmed (and not only the fiscal year in question), such as price fixing, insider trading, bribery, fraud, and other illegal actions; or
■	Other egregious governance issues where shareholders may bring legal action against the company or its directors; or
■	Vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis where a vote against other agenda items are deemed inappropriate.

3. Compensation

Director Compensation

Vote FOR proposals to award cash fees to non-executive directors unless the amounts are excessive relative to other companies in the country or industry.

Vote non-executive director compensation proposals that include both cash and share-based components on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Vote proposals that bundle compensation for both non-executive and executive directors into a single resolution on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Vote AGAINST proposals to introduce retirement benefits for non-executive directors.

Compensation Plans

Vote compensation plans on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Director, Officer, and Auditor Indemnification and Liability Provisions

Vote proposals seeking indemnification and liability protection for directors and officers on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Vote AGAINST proposals to indemnify auditors.

4. Board Structure

Vote AGAINST the introduction of classified boards and mandatory retirement ages for directors.

Vote AGAINST proposals to alter board structure or size in the context of a fight for control of the company or the board.

Chairman CEO combined role (for applicable markets)

■	Two-thirds independent board, or majority in countries where employee representation is common practice;
■	A designated, or a rotating, lead director, elected by and from the independent board members with clearly delineated and comprehensive duties;
■	Fully independent key committees; and/or
■	Established, publicly disclosed, governance guidelines and director biographies/profiles.

5. Capital Structure

Share Issuance Requests

General Issuances:

Vote FOR issuance requests with preemptive rights to a maximum of 100% over currently issued capital.

Vote FOR issuance requests without preemptive rights to a maximum of 20% of currently issued capital.

270

Specific Issuances:

Vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis on all requests, with or without preemptive rights.

Increases in Authorized Capital

Vote FOR non-specific proposals to increase authorized capital up to 100% over the current authorization unless the increase would leave the company with less than 30% of its new authorization outstanding.

Vote FOR specific proposals to increase authorized capital to any amount, unless:

■	The specific purpose of the increase (such as a share-based acquisition or merger) does not meet guidelines for the purpose being proposed; or
■	The increase would leave the company with less than 30% of its new authorization outstanding after adjusting for all proposed issuances.

Vote AGAINST proposals to adopt unlimited capital authorizations.

Reduction of Capital

Vote FOR proposals to reduce capital for routine accounting purposes unless the terms are unfavorable to shareholders.

Vote proposals to reduce capital in connection with corporate restructuring on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Capital Structures

Vote FOR resolutions that seek to maintain or convert to a one-share, one-vote capital structure.

Vote AGAINST requests for the creation or continuation of dual-class capital structures or the creation of new or additional super voting shares.

Preferred Stock

Vote FOR the creation of a new class of preferred stock or for issuances of preferred stock up to 50% of issued capital unless the terms of the preferred stock would adversely affect the rights of existing shareholders.

Vote FOR the creation/issuance of convertible preferred stock as long as the maximum number of common shares that could be issued upon conversion meets guidelines on equity issuance requests.

Vote AGAINST the creation of a new class of preference shares that would carry superior voting rights to the common shares.

Vote AGAINST the creation of blank check preferred stock unless the board clearly states that the authorization will not be used to thwart a takeover bid.

Vote proposals to increase blank check preferred authorizations on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Debt Issuance Requests

Vote non-convertible debt issuance requests on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with or without preemptive rights.

Vote FOR the creation/issuance of convertible debt instruments as long as the maximum number of common shares that could be issued upon conversion meets guidelines on equity issuance requests.

Vote FOR proposals to restructure existing debt arrangements unless the terms of the restructuring would adversely affect the rights of shareholders.

Increase in Borrowing Powers

Vote proposals to approve increases in a company's borrowing powers on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Share Repurchase Plans

271

GSAM will generally recommend FOR share repurchase programs taking into account whether:

■	The share repurchase program can be used as a takeover defense;
■	There is clear evidence of historical abuse;
■	There is no safeguard in the share repurchase program against selective buybacks;
■	Pricing provisions and safeguards in the share repurchase program are deemed to be unreasonable in light of market practice.

Reissuance of Repurchased Shares

Vote FOR requests to reissue any repurchased shares unless there is clear evidence of abuse of this authority in the past.

Capitalization of Reserves for Bonus Issues/Increase in Par Value

Vote FOR requests to capitalize reserves for bonus issues of shares or to increase par value.

6. Mergers and Corporate Restructurings and Other

Reorganizations/Restructurings

Vote reorganizations and restructurings on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Mergers and Acquisitions

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on mergers and acquisitions taking into account the following based on publicly available information:

■	Valuation;
■	Market reaction;
■	Strategic rationale;
■	Management’s track record of successful integration of historical acquisitions;
■	Presence of conflicts of interest; and
■	Governance profile of the combined company.

Antitakeover Mechanisms

Generally vote AGAINST all antitakeover proposals, unless they are structured in such a way that they give shareholders the ultimate decision on any proposal or offer.

Reincorporation Proposals

Vote reincorporation proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Related-Party Transactions

Vote related-party transactions on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, considering factors including, but not limited to, the following:

■	The parties on either side of the transaction;
■	The nature of the asset to be transferred/service to be provided;
■	The pricing of the transaction (and any associated professional valuation);
■	The views of independent directors (where provided);
■	The views of an independent financial adviser (where appointed);
■	Whether any entities party to the transaction (including advisers) is conflicted; and
■	The stated rationale for the transaction, including discussions of timing.

Shareholder Proposals

Vote all shareholder proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Vote FOR proposals that would improve the company’s corporate governance or business profile at a reasonable cost.

Vote AGAINST proposals that limit the company’s business activities or capabilities or result in significant costs being incurred with little or no benefit.

7. Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) Issues

272

Please refer to page 12 for our current approach to these important topics.

* For purposes of this Policy, “GSAM” refers, collectively, to the following legal entities: Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P.; Goldman Sachs Asset Management International; Goldman Sachs Hedge Fund Strategies LLC; GS Investment Strategies, LLC; GSAM Stable Value, LLC; Goldman Sachs Asset Management (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.; Goldman Sachs Asset Management (Hong Kong) Ltd.; Goldman Sachs Asset Management Co. Ltd.; Beijing Gao Hua Securities Company Limited; Goldman Sachs (China) L.L.C.; Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Private Limited; Goldman Sachs Asset Management (India) Private Limited; Goldman Sachs Participacoes Ltda ; Goldman Sachs Asset Management Brasil LTDA; GS Investment Strategies Canada Inc.; Goldman Sachs Management (Ireland) Ltd.; Goldman Sachs Asset Management Australia Pty Ltd.; Goldman Sachs Trustee Company (India) Private Limited; Goldman Sachs Global Advisory Products LLC.

HOTCHKIS AND WILEY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC (H&W)

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

PURPOSE

The purpose of these Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures is to memorialize the procedures and policies adopted by Hotchkis and Wiley Capital Management (“H&W”) to enable the firm to comply with its accepted responsibilities and the requirements of Rule 206(4)-6 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (“Advisers Act”). It is H&W’s duty to vote proxies in the best interests of its clients (which may involve affirmatively deciding that voting the proxies may not be in the best interests of certain clients on certain matters).

POLICY

H&W acts as discretionary investment adviser for various clients, including clients governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). Unless a client (including a “named fiduciary” under ERISA) specifically reserves the right to vote its own proxies, H&W will vote client proxies and act on all other corporate actions. A number of clients have notified H&W that they will vote the proxies for their accounts. H&W does not take any action with respect to proxy voting for these clients.

H&W’s Proxy Oversight Committee (“POC”) (consisting of the Chief Operating Officer, Chief Compliance Officer, and Managing Director of Portfolio Services) oversees H&W’s proxy voting policies and procedures by providing an administrative framework to facilitate and monitor the exercise of such proxy voting and to fulfill the obligations of reporting and recordkeeping under the federal securities laws.

Under the proxy voting guidelines, H&W generally votes on routine business matters in favor of management’s positions. To vote client proxies, H&W utilizes Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. (“ISS”), a leading national provider of proxy voting administrative and research services.

In certain situations as permitted under the investment management agreement, H&W may consider written direction from a client on how to vote on a specific proxy proposal that would be applicable only to shares specifically owned by the respective client. In this situation, the shares voted under client direction may not be consistent with proxies voted by H&W for other clients or with the established guidelines contained in these Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.

When voting proxies for clients, H&W’s primary concern is that all decisions be made solely in the best interest of the shareholder (and for ERISA accounts, plan beneficiaries and participants, in accordance with the letter and spirit of ERISA). H&W will act in a manner it deems prudent and diligent and which is intended to enhance the economic value of the assets of the account.

GUIDELINES

Each proxy issue will be considered individually. The following guidelines are a partial list to be used in voting on proposals often contained in proxy statements, but will not be used as rigid rules. The voting policies below are subject to modification in certain circumstances and will be reexamined from time to time. With respect to matters that do not fit in the categories stated below, H&W will exercise its best judgment as a fiduciary to vote in the manner which will most enhance shareholder value.

Management Proposals

H&W recognizes that a company’s management is charged with day-to-day operations and long-term direction of the company and, therefore, generally votes on routine business matters in favor of management’s positions. Generally, in the absence of any unusual or non-routine information, the following items if recommended by management are likely to be supported:

273

■	Ratification of appointment of independent auditors
■	General updating/corrective amendments to charter
■	Increase in common share authorization for a stock split or share dividend
■	Stock option plans that are incentive based and not excessive
■	Election of directors

The following items will always require company specific and case-by-case review and analysis when submitted by management to a shareholder vote:

■	Directors' liability and indemnity proposals
■	Executive compensation plans
■	Mergers, acquisitions, and other restructurings submitted to a shareholder vote
■	Anti-takeover and related provisions

Shareholder Proposals

Under ERISA standards, it is inappropriate to use (vote) plan assets to carry out social agendas or purposes. Thus, shareholder proposals are examined closely for their relationship to the best interest of beneficiaries, and economic impact. In general, H&W will vote in accordance with the recommendation of the company’s board of directors on all shareholder proposals. However, H&W will support shareholder proposals that are consistent with H&W’s proxy voting guidelines for board-approved proposals. For example, H&W will generally support a proposal requiring a majority vote for the election of directors.

Generally, shareholder proposals related to the following items are not supported:

■	Declassification of the board
■	Cumulative voting
■	Restrictions related to social, political, or special interest issues that impact the ability of the company to do business or be competitive and that have a significant financial or vested interest impact.
■	Reports which are costly to provide or expenditures which are of a non-business nature or would provide no pertinent information from the perspective of shareholders.

Conflict of Interest

Conflicts between H&W’s interests and its client’s interests may arise in the proxy decision process due to significant business or personal relationships between H&W or its managers, members, employees or affiliates and the company or its management. If a potential conflict of interest arises, it will typically involve a proxy for a company that is also H&W’s client. In the event that any proxies raise a conflict of interest, a member of the POC will review H&W’s proposed votes to ensure that they are consistent with established guidelines and not prompted by any conflict of interest.

H&W employees may own the same securities held by client accounts. The employees vote their securities independently from H&W’s proxy voting policy.

PROCEDURES

H&W’s Portfolio Services Department monitors ISS to review upcoming shareholder meetings and other corporate actions. H&W’s Portfolio Services Department is responsible for ensuring that proxies and corporate actions received by H&W are voted in a timely manner, voted in a manner consistent with the proxy voting policies and voted consistently across all portfolios. As a general matter, the Portfolio Services Department will vote client shares based on the guidelines set forth above, unless directed otherwise by the analyst.

The proxy will be routed to the analyst responsible for that holding. The analyst will review the proxy statement and, as deemed necessary, any reports from ISS or such other third-party proxy research firm engaged by H&W with respect to the company. An H&W analyst may vote against management if he/she determines that it is for the best interest of our clients, and will document reasons for such “against management votes”. In the event an analyst is proposing to vote against management’s recommendations or against its established guidelines, the proposed vote will be reviewed by a member of POC to determine that H&W’s vote is not prompted by any conflict of interests. All determinations by POC will be documented.

LIMITATIONS

274

If H&W is authorized to exercise proxy voting rights for a client account, H&W will vote the proxies for securities beneficially held by the custodian for the client portfolio as of the record date of the shareholder meetings (settlement date). Securities not held by the custodian as of the record date (e.g., due to an unsettled purchase or securities lending (see additional information below)) will not be voted by H&W. In addition, H&W will not vote proxies if it does not receive adequate information from a client’s custodian in sufficient time to cast the vote.

H&W may determine not to vote proxies in respect of securities of any company (i) if H&W determines that it would be in the client’s overall best interest not to vote under the circumstances, such as when (a) the cost of voting exceeds the expected benefit to the client, (b) voting the client’s proxies will not have an effect on the outcome of the matter up for vote or (c) the matter up for vote will not impact the client’s economic interests, or (ii) if the security is no longer held in the clients’ portfolios by the proxy meeting date. For example, to the extent that H&W receives proxies for securities that are transferred into a client’s portfolio that were not recommended or selected by H&W and have been sold or are expected to be sold promptly in an orderly manner (“legacy securities”), H&W will generally refrain from voting such proxies. In such circumstances, since legacy securities have been sold or are expected to be sold promptly, H&W may determine that voting proxies on such securities would not further a client’s interest in maximizing the value of its investments. H&W may consider an institutional client’s special request to vote a legacy security proxy and, if agreed, would vote such proxy in accordance with H&W’s guidelines.

Proxies received after the termination date of a client account generally will not be voted. An exception will be made if the record date is for a period in which an account was under management or if a separately managed account custodian failed to remove the account’s holdings from its aggregated voting list.

Non-U.S. proxies (and particularly those in emerging markets) may involve a number of problems that restrict or prevent H&W’s ability to vote. As a result, a client account’s non-U.S. proxies will be voted on a best efforts basis only.

Fixed-income securities normally do not provide voting rights; however, special circumstances may occur that permit voting or responding to another type of corporate action.

Certain clients retain the responsibility for receiving and voting proxies for any and all securities maintained in client portfolios and receive their proxies or other solicitations directly from their custodian. H&W will not vote the proxies for these securities in this case, but may provide advice to clients regarding the clients’ voting of proxies.

Securities Lending

In order to generate incremental revenue, some clients may participate in a securities lending program. As noted above, if a client has elected to participate in the lending program then it will not have the right to vote the proxies of any securities that are on loan as of the shareholder meeting record date. A client, or a Portfolio Coordinator (PC), may place restrictions on loaning securities and/or recall a security on loan at any time. Such actions must be affected prior to the record date for a meeting if the purpose for the restriction or recall is to secure the vote.

PC and/or analysts who become aware of upcoming proxy issues relating to any securities in portfolios they manage, or issuers they follow, will consider the desirability of recalling the affected securities that are on loan or restricting the affected securities prior to the record date for the matter. If the proxy issue is determined to be material, and the determination is made prior to the shareholder meeting record date the PC(s) will contact the securities lending agent to recall securities on loan or restrict the loaning of any security held in any portfolio they manage, if they determine that it is in the best interest of shareholders to do so.

RECORD KEEPING

H&W or ISS, on H&W’s behalf, maintains records of proxy statements received; votes cast on behalf of clients; client requests for proxy voting information; and documents prepared by H&W that were material to making a voting decision. Such records are maintained in an easily accessible place for a period of not less than 5 years in an appropriate office of H&W or ISS. In the event that ISS maintains such records, ISS will provide such records to H&W promptly upon H&W’s request.

H&W will describe in its Part 2A of Form ADV (or other brochure fulfilling the requirement of Rule 204-3) its proxy voting policies and procedures and advise clients how they may obtain information about how H&W voted their securities. Clients may obtain information about how their securities were voted or a copy of H&W’s Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures free of charge by written request addressed to H&W. For its mutual fund clients, H& W will provide information about how H&W voted each mutual fund’s securities within the appropriate time frame for the public filing of Form N-PX within 60 days of June 30th. Form N-PX for each mutual fund will be available without charge, upon request, by calling toll-free (866) 236-0050 and on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.

275

Amended: September 21, 2012

Amended: August 16, 2016

JENNISON ASSOCIATES LLC.

PROXY VOTING POLICY AND PROCEDURES

Policy

Jennison (or the “Company”) has adopted the following policy and related procedures to guide the voting of proxies in a manner that is consistent with Jennison’s fiduciary duties and the requirements of Rule 206(4)-6 under the Advisers Act.

In the absence of any written delegation or when proxy voting authority has been delegated in writing to Jennison by clients, Jennison will exercise this voting authority in each client’s best interests. The Company will not consider its own interests, or those of any affiliates, when voting proxies.

Unless otherwise specified by a client, “best interest” means the client’s best economic interest over the long term, as determined by Jennison’s portfolio managers and analysts (“Investment Professionals”) covering the issuer. Secondary consideration may be given to the public and social value of each issue, but absent specific client instructions, long term economic interests will be the primary basis for voting.

Jennison will disclose information about its proxy voting policies and procedures to clients, and will provide a copy of these Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures upon request. The Company will also inform clients how they may obtain information about the votes cast on their behalf.

II.	Procedures

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Jennison has adopted proxy voting guidelines (“Guidelines”) with respect to certain recurring issues. When Jennison is responsible for voting proxies, Jennison considers these guidelines except when Jennison accepts custom guidelines.

The Guidelines are reviewed as necessary by the Company’s Proxy Voting Committee and Investment Professionals, and are revised when a change is appropriate. The Proxy Team maintains the Guidelines and distributes copies to the Investment Professionals following any change. The Guidelines are meant to convey Jennison’s general approach to voting decisions on certain issues. Nevertheless, Investment Professionals are responsible for reviewing all proposals related to fundamental strategies individually and making final decisions based on the merits of each voting opportunity.

If an Investment Professional believes that Jennison should vote in a way that is different from the Guidelines, the Proxy Team is notified. In certain circumstances, an Investment Professional may conclude that different clients should vote in different ways, or that it is in the best interests of some or all clients to abstain from voting.

The Proxy Team is responsible for maintaining Investment Professionals’ reasons for deviating from the Guidelines.

Client-Specific Voting Mandates

Any client’s specific voting instructions must be communicated or confirmed by the client in writing, either through a provision in the investment advisory contract or through other written correspondence. Such instructions may call for Jennison to vote the client’s securities according to the client’s own voting guidelines, or may indicate that the Company is not responsible for voting the client’s proxies.

The Proxy Team reviews client specific voting instructions and approves operational implementation, and certain instructions may only be implemented on a best efforts basis. The Proxy Team is responsible for communicating such instructions to the third party vendor.

Use of a Third Party Voting Service

276

Jennison has engaged an independent third party proxy voting vendor that provides research and analytical services, operational implementation and recordkeeping and reporting services. The proxy voting vendor will cast votes in accordance with the Company’s Guidelines, unless instructed otherwise by the Investment Professionals.

Identifying and Addressing Potential Material Conflicts of Interest

There may be instances where Jennison’s interests conflict materially, or appear to conflict materially, with the interests of clients in connection with a proxy vote (a “Material Conflict”). Examples of potential Material Conflicts include, but are not limited to:

■	Jennison managing the pension plan of the issuer.
■	Jennison or its affiliates have a material business relationship with the issuer.
■	Jennison investment professionals who are related to a person who is senior management or a director at a public company.

If an Investment Professional or any other employee perceives a Material Conflict, he or she must promptly report the matter to the Chief Compliance Officer.

When a potential conflict has been identified, the Proxy Team will work with the Investment Professional covering the issuer to complete a Proxy Voting for Conflicts Documentation Form. The Proxy Team is responsible for retaining completed Proxy Voting for Conflicts Documentation Forms.

If the Proxy Voting Committee determines that a Material Conflict is present and if the Investment Professional is recommending a vote that deviates from the Guidelines or there is no specific recommended Guideline vote and decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, then the voting decision must be reviewed and approved by the Investment Professional’s supervisor and the Proxy Committee prior to casting the vote.

Jennison will not abstain from voting a proxy for the purpose of avoiding a Material Conflict.

Quantitatively Derived Holdings and the Jennison Managed Accounts

In voting proxies for non-fundamental strategies such as quantitatively derived holdings and Jennison Managed Accounts (i.e. “wrap”) where the securities are not held elsewhere in the firm, proxies will be voted utilizing the Guidelines. Additionally, in those circumstances where no specific Guidelines exist, the Company will consider the recommendations of the proxy voting vendor.

International Holdings

Jennison will exercise opportunities to vote on international holdings on a best efforts basis. Such votes will be cast based on the same principles that govern domestic holdings.

In some countries casting a proxy vote can adversely affect a client, such as countries that restrict stock sales around the time of the proxy vote by requiring “share blocking” as part of the voting process. The Investment Professional covering the issuer will weigh the expected benefits of voting proxies on international holdings against any anticipated costs or limitations, such as those associated with share blocking. Jennison may abstain from voting if it anticipates that the costs or limitations associated with voting outweigh the benefits.

Securities Lending

Jennison may be unable to vote proxies when the underlying securities have been lent out pursuant to a client’s securities lending program. The Company does not know when securities are on loan and are therefore not available to be voted. In rare circumstances, Investment Professionals may ask the Proxy Team to work with the client’s custodian to recall the shares so that Jennison can vote. Efforts to recall loaned securities are not always effective since such requests must be submitted prior to the record date for the upcoming proxy vote; therefore voting shares on loan is on a best efforts basis. In determining whether to call back securities that are out on loan, the Investment Professional will consider whether the benefit to the client in voting the matter outweighs the benefit to the client in keeping the security out on loan.

Disclosure to Advisory Clients

Jennison will provide a copy of these Policies and Procedures and the Guidelines to any client upon request. The Company will also provide any client with information about how Jennison has voted that client’s proxies upon request. Any such requests should be forwarded to the Proxy Team, which is responsible for responding, and for documenting the correspondence.

Compliance Reporting for Investment Companies

277

Upon request, the Proxy Team will provide to each investment company board of directors or trustees for which Jennison acts as sub-adviser reporting needed to satisfy their regulatory and board requirements, including, but not limited to, information required for Form NP-X.

III.	Internal Controls

Supervisory Review

The Proxy Team periodically notifies each Investment Professional’s supervisor of any Guideline overrides authorized by that Investment Professional. The supervisor reviews the overrides to confirm that they appear to have been made based on clients’ best interests, and that they were not influenced by any Material Conflict or other considerations.

The Proxy Voting Committee

The Proxy Voting Committee consists of representatives from Operations, Operational Risk, Legal, and Compliance. It meets at least quarterly, and has the following responsibilities:

■	Review potential Material Conflicts and decide whether a material conflict is present, and needs to be addressed according to these policies and procedures.
■	Review the Guidelines in consultation with the Investment Professionals and make revisions as appropriate.
■	Review these Policies and Procedures annually for accuracy and effectiveness, and recommend and adopt any necessary changes.
■	Review all Guideline overrides.
■	Review quarterly voting metrics and analysis published by the Proxy Team.
■	Review the performance of the proxy voting vendor and determine whether Jennison should continue to retain their services.

Equity Trade Management Oversight Committee (“ETMOC”)

The ETMOC reviews all Guideline overrides on a quarterly basis to ensure proper override procedures were followed. The ETMOC also reviews any changes to the Guidelines. The ETMOC is comprised of the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Investment Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Compliance Officer, Head of Trading and the Head of Large Cap Growth.

IV.	Escalating Concerns

Any concerns about aspects of the policy that lack specific escalation guidance may be reported to the reporting employee’s supervisor, the Chief Compliance Officer, Chief Legal Officer, Chief Risk Officer, Chief Ethics Officer, Chief Operating Officer or Chief Executive Officer. Alternatively Jennison has an Ethics Reporting Hotline phone number and email address that enable employees to raise concerns anonymously. Information about the Ethics Reporting Hotline phone number and email address can be found on the Jennison intranet’s “Ethics” web page.

V.	Discipline and Sanctions

All Jennison employees are responsible for understanding and complying with the policies and procedures outlined in this policy. The procedures described in this policy are intended to ensure that Jennison and its employees act in full compliance with the law. Violations of this policy and related procedures will be communicated to your supervisor and to senior management through Jennison’s Compliance Council, and may lead to disciplinary action.

J.P. MORGAN INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, INC. (JPMorgan)

Proxy Voting Guidelines. The Board of Trustees has delegated to JPMorgan and its affiliated advisers, proxy voting authority with respect to the fund’s portfolio securities. To ensure that the proxies of portfolio companies are voted in the best interests of the fund, the fund’s Board of Trustees has adopted JPMorgan’s detailed proxy voting procedures (the “Procedures”) that incorporate guidelines (“Guidelines”) for voting proxies on specific types of issues.

JPMorgan and its affiliated advisers are part of a global asset management organization with the capability to invest in securities of issuers located around the globe. Because the regulatory framework and the business cultures and practices vary from region to region, the Guidelines are customized for each region to take into account such variations. Separate Guidelines cover the regions of (1) North America, (2) Europe, Middle East, Africa, Central America and South America, (3) Asia (ex-Japan) and (4) Japan, respectively.

Notwithstanding the variations among the Guidelines, all of the Guidelines have been designed with the uniform objective of encouraging corporate action that enhances shareholder value. As a general rule, in voting proxies of a particular security, JPMorgan and its affiliated advisers will apply the Guidelines of the region in which the issuer of such security is organized. Except as noted

278

below, proxy voting decisions will be made in accordance with the Guidelines covering a multitude of both routine and non-routine matters that JPMorgan and its affiliated adviser have encountered globally, based on many years of collective investment management experience.

To oversee and monitor the proxy-voting process, JPMorgan has established a proxy committee and appointed a proxy administrator in each global location where proxies are voted. The primary function of each proxy committee is to review periodically general proxy-voting matters, review and approve the Guidelines annually, and provide advice and recommendations on general proxy-voting matters as well as on specific voting issues. The procedures permit an independent voting service, to perform certain services otherwise carried out or coordinated by the proxy administrator.

Although for many matters the Guidelines specify the votes to be cast, for many others, the Guidelines contemplate case-by-case determinations. In addition, there will undoubtedly be proxy matters that are not contemplated by the Guidelines. For both of these categories of matters and to override the Guidelines, the Procedures require a certification and review process to be completed before the vote is cast. That process is designed to identify actual or potential material conflicts of interest (between the fund on the one hand, and JPMorgan and its affiliates on the other hand) and ensure that the proxy vote is cast in the best interests of the fund. A conflict is deemed to exist when the proxy is for JPMorgan Chase & Co. stock or for J.P. Morgan Funds, or when the proxy administrator has actual knowledge indicating that a JPMorgan affiliate is an investment banker or rendered a fairness opinion with respect to the matter that is the subject of the proxy vote. When such conflicts are identified, the proxy will be voted by an independent third party either in accordance with JPMorgan proxy voting guidelines or by the third party using its own guidelines.

When other types of potential material conflicts of interest are identified, the proxy administrator and, as necessary, a legal representative from the Proxy Committee will evaluate the potential conflict of interest and determine whether such conflict actually exists, and if so, will recommend how JPMorgan will vote the proxy. In addressing any material conflict, JPMorgan may take one or more of the following measures (or other appropriate action): removing or “walling off” from the proxy voting process certain JPMorgan personnel with knowledge of the conflict, voting in accordance with any applicable Guideline if the application of the Guideline would objectively result in the casting of a proxy vote in a predetermined manner, or deferring the vote to or obtaining a recommendation from a third independent party, in which case the proxy will be voted by, or in accordance with the recommendation of, the independent third party.

The following summarizes some of the more noteworthy types of proxy voting policies of the non-U.S. Guidelines:

■	Corporate governance procedures differ among the countries. Because of time constraints and local customs, it is not always possible for JPMorgan to receive and review all proxy materials in connection with each item submitted for a vote. Many proxy statements are in foreign languages. Proxy materials are generally mailed by the issuer to the sub-custodian which holds the securities for the client in the country where the portfolio company is organized, and there may not be sufficient time for such materials to be transmitted to JPMorgan in time for a vote to be cast. In some countries, proxy statements are not mailed at all, and in some locations, the deadline for voting is two to four days after the initial announcement that a vote is to be solicited and it may not always be possible to obtain sufficient information to make an informed decision in good time to vote.
■	Certain markets require that shares being tendered for voting purposes are temporarily immobilized from trading until after the shareholder meeting has taken place. Elsewhere, notably emerging markets, it may not always be possible to obtain sufficient information to make an informed decision in good time to vote. Some markets require a local representative to be hired in order to attend the meeting and vote in person on our behalf, which can result in considerable cost. JPMorgan also considers the cost of voting in light of the expected benefit of the vote. In certain instances, it may sometimes be in the Fund’s best interests to intentionally refrain from voting in certain overseas markets from time to time.
■	Where proxy issues concern corporate governance, takeover defense measures, compensation plans, capital structure changes and so forth, JPMorgan pays particular attention to management’s arguments for promoting the prospective change JPMorgan’s sole criterion in determining its voting stance is whether such changes will be to the economic benefit of the beneficial owners of the shares.
■	JPMorgan is in favor of a unitary board structure of the type found in the United Kingdom as opposed to tiered board structures. Thus, JPMorgan will generally vote to encourage the gradual phasing out of tiered board structures, in favor of unitary boards. However, since tiered boards are still very prevalent in markets outside of the United Kingdom, local market practice will always be taken into account.
■	JPMorgan will use its voting powers to encourage appropriate levels of board independence, taking into account local market practice.
■	JPMorgan will usually vote against discharging the board from responsibility in cases of pending litigation, or if there is evidence of wrongdoing for which the board must be held accountable.
■	JPMorgan will vote in favor of increases in capital which enhance a company’s long-term prospects. JPMorgan will also vote in favor of the partial suspension of preemptive rights if they are for purely technical reasons (e.g., rights offers which may not be legally offered to shareholders in certain jurisdictions). However, JPMorgan will vote against increases in capital which would allow the company to adopt “poison pill” takeover defense tactics, or where the increase in authorized capital would dilute shareholder value in the long term.

279

■	JPMorgan will vote in favor of proposals which will enhance a company’s long-term prospects. JPMorgan will vote against an increase in bank borrowing powers which would result in the company reaching an unacceptable level of financial leverage, where such borrowing is expressly intended as part of a takeover defense, or where there is a material reduction in shareholder value.
■	JPMorgan will generally vote against anti-takeover devices.
■	Where social or environmental issues are the subject of a proxy vote, JPMorgan will consider the issue on a case-by-case basis, keeping in mind at all times the best economic interests of its clients.

The following summarizes some of the more noteworthy types of proxy voting policies of the U.S. Guidelines:

■	JPMorgan considers votes on director nominees on a case-by-case basis. Votes generally will be withheld from directors who: (a) attend less than 75% of board and committee meetings without a valid excuse; (b) implement or renew a dead-hand poison pill; (c) are affiliated directors who serve on audit, compensation or nominating committees or are affiliated directors and the full board serves on such committees or the company does not have such committees; (d) ignore a shareholder proposal that is approved by a majority of either the shares outstanding or the votes cast based on a review over a consecutive two year time frame; (e) are insiders and affiliated outsiders on boards that are not at least majority independent; or (f) are CEOs of publically-traded companies who serve on more than three public boards or serve on more than four public company boards. In addition, votes are generally withheld for directors who serve on committees in certain cases. For example, the Adviser generally withholds votes from audit committee members in circumstances in which there is evidence that there exists material weaknesses in the company’s internal controls.
■	JPMorgan considers vote proposals with respect to compensation plans on a case-by-case basis. The analysis of compensation plans focuses primarily on the transfer of shareholder wealth (the dollar cost of pay plans to shareholders) and includes an analysis of the structure of the plan and pay practices of other companies in the relevant industry and peer companies. Other matters included in the analysis are the amount of the company’s outstanding stock to be reserved for the award of stock options, whether the exercise price of an option is less than the stock’s fair market value at the date of the grant of the options, and whether the plan provides for the exchange of outstanding options for new ones at lower exercise prices.
■	JPMorgan votes proposals to classify boards on a case-by-case basis, but normally will vote in favor of such proposal if the issuer’s governing documents contain each of eight enumerated safeguards (for example, a majority of the board is composed of independent directors and the nominating committee is composed solely of such directors).
■	JPMorgan also considers management poison pill proposals on a case-by-case basis, looking for shareholder-friendly provisions before voting in favor.
■	JPMorgan votes against proposals for a super-majority vote to approve a merger.
■	JPMorgan considers proposals to increase common and/or preferred shares and to issue shares as part of a debt restructuring plan on a case-by-case basis, taking into account such factors as the extent of dilution and whether the transaction will result in a change in control.
■	JPMorgan also considers on a case-by-case basis proposals to change an issuer’s state of incorporation, mergers and acquisitions and other corporate restructuring proposals and certain social issue proposals.
■	JPMorgan generally votes for management proposals which seek shareholder approval to make the state of incorporation the exclusive forum for disputes if the company is a Delaware corporation; otherwise, JPMorgan votes on a case by case basis.
■	JPMorgan generally supports management disclosure practices for environmental issues except for those companies that have been involved in significant controversies, fines or litigation related to environmental issues.
■	JPMorgan reviews Say on Pay proposals on a case by case basis with additional review of proposals where the issuer’s previous year’s proposal received a low level of support.

LAZARD ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC
Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures Overview

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 of our clients’ portfolios.

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. We also have defined policies and procedures to address and mitigate any actual or perceived conflicts of interest relating to our proxy voting.

Proxy Operations Department
Lazard’s proxy voting process is administered by our Proxy Operations Department (“ProxyOps”) which reports to Lazard’s Chief Operations Officer. Oversight of the process is provided by the firm’s Legal & Compliance Department and the Proxy Committee.

280

Proxy Committee
Lazard’s Proxy Committee comprises investment professionals, including portfolio managers and analysts, the General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer. In addition, several Lazard operations professionals serve as advisors to the Proxy Committee.

The Proxy Committee meets at least annually to review Lazard’s Proxy Voting Policy and to evaluate potential enhancements. Meetings may be convened more frequently (for example, to discuss a specific proxy voting proposal) as requested by the manager of ProxyOps or at the request of any member of the Proxy Committee.

Role of Third Parties
Lazard currently subscribes to advisory and other proxy voting services provided by Institutional Shareholder Services (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 proposal. Voting for each agenda of each meeting is instructed specifically by Lazard in accordance with our Proxy Voting Policy; we do not employ outside services to vote on our behalf.

ISS additionally serves as our proxy voting facilitator, and is responsible for processing of ballots received, dissemination of Lazard’s vote instructions, and additionally provides our recordkeeping and reporting.

Voting Process
Lazard votes on behalf of our clients according to “Approved Guidelines” issued by the Proxy Committee. 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. ProxyOps confirms that all vote instructions are consistent with our approved voting guidelines. These guidelines are reviewed by the ProxyOps Manager and the Proxy Committee on an annual basis.

The investment professional provides the vote recommendation in accordance with the Approved Guidelines. Any exceptions to this, which are rare, require approval from the Proxy Committee. In this case, the investment professional must provide detailed rationale for their recommendation, and the Proxy Committee will then determine whether or not that vote recommendation is to be accepted and applied to the specific meeting’s agenda.

Case-by-case agenda items are evaluated by Lazard investment professionals based on the specific facts relevant to an individual company. The Lazard investment professional formulates their vote recommendation based on their research of the company and their evaluation of the specific proposal. The investment professional will assess the relevant factors in conjunction with the analysis of the company’s management and business performance. The investment professional may also engage with the company’s executives or board members to improve our understanding of a proxy proposal and/or to provide our advice on how a company can enhance their corporate governance practices.

ProxyOps confirms that all vote instructions are in accordance with Lazard’s Proxy Voting Policy and guidelines, and will then enter the vote instructions for inclusion in the meeting’s tabulation. 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
ProxyOps monitors all proxy votes for potential conflicts of interest that could be viewed as influencing the outcome of Lazard’s voting decision, such as:

■	Lazard manages the company’s pension plan;
■	The shareholder proponent of a proposal is a Lazard client;
■	A Lazard employee sits on a company’s board of directors;
■	Lazard serves as financial advisor or provides other investment banking 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; shares held on loan and shares subject to liquidation impediment are two such circumstances where the benefit of voting can be significantly compromised.

281

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.

LMCG INVESTMENTS, LLC

The proxy voting guidelines of LMCG Investments, LLC (the Firm) contained herein are a sampling of select, key guidelines and are not all inclusive. The Firm will review its proxy voting policies and guidelines from time to time and may adopt changes. Proxy questions are considered within the individual circumstances of the issuer and therefore it is possible that individual circumstances might mean that a given proxy ballot could be voted differently than what is generally done in other cases.

1.	Audit-related Items:

Auditor Ratification

Generally vote FOR proposals to ratify auditors unless:

■	An auditor has a financial interest in or association with the company and is therefore not independent;
■	There is reason to believe that the independent auditor has rendered an opinion which is neither accurate nor indicative of the company’s financial position;
■	Poor accounting practices are identified such as fraud, misapplication of GAAP and material weaknesses are identified; or
■	Fees for non-audit services are excessive

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on shareholder proposals asking companies to prohibit or limit their auditors from engaging in non-audit services.

2.	Board of Directors:

Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections

Votes on director nominees should be determined CASE-BY-CASE.

Voting for Director Nominees in Contested Elections

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on the election of directors in contested elections, considering the following:

■	Management’s track record;
■	Background to the proxy contest;
■	Qualifications of Director nominees;
■	Strategic plan of dissident slate and quality of critique against management;
■	Likelihood that the proposed goals and objectives can be achieved; and
■	Stock ownership positions

Board responsiveness

Vote case-by-case on individual directors, committee members or the entire board of directors as appropriate if:

■	Material failures of governance, stewardship, risk oversight, or fiduciary responsibilities at the company
■	Board failed to act on a shareholder proposal that received the support of a majority of shares cast in the previous year
■	Board failed to act on takeover offer where majority of shares tendered
■	Board failed to address issues related to a director receiving 50% or more withhold/against votes
■	Board implements an advisory vote on executive compensation on a less frequent basis than the frequency that received the majority of votes

Vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from entire board of directors for problematic practices or material failures in the areas of accountability, independence or competence:

Board accountability, including items such as:

■	A classified board structure
■	A supermajority vote requirement
■	Inability for shareholders to call special meetings
■	Inability of shareholders to act by written consent

282

■	Dual-class capital structure
■	Non-shareholder approved poison pill
■	Material failures of governance, stewardship, risk oversight, fiduciary responsibility
■	Failure to replace management as appropriate

Director independence, including items such as:

■	Inside or affiliated director serves on key committees
■	Company lacks an audit, compensation or nominating committee
■	Independent directors make up less than a majority of directors

Director competence, including items such as:

■	Not all director’s attended 75% of the aggregate board and committee meetings
■	Sit on more than six public company boards

Independent Chair (Separate CEO/Chair)

Generally vote FOR shareholder proposals requiring that the chairman position be filled by an independent director unless there are substantial reasons to recommend against the proposal, such as counterbalancing governance structure.

Majority Vote Shareholder Proposals

Generally vote FOR binding resolutions requesting that the board change the company’s bylaws to stipulate that directors need to be elected with an affirmative majority of votes cast.

Audit Committee related items

Generally vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from members of the Audit Committee if:

■	Non-audit fees paid to auditor are excessive
■	Company receives an adverse opinion on financial statements
■	Evidence of inappropriate indemnification language that limits ability of the company or shareholders to pursue legal recourse against audit firm

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on members of the Audit Committee and potentially the full board if:

■	Poor accounting practices result in fraud, misapplication of GAAP, and/or other material weaknesses

Compensation Committee related items

In the absence of an Advisory vote on executive compensation, vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD on members of the Compensation Committee or potentially the full board if:

■	There is significant misalignment between CEO pay and company performance
■	Company maintains problematic pay practices related to non-performance based compensation elements, incentives that motivate excessive risk taking and options backdating
■	Board exhibits significant level of poor communication and responsiveness to shareholders
■	Company fails to submit one-time transfer of stock options to shareholder vote
■	Company fails to fulfill terms of burn rate commitment made to shareholders

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on members of the Compensation Committee and the MSOP proposal if the Company’s previous say-on-pay proposal received support of less than 70% of votes cast, taking into account:

■	Discloser of engagement efforts with major institutional shareholders regarding issues that led to low level of support
■	Specific actions to address issues that contributed to low level of support
■	Other recent compensation practices
■	Whether the issues raised are recurring or isolated
■	Company’s ownership structure
■	Whether support level was less than 50%,

Performance/Governance Evaluation for Directors

Generally vote WITHHOLD or AGAINST on all director nominees if the board lacks accountability and oversight, coupled with sustained poor performance relative to peers.

283

Reimbursing Proxy Solicitation Expenses

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to reimburse proxy solicitation expenses.

3.	Shareholder Rights and Defenses:

Advanced Notice Requirements for Shareholder Proposals/Nominations

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on advance notice proposals, giving support to proposals that allow shareholders to submit proposals/nominations reasonably close to the meeting date within the broadest window possible.

Poison Pills

Generally vote FOR shareholder proposals requesting that the company submit its poison pill to a shareholder vote or redeem it unless the company has (1) a shareholder approved poison pill in place or (2) the company has adopted a policy concerning the adoption of a pill in the future specifying that the board will only adopt a shareholder rights plan if shareholders have approved the adoption of the plan or the board determines that it is in the best interest of shareholders to adopt a pill without delay.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on management proposals on poison pill ratification, focusing on the features of the shareholder rights plan.

Reincorporation Proposals

Evaluate management or shareholder proposals to change a company’s state of incorporation on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

4.	Capital and Corporate Restructurings:

Common Stock Authorization

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to increase the number of shares of common stock authorized for issuance.

Dual Class Structure

Generally vote AGAINST proposals to create a new class of common stock with superior voting rights

Share Repurchase Programs

Vote FOR management proposals to institute open market repurchase plans in which all shareholders may participate on equal terms.

Mergers and Acquisitions

Overall Approach – Vote CASE-BY-CASE

For mergers and acquisitions, review and evaluate the merits and drawbacks of the proposed transaction balancing various and sometimes countervailing factors including:

■	Valuation;
■	Market reaction;
■	Strategic rationale;
■	Negotiations and process;
■	Conflicts of Interest; and
■	Governance

5.	Compensation:

Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Say-on-Pay) Management Proposals

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on ballot items related to executive pay and practices

Vote AGAINST Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation (MSOP) if:

■	There is significant misalignment between CEO pay and company performance
■	Company maintains problematic pay practices
■	Board exhibits significant level of poor communication and responsiveness to shareholders

284

Vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from members of the Compensation Committee if:

■	There is no MSOP on the ballot
■	Board fails to adequately respond to a previous MSOP proposal that received less than 70% support
■	The company has poor compensation practices

Vote FOR annual advisory votes on compensation.

Employee Stock Purchase Plans

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on non-qualified employee stock purchase plans.

Option Exchange Programs/Re-pricing Options

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on management proposals seeking approval to exchange/re-price options.

Equity Compensation Plans

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on equity-based compensation plans.

6.	Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Issues:

General approach on CSR issues is to vote CASE-BY-CASE taking into account factors such as impact on shareholder value, significance of company’s business affected by the proposal, impact on company reputation, response by other companies to similar issue and degree to which proprietary or confidential information would be disclosed.

Some issues that fall under this topic include proposals on:

■	Company’s political spending, lobbying efforts and charitable contributions
■	Animal welfare practices
■	Energy and environmental issues
■	Equal employment opportunity and discrimination
■	Diversity
■	Product safety and hazardous materials

7.	Conflicts of Interest:

Conflicts of interest could exist when the Firm holds a security issued by a client in client portfolios, and the Firm is required to vote that security. When there is a potential conflict with a client, the Firm will look to these guidelines and the ISS recommendation for voting guidance.

LOOMIS, SAYLES & COMPANY, L.P. (Loomis Sayles)

1. GENERAL

A.	Introduction.

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. (“Loomis Sayles”) will vote proxies on behalf of a client if, in its investment management agreement (“IMA”) with Loomis Sayles, the client has delegated to Loomis Sayles the authority to vote proxies on its behalf. With respect to IMAs executed with clients prior to June 30, 2004, Loomis Sayles assumes that the proxy voting authority assigned by Loomis Sayles at account setup is accurate unless the client or their representative has instructed Loomis Sayles otherwise. Loomis Sayles has adopted and implemented these policies and procedures (“Proxy Voting Procedures”) to ensure that, where it has voting authority, proxy matters are handled in the best interest of clients, in accordance with Loomis Sayles’ fiduciary duties, SEC rule 206(4)-6 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Staff Legal Bulletin No. 20 (June 30, 2014). In addition to SEC requirements governing advisers, its Proxy Voting Procedures reflect the long-standing fiduciary standards and responsibilities for ERISA accounts set out in Department of Labor Bulletin 08-2, 29 C.F.R. 2509.08-2 (October 17, 2008).

Loomis Sayles uses the services of third parties (“Proxy Voting Service(s)”), to research and administer the vote on proxies for those accounts and funds for which Loomis Sayles has voting authority. Loomis Sayles will generally follow its express policy with input from the Proxy Voting Services unless the Proxy Committee determines that the client’s best interests are served by voting otherwise.

B.	General Guidelines.

285

The following guidelines will apply when voting proxies on behalf of accounts for which Loomis Sayles has voting authority.

1.	Client’s Best Interest. Loomis Sayles’ Proxy Voting Procedures are designed and implemented in a way that is reasonably expected to ensure that proxy matters are conducted in the best interest of clients. When considering the best interest of clients, Loomis Sayles has determined that this means the best investment interest of its clients as shareholders of the issuer. Loomis Sayles has established its Proxy Voting Procedures to assist it in making its proxy voting decisions with a view to enhancing the value of its clients’ interests in an issuer over the period during which it expects its clients to hold their investments. Loomis Sayles will vote against proposals that it believes could adversely impact the current or potential market value of the issuer’s securities during the expected holding period.
2.	Client Proxy Voting Policies. Rather than delegating proxy voting authority to Loomis Sayles, a client may (1) retain the authority to vote proxies on securities in its account, (2) delegate voting authority to another party or (3) instruct Loomis Sayles to vote proxies according to a policy that differs from that of Loomis Sayles. Loomis Sayles will honor any of these instructions if the client includes the instruction in writing in its IMA or in a written instruction from a person authorized under the IMA to give such instructions. If Loomis incurs additional costs or expenses in following any such instruction, Loomis may request payment of such additional costs or expenses from the client.
3.	Stated Policies. These policies identify issues where Loomis Sayles will (1) generally vote in favor of a proposal, (2) generally vote against a proposal, (3) generally vote as recommended by the proxy voting service and (4) specifically consider its vote for or against a proposal. However, these policies are guidelines and each vote may be cast differently than the stated policy, taking into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances at the time of the vote.
4.	Abstain from Voting. Our policy is to vote rather than abstain from voting on issues presented unless the client’s best interest requires abstention. Loomis Sayles will abstain in cases where the impact of the expected costs involved in voting exceeds the expected benefits of the vote such as where foreign corporations follow share-blocking practices or where proxy material is not available in English. Loomis Sayles will vote against ballot issues where the issuer does not provide sufficient information to make an informed decision. In addition, there may be instances where Loomis Sayles is not able to vote proxies on a client's behalf, such as when ballot delivery instructions have not been processed by a client's custodian, the Proxy Voting Service has not received a ballot for a client's account or under other circumstances beyond Loomis Sayles' control.
5.	Oversight. All issues presented for shareholder vote will be considered under the oversight of the Proxy Committee. All non-routine issues will be directly considered by the Proxy Committee and, when necessary, the equity analyst following the company and/or the portfolio manager of an account holding the security, and will be voted in the best investment interests of the client. All routine for and against issues will be voted according to Loomis Sayles’ policy approved by the Proxy Committee unless special factors require that they be considered by the Proxy Committee and, when necessary, the equity analyst following the company and/or the portfolio manager of an account holding the security. Loomis Sayles’ Proxy Committee has established these routine policies in what it believes are the client’s best interests.
6.	Availability of Procedures. Upon request, Loomis Sayles provides clients with a copy of its Proxy Voting Procedures, as updated from time to time. In addition, Loomis Sayles includes its Proxy Voting Procedures and/or a description of its Proxy Voting Procedures on its public website, www.loomissayles.com, and in its Form ADV, Part II.
7.	Disclosure of Vote. Upon request, a client can obtain information from Loomis Sayles on how its proxies were voted. Any client interested in obtaining this information should contact its Loomis Sayles representatives.
8.	Disclosure to Third Parties. Loomis Sayles’ general policy is not to disclose to third parties how it (or its voting delegate) voted a client’s proxy except that for registered investment companies, Loomis Sayles makes disclosures as required by Rule 30(b)(1)-(4) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and, from time to time at the request of client groups, Loomis may make general disclosures (not specific as to client) of its voting instructions.
C.	Proxy Committee.
1.	Proxy Committee. Loomis Sayles has established a Proxy Committee. The Proxy Committee is composed of representatives of the Equity Research department and the Legal & Compliance department and other employees of Loomis Sayles as needed. In the event that any member is unable to participate in a meeting of the Proxy Committee, his or her designee acts on his or her behalf. A vacancy in the Proxy Committee is filled by the prior member’s successor in position at Loomis Sayles or a person of equivalent experience. Each portfolio manager of an account that holds voting securities of an issuer or analyst covering the issuer or its securities may be an ad hoc member of the Proxy Committee in connection with the vote of proxies.

286

2.	Duties. The specific responsibilities of the Proxy Committee include,

a. to develop, authorize, implement and update these Proxy Voting Procedures, including:

(i) annual review of these Proxy Voting Procedures to ensure consistency with internal policies and regulatory agency policies,

(ii) annual review of existing voting guidelines and development of additional voting guidelines to assist in the review of proxy proposals, and

(iii) annual review of the proxy voting process and any general issues that relate to proxy voting;

b. to oversee the proxy voting process, including:

(i) overseeing the vote on proposals according to the predetermined policies in the voting guidelines,

(ii) directing the vote on proposals where there is reason not to vote according to the predetermined policies in the voting guidelines or where proposals require special consideration,

(iii) consulting with the portfolio managers and analysts for the accounts holding the security when necessary or appropriate, and

(iv) periodically sampling or engaging an outside party to sample proxy votes to ensure they comply with the Proxy Voting Procedures and are cast in accordance with the clients’ best interests;

c. to engage and oversee third-party vendors, such as Proxy Voting Services, including:

(i) determining whether a Proxy Voting Service has the capacity and competency to adequately analyze proxy issues by considering:

(a) the adequacy and quality of the Proxy Voting Service’s staffing and personnel, and

(b) the robustness of the Proxy Voting Service’s policies and procedures regarding its ability to ensure that its recommendations are based on current and accurate information and to identify and address any relevant conflicts of interest,

(ii) providing ongoing oversight of Proxy Voting Services to ensure that proxies continue to be voted in the best interests of clients,

(iii) receiving and reviewing updates from Proxy Voting Services regarding relevant business changes or changes to Proxy Voting Services’ conflict policies and procedures, and

(iv) in the event that the Proxy Committee becomes aware that a Proxy Voting Service’s recommendation was based on a material factual error, investigating the error, considering the nature of the error and the related recommendation, and determining whether the Proxy Voting Service has taken reasonable steps to reduce the likelihood of similar errors in the future; and

d. to develop and/or modify these Proxy Voting Procedures as appropriate or necessary.

3. Standards.

a. When determining the vote of any proposal for which it has responsibility, the Proxy Committee shall vote in the client’s best interest as described in section 1(B)(1) above. In the event a client believes that its other interests require a different vote, Loomis Sayles shall vote as the client instructs if the instructions are provided as required in section 1(B)(2) above.

b. When determining the vote on any proposal, the Proxy Committee shall not consider any benefit to Loomis Sayles, any of its affiliates, any of its or their clients or service providers, other than benefits to the owner of the securities to be voted.

4. Charter. The Proxy Committee may adopt a Charter, which shall be consistent with these Proxy Voting Procedures. Any Charter shall set forth the Committee’s purpose, membership and operation and shall include procedures prohibiting a member from voting on a matter for which he or she has a conflict of interest by reason of a direct relationship with the issuer or other party affected by a given proposal (e.g., he or she is a portfolio manager for an account of the issuer).

D.	Conflicts of Interest.

287

Loomis Sayles has established several policies to ensure that proxy votes are voted in its clients’ best interest and are not affected by any possible conflicts of interest. First, except in certain limited instances, Loomis Sayles votes in accordance with its pre-determined policies set forth in these Proxy Voting Procedures. Second, where these Proxy Voting Procedures allow for discretion, Loomis Sayles will generally consider the recommendations of the Proxy Voting Services in making its voting decisions. However, if the Proxy Committee determines that the Proxy Voting Services’ recommendation is not in the best interest of its clients, then the Proxy Committee may use its discretion to vote against the Proxy Voting Services’ recommendation, but only after taking the following steps: (1) conducting a review for any material conflict of interest Loomis Sayles may have and, (2) if any material conflict is found to exist, excluding anyone at Loomis Sayles who is subject to that conflict of interest from participating in the voting decision in any way. However, if deemed necessary or appropriate by the Proxy Committee after full prior disclosure of any conflict, that person may provide information, opinions or recommendations on any proposal to the Proxy Committee. In such event the Proxy Committee will make reasonable efforts to obtain and consider, prior to directing any vote information, opinions or recommendations from or about the opposing position on any proposal.

E.	Recordkeeping and Disclosure.

Loomis Sayles or its Proxy Voting Service will maintain records of proxies voted pursuant to Section 204-2 of the Advisers Act. The records include: (1) a copy of its Proxy Voting Procedures and its charter; (2) proxy statements received regarding client securities; (3) a record of each vote cast; (4) a copy of any document created by Loomis Sayles that is material to making a decision how to vote proxies on behalf of a client or that memorializes the basis for that decision; and (5) each written client request for proxy voting records and Loomis Sayles’ written response to any (written or oral) client request for such records.

Proxy voting books and records are maintained in an easily accessible place for a period of five years, the first two in an appropriate office of Loomis Sayles.

Loomis Sayles will provide disclosure of its Proxy Voting Procedures as well as its voting record as required under applicable SEC rules.

2. PROPOSALS USUALLY VOTED FOR

Proxies involving the issues set forth below generally will be voted FOR.

Adjustments to Par Value of Common Stock: Vote for management proposals to reduce the par value of common stock.

Annual Election of Directors: Vote for proposals to repeal classified boards and to elect all directors annually.

Appraisal Rights: Vote for proposals to restore, or provide shareholders with, rights of appraisal.

Authority to Issue Shares (for certain foreign issuers): Vote for proposals by boards of non-US issuers where: (1) the board’s authority to issue shares with preemptive rights is limited to no more than 66% of the issuer’s issued ordinary share capital; or (2) the board’s authority to issue shares without preemptive rights is limited to no more than 5% of the issuer’s issued ordinary share capital, to the extent such limits continue to be consistent with the guidelines issued by the Association of British Insurers and other UK investor bodies; and the recommendations of the issuer’s board and the Proxy Voting Service are in agreement. Review on a case-by-case basis proposals that do not meet the above criteria.

Blank Check Preferred Authorization:

A.	Vote for proposals to create blank check preferred stock in cases when the company expressly states that the stock will not be used as a takeover defense or carry superior voting rights, and expressly states conversion, dividend, distribution and other rights.
B.	Vote for shareholder proposals to have blank check preferred stock placements, other than those shares issued for the purpose of raising capital or making acquisitions in the normal course of business, submitted for shareholder ratification.
C.	Review on a case-by-case basis proposals to increase the number of authorized blank check preferred shares.

Chairman and CEO are the Same Person: Vote for proposals that would require the positions of chairman and CEO to be held by different persons.

Changing Corporate Name: Vote for changing the corporate name.

288

Confidential Voting: Vote for shareholder proposals that request corporations to adopt confidential voting, use independent tabulators and use independent inspectors of election as long as the proposals include clauses for proxy contests as follows: In the case of a contested election, management should be permitted to request that the dissident group honor its confidential voting policy. If the dissidents agree, the policy remains in place. If the dissidents do not agree, the confidential voting policy is waived. Vote for management proposals to adopt confidential voting.

Cumulative Voting: Vote for proposals to permit cumulative voting, except where the issuer already has in place a policy of majority voting.

Delivery of Electronic Proxy Materials: Vote for proposals to allow electronic delivery of proxy materials to shareholders.

Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections:

A.	Vote for proposals involving routine matters such as election of directors, provided that two-thirds of the directors would be independent and affiliated or inside nominees do not serve on any board committee.
B.	Vote against nominees that are CFOs and, generally, against nominees that the Proxy Voting Service has identified as not acting in the best interest of shareholders. Vote against nominees that have attended less than 75% of board and committee meetings. Vote against affiliated or inside nominees who serve on a board committee or if two thirds of the board would not be independent. Vote against governance or nominating committee members if there is no independent lead or presiding director and if the CEO and chairman are the same person. Generally, vote against audit committee members if auditor ratification is not proposed, except in cases involving mutual fund board members, who are not required to submit auditor ratification for shareholder approval pursuant to Investment Company Act of 1940 rules. Vote against compensation committee members when the Proxy Voting Service recommends a vote against the issuer's “say on pay” advisory vote. A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed when electing directors of foreign companies.
C.	Generally, vote against all members of a board committee and not just the chairman or a representative thereof in situations where the Proxy Voting Service finds that the board committee has not acted in the best interest of shareholders.
D.	Vote as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service when directors are being elected as a slate and not individually.

Director Related Compensation: Vote for proposals that are required by and comply with the applicable statutory or listing requirements governing the issuer. Review on a case-by-case basis all other proposals.

Election of CEO Director Nominees: Vote for a CEO director nominee that sits on less than four U.S.-domiciled company boards and committees. Vote against a CEO director nominee that sits on four or more U.S.-domiciled boards and committees. Vote for a CEO director nominees of non-U.S.-domiciled companies that sit on more than 4 non-U.S.-domiciled company boards and committees.

Election of Mutual Fund Trustees: Vote for nominees who oversee less than 60 mutual fund portfolios. Vote against nominees who oversee 60 or more mutual fund portfolios that invest in substantially different asset classes (e.g., if the applicable portfolios include both fixed income funds and equity funds). Vote on a case-by-case basis for or against nominees who oversee 60 or more mutual fund portfolios that invest in substantially similar asset classes (e.g., if the applicable portfolios include only fixed income funds or only equity funds).

Equal Access: Vote for shareholder proposals that would allow significant company shareholders equal access to management's proxy material in order to evaluate and propose voting recommendations on proxy proposals and director nominees, and in order to nominate their own candidates to the board.

Fair Price Provisions:

A. Vote for fair price proposals, as long as the shareholder vote requirement embedded in the provision is no more than a majority of disinterested shares.

B. Vote for shareholder proposals to lower the shareholder vote requirement in existing fair price provisions.

Golden and Tin Parachutes:

A.	Vote for shareholder proposals to have golden (top management) and tin (all employees) parachutes submitted for shareholder ratification.

289

B.	Review on a case-by-case basis all proposals to ratify or cancel golden or tin parachutes.

Greenshoe Options (French issuers only): Vote for proposals by boards of French issuers in favor of greenshoe options that grant the issuer the flexibility to increase an over-subscribed securities issuance by up to 15% so long as such increase takes place on the same terms and within thirty days of the initial issuance, provided that the recommendation of the issuer’s board and the Proxy Voting Service are in agreement. Review on a case-by-case basis proposals that do not meet the above criteria.

Independent Audit, Compensation and Nominating Committees: Vote for proposals requesting that the board audit, compensation and/or nominating committees include independent directors exclusively.

Independent Board Chairman:

A.	Vote for shareholder proposals that generally request the board to adopt a policy requiring its chairman to be “independent,” as defined by a relevant exchange or market with respect to any issuer whose enterprise value is, according to the Proxy Voting Service, greater than or equal to $10 billion.
B.	Vote such proposals on a case-by-case basis when, according to the Proxy Voting Service, the issuer's enterprise value is less than $10 billion.

Majority Voting: Vote for proposals to permit majority rather than plurality or cumulative voting for the election of directors/trustees.

OBRA (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act)-Related Compensation Proposals:

A.	Vote for plans that simply amend shareholder-approved plans to include administrative features or place a cap on the annual grants any one participant may receive to comply with the provisions of Section 162(m) of OBRA.
B.	Vote for amendments to add performance goals to existing compensation plans to comply with the provisions of Section 162(m) of OBRA.
C.	Vote for cash or cash-and-stock bonus plans to exempt the compensation from taxes under the provisions of Section 162(m) of OBRA.
D.	Votes on amendments to existing plans to increase shares reserved and to qualify the plan for favorable tax treatment under the provisions of Section 162(m) should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Ratifying Auditors:

A.	Generally vote for proposals to ratify auditors.
B.	Vote against ratification of auditors where an auditor has a financial interest in or association with the company, and is therefore not independent; or there is reason to believe that the independent auditor has rendered an opinion which is neither accurate nor indicative of the company's financial position. In general, if non-audit fees amount to 35% or more of total fees paid to a company's auditor we will vote against ratification and against the members of the audit committee.
C.	Vote against ratification of auditors and vote against members of the audit committee where it is known that an auditor has negotiated an alternative dispute resolution procedure.

Reverse Stock Splits: Vote for management proposals to reduce the number of outstanding shares available through a reverse stock split.

Right to Adjourn: Vote for the right to adjourn in conjunction with a vote for a merger or acquisition or other proposal, and vote against the right to adjourn in conjunction with a vote against a merger or acquisition or other proposal.

Right to Call a Special Meeting: Vote for proposals that set a threshold of 10% of the outstanding voting stock as a minimum percentage allowable to call a special meeting of shareholders. Vote against proposals that increase or decrease the threshold from 10%.

Share Cancellation Programs: Vote for management proposals to reduce share capital by means of cancelling outstanding shares held in the issuer's treasury.

290

Shareholder Ability to Alter the Size of the Board:

A.	Vote for proposals that seek to fix the size of the board.
B.	Vote against proposals that give management the ability to alter the size of the board without shareholder approval.

Shareholder Ability to Remove Directors: Vote for proposals to restore shareholder ability to remove directors with or without cause and proposals that permit shareholders to elect directors to fill board vacancies.

Share Repurchase Programs: Vote for management proposals to institute open-market share repurchase plans in which all shareholders may participate on equal terms.

Stock Distributions: Splits and Dividends: Generally vote for management proposals to increase common share authorization, provided that the increase in authorized shares following the split or dividend is not greater than 100 percent of existing authorized shares.

White Squire Placements: Vote for shareholder proposals to require shareholder approval of blank check preferred stock issues.

Written Consent: Vote for proposals regarding the right to act by written consent when the Proxy Voting Service recommends a vote for the proposal. Proposals regarding the right to act by written consent where the Proxy Voting Service recommends a vote against will be sent to the Proxy Committee for determination.

3. PROPOSALS USUALLY VOTED AGAINST

Proxies involving the issues set forth below generally will be voted AGAINST.

Common Stock Authorization: Vote against proposed common stock authorizations that increase the existing authorization by more than 100 percent unless a clear need for the excess shares is presented by the company. A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed.

Director and Officer Indemnification and Liability Protection:

A.	Proposals concerning director and officer indemnification and liability protection that limit or eliminate entirely director and officer liability for monetary damages for violating the duty of care, or that would expand coverage beyond just legal expenses to acts, such as gross negligence, that are more serious violations of fiduciary obligations than mere carelessness.
B.	Vote for only those proposals that provide such expanded coverage in cases when a director's or officer's legal defense was unsuccessful if (i) the director was found to have acted in good faith and in a manner that he reasonably believed was in the best interests of the company, and (ii) only if the director's legal expenses would be covered.

Shareholder Ability to Act by Written Consent: Vote against proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholder ability to take action by written consent.

Shareholder Ability to Call Special Meetings: Vote against proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholder ability to call special meetings.

Shareholder Ability to Remove Directors:

A.	Vote against proposals that provide that directors may be removed only for cause.
B.	Vote against proposals that provide that only continuing directors may elect replacements to fill board vacancies.

Share Retention by Executives: Generally vote against shareholder proposals requiring executives to retain shares of the issuer for fixed periods unless the board and the Proxy Voting Service recommend voting in favor of the proposal.

Staggered Director Elections: Vote against proposals to classify or stagger the board.

Stock Ownership Requirements: Generally vote against shareholder proposals requiring directors to own a minimum amount of company stock in order to qualify as a director, or to remain on the board.

Supermajority Shareholder Vote Requirements: Vote against management proposals to require a supermajority shareholder vote to approve charter and bylaw amendments.

291

Term of Office: Vote against shareholder proposals to limit the tenure of outside directors.

Unequal Voting Rights:

A.	Vote against dual class exchange offers and dual class recapitalizations.
B.	Vote, on a case-by-case basis, proposals to eliminate an existing dual class voting structure.

4. PROPOSALS USUALLY VOTED AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PROXY VOTING SERVICE

Proxies involving compensation issues, not limited to those set forth below, generally will be voted as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service but may, in the consideration of the Proxy Committee, be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

401(k) Employee Benefit Plans: Vote for proposals to implement a 401(k) savings plan for employees.

Compensation Plans: Votes with respect to compensation plans generally will be voted as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service.

Employee Stock Ownership Plans (“ESOPs”): Vote for proposals that request shareholder approval in order to implement an ESOP or to increase authorized shares for existing ESOPs, except in cases when the number of shares allocated to the ESOP is “excessive” (i.e., generally greater than five percent of outstanding shares). A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed.

Executive Compensation Advisory Resolutions (“Say-on-Pay”): A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed using the following as a guide:

A.	Vote for shareholder proposals to permit non-binding advisory votes on executive compensation.
B.	Non-binding advisory votes on executive compensation will be voted as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service.
C.	Vote for a 3 year review of executive compensation when a recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service is for the approval of the executive compensation proposal, and vote for an annual review of executive compensation when the Proxy Voting Service is against the approval of the executive compensation proposal.

Non-Material Miscellaneous Bookkeeping Proposals: A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed regarding miscellaneous bookkeeping proposals of a non-material nature.

Preemptive Rights: Votes with respect to preemptive rights generally will be voted as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service subject to Common Stock Authorization requirements above.

Stock Option Plans: A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed using the following as a guide:

A.	Vote against plans which expressly permit repricing of underwater options.
B.	Vote against proposals to make all stock options performance based.
C.	Vote against stock option plans that could result in an earnings dilution above the company specific cap considered by the Proxy Voting Service.
D.	Vote for proposals that request expensing of stock options.

Technical Amendments to By-Laws: A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed regarding technical or housekeeping amendments to by-laws or articles designed to bring the by-laws or articles into line with current regulations and/or laws.

5. PROPOSALS REQUIRING SPECIAL CONSIDERATION

The Proxy Committee will vote proxies involving the issues set forth below generally on a case-by-case basis after review. Proposals on many of these types of matters will typically be reviewed with the analyst following the company before any vote is cast.

Asset Sales: Votes on asset sales should be made on a case-by-case basis after considering the impact on the balance sheet/working capital, value received for the asset, and potential elimination of diseconomies.

292

Bundled Proposals: Review on a case-by-case basis bundled or “conditioned” proxy proposals. In the case of items that are conditioned upon each other, examine the benefits and costs of the packaged items. In instances when the joint effect of the conditioned items is not in shareholders' best interests, vote against the proposals. If the combined effect is positive, support such proposals.

Charitable and Political Contributions and Lobbying Expenditures: Votes on proposals regarding charitable contributions, political contributions, and lobbying expenditures, should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Votes for UK issuers concerning political contributions will be voted for if the issuer states that (a) it does not intend to make any political donations or incur any expenditures in respect to any political party in the EU; and (b) the proposal is submitted to ensure that the issuer does not inadvertently breach the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and sections 366 and 367 of the Companies Act 2006.

Compensation in the Event of a Change in Control: Votes on proposals regarding executive compensation in the event of a change in control of the issuer should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Conversion of Debt Instruments: Votes on the conversion of debt instruments should be considered on a case-by-case basis after the recommendation of the relevant Loomis Sayles equity or fixed income analyst is obtained.

Corporate Restructuring: Votes on corporate restructuring proposals, including minority squeezeouts, leveraged buyouts, spin-offs, liquidations, and asset sales should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Counting Abstentions: Votes on proposals regarding counting abstentions when calculating vote proposal outcomes should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Debt Restructurings: Review on a case-by-case basis proposals to increase common and/or preferred shares and to issue shares as part of a debt-restructuring plan. Consider the following issues: Dilution - How much will ownership interest of existing shareholders be reduced, and how extreme will dilution to any future earnings be? Change in Control - Will the transaction result in a change in control of the company? Bankruptcy – Loomis Sayles’ Corporate Actions Department is responsible for consents related to bankruptcies and debt holder consents related to restructurings.

Delisting a Security: Review on a case-by-case basis all proposals to delist a security from an exchange.

Director Nominees in Contested Elections: Votes in a contested election of directors or vote no campaign must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, considering the following factors: long-term financial performance of the target company relative to its industry; management's track record; background to the proxy contest; qualifications of director nominees (both slates); evaluation of what each side is offering shareholders as well as the likelihood that the proposed objectives and goals can be met; and stock ownership positions.

Disclosure of Prior Government Service: Review on a case-by-case basis all proposals to disclose a list of employees previously employed in a governmental capacity.

Environmental and Social Issues: Proxies involving social and environmental issues, not limited to those set forth below, frequently will be voted as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service but may, in the consideration of the Proxy Committee, be reviewed on a case-by-case basis if the Proxy Committee believes that a particular proposal (i) could have a significant impact on an industry or issuer (ii) is appropriate for the issuer and the cost to implement would not be excessive, (iii) is appropriate for the issuer in light of various factors such as reputational damage or litigation risk or (iv) is otherwise appropriate for the issuer.

Animal Rights: Proposals that deal with animal rights.

Energy and Environment: Proposals that request companies to file the CERES Principles.

Equal Employment Opportunity and Discrimination: Proposals regarding equal employment opportunities and discrimination.

Human Resources Issues: Proposals regarding human resources issues.

Maquiladora Standards and International Operations Policies: Proposals relating to the Maquiladora Standards and international operating policies.

Military Business: Proposals on defense issues.

Northern Ireland: Proposals pertaining to the MacBride Principles.

293

Product Integrity and Marketing: Proposals that ask companies to end their production of legal, but socially questionable, products.

Third World Debt Crisis: Proposals dealing with third world debt.

Golden Coffins: Review on a case-by-case basis all proposals relating to the obligation of an issuer to provide remuneration or awards to survivors of executives payable upon such executive's death.

Greenmail:

A.	Vote for proposals to adopt anti-greenmail charter of bylaw amendments or otherwise restrict a company’s ability to make greenmail payments.
B.	Review on a case-by-case basis anti-greenmail proposals when they are bundled with other charter or bylaw amendments.

Liquidations: Votes on liquidations should be made on a case-by-case basis after reviewing management's efforts to pursue other alternatives, appraisal value of assets, and the compensation plan for executives managing the liquidation.

Mergers and Acquisitions: Votes on mergers and acquisitions should be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account at least the following: anticipated financial and operating benefits; offer price (cost vs. premium); prospects of the combined companies; how the deal was negotiated; and changes in corporate governance and their impact on shareholder rights.

Mutual Fund Distribution Agreements: Votes on mutual fund distribution agreements should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Mutual Fund Fundamental Investment Restrictions: Votes on amendments to a mutual fund's fundamental investment restrictions should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Mutual Fund Investment Advisory Agreement: Votes on mutual fund investment advisory agreements should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Poison Pills:

A.	Vote for shareholder proposals that ask a company to submit its poison pill for shareholder ratification.
B.	Review on a case-by-case basis shareholder proposals to redeem a company's poison pill.
C.	Review on a case-by-case basis management proposals to ratify a poison pill.

Proxy Access: Proposals to allow shareholders to nominate their own candidates for seats on a board should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Proxy Contest Defenses: Generally, proposals concerning all proxy contest defenses should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Reimburse Proxy Solicitation Expenses: Decisions to provide full reimbursement for dissidents waging a proxy contest should be made on a case-by-case basis.

Reincorporation Proposals: Proposals to change a company's domicile should be examined on a case-by-case basis.

Shareholder Advisory Committees: Review on a case-by-case basis proposals to establish a shareholder advisory committee.

Shareholder Proposals to Limit Executive and Director Pay:

A.	Generally, vote for shareholder proposals that seek additional disclosure of executive and director pay information.

B. Review on a case-by-case basis (i) all shareholder proposals that seek to limit executive and director pay and (ii) all advisory resolutions on executive pay other than shareholder resolutions to permit such advisory resolutions. Vote against proposals to link all executive or director variable compensation to performance goals.

Spin-offs: Votes on spin-offs should be considered on a case-by-case basis depending on the tax and regulatory advantages, planned use of sale proceeds, market focus, and managerial incentives.

294

State Takeover Statutes: Review on a case-by-case basis proposals to opt in or out of state takeover statutes (including control share acquisition statutes, control share cash-out statutes, freezeout provisions, fair price provisions, stakeholder laws, poison pill endorsements, severance pay and labor contract provisions, antigreenmail provisions, and disgorgement provisions).

Tender Offer Defenses: Generally, proposals concerning tender offer defenses should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

LONGFELLOW INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CO. LLC.

PROXY VOTING POLICY

Where the power to vote proxies has been delegated to Longfellow Investment Management Co. LLC. (LIM), LIM has the responsibility for voting in a manner that is in the best economic interests of the client. LIM shall consider only those factors that relate to the client’s investment or dictated by the client’s written instructions, including how its vote will economically impact and affect the value of the client’s investment. In some instances LIM may abstain from voting a client proxy, particularly when the effect on the client’s economic interest is insignificant or the cost of voting the proxy outweighs the benefit to the client’s portfolio. In voting on each and every issue, LIM shall vote in a prudent and timely fashion and only after a careful evaluation of the issue(s) presented on the ballot. Proxy votes will generally be cast in support of management on routine corporate matters and in support of any management proposal that is plainly in the interest of all shareholders. LIM would generally vote for proposals that increase shareholder value and maintain or increase shareholder rights. LIM will generally vote for management proposals for merger or reorganization. LIM will generally vote for the selection of independent auditors. Where LIM perceives that the proposal, if approved, would tend to limit or reduce the economic value of the client’s investment, LIM will generally vote against it. There may be instances where the interests of LIM may conflict or appear to conflict with the interests of its clients. For example: a situation where a portfolio holding is a client or an affiliate of a client of LIM. In such situations LIM, consistent with its duty of care and duty of loyalty, may engage an independent third party to determine how the proxy should be voted.

LORD, ABBETT & CO. LLC

PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

1 Introduction

Under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended, Lord, Abbett & Co. LLC (“Lord Abbett” or “we”) acts as a fiduciary that owes each of its clients duties of care and loyalty with respect to all services undertaken on the client’s behalf, including proxy voting. This means that Lord Abbett is required to vote proxies in the manner we believe is in the best interests of each client, including the Lord Abbett Funds (the “Funds”) and their shareholders. We take a long-term perspective in investing our clients’ assets and employ the same perspective in voting proxies on their behalf. Accordingly, we tend to support proxy proposals that we believe are likely to maximize shareholder value over time, whether such proposals were initiated by a company or its shareholders.

2 Proxy Voting Process Overview

Lord Abbett has a Proxy Group within its Operations Department (the “Proxy Group”) that oversees proxy voting mechanics on a day-to-day basis and provides Lord Abbett’s Proxy Policy Committee (the “Proxy Policy Committee”) and Investment Department personnel with information regarding proxy voting. The Proxy Policy Committee comprises Lord Abbett’s Chief Investment Officer and members of its Investment, Operations, and Legal and Compliance Departments. Proxy voting decisions are made by the Investment Department in accordance with these policies and procedures and are carried out by the Proxy Group.

Lord Abbett has implemented the following approach to the proxy voting process:

■	In cases where we deem any client’s position in a company to be material,¹ the relevant investment team is responsible for determining how to vote the security. Once a voting decision has been made, the investment team provides instructions to the Proxy Group, which is responsible for submitting Lord Abbett’s vote.
■	In cases where we deem all clients’ positions in a company to be non-material, the Chief Administrative Officer for the Investment Department is responsible for determining how to vote the security. The Chief Administrative Officer may seek guidance from the relevant investment team, the Proxy Policy Committee or any of its members, the Proxy Service Provider (defined below), or other sources to determine how to vote. Once a voting decision has been made, the Chief Administrative Officer provides instructions to the Proxy Group, which is responsible for submitting Lord Abbett’s vote.
■	Lord Abbett has identified certain types of proxy proposals that it considers purely administrative in nature and as to which it always will vote in the same manner. The Proxy Group is authorized to vote on such proposals without receiving instructions from the Investment Department, regardless of the materiality of any client’s position. Lord Abbett presently considers the following specific types of proposals to fall within this category: (1) proposals to change a company’s name, as to which Lord Abbett always votes in

295

	favor; (2) proposals regarding formalities of shareholder meetings (namely, changes to a meeting’s date, time, or location), as to which Lord Abbett always votes in favor; and (3) proposals to allow shareholders to transact other business at a meeting, as to which Lord Abbett always votes against.
■	When multiple investment teams manage one or more portfolios that hold the same voting security, the investment team that manages the largest number of shares of the security will be considered to have the dominant position. Lord Abbett will vote all shares on behalf of all clients that hold the security in accordance with the vote determined by the investment team with the dominant position.

3 Retention and Oversight of Proxy Service Provider

Lord Abbett has retained an independent third party service provider (the “Proxy Service Provider”) to analyze proxy issues and recommend how to vote on those issues, and to provide assistance in the administration of the proxy process, including maintaining complete proxy voting records.² While Lord Abbett takes into consideration the information and recommendations of the Proxy Service Provider, Lord Abbett votes all proxies based on its own proxy voting policies, including Lord Abbett’s conclusions regarding the best interests of the Funds, their shareholders, and other advisory clients, rather than basing decisions solely on the Proxy Service Provider’s recommendations.

Lord Abbett monitors the Proxy Service Provider’s capacity, competency, and conflicts of interest to ensure that Lord Abbett continues to vote proxies in the best interests of its clients. As part of its ongoing oversight of the Proxy Service Provider, Lord Abbett performs periodic due diligence on the Proxy Service Provider. Such due diligence may be conducted in Lord Abbett’s offices or at the Proxy Service Provider’s offices. The topics included in these due diligence reviews include conflicts of interest, methodologies for developing vote recommendations, and resources, among other things.

4 Conflicts of Interest

Lord Abbett is an independent, privately held firm with a singular focus on the management of money. Although Lord Abbett does not face the conflicts of interest inherent in being part of a larger financial institution, conflicts of interest nevertheless may arise in the proxy voting process. Such a conflict may exist, for example, when a client’s account holds shares of a company that also is a client of Lord Abbett. We have adopted safeguards designed to ensure that conflicts of interest are identified and resolved in our clients’ best interests rather than our own. These safeguards include, but are not limited to, the following:

■	Lord Abbett has implemented special voting measures with respect to companies for which one of the Funds’ independent directors/trustees also serves on the board of directors or is a nominee for election to the board of directors. If a Fund owns stock in such a company, Lord Abbett will notify the Funds’ Proxy Committees³ (the “Proxy Committees”) and seek voting instructions from the Committees only in those situations where Lord Abbett proposes not to follow the Proxy Service Provider’s recommendations. In these instances, if applicable, the independent director/trustee will abstain from any discussions by the Funds’ Proxy Committees regarding the company.
■	Lord Abbett also has implemented special voting measures with respect to companies that have a significant business relationship with Lord Abbett (including any subsidiaries of such companies). For this purpose, a “significant business relationship” means: (1) a broker dealer firm that is responsible for one percent or more of the Funds’ total dollar amount of shares sold for the last 12 months; (2) a firm that is a sponsor firm with respect to Lord Abbett’s separately managed account business; (3) an institutional account client that has an investment management agreement with Lord Abbett; (4) an institutional investor that, to Lord Abbett’s knowledge, holds at least $5 million in shares of the Funds; and (5) a retirement plan client that, to Lord Abbett’s knowledge, has at least $5 million invested in the Funds. If a Fund owns stock in such a company, Lord Abbett will notify the Funds’ Proxy Committees and seek voting instructions from the Committees only in those situations where Lord Abbett proposes not to follow the Proxy Service Provider’s recommendations.
■	Absent explicit instructions from an institutional account client to resolve proxy voting conflicts in a different manner, Lord Abbett will vote all shares on behalf of all clients that hold a security that presents a conflict of interest for the Funds in accordance with the voting instructions received from the Funds’ Proxy Committees, unless Lord Abbett proposes to follow the Proxy Service Provider’s recommendation.
■	To serve the best interests of a client that holds a given voting security, Lord Abbett generally will vote proxies without regard to other clients’ investments in different classes or types of securities or instruments of the same issuer that are not entitled to vote. Accordingly, when the voting security in one account is from an issuer whose other, non-voting securit(ies) or instrument(s) are held in a second account in a different strategy, Lord Abbett will vote without input from members of the Investment Department acting on behalf of the second account. The Chief Administrative Officer, members of an investment team, members of the Proxy Policy Committee, and members of the Proxy Group may seek guidance from Lord Abbett’s Investment Conflicts Committee with respect to any potential conflict of interest arising out of the holdings of multiple clients.

5 Proxy Voting Guidelines

296

A general summary of the guidelines that we normally follow in voting proxies appears below. These voting guidelines reflect our general views. We reserve the flexibility to vote in a manner contrary to our general views on particular issues if we believe doing so is in the best interests of our clients, including the Funds and their shareholders. Many different specific types of proposals may arise under the broad categories discussed below, and it is not possible to contemplate every issue on which we may be asked to vote. Accordingly, we will vote on proposals concerning issues not expressly covered by these guidelines based on the specific factors that we believe are relevant. For institutional accounts managed on behalf of multi-employer pension or benefit plans, commonly referred to as “Taft-Hartley plans,” Lord Abbett generally will vote proxies in accordance with the Proxy Voting Guidelines issued by the AFL-CIO rather than the guidelines described below unless instructed otherwise by the client.

5.1 Auditors

Auditors are responsible for examining, correcting, and verifying the accuracy of a company’s financial statements. Lord Abbett believes that companies normally are in the best position to select their auditors and, therefore, we generally support management’s recommendations concerning the ratification of the selection of auditors. However, we may evaluate such proposals on a case-by-case basis due to concerns about impaired independence, accounting irregularities, or failure of the auditors to act in shareholders’ best economic interests, among other factors we may deem relevant.

5.2 Directors

5.2.1 Election of directors

The board of directors of a company oversees all aspects of the company’s business. Companies and, under certain circumstances, their shareholders, may nominate directors for election by shareholders. Lord Abbett believes that the independent directors currently serving on a company’s board of directors (or a nominating committee comprised of such independent directors) generally are in the best position to identify qualified director nominees. Accordingly, we normally vote in accordance with management’s recommendations on the election of directors. In evaluating a director nominee’s candidacy, however, Lord Abbett may consider the following factors, among others: (1) the nominee’s experience, qualifications, attributes, and skills, as disclosed in the company’s proxy statement; (2) the composition of the board and its committees; (3) whether the nominee is independent of company management; (4) the nominee’s board meeting attendance; (5) the nominee’s history of representing shareholder interests on the company’s board or other boards; (6) the nominee’s investment in the company; (7) the company’s long-term performance relative to a market index; and (8) takeover activity. In evaluating a compensation committee nominee’s candidacy, Lord Abbett may consider additional factors including the nominee’s record on various compensation issues such as tax gross-ups, severance payments, options repricing, and pay for performance, although the nominee’s record as to any single compensation issue alone will not necessarily be determinative. Lord Abbett may withhold votes for some or all of a company’s director nominees on a case-by-case basis.

5.2.2

Majority voting

Under a majority voting standard, director nominees must be elected by an affirmative majority of the votes cast at a meeting. Majority voting establishes a higher threshold for director election than plurality voting, in which nominees who receive the most votes are elected, regardless of how small the number of votes received is relative to the total number of shares voted. Lord Abbett generally supports proposals that seek to adopt a majority voting standard.

5.2.3 Board classification

A “classified” or “staggered” board is a structure in which only a portion of a company’s board of directors (typically one-third) is elected each year. A company may employ such a structure to promote continuity of leadership and thwart takeover attempts. Lord Abbett generally votes against proposals to classify a board, absent special circumstances indicating that shareholder interests would be better served by such a structure. In evaluating a classified board proposal, Lord Abbett may consider the following factors, among others: (1) the company’s long-term strategic plan; (2) the extent to which continuity of leadership is necessary to advance that plan; and (3) the need to guard against takeover attempts.

5.2.4 Independent board and committee members

An independent director is one who serves on a company’s board but is not employed by the company or affiliated with it in any other capacity. While company boards may apply different standards in assessing director independence, including any applicable standards prescribed by stock exchanges and the federal securities laws, a director generally is determined to qualify as independent if the director does not have any material relationship with the company (either directly or indirectly) based on all relevant facts and circumstances. Material relationships can include employment, business, and familial relationships, among others. Lord Abbett believes that independent board and committee membership often helps to mitigate the inherent conflicts of interest that arise when a

297

company’s executive officers also serve on its board and committees. Therefore, we generally support the election of board or committee nominees if such election would cause a majority of a company’s board or committee members to be independent. However, a nominee’s effect on the independent composition of the board or any committee is one of many factors Lord Abbett considers in voting on the nominee and will not necessarily be dispositive.

5.2.5 Independent board chairman

Proponents of proposals to require independent board chairmen (formerly often referred to as “separation of chairman and chief executive officer” proposals) seek to enhance board accountability and mitigate a company’s risk-taking behavior by requiring that the role of the chairman of the company’s board of directors be filled by an independent director. We generally vote with management on proposals that call for independent board chairmen. We may vote in favor of such proposals on a case-by-case basis, despite management opposition, if we believe that a company’s governance structure does not promote independent oversight through other means, such as a lead director, a board composed of a majority of independent directors, and/or independent board committees. In evaluating independent chairman proposals, we will focus in particular on the presence of a lead director, which is an independent director designated by a board with a non-independent chairman to serve as the primary liaison between company management and the independent directors and act as the independent directors’ spokesperson.

5.3 Compensation and Benefits

5.3.1 General

In the wake of recent corporate scandals and market volatility, shareholders increasingly have scrutinized the nature and amount of compensation paid by a company to its executive officers and other employees. Lord Abbett believes that because a company has exclusive knowledge of material information not available to shareholders regarding its business, financial condition, and prospects, the company itself usually is in the best position to make decisions about compensation and benefits. Accordingly, we generally vote with management on such matters. However, we may oppose management on a case-by-case basis if we deem a company’s compensation to be excessive or inconsistent with its peer companies’ compensation, we believe a company’s compensation measures do not foster a long-term focus among its executive officers and other employees, or we believe a company has not met performance expectations, among other reasons. Discussed below are some specific types of compensation-related proposals that we may encounter.

5.3.2 Incentive compensation plans

An incentive compensation plan rewards an executive’s performance through a combination of cash compensation and stock awards. Incentive compensation plans are designed to align an executive’s compensation with a company’s long-term performance. As noted above, Lord Abbett believes that management generally is in the best position to assess executive compensation levels and, therefore, generally votes with management on proposals relating to incentive compensation plans. In evaluating such a proposal, however, Lord Abbett may consider the following factors, among others: (1) the executive’s expertise and the value he or she brings to the company; (2) the company’s performance, particularly during the executive’s tenure; (3) the percentage of overall compensation that consists of stock; (4) whether and/or to what extent the incentive compensation plan has any potential to dilute the voting power or economic interests of other shareholders; (5) the features of the plan and costs associated with it; (6) whether the plan provides for repricing or replacement of underwater stock options; and (7) quantitative data from the Proxy Service Provider regarding compensation ranges by industry and company size. We also scrutinize very closely the proposed repricing or replacement of underwater stock options, taking into consideration the stock’s volatility, management’s rationale for the repricing or replacement, the new exercise price, and any other factors we deem relevant.

5.3.3 Say on pay

“Say on pay” proposals give shareholders a nonbinding vote on executive compensation. These proposals are designed to serve as a means of conveying to company management shareholder concerns, if any, about executive compensation. Lord Abbett believes that management generally is in the best position to assess executive compensation. Thus, we generally vote with management on say on pay proposals unless we believe that compensation has been excessive or direct feedback to management about compensation has not resulted in any changes. We also generally vote with management on proposals regarding the frequency of say on pay votes. However, any particular vote will be based on the specific facts and circumstances we deem relevant.

5.3.4 Pay for performance

298

“Pay for performance” proposals are shareholder proposals that seek to achieve greater alignment between executive compensation and company performance. Shareholders initiating these proposals tend to focus on board compensation committees’ accountability, the use of independent compensation consultants, enhanced disclosure of compensation packages, and perquisites given to executives. Because Lord Abbett believes that management generally is in the best position to assess executive compensation, we generally follow management’s voting recommendations regarding pay for performance proposals. However, we may evaluate such proposals on a case-by-case basis if we believe a company’s long-term interests and its executives’ financial incentives are not properly aligned or if we question the methodology a company followed in setting executive compensation, among other reasons.

5.3.5 Clawback provisions

A clawback provision allows a company to recoup or “claw back” incentive compensation paid to an executive if the company later determines that the executive did not actually meet applicable performance goals. For example, such provisions might be used when a company calculated an executive’s compensation based on materially inaccurate or fraudulent financial statements. Some clawback provisions are triggered only if the misalignment between compensation and performance is attributable to improper conduct on the part of the executive. Shareholder proponents of clawback proposals believe that they encourage executive accountability and mitigate a company’s risk-taking behavior. Because Lord Abbett believes that management generally is in the best position to assess executive compensation, we generally vote with management on clawback proposals. We may, however, evaluate such a proposal on a case-by-case basis due to concerns about the amount of compensation paid to the executive, the executive’s or the company’s performance, or accounting irregularities, among other factors we may deem relevant.

5.3.6 Anti-gross-up policies

Tax “gross-ups” are payments by a company to an executive intended to reimburse some or all of the executive’s tax liability with respect to compensation, perquisites, and other benefits. Because the gross-up payment also is taxable, it typically is inflated to cover the amount of the tax liability and the gross-up payment itself. Critics of such payments argue that they often are not transparent to shareholders and can substantially enhance an executive’s overall compensation. Thus, shareholders increasingly are urging companies to establish policies prohibiting tax gross-ups. Lord Abbett generally favors adoption of anti-tax gross-up policies themselves, but will not automatically vote against a compensation committee nominee solely because the nominee approved a gross-up.

5.3.7 Severance agreements and executive death benefits

Severance or so-called “golden parachute” payments sometimes are made to departing executives after termination or upon a company’s change in control. Similarly, companies sometimes make executive death benefit or so-called “golden coffin” payments to an executive’s estate. Both practices increasingly are coming under shareholder scrutiny. While we generally vote with management on compensation matters and acknowledge that companies may have contractual obligations to pay severance or executive death benefits, we scrutinize cases in which such benefits are especially lucrative or are granted despite the executive’s or the company’s poor performance, and may vote against management on a case-by-case basis as we deem appropriate. We also generally support proposals to require that companies submit severance agreements and executive death benefits for shareholder ratification.

5.3.8 Executive pay limits

Lord Abbett believes that a company’s flexibility with regard to its compensation practices is critical to its ability to recruit, retain, and motivate key talent. Accordingly, we generally vote with management on shareholder proposals that seek to impose limits on executive compensation.

5.3.9 Employee stock purchase plans

Employee stock purchase plans permit employees to purchase company stock at discounted prices and, under certain circumstances, receive favorable tax treatment when they sell the stock. Lord Abbett generally follows management’s voting recommendation concerning employee stock purchase plans, although we generally do not support plans that are dilutive.

5.4 Corporate Matters

5.4.1 Charter amendments

A company’s charter documents, which may consist of articles of incorporation or a declaration of trust and bylaws, govern the company’s organizational matters and affairs. Lord Abbett believes that management normally is in the best position to determine appropriate amendments to a company’s governing documents. Some charter amendment proposals involve routine matters, such as

299

changing a company’s name or procedures relating to the conduct of shareholder meetings. Lord Abbett believes that such routine matters do not materially affect shareholder interests and, therefore, we vote with management with respect to them in all cases. Other types of charter amendments, however, are more substantive in nature and may impact shareholder interests. We consider such proposals on a case-by-case basis to the extent they are not explicitly covered by these guidelines.

5.4.2 Changes to capital structure

A company may propose amendments to its charter documents to change the number of authorized shares or create new classes of stock. We generally support proposals to increase a company’s number of authorized shares when the company has articulated a clear and reasonable purpose for the increase (for example, to facilitate a stock split, merger, acquisition, or restructuring). However, we generally oppose share capital increases that would have a dilutive effect. We also generally oppose proposals to create a new class of stock with superior voting rights.

5.4.3 Reincorporation

We generally follow management’s recommendation regarding proposals to change a company’s state of incorporation, although we consider the rationale for the reincorporation and the financial, legal, and corporate governance implications of the reincorporation. We will vote against reincorporation proposals that we believe contravene shareholders’ interests.

5.4.4 Mergers, acquisitions, and restructurings

A merger or acquisition involves combining two distinct companies into a single corporate entity. A restructuring involves a significant change in a company’s legal, operational, or structural features. After these kinds of transactions are completed, shareholders typically will own stock in a company that differs from the company whose shares they initially purchased. Thus, Lord Abbett views the decision to approve or reject a potential merger, acquisition, or restructuring as being equivalent to an investment decision. In evaluating such a proposal, Lord Abbett may consider the following factors, among others: (1) the anticipated financial and operating benefits; (2) the offer price; (3) the prospects of the resulting company; and (4) any expected changes in corporate governance and their impact on shareholder rights. We generally vote against management proposals to require a supermajority shareholder vote to approve mergers or other significant business combinations. We generally vote for shareholder proposals to lower supermajority vote requirements for mergers and acquisitions. We also generally vote against charter amendments that attempt to eliminate shareholder approval for acquisitions involving the issuance of more than 10% of a company’s voting stock.

5.5 Anti-Takeover Issues and Shareholder Rights

5.5.1 Proxy access

Proxy access proposals advocate permitting shareholders to have their nominees for election to a company’s board of directors included in the company’s proxy statement in opposition to the company’s own nominees. Proxy access initiatives enable shareholders to nominate their own directors without incurring the often substantial cost of preparing and mailing a proxy statement, making it less expensive and easier for shareholders to challenge incumbent directors. Lord Abbett evaluates proposals that seek to allow proxy access based on the merits of each situation.

5.5.2 Shareholder rights plans

Shareholder rights plans or “poison pills” are a mechanism of defending a company against takeover efforts. Poison pills allow current shareholders to purchase stock at discounted prices or redeem shares at a premium after a takeover, effectively making the company more expensive and less attractive to potential acquirers. Companies may employ other defensive tactics in combination with poison pills, such as golden parachutes that take effect upon a company’s change in control and therefore increase the cost of a takeover. Because poison pills can serve to entrench management and discourage takeover offers that may be attractive to shareholders, we generally vote in favor of proposals to eliminate poison pills and proposals to require that companies submit poison pills for shareholder ratification. In evaluating a poison pill proposal, however, Lord Abbett may consider the following factors, among others: (1) the duration of the poison pill; (2) whether we believe the poison pill facilitates a legitimate business strategy that is likely to enhance shareholder value; (3) our level of confidence in management; (4) whether we believe the poison pill will be used to force potential acquirers to negotiate with management and assure a degree of stability that will support good long-range corporate goals; and (5) the need to guard against takeover attempts.

5.5.3 Chewable pill provisions

300

A “chewable pill” is a variant of the poison pill that mandates a shareholder vote in certain situations, preventing management from automatically discouraging takeover offers that may be attractive to shareholders. We generally support chewable pill provisions that balance management’s and shareholders’ interests by including: (1) a redemption clause allowing the board to rescind a pill after a potential acquirer’s holdings exceed the applicable ownership threshold; (2) no dead-hand or no-hand pills, which would allow the incumbent board and their approved successors to control the pill even after they have been voted out of office; (3) sunset provisions that allow shareholders to review and reaffirm or redeem a pill after a predetermined time frame; and (4) a qualifying offer clause, which gives shareholders the ability to redeem a poison pill when faced with a bona fide takeover offer.

5.5.4 Anti-greenmail provisions

An anti-greenmail provision is a special charter provision that prohibits a company’s management from buying back shares at above market prices from potential acquirers without shareholder approval. We generally support such provisions, provided that they are not bundled with other measures that serve to entrench management or discourage attractive takeover offers.

5.5.5 Fair price provisions

A fair price provision is a special charter provision that requires that all selling shareholders receive the same price from a buyer. Fair price provisions are designed to protect shareholders from inequitable two-tier stock acquisition offers in which some shareholders may be bought out on disadvantageous terms. We generally support such provisions, provided that they are not bundled with other measures that serve to entrench management or discourage attractive takeover offers.

5.5.6 Rights to call special shareholder meetings

Proposals regarding rights to call special shareholder meetings normally seek approval of amendments to a company’s charter documents. Lord Abbett generally votes with management on proposals concerning rights to call special shareholder meetings. In evaluating such a proposal, Lord Abbett may consider the following factors, among others: (1) the stock ownership threshold required to call a special meeting; (2) the purposes for which shareholders may call a special meeting; (3) whether the company’s annual meetings offer an adequate forum in which shareholders may raise their concerns; and (4) the anticipated economic impact on the company of having to hold additional shareholder meetings.

5.5.7 Supermajority vote requirements

A proposal that is subject to a supermajority vote must receive the support of more than a simple majority in order to pass. Supermajority vote requirements can have the effect of entrenching management by making it more difficult to effect change regarding a company and its corporate governance practices. Lord Abbett normally supports shareholders’ ability to approve or reject proposals based on a simple majority vote. Thus, we generally vote for proposals to remove supermajority vote requirements and against proposals to add them.

5.5.8 Cumulative voting

Under cumulative or proportional voting, each shareholder is allotted a number of votes equal to the number of shares owned multiplied by the number of directors to be elected. This voting regime strengthens the voting power of minority shareholders because it enables shareholders to cast multiple votes for a single nominee. Lord Abbett believes that a shareholder or group of shareholders using this technique to elect a director may seek to have the director represent a narrow special interest rather than the interests of the broader shareholder population. Accordingly, we generally vote against cumulative voting proposals.

5.5.9 Confidential voting

In a confidential voting system, all proxies, ballots, and voting tabulations that identify individual shareholders are kept confidential. An open voting system, by contrast, gives management the ability to identify shareholders who oppose its proposals. Lord Abbett believes that confidential voting allows shareholders to vote without fear of retribution or coercion based on their views. Thus, we generally support proposals that seek to preserve shareholders’ anonymity.

5.5.10 Reimbursing proxy solicitation expenses

Lord Abbett generally votes with management on shareholder proposals to require a company to reimburse reasonable expenses incurred by one or more shareholders in a successful proxy contest, and may consider factors including whether the board has a plurality or majority vote standard for the election of directors, the percentage of directors to be elected in the contest, and shareholders’ ability to cumulate their votes for the directors.

301

5.5.11 Transacting other business

Lord Abbett believes that proposals to allow shareholders to transact other business at a meeting deprive other shareholders of sufficient time and information to carefully evaluate the relevant business issues and determine how to vote with respect to them. Therefore, Lord Abbett always votes against such proposals.

5.6 Social, Political, and Environmental Issues

Proposals relating to social, political, or environmental issues typically are initiated by shareholders and urge a company to disclose certain information or change certain business practices. Lord Abbett evaluates such proposals based on their effect on shareholder value rather than on their ideological merits. We generally follow management’s recommendation on social, political, and environmental proposals and tend to vote against proposals that are unduly burdensome or impose substantial costs on a company with no countervailing economic benefits to the company’s shareholders. Nonetheless, we pay particular attention to highly controversial issues, as well as instances where management has failed repeatedly to take corrective actions with respect to an issue.

5.7 Share Blocking

Certain foreign countries impose share blocking restrictions that would prohibit Lord Abbett from trading a company’s stock during a specified period before the company’s shareholder meeting. Lord Abbett believes that in these situations, the benefit of maintaining liquidity during the share blocking period outweighs the benefit of exercising our right to vote. Therefore, it is Lord Abbett’s general policy to not vote securities in cases where share blocking restrictions apply.

6 Document Revision History

Amended: September 15, 2016

History of Amendments to the Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

Adopted: September 17, 2009

Amended: September 14, 2010

March 10, 2011

September 13, 2012

September 19, 2014

September 17, 2015

February 25, 2016

September 15, 2016

_________________________

¹ We presently consider a position in a particular company to be material if: (1) it represents more than 1% of any client’s portfolio holdings and all clients’ positions in the company together represent more than 1% of the company’s outstanding shares; or (2) all clients’ positions in the company together represent more than 5% of the company’s outstanding shares. For purposes of determining materiality, we exclude shares held by clients with respect to which Lord Abbett does not have authority to vote proxies. We also exclude shares with respect to which Lord Abbett’s vote is restricted or limited due to super-voting share structures (where one class of shares has super-voting rights that effectively disenfranchise other classes of shares), vote limitation policies, and other similar measures. This definition of materiality is subject to change at our discretion.

² Lord Abbett currently retains Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. as the Proxy Service Provider.

302

³ The Boards of Directors and Trustees of the Funds have delegated oversight of proxy voting to separate Proxy Committees comprised solely of independent directors and/or trustees, as the case may be. Each Proxy Committee is responsible for, among other things: (1) monitoring Lord Abbett’s actions in voting securities owned by the related Fund; (2) evaluating Lord Abbett’s policies in voting securities; and (3) meeting with Lord Abbett to review the policies in voting securities, the sources of information used in determining how to vote on particular matters, and the procedures used to determine the votes in any situation where there may be a conflict of interest.

LSV ASSET MANAGEMENT

LSV Asset Management has adopted proxy voting guidelines that provide direction in determining how various types of proxy issues are to be voted. LSV has engaged an expert independent third party to design guidelines for client accounts that are updated for current corporate governance issues, helping to ensure that clients' best interests are served by voting decisions. Clients are sent a copy of their respective guidelines on an annual basis.

LSV's quantitative investment process does not provide output or analysis that would be functional in analyzing proxy issues. LSV, therefore, has retained an expert independent third party to assist in proxy voting, currently Glass Lewis & Co. (GLC). GLC implements LSV's proxy voting process, provides assistance in developing guidelines, and provides analysis of proxy issues on a case-by-case basis. LSV is responsible for monitoring GLC to ensure that proxies are appropriately voted. LSV will vote issues contrary to, or issues not covered by, the guidelines only when LSV believes it is in the best interest of the client. Where the client has provided proxy voting guidelines to LSV, those guidelines will be followed, unless it is determined that a different vote would add more value to the client's holding of the security in question. Direction from a client on a particular proxy vote will take precedence over the guidelines. LSV's use of GLC is not a delegation of LSV's fiduciary obligation to vote proxies for clients.

Should a material conflict arise between LSV's interest and that of its clients, LSV will vote the proxies in accordance with the recommendation of the independent third party proxy voting service. A written record will be maintained describing the conflict of interest, and an explanation of how the vote made was in the client's best interest.

LSV may refrain from voting a proxy if the cost of voting the proxy exceeds the expected benefit to the client, for example in the case of voting a foreign security when the proxy must be translated into English or the vote must be cast in person.

Clients may receive a copy of LSV's proxy voting policy and voting record for their account by request. LSV will additionally provide any mutual fund for which LSV acts as adviser or sub-adviser, a copy of LSV's voting record for the fund so that the fund may fulfill its obligation to report proxy votes to fund shareholders.

Recordkeeping. In accordance with the recordkeeping rules, LSV will retain copies of its proxy voting policies and procedures; a copy of each proxy statement received regarding client securities (maintained by the proxy voting service and/or available on EDGAR); a record of each vote cast on behalf of a client (maintained by the proxy voting service); a copy of any document created that was material to the voting decision or that memorializes the basis for that decision (maintained by the proxy voting service); a copy of clients' written requests for proxy voting information and a copy of LSV's written response to a client's request for proxy voting information for the client's account; and LSV will ensure that it may obtain access to the proxy voting service's records promptly upon LSV's request.

MASSACHUSETTS FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY

PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

February 1, 2017

Massachusetts Financial Services Company, MFS Institutional Advisors, Inc., MFS International (UK) Limited, MFS Heritage Trust Company, MFS Investment Management (Canada) Limited, MFS Investment Management Company (Lux) S.à r.l., MFS International Singapore Pte. Ltd., MFS Investment Management K.K., MFS International Australia Pty. Ltd.; and MFS’ other subsidiaries that perform discretionary investment management activities (collectively, “MFS”) have adopted proxy voting policies and procedures, as set forth below (“MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures”), with respect to securities owned by the clients for which MFS serves as investment adviser and has the power to vote proxies, including the pooled investment vehicles sponsored by MFS (the “MFS Funds”). References to “clients” in these policies and procedures include the MFS Funds and other clients of MFS, such as funds organized offshore, sub-advised funds and separate account clients, to the extent these clients have delegated to MFS the responsibility to vote proxies on their behalf under the MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.

The MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures include:

303

A.	Voting Guidelines;
B.	Administrative Procedures;
C	Records Retention; and
D.	Reports.
A.	VOTING GUIDELINES
1.	General Policy; Potential Conflicts of Interest

MFS’ policy is that proxy voting decisions are made in what MFS believes to be the best long-term economic interests of MFS’ clients, and not in the interests of any other party or in MFS' corporate interests, including interests such as the distribution of MFS Fund shares and institutional client relationships.

MFS reviews corporate governance issues and proxy voting matters that are presented for shareholder vote by either management or shareholders of public companies. Based on the overall principle that all votes cast by MFS on behalf of its clients must be in what MFS believes to be the best long-term economic interests of such clients, MFS has adopted proxy voting guidelines, set forth below, that govern how MFS generally will vote on specific matters presented for shareholder vote.

As a general matter, MFS votes consistently on similar proxy proposals across all shareholder meetings. However, some proxy proposals, such as certain excessive executive compensation, environmental, social and governance matters, are analyzed on a case-by-case basis in light of all the relevant facts and circumstances of the proposal. Therefore, MFS may vote similar proposals differently at different shareholder meetings based on the specific facts and circumstances of the issuer or the terms of the proposal. In addition, MFS also reserves the right to override the guidelines with respect to a particular proxy proposal when such an override is, in MFS’ best judgment, consistent with the overall principle of voting proxies in the best long-term economic interests of MFS’ clients.

MFS also generally votes consistently on the same matter when securities of an issuer are held by multiple client accounts, unless MFS has received explicit voting instructions to vote differently from a client for its own account. From time to time, MFS may also receive comments on the MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures from its clients. These comments are carefully considered by MFS when it reviews these guidelines and revises them as appropriate.

These policies and procedures are intended to address any potential material conflicts of interest on the part of MFS or its subsidiaries that are likely to arise in connection with the voting of proxies on behalf of MFS’ clients. If such potential material conflicts of interest do arise, MFS will analyze, document and report on such potential material conflicts of interest (see Sections B.2 and D below), and shall ultimately vote the relevant proxies in what MFS believes to be the best long-term economic interests of its clients. The MFS Proxy Voting Committee is responsible for monitoring and reporting with respect to such potential material conflicts of interest.

MFS is also a signatory to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment. In developing these guidelines, MFS considered environmental, social and corporate governance issues in light of MFS’ fiduciary obligation to vote proxies in the best long-term economic interest of its clients.

2.	MFS’ Policy on Specific Issues

Election of Directors

MFS believes that good governance should be based on a board with at least a simple majority of directors who are “independent” of management, and whose key committees (e.g., compensation, nominating, and audit committees) consist entirely of “independent” directors. While MFS generally supports the board’s nominees in uncontested or non-contentious elections, we will not support a nominee to a board of a U.S. issuer (or issuer listed on a U.S. exchange) if, as a result of such nominee being elected to the board, the board would consist of a simple majority of members who are not “independent” or, alternatively, the compensation, nominating (including instances in which the full board serves as the compensation or nominating committee) or audit committees would include members who are not “independent.”

MFS will also not support a nominee to a board if we can determine that he or she attended less than 75% of the board and/or relevant committee meetings in the previous year without a valid reason stated in the proxy materials or other company communications. In addition, MFS may not support some or all nominees standing for re-election to a board if we can determine: (1) the board or its compensation committee has re-priced or exchanged underwater stock options since the last annual meeting of shareholders and without shareholder approval; (2) the board or relevant committee has not taken adequately responsive action to an

304

issue that received majority support or opposition from shareholders; (3) the board has implemented a poison pill without shareholder approval since the last annual meeting and such poison pill is not on the subsequent shareholder meeting's agenda, (including those related to net-operating loss carry-forwards); (4) the board or relevant committee has failed to adequately oversee risk by allowing the hedging and/or significant pledging of company shares by executives; or (5) there are governance concerns with a director or issuer.

For directors who are not a CEO of a public company, MFS will vote against a nominee who serves on more than five (5) public company boards in total. MFS may consider exceptions to this policy if (i) the director is either retired or listed as “professional director” in the proxy statement; (ii) the company has disclosed the director's plans to step down from the number of public company boards exceeding five (5) within a reasonable time; or (iii) the director exceeds the permitted number of public company board seats solely due to either his/her board service on an affiliated company (e.g., a subsidiary), or service on more than one investment company within the same investment company complex.

For directors who are also a CEO of a public company, MFS will vote against a nominee who serves on more than three (3) public-company boards in total. However, we will support his or her re-election to the board of the company for which he or she serves as CEO).

MFS may not support certain board nominees of U.S. issuers under certain circumstances where MFS deems compensation to be egregious due to pay-for-performance issues and/or poor pay practices. Please see the section below titled “MFS’ Policy on Specific Issues - Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation” for further details.

MFS evaluates a contested or contentious election of directors on a case-by-case basis considering the long-term financial performance of the company relative to its industry, management's track record, the qualifications of all nominees, and an evaluation of what each side is offering shareholders.

Majority Voting and Director Elections

MFS votes for reasonably crafted proposals calling for directors to be elected with an affirmative majority of votes cast and/or the elimination of the plurality standard for electing directors (including binding resolutions requesting that the board amend the company’s bylaws), provided the proposal includes a carve-out for a plurality voting standard when there are more director nominees than board seats (e.g., contested elections) (“Majority Vote Proposals”).

Classified Boards

MFS generally supports proposals to declassify a board (i.e.; a board in which only one-third of board members is elected each year) for all issuers other than for certain closed-end investment companies. MFS generally opposes proposals to classify a board for issuers other than for certain closed-end investment companies.

Proxy Access

MFS believes that the ability of qualifying shareholders to nominate a certain number of directors on the company's proxy statement (“Proxy Access”) may have corporate governance benefits. However, such potential benefits must be balanced by its potential misuse by shareholders. Therefore, we support Proxy Access proposals at U.S. issuers that establish an ownership criteria of 3% of the company held continuously for a period of 3 years. In our view, such qualifying shareholders should have the ability to nominate at least 2 directors. Companies should be mindful of imposing any undue impediments within its bylaws that may render Proxy Access impractical, including re-submission thresholds for director nominees via Proxy Access.

MFS analyzes all other proposals seeking Proxy Access on a case-by-case basis. In its analysis, MFS will consider the proposed ownership criteria for qualifying shareholders (such as ownership threshold and holding period) as well as the proponent's rationale for seeking Proxy Access.

Stock Plans

MFS opposes stock option programs and restricted stock plans that provide unduly generous compensation for officers, directors or employees, or that could result in excessive dilution to other shareholders. As a general guideline, MFS votes against restricted stock, stock option, non-employee director, omnibus stock plans and any other stock plan if all such plans for a particular company involve potential dilution, in the aggregate, of more than 15%. However, MFS will also vote against stock plans that involve potential dilution, in aggregate, of more than 10% at U.S. issuers that are listed in the Standard and Poor’s 100 index as of December 31 of the previous year. In the cases where a stock plan amendment is seeking qualitative changes and not additional shares, MFS will vote its shares on a case-by-case basis.

305

MFS also opposes stock option programs that allow the board or the compensation committee to re-price underwater options or to automatically replenish shares without shareholder approval. MFS also votes against stock option programs for officers, employees or non-employee directors that do not require an investment by the optionee, that give “free rides” on the stock price, or that permit grants of stock options with an exercise price below fair market value on the date the options are granted. MFS will consider proposals to exchange existing options for newly issued options, restricted stock or cash on a case-by-case basis, taking into account certain factors, including, but not limited to, whether there is a reasonable value-for-value exchange and whether senior executives are excluded from participating in the exchange.

MFS supports the use of a broad-based employee stock purchase plans to increase company stock ownership by employees, provided that shares purchased under the plan are acquired for no less than 85% of their market value and do not result in excessive dilution.

Shareholder Proposals on Executive Compensation

MFS believes that competitive compensation packages are necessary to attract, motivate and retain executives. However, MFS also recognizes that certain executive compensation practices can be “excessive” and not in the best, long-term economic interest of a company’s shareholders. We believe that the election of an issuer’s board of directors (as outlined above), votes on stock plans (as outlined above) and advisory votes on pay (as outlined below) are typically the most effective mechanisms to express our view on a company’s compensation practices.

MFS generally opposes shareholder proposals that seek to set rigid restrictions on executive compensation as MFS believes that compensation committees should retain some flexibility to determine the appropriate pay package for executives. Although we support linking executive stock option grants to a company’s performance, MFS also opposes shareholder proposals that mandate a link of performance-based pay to a specific metric. MFS generally supports reasonably crafted shareholder proposals that (i) require the issuer to adopt a policy to recover the portion of performance-based bonuses and awards paid to senior executives that were not earned based upon a significant negative restatement of earnings unless the company already has adopted a satisfactory policy on the matter, (ii) expressly prohibit the backdating of stock options, and (iii) prohibit the acceleration of vesting of equity awards upon a broad definition of a “change-in-control” (e.g.; single or modified single-trigger).

Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation

MFS will analyze advisory votes on executive compensation on a case-by-case basis. MFS will vote against an advisory vote on executive compensation if MFS determines that the issuer has adopted excessive executive compensation practices and will vote in favor of an advisory vote on executive compensation if MFS has not determined that the issuer has adopted excessive executive compensation practices. Examples of excessive executive compensation practices may include, but are not limited to, a pay-for-performance disconnect, employment contract terms such as guaranteed bonus provisions, unwarranted pension payouts, backdated stock options, overly generous hiring bonuses for chief executive officers, unnecessary perquisites, or the potential reimbursement of excise taxes to an executive in regards to a severance package. In cases where MFS (i) votes against consecutive advisory pay votes, or (ii) determines that a particularly egregious excessive executive compensation practice has occurred, then MFS may also vote against certain or all board nominees. MFS may also vote against certain or all board nominees if an advisory pay vote for a U.S. issuer is not on the agenda, or the company has not implemented the advisory vote frequency supported by a plurality/ majority of shareholders.

MFS generally supports proposals to include an advisory shareholder vote on an issuer’s executive compensation practices on an annual basis.

“Golden Parachutes”

From time to time, MFS may evaluate a separate, advisory vote on severance packages or “golden parachutes” to certain executives at the same time as a vote on a proposed merger or acquisition. MFS will support an advisory vote on a severance package on a on a case-by-case basis, and MFS may vote against the severance package regardless of whether MFS supports the proposed merger or acquisition.

Shareholders of companies may also submit proxy proposals that would require shareholder approval of severance packages for executive officers that exceed certain predetermined thresholds. MFS votes in favor of such shareholder proposals when they would require shareholder approval of any severance package for an executive officer that exceeds a certain multiple of such officer’s annual compensation that is not determined in MFS’ judgment to be excessive.

Anti-Takeover Measures

306

In general, MFS votes against any measure that inhibits capital appreciation in a stock, including proposals that protect management from action by shareholders. These types of proposals take many forms, ranging from “poison pills” and “shark repellents” to super-majority requirements.

MFS generally votes for proposals to rescind existing “poison pills” and proposals that would require shareholder approval to adopt prospective “poison pills,” unless the company already has adopted a clearly satisfactory policy on the matter. MFS may consider the adoption of a prospective “poison pill” or the continuation of an existing “poison pill” if we can determine that the following two conditions are met: (1) the “poison pill” allows MFS clients to hold an aggregate position of up to 15% of a company's total voting securities (and of any class of voting securities); and (2) either (a) the “poison pill” has a term of not longer than five years, provided that MFS will consider voting in favor of the “poison pill” if the term does not exceed seven years and the “poison pill” is linked to a business strategy or purpose that MFS believes is likely to result in greater value for shareholders; or (b) the terms of the “poison pill” allow MFS clients the opportunity to accept a fairly structured and attractively priced tender offer (e.g. a “chewable poison pill” that automatically dissolves in the event of an all cash, all shares tender offer at a premium price). MFS will also consider on a case-by-case basis proposals designed to prevent tenders which are disadvantageous to shareholders such as tenders at below market prices and tenders for substantially less than all shares of an issuer.

MFS will consider any poison pills designed to protect a company’s net-operating loss carryforwards on a case-by-case basis, weighing the accounting and tax benefits of such a pill against the risk of deterring future acquisition candidates.

Proxy Contests

From time to time, a shareholder may express alternative points of view in terms of a company's strategy, capital allocation, or other issues. Such shareholder may also propose a slate of director nominees different than the slate of director nominees proposed by the company (a “Proxy Contest”). MFS will analyze Proxy Contests on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the track record and current recommended initiatives of both company management and the dissident shareholder(s). Like all of our proxy votes, MFS will support the slate of director nominees that we believe is in the best, long-term economic interest of our clients.

Reincorporation and Reorganization Proposals

When presented with a proposal to reincorporate a company under the laws of a different state, or to effect some other type of corporate reorganization, MFS considers the underlying purpose and ultimate effect of such a proposal in determining whether or not to support such a measure. MFS generally votes with management in regards to these types of proposals, however, if MFS believes the proposal is in the best long-term economic interests of its clients, then MFS may vote against management (e.g. the intent or effect would be to create additional inappropriate impediments to possible acquisitions or takeovers).

Issuance of Stock

There are many legitimate reasons for the issuance of stock. Nevertheless, as noted above under “Stock Plans,” when a stock option plan (either individually or when aggregated with other plans of the same company) would substantially dilute the existing equity (e.g. by approximately 10-15% as described above), MFS generally votes against the plan. In addition, MFS typically votes against proposals where management is asking for authorization to issue common or preferred stock with no reason stated (a “blank check”) because the unexplained authorization could work as a potential anti-takeover device. MFS may also vote against the authorization or issuance of common or preferred stock if MFS determines that the requested authorization is excessive or not warranted.

Repurchase Programs

MFS supports proposals to institute share repurchase plans in which all shareholders have the opportunity to participate on an equal basis. Such plans may include a company acquiring its own shares on the open market, or a company making a tender offer to its own shareholders.

Cumulative Voting

MFS opposes proposals that seek to introduce cumulative voting and for proposals that seek to eliminate cumulative voting. In either case, MFS will consider whether cumulative voting is likely to enhance the interests of MFS’ clients as minority shareholders.

Written Consent and Special Meetings

307

The right to call a special meeting or act by written consent can be a powerful tool for shareholders. As such, MFS supports proposals requesting the right for shareholders who hold at least 10% of the issuer’s outstanding stock to call a special meeting. MFS also supports proposals requesting the right for shareholders to act by written consent.

Independent Auditors

MFS believes that the appointment of auditors for U.S. issuers is best left to the board of directors of the company and therefore supports the ratification of the board’s selection of an auditor for the company. Some shareholder groups have submitted proposals to limit the non-audit activities of a company’s audit firm or prohibit any non-audit services by a company’s auditors to that company. MFS opposes proposals recommending the prohibition or limitation of the performance of non-audit services by an auditor, and proposals recommending the removal of a company’s auditor due to the performance of non-audit work for the company by its auditor. MFS believes that the board, or its audit committee, should have the discretion to hire the company’s auditor for specific pieces of non-audit work in the limited situations permitted under current law.

Other Business

MFS generally votes against “other business” proposals as the content of any such matter is not known at the time of our vote.

Adjourn Shareholder Meeting

MFS generally supports proposals to adjourn a shareholder meeting if we support the other ballot items on the meeting's agenda. MFS generally votes against proposals to adjourn a meeting if we do not support the other ballot items on the meeting's agenda.

Environmental, Social and Governance (“ESG”) Issues

MFS believes that a company’s ESG practices may have an impact on the company’s long-term economic financial performance and will generally support proposals relating to ESG issues that MFS believes are in the best long-term economic interest of the company’s shareholders. For those ESG proposals for which a specific policy has not been adopted, MFS considers such ESG proposals on a case-by-case basis. As a result, it may vote similar proposals differently at various shareholder meetings based on the specific facts and circumstances of such proposal.

MFS generally supports proposals that seek to remove governance structures that insulate management from shareholders (i.e., anti-takeover measures) or that seek to enhance shareholder rights. Many of these governance-related issues, including compensation issues, are outlined within the context of the above guidelines. In addition, MFS typically supports proposals that require an issuer to reimburse successful dissident shareholders (who are not seeking control of the company) for reasonable expenses that such dissident incurred in soliciting an alternative slate of director candidates. MFS also generally supports reasonably crafted shareholder proposals requesting increased disclosure around the company’s use of collateral in derivatives trading. MFS typically supports proposals for an independent board chairperson. However, we may not support such proposals if we determine there to be an appropriate and effective counter-balancing leadership structure in place (e.g.; a strong, independent lead director with an appropriate level of powers and duties). For any governance-related proposal for which an explicit guideline is not provided above, MFS will consider such proposals on a case by case basis and will support such proposals if MFS believes that it is in the best long-term economic interest of the company’s shareholders.

MFS generally supports proposals that request disclosure on the impact of environmental issues on the company’s operations, sales, and capital investments. However, MFS may not support such proposals based on the facts and circumstances surrounding a specific proposal, including, but not limited to, whether (i) the proposal is unduly costly, restrictive, or burdensome, (ii) the company already provides publicly-available information that is sufficient to enable shareholders to evaluate the potential opportunities and risks that environmental matters pose to the company’s operations, sales and capital investments, or (iii) the proposal seeks a level of disclosure that exceeds that provided by the company’s industry peers. MFS will analyze all other environmental proposals on a case-by-case basis and will support such proposals if MFS believes such proposal is in the best long-term economic interest of the company’s shareholders.

MFS will analyze social proposals on a case-by-case basis. MFS will support such proposals if MFS believes that such proposal is in the best long-term economic interest of the company’s shareholders. Generally, MFS will support shareholder proposals that (i) seek to amend a company’s equal employment opportunity policy to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity; and (ii) request additional disclosure regarding a company’s political contributions (including trade organizations and lobbying activity) (unless the company already provides publicly-available information that is sufficient to enable shareholders to evaluate the potential opportunities and risks that such contributions pose to the company’s operations, sales and capital investments).

308

The laws of various states or countries may regulate how the interests of certain clients subject to those laws (e.g. state pension plans) are voted with respect to social issues. Thus, it may be necessary to cast ballots differently for certain clients than MFS might normally do for other clients.

Foreign Issuers

MFS generally supports the election of a director nominee standing for re-election in uncontested or non-contentious elections unless it can be determined that (1) he or she failed to attend at least 75% of the board and/or relevant committee meetings in the previous year without a valid reason given in the proxy materials; (2) since the last annual meeting of shareholders and without shareholder approval, the board or its compensation committee has re-priced underwater stock options; or (3) since the last annual meeting, the board has either implemented a poison pill without shareholder approval or has not taken responsive action to a majority shareholder approved resolution recommending that the “poison pill” be rescinded. In such circumstances, we will vote against director nominee(s). Also, certain markets outside of the U.S. have adopted best practice guidelines relating to corporate governance matters (e.g. the United Kingdom’s and Japan Corporate Governance Codes). Many of these guidelines operate on a “comply or explain” basis. As such, MFS will evaluate any explanations by companies relating to their compliance with a particular corporate governance guideline on a case-by-case basis and may vote against the board nominees or other relevant ballot item if such explanation is not satisfactory. In some circumstances, MFS may submit a vote to abstain from certain director nominees or the relevant ballot items if we have concerns with the nominee or ballot item, but do not believe these concerns rise to the level where a vote against is warranted.

MFS generally supports the election of auditors, but may determine to vote against the election of a statutory auditor in certain markets if MFS reasonably believes that the statutory auditor is not truly independent.

Some international markets have also adopted mandatory requirements for all companies to hold shareholder votes on executive compensation. MFS will vote against such proposals if MFS determines that a company’s executive compensation practices are excessive, considering such factors as the specific market’s best practices that seek to maintain appropriate pay-for-performance alignment and to create long-term shareholder value. We may alternatively submit an abstention vote on such proposals in circumstances where our executive compensation concerns are not as severe.

Many other items on foreign proxies involve repetitive, non-controversial matters that are mandated by local law. Accordingly, the items that are generally deemed routine and which do not require the exercise of judgment under these guidelines (and therefore voted with management) for foreign issuers include, but are not limited to, the following: (i) receiving financial statements or other reports from the board; (ii) approval of declarations of dividends; (iii) appointment of shareholders to sign board meeting minutes; (iv) discharge of management and supervisory boards; and (v) approval of share repurchase programs (absent any anti-takeover or other concerns). MFS will evaluate all other items on proxies for foreign companies in the context of the guidelines described above, but will generally vote against an item if there is not sufficient information disclosed in order to make an informed voting decision. For any ballot item where MFS wishes to express a more moderate level of concern than a vote of against, we will cast a vote to abstain.

In accordance with local law or business practices, some foreign companies or custodians prevent the sale of shares that have been voted for a certain period beginning prior to the shareholder meeting and ending on the day following the meeting (“share blocking”). Depending on the country in which a company is domiciled, the blocking period may begin a stated number of days prior or subsequent to the meeting (e.g. one, three or five days) or on a date established by the company. While practices vary, in many countries the block period can be continued for a longer period if the shareholder meeting is adjourned and postponed to a later date. Similarly, practices vary widely as to the ability of a shareholder to have the “block” restriction lifted early (e.g. in some countries shares generally can be “unblocked” up to two days prior to the meeting whereas in other countries the removal of the block appears to be discretionary with the issuer’s transfer agent). Due to these restrictions, MFS must balance the benefits to its clients of voting proxies against the potentially serious portfolio management consequences of a reduced flexibility to sell the underlying shares at the most advantageous time. For companies in countries with share blocking periods or in markets where some custodians may block shares, the disadvantage of being unable to sell the stock regardless of changing conditions generally outweighs the advantages of voting at the shareholder meeting for routine items. Accordingly, MFS will not vote those proxies in the absence of an unusual, significant vote that outweighs the disadvantage of being unable to sell the stock.

From time to time, governments may impose economic sanctions which may prohibit us from transacting business with certain companies or individuals. These sanctions may also prohibit the voting of proxies at certain companies or on certain individuals. In such instances, MFS will not vote at certain companies or on certain individuals if it determines that doing so is in violation of the sanctions.

309

In limited circumstances, other market specific impediments to voting shares may limit our ability to cast votes, including, but not limited to, late delivery of proxy materials, untimely vote cut-off dates, power of attorney and share re-registration requirements, or any other unusual voting requirements. In these limited instances, MFS votes securities on a best efforts basis in the context of the guidelines described above.

B.	ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
1.	MFS Proxy Voting Committee

The administration of these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures is overseen by the MFS Proxy Voting Committee, which includes senior personnel from the MFS Legal and Global Investment Support Departments. The Proxy Voting Committee does not include individuals whose primary duties relate to client relationship management, marketing, or sales. The MFS Proxy Voting Committee:

a.	Reviews these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures at least annually and recommends any amendments considered to be necessary or advisable;
b.	Determines whether any potential material conflict of interest exists with respect to instances in which MFS (i) seeks to override these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures; (ii) votes on ballot items not governed by these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures; (iii) evaluates an excessive executive compensation issue in relation to the election of directors; or (iv) requests a vote recommendation from an MFS portfolio manager or investment analyst (e.g. mergers and acquisitions); and
c.	Considers special proxy issues as they may arise from time to time.
2.	Potential Conflicts of Interest

The MFS Proxy Voting Committee is responsible for monitoring potential material conflicts of interest on the part of MFS or its subsidiaries that could arise in connection with the voting of proxies on behalf of MFS’ clients. Due to the client focus of our investment management business, we believe that the potential for actual material conflict of interest issues is small. Nonetheless, we have developed precautions to assure that all proxy votes are cast in the best long-term economic interest of shareholders. Other MFS internal policies require all MFS employees to avoid actual and potential conflicts of interests between personal activities and MFS’ client activities. If an employee (including investment professionals) identifies an actual or potential conflict of interest with respect to any voting decision (including the ownership of securities in their individual portfolio), then that employee must recuse himself/herself from participating in the voting process. Any significant attempt by an employee of MFS or its subsidiaries to unduly influence MFS’ voting on a particular proxy matter should also be reported to the MFS Proxy Voting Committee.

In cases where proxies are voted in accordance with these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures, no material conflict of interest will be deemed to exist. In cases where (i) MFS is considering overriding these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures, (ii) matters presented for vote are not governed by these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures, (iii) MFS evaluates a potentially excessive executive compensation issue in relation to the election of directors or advisory pay or severance package vote, or (iv) a vote recommendation is requested from an MFS portfolio manager or investment analyst (e.g. mergers and acquisitions); (collectively, “Non-Standard Votes”); the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will follow these procedures:

a.	Compare the name of the issuer of such proxy against a list of significant current (i) distributors of MFS Fund shares, and (ii) MFS institutional clients (the “MFS Significant Distributor and Client List”);
b.	If the name of the issuer does not appear on the MFS Significant Distributor and Client List, then no material conflict of interest will be deemed to exist, and the proxy will be voted as otherwise determined by the MFS Proxy Voting Committee;
c.	If the name of the issuer appears on the MFS Significant Distributor and Client List, then the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will be apprised of that fact and each member of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will carefully evaluate the proposed vote in order to ensure that the proxy ultimately is voted in what MFS believes to be the best long-term economic interests of MFS’ clients, and not in MFS' corporate interests; and
d.	For all potential material conflicts of interest identified under clause (c) above, the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will document: the name of the issuer, the issuer’s relationship to MFS, the analysis of the matters submitted for proxy vote, the votes as to be cast and the reasons why the MFS Proxy Voting Committee determined that the votes were cast in the best long-term economic interests of MFS’ clients, and not in MFS' corporate interests. A copy of the foregoing documentation will be provided to MFS’ Conflicts Officer.

310

The members of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee are responsible for creating and maintaining the MFS Significant Distributor and Client List, in consultation with MFS’ distribution and institutional business units. The MFS Significant Distributor and Client List will be reviewed and updated periodically, as appropriate.

For instances where MFS is evaluating a director nominee who also serves as a director of the MFS Funds, then the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will adhere to the procedures described in section (d) above regardless of whether the portfolio company appears on our Significant Distributor and Client List.

If an MFS client has the right to vote on a matter submitted to shareholders by Sun Life Financial, Inc. or any of its affiliates (collectively “Sun Life”), MFS will cast a vote on behalf of such MFS client pursuant to the recommendations of Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc.'s (“ISS”) benchmark policy, or as required by law.

Except as described in the MFS Fund's prospectus, from time to time, certain MFS Funds (the “top tier fund”) may own shares of other MFS Funds (the “underlying fund”). If an underlying fund submits a matter to a shareholder vote, the top tier fund will generally vote its shares in the same proportion as the other shareholders of the underlying fund. If there are no other shareholders in the underlying fund, the top tier fund will vote in what MFS believes to be in the top tier fund’s best long-term economic interest. If an MFS client has the right to vote on a matter submitted to shareholders by a pooled investment vehicle advised by MFS, MFS will cast a vote on behalf of such MFS client in the same proportion as the other shareholders of the pooled investment vehicle.

3.	Gathering Proxies

Most proxies received by MFS and its clients originate at Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. (“Broadridge”). Broadridge and other service providers, on behalf of custodians, send proxy related material to the record holders of the shares beneficially owned by MFS’ clients, usually to the client’s proxy voting administrator or, less commonly, to the client itself. This material will include proxy ballots reflecting the shareholdings of Funds and of clients on the record dates for such shareholder meetings, as well as proxy materials with the issuer’s explanation of the items to be voted upon.

MFS, on behalf of itself and certain of its clients (including the MFS Funds) has entered into an agreement with an independent proxy administration firm pursuant to which the proxy administration firm performs various proxy vote related administrative services such as vote processing and recordkeeping functions. Except as noted below, the proxy administration firm for MFS and its clients, including the MFS Funds, is ISS. The proxy administration firm for MFS Development Funds, LLC is Glass, Lewis & Co., Inc. (“Glass Lewis”; Glass Lewis and ISS are each hereinafter referred to as the “Proxy Administrator”).

The Proxy Administrator receives proxy statements and proxy ballots directly or indirectly from various custodians, logs these materials into its database and matches upcoming meetings with MFS Fund and client portfolio holdings, which are input into the Proxy Administrator’s system by an MFS holdings data-feed. Through the use of the Proxy Administrator system, ballots and proxy material summaries for all upcoming shareholders’ meetings are available on-line to certain MFS employees and members of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee.

It is the responsibility of the Proxy Administrator and MFS to monitor the receipt of ballots. When proxy ballots and materials for clients are received by the Proxy Administrator, they are input into the Proxy Administrator’s on-line system. The Proxy Administrator then reconciles a list of all MFS accounts that hold shares of a company’s stock and the number of shares held on the record date by these accounts with the Proxy Administrator’s list of any upcoming shareholder’s meeting of that company. If a proxy ballot has not been received, the Proxy Administrator contacts the custodian requesting the reason as to why a ballot has not been received.

4.	Analyzing Proxies

Proxies are voted in accordance with these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures. The Proxy Administrator, at the prior direction of MFS, automatically votes all proxy matters that do not require the particular exercise of discretion or judgment with respect to these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures as determined by MFS. With respect to proxy matters that require the particular exercise of discretion or judgment, the MFS Proxy Voting Committee or its representatives considers and votes on those proxy matters. MFS also receives research and recommendations from the Proxy Administrator which it may take into account in deciding how to vote. MFS uses the research of Proxy Administrators and/or other 3rd party vendors to identify (i) circumstances in which a board may have approved excessive executive compensation, (ii) environmental and social proposals that warrant further consideration or (iii) circumstances in which a non-U.S. company is not in compliance with local governance or compensation best practices. In those situations where the only MFS fund that is eligible to vote at a shareholder meeting has Glass Lewis as its Proxy Administrator, then we will utilize research from Glass Lewis to identify such issues. MFS analyzes such issues independently and does not necessarily

311

vote with the ISS or Glass Lewis recommendations on these issues. MFS may also use other research tools in order to identify the circumstances described above. Representatives of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee review, as appropriate, votes cast to ensure conformity with these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.

As a general matter, portfolio managers and investment analysts have little involvement in most votes taken by MFS. This is designed to promote consistency in the application of MFS’ voting guidelines, to promote consistency in voting on the same or similar issues (for the same or for multiple issuers) across all client accounts, and to minimize the potential that proxy solicitors, issuers, or third parties might attempt to exert inappropriate influence on the vote. For votes that require a case-by-case analysis per the MFS Proxy Policies (e.g. proxy contests, potentially excessive executive compensation issues, or certain shareholder proposals), a representative of MFS Proxy Voting Committee will consult with or seek recommendations from MFS investment analysts and/or portfolio managers. However, the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will ultimately determine the manner in which such proxies are voted.

As noted above, MFS reserves the right to override the guidelines when such an override is, in MFS’ best judgment, consistent with the overall principle of voting proxies in the best long-term economic interests of MFS’ clients. Any such override of the guidelines shall be analyzed, documented and reported in accordance with the procedures set forth in these policies.

5.	Voting Proxies

In accordance with its contract with MFS, the Proxy Administrator also generates a variety of reports for the MFS Proxy Voting Committee, and makes available on-line various other types of information so that the MFS Proxy Voting Committee or proxy team may review and monitor the votes cast by the Proxy Administrator on behalf of MFS’ clients.

For those markets that utilize a “record date” to determine which shareholders are eligible to vote, MFS generally will vote all eligible shares pursuant to these guidelines regardless of whether all (or a portion of) the shares held by our clients have been sold prior to the meeting date.

6.	Securities Lending

From time to time, the MFS Funds or other pooled investment vehicles sponsored by MFS may participate in a securities lending program. In the event MFS or its agent receives timely notice of a shareholder meeting for a U.S. security, MFS and its agent will attempt to recall any securities on loan before the meeting’s record date so that MFS will be entitled to vote these shares. However, there may be instances in which MFS is unable to timely recall securities on loan for a U.S. security, in which cases MFS will not be able to vote these shares. MFS will report to the appropriate board of the MFS Funds those instances in which MFS is not able to timely recall the loaned securities. MFS generally does not recall non-U.S. securities on loan because there may be insufficient advance notice of proxy materials, record dates, or vote cut-off dates to allow MFS to timely recall the shares in certain markets on an automated basis. As a result, non-U.S. securities that are on loan will not generally be voted. If MFS receives timely notice of what MFS determines to be an unusual, significant vote for a non-U.S. security whereas MFS shares are on loan, and determines that voting is in the best long-term economic interest of shareholders, then MFS will attempt to timely recall the loaned shares.

7.	Engagement

The MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures are available on www.mfs.com and may be accessed by both MFS’ clients and the companies in which MFS’ clients invest. From time to time, MFS may determine that it is appropriate and beneficial for representatives from the MFS Proxy Voting Committee to engage in a dialogue or written communication with a company or other shareholders regarding certain matters on the company’s proxy statement that are of concern to shareholders, including environmental, social and governance matters. A company or shareholder may also seek to engage with representatives of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee in advance of the company’s formal proxy solicitation to review issues more generally or gauge support for certain contemplated proposals. For further information on requesting engagement with MFS on proxy voting issues, please visit www.mfs.com and refer to our most recent Annual Global Proxy Voting and Engagement Report for contact information.

C.	RECORDS RETENTION

MFS will retain copies of these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures in effect from time to time and will retain all proxy voting reports submitted to the Board of Trustees of the MFS Funds for the period required by applicable law. Proxy solicitation materials, including electronic versions of the proxy ballots completed by representatives of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee, together with their respective notes and comments, are maintained in an electronic format by the Proxy Administrator and are accessible on-line by the MFS Proxy Voting Committee. All proxy voting materials and supporting documentation, including records generated by the Proxy Administrator’s system as to proxies processed, including the dates when proxy ballots were received and submitted, and the votes on each company’s proxy issues, are retained as required by applicable law.

312

REPORTS

U.S. Registered MFS Funds

MFS publicly discloses the proxy voting records of the U.S. registered MFS Funds on a quarterly basis. MFS will also report the results of its voting to the Board of Trustees of the U.S. registered MFS Funds. These reports will include: (i) a summary of how votes were cast (including advisory votes on pay and “golden parachutes”) ; (ii) a summary of votes against management’s recommendation; (iii) a review of situations where MFS did not vote in accordance with the guidelines and the rationale therefore; (iv) a review of the procedures used by MFS to identify material conflicts of interest and any matters identified as a material conflict of interest; (v) a review of these policies and the guidelines; (vi) a review of our proxy engagement activity; (vii) a report and impact assessment of instances in which the recall of loaned securities of a U.S. issuer was unsuccessful; and (viii) as necessary or appropriate, any proposed modifications thereto to reflect new developments in corporate governance and other issues. Based on these reviews, the Trustees of the U.S. registered MFS Funds will consider possible modifications to these policies to the extent necessary or advisable.

Other MFS Clients

MFS may publicly disclose the proxy voting records of certain other clients (including certain MFS Funds) or the votes it casts with respect to certain matters as required by law. A report can also be printed by MFS for each client who has requested that MFS furnish a record of votes cast. The report specifies the proxy issues which have been voted for the client during the year and the position taken with respect to each issue and, upon request, may identify situations where MFS did not vote in accordance with the MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.

Except as described above, MFS generally will not divulge actual voting practices to any party other than the client or its representatives because we consider that information to be confidential and proprietary to the client. However, as noted above, MFS may determine that it is appropriate and beneficial to engage in a dialogue with a company regarding certain matters. During such dialogue with the company, MFS may disclose the vote it intends to cast in order to potentially effect positive change at a company in regards to environmental, social or governance issues.

MORGAN STANLEY INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT

PROXY VOTING POLICY AND PROCEDURES

September 2016

I.	POLICY STATEMENT

Morgan Stanley Investment Management’s (“MSIM”) policy and procedures for voting proxies (“Policy”) with respect to securities held in the accounts of clients applies to those MSIM entities that provide discretionary investment management services and for which an MSIM entity has authority to vote proxies. This Policy is reviewed and updated as necessary to address new and evolving proxy voting issues and standards.

The MSIM entities covered by this Policy currently include the following: Morgan Stanley AIP GP LP, Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc., Morgan Stanley Investment Management Limited, Morgan Stanley Investment Management Company, Morgan Stanley Investment Management (Japan) Co. Limited and Morgan Stanley Investment Management Private Limited (each a “MSIM Affiliate” and collectively referred to as the “MSIM Affiliates” or as “we” below).

Each MSIM Affiliate will use its best efforts to vote proxies as part of its authority to manage, acquire and dispose of account assets. With respect to the registered management investment companies sponsored, managed or advised by any MSIM affiliate (the “MSIM Funds”), each MSIM Affiliate will vote proxies under this Policy pursuant to authority granted under its applicable investment advisory agreement or, in the absence of such authority, as authorized by the Board of Directors/Trustees of the MSIM Funds. A MSIM Affiliate will not vote proxies unless the investment management or investment advisory agreement explicitly authorizes the MSIM Affiliate to vote proxies.

MSIM Affiliates will vote proxies in a prudent and diligent manner and in the best interests of clients, including beneficiaries of and participants in a client’s benefit plan(s) for which the MSIM Affiliates manage assets, consistent with the objective of maximizing long-term investment returns (“Client Proxy Standard”). In addition to voting proxies at portfolio companies, MSIM routinely engages with the management or board of companies in which we invest on a range of governance issues. Governance is a window into or proxy for management and board quality. MSIM engages with companies where we have larger positions, voting issues are material or where we believe we can make a positive impact on the governance structure. MSIM’s engagement process, through private

313

communication with companies, allows us to understand the governance structures at investee companies and better inform our voting decisions. In certain situations, a client or its fiduciary may provide an MSIM Affiliate with a proxy voting policy. In these situations, the MSIM Affiliate will comply with the client’s policy.

Retention and Oversight of Proxy Advisory Firms - ISS and Glass Lewis (together with other proxy research providers as we may retain from time to time, the “Research Providers”) are independent advisers that specialize in providing a variety of fiduciary-level proxy-related services to institutional investment managers, plan sponsors, custodians, consultants, and other institutional investors. The services provided include in-depth research, global issuer analysis, and voting recommendations.

MSIM has retained Research Providers to analyze proxy issues and to make vote recommendations on those issues. While we may review and utilize the recommendations of one or more Research Providers in making proxy voting decisions, we are in no way obligated to follow such recommendations. MSIM votes all proxies based on its own proxy voting policies in the best interests of each client. In addition to research, ISS provides vote execution, reporting, and recordkeeping services to MSIM.

As part of MSIM’s ongoing oversight of the Research Providers, MSIM performs periodic due diligence on the Research Providers. Topics of the reviews include, but are not limited to, conflicts of interest, methodologies for developing their policies and vote recommendations, and resources.

Voting Proxies for Certain Non-U.S. Companies - Voting proxies of companies located in some jurisdictions may involve several problems that can restrict or prevent the ability to vote such proxies or entail significant costs. These problems include, but are not limited to: (i) proxy statements and ballots being written in a language other than English; (ii) untimely and/or inadequate notice of shareholder meetings; (iii) restrictions on the ability of holders outside the issuer’s jurisdiction of organization to exercise votes; (iv) requirements to vote proxies in person; (v) the imposition of restrictions on the sale of the securities for a period of time in proximity to the shareholder meeting; and (vi) requirements to provide local agents with power of attorney to facilitate our voting instructions. As a result, we vote clients’ non-U.S. proxies on a best efforts basis only, after weighing the costs and benefits of voting such proxies, consistent with the Client Proxy Standard. ISS has been retained to provide assistance in connection with voting non-U.S. proxies.

Securities Lending - MSIM Funds or any other investment vehicle sponsored, managed or advised by a MSIM affiliate may participate in a securities lending program through a third party provider. The voting rights for shares that are out on loan are transferred to the borrower and therefore, the lender (i.e., a MSIM Fund or another investment vehicle sponsored, managed or advised by a MSIM affiliate) is not entitled to vote the lent shares at the company meeting. In general, MSIM believes the revenue received from the lending program outweighs the ability to vote and we will not recall shares for the purpose of voting. However, in cases in which MSIM believes the right to vote outweighs the revenue received, we reserve the right to recall the shares on loan on a best efforts basis.

II.	GENERAL PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES

To promote consistency in voting proxies on behalf of our clients, we follow this Policy (subject to any exception set forth herein). The Policy addresses a broad range of issues, and provides general voting parameters on proposals that arise most frequently. However, details of specific proposals vary, and those details affect particular voting decisions, as do factors specific to a given company. Pursuant to the procedures set forth herein, we may vote in a manner that is not in accordance with the following general guidelines, provided the vote is approved by the Proxy Review Committee (see Section III for description) and is consistent with the Client Proxy Standard. Morgan Stanley AIP GP LP will follow the procedures as described in Appendix A.

We endeavor to integrate governance and proxy voting policy with investment goals, using the vote to encourage portfolio companies to enhance long-term shareholder value and to provide a high standard of transparency such that equity markets can value corporate assets appropriately.

We seek to follow the Client Proxy Standard for each client. At times, this may result in split votes, for example when different clients have varying economic interests in the outcome of a particular voting matter (such as a case in which varied ownership interests in two companies involved in a merger result in different stakes in the outcome). We also may split votes at times based on differing views of portfolio managers.

We may abstain on matters for which disclosure is inadequate.

A.	Routine Matters.

We generally support routine management proposals. The following are examples of routine management proposals:

314

■	Approval of financial statements and auditor reports if delivered with an unqualified auditor’s opinion.
■	General updating/corrective amendments to the charter, articles of association or bylaws, unless we believe that such amendments would diminish shareholder rights.
■	Most proposals related to the conduct of the annual meeting, with the following exceptions. We generally oppose proposals that relate to “the transaction of such other business which may come before the meeting,” and open-ended requests for adjournment. However, where management specifically states the reason for requesting an adjournment and the requested adjournment would facilitate passage of a proposal that would otherwise be supported under this Policy (i.e., an uncontested corporate transaction), the adjournment request will be supported. We do not support proposals that allow companies to call a special meeting with a short (generally two weeks or less) time frame for review.

We generally support shareholder proposals advocating confidential voting procedures and independent tabulation of voting results.

B.	Board of Directors.
1.	Election of directors: Votes on board nominees can involve balancing a variety of considerations. In vote decisions, we may take into consideration whether the company has a majority voting policy in place that we believe makes the director vote more meaningful. In the absence of a proxy contest, we generally support the board’s nominees for director except as follows:
a.	We consider withholding support from or voting against a nominee if we believe a direct conflict exists between the interests of the nominee and the public shareholders, including failure to meet fiduciary standards of care and/or loyalty. We may oppose directors where we conclude that actions of directors are unlawful, unethical or negligent. We consider opposing individual board members or an entire slate if we believe the board is entrenched and/or dealing inadequately with performance problems; if we believe the board is acting with insufficient independence between the board and management; or if we believe the board has not been sufficiently forthcoming with information on key governance or other material matters.
b.	We consider withholding support from or voting against interested directors if the company’s board does not meet market standards for director independence, or if otherwise we believe board independence is insufficient. We refer to prevalent market standards as promulgated by a stock exchange or other authority within a given market (e.g., New York Stock Exchange or Nasdaq rules for most U.S. companies, and The Combined Code on Corporate Governance in the United Kingdom). Thus, for an NYSE company with no controlling shareholder, we would expect that at a minimum a majority of directors should be independent as defined by NYSE. Where we view market standards as inadequate, we may withhold votes based on stronger independence standards. Market standards notwithstanding, we generally do not view long board tenure alone as a basis to classify a director as non-independent.
i.	At a company with a shareholder or group that controls the company by virtue of a majority economic interest in the company, we have a reduced expectation for board independence, although we believe the presence of independent directors can be helpful, particularly in staffing the audit committee, and at times we may withhold support from or vote against a nominee on the view the board or its committees are not sufficiently independent. In markets where board independence is not the norm (e.g. Japan), however, we consider factors including whether a board of a controlled company includes independent members who can be expected to look out for interests of minority holders.
ii.	We consider withholding support from or voting against a nominee if he or she is affiliated with a major shareholder that has representation on a board disproportionate to its economic interest.
c.	Depending on market standards, we consider withholding support from or voting against a nominee who is interested and who is standing for election as a member of the company’s compensation/remuneration, nominating/governance or audit committee.
d.	We consider withholding support from or voting against nominees if the term for which they are nominated is excessive. We consider this issue on a market-specific basis.
e.	We consider withholding support from or voting against nominees if in our view there has been insufficient board renewal (turnover), particularly in the context of extended poor company performance.
f.	We consider withholding support from or voting against a nominee standing for election if the board has not taken action to implement generally accepted governance practices for which there is a “bright line” test. For example, in the context of the U.S. market, failure to eliminate a dead hand or slow hand poison pill would be seen as a basis for opposing one or more incumbent nominees.
g.	In markets that encourage designated audit committee financial experts, we consider voting against members of an audit committee if no members are designated as such. We also consider voting against the audit committee members if the company

315

	has faced financial reporting issues and/or does not put the auditor up for ratification by shareholders.
h.	We believe investors should have the ability to vote on individual nominees, and may abstain or vote against a slate of nominees where we are not given the opportunity to vote on individual nominees.
i.	We consider withholding support from or voting against a nominee who has failed to attend at least 75% of the nominee’s board and board committee meetings within a given year without a reasonable excuse. We also consider opposing nominees if the company does not meet market standards for disclosure on attendance.
j.	We consider withholding support from or voting against a nominee who appears overcommitted, particularly through service on an excessive number of boards. Market expectations are incorporated into this analysis; for U.S. boards, we generally oppose election of a nominee who serves on more than six public company boards (excluding investment companies), although we also may reference National Association of Corporate Directors guidance suggesting that public company CEOs, for example, should serve on no more than two outside boards given level of time commitment required in their primary job.
k.	We consider withholding support from or voting against a nominee where we believe executive remuneration practices are poor, particularly if the company does not offer shareholders a separate “say-on-pay” advisory vote on pay.
2.	Discharge of directors’ duties: In markets where an annual discharge of directors' responsibility is a routine agenda item, we generally support such discharge. However, we may vote against discharge or abstain from voting where there are serious findings of fraud or other unethical behavior for which the individual bears responsibility. The annual discharge of responsibility represents shareholder approval of disclosed actions taken by the board during the year and may make future shareholder action against the board difficult to pursue.
3.	Board independence: We generally support U.S. shareholder proposals requiring that a certain percentage (up to 66⅔%) of the company’s board members be independent directors, and promoting all-independent audit, compensation and nominating/governance committees.
4.	Board diversity: We consider on a case-by-case basis shareholder proposals urging diversity of board membership with respect to gender, race or other factors.
5.	Majority voting: We generally support proposals requesting or requiring majority voting policies in election of directors, so long as there is a carve-out for plurality voting in the case of contested elections.
6.	Proxy access: We consider proposals on procedures for inclusion of shareholder nominees and to have those nominees included in the company’s proxy statement and on the company’s proxy ballot on a case-by-case basis. Considerations include ownership thresholds, holding periods, the number of directors that shareholders may nominate and any restrictions on forming a group.
7.	Reimbursement for dissident nominees: We generally support well-crafted U.S. shareholder proposals that would provide for reimbursement of dissident nominees elected to a board, as the cost to shareholders in electing such nominees can be factored into the voting decision on those nominees.
8.	Proposals to elect directors more frequently: In the U.S. public company context, we usually support shareholder and management proposals to elect all directors annually (to “declassify” the board), although we make an exception to this policy where we believe that long-term shareholder value may be harmed by this change given particular circumstances at the company at the time of the vote on such proposal. As indicated above, outside the United States we generally support greater accountability to shareholders that comes through more frequent director elections, but recognize that many markets embrace longer term lengths, sometimes for valid reasons given other aspects of the legal context in electing boards.
9.	Cumulative voting: We generally support proposals to eliminate cumulative voting in the U.S. market context. (Cumulative voting provides that shareholders may concentrate their votes for one or a handful of candidates, a system that can enable a minority bloc to place representation on a board.) U.S. proposals to establish cumulative voting in the election of directors generally will not be supported.
10.	Separation of Chairman and CEO positions: We vote on shareholder proposals to separate the Chairman and CEO positions and/or to appoint an independent Chairman based in part on prevailing practice in particular markets, since the context for such a practice varies. In many non-U.S. markets, we view separation of the roles as a market standard practice, and support division of the roles in that context. In the United States, we consider such proposals on a case-by-case basis, considering, among other things, the existing board leadership structure, company performance, and any evidence of entrenchment or perceived risk that

316

	power is overly concentrated in a single individual.
11.	Director retirement age and term limits: Proposals setting or recommending director retirement ages or director term limits are voted on a case-by-case basis that includes consideration of company performance, the rate of board renewal, evidence of effective individual director evaluation processes, and any indications of entrenchment.
12.	Proposals to limit directors’ liability and/or broaden indemnification of officers and directors: Generally, we will support such proposals provided that an individual is eligible only if he or she has not acted in bad faith, with gross negligence or with reckless disregard of their duties.
C.	Statutory auditor boards. The statutory auditor board, which is separate from the main board of directors, plays a role in corporate governance in several markets. These boards are elected by shareholders to provide assurance on compliance with legal and accounting standards and the company’s articles of association. We generally vote for statutory auditor nominees if they meet independence standards. In markets that require disclosure on attendance by internal statutory auditors, however, we consider voting against nominees for these positions who failed to attend at least 75% of meetings in the previous year. We also consider opposing nominees if the company does not meet market standards for disclosure on attendance.
D.	Corporate transactions and proxy fights. We examine proposals relating to mergers, acquisitions and other special corporate transactions (i.e., takeovers, spin-offs, sales of assets, reorganizations, restructurings and recapitalizations) on a case-by-case basis in the interests of each fund or other account. Proposals for mergers or other significant transactions that are friendly and approved by the Research Providers usually are supported if there is no portfolio manager objection. We also analyze proxy contests on a case-by-case basis.
E.	Changes in capital structure.
1.	We generally support the following:
■	Management and shareholder proposals aimed at eliminating unequal voting rights, assuming fair economic treatment of classes of shares we hold.
■	U.S. management proposals to increase the authorization of existing classes of common stock (or securities convertible into common stock) if: (i) a clear business purpose is stated that we can support and the number of shares requested is reasonable in relation to the purpose for which authorization is requested; and/or (ii) the authorization does not exceed 100% of shares currently authorized and at least 30% of the total new authorization will be outstanding. (We consider proposals that do not meet these criteria on a case-by-case basis.)
■	U.S. management proposals to create a new class of preferred stock or for issuances of preferred stock up to 50% of issued capital, unless we have concerns about use of the authority for anti-takeover purposes.
■	Proposals in non-U.S. markets that in our view appropriately limit potential dilution of existing shareholders. A major consideration is whether existing shareholders would have preemptive rights for any issuance under a proposal for standing share issuance authority. We generally consider market-specific guidance in making these decisions; for example, in the U.K. market we usually follow Association of British Insurers’ (“ABI”) guidance, although company-specific factors may be considered and for example, may sometimes lead us to voting against share authorization proposals even if they meet ABI guidance.
■	Management proposals to authorize share repurchase plans, except in some cases in which we believe there are insufficient protections against use of an authorization for anti-takeover purposes.
■	Management proposals to reduce the number of authorized shares of common or preferred stock, or to eliminate classes of preferred stock.
■	Management proposals to effect stock splits.
■	Management proposals to effect reverse stock splits if management proportionately reduces the authorized share amount set forth in the corporate charter. Reverse stock splits that do not adjust proportionately to the authorized share amount generally will be approved if the resulting increase in authorized shares coincides with the proxy guidelines set forth above for common stock increases.
■	Management dividend payout proposals, except where we perceive company payouts to shareholders as inadequate.

2.	We generally oppose the following (notwithstanding management support):
■	Proposals to add classes of stock that would substantially dilute the voting interests of existing shareholders.
■	Proposals to increase the authorized or issued number of shares of existing classes of stock that are unreasonably dilutive, particularly if there are no preemptive rights for existing shareholders. However, depending on market practices, we consider voting for proposals giving general authorization for issuance of shares not subject to pre-emptive rights if the authority is limited.
■	Proposals that authorize share issuance at a discount to market rates, except where authority for such issuance is de minimis, or if there is a special situation that we believe justifies such authorization (as may be the case, for example, at a company under severe stress and risk of bankruptcy).
■	Proposals relating to changes in capitalization by 100% or more.

317

We consider on a case-by-case basis shareholder proposals to increase dividend payout ratios, in light of market practice and perceived market weaknesses, as well as individual company payout history and current circumstances. For example, currently we perceive low payouts to shareholders as a concern at some Japanese companies, but may deem a low payout ratio as appropriate for a growth company making good use of its cash, notwithstanding the broader market concern.

F.	Takeover Defenses and Shareholder Rights.
1.	Shareholder rights plans: We generally support proposals to require shareholder approval or ratification of shareholder rights plans (poison pills). In voting on rights plans or similar takeover defenses, we consider on a case-by-case basis whether the company has demonstrated a need for the defense in the context of promoting long-term share value; whether provisions of the defense are in line with generally accepted governance principles in the market (and specifically the presence of an adequate qualified offer provision that would exempt offers meeting certain conditions from the pill); and the specific context if the proposal is made in the midst of a takeover bid or contest for control.
2.	Supermajority voting requirements: We generally oppose requirements for supermajority votes to amend the charter or bylaws, unless the provisions protect minority shareholders where there is a large shareholder. In line with this view, in the absence of a large shareholder we support reasonable shareholder proposals to limit such supermajority voting requirements.
3.	Shareholders right to call a special meeting: We consider proposals to enhance a shareholder’s rights to call meetings on a case-by-case basis. At large-cap U.S. companies, we generally support efforts to establish the right of holders of 10% or more of shares to call special meetings, unless the board or state law has set a policy or law establishing such rights at a threshold that we believe to be acceptable.
4.	Written consent rights: In the U.S. context, we examine proposals for shareholder written consent rights on a case-by-case basis.
5.	Reincorporation: We consider management and shareholder proposals to reincorporate to a different jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis. We oppose such proposals if we believe the main purpose is to take advantage of laws or judicial precedents that reduce shareholder rights.
6.	Anti-greenmail provisions: Proposals relating to the adoption of anti-greenmail provisions will be supported, provided that the proposal: (i) defines greenmail; (ii) prohibits buyback offers to large block holders (holders of at least 1% of the outstanding shares and in certain cases, a greater amount) not made to all shareholders or not approved by disinterested shareholders; and (iii) contains no anti-takeover measures or other provisions restricting the rights of shareholders.
7.	Bundled proposals: We may consider opposing or abstaining on proposals if disparate issues are “bundled” and presented for a single vote.
G.	Auditors. We generally support management proposals for selection or ratification of independent auditors. However, we may consider opposing such proposals with reference to incumbent audit firms if the company has suffered from serious accounting irregularities and we believe rotation of the audit firm is appropriate, or if fees paid to the auditor for non-audit-related services are excessive. Generally, to determine if non-audit fees are excessive, a 50% test will be applied (i.e., non-audit-related fees should be less than 50% of the total fees paid to the auditor). We generally vote against proposals to indemnify auditors.
H.	Executive and Director Remuneration.
1.	We generally support the following:
■	Proposals for employee equity compensation plans and other employee ownership plans, provided that our research does not indicate that approval of the plan would be against shareholder interest. Such approval may be against shareholder interest if it authorizes excessive dilution and shareholder cost, particularly in the context of high usage (“run rate”) of equity compensation in the recent past; or if there are objectionable plan design and provisions.
■	Proposals relating to fees to outside directors, provided the amounts are not excessive relative to other companies in the country or industry, and provided that the structure is appropriate within the market context. While stock-based compensation to outside directors is positive if moderate and appropriately structured, we are wary of significant stock option awards or other performance-based awards for outside directors, as well as provisions that could result in significant forfeiture of value on a director’s decision to resign from a board (such forfeiture can undercut director independence).
■	Proposals for employee stock purchase plans that permit discounts, but only for grants that are part of a broad-based employee plan, including all non-executive employees, and only if the discounts are limited to a reasonable market standard or less.
■	Proposals for the establishment of employee retirement and severance plans, provided that our research does not indicate that approval of the plan would be against shareholder interest.

318

2.	We generally oppose retirement plans and bonuses for non-executive directors and independent statutory auditors.
3.	In the U.S. context, we generally vote against shareholder proposals requiring shareholder approval of all severance agreements, but we generally support proposals that require shareholder approval for agreements in excess of three times the annual compensation (salary and bonus) or proposals that require companies to adopt a provision requiring an executive to receive accelerated vesting of equity awards if there is a change of control and the executive is terminated. We generally oppose shareholder proposals that would establish arbitrary caps on pay. We consider on a case-by-case basis shareholder proposals that seek to limit Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans (SERPs), but support such shareholder proposals where we consider SERPs excessive.
4.	Shareholder proposals advocating stronger and/or particular pay-for-performance models will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with consideration of the merits of the individual proposal within the context of the particular company and its labor markets, and the company’s current and past practices. While we generally support emphasis on long-term components of senior executive pay and strong linkage of pay to performance, we consider factors including whether a proposal may be overly prescriptive, and the impact of the proposal, if implemented as written, on recruitment and retention.
5.	We generally support proposals advocating reasonable senior executive and director stock ownership guidelines and holding requirements for shares gained in executive equity compensation programs.
6.	We generally support shareholder proposals for reasonable “claw-back” provisions that provide for company recovery of senior executive bonuses to the extent they were based on achieving financial benchmarks that were not actually met in light of subsequent restatements.
7.	Management proposals effectively to re-price stock options are considered on a case-by-case basis. Considerations include the company’s reasons and justifications for a re-pricing, the company’s competitive position, whether senior executives and outside directors are excluded, potential cost to shareholders, whether the re-pricing or share exchange is on a value-for-value basis, and whether vesting requirements are extended.
8.	Say-on-Pay: We consider proposals relating to an advisory vote on remuneration on a case-by-case basis. Considerations include a review of the relationship between executive remuneration and performance based on operating trends and total shareholder return over multiple performance periods. In addition, we review remuneration structures and potential poor pay practices, including relative magnitude of pay, discretionary bonus awards, tax gross ups, change-in-control features, internal pay equity and peer group construction. As long-term investors, we support remuneration policies that align with long-term shareholder returns.
I.	Social, Political and Environmental Issues. Shareholders in the United States and certain other markets submit proposals encouraging changes in company disclosure and practices related to particular corporate social, political and environmental matters. We consider how to vote on the proposals on a case-by-case basis to determine likely impacts on shareholder value. We seek to balance concerns on reputational and other risks that lie behind a proposal against costs of implementation, while considering appropriate shareholder and management prerogatives. We may abstain from voting on proposals that do not have a readily determinable financial impact on shareholder value. We support proposals that if implemented would enhance useful disclosure, but we generally vote against proposals requesting reports that we believe are duplicative, related to matters not material to the business, or that would impose unnecessary or excessive costs. We believe that certain social and environmental shareholder proposals may intrude excessively on management prerogatives, which can lead us to oppose them.
J.	Funds of Funds. Certain MSIM Funds advised by an MSIM Affiliate invest only in other MSIM Funds. If an underlying fund has a shareholder meeting, in order to avoid any potential conflict of interest, such proposals will be voted in the same proportion as the votes of the other shareholders of the underlying fund, unless otherwise determined by the Proxy Review Committee. Other MSIM Funds invest in unaffiliated funds. If an unaffiliated underlying fund has a shareholder meeting and the MSIM Fund owns more than 25% of the voting shares of the underlying fund, the MSIM Fund will vote its shares in the unaffiliated underlying fund in the same proportion as the votes of the other shareholders of the underlying fund to the extent possible.
III.	ADMINISTRATION OF POLICY

The MSIM Proxy Review Committee (the “Committee”) has overall responsibility for the Policy. The Committee consists of investment professionals who represent the different investment disciplines and geographic locations of the firm, and is chaired by the director of the Corporate Governance Team (“CGT”). Because proxy voting is an investment responsibility and impacts shareholder value, and because of their knowledge of companies and markets, portfolio managers and other members of investment staff play a key role in proxy voting, although the Committee has final authority over proxy votes.

319

The CGT Director is responsible for identifying issues that require Committee deliberation or ratification. The CGT, working with advice of investment teams and the Committee, is responsible for voting on routine items and on matters that can be addressed in line with these Policy guidelines. The CGT has responsibility for voting case-by-case where guidelines and precedent provide adequate guidance.

The Committee will periodically review and have the authority to amend, as necessary, the Policy and establish and direct voting positions consistent with the Client Proxy Standard.

CGT and members of the Committee may take into account Research Providers’ recommendations and research as well as any other relevant information they may request or receive, including portfolio manager and/or analyst comments and research, as applicable. Generally, proxies related to securities held in accounts that are managed pursuant to quantitative, index or index-like strategies (“Index Strategies”) will be voted in the same manner as those held in actively managed accounts, unless economic interests of the accounts differ. Because accounts managed using Index Strategies are passively managed accounts, research from portfolio managers and/or analysts related to securities held in these accounts may not be available. If the affected securities are held only in accounts that are managed pursuant to Index Strategies, and the proxy relates to a matter that is not described in this Policy, the CGT will consider all available information from the Research Providers, and to the extent that the holdings are significant, from the portfolio managers and/or analysts.

A.	Committee Procedures

The Committee meets at least quarterly, and reviews and considers changes to the Policy at least annually. Through meetings and/or written communications, the Committee is responsible for monitoring and ratifying “split votes” (i.e., allowing certain shares of the same issuer that are the subject of the same proxy solicitation and held by one or more MSIM portfolios to be voted differently than other shares) and/or “override voting” (i.e., voting all MSIM portfolio shares in a manner contrary to the Policy). The Committee will review developing issues and approve upcoming votes, as appropriate, for matters as requested by CGT.

The Committee reserves the right to review voting decisions at any time and to make voting decisions as necessary to ensure the independence and integrity of the votes.

B.	Material Conflicts of Interest

In addition to the procedures discussed above, if the CGT Director determines that an issue raises a material conflict of interest, the CGT Director may request a special committee to review, and recommend a course of action with respect to, the conflict(s) in question (“Special Committee”).

A potential material conflict of interest could exist in the following situations, among others:

1.	The issuer soliciting the vote is a client of MSIM or an affiliate of MSIM and the vote is on a matter that materially affects the issuer.
2.	The proxy relates to Morgan Stanley common stock or any other security issued by Morgan Stanley or its affiliates except if echo voting is used, as with MSIM Funds, as described herein.
3.	Morgan Stanley has a material pecuniary interest in the matter submitted for a vote (e.g., acting as a financial advisor to a party to a merger or acquisition for which Morgan Stanley will be paid a success fee if completed).

If the CGT Director determines that an issue raises a potential material conflict of interest, depending on the facts and circumstances, the issue will be addressed as follows:

1.	If the matter relates to a topic that is discussed in this Policy, the proposal will be voted as per the Policy.
2.	If the matter is not discussed in this Policy or the Policy indicates that the issue is to be decided case-by-case, the proposal will be voted in a manner consistent with the Research Providers, provided that all the Research Providers consulted have the same recommendation, no portfolio manager objects to that vote, and the vote is consistent with MSIM’s Client Proxy Standard.
3.	If the Research Providers’ recommendations differ, the CGT Director will refer the matter to a Special Committee to vote on the proposal, as appropriate.

320

Any Special Committee shall be comprised of the CGT Director, and at least two portfolio managers (preferably members of the Committee), as approved by the Committee. The CGT Director may request non-voting participation by MSIM’s General Counsel or his/her designee and the Chief Compliance Officer or his/her designee. In addition to the research provided by Research Providers, the Special Committee may request analysis from MSIM Affiliate investment professionals and outside sources to the extent it deems appropriate.

C.	Proxy Voting Reporting

The CGT will document in writing all Committee and Special Committee decisions and actions, which documentation will be maintained by the CGT for a period of at least six years. To the extent these decisions relate to a security held by an MSIM Fund, the CGT will report the decisions to each applicable Board of Trustees/Directors of those Funds at each Board’s next regularly scheduled Board meeting. The report will contain information concerning decisions made during the most recently ended calendar quarter immediately preceding the Board meeting.

MSIM will promptly provide a copy of this Policy to any client requesting it. MSIM will also, upon client request, promptly provide a report indicating how each proxy was voted with respect to securities held in that client’s account.

MSIM’s Legal Department is responsible for filing an annual Form N-PX on behalf of each MSIM Fund for which such filing is required, indicating how all proxies were voted with respect to such Fund’s holdings.

APPENDIX A

Appendix A applies to the following accounts managed by Morgan Stanley AIP GP LP (i) closed-end funds registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended; (ii) discretionary separate accounts; (iii) unregistered funds; and (iv) non-discretionary accounts offered in connection with AIP’s Custom Advisory Portfolio Solutions service. Generally, AIP will follow the guidelines set forth in Section II of MSIM’s Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures. To the extent that such guidelines do not provide specific direction, or AIP determines that consistent with the Client Proxy Standard, the guidelines should not be followed, the Proxy Review Committee has delegated the voting authority to vote securities held by accounts managed by AIP to the Fund of Hedge Funds investment team, the Private Equity Fund of Funds investment team the Private Equity Real Estate Fund of Funds investment team or the Portfolio Solutions team of AIP. A summary of decisions made by the applicable investment teams will be made available to the Proxy Review Committee for its information at the next scheduled meeting of the Proxy Review Committee.

In certain cases, AIP may determine to abstain from determining (or recommending) how a proxy should be voted (and therefore abstain from voting such proxy or recommending how such proxy should be voted), such as where the expected cost of giving due consideration to the proxy does not justify the potential benefits to the affected account(s) that might result from adopting or rejecting (as the case may be) the measure in question.

Waiver of Voting Rights

For regulatory reasons, AIP may either 1) invest in a class of securities of an underlying fund (the “Fund”) that does not provide for voting rights; or 2) waive 100% of its voting rights with respect to the following:

Any rights with respect to the removal or replacement of a director, general partner, managing member or other person acting in a similar capacity for or on behalf of the Fund (each individually a “Designated Person,” and collectively, the “Designated Persons”), which may include, but are not limited to, voting on the election or removal of a Designated Person in the event of such Designated Person’s death, disability, insolvency, bankruptcy, incapacity, or other event requiring a vote of interest holders of the Fund to remove or replace a Designated Person; and

Any rights in connection with a determination to renew, dissolve, liquidate, or otherwise terminate or continue the Fund, which may include, but are not limited to, voting on the renewal, dissolution, liquidation, termination or continuance of the Fund upon the occurrence of an event described in the Fund’s organizational documents; provided, however, that, if the Fund’s organizational documents require the consent of the Fund’s general partner or manager, as the case may be, for any such termination or continuation of the Fund to be effective, then AIP may exercise its voting rights with respect to such matter.

NEUBERGER BERMAN INVESTMENT ADVISERS LLC

Proxy Summary. Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers LLC (Neuberger Berman) has implemented written Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures (Proxy Voting Policy) that are designed to reasonably ensure that Neuberger Berman votes proxies prudently and in the best interest of its advisory clients for whom Neuberger Berman has voting authority. The Proxy Voting Policy also describes how Neuberger Berman addresses any conflicts that may arise between its interests and those of its clients with respect to proxy voting.

321

Neuberger Berman's Proxy Committee is responsible for developing, authorizing, implementing and updating the Proxy Voting Policy, overseeing the proxy voting process, and engaging and overseeing any independent third-party vendors as voting delegate to review, monitor and/or vote proxies. In order to apply the Proxy Voting Policy noted above in a timely and consistent manner, Neuberger Berman utilizes Glass, Lewis Co. LLC (Glass Lewis) to vote proxies in accordance with Neuberger Berman's voting guidelines.

For non-socially responsive clients, Neuberger Berman's guidelines adopt the voting recommendations of Glass Lewis. Neuberger Berman retains final authority and fiduciary responsibility for proxy voting. Neuberger Berman believes that this process is reasonably designed to address material conflicts of interest that may arise between Neuberger Berman and a client as to how proxies are voted.

In the event that an investment professional at Neuberger Berman believes that it is in the best interest of a client or clients to vote proxies in a manner inconsistent with Neuberger Berman's proxy voting guidelines or in a manner inconsistent with Glass Lewis recommendations, the Proxy Committee will review information submitted by the investment professional to determine that there is no material conflict of interest between Neuberger Berman and the client with respect to the voting of the proxy in that manner.

If the Proxy Committee determines that the voting of a proxy as recommended by the investment professional presents a material conflict of interest between Neuberger Berman and the client or clients with respect to the voting of the proxy, the proxy Committee shall: (i) take no further action, in which case Glass Lewis shall vote such proxy in accordance with the proxy voting guidelines or as Glass Lewis recommends; (ii) disclose such conflict to the client or clients and obtain written direction from the client as to how to vote the proxy; (iii) suggest that the client or clients engage another party to determine how to vote the proxy; or (iv) engage another independent third party to determine how to vote the proxy.

PACIFIC INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC (PIMCO)

PIMCO has adopted written proxy voting policies and procedures (“Proxy Policy”) as required by Rule 206(4)-6 under the Advisers Act. In addition to covering the voting of equity securities, the Proxy Policy also applies generally to voting and/or consent rights of fixed income securities, including but not limited to, plans of reorganization, and waivers and consents under applicable indentures. The Proxy Policy does not apply, however, to consent rights that primarily entail decisions to buy or sell investments, such as tender or exchange offers, conversions, put options, redemption and Dutch auctions. The Proxy Policy is designed and implemented in a manner reasonably expected to ensure that voting and consent rights (collectively, “proxies”) are exercised in the best interests of accounts.

With respect to the voting of proxies relating to equity securities, PIMCO has selected an unaffiliated third party proxy research and voting service (“Proxy Voting Service”), to assist it in researching and voting proxies. With respect to each proxy received, the Proxy Voting Service researches the financial implications of the proposals and provides a recommendation to PIMCO as to how to vote on each proposal based on the Proxy Voting Service’s research of the individual facts and circumstances and the Proxy Voting Service’s application of its research findings to a set of guidelines that have been approved by PIMCO. Upon the recommendation of the applicable portfolio managers, PIMCO may determine to override any recommendation made by the Proxy Voting Service. In the event that the Proxy Voting Service does not provide a recommendation with respect to a proposal, PIMCO may determine to vote on the proposals directly.

With respect to the voting of proxies relating to fixed income securities, PIMCO’s fixed income credit research group (the “Credit Research Group”) is responsible for researching and issuing recommendations for voting proxies. With respect to each proxy received, the Credit Research Group researches the financial implications of the proxy proposal and makes voting recommendations specific for each account that holds the related fixed income security. PIMCO considers each proposal regarding a fixed income security on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration any relevant contractual obligations as well as other relevant facts and circumstances at the time of the vote. Upon the recommendation of the applicable portfolio managers, PIMCO may determine to override any recommendation made by the Credit Research Group. In the event that the Credit Research Group does not provide a recommendation with respect to a proposal, PIMCO may determine to vote the proposal directly.

PIMCO may determine not to vote a proxy for an equity or fixed income security if: (1) the effect on the applicable account’s economic interests or the value of the portfolio holding is insignificant in relation to the account’s portfolio; (2) the cost of voting the proxy outweighs the possible benefit to the applicable account, including, without limitation, situations where a jurisdiction imposes share blocking restrictions which may affect the ability of the portfolio managers to effect trades in the related security; or (3) PIMCO otherwise has determined that it is consistent with its fiduciary obligations not to vote the proxy.

In the event that the Proxy Voting Service or the Credit Research Group, as applicable, does not provide a recommendation or the portfolio managers of a client account propose to override a recommendation by the Proxy Voting Service, or the Credit Research Group, as applicable, PIMCO will review the proxy to determine whether there is a material conflict between PIMCO and the applicable account or among PIMCO-advised accounts. If no material conflict exists, the proxy will be voted according to the

322

portfolio managers’ recommendation. If a material conflict does exist, PIMCO will seek to resolve the conflict in good faith and in the best interests of the applicable client account, as provided by the Proxy Policy. The Proxy Policy permits PIMCO to seek to resolve material conflicts of interest by pursuing any one of several courses of action. With respect to material conflicts of interest between PIMCO and a client account, the Proxy Policy permits PIMCO to either: (i) convene a committee to assess and resolve the conflict (the “Proxy Conflicts Committee”); or (ii) vote in accordance with protocols previously established by the Proxy Policy, the Proxy Conflicts Committee and/or other relevant procedures approved by PIMCO’s Legal and Compliance department with respect to specific types of conflicts. With respect to material conflicts of interest between one or more PIMCO-advised accounts, the Proxy Policy permits PIMCO to: (i) designate a PIMCO portfolio manager who is not subject to the conflict to determine how to vote the proxy if the conflict exists between two accounts with at least one portfolio manager in common; or (ii) permit the respective portfolio managers to vote the proxies in accordance with each client account’s best interests if the conflict exists between client accounts managed by different portfolio managers.

PIMCO will supervise and periodically review its proxy voting activities and the implementation of the Proxy Policy. PIMCO’s Proxy Policy, and information about how PIMCO voted a client’s proxies, is available upon request.

PARAMETRIC PORTFOLIO ASSOCIATES LLC

Seattle Investment Center

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

Policy

Parametric Portfolio Associates LLC (“Parametric”) has adopted and implemented these policies and procedures which it believes are reasonably designed to ensure that proxies are voted in the best interests of clients, in accordance with its fiduciary obligations and applicable regulatory requirements. When it has been delegated the responsibility to vote proxies on behalf a client, Parametric will generally vote them in accordance with its Proxy Voting Guidelines, attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Proxy Voting Guidelines are set and annually reviewed by the firm’s Proxy Voting Committee. Parametric will consider potential conflicts of interest when voting proxies and disclose material conflicts to clients. Parametric will promptly provide these policies and procedures, as well as proxy voting records, to its clients upon request. As required, Parametric will retain appropriate proxy voting books and records. In the event that Parametric engages a third party to administer and vote proxies on behalf a client, it will evaluate the service provider’s conflicts of interest procedures and confirm its abilities to vote proxies in the client’s best interest.

Regulatory Requirements

Rule 206(4)-6 under the Investment Advisers Act requires that an investment adviser that exercises voting authority over client proxies to adopt and implement policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that the adviser votes proxies in the best interest of the client. The rule specifically requires that the policies and procedures describe how the adviser addresses material conflicts of interest with respect to proxy voting. The rule also requires an adviser to disclose to its clients information about those policies and procedures, and how the client may obtain information on how the adviser has voted the client’s proxies. In addition, Rule 204-2 under the Act requires an adviser to retain certain records related to proxy voting.

Responsibility

The Proxy Voting Coordinator is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the firm’s proxy voting practices, including voting proxies on behalf of clients. The Proxy Voting Committee is responsible for monitoring Parametric’s proxy voting practices, reviewing Parametric’s proxy voting guidelines on an annual basis, and evaluating any service providers engaged to vote proxies on behalf of clients. The Compliance Department is responsible for annually reviewing these policies and procedures to verify that they are adequate, appropriate and effective.

Procedures

Parametric has adopted and implemented procedures to ensure the firm’s proxy voting policies are observed, executed properly and amended or updated, as appropriate. The procedures are summarized as follows:

New Accounts

■

Parametric is generally delegated the responsibility to vote proxies on behalf of clients. This responsibility is typically established in the investment advisory agreement between the client and Parametric. If not set forth in the advisory agreement, Parametric will assume the responsibility to vote proxies on the client’s behalf unless it has received written instruction from the client not to.

323

■

Clients who seek to invest in a socially responsible manner can direct Parametric to vote certain resolutions in a manner that encourages high environmental, social and governance standards. Parametric has modified its proxy voting guidelines for clients that have provided written instruction to Parametric to vote in this manner. These Responsible Investing Proxy Voting Guidelines are available upon request.

■

On a monthly basis, Operations performs a reconciliation to ensure that Parametric is receiving and voting proxies for all client accounts, including new client accounts, for which it is responsible for voting client proxies.

Proxy Voting Administration

■	Parametric’s proxy voting is administered on a daily basis by a Proxy Voting Coordinator, who is a member of Parametric’s Operations Department. The Coordinator is responsible for ensuring proxies are received and voted in accordance with Parametric’s Proxy Voting Guidelines, RI Proxy Voting Guidelines or other specified guidelines set and provided by a client.
■	Parametric utilizes Broadridge’s ProxyEdge, an automated tool which enables the firm to manage, track, reconcile and report proxy voting. Parametric utilizes ProxyEdge to ensure that all proxies are received and voted in timely manner. ProxyEdge receives a daily, automated feed from Parametric’s internal accounting system which contains real-time client accounts and holdings data.
■	In the event that Parametric receives a proxy issue that is not addressed in its Proxy Voting Guidelines, the Proxy Voting Coordinator will consult with an Operations Supervisor to confirm that the firm’s guidelines do not apply to the proxy issue. If confirmed, the Coordinator will forward the proxy to an appropriate Portfolio Manager for a decision how to vote the proxy in the client’s best interest. The Portfolio Manager’s decision will be documented by the Coordinator and reported to the Proxy Voting Committee for review at their next meeting.
■	The Coordinator may abstain from voting a proxy on behalf of a client account if the economic effect on shareholders’ interests or the value of the holding is indeterminable or insignificant (e.g., the security is no longer held in the client portfolio) or if the cost of voting the proxy outweighs the potential benefit (e.g., international proxies which share blocking practices may impose trading restrictions). The Proxy Voting Committee will review all abstentions to confirm they were in the client’s best interest.
■	A secondary review of proxy votes submitted by the Proxy Voting Coordinator is performed by an Operations Supervisor on a regular basis, to verify that the Coordinator has voted all proxies and voted them consistent with the appropriate proxy voting guidelines.

Proxy Voting Committee

■	Parametric has established a Proxy Voting Committee (the “Committee”), which shall meet on a quarterly basis to oversee and monitor the firm’s proxy voting practices. The Committee’s charter is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
■	The Committee will consider requests (from clients or Portfolio Managers) to vote a proxy contrary to the firm’s Proxy Voting Guidelines. The Committee will document its rationale for approving or denying the request.
■	On an annual basis, the Committee will review and, if necessary, revise the firm’s Proxy Voting Guidelines to ensure they are current, appropriate and designed to serve the best interests of clients and fund shareholders.
■	In the event that Parametric deems it to be in a client’s best interest to engage a third party to vote client proxies, the Committee will exercise due diligence to ensure that the third party firm can make recommendations and or vote proxies in an impartial manner and in the best interest of the client. This evaluation will consider the proxy voting firm’s business and conflict of interest procedures, and confirm that the procedures address the firm’s conflicts. On an annual basis, the Committee will evaluate the performance any third-party proxy voting firms and reconsider if changes have impacted their conflict of interest procedures. Initial and ongoing due diligence evaluations shall be documented in writing.

Conflicts of interest

■	The Proxy Voting Committee will identify and actively monitor potential material conflicts of interest which may compromise Parametric’s ability to vote a proxy issue in the best interest of clients. The Committee will maintain a list of Potential Material Conflicts related to proxy voting and provide it to the Proxy Voting Coordinator whenever it is updated. The list shall identify potential conflicts resulting from business relationships with clients, potential clients, service providers, and the firm’s affiliates.
■	Each proxy is reviewed by the Proxy Voting Coordinator to assess the extent to which there may be a material conflict between Parametric’s interests and those of the client. The Coordinator may consult with the Operations Supervisor to determine if a potential conflict exists. If so determined, the Coordinator will report the potential conflict to the Proxy Voting Committee, which will consider the relevant facts and determine if the conflict is material. If not, the proxy will be voted in accordance with Parametric’s Proxy Voting Guidelines.
■	If the Proxy Voting Committee determines a material conflict exists, Parametric will refrain from voting the proxy until it has disclosed the conflict to clients and obtain their consent or instruction as how to vote the proxy. Parametric shall provide all necessary information to clients when seeking their instruction and/or consent in voting the proxy.
■	If a client is unresponsive and fails to provide Parametric with instruction or consent to vote the proxy, the Proxy Voting Committee shall make a good faith determination as how to vote the proxy (which may include abstaining from voting the proxy) and provide appropriate instruction to the Proxy Voting Coordinator. The Committee shall document the rationale for making its final determination.

Proxy Voting Disclosure Responsibilities

324

■	As a sub-adviser to various mutual funds registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, Parametric will, upon each fund’s request, compile and transmit in a timely manner all data required to be filed on Form N-PX to the appropriate fund’s administrator or third party service provider designated by the fund’s administrator.
■	Parametric will promptly report any material changes to these policies and procedures to its mutual fund clients in accordance with their respective policies and procedures, to ensure that the revised policies and procedures may be properly reviewed by the funds’ Boards of Trustees/Directors and included in the funds’ annual registration statements.

Solicitations and Information Requests

■	Parametric’s proxy voting policies and procedures are summarized and described to clients in Item 17 of the firm’s Form ADV Brochure (Form ADV Part 2A). Parametric will promptly provide a copy of these proxy voting policies and procedures, which may be updated from time to time, to a client upon their request.
■	Parametric’s Form ADV Brochure discloses to clients how they may obtain information from Parametric about how it voted proxies on their behalf. Parametric will provide proxy voting information free of charge upon written request.
■	Parametric will not reveal or disclose to any third-party how it may have voted or intends to vote a proxy until its vote has been counted at the respective shareholder’s meeting. Parametric may in any event disclose its general voting guidelines. No employee of Parametric may accept any benefit in the solicitation of proxies.

Compliance Review

■	On a regular basis, but not less than annually, the Compliance Department will review proxy voting to verify that Parametric has voted proxies in accordance with the firm’s proxy voting guidelines and in clients’ best interests.
■	On an annual basis, the Compliance Department will review the firm’s proxy voting policies and procedures to confirm that they are adequate, effective, and designed to ensure that proxies are voted in clients’ best interests.

Class Actions

■

Parametric generally does not file or respond to class action claims on behalf of clients unless specifically obligated to do so under the terms of the client’s investment advisory agreement. Parametric will retain appropriate documentation regarding any determinations made on behalf of a client with regard to a class action claim or settlement.

Recordkeeping

■

Parametric will maintain proxy voting books and records in an easily accessible place for a period of six years, the first two years in the Seattle Investment Center.

■

Parametric will maintain all requisite proxy voting books and records, including but not limited to: (1) proxy voting policies and procedures, (2) proxy statements received on behalf of client accounts, (3) proxies voted, (4) copies of any documents that were material to making a decision how to vote proxies, and (5) client requests for proxy voting records and Parametric’s written response to any client request.

EXHIBIT A

PARAMETRIC PORTFOLIO ASSOCIATES LLC

SEATTLE INVESTMENT CENTER

PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES

Dated – February 2011

The Seattle Investment Center of Parametric Portfolio Associates LLC (“Parametric”) will follow the general guidelines set forth below with regard to voting management initiatives and shareholder initiatives, unless specifically directed in writing by the client to vote otherwise.

Management Initiatives

Parametric will generally vote with management in the following cases:

■	“Normal” elections of directors
■	Approval of auditors/CPA
■	Directors’ liability and indemnification
■	General updating/corrective amendments to charter
■	Elimination of cumulative voting
■	Elimination of preemptive rights
■	Capitalization changes which eliminate other classes of stock and voting rights

325

■	Changes in capitalization authorization for stock splits, stock dividends, and other specified needs
■	Stock purchase plans with an exercise price of not less than 85% fair market value
■	Stock option plans that are incentive-based and are not excessive
■	Reductions in supermajority vote requirements
■	Adoption of anti-greenmail provisions

Parametric generally will not support management in the following initiatives:

■	Capitalization changes that add classes of stock which are blank check in nature or that dilute the voting interest of existing shareholders
■	Changes in capitalization authorization where management does not offer an appropriate rationale, or that are contrary to the best interest of existing shareholders
■	Anti-takeover and related provisions which serve to prevent the majority of shareholders from exercising their rights or effectively deter appropriate tender offers and other offers
■	Amendments to by-laws which would require super-majority shareholder votes to pass or repeal certain provisions
■	Classified boards of directors
■	Re-incorporation into a state which has more stringent anti-takeover and related provisions
■	Shareholder rights plans which allow appropriate offers to shareholders to be blocked by the board or trigger provisions which prevent legitimate offers from proceeding
■	Excessive compensation or non-salary compensation related proposals
■	Change-in-control provisions in non-salary compensation plans, employment contracts, and severance agreements that benefit management and would be costly to shareholders if triggered

Shareholder Initiatives

Traditionally, shareholder proposals have been used mainly for putting social initiatives and issues in front of management and other shareholders. Under our fiduciary obligations, it is typically inappropriate to use client assets to carry out such social agendas or purposes. Therefore, shareholder proposals are examined closely for their effect on the best interest of shareholders (economic impact) and the interests of our clients, the beneficial owners of the securities. In certain cases, an alternate course of action may be chosen for a particular account if socially responsible proxy voting or shareholder activism is a component of the client’s investment mandate.

When voting shareholder proposals, initiatives related to the following items are generally supported:

■	Auditors attendance at the annual meeting of shareholders
■	Election of the board on an annual basis
■	Equal access to proxy process
■	Submit shareholder rights plan poison pill to vote or redeem
■	Revise various anti-takeover related provisions
■	Reduction or elimination of super-majority vote requirements
■	Anti-greenmail provisions

Parametric generally will not support shareholders in the following initiatives:

■	Requiring directors to own large amounts of stock before being eligible to be elected
■	Restoring cumulative voting in the election of directors
■	Reports which are costly to provide or which would require duplicative efforts or expenditures which are of a non-business nature or would provide no pertinent information from the perspective of shareholders
■	Restrictions related to social, political or special interest issues which impact the ability of the company to do business or be competitive and which have a significant financial or best interest impact, such as specific boycotts of restrictions based on political, special interest or international trade considerations; restrictions on political contributions; and the Valdez principals.

On occasion, Parametric will elect to “take no action” when it is determined that voting the proxy will result in share blocking, which prevents us from trading that specific security for an uncertain period of time prior to the next annual meeting. Additionally, Parametric may “take no action” if the economic effect on shareholders’ interests or the value of the portfolio holdings is indeterminable or insignificant.

EXHIBIT B

PARAMETRIC PORTFOLIO ASSOCIATES LLC

SEATTLE INVESTMENT CENTER

326

PROXY VOTING COMMITTEE CHARTER

June 9, 2016

Article I – Purpose

Parametric Portfolio Associates LLC (“Parametric”) has adopted and implemented proxy voting policies and procedures which are designed to ensure that Parametric fulfills its fiduciary obligation to vote proxies in the best interests of its clients. Parametric has established this Proxy Voting Committee (the “Committee”) for the purpose of overseeing the implementation and execution of these proxy voting procedures for Parametric’s Seattle investment center.

Article II – Composition of the Committee

1.	Size of Committee

The Committee shall be comprised of not less than five people.

2.	Appointment of Members

The Committee shall generally consist of Portfolio Management, Operations, and Compliance personnel. Additional committee members may be appointed by the Committee chairperson. Parametric employees from other business groups may serve on the Committee if the chairperson determines their service to be in the best interest of Parametric.

3.	Committee Chair

One Committee member shall serve as the Committee’s chairperson (the “Chair”) who shall preside over meetings of the Committee and report Committee actions to the Executive Committee. The Chair is responsible for setting the Committee membership and appointing a Committee Coordinator. If the Chair is not present at a regular or special Committee meeting, the Committee may designate an acting Chair.

4.	Committee Coordinator

One member of the Committee shall serve as the Committee Coordinator, who is responsible for maintaining Committee meeting minutes, setting regular Committee meetings, coordinating the Committee’s annual review of the firm’s Proxy Voting Guidelines, and facilitating the Committee oversight of special proxy voting issues and developments.

Article III – Meetings and Other Actions

Meetings

The Committee shall meet on a quarterly basis but may meet more frequently if deemed necessary to fulfill the Committee’s duties and responsibilities. The length and agendas for regular meetings shall be determined by the Chair in consultation with the Committee Coordinator and other Committee members. Three members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum required for the transaction of business and the act of a majority present shall be the act of the Committee. Committee members may participate in a meeting by means of a conference telephone or similar communications equipment. Non-committee members may attend a meeting at the invitation of the Chair.

2.	Meeting Minutes

The Committee Coordinator shall keep regular minutes of all regular and special meetings and record any actions taken. If the Committee Coordinator is not present at a meeting, another Committee member shall keep minutes of the proceedings. Meeting minutes shall be distributed to all Committee members and confirmed at the next regular meeting. The Committee Coordinator is responsible for maintaining the permanent corporate record of all Committee meeting minutes.

3.	Authority of the Committee

The Committee is authorized and directed to take such action it deems necessary to fulfill its duties and obligations set forth in Article IV of this Charter.

Article IV – Responsibilities

327

To fulfill its duties and responsibilities the Proxy Voting Committee shall:

1.	Oversee and monitor the proxy voting processes to ensure that all proxies are voted in accordance with the firm’s Proxy Voting Guidelines or, for specified client accounts, client proxy voting guidelines.
2.	Consider and determine votes for issues that are not addressed by the firm’s Proxy Voting Guidelines.
3.	Consider requests (from portfolio managers, clients, advisers) to vote contrary to the firm’s Proxy Voting Guidelines.
4.	Identify and monitor actual and potential conflicts of interest involving the proxy voting process.
5.	Engage and oversee any third party service providers utilized to assist Parametric in voting proxies.
6.	Annually review and revise, if necessary, the firm’s Proxy Voting Guidelines to ensure they are designed to serve the best interests of Parametric’s clients.
7.	On an annual basis, the Committee shall review and, if necessary, revise the Parametric-Seattle Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures to ensure they are current, appropriate and effective.
8.	On an annual basis, the Committee Chair shall provide a written certification to the Parametric Executive Committee that confirms the Committee has fulfilled its duties and obligations.

PGIM, INC. (PGIM)

The policy of each of PGIM's asset management units is to vote proxies in the best interests of their respective clients based on the clients’ priorities. Client interests are placed ahead of any potential interest of PGIM or its asset management units.

Because the various asset management units manage distinct classes of assets with differing management styles, some units will consider each proxy on its individual merits while other units may adopt a predetermined set of voting guidelines. The specific voting approach of each unit is noted below.

Relevant members of management and regulatory personnel oversee the proxy voting process and monitor potential conflicts of interests. In addition, should the need arise, senior members of management, as advised by Compliance and Law, are authorized to address any proxy matter involving an actual or apparent conflict of interest that cannot be resolved at the level of an individual asset management business unit.

PGIM FIXED INCOME. PGIM Fixed Income’s policy is to vote proxies in the best economic interest of its clients. In the case of pooled accounts, the policy is to vote proxies in the best economic interest of the pooled account. The proxy voting policy contains detailed voting guidelines on a wide variety of issues commonly voted upon by shareholders. These guidelines reflect PGIM Fixed Income’s judgment of how to further the best economic interest of its clients through the shareholder or debt-holder voting process.

PGIM Fixed Income invests primarily in debt securities, thus there are few traditional proxies voted by it. PGIM Fixed Income generally votes with management on routine matters such as the appointment of accountants or the election of directors. From time to time, ballot issues arise that are not addressed by the policy or circumstances may suggest a vote not in accordance with the established guidelines. In these cases, voting decisions are made on a case-by-case basis by the applicable portfolio manager taking into consideration the potential economic impact of the proposal. If a security is held in multiple accounts and two or more portfolio managers are not in agreement with respect to a particular vote, PGIM Fixed Income’s proxy voting committee will determine the vote. Not all ballots are received by PGIM Fixed Income in advance of voting deadlines, but when ballots are received in a timely fashion, PGIM Fixed Income strives to meet its voting obligations. It cannot, however, guarantee that every proxy will be voted prior to its deadline.

With respect to non-U.S. holdings, PGIM Fixed Income takes into account additional restrictions in some countries that might impair its ability to trade those securities or have other potentially adverse economic consequences. PGIM Fixed Income generally votes non-U.S. securities on a best efforts basis if it determines that voting is in the best economic interest of its clients.

Occasionally, a conflict of interest may arise in connection with proxy voting. For example, the issuer of the securities being voted may also be a client of PGIM Fixed Income. When PGIM Fixed Income identifies an actual or potential conflict of interest between the firm and its clients with respect to proxy voting, the matter is presented to senior management who will resolve such issue in consultation with the compliance and legal departments.

328

Any client may obtain a copy of PGIM Fixed Income’s proxy voting policy, guidelines and procedures, as well as the proxy voting records for that client’s securities, by contacting the client service representative responsible for the client’s account.

PGIM REAL ESTATE. PGIM Real Estate's proxy voting policy contains detailed voting guidelines on a wide variety of issues commonly voted upon by shareholders. These guidelines reflect PGIM Real Estate's judgment of how to further the best long-range economic interest of our clients (i.e. the mutual interest of clients in seeing the appreciation in value of a common investment over time) through the shareholder voting process. PGIM Real Estate's policy is generally to vote proxies on social or political issues on a case by case basis. Additionally, where issues are not addressed by our policy, or when circumstances suggest a vote not in accordance with our established guidelines, voting decisions are made on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration the potential economic impact of the proposal. With respect to international holdings, we take into account additional restrictions in some countries that might impair our ability to trade those securities or have other potentially adverse economic consequences, and generally vote foreign securities on a best efforts basis in accordance with the recommendations of the issuer's management if we determine that voting is in the best economic interest of our clients.

PGIM Real Estate utilizes the services of a third party proxy voting facilitator, and upon receipt of proxies will direct the voting facilitator to vote in a manner consistent with PGIM Real Estate's established proxy voting guidelines described above (assuming timely receipt of proxy materials from issuers and custodians). In accordance with its obligations under the Advisers Act, PGIM Real Estate provides full disclosure of its proxy voting policy, guidelines and procedures to its clients upon their request, and will also provide to any client, upon request, the proxy voting records for that client's securities.

FIAM Proxy Voting Guidelines

January 2017

I.	General Principles
A.	Voting of shares will be conducted in a manner consistent with the best interests of clients. In other words, securities of a portfolio company will generally be voted in a manner consistent with the Guidelines and without regard to any other FIAM or Fidelity companies' relationship, business or otherwise. In evaluating proposals, FIAM considers information from a number of sources, including management or shareholders of a company presenting a proposal and proxy voting advisory firms, and uses all this information as an input within the larger mix of information to which the Guidelines are applied.
B.	FMR Investment Proxy Research votes proxies on behalf of FIAM’s clients. Execution of FIAM Proxy Votes is delegated to FMR Investment Proxy Research. Like other Fidelity employees, Investment Proxy Research employees have a fiduciary duty to never place their own personal interest ahead of the interests of FIAM’s clients. Fidelity employees, including Investment Proxy Research employees, are instructed to avoid situations that could present even the appearance of a conflict. In the event of a conflict of interest, Fidelity employees will follow the escalation process included in Fidelity's corporate policy on conflicts of interest.
C.	For proposals not covered by the Guidelines or that involve other special circumstances, FIAM evaluates them on a case-by-case basis with input from the appropriate analyst or portfolio manager with review by an attorney within FMR's General Counsel's office, senior management of Fidelity Asset Management, and a member of senior management within FMR Investment Proxy Research.
D.	FIAM will vote on proposals not specifically addressed by the Guidelines based on an evaluation of a proposal's likelihood to enhance the long-term economic returns or profitability of the portfolio company or to maximize long-term shareholder value. Where information is not readily available to analyze the long-term economic impact of the proposal, FIAM will generally abstain.
E.	Many FIAM accounts invest in voting securities issued by companies that are domiciled outside the United States and are not listed on a U.S. securities exchange. Corporate governance standards, legal or regulatory requirements and disclosure practices in foreign countries can differ from those in the United States. When voting proxies relating to non-U.S. securities, FIAM will generally evaluate proposals in the context of the Guidelines and where applicable and feasible, take into consideration differing laws, regulations and practices in the relevant foreign market in determining how to vote shares.
F.	In certain non-U.S. jurisdictions, shareholders voting shares of a portfolio company may be restricted from trading the shares for a period of time around the shareholder meeting date. Because such trading restrictions can hinder portfolio management and could result in a loss of liquidity for a client, FIAM will generally not vote proxies in circumstances where such restrictions apply. In addition, certain non-U.S. jurisdictions require voting shareholders to disclose current share ownership on a fund-by-fund

329

	basis. When such disclosure requirements apply, FIAM will generally not vote proxies in order to safeguard fund holdings information.
G.	Where a management-sponsored proposal is inconsistent with the Guidelines, FIAM may receive a company's commitment to modify the proposal or its practice to conform to the Guidelines, and FIAM will generally support management based on this commitment. If a company subsequently does not abide by its commitment, FIAM will generally withhold authority for the election of directors at the next election.
II.	Definitions (as used in this document)
A.	Anti-Takeover Provision - includes fair price amendments; classified boards; “blank check” preferred stock; Golden Parachutes; supermajority provisions; Poison Pills; restricting the right to call special meetings; provisions restricting the right of shareholders to set board size; and any other provision that eliminates or limits shareholder rights.
B.	Golden Parachute - Employment contracts, agreements, or policies that include an excise tax gross-up provision; single trigger for cash incentives; or may result in a lump sum payment of cash and acceleration of equity that may total more than three times annual compensation (salary and bonus) in the event of a termination following a change in control.
C.	Greenmail - payment of a premium to repurchase shares from a shareholder seeking to take over a company through a proxy contest or other means.
D.	Sunset Provision - a condition in a charter or plan that specifies an expiration date.
E.	Poison Pill - a strategy employed by a potential take-over / target company to make its stock less attractive to an acquirer. Poison Pills are generally designed to dilute the acquirer's ownership and value in the event of a take-over.
F.	Large-Capitalization Company - a company included in the Russell 1000® Index or the Russell Global ex-U.S. Large Cap Index.
G.	Small-Capitalization Company - a company not included in the Russell 1000® Index or the Russell Global ex-U.S. Large Cap Index that is not a Micro-Capitalization Company.
H.	Micro-Capitalization Company - a company with market capitalization under US $300 million.
I.	Evergreen Provision - a feature which provides for an automatic increase in the shares available for grant under an equity award plan on a regular basis.
III.	Directors
A.	Election of Directors

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

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

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

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

a.	FIAM determines that the Poison Pill was narrowly tailored to protect a specific tax benefit, and subject to an evaluation of its likelihood to enhance long-term economic returns or maximize long-term shareholder value; or
b.	One or more of the features outlined under the Anti-Takeover Provisions below are not met if a board is willing to strongly consider seeking shareholder ratification of, or adding those features to an existing Poison Pill. In such a case, if the company does not take appropriate action prior to the next annual shareholder meeting, FIAM will withhold authority on the election of directors.

330

2.	Within the last year and without shareholder approval, a company's board of directors or compensation committee has repriced outstanding options, exchanged outstanding options for equity, or tendered cash for outstanding options.
3.	Within the last year and without shareholder approval, a company's board of directors or compensation committee has adopted or extended a Golden Parachute.
4.	The company has not adequately addressed concerns communicated by FIAM in the process of discussing executive compensation.
5.	To gain FIAM’ support on a proposal, the company made a commitment to modify a proposal or practice to conform to the Guidelines and the company has failed to act on that commitment.
6.	The director attended fewer than 75% of the aggregate number of meetings of the board and its committees on which the director served during the company's prior fiscal year, absent extenuating circumstances.
7.	The board is not composed of a majority of independent directors.
B.	Contested Director Elections

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

C.	Indemnification

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

D.	Independent Chairperson

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

E.	Majority Voting in Director Elections

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

F.	Proxy Access

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

IV.	Compensation
A.	Executive Compensation
1.	Advisory votes on executive compensation (Say on Pay)

331

a.	FIAM will generally vote for proposals to ratify executive compensation unless such compensation appears misaligned with shareholder interests or otherwise problematic, taking into account:
(i)	The actions taken by the board or compensation committee in the previous year, including whether the company repriced or exchanged outstanding stock options without shareholder approval; adopted or extended a Golden Parachute without shareholder approval; or adequately addressed concerns communicated by FIAM in the process of discussing executive compensation;
(ii)	The alignment of executive compensation and company performance relative to peers; and
(iii)	The structure of the compensation program, including factors such as whether incentive plan metrics are appropriate, rigorous and transparent; whether the long-term element of the compensation program is evaluated over at least a three-year period; the sensitivity of pay to below median performance; the amount and nature of non-performance-based compensation; the justification and rationale behind paying discretionary bonuses; the use of stock ownership guidelines and amount of executive stock ownership; and how well elements of compensation are disclosed.
b.	FIAM will generally vote against proposals to ratify Golden Parachutes.
2.	Advisory vote on frequency of Say on Pay votes

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

B.	Equity Compensation Plans

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

1.	(a) The company’s average three year burn rate is greater than 1.5 % for a Large-Capitalization Company, 2.5% for a Small-Capitalization Company or 3.5% for a Micro-Capitalization Company; and (b) there were no circumstances specific to the company or the plans that lead FIAM to conclude that the burn rate is acceptable.
2.	In the case of stock option plans, (a) the offering price of options is less than 100% of fair market value on the date of grant, except that the offering price may be as low as 85% of fair market value if the discount is expressly granted in lieu of salary or cash bonus; (b) the plan's terms allow repricing of underwater options; or (c) the board/committee has repriced options outstanding under the plan in the past two years without shareholder approval.
3.	The plan includes an Evergreen Provision.
4.	The plan provides for the acceleration of vesting of equity compensation even though an actual change in control may not occur.
C.	Equity Exchanges and Repricing

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

1.	Whether the proposal excludes senior management and directors;
2.	Whether the exchange or repricing proposal is value neutral to shareholders based upon an acceptable pricing model;
3.	The company's relative performance compared to other companies within the relevant industry or industries;
4.	Economic and other conditions affecting the relevant industry or industries in which the company competes; and
5.	Any other facts or circumstances relevant to determining whether an exchange or repricing proposal is consistent with the interests of shareholders.
D.	Employee Stock Purchase Plans

332

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

E.	Bonus Plans and Tax Deductibility Proposals

FIAM will generally vote in favor of cash and stock incentive plans that seek shareholder approval to qualify for favorable tax treatment under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code.

V.	Anti-Takeover Provisions

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

A.	In the case of a Poison Pill, it either:
1.	Includes the following features:
a.	A Sunset Provision of no greater than five years;
b.	Links to a business strategy that is expected to result in greater value for the shareholders;
c.	Requires shareholder approval to be reinstated upon expiration or if amended;
d.	Contains a mechanism to allow shareholders to consider a bona fide takeover offer for all outstanding shares without triggering the Poison Pill; and
e.	Allows Fidelity to hold an aggregate position of up to 20% of a company's total voting securities and of any class of voting securities; or
2.	Is crafted only for the purpose of protecting a specific tax benefit and after evaluating the proposal based on its likelihood to enhance long-term economic returns or maximize long-term shareholder value.

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

B.	In the case of shareholder proposals regarding shareholders’ right to call special meetings, FIAM generally will vote against each proposal if the threshold required to call a special meeting is less than 25% of the outstanding stock.
C.	In the case of proposals regarding shareholders’ right to act by written consent, FIAM will generally vote against each proposal if it does not include appropriate mechanisms for implementation including, among other things, record date requests from at least 25% of the outstanding shareholders and consents must be solicited from all shareholders.
D.	In the case of proposals regarding supermajority provisions, FIAM may vote to support such a provision when FIAM determines that it may protect minority shareholder interests in companies where there is a substantial or dominant shareholder.
VI.	Capital Structure / Incorporation
A.	Increases in Common Stock

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

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

B.	Reverse Stock Splits

333

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

C.	Multi-Class Share Structures

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

D.	Cumulative Voting Rights

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

E.	Acquisition or Business Combination Statutes

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

F.	Incorporation or Reincorporation in Another State or Country

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

VII.	Shares of Fidelity Funds, ETFs, or other non-Fidelity Mutual Funds and ETFs
A.	If applicable, when a FIAM account invests in an underlying Fidelity Fund with public shareholders, an exchange traded fund (ETF), or non-affiliated fund, FIAM will vote in the same proportion as all other voting shareholders of the underlying fund (“echo voting”). FIAM may choose not to vote if “echo voting” is not operationally practical.
B.	Certain FIAM accounts may invest in shares of underlying Fidelity Funds that do not have public shareholders. For Fidelity Funds without public shareholders that are managed by FMR or an affiliate. FIAM will generally vote in favor of proposals recommended by the underlying funds' Board of Trustees.
VIII.	Other
A.	Voting Process

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

B.	Environmental and Social Issues

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

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

QUANTITATIVE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES LLC

334

It is the policy of Quantitative Management Associates LLC (QMA) to vote proxies on client securities in the best long-term economic interest of its clients (i.e., the mutual interests of clients in seeing the appreciation in value of a common investment over time), in accordance with QMA's established proxy voting policy and procedures. In the case of pooled accounts, QMA’s policy is to vote proxies on securities in such account in the best long-term economic interest of the pooled account. In the event of any actual or apparent material conflict between its clients' interest and QMA’s own, QMA’s policy is to act solely in its clients' interest. To this end, the proxy voting policy and procedures adopted by QMA include procedures to address potential material conflicts of interest arising in connection with the voting of proxies.

QMA's proxy voting policy contains detailed voting guidelines on a wide variety of issues commonly voted upon by shareholders. These guidelines reflect QMA's judgment of how to further the best long-range economic interest of its clients through the shareholder voting process. QMA may consider Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) factors in its voting decisions. Where issues are not addressed by its policy, or when circumstances suggest a vote not in accordance with its established guidelines, voting decisions are made on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration the potential economic impact of the proposal. With respect to international holdings, QMA takes into account additional restrictions in some countries that might impair its ability to trade those securities or have other potentially adverse economic consequences, and generally vote foreign securities on a best efforts basis if QMA determines that voting is in the best economic interest of its clients. The Fund determines whether fund securities out on loan are to be recalled for voting purposes and QMA is not involved in any such decision. QMA’s proxy voting committee includes representatives of QMA’s investment, operations, compliance, risk and legal teams. QMA’s proxy voting committee is responsible for interpreting the proxy voting policy as well as monitoring conflicts of interest, and periodically assesses the policy's effectiveness.

QMA utilizes the services of a third party proxy voting facilitator, and upon receipt of proxies will direct the voting facilitator to vote in a manner consistent with QMA's established proxy voting guidelines described above (assuming timely receipt of proxy materials from issuers and custodians). In accordance with its obligations under the Advisers Act, QMA provides full disclosure of its proxy voting policy, guidelines and procedures to its clients upon their request, and will also provide to any client, upon request, the proxy voting records for that client's securities.

Allianz Global Investors U.S. LLC Proxy Voting Policy Summary

AllianzGI US may be granted by its clients the authority to vote proxies of the securities held in client accounts. AllianzGI US typically votes proxies as part of its discretionary authority to manage accounts, unless the client has explicitly reserved the authority for itself. When voting proxies, AllianzGI US seeks to make voting decisions solely in the best interests of its clients and to enhance the economic value of the underlying portfolio securities held in its clients’ accounts.

AllianzGI US has adopted written Proxy Policy Guidelines and Procedures (the “Proxy Guidelines”) that are reasonably designed to ensure that the firm is voting in the best interest of its clients. The Proxy Guidelines reflect AllianzGI US’s general voting positions on specific corporate governance issues. AllianzGI US has retained an independent third party service provider (the “Proxy Provider”) to assist in the proxy voting process by implementing the votes in accordance with the Proxy Guidelines as well as assisting in the administrative process. The Proxy Provider offer a variety of proxy-related services to assist in AllianzGI US’s handling of proxy voting responsibilities. The Proxy Guidelines also provide for oversight of the proxy voting process by a Proxy Committee. The Proxy Guidelines summarize AllianzGI US’s position on various issues, including issues of corporate governance and corporate actions, and give general indication as to how we will vote shares on such issues. Occasionally, there may be instances when AllianzGI US may not vote proxies in strict adherence to the Proxy Guidelines. To the extent that the Proxy Guidelines do not cover potential voting issues or a case arises of a potential material conflict between AllianzGI US’s interest and those of a client with respect to proxy voting, the Proxy Committee will convene to discuss the issues. In evaluating issues, the Proxy Committee may consider information from many sources, including the portfolio management team, the analyst responsible for monitoring the stock of the company at issue, management of a company presenting a proposal, shareholder groups and independent proxy research services. In situations in which the Proxy Guidelines do not give clear guidance on an issue, the Proxy Provider policies are consulted and/or the Proxy Committee will review the issue. In the event that either an analyst or portfolio manager wishes to override the Proxy Guidelines, the analyst or portfolio manager will be presented to the Proxy Committee for a final decision. Any deviations from the Proxy Guidelines will be documented and maintained in accordance with Rule 204-2 under the Advisers Act.

In certain circumstances, a client may request in writing that AllianzGI US vote proxies for its account in accordance with a set of guidelines which differs from the Proxy Guidelines. For example, a client may wish to have proxies voted for its account in accordance with the Taft-Hartley proxy voting guidelines. In that case, AllianzGI US will vote the shares held by such client accounts in accordance with their direction, which may be different from the vote cast for shares held on behalf of other client accounts that vote in accordance with the Proxy Guidelines.

335

AllianzGI US will generally refrain from voting proxies on securities that are subject to share blocking restrictions. Certain countries require the freezing of shares for trading purposes at the custodian/sub-custodian bank level in order to vote proxies to ensure that shareholders voting at meetings continue to hold the shares through the actual shareholder meeting. However, because AllianzGI US cannot anticipate every proxy proposal that may arise (including a proxy proposal that an analyst and/or portfolio manager believes has the potential to significantly affect the economic value of the underlying security, such as proxies relating to mergers and acquisitions), AllianzGI US may, from time to time, instruct the Proxy Providers to cast a vote for a proxy proposal in a share blocked country. AllianzGI US will not be responsible for voting of proxies that AllianzGI US has not been notified of on a timely basis by the client’s custodian.

In accordance with the Proxy Guidelines, AllianzGI US may review additional criteria associated with voting proxies and evaluate the expected benefit to its clients when making an overall determination on how or whether to vote a proxy. Upon receipt of a client’s written request, AllianzGI US may also vote proxies for that client’s account in a particular manner that may differ from the Proxy Guidelines. In addition, AllianzGI US may refrain from voting a proxy on behalf of its clients’ accounts due to de-minimis holdings, immaterial impact on the portfolio, items relating to non-U.S. issuers (such as those described below), non-discretionary holdings not covered by AllianzGI US, timing issues related to the opening/closing of accounts, securities lending issues (see below), contractual arrangements with clients and/or their authorized delegate, the timing of receipt of information, or where circumstances beyond its control prevent it from voting. For example, AllianzGI US may refrain from voting a proxy of a non-U.S. issuer due to logistical considerations that may impair AllianzGI US’s ability to vote the proxy. These issues may include, but are not limited to: (i) proxy statements and ballots being written in a language other than English, (ii) untimely notice of a shareholder meeting, (iii) requirements to vote proxies in person, (iv) restrictions on non-U.S. person’s ability to exercise votes, (v) restrictions on the sale of securities for a period of time in proximity to the shareholder meeting, or (vi) requirements to provide local agents with power of attorney to facilitate the voting instructions. Such proxies are voted on a best-efforts basis.

AllianzGI US may instead vote in accordance with the proxy guidelines of its affiliate advisers when voting in connection with Wrap Programs. The affiliated adviser’s guidelines may differ and in fact be in conflict with AllianzGI US’s voting guidelines. AllianzGI US typically votes proxies as part of its discretionary authority to manage Wrap Program accounts, unless a client has indicated to the Sponsor that it has explicitly reserved the authority to vote proxies for itself. AllianzGI US will generally vote all proxies sent to it by the Sponsor on an aggregate basis. When AllianzGI US votes proxies on an aggregate basis, the proxy voting records are generally available only on an aggregate level and are not maintained on an individual account basis.

If a client has decided to participate in a securities lending program, AllianzGI US will defer to the client’s determination and not attempt to recall securities on loan solely for the purpose of voting routine proxies as this could impact the returns received from securities lending and make the client a less desirable lender in the marketplace. If the participating client requests, AllianzGI US will use reasonable efforts to notify the client of proxy measures that AllianzGI US deems material.

The ability to timely identify material events and recommend recall of shares for proxy voting purposes is not within the control of AllianzGI US and requires the cooperation of the client and its other service providers. Efforts to recall loaned securities are not always effective and there can be no guarantee that any such securities can be retrieved in a timely manner for purposes of voting the securities.

Clients may obtain a copy of the Proxy Guidelines upon request. To obtain a copy of the Proxy Guidelines or to obtain information on how an account’s securities were voted, clients should contact their account representative.

SECURITY CAPITAL RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED

Security Capital Research & Management Incorporated (Security Capital) has adopted proxy voting procedures (“Procedures”) that incorporate detailed guidelines (Guidelines) for voting proxies in the best interests of clients. Pursuant to the Procedures, most routine proxy matters will be voted in accordance with the Guidelines. To assist Security Capital’s investment personnel with proxy voting proposals, independent proxy voting services are retained. For proxy matters that are not covered by the Guidelines (including matters that require a case-by-case determination) or where a vote contrary to the independent proxy voting service recommendation is considered appropriate, the Procedures require a certification and review process to be completed before the vote is cast.

To oversee and monitor the proxy-voting process, Security Capital has established a proxy committee and appointed a proxy administrator. The proxy committee is composed of the Proxy Administrator, senior business officers of Security Capital and the Legal, Compliance and Risk Management and Control departments. The proxy committee will meet periodically to review general proxy-voting matters, review and approve the Guidelines annually, and provide advice and recommendations on general proxy-voting matters as well as on specific voting issues.

336

T. ROWE PRICE ASSOCIATES, INC.
T. ROWE PRICE INTERNATIONAL LTD
T. ROWE PRICE (CANADA), INC
T. ROWE PRICE HONG KONG LIMITED
T. ROWE PRICE SINGAPORE PRIVATE LTD.

PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

RESPONSIBILITY TO VOTE PROXIES

T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc., T. Rowe Price International Ltd, T. Rowe Price (Canada), Inc., T. Rowe Price Hong Kong Limited, and T. Rowe Price Singapore Private Ltd. (collectively, “T. Rowe Price”) recognize and adhere to the principle that one of the privileges of owning stock in a company is the right to vote in the election of the company’s directors and on matters affecting certain important aspects of the company’s structure and operations that are submitted to shareholder vote. As an investment adviser with a fiduciary responsibility to its clients, T. Rowe Price analyzes the proxy statements of issuers whose stock is owned by the U.S.-registered investment companies which it sponsors and serves as investment adviser (“Price Funds”) and by common trust funds, offshore funds, institutional and private counsel clients who have requested that T. Rowe Price be involved in the proxy process. T. Rowe Price has assumed the responsibility for voting proxies on behalf of the T. Rowe Price Funds and certain counsel clients who have delegated such responsibility to T. Rowe Price. In addition, T. Rowe Price makes recommendations regarding proxy voting to counsel clients who have not delegated the voting responsibility but who have requested voting advice. T. Rowe Price reserves the right to decline to vote proxies in accordance with client-specific voting guidelines.

T. Rowe Price has adopted these Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures (“Policies and Procedures”) for the purpose of establishing formal policies and procedures for performing and documenting its fiduciary duty with regard to the voting of client proxies. This document is updated annually.

Fiduciary Considerations. It is the policy of T. Rowe Price that decisions with respect to proxy issues will be made in light of the anticipated impact of the issue on the desirability of investing in the portfolio company from the viewpoint of the particular client or Price Fund. Proxies are voted solely in the interests of the client, Price Fund shareholders or, where employee benefit plan assets are involved, in the interests of plan participants and beneficiaries. Our intent has always been to vote proxies, where possible to do so, in a manner consistent with our fiduciary obligations and responsibilities. Practicalities and costs involved with international investing may make it impossible at times, and at other times disadvantageous, to vote proxies in every instance.

Other Considerations. One of the primary factors T. Rowe Price considers when determining the desirability of investing in a particular company is the quality and depth of its management. We recognize that a company’s management is entrusted with the day-to-day operations of the company, as well as its long-term direction and strategic planning, subject to the oversight of the company’s board of directors. Accordingly, our proxy voting guidelines are not intended to substitute our judgment for management’s with respect to the company’s day-to-day operations. Rather, our proxy voting guidelines are designed to promote accountability of a company's management and board of directors to its shareholders; to align the interests of management with those of shareholders; and to encourage companies to adopt best practices in terms of their corporate governance. In addition to our proxy voting guidelines, we rely on a company’s disclosures, its board’s recommendations, a company’s track record, country-specific best practices codes, our research providers and, most importantly, our investment professionals’ views, in making voting decisions.

ADMINISTRATION OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

Proxy Committee. T. Rowe Price’s Proxy Committee (“Proxy Committee”) is responsible for establishing positions with respect to corporate governance and other proxy issues, including those involving corporate social responsibility issues. Certain delegated members of the Proxy Committee also review questions and respond to inquiries from clients and mutual fund shareholders pertaining to proxy issues. While the Proxy Committee sets voting guidelines and serves as a resource for T. Rowe Price portfolio management, it does not have proxy voting authority for any Price Fund or counsel client. Rather, this responsibility is held by the Chairperson of the Price Fund’s Investment Advisory Committee or counsel client’s portfolio manager.

Proxy Services Group. The Proxy Services Group is responsible for administering the proxy voting process as set forth in the Policies and Procedures.

Global Corporate Governance Analyst. Our Global Corporate Governance Analyst is responsible for reviewing the proxy agendas for all upcoming meetings and making company-specific recommendations to our global industry analysts and portfolio managers with regard to the voting decisions in their portfolios.

337

HOW PROXIES ARE REVIEWED, PROCESSED AND VOTED

In order to facilitate the proxy voting process, T. Rowe Price has retained Glass, Lewis & Co. (“Glass Lewis”) as an expert in the proxy voting and corporate governance area. Glass Lewis specializes in providing a variety of fiduciary-level proxy advisory and voting services. These services include voting recommendations as well as vote execution and reporting for the handling of proxy voting responsibility. In order to reflect T. Rowe Price’s issue-by-issue voting guidelines as approved each year by the Proxy Committee, Glass Lewis maintains and implements a custom voting policy for the Price Funds and other client accounts.

Meeting Notification

T. Rowe Price utilizes Glass Lewis’ voting agent services to notify us of upcoming shareholder meetings for portfolio companies held in client accounts and to transmit votes to the various custodian banks of our clients. Glass Lewis tracks and reconciles T. Rowe Price holdings against incoming proxy ballots. If ballots do not arrive on time, Glass Lewis procures them from the appropriate custodian or proxy distribution agent. Meeting and record date information is updated daily, and transmitted to T. Rowe Price through ViewPoint, Glass Lewis’ web-based application.

Vote Determination

Each day, Glass Lewis delivers into T. Rowe Price’s proprietary proxy research platform a comprehensive summary of upcoming meetings, proxy proposals, publications discussing key proxy voting issues, and custom vote recommendations to assist us with proxy research and processing. The final authority and responsibility for proxy voting decisions remains with T. Rowe Price. Decisions with respect to proxy matters are made primarily in light of the anticipated impact of the issue on the desirability of investing in the company from the perspective of our clients.

Portfolio managers may decide to vote their proxies consistent with the Policies and Procedures, as set by the Proxy Committee, and instruct the Proxy Services Group to vote all proxies accordingly. Alternatively, portfolio managers may request to review the vote recommendations and sign off on all proxies before the votes are cast, or they may choose only to sign off on those votes cast against management. The portfolio managers are also given the option of reviewing and determining the votes on all proxies without utilizing the vote guidelines of the Proxy Committee. In all cases, the portfolio managers may elect to receive current reports summarizing all proxy votes in their client accounts. Portfolio managers who vote their proxies inconsistent with T. Rowe Price guidelines are required to document the rationale for their votes. The Proxy Services Group is responsible for maintaining this documentation and assuring that it adequately reflects the basis for any vote which is cast contrary to our proxy voting guidelines.

T. Rowe Price Voting Policies

Specific proxy voting guidelines have been adopted by the Proxy Committee for all regularly occurring categories of management and shareholder proposals. A detailed set of proxy voting guidelines is available on the T. Rowe Price website, www.troweprice.com. The following is a summary of our guidelines on the most significant proxy voting topics:

Election of Directors – For U.S. companies, T. Rowe Price generally supports slates with a majority of independent directors. However, T. Rowe Price may vote against outside directors who do not meet our criteria relating to their independence, particularly when they serve on key board committees, such as compensation and nominating committees, for which we believe that all directors should be independent. Outside of the U.S., we expect companies to adhere to the minimum independence standard established by regional corporate governance codes. At a minimum, however, we believe boards in all regions should include a blend of executive and non-executive members, and we are likely to vote against senior executives at companies without any independent directors. We also vote against directors who are unable to dedicate sufficient time to their board duties due to their commitments to other boards. We may vote against certain directors who have served on company boards where we believe there has been a gross failure in governance or oversight. Additionally, we may vote against compensation committee members who approve excessive executive compensation or severance arrangements. We support efforts to elect all board members annually because boards with staggered terms lessen directors’ accountability to shareholders and act as deterrents to takeover proposals. To strengthen boards’ accountability, T. Rowe Price supports proposals calling for a majority vote threshold for the election of directors and we may withhold votes from an entire board if they fail to implement shareholder proposals that receive majority support.

Anti-Takeover, Capital Structure and Corporate Governance Issues – T. Rowe Price generally opposes anti-takeover measures since they adversely impact shareholder rights and limit the ability of shareholders to act on potential value-enhancing transactions. Such anti-takeover mechanisms include classified boards, supermajority voting requirements, dual share classes, and poison pills. When voting on capital structure proposals, T. Rowe Price will consider the dilutive impact to shareholders and the effect on shareholder rights. We may support shareholder proposals that call for the separation of the Chairman and CEO positions if we determine that insufficient governance safeguards are in place at the company.

338

Executive Compensation Issues – T. Rowe Price’s goal is to assure that a company’s equity-based compensation plan is aligned with shareholders’ long-term interests. We evaluate plans on a case-by-case basis, using a number of factors, including dilution to shareholders, problematic plan features, burn rate, and the equity compensation mix. Plans that are constructed to effectively and fairly align executives’ and shareholders’ incentives generally earn our approval. Conversely, we oppose compensation packages that provide what we view as excessive awards to few senior executives or contain the potential for excessive dilution relative to the company’s peers. We also may oppose equity plans at any company where we deem the overall compensation practices to be problematic. We generally oppose efforts to reprice options in the event of a decline in value of the underlying stock unless such plans appropriately balance shareholder and employee interests. For companies with particularly egregious pay practices such as excessive severance packages, executives with outsized pledged/hedged stock positions, executive perks, and bonuses that are not adequately linked to performance, we may vote against compensation committee members. We analyze management proposals requesting ratification of a company’s executive compensation practices (“Say-on-Pay” proposals) on a case-by-case basis, using a screen that assesses the long-term linkage between executive compensation and company performance as well as the presence of objectionable structural features in compensation plans. With respect to the frequency in which companies should seek advisory votes on compensation, we believe shareholders should be offered the opportunity to vote annually. Finally, we may withhold votes from compensation committee members or even the entire board if we have cast votes against a company’s “Say-on-Pay” vote in consecutive years.

Mergers and Acquisitions – T. Rowe Price considers takeover offers, mergers, and other extraordinary corporate transactions on a case-by-case basis to determine if they are beneficial to shareholders’ current and future earnings stream and to ensure that our Price Funds and clients are receiving fair consideration for their securities. We oppose a high proportion of proposals for the ratification of executive severance packages (“Say on Golden Parachute” proposals) in conjunction with merger transactions if we conclude these arrangements reduce the alignment of executives’ incentives with shareholders’ interests.

Corporate Social Responsibility Issues – Vote recommendations for corporate responsibility issues are generated by the Global Corporate Governance Analyst using Glass Lewis’ proxy research and company reports. T. Rowe Price generally votes with a company’s management on social, environmental and corporate responsibility issues unless the issue has substantial investment implications for the company’s business or operations which have not been adequately addressed by management. T. Rowe Price supports well-targeted shareholder proposals on environmental and other public policy issues that are particularly relevant to a company’s businesses.

Global Portfolio Companies – Glass Lewis applies a two-tier approach to determining and applying global proxy voting policies. The first tier establishes baseline policy guidelines for the most fundamental issues, which span the corporate governance spectrum without regard to a company’s domicile. The second tier takes into account various idiosyncrasies of different countries, making allowances for standard market practices, as long as they do not violate the fundamental goals of good corporate governance. The goal is to enhance shareholder value through effective use of the shareholder franchise, recognizing that application of policies developed for U.S. corporate governance issues are not appropriate for all markets. The Proxy Committee has reviewed Glass Lewis’ general global policies and has developed international proxy voting guidelines which in most instances are consistent with Glass Lewis recommendations.

Fixed Income, Index and Passively Managed Accounts – Proxy voting for fixed income, index and other passively-managed portfolios is administered by the Proxy Services Group using T. Rowe Price’s policies as set by the Proxy Committee. If a portfolio company is held in both an actively managed account and an index account, the index account will default to the vote as determined by the actively managed proxy voting process. In addition, fixed income accounts will generally follow the proxy vote determinations on security holdings held by our equity accounts unless the matter is specific to a particular fixed income security (i.e., consents, restructurings, reorganization proposals).

Divided Votes – In situations where a decision is made which is contrary to the policies established by the Proxy Committee, or differs from the vote for any other client or Price Fund, the Proxy Services Group advises the portfolio managers involved of the divided vote. The persons representing opposing views may wish to confer to discuss their positions. In such instances, it is the normal practice for the portfolio manager to document the reasons for the vote if it is against our proxy voting guidelines. The Proxy Services Group is responsible for assuring that adequate documentation is maintained to reflect the basis for any vote which is cast in opposition to our proxy voting guidelines.

339

before the shareholder meeting, depending on the market. In markets where shareblocking applies, there is a potential for a pending trade to fail if trade settlement takes place during the blocking period. T. Rowe Price’s policy is generally to refrain from voting shares in shareblocking countries unless the matter has compelling economic consequences that outweigh the loss of liquidity in the blocked shares.

Securities on Loan – The Price Funds and our institutional clients may participate in securities lending programs to generate income. Generally, the voting rights pass with the securities on loan; however, lending agreements give the lender the right to terminate the loan and pull back the loaned shares provided sufficient notice is given to the custodian bank in advance of the voting deadline. T. Rowe Price’s policy is generally not to vote securities on loan unless the portfolio manager has knowledge of a material voting event that could affect the value of the loaned securities. In this event, the portfolio manager has the discretion to instruct the Proxy Services Group to pull back the loaned securities in order to cast a vote at an upcoming shareholder meeting.

Monitoring and Resolving Conflicts of Interest

The Proxy Committee is also responsible for monitoring and resolving potential material conflicts between the interests of T. Rowe Price and those of its clients with respect to proxy voting. We have adopted safeguards to ensure that our proxy voting is not influenced by interests other than those of our fund shareholders. While membership on the Proxy Committee is diverse, it does not include individuals whose primary duties relate to client relationship management, marketing, or sales. Since T. Rowe Price’s voting guidelines are predetermined by the Proxy Committee, application of the guidelines by fund portfolio managers to vote fund proxies should in most instances adequately address any potential conflicts of interest. However, consistent with the terms of the Policies and Procedures, which allow portfolio managers to vote proxies opposite our general voting guidelines, the Proxy Committee regularly reviews all such proxy votes that are inconsistent with the proxy voting guidelines to determine whether the portfolio manager’s voting rationale appears reasonable. The Proxy Committee also assesses whether any business or other material relationships between T. Rowe Price and a portfolio company (unrelated to the ownership of the portfolio company’s securities) could have influenced an inconsistent vote on that company’s proxy.

Issues raising potential conflicts of interest are referred to designated members of the Proxy Committee for immediate resolution prior to the time T. Rowe Price casts its vote. With respect to personal conflicts of interest, T. Rowe Price’s Code of Ethics and Conduct requires all employees to avoid placing themselves in a “compromising position” in which their interests may conflict with those of our clients and restrict their ability to engage in certain outside business activities. Portfolio managers or Proxy Committee members with a personal conflict of interest regarding a particular proxy vote must recuse themselves and not participate in the voting decisions with respect to that proxy.

Specific Conflict of Interest Situations - Voting of T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. common stock (sym: TROW) by certain T. Rowe Price Index Funds will be done in all instances in accordance with T. Rowe Price policy, and votes inconsistent with policy will not be permitted. In the event that there is no previously established guideline for a specific voting issue appearing on the T. Rowe Price Group proxy, the Price Funds will abstain on that voting item. In addition, T. Rowe Price has voting authority for proxies of the holdings of certain Price Funds that invest in other Price Funds. In cases where the underlying fund of an investing Price Fund, including a fund-of-funds, holds a proxy vote, T. Rowe Price will mirror vote the fund shares held by the upper-tier fund in the same proportion as the votes cast by the shareholders of the underlying funds (other than the T. Rowe Price Reserve Investment Funds).

Limitations on Voting Proxies of Banks

T. Rowe Price has obtained relief from the U.S. Federal Reserve Board (the “FRB Relief”) which permits, subject to a number of conditions, T. Rowe Price to acquire in the aggregate on behalf of its clients, 10% or more of the total voting stock of a bank, bank holding company, savings and loan holding company or savings association (each a “Bank”), not to exceed a 15% aggregate beneficial ownership maximum in such Bank. One such condition affects the manner in which T. Rowe Price will vote its clients’ shares of a Bank in excess of 10% of the Bank’s total voting stock (“Excess Shares”). The FRB Relief requires that T. Rowe Price use its best efforts to vote the Excess Shares in the same proportion as all other shares voted, a practice generally referred to as “mirror voting,” or in the event that such efforts to mirror vote are unsuccessful, Excess Shares will not be voted. With respect to a shareholder vote for a Bank of which T. Rowe Price has aggregate beneficial ownership of greater than 10% on behalf of its clients, T. Rowe Price will determine which of its clients’ shares are Excess Shares on a pro rata basis across all of its clients’ portfolios for which T. Rowe Price has the power to vote proxies.

REPORTING, RECORD RETENTION AND OVERSIGHT

340

Policies and Procedures to make sure that they have been implemented effectively, including whether they continue to be reasonably designed to ensure that proxies are voted in the best interests of our clients; (3) performs due diligence on whether a retained proxy advisory firm has the capacity and competency to adequately analyze proxy issues, including the adequacy and quality of the proxy advisory firm’s staffing and personnel and its policies; and (4) oversees any retained proxy advisory firms and their procedures regarding their capabilities to (i) produce proxy research that is based on current and accurate information and (ii) identify and address any conflicts of interest and any other considerations that we believe would be appropriate in considering the nature and quality of the services provided by the proxy advisory firm.

Vote Summary Reports will be generated for each client that requests T. Rowe Price to furnish proxy voting records. The report specifies the portfolio companies, meeting dates, proxy proposals, and votes which have been cast for the client during the period and the position taken with respect to each issue. Reports normally cover quarterly or annual periods and are provided to clients upon request.

T. Rowe Price retains proxy solicitation materials, memoranda regarding votes cast in opposition to the position of a company’s management, and documentation on shares voted differently. In addition, any document which is material to a proxy voting decision such as the T. Rowe Price proxy voting guidelines, Proxy Committee meeting materials, and other internal research relating to voting decisions will be kept. All proxy voting materials and supporting documentation are retained for six years (except for proxy statements available on the SEC’s EDGAR database).

THOMPSON, SIEGEL & WALMSLEY LLC

Thompson, Siegel & Walmsley LLC (TSW) acknowledges it has a fiduciary obligation to its clients that requires it to monitor corporate events and vote client proxies. TSW has adopted and implemented written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that proxies for domestic and foreign stock holdings are voted in the best interest of our clients on a best efforts basis. TSW recognizes that it (i) has a fiduciary responsibility under the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act (ERISA) to vote proxies prudently and solely in the best interest of plan participants and beneficiaries (ii) will vote stock proxies in the best interest of the client (non-ERISA) when directed (together, our clients). TSW has developed its policy to be consistent with, wherever possible, enhancing long-term shareholder value and leading corporate governance practices. TSW has retained the services of Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS). ISS is a Registered Investment Adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. As a leading provider of proxy voting and corporate governance services with 20+ years of experience, ISS serves more than 1,700 institutions. ISS’s core business is to analyze proxies and issue informed research and objective vote recommendations for more than 38,000 companies across 115 markets worldwide. ISS provides TSW proxy proposal research and voting recommendations and votes accounts on TSW’s behalf under the guidance of ISS’s standard voting guidelines which include:

■	Operational Issues
■	Board of Directors
■	Proxy Contests
■	Anti-takeover Defenses and Related Voting Issues
■	Mergers and Corporate Restructurings
■	State of Incorporation
■	Capital Structure
■	Executive & Director Compensation
■	Corporate Responsibility:
■	Consumer Issues and Public Safety
■	Environment and Energy
■	General Corporate Issues
■	Labor Standards and Human Rights
■	Military Business
■	Workplace Diversity
■	Mutual Fund Proxies
■	Equity and Compensation Plans
■	Specific Treatment of Certain Award Types in Equity Plan Evaluations
■	Other Compensation Proposals & Policies
■	Shareholder Proposals on Compensation

TSW’s proxy coordinator is responsible for monitoring ISS’s voting procedures on an ongoing basis. TSW’s general policy regarding the voting of proxies is as follows:

Proxy Voting Guidelines:

341

Routine and/or non-controversial, general corporate governance issues are normally voted with management; this would include the Approval of Independent Auditors.

Occasionally, ISS may vote against management’s proposal on a particular issue; such issues would generally be those deemed likely to reduce shareholder control over management, entrench management at the expense of shareholders, or in some way diminish shareholders’ present or future value. From time to time TSW will receive and act upon the client’s specific instructions regarding proxy proposals. TSW reserves the right to vote against any proposals motivated by political, ethical or social concerns. TSW and ISS will examine each issue solely from an economic perspective.

A complete summary of ISS’s voting guidelines, domestic & foreign, are available at: http://www.issgovernance.com/policy

Conflicts of Interest:

Occasions may arise during the voting process in which the best interests of the clients conflicts with TSW’s interests. Conflicts of interest generally include (i) business relationships where TSW has a substantial business relationship with, or is actively soliciting business from, a company soliciting proxies (ii) personal or family relationships whereby an employee of TSW has a family member or other personal relationship that is affiliated with a company soliciting proxies, such as a spouse who serves as a director of a public company. A conflict could also exist if a substantial business relationship exists with a proponent or opponent of a particular initiative. If TSW determines that a material conflict of interest exists, TSW will instruct ISS to vote using ISS’s standard policy guidelines which are derived independently from TSW.

Proxy Voting Process:

■	Upon timely receipt of proxy materials, ISS will automatically release vote instructions on client’s behalf as soon as custom research is completed. TSW retains authority to override the votes (before cut-off date) if they disagree with the vote recommendation.
■	The Proxy Coordinator will monitor the voting process at ISS via Proxy Exchange website (ISS’s online voting and research platform). Records of which accounts are voted, how accounts are voted, and how many shares are voted are kept electronically with ISS.
■	For proxies not received at ISS, TSW and ISS will make a best efforts attempt to receive ballots from the clients’ custodian.
■	TSW will be responsible for account maintenance — opening and closing of accounts, transmission of holdings and account environment monitoring.
■	Order Implementation Manager (proxy oversight representative) will keep abreast of any critical or exceptional events or events qualifying as a conflict of interest via ISS Proxy Exchange website and email. TSW has the ability to override vote instructions, and the Order Implementation Manager will consult with TSW’s Investment Policy Committee or product managers in these types of situations.
■	All proxies are voted solely in the best interest of clients.
■	Proactive communication takes place via regular meetings with ISS’s Client Relations Team.

Practical Limitations Relating to Proxy Voting:

While TSW uses its best efforts to vote proxies, in certain circumstances it may be impractical or impossible for TSW to do so. Identifiable circumstances include:

■	Limited Value. TSW may abstain from voting in those circumstances where it has concluded to do so would have no identifiable economic benefit to the client-shareholder.
■	Unjustifiable Cost. TSW may abstain from voting when the costs of or disadvantages resulting from voting, in TSW’s judgment, outweigh the economic benefits of voting.
■	Securities Lending. Certain of TSW’s clients engage in securities lending programs under which shares of an issuer could be on loan while that issuer is conducting a proxy solicitation. As part of the securities lending program, if the securities are on loan at the record date, the client lending the security cannot vote that proxy. Because TSW generally is not aware of when a security may be on loan, it does not have an opportunity to recall the security prior to the record date. Therefore, in most cases, those shares will not be voted and TSW may not be able fully to reconcile the securities held at record date with the securities actually voted.
■	Failure to Receive Proxy Statements. TSW may not be able to vote proxies in connection with certain holdings, most frequently for foreign securities, if it does not receive the account’s proxy statement in time to vote the proxy.

Proxy Voting Records & Reports:

■

The proxy information is maintained by ISS on TSW’s behalf and includes the following: (i) name of the issuer, (ii) the exchange ticker symbol, (iii) the CUSIP number, (iv) the shareholder meeting date, (v) a brief description of the matter brought to vote; (vi) whether the proposal was submitted by management or a shareholder, (vii) how the proxy was voted (for, against, abstained), (viii) whether the proxy was voted for or against management, and (ix) documentation materials to make the decision. TSW’s Proxy Coordinator coordinates retrieval and report production as required or requested.

342

■	Clients will be notified annually of their ability to request a copy of our proxy policies and procedures. A copy of how TSW voted on securities held is available free of charge upon request from our clients or by calling us toll free at (800) 697-1056.

UBS ASSET MANAGEMENT (AMERICAS) INC.

The following is a summary of UBS Asset Management (Americas) Inc’s (UBS AM) proxy voting policy:

UBS AM’s proxy voting policy is based on its belief that voting rights have economic value and should be treated accordingly. Good corporate governance should in the long term, lead towards better corporate performance and improved shareholder value. Generally, UBS AM expects the boards of directors of companies issuing securities held by its clients to act in the service of the shareholders, view themselves as stewards of the company, exercise good judgment and practice diligent oversight of the management of the company. A commitment to acting in as transparent a manner as possible is fundamental to good governance.

While there is no absolute set of rules that determine appropriate corporate governance under all circumstances and no set of rules will guarantee ethical board behavior, there are certain principles, which provide evidence of good corporate governance. UBS AM may delegate to an independent proxy voting and research service the authority to exercise the voting rights associated with certain client holdings. Any such delegation shall be made with the direction that the votes be exercised in accordance with UBS AM’s proxy voting policy.

When UBS AM’s view of a company’s management is favorable, UBS AM generally supports current management initiatives. When UBS AM’s view is that changes to the management structure would probably increase shareholder value, UBS AM may not support existing management proposals. In general, UBS AM generally exercises voting rights in accordance with the following principles: (1) with respect to board structure, (a) an effective chairman is key, (b) the roles of chairman and chief executive should be separated, (c) board members should have appropriate and diverse experience and be capable of providing good judgment and diligent oversight of management, (d) the board should include executive and non-executive members, and (e) the non-executive members should provide a challenging, but generally supportive environment; and (2) with respect to board responsibilities, (a) the whole board should be fully involved in endorsing strategy and in all major strategic decisions, and (b) the board should ensure that at all times (i) appropriate management succession plans are in place; (ii) the interests of executives and shareholders are aligned and the financial audit is independent and accurate; (iii) the brand and reputation of the company is protected and enhanced; (iv) a constructive dialogue with shareholders is encouraged; and (v) it receives all the information necessary to hold management accountable. In addition, UBS AM focuses on the following areas of concern when voting its clients’ securities: economic value resulting from acquisitions or disposals; operational performance; quality of management; independent non-executive board members not holding management accountable; quality of internal controls; lack of transparency; inadequate succession planning; poor approach to corporate social responsibility; inefficient management structure; and corporate activity designed to frustrate the ability of shareholders to hold the board accountable or realize the maximum value of their investment. UBS AM exercises its voting rights in accordance with overarching rationales outlined by its proxy voting policies and procedures that are based on the principles described above.

UBS AM has implemented procedures designed to address a conflict of interest in voting a particular proxy proposal, which may arise as a result of its or its affiliates’ client relationships, marketing efforts or banking, investment banking and broker/dealer activities. To address such conflicts, UBS AM has imposed information barriers between it and its affiliates who conduct banking, investment banking and broker/dealer activities and has implemented procedures to prevent business, sales and marketing issues from influencing its proxy votes. Whenever UBS AM is aware of a conflict with respect to a particular proxy, the UBS AM Americas Committee is notified and determines the manner in which such proxy is voted.

VICTORY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT INC.

PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

It is Victory Capital’s policy to vote the Portfolio’s proxies in the best interests of the Portfolio and its shareholders. This entails voting client proxies with the objective of increasing the long-term economic value of Portfolio assets. To assist it in making proxy-voting decisions, Victory Capital has adopted a Proxy Voting Policy (“Policy”) that establishes voting guidelines (“Proxy Voting Guidelines”) with respect to certain recurring issues. The Policy is reviewed on an annual basis by Victory Capital’s Proxy Committee (“Proxy Committee”) and revised when the Proxy Committee determines that a change is appropriate.

Voting under Victory Capital’s Policy may be executed through administrative screening per established guidelines with oversight by the Proxy Committee or upon vote by a quorum of the Proxy Committee. Victory Capital delegates to Institutional Shareholder Services (“ISS”), an independent service provider, the non-discretionary administration of proxy voting for its clients, subject to oversight by the Proxy Committee. In no circumstances shall ISS have the authority to vote proxies except in accordance with standing or specific instructions given to it by Victory Capital.

343

Victory Capital’s Proxy Committee determines how proxies are voted by following established guidelines, which are intended to assist in voting proxies and are not considered rigid rules. The Proxy Committee is directed to apply the guidelines as appropriate. On occasion, however, a contrary vote may be warranted when such action is in the best interests of the Portfolio or if required by the client. In such cases, Victory Capital may consider, among other things:

■	the effect of the proposal on the underlying value of the securities
■	the effect on marketability of the securities
■	the effect of the proposal on future prospects of the issuer
■	the composition and effectiveness of the issuer’s board of directors
■	the issuer’s corporate governance practices
■	the quality of communications from the issuer to its shareholders

Victory Capital may also take into account independent third-party, general industry guidance or other corporate governance review sources when making decisions. It may additionally seek guidance from other senior internal sources with special expertise on a given topic where it is appropriate. The investment team’s opinion concerning the management and prospects of the issuer may be taken into account in determining whether a vote for or against a proposal is in the Portfolio’s best interests. Insufficient information, onerous requests or vague, ambiguous wording may indicate that a vote against a proposal is appropriate, even when the general principal appears to be reasonable.

Occasionally, conflicts of interest arise between Victory Capital’s interests and those of the Portfolio or another client. When this occurs, the Proxy Committee must document the nature of the conflict and vote the proxy in accordance with the Proxy Voting Guidelines unless such guidelines are judged by the Proxy Committee to be inapplicable to the proxy matter at issue. In the event that the Proxy Voting Guidelines are inapplicable or do not mitigate the conflict, Victory Capital will seek the opinion of its chief compliance officer or consult with an external independent adviser. In the case of a Proxy Committee member having a personal conflict of interest (e.g. a family member is on the board of the issuer), such member will abstain from voting. Finally, Victory Capital reports to the Portfolio annually any proxy votes that took place involving a conflict, including the nature of the conflict and the basis or rationale for the voting decision made.

WEDGE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT L.L.P.

WEDGE Capital Management L.L.P. (WEDGE) established its proxy policy to comply with Rule 206(4)-6 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and, as a fiduciary to ERISA clients, proxy voting responsibilities promulgated by the Department of Labor. This policy applies to accounts in which WEDGE has voting authority. WEDGE's authority to vote client proxies is established by an advisory contract or a comparable document.

Voting Guidelines. The analyst who recommends the security for the WEDGE portfolio has voting responsibility for that security. If the security is held in multiple traditional products, the analyst who holds the most shares in his or her portfolio is responsible for voting. Securities held in both a quantitative product and a traditional product are voted by the traditional portfolio analyst.

WEDGE casts votes in the best economic interest of shareholders. Therefore, the vote for each security held in a traditional product is cast on a case-by-case basis. Each analyst may conduct his or her own research and/or use the information provided by Glass Lewis & Co. LLC (Glass Lewis). Glass Lewis provides proxy analyses containing research and objective vote recommendations on each proposal.) If an analyst chooses to vote against the management's recommended vote, a reason must be provided on the voting materials and recorded in the vote management software.

Votes should be cast either “For” or “Against.” In very limited instances an abstention may be appropriate; in which case, the analyst should document why he or she abstained. This will be documented in the vote management software by the proxy department.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. All conflicts of interest are to be resolved in the best interest of our clients.

To alleviate potential conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts, WEDGE does not allow any associate or his or her spouse to sit on the board of directors of any public company without Management Committee approval, and all associates have to affirm quarterly that they are in compliance with this requirement.

All associates must adhere to the CFA Institute Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct, which requires specific disclosure of conflicts of interest and strict adherence to independence and objectivity standards. Situations that may create a conflict or the appearance of a conflict include but are not limited to the following:

1. An analyst has a financial interest in the company or in a company which may be involved in a merger or acquisition with the company in question.

344

2. An analyst has a personal relationship with someone (e.g. a close friend or family member) who is employed by the company in question or by a company which may be involved in a merger or acquisition with the company in question.

3. The company in question is a client or prospective client of the firm.

If any of the three criteria listed above is met, or if the voting analyst feels a potential conflict of interest exists for any reason, he or she should complete a Potential Conflict of Interest Form (PCIF) which identifies the potential conflict of interest and is used to document the review of the vote.

For items 1 and 2 above, the voting analyst is required to consult with an analyst who does not have a potential conflict of interest. If the consulting analyst disagrees with the voting analyst's vote recommendation, a Management Committee member must be consulted. For item 3 above (or any other potential conflict not identified above), two of the three Management Committee members must review and agree with the recommended vote. The completed PCIF is attached to the voting materials and reviewed by the proxy department for accurate completion prior to being recorded in the vote management software.

Due to the importance placed on the Glass Lewis recommended votes, it is important that Glass Lewis has procedures in place to mitigate any potential conflicts of interest. The independence of Glass Lewis will be reviewed during each audit of the proxy process.

PROXY VOTING RECORDS. As required by Rule 204-2 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, WEDGE will maintain the following records:

■	The Proxy Policy
■	Record of each vote cast on behalf of WEDGE's clients
■	Documents prepared by WEDGE that were material to making a proxy voting decision, including PCIFs
■	Each written client request for proxy voting records and WEDGE's written response to any written or oral client request

POLICY DISCLOSURE. On an annual basis, WEDGE will send Form ADV Part 2 to all clients to disclose how they can obtain a copy of the Proxy Policy and/or information on how their securities were voted. Clients may request a copy of the Proxy Policy and voting decisions at any time by contacting WEDGE at either address below.

Attention: Proxy Request
WEDGE Capital Management L.L.P.
301 S. College Street, Suite 3800
Charlotte, NC 28202-6002

Via E-mail:
proxy@wedgecapital.com

REVIEW PROCEDURES
Periodically, WEDGE will review proxy voting for compliance with this policy and determine if revisions to the policy are necessary.

WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLP

Global Proxy Policy & Procedures:

INTRODUCTION

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.

345

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 Corporate Governance 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 Corporate Governance 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 Corporate Governance 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 Corporate Governance Committee encourages all personnel to contact Investment

346

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 Corporate Governance 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 Corporate Governance Committee, who will resolve the conflict and direct the vote. In certain circumstances, the designated members may determine that the full Corporate Governance 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.

Dated: 1 November 2016

Global Proxy Voting Guidelines:

Upon a client’s written request, Wellington Management Company LLP (“Wellington Management”) votes securities that are held in the client’s account in response to proxies solicited by the issuers of such securities. Wellington Management established these Global Proxy Voting Guidelines to document positions generally taken on common proxy issues voted on behalf of clients.

These guidelines are based on Wellington Management’s fiduciary obligation to act in the best economic interest of its clients as shareholders. Hence, Wellington Management examines and seeks to vote each proposal so that the long- term effect of the vote will ultimately increase shareholder value for our clients. Because ethical considerations can have an impact on the long-term value of assets, our voting practices are also attentive to these issues, and votes will be cast against unlawful and unethical activity. Further, Wellington Management’s experience in voting proposals has shown that similar proposals often have different consequences for different companies. Moreover, while these Global Proxy Voting Guidelines are written to apply globally, differences in local practice and law make universal application impractical. Therefore, each proposal is evaluated on its merits, taking into account its effects on the specific company in question and on the company within its industry. It should be noted that the following are guidelines, not rigid rules, and Wellington Management reserves the right in all cases to vote contrary to guidelines where doing so is judged to represent the best economic interest of our clients.

347

Following is a list of common proposals and the guidelines on how Wellington Management anticipates voting on these proposals. The “(SP)” after a proposal indicates that the proposal is usually presented as a shareholder proposal.

Voting Guidelines:

Composition and role of the board of directors

■	Elect directors (Case by case). We believe that shareholders’ ability to elect directors annually is the most important right shareholders have. We generally support management nominees, but will withhold votes from any director who is demonstrated to have acted contrary to the best economic interest of shareholders. We may also withhold votes from directors who failed to implement shareholder proposals that received majority support, implemented dead-hand or no-hand poison pills, or failed to attend at least75% of scheduled board meetings.
■	Declassify board of directors (For).
■	Adopt director tenure/retirement age (SP) (Against).
■	Adopt director and officer indemnification (For). We generally support director and officer indemnification as critical to the attraction and retention of qualified candidates to the board. Such proposals must incorporate the duty of care.
■	Allow special interest representation to board (SP) (Against).
■	Require board independence (For). We believe that, in the absence of a compelling counter-argument or prevailing market norms, at least two-thirds of a board should be composed of independent directors, with independence defined by the local market regulatory authority. Our support for this level of independence may include withholding approval for non-independent directors, as well as votes in support of shareholder proposals calling for independence.
■	Require key board committees to be independent. (For). Key board committees are the nominating, audit, and compensation committees. Exceptions will be made, as above, with respect to local market conventions.
■	Require a separation of chair and CEO or require a lead director (SP) (Case by case). We will generally support management proposals to separate the chair and CEO to establish a lead director.
■	Approve directors’ fees. (Case by case).
■	Approve bonuses for retiring directors. (For).
■	Approve board size. (For).
■	Elect supervisory board/corporate assembly/statutory auditors. (For). Companies in certain markets are governed by multi-tiered boards, with each tier having different powers and responsibilities. We hold supervisory board members to similar standards described above under “Elect directors,” subject to prevailing local governance best practices.
■	Majority vote on election of directors (SP) (For). We believe that the election of directors by a majority of votes cast is the appropriate standard for companies to adopt and therefore generally will support those proposals that seek to adopt such a standard. Our support for such proposals will extend typically to situations where the relevant company has an existing resignation policy in place for directors that receive a majority of “withhold” votes. We believe that it is important for majority voting to be defined within the company’s charter and not simply within the company’s corporate governance policy.
■	Generally we will not support proposals that fail to provide for the exceptional use of a plurality standard in the case of contested elections. Further, we will not support proposals that seek to adopt a majority of votes outstanding (i.e., total votes eligible to be cast as opposed to actually cast) standard.
■	Adopt proxy access (For). We generally support proposals that allow significant and long-term shareholders the right to nominate director candidates on management’s proxy card. That being said, we may vote against a proxy access proposal if it is shareholder-sponsored and it requests that the company adopt proxy access without reasonable constraints or in a way that markedly differs from prevailing market norms.
■	Contest director election (Case by case).

Compensation

■	Adopt/amend stock option plans. (Case by case). While we believe equity compensation helps align participants’ and shareholders’ interests, we will vote against plans that we find excessively dilutive or costly. Additionally, we will generally vote against plans that allow the company to reprice options without shareholder approval. We will also vote against plans that allow the company to add shares to the plan without shareholder approval, otherwise known as “evergreen” provision.
■	Adopt/amend employee stock purchase plans. (For). We generally support employee stock purchase plans, as they may align employees’ interests with the interests of shareholders. That being said, we typically vote against plans that do not offer shares to a broad group of employees (i.e. only executives are allowed to participate) or plans that offer shares at a significant discount.
■	Approve/amend bonus plans. (Case by case). In the US, bonus plans are customarily presented for shareholder approval pursuant to section 162(m) of the omnibus budget reconciliation act of 1992 (“OBRA”). OBRA stipulates that certain forms of compensation are not tax deductible unless approved by shareholders and subject to performance criteria. Because OBRA does not prevent the payment of subject compensation, we generally vote “for” these proposals. Nevertheless, occasionally these proposals are presented in a bundled form seeking 162(m) approval and approval of a stock option plan. In such cases, failure of the proposal prevents the awards from being granted. We will vote against these proposals where the grant portion of the proposal fails our guidelines for the evaluation of stock option plans.
■	Approve remuneration policy. (Case by case).

348

■	Approve compensation packages for named executive officers. (Case by case).
■	Determine whether the compensation vote will occur every one, two, or three years. (One year).
■	Exchange underwater options. (Case by case). We may support value-neutral exchanges in which senior management is ineligible to participate.
■	Eliminate or limit severance agreements (golden parachutes) (Case by case). We will oppose excessively generous arrangements, but may support agreements structured to encourage management to negotiate in shareholders’ best economic interest.
■	Approve golden parachute arrangements in connection with certain corporate transactions. (Case by case).
■	Shareholder approval of future severance agreements covering senior executives (SP) (Case by case). We believe that severance arrangements require special scrutiny, and are generally supportive of proposals that call for shareholder ratification thereof. But we are also mindful of the board’s need for flexibility in recruitment and retention and will therefore oppose placing additional limitations on compensation where we feel the board as already demonstrated reasonable respect for industry practice and overall levels of compensation have historically been sensible.
■	Adopt a clawback policy (SP) (Case by case).

Reporting of results

■	Approve financial statements (For).
■	Set dividends and allocate profits. (For).
■	Limit non-audit services provided by auditors (SP) (Case by case). We follow the guidelines established by the public company accounting oversight board regarding permissible levels of non-audit fees payable to auditors.
■	Ratify selection of auditors and approve their fees. (Case by case). We will generally support management’s choice of auditors, unless the auditors have demonstrated failure to act in shareholders’ best economic interest.
■	Shareholder approval of auditors (SP) (For).

Shareholder voting rights

■	Adopt cumulative voting (SP) (Against). We are likely to support cumulative voting proposals at “controlled” companies (i.e., companies with a single majority shareholder) or at companies with two-tiered voting rights.
■	Shareholder rights plans (Case by case). Also known as poison pills, we believe these plans do not encourage strong corporate governance, since they can entrench management, and restrict opportunities for takesovers. That being said, we recognize that limited poison pills can enable boards of directors to negotiate higher takeover prices on behalf of shareholders. Consequently, we may support plans that include:
■	We generally support plans that include:

■	Shareholder approval requirement
■	Sunset provision
■	Permitted bid feature (i.e., bids that are made for all shares and demonstrate evidence of financing must be submitted to a shareholder vote)

■	Because boards generally have the authority to adopt shareholder rights plans without shareholder approval, we are equally vigilant in our assessment of requests for authorization of blank check preferred shares (see below).
■	Authorize blank check preferred stock. (Case by case). We may support authorization requests that specifically proscribe the use of such shares for anti-takeover purposes.
■	Establish right to call a special meeting. (For).
■	Establish the right to act by written consent (SP) (Case by case). We will generally oppose written consent proposals when the company already offers the shareholders the right to call a special meeting.
■	Increase supermajority vote requirement. (Against). We likely will support shareholder and management proposals to remove existing supermajority vote requirements.
■	Adopt anti-greenmail provision. (For).
■	Adopt confidential voting (SP) (Case by case). We require such proposals to include a provision to suspend confidential voting during contested elections so that management is not subject to constraints that do not apply to dissidents.
■	Increase authorized common stock. (Case by case). We generally support requests for increases up to 100% of the shares currently authorized. Exceptions will be made when the company has clearly articulated a reasonable need for a greater increase. Conversely, at companies trading in less liquid markets, we may impose a lower threshold.
■	Approve merger or acquisition. (Case by case).
■	Approve technical amendments to charter. (Case by case).
■	Opt out of state takeover statutes. (For).
■	Eliminate multiclass voting structure. (SP) (For). We believe the shareholders’ voting power should be reflected by their economic stake in a company.

Capital Structure

■	Authorize share repurchase. (For).

349

■	Approve stock splits. (Case by case). We approve stock splits and reverse stock splits that preserve the level of authorized but unissued shares.
■	Approve recapitalization/restructuring. (Case by case).
■	Issue stock with or without preemptive rights. (Case by case).
■	Issue debt instruments. (Case by case).
■	Environmental and social issues (Case by case). Environmental and social issues typically appear on ballots as shareholder-sponsored proposals. We may support these proposals in situations where we believe that doing so will improve the prospects for long-term success of a company and investment returns. At a minimum, we expect companies to comply with applicable laws and regulations with regards to environmental and social standards.

Miscellaneous

■	Approve other business. (Against).
■	Approve reincorporation. (Case by case).
■	Approve third-party transactions. (Case by case).

January 2016

WESTERN ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY/WESTERN ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED (“WESTERN ASSET”)

BACKGROUND

An investment adviser is required to adopt and implement policies and procedures that we believe are reasonably designed to ensure that proxies are voted in the best interest of clients, in accordance with fiduciary duties and SEC Rule 206(4)-6 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”). The authority to vote the proxies of our clients is established through investment management agreements or comparable documents. In addition to SEC requirements governing advisers, long-standing fiduciary standards and responsibilities have been established for ERISA accounts. Unless a manager of ERISA assets has been expressly precluded from voting proxies, the Department of Labor has determined that the responsibility for these votes lies with the investment manager.

POLICY

As a fixed income only manager, the occasion to vote proxies is very rare. However, the Firm has adopted and implemented policies and procedures that we believe are reasonably designed to ensure that proxies are voted in the best interest of clients, in accordance with our fiduciary duties and SEC Rule 206(4)-6 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”). In addition to SEC requirements governing advisers, our proxy voting policies reflect the long-standing fiduciary standards and responsibilities for ERISA accounts. Unless a manager of ERISA assets has been expressly precluded from voting proxies, the Department of Labor has determined that the responsibility for these votes lies with the Investment Manager.

While the guidelines included in the procedures are intended to provide a benchmark for voting standards, each vote is ultimately cast on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the Firm’s contractual obligations to our clients and all other relevant facts and circumstances at the time of the vote (such that these guidelines may be overridden to the extent the Firm deems appropriate).

In exercising its voting authority, Western Asset will not consult or enter into agreements with officers, directors or employees of Legg Mason Inc. or any of its affiliates (other than Western Asset affiliated companies) regarding the voting of any securities owned by its clients.

PROCEDURE

Responsibility and Oversight

The Western Asset Legal and Compliance Department (“Compliance Department”) is responsible for administering and overseeing the proxy voting process. The gathering of proxies is coordinated through the Corporate Actions area of Investment Support (“Corporate Actions”). Research analysts and portfolio managers are responsible for determining appropriate voting positions on each proxy utilizing any applicable guidelines contained in these procedures.

Client Authority

The Investment Management Agreement for each client is reviewed at account start-up for proxy voting instructions. If an agreement is silent on proxy voting, but contains an overall delegation of discretionary authority or if the account represents assets of an ERISA plan, Western Asset will assume responsibility for proxy voting. The Legal and Compliance Department maintains a matrix of proxy voting authority.

350

Proxy Gathering

Registered owners of record, client custodians, client banks and trustees (“Proxy Recipients”) that receive proxy materials on behalf of clients should forward them to Corporate Actions. Proxy Recipients for new clients (or, if Western Asset becomes aware that the applicable Proxy Recipient for an existing client has changed, the Proxy Recipient for the existing client) are notified at start-up of appropriate routing to Corporate Actions of proxy materials received and reminded of their responsibility to forward all proxy materials on a timely basis. If Western Asset personnel other than Corporate Actions receive proxy materials, they should promptly forward the materials to Corporate Actions.

Proxy Voting

Once proxy materials are received by Corporate Actions, they are forwarded to the Legal and Compliance Department for coordination and the following actions:

a.	Proxies are reviewed to determine accounts impacted.
b.	Impacted accounts are checked to confirm Western Asset voting authority.
c.	Legal and Compliance Department staff reviews proxy issues to determine any material conflicts of interest. (See conflicts of interest section of these procedures for further information on determining material conflicts of interest.)
d.	If a material conflict of interest exists, (i) to the extent reasonably practicable and permitted by applicable law, the client is promptly notified, the conflict is disclosed and Western Asset obtains the client’s proxy voting instructions, and (ii) to the extent that it is not reasonably practicable or permitted by applicable law to notify the client and obtain such instructions (e.g., the client is a mutual fund or other commingled vehicle or is an ERISA plan client), Western Asset seeks voting instructions from an independent third party.
e.	Legal and Compliance Department staff provides proxy material to the appropriate research analyst or portfolio manager to obtain their recommended vote. Research analysts and portfolio managers determine votes on a case-by-case basis taking into account the voting guidelines contained in these procedures. For avoidance of doubt, depending on the best interest of each individual client, Western Asset may vote the same proxy differently for different clients. The analyst’s or portfolio manager’s basis for their decision is documented and maintained by the Legal and Compliance Department.
f.	Legal and Compliance Department staff votes the proxy pursuant to the instructions received in (d) or (e) and returns the voted proxy as indicated in the proxy materials.

Timing

Western Asset personnel act in such a manner to ensure that, absent special circumstances, the proxy gathering and proxy voting steps noted above can be completed before the applicable deadline for returning proxy votes.

Recordkeeping

Western Asset maintains records of proxies voted pursuant to Section 204-2 of the Advisers Act and ERISA DOL Bulletin 94-2. These records include:

a.	A copy of Western Asset’s policies and procedures.
b.	Copies of proxy statements received regarding client securities.
c.	A copy of any document created by Western Asset that was material to making a decision how to vote proxies.
d.	Each written client request for proxy voting records and Western Asset’s written response to both verbal and written client requests.
e.	A proxy log including:
1.	Issuer name;
2.	Exchange ticker symbol of the issuer’s shares to be voted;

351

3.	Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures (“CUSIP”) number for the shares to be voted;
4.	A brief identification of the matter voted on;
5.	Whether the matter was proposed by the issuer or by a shareholder of the issuer;
6.	Whether a vote was cast on the matter;
7.	A record of how the vote was cast; and
8.	Whether the vote was cast for or against the recommendation of the issuer’s management team.

Records are maintained in an easily accessible place for five years, the first two in Western Asset’s offices.

Disclosure

Western Asset’s proxy policies are described in the firm’s Part 2A of Form ADV. Clients will be provided a copy of these policies and procedures upon request. In addition, upon request, clients may receive reports on how their proxies have been voted.

Conflicts of Interest

All proxies are reviewed by the Legal and Compliance Department for material conflicts of interest. Issues to be reviewed include, but are not limited to:

1.	Whether Western (or, to the extent required to be considered by applicable law, its affiliates) manages assets for the company or an employee group of the company or otherwise has an interest in the company;
2.	Whether Western or an officer or director of Western or the applicable portfolio manager or analyst responsible for recommending the proxy vote (together, “Voting Persons”) is a close relative of or has a personal or business relationship with an executive, director or person who is a candidate for director of the company or is a participant in a proxy contest; and
3.	Whether there is any other business or personal relationship where a Voting Person has a personal interest in the outcome of the matter before shareholders.

Voting Guidelines

Western Asset’s substantive voting decisions turn on the particular facts and circumstances of each proxy vote and are evaluated by the designated research analyst or portfolio manager. The examples outlined below are meant as guidelines to aid in the decision making process.

Guidelines are grouped according to the types of proposals generally presented to shareholders. Part I deals with proposals which have been approved and are recommended by a company’s board of directors; Part II deals with proposals submitted by shareholders for inclusion in proxy statements; Part III addresses issues relating to voting shares of investment companies; and Part IV addresses unique considerations pertaining to foreign issuers.

I.	Board Approved Proposals

The vast majority of matters presented to shareholders for a vote involve proposals made by a company itself that have been approved and recommended by its board of directors. In view of the enhanced corporate governance practices currently being implemented in public companies, Western Asset generally votes in support of decisions reached by independent boards of directors. More specific guidelines related to certain board-approved proposals are as follows:

Matters relating to the Board of Directors

Western Asset votes proxies for the election of the company’s nominees for directors and for board-approved proposals on other matters relating to the board of directors with the following exceptions:

a.	Votes are withheld for the entire board of directors if the board does not have a majority of independent directors or the board does not have nominating, audit and compensation committees composed solely of independent directors.
b.	Votes are withheld for any nominee for director who is considered an independent director by the company and who has

352

	received compensation from the company other than for service as a director.
c.	Votes are withheld for any nominee for director who attends less than 75% of board and committee meetings without valid reasons for absences.
d.	Votes are cast on a case-by-case basis in contested elections of directors.
2.	Matters relating to Executive Compensation

Western Asset generally favors compensation programs that relate executive compensation to a company’s long-term performance. Votes are cast on a case-by-case basis on board-approved proposals relating to executive compensation, except as follows:

a.	Except where the firm is otherwise withholding votes for the entire board of directors, Western Asset votes for stock option plans that will result in a minimal annual dilution.
b.	Western Asset votes against stock option plans or proposals that permit replacing or repricing of underwater options.
c.	Western Asset votes against stock option plans that permit issuance of options with an exercise price below the stock’s current market price.
d.	Except where the firm is otherwise withholding votes for the entire board of directors, Western Asset votes for employee stock purchase plans that limit the discount for shares purchased under the plan to no more than 15% of their market value, have an offering period of 27 months or less and result in dilution of 10% or less.
3.	Matters relating to Capitalization

The management of a company’s capital structure involves a number of important issues, including cash flows, financing needs and market conditions that are unique to the circumstances of each company. As a result, Western Asset votes on a case-by-case basis on board-approved proposals involving changes to a company’s capitalization except where Western Asset is otherwise withholding votes for the entire board of directors.

a.	Western Asset votes for proposals relating to the authorization of additional common stock.
b.	Western Asset votes for proposals to effect stock splits (excluding reverse stock splits).
c.	Western Asset votes for proposals authorizing share repurchase programs.
4.	Matters relating to Acquisitions, Mergers, Reorganizations and Other Transactions

Western Asset votes these issues on a case-by-case basis on board-approved transactions.

5.	Matters relating to Anti-Takeover Measures

Western Asset votes against board-approved proposals to adopt anti-takeover measures except as follows:

a.	Western Asset votes on a case-by-case basis on proposals to ratify or approve shareholder rights plans.
b.	Western Asset votes on a case-by-case basis on proposals to adopt fair price provisions.
6.	Other Business Matters

Western Asset votes for board-approved proposals approving such routine business matters such as changing the company’s name, ratifying the appointment of auditors and procedural matters relating to the shareholder meeting.

a.	Western Asset votes on a case-by-case basis on proposals to amend a company’s charter or bylaws.
b.	Western Asset votes against authorization to transact other unidentified, substantive business at the meeting.
II.	Shareholder Proposals

353

SEC regulations permit shareholders to submit proposals for inclusion in a company’s proxy statement. These proposals generally seek to change some aspect of a company’s corporate governance structure or to change some aspect of its business operations. Western Asset votes in accordance with the recommendation of the company’s board of directors on all shareholder proposals, except as follows:

1.	Western Asset votes for shareholder proposals to require shareholder approval of shareholder rights plans.
2.	Western Asset votes for shareholder proposals that are consistent with Western Asset’s proxy voting guidelines for board-approved proposals.
3.	Western Asset votes on a case-by-case basis on other shareholder proposals where the firm is otherwise withholding votes for the entire board of directors.
III.	Voting Shares of Investment Companies

Western Asset may utilize shares of open or closed-end investment companies to implement its investment strategies. Shareholder votes for investment companies that fall within the categories listed in Parts I and II above are voted in accordance with those guidelines.

1.	Western Asset votes on a case-by-case basis on proposals relating to changes in the investment objectives of an investment company taking into account the original intent of the fund and the role the fund plays in the clients’ portfolios.
2.	Western Asset votes on a case-by-case basis all proposals that would result in increases in expenses (e.g., proposals to adopt 12b-1 plans, alter investment advisory arrangements or approve fund mergers) taking into account comparable expenses for similar funds and the services to be provided.
IV.	Voting Shares of Foreign Issuers

In the event Western Asset is required to vote on securities held in non-U.S. issuers – i.e. issuers that are incorporated under the laws of a foreign jurisdiction and that are not listed on a U.S. securities exchange or the NASDAQ stock market, the following guidelines are used, which are premised on the existence of a sound corporate governance and disclosure framework. These guidelines, however, may not be appropriate under some circumstances for foreign issuers and therefore apply only where applicable.

1.	Western Asset votes for shareholder proposals calling for a majority of the directors to be independent of management.
2.	Western Asset votes for shareholder proposals seeking to increase the independence of board nominating, audit and compensation committees.
3.	Western Asset votes for shareholder proposals that implement corporate governance standards similar to those established under U.S. federal law and the listing requirements of U.S. stock exchanges, and that do not otherwise violate the laws of the jurisdiction under which the company is incorporated.
4.	Western Asset votes on a case-by-case basis on proposals relating to (1) the issuance of common stock in excess of 20% of a company’s outstanding common stock where shareholders do not have preemptive rights, or (2) the issuance of common stock in excess of 100% of a company’s outstanding common stock where shareholders have preemptive rights.

RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS

For accounts subject to ERISA, as well as other Retirement Accounts, Western Asset is presumed to have the responsibility to vote proxies for the client. The Department of Labor (“DOL”) has issued a bulletin that states that investment managers have the responsibility to vote proxies on behalf of Retirement Accounts unless the authority to vote proxies has been specifically reserved to another named fiduciary. Furthermore, unless Western Asset is expressly precluded from voting the proxies, the DOL has determined that the responsibility remains with the investment manager.

In order to comply with the DOL’s position, Western Asset will be presumed to have the obligation to vote proxies for its Retirement Accounts unless Western Asset has obtained a specific written instruction indicating that: (a) the right to vote proxies has been reserved to a named fiduciary of the client, and (b) Western Asset is precluded from voting proxies on behalf of the client. If Western Asset does not receive such an instruction, Western Asset will be responsible for voting proxies in the best interests of the Retirement Account client and in accordance with any proxy voting guidelines provided by the client.

354

WILLIAM BLAIR INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC

This statement sets forth the proxy voting policy and procedures of William Blair & Company, L.L.C. and William Blair Investment Management, LLC (hereinafter collectively referred to as “William Blair”). It is provided to all covered clients as described below even if we currently do not have authority to vote proxies for their account.

The Department of Labor (“DOL”) has stated that the fiduciary act of managing plan assets by an investment adviser generally includes the authority to vote proxies for shares held by a plan unless the plan documents reserve this authority to some other entity. ERISA section 3(38) defines an investment manager as any fiduciary who is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. WBC and WBIM are registered investment advisers under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) requires registered investment advisers to implement a proxy voting policy and procedures with respect to the voting of proxies for its advisory clients. Registered investment advisers are required to identify potential conflicts involved in the voting of proxies and meet specific recordkeeping and disclosure requirements. On June 30, 2014, the staff of the SEC Divisions of Investment Management and Corporation Finance issued Staff Legal Bulletin No. 20, which provides guidance on investment advisers’ responsibilities in voting client proxies and retaining proxy advisory firms. This policy is intended to comply with the applicable rules of the DOL and the SEC.

General Policy

William Blair shall vote the proxies of its clients solely in the interest of their participants and beneficiaries and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to them. William Blair shall act with the care, skill, prudence and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims. William Blair is not responsible for voting proxies it does not receive. However, William Blair will make reasonable efforts to obtain missing proxies. For clients participating in a securities lending program via their custodian, we will not be eligible to vote proxies for the portion of shares on loan.

William Blair shall adopt the Voting Guidelines of an independent proxy advisory firm (the “Proxy Administrator”) . All proxies are reviewed by the Proxy Administrator, subject to the requirement that all votes shall be cast solely in the best interest of the clients in their capacity as shareholders of a company. The Proxy Administrator votes the proxies according to the Voting Guidelines, which are designed to address matters typically arising in proxy votes. In instances where we have implemented a client provided proxy voting policy, we will vote in accordance with the client’s policy at all times even if the client’s policy is inconsistent with William Blair’s vote. In the case when nominee voting is not allowed it may be impractical for William Blair to participate in those particular votes.

William Blair does not intend the Voting Guidelines to be exhaustive; hundreds of issues appear on proxy ballots and it is neither practical nor productive to fashion a guideline for each. Rather, the Voting Guidelines are intended to cover the most significant and frequent proxy issues that arise. For issues not covered or to be voted on a “Case-by-Case” basis by the Voting Guidelines, the Proxy Administrator will consult the Proxy Committee. The Proxy Committee will review the issues and will vote each proxy based on information from the company, our internal analysts and third party research sources, in the best interests of the clients in their capacity as shareholders of a company. The Proxy Committee consists of certain representatives from the Investment Management Department, including management, portfolio manager(s), analyst(s), operations, as well as a representative from the Compliance Department. The Proxy Committee reviews the Proxy Voting Policy and procedures annually and shall revise its guidelines as events warrant.

Conflicts of Interest Policy

William Blair is sensitive to conflicts of interest that may arise in the proxy decision-making process and we have identified the following potential conflicts of interest:

■	William Blair has received investment banking compensation from the company in the preceding 12 months or anticipates receiving investment banking compensation in the next three months
■	A William Blair principal or employee currently serves on the company’s Board of Directors
■	William Blair, its principals, employees and affiliates in the aggregate, own 1% or more of the company’s outstanding shares
■	The Company is a client of WBIM or the WBC Investment Management Department

In the event that any of the above potential conflicts of interest arise, the Proxy Committee will vote all proxies for that company in the following manner:

■	If our Voting Guidelines indicate a vote “For” or “Against” a specific issue we will continue to vote according to the Voting Guidelines
■	If our Voting Guidelines have no recommendation or indicate a vote on a “Case-by-Case” basis, we will vote consistent with the voting recommendation provided by the Proxy Administrator

355

Oversight of Proxy Administrator

William Blair shall provide reasonable oversight of the Proxy Administrator. In providing oversight, William Blair will seek to ascertain whether the Proxy Administrator has the capacity and competency to adequately analyze proxy issues. Specific oversight responsibilities will include the following:

■	On at least an annual basis, the Proxy Committee will assess:

■	the adequacy and quality of the proxy advisory firm’s staffing and personnel
■	Assess whether the proxy advisory firm has robust policies and procedures that
■	enable it to make proxy voting recommendations based on current and accurate information
■	identify and address conflicts of interest relating to its voting recommendations

■	William Blair personnel responsible for administration of proxy voting shall periodically review a random sample of votes recommended by the Proxy Administrator to ensure they are consistent with the Voting Guidelines and report any inconsistencies to the Proxy Committee
■	William Blair personnel responsible for proxy voting shall periodically inquire whether the Proxy Administrator has learned that any recommendation was based on a material factual error, and, if so, William Blair shall investigate the error and evaluate whether the Proxy Administrator is taking steps to mitigate making such errors in the future and report any such errors, as well as their resolution to the Proxy committee
■	William Blair personnel responsible for proxy voting shall require the Proxy Administrator to update on business changes that may impact the Proxy Administrator’s capacity and competency to provide proxy voting advice or conflict of interest policies and procedures

International Markets Share Blocking Policy

In international markets where share blocking applies, we typically will not, but reserve the right to, vote proxies due to liquidity constraints. Share blocking is the “freezing” of shares for trading purposes at the custodian/sub-custodian bank level in order to vote proxies. Share blocking typically takes place between 1 and 20 days before an upcoming shareholder meeting, depending on the market. While shares are frozen, they may not be traded. Therefore, the potential exists for a pending trade to fail if trade settlement falls on a date during the blocking period. William Blair shall not subordinate the interests of participants and beneficiaries to unrelated objectives.

Recordkeeping and Disclosure

Pursuant to this policy, William Blair will retain: 1) the Proxy Voting Policy Statement and Procedures; 2) all proxy statements received regarding client securities 3) records of all votes cast on behalf of clients; 4) records of client requests for proxy voting information, and 5) any documents prepared by William Blair that are material to making a decision how to vote, or that memorialize the basis for the decision.

Upon a client’s request to the Proxy Administrator, William Blair will make available to its clients a report on proxy votes cast on their behalf. These proxy-voting reports will demonstrate William Blair’s compliance with its responsibilities and will facilitate clients’ monitoring of how their securities were voted.

The Proxy Voting Policy Statement and Procedures will be provided with each advisory contract and will also be described and provided with the Form ADV, Part 2A.

356

PART I

INTRODUCTION

Before reading the SAI, you should consult the Glossary below, which defines certain of the terms used in the SAI:

Glossary
Term	Definition
ADR	American Depositary Receipt
ADS	American Depositary Share
ASTIS	AST Investment Services, Inc.
Board	Trust’s Board of Directors or Trustees
Board Member	A trustee or director of the Trust’s Board
CFTC	Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Code	Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended
EDR	European Depositary Receipt
ETF	Exchange-Traded Fund
Fannie Mae	Federal National Mortgage Association
Fitch	Fitch, Inc.
Freddie Mac	The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
Global Depositary Receipt	GDR
Ginnie Mae	Government National Mortgage Association
IPO	Initial Public Offering
IRS	Internal Revenue Service
1933 Act	Securities Act of 1933, as amended
1934 Act	Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
1940 Act	Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended
LIBOR	London Interbank Offered Rate
Moody’s	Moody’s Investor Services, Inc.
NASDAQ	National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations System
NAV	Net Asset Value
NYSE	New York Stock Exchange
OTC	Over the Counter
PGIM Investments	PGIM Investments LLC (formerly, Prudential Investments LLC)
PMFS	Prudential Mutual Fund Services LLC
REIT	Real Estate Investment Trust
RIC	Regulated Investment Company, as the term is used in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended
S&P	Standard & Poor’s Corporation
SEC	US Securities & Exchange Commission
World Bank	International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

Trust PORTFOLIOS, INVESTMENT POLICIES & STRATEGIES

The Trust is an open-end management investment company (commonly known as a mutual fund) that is intended to provide a range of investment alternatives through its separate portfolios, each of which is, for investment purposes, in effect a separate fund (the Portfolios). The Portfolios offered by the Trust which are discussed in this SAI are set forth below:

■	AST AB Global Bond Portfolio
■	AST BlackRock Multi-Asset Income Portfolio
■	AST Columbia Adaptive Risk Allocation Portfolio
■	AST Emerging Managers Diversified Portfolio
■	AST FQ Absolute Return Currency Portfolio
■	AST Franklin Templeton K2 Global Absolute Return Portfolio
■	AST Goldman Sachs Global Growth Allocation Portfolio
■	AST Goldman Sachs Global Income Portfolio
■	AST Goldman Sachs Strategic Income Portfolio
■	AST Jennison Global Infrastructure Portfolio
■	AST Legg Mason Diversified Growth Portfolio
■	AST Managed Alternatives Portfolio
■	AST Managed Equity Portfolio
■	AST Managed Fixed Income Portfolio
■	AST Morgan Stanley Multi-Asset Portfolio
■	AST Neuberger Berman Long/Short Portfolio
■	AST Prudential Flexible Multi-Strategy Portfolio
■	AST QMA International Core Equity Portfolio
■	AST T. Rowe Price Diversified Real Growth Portfolio
■	AST Wellington Management Global Bond Portfolio
■	AST Wellington Management Real Total Return Portfolio

In addition to the Portfolios identified above, the Trust also offers the following Portfolios, which are discussed in a separate prospectus (es) and a separate SAI. Please consult the other SAI for information about these Portfolios:

■	AST Academic Strategies Asset Allocation Portfolio
■	AST Advanced Strategies Portfolio
■	AST AQR Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio
■	AST AQR Large-Cap Portfolio
■	AST Balanced Asset Allocation Portfolio
■	AST BlackRock Global Strategies Portfolio
■	AST BlackRock/Loomis Sayles Bond Portfolio
■	AST BlackRock Low Duration Bond Portfolio
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2017
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2018
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2019
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2020
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2021
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2022
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2023
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2024
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2025
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2026
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2027
■	AST Bond Portfolio 2028
■	AST Capital Growth Asset Allocation Portfolio
■	AST ClearBridge Dividend Growth Portfolio
■	AST Cohen & Steers Realty Portfolio
■	AST FI Pyramis^® Quantitative Portfolio
■	AST Global Real Estate Portfolio
■	AST Goldman Sachs Large-Cap Value Portfolio
■	AST Goldman Sachs Mid-Cap Growth Portfolio
■	AST Goldman Sachs Multi-Asset Portfolio
■	AST Goldman Sachs Small-Cap Value Portfolio

■	AST Government Money Market Portfolio (formerly, AST Money Market Portfolio)
■	AST High Yield Portfolio
■	AST Hotchkis & Wiley Large-Cap Value Portfolio
■	AST International Growth Portfolio
■	AST International Value Portfolio
■	AST Investment Grade Bond Portfolio
■	AST J.P. Morgan Global Thematic Portfolio
■	AST J.P. Morgan International Equity Portfolio
■	AST J.P. Morgan Strategic Opportunities Portfolio
■	AST Jennison Large-Cap Growth Portfolio
■	AST Loomis Sayles Large-Cap Growth Portfolio
■	AST Lord Abbett Core Fixed Income Portfolio
■	AST MFS Global Equity Portfolio
■	AST MFS Growth Portfolio
■	AST MFS Large-Cap Value Portfolio
■	AST Multi-Sector Fixed Income Portfolio
■	AST Neuberger Berman/LSV Mid-Cap Value Portfolio
■	AST New Discovery Asset Allocation Portfolio
■	AST Parametric Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio
■	AST Preservation Asset Allocation Portfolio
■	AST Prudential Core Bond Portfolio
■	AST Prudential Growth Allocation Portfolio
■	AST QMA Large-Cap Portfolio
■	AST QMA US Equity Alpha Portfolio
■	AST Quantitative Modeling Portfolio
■	AST RCM World Trends Portfolio
■	AST Small-Cap Growth Portfolio
■	AST Small-Cap Growth Opportunities Portfolio
■	AST Small-Cap Value Portfolio
■	AST T. Rowe Price Asset Allocation Portfolio
■	AST T. Rowe Price Growth Opportunities Portfolio
■	AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Growth Portfolio
■	AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Value Portfolio (formerly, the AST Value Equity Portfolio)
■	AST T. Rowe Price Natural Resources Portfolio
■	AST Templeton Global Bond Portfolio
■	AST WEDGE Capital Mid-Cap Value Portfolio
■	AST Wellington Management Hedged Equity Portfolio
■	AST Western Asset Core Plus Bond Portfolio
■	AST Western Asset Emerging Markets Debt Portfolio

The Trust offers one class of shares in each Portfolio. Shares of each Portfolio are sold only to separate accounts of Prudential Annuities Life Assurance Corporation, The Prudential Insurance Company of America, Pruco Life Insurance Company, Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey, Prudential Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, Pramerica of Bermuda Life Assurance Company, Ltd. (collectively, Prudential), Kemper Investors Life Insurance Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company and Allstate Life Insurance Company of New York as investment options under variable life insurance and variable annuity contracts (the Contracts) (A separate account keeps the assets supporting certain insurance contracts separate from the general assets and liabilities of the insurance company).

Not every Portfolio is available under each Contract. The prospectus for each Contract lists the Portfolios currently available under that particular Contract.

PGIM Investments and ASTIS, both wholly-owned subsidiaries of Prudential Financial, Inc. (Prudential Financial), serve as overall investment managers of the Portfolios covered by this SAI except for the following Portfolios for which PGIM Investments serves as the sole investment manager:

■	AST AB Global Bond Portfolio

■	AST BlackRock Multi-Asset Income Portfolio
■	AST Columbia Adaptive Risk Allocation Portfolio
■	AST Emerging Managers Diversified Portfolio
■	AST FQ Absolute Return Currency Portfolio
■	AST Franklin Templeton K2 Global Absolute Return Portfolio
■	AST Goldman Sachs Global Growth Allocation Portfolio
■	AST Goldman Sachs Global Income Portfolio
■	AST Goldman Sachs Strategic Income Portfolio
■	AST Legg Mason Diversified Growth Portfolio
■	AST Managed Alternatives Portfolio
■	AST Morgan Stanley Multi-Asset Portfolio
■	AST Neuberger Berman Long/Short Portfolio
■	AST Prudential Flexible Multi-Strategy Portfolio
■	AST QMA International Core Equity Portfolio
■	AST T. Rowe Price Diversified Real Growth Portfolio
■	AST Wellington Management Global Bond Portfolio
■	AST Wellington Management Real Total Return Portfolio
■	When used in this SAI, the “Manager” refers to (a) PGIM Investments and ASTIS, collectively, with respect to AST Jennison Global Infrastructure Portfolio, AST Managed Equity Portfolio, and AST Managed Fixed Income Portfolio; and (b) PGIM Investments with respect to all other Portfolios covered by this SAI. Each of the Portfolios has a different investment objective. For this reason, each Portfolio will have different investment results and be subject to different financial and market risks. As discussed in the Prospectus, several of the Portfolios may invest in money market instruments and comparable securities as part of assuming a temporary defensive position. The investment objectives of each Portfolio are discussed in the Prospectus.

FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS

FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS:

Under their fundamental investment restrictions, each of the Portfolios will not:

■	Issue senior securities or borrow money or pledge its assets, except as permitted by the 1940 Act and rules thereunder, exemptive order, SEC release, no-action letter or similar relief or interpretations. For purposes of this restriction, the purchase or sale of securities on a when-issued or delayed delivery basis, reverse repurchase agreements, dollar rolls, short sales, derivative and hedging transactions such as interest rate swap transactions, and collateral arrangements with respect thereto, and transactions similar to any of the foregoing and collateral arrangements with respect thereto, clearing listed options in a margin account, and obligations of either Portfolio to Trustees pursuant to any deferred compensation arrangements are not deemed to be a pledge of assets or the issuance of a senior security.
■	Underwrite securities issued by other persons, except to the extent that a Portfolio may be deemed to be an underwriter (within the meaning of the 1933 Act) in connection with the purchase and sale of portfolio securities.
■	Purchase or sell real estate unless acquired as a result of the ownership of securities or other instruments; provided that this restriction shall not prohibit either Portfolio from investing in securities or other instruments backed by real estate or in securities of companies engaged in the real estate business.
■	Purchase or sell physical commodities unless acquired as a result of the ownership of securities or instruments; provided that this restriction shall not prohibit either Portfolio from (i) engaging in permissible options and futures transactions and forward foreign currency contracts in accordance with its investment policies, or (ii) investing in securities of any kind.

■	Make loans, except that each Portfolio may (i) lend portfolio securities in accordance with its investment policies in amounts up to 331/3 % of its total assets taken at market value, (ii) purchase money market securities and enter into repurchase agreements, (iii) acquire publicly distributed or privately placed debt securities, and (iv) make loans of money to other investment companies to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act or any exemption there from that may be granted by the SEC or any SEC releases, no-action letters or similar relief or interpretive guidance.
■	Purchase any security if, as a result, more than 25% of the value of a Portfolio’s assets would be invested in the securities of issuers having their principal business activities in the same industry; provided that this restriction does not apply to investments in obligations issued or guaranteed by the US Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities or to municipal securities (or repurchase agreements with respect thereto); except that the AST Jennison Global Infrastructure Portfolio will invest more than 25% of its total assets in infrastructure companies. For purposes of this limitation, investments in other investment companies shall not be considered an investment in any particular industry.
■	Other than the AST Columbia Adaptive Risk Allocation Portfolio, the AST Goldman Sachs Global Income Portfolio and the AST Morgan Stanley Multi-Asset Portfolio, which are each non-diversified portfolios, each Portfolio with respect to 75% of the value of its total assets, purchase the securities of any issuer (other than securities issued or guaranteed by the US Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities) if, as a result, (i) more than 5% of the value of a Portfolio’s total assets would be invested in the securities of such issuer, or (ii) more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of such issuer would be held by that Portfolio.

If a restriction on a Portfolio’s investments is adhered to at the time an investment is made, a subsequent change in the percentage of the Portfolio’s assets invested in certain securities or other instruments, or change in average duration of its investment portfolio, resulting from changes in the value of its total assets, will not be considered a violation of the restriction; provided, however, that the asset coverage requirement applicable to borrowings shall be maintained in the manner contemplated by applicable law.

With respect to investment restriction (5), the restriction on making loans is not considered to limit a Portfolio’s investments in loan participations and assignments.

With respect to investment restriction (6), a Portfolio will not consider a bank-issued guaranty or financial guaranty insurance as a separate security for purposes of determining the percentage of the Portfolio’s assets invested in the securities of issuers in a particular industry.

INFORMATION ABOUT TRUSTEES AND OFFICERS

Independent Trustees⁽¹⁾
Name, Address, Age No. of Portfolios Overseen	Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years	Other Directorships Held
Susan Davenport Austin (49) No. of Portfolios Overseen: 107	Senior Managing Director of Brock Capital (Since 2014); Vice Chairman (Since 2013), Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (2007-2012) and Vice President of Strategic Planning and Treasurer (2002-2007) of Sheridan Broadcasting Corporation; formerly President of Sheridan Gospel Network (2004-2014); formerly Vice President, Goldman, Sachs & Co. (2000-2001); formerly Associate Director, Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. (1997-2000); formerly Vice President, Salomon Brothers Inc. (1993-1997); Member of the Board of Directors, The MacDowell Colony (Since 2010); Presiding Director (Since 2014) and Chairman (2011-2014) of the Board of Directors, Broadcast Music, Inc.; Member of the Board of Directors, Hubbard Radio, LLC (Since 2011); President, Candide Business Advisors, Inc. (Since 2011); formerly Member of the Board of Directors, National Association of Broadcasters (2004-2010).	Director of NextEra Energy Partners, LP (NYSE: NEP) (February 2015-Present).
Sherry S. Barrat (67) No. of Portfolios Overseen: 107	Formerly, Vice Chairman of Northern Trust Corporation (financial services and banking institution) (2011–June 2012); formerly President, Personal Financial Services, Northern Trust Corporation (2006-2010); formerly Chairman & CEO, Western US Region, Northern Trust Corporation (1999-2005); formerly President & CEO, Palm Beach/Martin County Region, Northern Trust.	Director of NextEra Energy, Inc. (NYSE: NEE) (1998-Present); Director of Arthur J. Gallagher & Company (Since July 2013).

Independent Trustees⁽¹⁾
Name, Address, Age No. of Portfolios Overseen	Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years	Other Directorships Held
Jessica M. Bibliowicz (57) No. of Portfolios Overseen: 107	Senior Adviser (Since 2013) of Bridge Growth Partners (private equity firm); formerly Director (2013-2016) of Realogy Holdings Corp.(residential real estate services); formerly Chief Executive Officer (1999-2013) of National Financial Partners (independent distributor of financial services products).	Director (since 2006) of The Asia-Pacific Fund, Inc.; Sotheby’s (since 2014) (auction house and art-related finance).
Kay Ryan Booth (66) No. of Portfolios Overseen: 107	Partner, Trinity Private Equity Group (Since September 2014); formerly, Managing Director of Cappello Waterfield & Co. LLC (2011-2014); formerly Vice Chair, Global Research, J.P. Morgan (financial services and investment banking institution) (June 2008 – January 2009); formerly Global Director of Equity Research, Bear Stearns & Co., Inc. (financial services and investment banking institution) (1995-2008); formerly Associate Director of Equity Research, Bear Stearns & Co., Inc. (1987-1995).	None.
Delayne Dedrick Gold (79) No. of Portfolios Overseen: 107	Marketing Consultant (1982-present); formerly Senior Vice President and Member of the Board of Directors, Prudential Bache Securities, Inc.	None.
Robert F. Gunia (70) No. of Portfolios Overseen: 107	Independent Consultant (Since October 2009); formerly Director of ICI Mutual Insurance Company (June 2016-present); formerly Chief Administrative Officer (September 1999-September 2009) and Executive Vice President (December 1996-September 2009) of PGIM Investments LLC; formerly Executive Vice President (March 1999-September 2009) and Treasurer (May 2000-September 2009) of Prudential Mutual Fund Services LLC; formerly President (April 1999-December 2008) and Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer (December 2008-December 2009) of Prudential Investment Management Services LLC; formerly Chief Administrative Officer, Executive Vice President and Director (May 2003-September 2009) of AST Investment Services, Inc.	Director (Since May 1989) of The Asia Pacific Fund, Inc.
Thomas T. Mooney (75) No. of Portfolios Overseen: 107	Formerly Chief Executive Officer, Excell Partners, Inc. (2005-2007);founding partner of High Technology of Rochester and the Lennox Technology Center; formerly President of the Greater Rochester Metro Chamber of Commerce (1976-2004); formerly Rochester City Manager (1973); formerly Deputy Monroe County Executive (1974-1976).	None.
Thomas M. O'Brien (66) No. of Portfolios Overseen: 107	Director, President and CEO Sun Bancorp, Inc. N.A. (NASDAQ: SNBC) and Sun National Bank (Since July 2014); formerly Consultant, Valley National Bancorp, Inc. and Valley National Bank (January 2012-June 2012); formerly President and COO (November 2006-April 2017) and CEO (April 2007-December 2011) of State Bancorp, Inc. and State Bank; formerly Vice Chairman (January 1997-April 2000) of North Fork Bank; formerly President and Chief Executive Officer (December 1984-December 1996) of North Side Savings Bank; formerly President and Chief Executive Officer (May 2000-June 2006) Atlantic Bank of New York.	Formerly Director, BankUnited, Inc. and BankUnited N.A. (NYSE: BKU) (May 2012-April 2014); formerly Director (April 2008-January 2012) of Federal Home Loan Bank of New York; formerly Director (December 1996-May 2000) of North Fork Bancorporation, Inc.; formerly Director (May 2000-April 2006) of Atlantic Bank of New York; Director (November 2006 – January 2012) of State Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: STBC) and State Bank of Long Island.

Interested Trustee⁽¹⁾
Timothy S. Cronin (51) Number of Portfolios Overseen: 107	President of Prudential Annuities (Since June 2015); Chief Investment Officer and Strategist of Prudential Annuities (Since January 2004); Director of Investment & Research Strategy (Since February 1998); President of AST Investment Services, Inc. (Since June 2005).	None.

Trust Officers^(a)(1)
Name, Address and Age Position with the Trust	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past Five Years
Raymond A. O’Hara (61) Chief Legal Officer	Vice President and Corporate Counsel (since July 2010) of Prudential Insurance Company of America (Prudential); Vice President (March 2011-Present) of Pruco Life Insurance Company and Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey; Vice President and Corporate Counsel (March 2011-Present) of Prudential Annuities Life Assurance Corporation; Chief Legal Officer of PGIM Investments LLC (since June 2012); Chief Legal Officer of Prudential Mutual Fund Services LLC (since June 2012) and Corporate Counsel of AST Investment Services, Inc. (since June 2012); formerly Assistant Vice President and Corporate Counsel (September 2008-July 2010) of The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.; formerly Associate (September 1980-December 1987) and Partner (January 1988–August 2008) of Blazzard & Hasenauer, P.C. (formerly, Blazzard, Grodd & Hasenauer, P.C.).
Deborah A. Docs (59) Secretary	Vice President and Corporate Counsel (since January 2001) of Prudential; Vice President (since December 1996) and Assistant Secretary (since March 1999) of PGIM Investments LLC; formerly Vice President and Assistant Secretary (May 2003-June 2005) of AST Investment Services, Inc.
Jonathan D. Shain (58) Assistant Secretary	Vice President and Corporate Counsel (since August 1998) of Prudential; Vice President and Assistant Secretary (since May 2001) of PGIM Investments LLC; Vice President and Assistant Secretary (since February 2001) of Prudential Mutual Fund Services LLC; formerly Vice President and Assistant Secretary (May 2003-June 2005) of AST Investment Services, Inc.
Claudia DiGiacomo (42) Assistant Secretary	Vice President and Corporate Counsel (since January 2005) of Prudential; Vice President and Assistant Secretary of PGIM Investments LLC (since December 2005); Associate at Sidley Austin Brown Wood LLP (1999-2004).
Andrew R. French (54) Assistant Secretary	Vice President and Corporate Counsel (since February 2010) of Prudential; formerly Director and Corporate Counsel (2006-2010) of Prudential; Vice President and Assistant Secretary (since January 2007) of PGIM Investments LLC; Vice President and Assistant Secretary (since January 2007) of Prudential Mutual Fund Services LLC.
Kathleen DeNicholas (42) Assistant Secretary	Vice President and Corporate Counsel (since May 2013) of Prudential; Managing Counsel at The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (2011-2013); formerly Senior Counsel (2007-2011) and Assistant General Counsel (2001-2007) of The Dreyfus Corporation; Chief Legal Officer and Secretary of MBSC Securities Corporation (2011-2013); Vice President and Assistant Secretary of The Dreyfus Family of Funds (2010-2012).
Chad A. Earnst (42) Chief Compliance Officer	Chief Compliance Officer (September 2014-Present) of PGIM Investments LLC; Chief Compliance Officer (September 2014-Present) of the PGIM Investments Funds, Target Funds, Advanced Series Trust, The Prudential Series Fund, Prudential's Gibraltar Fund, Inc., Prudential Global Short Duration High Yield Income Fund, Inc., Prudential Short Duration High Yield Fund, Inc. and Prudential Jennison MLP Income Fund, Inc.; formerly Assistant Director (March 2010-August 2014) of the Asset Management Unit, Division of Enforcement, US Securities & Exchange Commission; Assistant Regional Director (January 2010-August 2014), Branch Chief (June 2006–December 2009) and Senior Counsel (April 2003-May 2006) of the Miami Regional Office, Division of Enforcement, US Securities & Exchange Commission.
Theresa C. Thompson (54) Deputy Chief Compliance Officer	Vice President, Compliance, PGIM Investments LLC (since April 2004); and Director, Compliance, PGIM Investments LLC (2001-2004).
Charles H. Smith (44) Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Officer	Vice President, Corporate Compliance, Anti-Money Laundering Unit (since January 2015) of Prudential; committee member of the American Council of Life Insurers Anti-Money Laundering and Critical Infrastructure Committee (since January 2016); formerly Global Head of Economic Sanctions Compliance at AIG Property Casualty (February 2007 – December 2014); Assistant Attorney General at the New York State Attorney General's Office, Division of Public Advocacy. (August 1998 —January 2007).
M. Sadiq Peshimam (53) Treasurer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer	Vice President (since 2005) of PGIM Investments LLC; formerly Assistant Treasurer of funds in the Prudential Mutual Fund Complex (2006-2014).
Peter Parrella (58) Assistant Treasurer	Vice President (since 2007) and Director (2004-2007) within Prudential Mutual Fund Administration; formerly Tax Manager at SSB Citi Fund Management LLC (1997-2004).
Lana Lomuti (50) Assistant Treasurer	Vice President (since 2007) and Director (2005-2007), within Prudential Mutual Fund Administration; formerly Assistant Treasurer (December 2007-February 2014) of The Greater China Fund, Inc.
Linda McMullin (55) Assistant Treasurer	Vice President (since 2011) and Director (2008-2011) within Prudential Mutual Fund Administration.

^(a) Excludes Mr. Cronin, an interested Trustee who also serves as President.

Explanatory Notes to Tables:

Unless otherwise noted, the address of all Trustees and Officers is c/o PGIM Investments LLC, 655 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102.

Name	Aggregate Fiscal Year Compensation from Trust ⁽¹⁾	Pension or Retirement Benefits Accrued as Part of Trust Expenses	Estimated Annual Benefits Upon Retirement	Total Compensation from Trust and Fund Complex for Most Recent Calendar Year
Susan Davenport Austin	$285,680	None	None	$332,250 (3/112)*
Sherry S. Barrat	$285,680	None	None	$332,250 (3/112)*
Jessica M. Bibliowicz	$285,680	None	None	$332,250 (3/112)*
Kay Ryan Booth	$285,680	None	None	$332,250 (3/112)*
Delayne Dedrick Gold	$307,490	None	None	$357,250 (3/112)*
Robert F. Gunia**	$307,490	None	None	$357,250 (3/112)*
Thomas T. Mooney**	$359,850	None	None	$417,250 (3/112)*
Thomas M. O'Brien**	$307,490	None	None	$357,250 (3/112)*

Explanatory Notes to Compensation Table

⁽¹⁾ Compensation relates to portfolios that were in existence during 2016.

The membership of the Audit Committee is set forth below:
Thomas M. O’Brien (Chair)
Susan Davenport Austin
Delayne Dedrick Gold
Robert F. Gunia
Thomas T. Mooney (ex-officio)

The membership of the Compliance Committee is set forth below:
Robert F. Gunia (Chair)
Jessica M. Bibliowicz
Kay Ryan Booth
Sherry S. Barrat
Thomas M. O’Brien
Thomas T. Mooney (ex-officio)

The membership of the Governance Committee is set forth below:
Delayne Dedrick Gold (Chair)
Susan Davenport Austin
Sherry S. Barrat
Jessica M. Bibliowicz
Kay Ryan Booth
Thomas T. Mooney (ex-officio)

Ms. Gold and Messrs. Mooney and O'Brien have each served for more than 10 years as a Trustee of mutual funds advised by the Investment Manager or its predecessors, including some or all of the following funds: Advanced Series Trust, The Prudential Series Fund, Prudential's Gibraltar Fund, Inc, and/or other mutual funds advised by the Investment Manager or its predecessors. Ms. Gold has more than 35 years of experience in the financial services industry. Mr. Mooney has more than 30 years of experience in senior leadership positions with municipal organizations and other companies and has experience serving on the boards of other entities. Mr. O'Brien has more than 25 years of experience in senior leadership positions in the banking industry, and has experience serving on the boards of other entities. Mr. Gunia has served for more than 10 years as a Board Member of mutual funds advised by the Investment Manager or its predecessors. In addition, Mr. Gunia served in senior leadership positions for more than 28 years with the Investment Manager and its affiliates and predecessors. Ms. Austin currently serves as Vice Chairman of Sheridan Broadcasting Corporation and Senior Managing Director of Brock Capital. In addition to her experience in senior leadership positions with private companies, Ms. Austin has more than 10 years of experience in the investment banking industry, and has experience serving on boards of other public companies and non-profit entities. Ms. Barrat has more than 35 years of experience in senior leadership positions in the financial services and banking industries. In addition, Ms. Barrat has over 10 years experience serving on boards of other public companies and non-profit entities. Ms. Bibliowicz has more than 25 years of experience in senior leadership positions in the financial services and investment management industries. In addition, Ms. Bibliowicz also has experience in serving on the boards of other public companies, investment companies, and non-profit organizations. Ms. Booth has more than 35 years of experience in senior leadership positions in the investment management and investment banking industries. Ms. Booth is currently a Partner of Trinity Private Equity Group. In addition to her experience in senior leadership positions with private companies, Ms. Booth has experience serving on the boards of other entities. Mr. Cronin, an Interested Trustee of the Trust and other funds advised by the Investment Manager since 2009, served as Vice President of the Trust and other funds advised by the Investment Manager from 2009-2015, as President of the Trust and other funds advised by the Investment Manager since 2015, and has held senior positions with Prudential Financial (and American Skandia, which was purchased by Prudential Financial) since 1998.

Specific details about each Trustee's professional experience is set forth in the professional biography tables, above.

will also consider shareholder recommendations. The Governance Committee has not established specific, minimum qualifications that it believes must be met by a nominee. In evaluating nominees, the Governance Committee considers, among other things, an individual's background, skills, and experience; whether the individual is an “interested person” as defined in the 1940 Act; and whether the individual would be deemed an “audit committee financial expert” within the meaning of applicable SEC rules. The Governance Committee also considers whether the individual's background, skills, and experience will complement the background, skills, and experience of other nominees and will contribute to the diversity of the Board. There are no differences in the manner in which the Governance Committee evaluates nominees for the Board based on whether the nominee is recommended by a shareholder.

Shareholders should note that a person who owns securities issued by Prudential Financial, Inc. (the parent company of the Trust's Manager) would be deemed an “interested person” under the 1940 Act. In addition, certain other relationships with Prudential Financial, Inc. or its subsidiaries, with registered broker-dealers, or with the Trust's outside legal counsel may cause a person to be deemed an “interested person.” Before the Governance Committee decides to nominate an individual to the Board, Committee members and other Board members customarily interview the individual in person. In addition, the individual customarily is asked to complete a detailed questionnaire which is designed to elicit information which must be disclosed under SEC and stock exchange rules and to determine whether the individual is subject to any statutory disqualification from serving on the board of a registered investment company.

Board Committee Meetings (for most recently completed fiscal year)
Audit Committee	Governance Committee	Compliance Committee	Investment Review and Risk Committee
4	5	4	4

Name	Dollar Range of Equity Securities in the Trust	Aggregate Dollar Range of Equity Securities Owned by Trustee in All Registered Investment Companies in Fund Complex*
Trustee Share Ownership
Susan Davenport Austin	None	over $100,000
Sherry S. Barrat	None	over $100,000
Jessica M. Bibiliowicz	None	over $100,000
Kay Ryan Booth	None	over $100,000
Timothy S. Cronin	None	over $100,000
Delayne Dedrick Gold	None	over $100,000
Robert F. Gunia	None	over $100,000
Thomas T. Mooney	None	over $100,000
Thomas M. O'Brien	None	over $100,000

MANAGEMENT AND ADVISORY ARRANGEMENTS

TRUST MANAGEMENT. PGIM Investments, 655 Broad Street, 17th Floor, Newark, New Jersey 07102-4077, and ASTIS, One Corporate Drive, Shelton, Connecticut, serve as the investment managers of the Portfolios; PGIM Investments and ASTIS serve as co-investment managers for the AST Jennison Global Infrastructure Portfolio, the AST Managed Equity Portfolio and the AST Managed Fixed Income Portfolio. PGIM Investments serves as the sole investment manager for all other Portfolios covered by this SAI.

The Investment Managers are specifically responsible for overseeing and managing the Portfolios and the subadvisers. In this capacity, the Investment Managers review the performance of the Portfolios and the subadvisers and make recommendations to the Board with respect to the retention of investment subadvisers, the renewal of contracts, and the reorganization and merger of Portfolios, and other legal and compliance matters. The Investment Manager takes on the entrepreneurial and other risks associated with the launch of each new Portfolio and its ongoing operations. The Investment Managers utilize the Strategic Investment Research Group (SIRG), a unit of PGIM Investments, to assist the Investment Managers in regularly evaluating and supervising the Portfolios and the subadvisers, including with respect to investment performance. SIRG is a centralized research department of PGIM Investments that is comprised of a group of highly experienced analysts. SIRG utilizes proprietary processes to analyze large quantities of industry data, both on a qualitative and quantitative level, in order to effectively oversee the Portfolios and the subadvisers. The Investment Managers utilize this data in directly overseeing the Portfolios and the subadvisers. SIRG provides reports to the Board and presents to the Board at special and regularly scheduled Board meetings. The Investment Managers bear the cost of the oversight program maintained by SIRG.

The primary administrative services furnished by the Investment Managers are more specifically detailed below:

■	furnishing of office facilities;
■	paying salaries of all officers and other employees of the Investment Managers who are responsible for managing the Trust and the Portfolios;
■	monitoring financial and shareholder accounting services provided by the Trust’s custodian and transfer agent;
■	providing assistance to the service providers of the Trust and the Portfolios, including, but not limited to, the custodian, transfer agent, and accounting agent;
■	monitoring, together with each subadviser, each Portfolio’s compliance with its investment policies, restrictions, and with federal and state laws and regulations, including federal and state securities laws, the Internal Revenue Code and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations;
■	preparing and filing all required federal, state and local tax returns for the Trust and the Portfolios;
■	preparing and filing with the SEC on Form N-CSR the Trust’s annual and semi-annual reports to shareholders, including supervising financial printers who provide related support services;
■	preparing and filing with the SEC required quarterly reports of portfolio holdings on Form N-Q;
■	preparing and filing the Trust’s registration statement with the SEC on Form N-1A, as well as preparing and filing with the SEC supplements and other documents, as applicable;
■	preparing compliance, operations and other reports required to be received by the Trust’s Board and/or its committees in support of the Board’s oversight of the Trust; and
■	organizing the regular and any special meetings of the Board of the Trust, including the preparing Board materials and agendas, preparing minutes, and related functions.

Expenses Borne by the Investment Managers. In connection with their management of the corporate affairs of the Trust, the Investment Managers bear certain expenses, including, but not limited to:

■	the salaries and expenses of all of their and the Trust's personnel except the fees and expenses of Trustees who are not affiliated persons of the Investment Managers or any subadviser;
■	all expenses incurred by the Investment Managers or the Trust in connection with managing the ordinary course of a Trust's business, other than those assumed by the Trust as described below;
■	the fees, costs and expenses payable to any investment subadvisers pursuant to Subadvisory Agreements between the Investment Managers and such investment subadvisers; and
■	with respect to the compliance services provided by the Investment Managers, the cost of the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer, the Trust’s Deputy Chief Compliance Officer, and all personnel who provide compliance services for the Trust, and all of the other costs associated with the Trust’s compliance program, which includes the management and operation of the compliance program responsible for compliance oversight of the Portfolios and the subadvisers.

Expenses Borne by the Trust. Under the terms of the Management Agreement, the Trust is responsible for the payment of Trust expenses not paid by the Investment Managers, including:

■	the fees and expenses incurred by the Trust in connection with the management of the investment and reinvestment of the Trust's assets payable to the Investment Managers;
■	the fees and expenses of Trustees who are not affiliated persons of the Investment Managers or any subadviser;
■	the fees and certain expenses of the custodian and transfer and dividend disbursing agent, including the cost of providing records to the Investment Managers in connection with their obligation of maintaining required records of the Trust and of pricing the Trust's shares;
■	the charges and expenses of the Trust's legal counsel and independent auditors;
■	brokerage commissions and any issue or transfer taxes chargeable to the Trust in connection with its securities (and futures, if applicable) transactions;
■	all taxes and corporate fees payable by the Trust to governmental agencies;
■	the fees of any trade associations of which the Trust may be a member;
■	the cost of share certificates representing and/or non-negotiable share deposit receipts evidencing shares of the Trust;
■	the cost of fidelity, directors and officers and errors and omissions insurance;

■	the fees and expenses involved in registering and maintaining registration of the Trust and of its shares with the SEC and paying notice filing fees under state securities laws, including the preparation and printing of the Trust's registration statements and prospectuses for such purposes;
■	allocable communications expenses with respect to investor services and all expenses of shareholders' and Trustees' meetings and of preparing, printing and mailing reports and notices to shareholders; and
■	litigation and indemnification expenses and other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of the Trust's business and distribution and service (12b-1) fees.

SEC Manager-of-Managers Order. The manager-of-managers structure operates under exemptive orders issued by the SEC. The orders permit the Investment Managers to hire subadvisers or amend subadvisory agreements, without shareholder approval.

The most recent order imposes the following conditions:

2. The prospectus for each Portfolio, and in the case of a master fund relying on the requested relief, the prospectus for each feeder fund investing in such master fund, will disclose the existence, substance and effect of any order granted pursuant to the application. Each Portfolio (and any such feeder fund) will hold itself out to the public as employing the Multi-Manager Structure described in the application. Each prospectus will prominently disclose that the Investment Managers have the ultimate responsibility, subject to oversight by the Board, to oversee the subadvisers and recommend their hiring, termination, and replacement.

3. The Investment Managers will provide general management services to a Portfolio, including overall supervisory responsibility for the general management and investment of the Portfolio’s assets. Subject to review and approval of the Board, the Investment Managers will (a) set a Portfolio’s overall investment strategies, (b) evaluate, select, and recommend subadvisers to manage all or a portion of a Portfolio’s assets, and (c) implement procedures reasonably designed to ensure that subadvisers comply with a Portfolio’s investment objective, policies and restrictions. Subject to review by the Board, the Investment Managers will (a) when appropriate, allocate and reallocate a Portfolio’s assets among subadvisers; and (b) monitor and evaluate the performance of subadvisers.

8. The Investment Managers will provide the Board, no less frequently than quarterly, with information about the profitability of the Investment Managers on a per Portfolio basis. The information will reflect the impact on profitability of the hiring of termination of any subadviser during the applicable quarter.

9. Whenever a subadviser is hired or terminated, the Investment Managers will provide the Board with information showing the expected impact on the profitability of the Investment Managers.

10. Whenever a subadviser change is proposed for a Portfolio with an affiliated subadviser or a wholly-owned subadviser, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, will make a separate finding, reflected in the Board minutes, that such change is in the best interests of the Portfolio and its shareholders, and if the Portfolio is a master fund, the best interests of any applicable feeder funds and their respective shareholders, and does not involve a conflict of interest from which the Investment Managers or the affiliated subadviser or wholly-owned subadviser derives an inappropriate advantage.

11. No Board member or officer of a Prudential investment company, a Portfolio, or a feeder fund that invests in a Portfolio that is a master fund, or director, manager or officer of the Investment Managers, will own directly or indirectly (other than through a pooled investment vehicle that is not controlled by such person) any interest in a subadviser except for (a) ownership of interests in the Investment Managers or any entity, other than a Wholly-Owned subadviser, that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the Investment Managers, or (b) ownership of less than 1% of the outstanding securities of any class of equity or debt of any publicly traded company that is either a subadviser or an entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, a subadviser.

12. Each Portfolio and any feeder fund that invests in a Portfolio that is a master fund will disclose an aggregate fee disclosure in its registration statement.

To mitigate potential conflicts presented by these issues, the Investment Managers utilize the services of SIRG, a unit of PGIM Investments, which provides investment manager oversight, analysis and recommendations. SIRG provides its input to both the Investment Managers and the Board. SIRG representatives meet with the Board in connection with its quarterly meetings and any special meetings at which subadviser recommendations are made, and the Board makes the decision as to the retention of any subadviser. For recommendations involving a new subadviser or a replacement subadviser for a single asset class Portfolio or sleeve, SIRG conducts a search of qualified investment managers and provides a recommendation. SIRG reviews with the Board the search process, finalists and the reasons for the recommendation. SIRG’s investment analysis process is applied in the same manner to both affiliated and unaffiliated investment managers. The Board makes the final decision with respect to the retention of a new or

replacement subadviser. For some Portfolios, the Investment Managers make a recommendation for a subadviser based on the design of a Portfolio, such as a Portfolio designed in consultation with a specific subadviser. In those cases, SIRG reviews the proposed subadviser and reports to the Board regarding its assessment of the subadviser.

To the extent an investment manager’s affiliation or other business relationship with Prudential is a factor in any subadviser recommendation, the Investment Manager discusses the relevant factors with the Board, which makes the final decision on any new or replacement subadviser. SIRG personnel are not involved in subadvisory fee negotiations.

Management Fees. The tables below set forth the applicable contractual management fee rate for each Portfolio.

Management Fee Rates (effective July 1, 2015 and thereafter)
Portfolio	Contractual Fee Rate
AST AB Global Bond Portfolio	0.64% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.63% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.62% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.61% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.60% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.57% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.55% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST BlackRock Multi-Asset Income Portfolio	0.7825% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.7725% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.7625% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.7525% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7425% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7125% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6925% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Columbia Adaptive Risk Allocation Portfolio	0.94% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.93% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.92% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.91% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.90% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.87% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.85% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Emerging Managers Diversified Portfolio	0.74% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.73% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.72% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.71% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.70% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.67% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.65% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST FQ Absolute Return Currency Portfolio	0.8325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.8225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.8125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.8025% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7925% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7625% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Franklin Templeton K2 Global Absolute Return Portfolio	0.7825% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.7725% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.7625% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.7525% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7425% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7125% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6925% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Goldman Sachs Global Growth Allocation Portfolio	0.7825% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.7725% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.7625% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.7525% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7425% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7125% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6925% over $10 billion of average daily net assets

Management Fee Rates (effective July 1, 2015 and thereafter)
Portfolio	Contractual Fee Rate
AST Goldman Sachs Global Income Portfolio	0.64% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.63% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.62% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.61% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.60% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.57% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.55% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Goldman Sachs Strategic Income Portfolio	0.7125% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.7025% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.6925% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.6825% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6725% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6425% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6225% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Jennison Global Infrastructure Portfolio	0.8325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.8225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.8125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.8025% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7925% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7625% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.7425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Legg Mason Diversified Growth Portfolio	0.7325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.7225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.7125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.7025% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6925% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6625% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Managed Alternatives Portfolio	0.15% of average daily net assets
AST Managed Equity Portfolio	0.15% of average daily net assets
AST Managed Fixed Income Portfolio	0.15% of average daily net assets
AST Morgan Stanley Multi-Asset Portfolio	1.04% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 1.03% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 1.02% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 1.01% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 1.00% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.97% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.95% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Neuberger Berman Long/Short Portfolio	1.04% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 1.03% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 1.02% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 1.01% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 1.00% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.97% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.95% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Prudential Flexible Multi-Strategy Portfolio	0.9825% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.9725% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.9625% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.9525% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.9425% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.9125% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.8925% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST QMA International Core Equity Portfolio	0.7325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.7225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.7125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.7025% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6925% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6625% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets

Management Fee Rates (effective July 1, 2015 and thereafter)
Portfolio	Contractual Fee Rate
AST T. Rowe Price Diversified Real Growth Portfolio	0.7325% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.7225% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.7125% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.7025% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6925% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6625% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.6425% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Wellington Management Global Bond Portfolio	0.64% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.63% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.62% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.61% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.60% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.57% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.55% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Wellington Management Real Total Return Portfolio	1.04% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 1.03% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 1.02% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 1.01% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 1.00% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.97% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.95% over $10 billion of average daily net assets

Management Fee Rates (effective April 28, 2014 through June 30, 2015)
Portfolio	Contractual Fee Rate
AST BlackRock Multi-Asset Income Portfolio	0.94% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.93% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.92% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.91% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.90% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.87% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.85% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST FQ Absolute Return Currency Portfolio	0.99% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.98% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.97% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.96% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.95% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.92% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.90% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Franklin Templeton K2 Global Absolute Return Portfolio	0.94% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.93% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.92% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.91% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.90% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.87% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.85% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Goldman Sachs Global Growth Allocation Portfolio	0.94% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.93% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.92% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.91% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.90% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.87% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.85% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Goldman Sachs Strategic Income Portfolio	0.87% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.86% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.85% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.84% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.83% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.80% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.78% over $10 billion of average daily net assets

Management Fee Rates (effective April 28, 2014 through June 30, 2015)
Portfolio	Contractual Fee Rate
AST Jennison Global Infrastructure Portfolio	0.99% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.98% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.97% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.96% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.95% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.92% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.90% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Legg Mason Diversified Growth Portfolio	0.89% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.88% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.87% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.86% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.85% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.82% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.80% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST Managed Equity Portfolio	0.15% of average daily net assets
AST Managed Fixed Income Portfolio	0.15% of average daily net assets
AST Prudential Flexible Multi-Strategy Portfolio	1.14% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 1.13% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 1.12% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 1.11% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 1.10% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 1.07% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 1.05% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST QMA International Core Equity Portfolio	0.89% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.88% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.87% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.86% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.85% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.82% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.80% over $10 billion of average daily net assets
AST T. Rowe Price Diversified Real Growth Portfolio	0.89% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.88% on next $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.87% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.86% on next $2.5 billion of average daily net assets; 0.85% on next $2.75 billion of average daily net assets; 0.82% on next $4 billion of average daily net assets; 0.80% over $10 billion of average daily net assets

Management Fees Paid by the Portfolios
Portfolio	2016	2015	2014
AST AB Global Bond Portfolio	7,874,581	$2,379,059	None
AST BlackRock Multi-Asset Income Portfolio	72,635	7,846	-#
AST Columbia Adaptive Risk Allocation Portfolio	-#	-#	None
AST Emerging Managers Diversified Portfolio	-#	-#	None
AST FQ Absolute Return Currency Portfolio	-#	-#	-#
AST Franklin Templeton K2 Global Absolute Return Portfolio	4,249	-#	-#
AST Goldman Sachs Global Growth Allocation Portfolio	-#	-#	-#
AST Goldman Sachs Global Income Portfolio	4,838,555	1,635,286	None
AST Goldman Sachs Strategic Income Portfolio	2,662,524	5,414,649	$4,339,166
AST Jennison Global Infrastructure Portfolio	-#	-#	-#
AST Legg Mason Diversified Growth Portfolio	630,858	-#	-#
AST Managed Alternatives Portfolio	-#	-#	None
AST Managed Equity Portfolio	-#	-#	-#
AST Managed Fixed Income Portfolio	32,883	-#	-#
AST Morgan Stanley Multi-Asset Portfolio	-#	-#	None
AST Neuberger Berman Long/Short Portfolio	52,494	-#	None

Management Fees Paid by the Portfolios
Portfolio	2016	2015	2014
AST Prudential Flexible Multi-Strategy Portfolio	133,885	36,806	-#
AST QMA International Core Equity Portfolio	5,230,319	6,192,049	None
AST T. Rowe Price Diversified Real Growth Portfolio	-#	-#	-#
AST Wellington Management Global Bond Portfolio	8,979,111	2,014,330	None
AST Wellington Management Real Total Return Portfolio	-#	-#	None

#The management fee amount waived exceeds the management fee that would otherwise be payable due to an expense cap.

Fee Waivers & Expense Limitations
Portfolio	Fee Waiver and/or Expense Limitation
AST BlackRock Multi-Asset Income Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio’s investment management fee (after management fee waiver) and other expenses (including net distribution fees, acquired fund fees and expenses due to investments in underlying portfolios of the Trust and underlying portfolios managed or subadvised by the subadviser, and excluding taxes, interest, brokerage commissions, and any other acquired fund fees and expenses not mentioned above) do not exceed 1.13% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.
AST Columbia Adaptive Risk Allocation Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio’s investment management fee (after management fee waiver) and other expenses (including net distribution fees, acquired fund fees and expenses due to investments in underlying portfolios of the Trust and underlying portfolios managed or subadvised by the subadviser, and excluding taxes, interest, brokerage commissions, and any other acquired fund fees and expenses not mentioned above) do not exceed 1.28% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.
AST Emerging Managers Diversified Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio’s investment management fee plus other expenses (exclusive in all cases of taxes, interest, brokerage commissions, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) do not exceed 1.07% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.
AST FQ Absolute Return Currency Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio’s investment management fee (after any fee waiver) and other expenses (including distribution fees, and excluding acquired fund fees and expenses, taxes, interest and brokerage commissions) do not exceed 1.22% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.
AST Franklin Templeton K2 Global Absolute Return Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio’s investment management fee (after management fee waiver) and other expenses (including net distribution fees, acquired fund fees and expenses due to investments in underlying portfolios of the Trust and underlying portfolios managed or subadvised by the subadviser, and excluding taxes, interest, brokerage commissions, and any other acquired fund fees and expenses not mentioned above) do not exceed 1.17% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.

Fee Waivers & Expense Limitations
Portfolio	Fee Waiver and/or Expense Limitation
AST Goldman Sachs Global Growth Allocation Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio’s investment management fee (after management fee waiver) and other expenses (including net distribution fees, acquired fund fees and expenses due to investments in underlying portfolios of the Trust and underlying portfolios managed or subadvised by the subadviser, and excluding taxes, interest, brokerage commissions, and any other acquired fund fees and expenses not mentioned above) do not exceed 1.19% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.
AST Goldman Sachs Global Income Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive 0.029% of its investment management fee through June 30, 2017. This waiver may not be terminated prior to June 30, 2017 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees.
AST Jennison Global Infrastructure Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio’s investment management fee (after any fee waiver) and other expenses (including distribution fees, and excluding acquired fund fees and expenses, taxes, interest and brokerage commissions) do not exceed 1.26% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.
AST Legg Mason Diversified Growth Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio’s investment management fee (after management fee waiver) and other expenses (including net distribution fees, acquired fund fees and expenses due to investments in underlying portfolios of the Trust and underlying portfolios managed or subadvised by the subadviser, and excluding taxes, interest, brokerage commissions, and any other acquired fund fees and expenses not mentioned above) do not exceed 1.07% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.
AST Managed Alternatives Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses for the Portfolio so that the Portfolio’s investment management fee plus other expenses (exclusive in all cases of taxes, interest, brokerage commissions and extraordinary expenses) plus acquired fund fees and expenses (excluding dividends on securities sold short and brokers fees and expenses on short sales) do not exceed 1.47% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year. In addition, the Manager has voluntarily agreed to waive a portion of the Portfolio’s investment management fee based on the aggregate assets of each Portfolio of the Trust managed as a fund-of-funds.*
AST Managed Equity Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio’s investment management fee (after any fee waiver) and other expenses (including acquired fund fees and expenses due to investments in underlying portfolios of the Trust, and excluding taxes, interest and brokerage commissions) do not exceed 1.25% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year. In addition, the Manager has voluntarily agreed to waive a portion of the Portfolio’s investment management fee based on the aggregate assets of each Portfolio of the Trust managed as a fund-of-funds.*
AST Managed Fixed Income Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio’s investment management fee (after any fee waiver) and other expenses (including acquired fund fees and expenses due to investments in underlying portfolios of the Trust, and excluding taxes, interest and brokerage commissions) do not exceed 1.25% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year. In addition, the Manager has voluntarily agreed to waive a portion of the Portfolio’s investment management fee based on the aggregate assets of each Portfolio of the Trust managed as a fund-of-funds.*
AST Morgan Stanley Multi-Asset Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio’s investment management fee plus other expenses (exclusive in all cases of taxes, interest, brokerage commissions, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) do not exceed 1.42% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.

Fee Waivers & Expense Limitations
Portfolio	Fee Waiver and/or Expense Limitation
AST Neuberger Berman Long/Short Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio’s investment management fee plus other expenses (exclusive in all cases of taxes, interest, short sale interest and dividend expenses, brokerage commissions, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) do not exceed 1.42% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.
AST Prudential Flexible Multi-Strategy Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio’s investment management fee (after management fee waiver) and other expenses (including net distribution fees, acquired fund fees and expenses due to investments in underlying portfolios of the Trust, and excluding taxes, interest and brokerage commissions) do not exceed 1.48% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.
AST QMA International Core Equity Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio’s investment management fee (after any waiver) and other expenses (including distribution fees, and excluding taxes, interest, brokerage commissions, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) do not exceed 0.995% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. This arrangement may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.
AST T. Rowe Price Diversified Real Growth Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive 0.002% of its investment management fee through June 30, 2018. In addition, the Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio’s investment management fee (after management fee waiver) and other expenses (including net distribution fees, acquired fund fees and expenses due to investments in underlying portfolios of the Trust and underlying portfolios managed or subadvised by the subadviser, and excluding taxes, interest, brokerage commissions, and any other acquired fund fees and expenses not mentioned above) do not exceed 1.05% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. These arrangements may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.
AST Wellington Management Real Total Return Portfolio	The Manager has contractually agreed to waive 0.133% of its investment management fee through June 30, 2018. In addition, the Manager has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its investment management fee and/or reimburse certain expenses of the Portfolio so that the Portfolio’s investment management fee plus other expenses (exclusive in all cases of taxes, interest, brokerage commissions, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) do not exceed 1.42% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets through June 30, 2018. These arrangements may not be terminated or modified prior to June 30, 2018 without the prior approval of the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Expenses waived/reimbursed by the Manager may be recouped by the Manager within the same fiscal year during which such waiver/reimbursement is made if such recoupment can be realized without exceeding the expense limit in effect at the time of the recoupment for that fiscal year.

* Fund of Funds Discount: The Manager has agreed to a voluntary fee waiver arrangement that will apply across each of the following portfolios: AST Academic Strategies Asset Allocation Portfolio (Fund of Fund sleeve), AST Balanced Asset Allocation Portfolio, AST Capital Growth Asset Allocation Portfolio, AST Defensive Asset Allocation Portfolio, AST Managed Alternatives Portfolio, AST Managed Equity Portfolio, AST Managed Fixed Income Portfolio, AST Preservation Asset Allocation Portfolio, and AST Quantitative Modeling Portfolio (collectively, the Fund of Funds Portfolios). This voluntary fee waiver arrangement may be terminated by the Manager at any time. As described below, this voluntary fee waiver will be applied to the effective management fee rates and will be based upon the combined average daily net assets of the Fund of Fund sPortfolios.

—	Combined assets up to $10 billion: No fee reduction.
—	Combined assets between $10 billion and $25 billion: 1% reduction to effective fee rate.
—	Combined assets between $25 billion and $45 billion: 2.5% reduction to effective fee rate.
—	Combined assets between $45 billion and $65 billion: 5.0% reduction to effective fee rate.
—	Combined assets between $65 billion and $85 billion: 7.5% reduction to effective fee rate.
—	Combined assets between $85 billion and $105 billion: 10.0% reduction to effective fee rate.
—	Combined assets between $105 million and $125 billion: 12.5% reduction to effective fee rate.
—	Combined assets above $125 billion: 15.0% reduction to effective fee rate.

subadvisers determine what securities and other instruments are purchased and sold for each Portfolio and are responsible for obtaining and evaluating financial data relevant to the Portfolio. The Investment Managers continue to have responsibility for all investment advisory services pursuant to the Management Agreement and supervise the subadvisers' performance of such services.

Portfolio Subadvisers and Fee Rates
Portfolio	Subadviser(s)	Fee Rate*
AST AB Global Bond Portfolio	AllianceBernstein L.P. (AllianceBernstein)	0.20% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.19% over $500 million of average daily net assets
AST BlackRock Multi-Asset Income Portfolio	BlackRock Financial Management, Inc. (BlackRock Financial)	0.425% of average daily net assets to $100 million; 0.400% on next $400 million of average daily net assets; 0.375% on next $500 million of average daily net assets; 0.350% over $1 billion of average daily net assets
AST Columbia Adaptive Risk Allocation Portfolio	Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC (Columbia)	0.45% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.40% on next $500 million of average daily net assets; 0.375% on next $1 billion of average daily net assets; 0.35% on next $1 billion of average daily net assets; 0.30% over $3 billion of average daily net assets
AST Emerging Managers Diversified Portfolio	Dana Investment Advisors, Inc. (Dana)	0.30% of average daily net assets to $40 million; 0.25% on the next $40 million of average daily net assets; 0.20% over $80 million of average daily net assets
	Longfellow Investment Management Co. (Longfellow)	0.20% of average daily net assets to $100 million; 0.18% on the next $100 million of average daily net assets; 0.16% over $200 million of average daily net assets
AST FQ Absolute Return Currency Portfolio	First Quadrant, L.P. (First Quadrant)	0.625% on first $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.563% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.50% over $500 million of average daily net assets
AST Franklin Templeton K2 Global Absolute Return Portfolio	Franklin Advisers, Inc. (Franklin Advisers); K2/D&S Management Co., L.L.C. (K2); Templeton Global Advisors, LLC (Templeton Global)	0.35% of average daily net assets to $250 million; 0.34% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.33% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.32% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.30% over $1 billion of average daily net assets
AST Goldman Sachs Global Growth Allocation Portfolio	Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P. (GSAM)	0.420% of average daily net assets to $150 million; 0.400% on next $650 million of average daily net assets; 0.375% on next $700 million of average daily net assets; 0.350% on next $1 billion of average daily net assets; 0.325% on next $1 billion of average daily net assets; 0.300% over $3.5 billion of average daily net assets
AST Goldman Sachs Global Income Portfolio	Goldman Sachs Asset Management International (Goldman Sachs International)	0.20% of average daily net assets

Portfolio Subadvisers and Fee Rates
Portfolio	Subadviser(s)	Fee Rate*
AST Goldman Sachs Strategic Income Portfolio	GSAM	0.40% on the first $200 million of average daily net assets; 0.375% over $200 million of average daily net assets
AST Jennison Global Infrastructure Portfolio	Jennison Associates LLC (Jennison)	0.55% on the first $300 million of average daily net assets; 0.50% over $300 million of average daily net assets
AST Legg Mason Diversified Growth Portfolio	QS Investors, LLC (QS Investors); Brandywine Global Investment Management, LLC (Brandywine); ClearBridge Investments, LLC (ClearBridge); Western Asset Management Company/Western Asset Management Company Limited (Western Asset)	0.350% of average daily net assets to $250 million; 0.325% of average daily net assets over $250 million to $500 million; 0.300% of average daily net assets over $500 million to $750 million; 0.275% of average daily net assets over $750 million to $1 billion; 0.250% of average daily net assets over $1 billion to $2 billion; 0.225% of average daily net assets over $2 billion
AST Managed Equity Portfolio	Quantitative Management Associates LLC (QMA)	0.15% of average daily net assets invested in the overlay sleeve; 0.04% of average daily net assets excluding assets invested in the overlay sleeve
AST Managed Fixed Income Portfolio	QMA	0.15% of average daily net assets invested in the overlay sleeve; 0.04% of average daily net assets excluding assets invested in the overlay sleeve
AST Morgan Stanley Multi-Asset Portfolio	Morgan Stanley Investment Management, Inc. (Morgan Stanley)	0.65% of average daily net assets to $50 million; 0.625% on next $150 million of average daily net assets; 0.56% on next $300 million of average daily net assets; 0.50% on next $250 million of average daily net assets; 0.475% over $750 million of average daily net assets
AST Neuberger Berman Long/Short Portfolio	Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers LLC (Neuberger Berman)	0.70% of average daily net assets to $100 million; 0.60% over $100 million of average daily net assets
AST Prudential Flexible Multi-Strategy Portfolio	PGIM Fixed Income	0.20% of average daily net assets to $25 million; 0.15% on next $25 million of average daily net assets; 0.10% on next $50 million of average daily net assets; 0.05% over $100 million of average daily net assets (applies to TIPS assets only)
	PGIM Fixed Income *	0.30% of average daily net assets to $100 million; 0.27% on next $100 million of average daily net assets; 0.22% on next $100 million of average daily net assets; 0.20% over $300 million of average daily net assets (applies to Global Aggregate Plus assets only)
		0.45 % of average daily net assets (applies to Global Absolute Return assets only)
	QMA	0.45% of average daily net assets to $250 million; 0.40% over $250 million of average daily net assets (applies to 130/30 assets only)
		0.30% of average daily net assets to $50 million; 0.25% over $50 million of average daily net assets (applies to Market Participation Strategy assets only)
		0.35% of average daily net assets (applies to EAFE All Cap assets only)
		1.00% of average daily net assets (applies to Market Neutral sleeve assets only)
		0.15% of average daily net assets (applies to Overall Asset Allocation and Overlay Strategies assets only)
	Jennison	0.55% of average daily net assets to $100 million; 0.50% over $100 million of average daily net assets (applies to Natural Resources assets only)
		0.60% of average daily net assets to $300 million; 0.50% over $300 million of average daily net assets (applies to MLP assets only)

Portfolio Subadvisers and Fee Rates
Portfolio	Subadviser(s)	Fee Rate*
AST QMA International Core Equity Portfolio	QMA	0.30% of average daily net assets
AST T. Rowe Price Diversified Real Growth Portfolio	T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (including affiliates, T. Rowe Price); T. Rowe Price International Ltd; T. Rowe Price International Ltd – Tokyo, a division of T. Rowe Price International Ltd; T. Rowe Price Hong Kong Limited	0.40% of average daily net assets to $500 million; 0.375% on next $500 million of average daily net assets; 0.35% on next $2 billion of average daily net assets; 0.30% over $3 billion of average daily net assets
AST Wellington Management Global Bond Portfolio	Wellington Management Company LLP (Wellington)	0.23% of average daily net assets
AST Wellington Management Real Total Return Portfolio	Wellington	0.45% of average daily net assets

* PGIM Limited, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of PGIM, serves as a sub-subadviser to the Portfolio pursuant to a sub-subadvisory agreement with PGIM. PGIM Limited provides investment advisory services with respect to securities in certain foreign markets. The fee for PGIM Limited’s services is paid by PGIM, not the Portfolio or the Investment Managers.

Aggregation Notes to Subadviser Fee Rate Table:

Jennison: For purposes of calculating the subadvisory fee payable to Jennison, the assets managed by Jennison in the AST Jennison Global Infrastructure Portfolio will be aggregated with the assets managed by Jennison in the AST Academic Strategies Asset Allocation Portfolio and any other portfolio subadvised by Jennison on behalf of PGIM Investments or ASTIS pursuant to substantially the same investment strategy.

Franklin Advisers/Templeton Global (“Franklin Adviser Subadvisers”): The Franklin Adviser Subadvisers have agreed to a voluntary subadvisory fee waiver arrangement, as follows: With respect to all existing and future Portfolios for which the Franklin Adviser Subadvisers provide subadvisory services, the subadvisory fee rates would be discounted according to the following schedule:

—	Combined assets up to $500 million: No discount.
—	Combined assets of $500 million up to $1 billion: 2.5% fee discount applied to the same percentage of the overall subadvisory fees as the percentage of combined assets that fall into this tier.
—	Combined assets of $1 billion to $1.5 billion: 5.0% fee discount applied to the same percentage of the overall subadvisory fees as the percentage of combined assets that fall into this tier.
—	Combined assets of $1.5 billion to $2.5 billion: 7.5% fee discount applied to the same percentage of the overall subadvisory fees as the percentage of combined assets that fall into this tier.
—	Combined assets of $2.5 billion and above: 10.0% fee discount applied to the same percentage of the overall subadvisory fees as the percentage of combined assets that fall into this tier.

Note: The overall reduction/discount in the actual subadvisory fees is limited to $1.5 million per calendar year.

GSAM: GSAM has agreed to waive a portion of the subadvisory fees for each of the portfolios of the Trust that it subadvises. The waiver is based on the following percentages based on the combined average daily net assets of each of the portfolios of the Trust subadvised by GSAM:

Combined Asset Levels	Percentage Fee Waiver
Assets up to $1 billion	2.5% Fee Reduction
Assets between $1 billion and $2.5 billion	5.0% Fee Reduction
Assets between $2.5 billion and $5 billion	7.5% Fee Reduction
Assets above $5 billion	10% Fee Reduction

T. Rowe Price: T. Rowe Price has agreed to a voluntary subadvisory fee waiver arrangement for the following Portfolios:

- Advanced Series Trust AST T. Rowe Price Asset Allocation Portfolio

- Advanced Series Trust AST T. Rowe Price Diversified Real Growth Portfolio

- Advanced Series Trust AST T. Rowe Price Growth Opportunities Portfolio

- Advanced Series Trust AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Growth Portfolio

- Advanced Series Trust AST T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Value Portfolio

- Advanced Series Trust AST T. Rowe Price Natural Resources Portfolio

- Advanced Series Trust AST Advanced Strategies Portfolio

- The Prudential Series Fund Global Portfolio

- Combined assets up to $1 billion: 2.5% fee reduction.

- Combined assets between $1 billion and $2.5 billion: 5.0% fee reduction

- Combined assets between $2.5 billion and $5 billion: 7.5% fee reduction

- Combined assets between $5.0 billion and $10 billion: 10.0% fee reduction.

- Combined assets above $10.0 billion: 12.5% fee reduction.

Notes to Subadviser Fee Rate Table:

BlackRock Financial: BlackRock Financial has agreed to a contractual fee waiver arrangement that applies to the AST BlackRock Multi-Asset Income Portfolio. Under this arrangement, BlackRock Financial will waive its subadvisory fee for the AST BlackRock Multi-Asset Income Portfolio in an amount equal to the acquired fund subadvisory fee paid to BlackRock Financial for any portfolio affiliated with the Trust. In addition, BlackRock Financial will waive its subadvisory fee for the AST BlackRock Multi-Asset Income Portfolio in amount equal to the management or subadvisory fee it receives for acquired funds that are not affiliated with the Trust. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the subadvisory fee waiver will not exceed 100% of the subadvisory fee.

Franklin Advisers/K2/Templeton Global (the Subadviser): The Subadviser has agreed to a contractual fee waiver arrangement that applies to the AST Franklin Templeton K2 Global Absolute Return Portfolio. Under this arrangement, the Subadviser will waive its subadvisory fee for the AST Franklin Templeton K2 Global Absolute Return Portfolio in an amount equal to the subadvisory fee paid to the Subadviser for any portfolio affiliated with the Trust. In addition, the Subadviser will waive its subadvisory fee for the AST Franklin Templeton K2 Global Absolute Return Portfolio in an amount equal to the management or subadvisory fee the Subadviser receives for acquired funds that are not affiliated with the Trust. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the subadvisory fee waiver will not exceed 100% of the subadvisory fee.

GSAM: With respect to the AST Goldman Sachs Global Growth Allocation Portfolio, GSAM has agreed to waive its subadvisory fee in an amount equal to the subadvisory fee paid to the Subadviser for any portfolio affiliated with the Trust. In addition, the Subadviser will waive its subadvisory fee in an amount equal to the management or subadvisory fee it receives for acquired funds that are not affiliated with the Trust. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the subadvisory fee waiver will not exceed 100% of the subadvisory fee.

With respect to the AST Goldman Sachs Strategic Income Portfolio, GSAM has agreed to waive its subadvisory fee in an amount equal to the subadvisory fee paid to GSAM for any portfolio affiliated with the Trust. In addition, GSAM will waive its subadvisory fee in an amount equal to the management or subadvisory fee it receives for acquired funds that are not affiliated with the Trust. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the subadvisory fee waiver will not exceed 100% of the subadvisory fee.

QS Investors: QS Investors has agreed to a contractual fee waiver arrangement that applies to the AST Legg Mason Diversified Growth Portfolio. Under this arrangement, QS Investors will waive its subadvisory fee for the AST Legg Mason Diversified Growth Portfolio in an amount equal to the acquired fund subadvisory fee paid to QS Investors for any portfolio affiliated with the Trust. In addition, QS Investors will waive its subadvisory fee for the AST Legg Mason Diversified Growth Portfolio in amount equal to the management or subadvisory fee it receives for acquired funds that are not affiliated with the Trust. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the subadvisory fee waiver will not exceed 100% of the subadvisory fee.

QMA: The Manager will pay QMA a fee for providing additional advisory services to the AST Prudential Flexible Multi-Strategy Portfolio, including but not limited to asset allocation advice (Additional Services).

In addition, with respect to the AST Prudential Flexible Multi-Strategy Portfolio, QMA has agreed to waive its subadvisory fee in an amount equal to subadvisory fee paid to such Subadviser for any portfolio affiliated with the Trust. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the subadvisory fee waiver will not exceed 100% of the subadvisory fee. This contractual fee waiver arrangement is not applicable to the Overall Asset Allocation and Overlay Strategies fee paid to QMA.

QMA has agreed to a voluntary subadvisory fee waiver agreement (the QMA Waiver) that applies to the following AST Portfolios subadvised by QMA: AST Academic Strategies Asset Allocation Portfolio (market neutral sleeve), AST Prudential Flexible Multi-Strategy Portfolio (130/30 sleeve and market neutral sleeve), AST Prudential Growth Allocation Portfolio (QMA sleeve), AST QMA International Core Equity Portfolio, AST QMA Large-Cap Portfolio and AST QMA US Equity Alpha Portfolio (the Six Portfolios).

Combined Annualized Subadviser Fees Received	Percentage Fee Waiver
Up to $5 million	0% Fee Reduction
$5 million to $7.5 million	2.5% Fee Reduction
$7.5 million to $10 million	5% Fee Reduction
$10 million to $12.5 million	7.5% Fee Reduction
$12.5 million to $15 million	12.5% Fee Reduction
Over $15 million	15% Fee Reduction

T. Rowe Price: T. Rowe Price has agreed to a contractual fee waiver arrangement that applies to the AST T. Rowe Price Diversified Real Growth Portfolio. Under this arrangement, T. Rowe will waive its subadvisory fee for the AST T. Rowe Price Diversified Real Growth Portfolio in an amount equal to the acquired fund subadvisory fee paid to T. Rowe for any portfolio affiliated with the Manager. In addition, T. Rowe will waive its subadvisory fee for the AST T. Rowe Price Diversified Real Growth Portfolio in an amount equal to the management or subadvisory fee it receives for acquired funds that are affiliated with the Subadviser. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the subadvisory fee waiver will not exceed 100% of the subadvisory fee.

Subadvisory Fees Paid by PGIM Investments
Portfolio	Subadviser	2016	2015	2014
AST AB Global Bond Portfolio	AllianceBernstein	2,454,460	$741,830	None
AST BlackRock Multi-Asset Income Portfolio	BlackRock Financial	31,251	11,496	$1,943
AST Columbia Adaptive Risk Allocation Portfolio	Columbia	39,787	10,854	None
AST Emerging Managers Diversified Portfolio	Dana	6,323	2,486	None
	Longfellow	4,061	1,515	None
AST FQ Absoute Return Currency Portfolio	First Quadrant	48,639	32,298	22,013
AST Franklin Templeton K2 Global Absolute Return Portfolio	Franklin Advisers	None	None	None
	Templeton Global	29,549	16,748	5,129
	K2	22,085	15,074	5,234
AST Goldman Sachs Global Growth Allocation Portfolio	GSAM	12,919	13,650	4,715
AST Goldman Sachs Global Income Portfolio	Goldman Sachs International	1,426,843	463,948	None
AST Goldman Sachs Strategic Income Portfolio	GSAM	1,376,965	2,478,319	1,825,574
AST Jennison Global Infrastructure Portfolio	Jennison	45,139	38,760	20,450
AST Legg Mason Diversified Growth Portfolio	QS LMGAA	398,005	154,662	2,157
AST Managed Equity Portfolio	QMA	7,206	3,533	315

Subadvisory Fees Paid by PGIM Investments
Portfolio	Subadviser	2016	2015	2014
AST Managed Fixed Income Portfolio	QMA	9,709	5,171	661
AST Morgan Stanley Multi-Asset Portfolio	Morgan Stanley	99,042	45,506	None
AST Neuberger Berman Long/Short Portfolio	Neuberger Berman	98,163	39,944	None
AST Prudential Flexible Multi-Strategy Portfolio	PGIM Fixed Income*	None	None	None
	QMA	78,567	40,840	7,291
	Jennison	None	None	None
AST QMA International Core Equity Portfolio	QMA	1,950,225	2,116,766	None
AST T. Rowe Price Diversified Real Growth Portfolio	T. Rowe	111,210	80,465	19,550
AST Wellington Management Global Bond Portfolio	Wellington	3,327,124	733,267	None
AST Wellington Management Real Total Return Portfolio	Wellington	87,569	48,013	None

PORTFOLIO MANAGERS: OTHER ACCOUNTS

AST AB Global Bond Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Portfolio Securities
AllianceBernstein, LP	Scott DiMaggio, CFA	27/$14,009 million	59/$3,426 million	60/$21,114 million	None
	Matthew Sheridan, CFA	35/$18,573 million	79/$33,211 million	44/$18,776 million	None
	Douglas J. Peebles	29/$14,436 million	68/$6,422 million	79/$23,459 million	None
	Paul DeNoon	19/$9,763 million	56/$34,576 million	16/$8,952 million	None

AST BlackRock Multi-Asset Income Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Portfolio Securities
BlackRock Financial Management, Inc.	Michael Fredericks	5/$14.18 billion	5/$4.31 billion	N/A	None
	Justin Christofel, CFA, CAIA	10/$19.05 billion	23/$8.10 billion	N/A	None
	Alex Shingler, CFA	5/$14.18 billion	5/$4.24 billion	N/A	None

AST Columbia Adaptive Risk Allocation Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Portfolio Securities
Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC	Jeffrey Knight, CFA	27/$67,911,712,169.14	2/$16,213,236.01	4/$1,110,561.32	None
	Joshua Kutin, CFA	5/$2,308,526,913.21	4/$489,682.33	9/$23,701,372.88	None

AST Emerging Managers Diversified Portfolio
Adviser/Subadvisers	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies*	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles*	Other Accounts*	Ownership of Portfolio Securities
PGIM Investments LLC	Brian Ahrens	12/$47,159,755,536.72	None	None	None
	Andrei O. Marinich, CFA	12/$47,159,755,536.72	None	None	None
Dana Investment Advisors, Inc.	Duane R. Roberts, CFA	2/$182.5 million	N/A	77/$1,733 million	None
	Greg Dahlman, CFA	1/$172.3 million	N/A	77/$1,733 million	None
	David M. Stamm, CFA	2/$182.5 million	N/A	77/$1,733 million	None

AST Emerging Managers Diversified Portfolio
Adviser/Subadvisers	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies*	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles*	Other Accounts*	Ownership of Portfolio Securities
	Michael Honkamp, CFA	1/$10.2 million	N/A	77/$1,733 million	None
	David Weinstein	N/A	N/A	N/A	None
	J. Joseph Veranth, CFA	N/A	N/A	N/A	None
Longfellow Investment Management Co.	Barbara J. McKenna	3/$467 million	2/$432 million	42/$4,724 million	None
	David C. Stuehr, CFA	3/$467 million	2/$432 million	32/$197 million	None

AST FQ Absolute Return Currency Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Portfolio Securities
First Quadrant, L.P.	Jeppe Ladekarl	5/$1,395,853,730.76	7/$557,865,186.34 5/$328,310,469.64	15/$11,446,228,070.47 5/$2,061,963,281.60	None
	Dori Levanoni	5/$1,395,853,730.76	7/$557,865,186.34 5/$328,310,469.64	17/$11,551,547,906.58 7/$2,167,283,117.71	None

AST Franklin Templeton K2 Global Absolute Return Portfolio
Subadvisers	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Portfolio Securities
K2/D&S Management Co. L.L.C.; Franklin Advisers, Inc.; Templeton Global Advisers Limited	John Brooks Ritchey, Jr.	8/$1,260.6 million	1/$54.6 million	6/$242.1 million	None
	Norman J. Boersma	9/$28,874.3 million	13/$11,848.1 million	4/$660.8 million	None
	Roger Bayston	17/$24,811.4 million	8/$3,316.4 million	1/$2,000.5 million 1/$2,000.5 million	None

AST Goldman Sachs Global Growth Allocation Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Portfolio Securities
Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P.	Raymond Chan	4/$2,598 million	9/$2,870 million	1/$48 million	None
	Christopher Lvoff	4/$2,598 million	None	1/$686 million	None

AST Goldman Sachs Global Income Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies ($mm)	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles ($mm)	Other Accounts ($mm)	Ownership of Portfolio Securities
Goldman Sachs Asset Management International	Iain Lindsay, PhD, CFA	466/$491,482 million	208/$11,616 million	3,983/$376,402 million	None
	Hugh Briscoe	132/$36,924 million	27/$1,377 million	562/$64,339 million	None

AST Goldman Sachs Strategic Income Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Portfolio Securities
Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P.	Jonathan Beinner	466/$492,275 million	208/$11,616 million	3,983/$365,617 million	None
	Michael Swell	466/$492,275 million	208/$11,616 million	3,983/$365,617 million	None

AST Jennison Global Infrastructure Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Portfolio Securities
Jennison Associates LLC	Shaun Hong	8/$7,286,539,000	N/A	N/A	None
	Ubong “Bobby” Edemeka	8/$7,286,539	N/A	N/A	None
	Brannon P. Cook	2/$306,524,000	N/A	N/A	None

AST Legg Mason Diversified Growth Portfolio
Subadvisers	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Portfolio Securities
QS Investors, LLC	Thomas Picciochi, CAIA	28/$9,216,133,439	34/$5,595,854,575	7/$250,132,628 1/$60,816,320	None

AST Legg Mason Diversified Growth Portfolio
Subadvisers	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Portfolio Securities
	Adam Petryk, CFA	28/$9,216,133,439	34/$5,595,854,575	7/$250,132,628 1/$60,816,320	None
	Stephen A. Lanzendorf, CFA	11/$4,353,280,928	5/$213,089,853	28/$3,041,163,177 4/$93,479,299	None
	Russell Shtern, CFA	12/$1,841,692,609	3/$204,686,913	19/$2,050,195,210 3/55,008,745	None
Brandywine Global Investment Management, LLC	n/a
ClearBridge Investments, LLC	n/a
Western Asset Management Company/Western Asset Management Company Limited	n/a

AST Managed Alternatives Portfolio
Adviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Portfolio Securities
PGIM Investments LLC	Brian Ahrens	12/$47,161,445,843.70	None	None	None
	Andrei O. Marinich, CFA	12/$47,161,445,843.70	None	None	None

AST Managed Equity Portfolio
Adviser/Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies*	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles*	Other Accounts*	Ownership of Portfolio Securities
PGIM Investments LLC	Brian Ahrens	12/$47,146,253,943.04	None	None	None
	Andrei O. Marinich, CFA	12/$47,146,253,943.04	None	None	None
Quantitative Management Associates LLC	Marcus Perl	33/$73,655,886,534	5/$1,517,683,066	21/$1,884,026,913	None
	Edward L. Campbell, CFA	32/$73,168,063,929	5/$1,517,683,066	19/$1,639,245,804	None
	Joel M. Kallman, CFA	32/$73,168,063,929	5/$1,517,683,066	19/$1,639,245,804	None

AST Managed Fixed Income Portfolio
Adviser/Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies*	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles*	Other Accounts*	Ownership of Portfolio Securities
PGIM Investments LLC	Brian Ahrens	12/$47,138,404,052.87	None	None	None
	Andrei O. Marinich, CFA	12/$47,138,404,052.87	None	None	None
Quantitative Management Associates LLC	Edward L. Campbell, CFA	32/$73,160,216,976	5/$1,517,683,066	19/$1,639,245,804	None
	Joel M. Kallman, CFA	32/$73,160,216,976	5/$1,517,683,066	19/$1,639,245,804	None
	Marcus M. Perl	33/$73,648,039,581	5/$1,517,683,066	21/$1,884,026,913	None

AST Morgan Stanley Multi-Asset Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies*	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles*	Other Accounts*	Ownership of Portfolio Securities
Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc.	Cyril Moullé-Berteaux	5/$624 million	5/$2,519 million	9/$4,728 million*	None
	Mark Bavoso	5/$624 million	2/$59 million	8/$4,633 million*	None
	Sergei Parmenov	4/$285 million	5/$2,519 million	8/$4,633 million*	None

AST Neuberger Berman Long/Short Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Portfolio Securities
Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers LLC	Charles Kantor	3/$3,486 million	3/$211 million 1/$33 million	1,687/$1,925 million	None
	Marc Regenbaum	1/$2,317 million	N/A	N/A	None

AST Prudential Flexible Multi-Strategy Portfolio
Subadvisers	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies*	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles*	Other Accounts*	Ownership of Portfolio Securities
PGIM Fixed Income/PGIM Limited	Michael J. Collins, CFA	30/$50,536,666,069	11/$7,984,294,508	70/$18,657,029,107	None
	Robert Tipp, CFA	25/$28,201,222,664	20/$10,046,436,120 1/$386,725	85/$19,964,107,366	None
	Craig Dewling	38/$9,020,495,051	28/$9,947,525,801 2/$2,070,023,296	140/$38,293,233,303 2/$587,170,802	None
	Erik Schiller, CFA	38/$13,326,439,737	27/$9,661,364,575 2/$2,070,023,296	138/$36,652,253,295 2/$587,170,802	None
	Gary Wu, CFA	2/$48,051,342	None	2/$30,620,890	None
Quantitative Management Associates LLC	Edward L. Campbell, CFA	32/$73,127,515,374	5/$1,517,683,066	19/$1,639,245,804	None
	Devang Gambhirwala	15/$16,439,983,213	10/$3,006,786,902	46/$5,958,158,402 5/$1,393,218,251	None
	Joel M. Kallman, CFA	32/$73,127,515,374	5/$1,517,683,066	19/$1,639,245,804	None
	Edward F. Keon, Jr.	32/$73,127,515,374	5/$1,517,683,066	19/$1,639,245,804	$0-$50,000
	George Sakoulis, PhD	N/A	N/A	1/$20,141,189	None
Jennison Associates LLC	Jay Saunders*	2/$2,584,094,000	N/A	N/A	None
	Neil P. Brown*	2/$2,584,094,000	N/A	N/A	None
	Ubong “Bobby” Edemeka	9/$7,295,752,000	N/A	N/A	None
	Shaun Hong, CFA	9/$7,295,752,000	N/A	N/A	None

AST QMA International Core Equity Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies*	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles*	Other Accounts*	Ownership of Portfolio Securities
Quantitative Management Associates, LLC	Jacob Pozharny, PhD	6/$1,762,154,102	7/$2,302,973,978	33/$6,592,946,783 12/$2,841,196,761	None
	John Van Belle, PhD	6/$1,762,154,102	7/$2,302,973,978	33/$6,592,946,783 12/$2,841,196,761	None
	Wen Jin, PhD, CFA	6/$1,762,154,102	7/$2,302,973,978	33/$6,592,946,783 12/$2,841,196,761	None
	Vlad Shutoy	6/$1,762,154,102	7/$2,302,973,978	33/$6,592,946,783 12/$2,841,196,761	None

AST T. Rowe Price Diversified Real Growth Portfolio
Subadvisers	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Portfolio Securities
T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.; T. Rowe Price International Ltd; T. Rowe Price International Ltd – Tokyo, a division of T. Rowe Price International; and T. Rowe Price Hong Kong Limited	Charles Shriver, CFA	11/$35,208,633,838	17/$3,283,929,663	6/$1,407,998,476	None
	Toby Thompson, CFA, CAIA	3/$15,660,295,915	16/$3,231,680,085	5/$470,501,648	None

AST Wellington Management Global Bond Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Managers	Registered Investment Companies*	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles*	Other Accounts*	Ownership of Portfolio Securities
Wellington Management Company LLP	Mark Sullivan, CFA, CMT	4/$3,725,352,607	49/$18,181,971,082 16/$8,292,878,895	66/$26,565,094,121 7/$3,628,895,857	None
	John Soukas	4/$197,936,081	49/$18,296,857,148 21/$8,893,048,917	70/$26,845,927,916 8/$3,910,795,018	None
	Edward Meyi, FRM	3/$198,011,882	33/$10,088,478,626 10/$682,607,900	70/$28,649,049,679 7/$3,628,895,857	None

AST Wellington Management Real Total Return Portfolio
Subadviser	Portfolio Manager	Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Ownership of Portfolio Securities
Wellington Management Company LLP	Steve Gorman, CFA	3/$484,332,692	6/$1,479,255,668	12/$2,690,456,600	None

Notes to Other Account Tables:

First Quadrant

Jennison

*Other Accounts excludes the assets and number of accounts in wrap fee programs that are managed using model portfolios.

MSIM

*3 accounts with total assets of $2,214 million are subject to an advisory fee that is also based on the performance of the account.

QMA:

*Accounts are managed on a team basis. If a portfolio manager is a member of a team, any account managed by that team is included in the number of accounts

“QMA Other Pooled Investment Vehicles” includes commingled insurance company separate accounts, commingled trust funds and other commingled investment vehicles. “QMA Other Accounts” includes single client accounts, managed accounts (which are counted as one account per managed account platform), asset allocation clients, and accounts of affiliates. The assets in certain accounts have been estimated due to the availability of information only at the end of calendar quarters.

PORTFOLIO MANAGERS: COMPENSATION & CONFLICTS POLICIES

AllianceBernstein L.P.

COMPENSATION. AllianceBernstein’s compensation program for portfolio managers and analysts is designed to be competitive and effective in order to attract and retain the highest caliber employees. Portfolio managers receive base compensation, incentive compensation and contributions to AllianceBernstein’s 401(k) plan. Part of the annual incentive compensation is normally paid in the form of a cash bonus and part through an award under the firm’s Incentive Compensation Award Plan (ICAP). The ICAP awards vest over a four-year period. Deferred awards are in the form of the firm’s publicly traded equity units, although award recipients have the ability to receive a portion of their awards in deferred cash.

Total compensation is determined by quantitative and qualitative factors. Quantitative factors, which are weighted more heavily, are driven by investment performance to align compensation with client investment returns. Qualitative factors are driven by portfolio managers’ contributions to the investment process and client success.

The quantitative component includes measures of absolute, relative and risk-adjusted investment performance. Relative and risk-adjusted returns are determined based on the benchmark in the fund’s prospectus and versus peers over one-, three- and five-year calendar periods— with more weight given to longer time periods. Peer groups are chosen by investment CIOs, who consult with the Product Management team to identify products most similar to our investment style and most relevant within the asset class.

The qualitative component incorporates the manager’s contribution to the overall investment process and our clients’ success. Among the important aspects are: thought leadership, collaboration with other investment professionals at the firm, contributions to risk-adjusted returns in other portfolios, building a strong talent pool, mentoring newer investment professionals, and being a good corporate citizen.

Other factors can play a part in determining portfolio managers’ total compensation (including base compensation). This may include complexity of investment strategies managed, volume of assets managed, level of experience and level of officership within the firm. Assessments of investment professionals are formalized in a year-end review process that includes 360-degree feedback from other professionals from across the investment teams and firm.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. As an investment adviser and fiduciary, AllianceBernstein owes its clients and shareholders an undivided duty of loyalty. AllianceBernstein recognizes that conflicts of interest are inherent in its business and accordingly has developed policies and procedures (including oversight monitoring) reasonably designed to detect, manage and mitigate the effects of actual or potential conflicts of interest in the area of employee personal trading, managing multiple accounts for multiple clients, and allocating

investment opportunities. Investment professionals, including portfolio managers and research analysts, are subject to the above-mentioned policies and oversight monitoring to ensure that all clients are treated equitably. AllianceBernstein places the interests of its clients first and expects all of its employees to meet their fiduciary duties.

Employee Personal Trading

AllianceBernstein has adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics that is designed to detect and prevent conflicts of interest when investment professionals and other personnel of AllianceBernstein own, buy or sell securities which may be owned by, or bought or sold for, clients. Personal securities transactions by an employee may raise a potential conflict of interest when an employee owns or trades in a security that is owned or considered for purchase or sale by a client, or recommended for purchase or sale by an employee to a client. Subject to the reporting requirements and other limitations of its Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, AllianceBernstein permits its employees to engage in personal securities transactions, and also allows them to acquire investments in the AllianceBernstein Mutual Funds. AllianceBernstein’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics requires disclosure of all personal accounts and maintenance of brokerage accounts with designated broker-dealers approved by AllianceBernstein. The Code of Business Conduct and Ethics also requires preclearance of all securities transactions and imposes a 60-day holding period for securities purchased by employees to discourage short-term trading.

Managing Multiple Accounts for Multiple Clients

AllianceBernstein has compliance policies and oversight monitoring in place to address conflicts of interest relating to the management of multiple accounts for multiple clients. Conflicts of interest may arise when an investment professional has responsibilities for the investments of more than one account because the investment professional may be unable to devote equal time and attention to each account. The investment professional or investment professional teams for each client may have responsibilities for managing all or a portion of the investments of multiple accounts with a common investment strategy, including other registered investment companies, unregistered investment vehicles, such as hedge funds, pension plans, separate accounts, collective trusts and charitable foundations. Among other things, AllianceBernstein’s policies and procedures provide for the prompt dissemination to investment professionals of initial or changed investment recommendations by analysts so that investment professionals are better able to develop investment strategies for all accounts they manage. In addition, investment decisions by investment professionals are reviewed for the purpose of maintaining uniformity among similar accounts and ensuring that accounts are treated equitably. No investment professional that manages client accounts carrying performance fees is compensated directly or specifically for the performance of those accounts. Investment professional compensation reflects a broad contribution in multiple dimensions to long-term investment success for our clients and is not tied specifically to the performance of any particular client’s account, nor is it directly tied to the level or change in the level of assets under management.

Allocating Investment Opportunities

AllianceBernstein has policies and procedures intended to address conflicts of interest relating to the allocation of investment opportunities. These policies and procedures are designed to ensure that information relevant to investment decisions is disseminated promptly within its portfolio management teams and investment opportunities are allocated equitably among different clients. The investment professionals at AllianceBernstein routinely are required to select and allocate investment opportunities among accounts. Portfolio holdings, position sizes, and industry and sector exposures tend to be similar across similar accounts which minimizes the potential for conflicts of interest relating to the allocation of investment opportunities. Nevertheless, investment opportunities may be allocated differently among accounts due to the particular characteristics of an account, such as size of the account, cash position, tax status, risk tolerance and investment restrictions or for other reasons.

AllianceBernstein’s procedures are also designed to address potential conflicts of interest that may arise when AllianceBernstein has a particular financial incentive, such as a performance-based management fee, relating to an account. An investment professional may perceive that he or she has an incentive to devote more time to developing and analyzing investment strategies and opportunities or allocating securities preferentially to accounts for which AllianceBernstein could share in investment gains.

To address these conflicts of interest, AllianceBernstein’s policies and procedures require, among other things, the prompt dissemination to investment professionals of any initial or changed investment recommendations by analysts; the aggregation of orders to facilitate best execution for all accounts; price averaging for all aggregated orders; objective allocation for limited investment opportunities (e.g., on a rotational basis) to ensure fair and equitable allocation among accounts; and limitations on short sales of securities. These procedures also require documentation and review of justifications for any decisions to make investments only for select accounts or in a manner disproportionate to the size of the account.

BLACKROCK, INC. AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES

COMPENSATION OF PORTFOLIO MANAGERS. The discussion below describes the portfolio managers’ compensation as of December 31, 2016.

Base compensation. Generally, portfolio managers receive base compensation based on their position with the firm.

Discretionary Incentive Compensation – Messrs. Christofel, Fredericks, Green and Shingler

Discretionary Incentive Compensation – Messrs. MacLellan, Miller, Musmanno, Rieder and Rogal

Discretionary incentive compensation is a function of several components: the performance of BlackRock, Inc., the performance of the portfolio manager’s group within BlackRock, the investment performance, including risk-adjusted returns, of the firm’s assets under management or supervision by that portfolio manager relative to predetermined benchmarks, and the individual’s performance and contribution to the overall performance of these portfolios and BlackRock. In most cases, these benchmarks are the same as the benchmark or benchmarks against which the performance of the Funds or other accounts managed by the portfolio managers are measured. Among other things, BlackRock’s Chief Investment Officers make a subjective determination with respect to each portfolio manager’s compensation based on the performance of the Funds and other accounts managed by each portfolio manager relative to the various benchmarks. Performance of fixed income funds is measured on a pre-tax and/or after-tax basis over various time periods including 1-, 3- and 5- year periods, as applicable. With respect to these portfolio managers, such benchmarks for the Funds and other accounts are:

Portfolio Manager	Benchmarks
Scott MacLellan Tom Musmanno	A combination of market-based indices (e.g., Bloomberg Barclays US Aggregate Bond Index), certain customized indices and certain fund industry peer groups.
Bob Miller Rick Rieder David Rogal	A combination of market-based indices (e.g., Bloomberg Barclays US Aggregate Bond Index), certain customized indices and certain fund industry peer groups.

Other Compensation Benefits. In addition to base salary and discretionary incentive compensation, portfolio managers may be eligible to receive or participate in one or more of the following:

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. BlackRock has built a professional working environment, firm-wide compliance culture and compliance procedures and systems designed to protect against potential incentives that may favor one account over another. BlackRock has adopted policies and procedures that address the allocation of investment opportunities, execution of portfolio transactions, personal trading by employees and other potential conflicts of interest that are designed to ensure that all client accounts are treated equitably over time. Nevertheless, BlackRock furnishes investment management and advisory services to numerous clients in addition to the Fund, and BlackRock may, consistent with applicable law, make investment recommendations to other clients or accounts (including accounts which are hedge funds or have performance or higher fees paid to BlackRock, or in which portfolio managers have a personal interest in the receipt of such fees), which may be the same as or different from those made to the Fund. In addition, BlackRock, its affiliates and significant shareholders and any officer, director, shareholder or employee may or may not have an interest in the securities whose purchase and sale BlackRock recommends to the Fund. BlackRock, or any of its affiliates or significant shareholders, or any officer, director, shareholder, employee or any member of their families may take different actions than those recommended to the Fund by BlackRock with respect to the same securities. Moreover, BlackRock may refrain from rendering any advice or services concerning securities of companies of which any of BlackRock’s (or its affiliates’ or significant shareholders’) officers, directors or employees are directors or officers, or companies as to which BlackRock or any of its affiliates or significant shareholders or the officers, directors and employees of any of them has any substantial economic interest or possesses material non-public information. Certain portfolio managers also may manage accounts whose investment strategies may at times be opposed to the strategy utilized for a fund. It should also be noted that Messrs. MacLellan, Miller, Musmanno, Rieder and Rogal may be managing hedge fund and/or long only accounts, or may be part of a team managing hedge fund and/or long only accounts, subject to incentive fees. Messrs. MacLellan, Miller, Musmanno, Rieder and Rogal may therefore be entitled to receive a portion of any incentive fees earned on such accounts.

Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC (CMIA)

COMPENSATION. Portfolio manager direct compensation is typically comprised of a base salary, and an annual incentive award that is paid either in the form of a cash bonus if the size of the award is under a specified threshold, or, if the size of the award is over a specified threshold, the award is paid in a combination of a cash bonus, an equity incentive award, and deferred compensation.

Equity incentive awards are made in the form of Ameriprise Financial restricted stock, or for more senior employees both Ameriprise Financial restricted stock and stock options. The investment return credited on deferred compensation is based on the performance of specified Columbia Funds, in most cases including the mutual funds the portfolio manager manages.

Base salary is typically determined based on market data relevant to the employee’s position, as well as other factors including internal equity. Base salaries are reviewed annually, and increases are typically given as promotional increases, internal equity adjustments, or market adjustments.

Annual incentive awards are variable and are based on (1) an evaluation of the employee’s investment performance and (2) the results of a peer and/or management review of the employee, which takes into account skills and attributes such as team participation, investment process, communication, and professionalism. Scorecards are used to measure performance of Columbia Funds and other accounts managed by the employee versus benchmarks and peer groups. Performance versus benchmark and peer group is generally weighted for the rolling one, three, and five year periods. One year performance is weighted 10%, three year performance is weighted 60%, and five year performance is weighted 30%. Relative asset size is a key determinant for fund weighting on a scorecard. Typically, weighting would be proportional to actual assets. Consideration may also be given to performance in managing client assets in sectors and industries assigned to the employee as part of his/her investment team responsibilities, where applicable. For leaders who also have group management responsibilities, another factor in their evaluation is an assessment of the group’s overall investment performance.

Equity incentive awards are designed to align participants’ interests with those of the shareholders of Ameriprise Financial. Equity incentive awards vest over multiple years, so they help retain employees.

Deferred compensation awards are designed to align participants’ interests with the investors in the Columbia Funds and other accounts they manage. The value of the deferral account is based on the performance of Columbia Funds. Employees have the option of selecting from various Columbia Funds for their deferral account, however portfolio managers must allocate a minimum of 25% of their incentive awarded through the deferral program to the Columbia Fund(s) they manage. Deferrals vest over multiple years, so they help retain employees.

Exceptions to this general approach to bonuses exist for certain teams and individuals. Funding for the bonus pool is determined by management and depends on, among other factors, the levels of compensation generally in the investment management industry taking into account investment performance (based on market compensation data) and both Ameriprise Financial and Columbia Management profitability for the year, which is largely determined by assets under management.

For all employees the benefit programs generally are the same, and are competitive within the Financial Services Industry. Employees participate in a wide variety of plans, including options in Medical, Dental, Vision, Health Care and Dependent Spending Accounts, Life Insurance, Long Term Disability Insurance, 401(k), and a cash balance pension plan.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Like other investment professionals with multiple clients, the Portfolio’s portfolio manager(s) may face certain potential conflicts of interest in connection with managing both the Portfolio and other accounts at the same time. CMIA has adopted compliance policies and procedures that attempt to address certain of the potential conflicts that portfolio managers face in this regard. Certain of these conflicts of interest are summarized below.

The management of accounts with different advisory fee rates and/or fee structures, including accounts that pay advisory fees based on account performance (performance fee accounts), may raise potential conflicts of interest for a portfolio manager by creating an incentive to favor higher fee accounts.

Potential conflicts of interest also may arise when a portfolio manager has personal investments in other accounts that may create an incentive to favor those accounts. As a general matter and subject to CMIA’s Code of Ethics and certain limited exceptions, CMIA’s investment professionals do not have the opportunity to invest in client accounts, other than the funds.

A portfolio manager who is responsible for managing multiple funds and/or accounts may devote unequal time and attention to the management of those funds and/or accounts. The effects of this potential conflict may be more pronounced where funds and/or accounts managed by a particular portfolio manager have different investment strategies.

A portfolio manager may be able to select or influence the selection of the broker/dealers that are used to execute securities transactions for the Portfolio. A portfolio manager’s decision as to the selection of broker/dealers could produce disproportionate costs and benefits among the Portfolio and the other accounts the portfolio manager manages.

A potential conflict of interest may arise when a portfolio manager buys or sells the same securities for the Portfolio and other accounts. On occasions when a portfolio manager considers the purchase or sale of a security to be in the best interests of the Portfolio as well as other accounts, CMIA's trading desk may, to the extent consistent with applicable laws and regulations, aggregate the securities to be sold or bought in order to obtain the best execution and lower brokerage commissions, if any. Aggregation of trades may create the potential for unfairness to the Portfolio or another account if a portfolio manager favors one account over another in allocating the securities bought or sold. CMIA and its Participating Affiliates (including Threadneedle) may coordinate their trading operations for certain types of securities and transactions pursuant to personnel-sharing agreements or similar intercompany arrangements. However, typically CMIA does not coordinate trading activities with a Participating Affiliate with respect to accounts of that Participating Affiliate unless such Participating Affiliate is also providing trading services for accounts managed by CMIA. Similarly, a Participating Affiliate typically does not coordinate trading activities with the CMIA with respect to accounts of CMIA unless CMIA is also providing trading services for accounts managed by such Participating Affiliate. As a result, it is possible that CMIA and its Participating Affiliates may trade in the same instruments at the same time, in the same or opposite direction or in different sequence, which could negatively impact the prices paid by the Portfolio on such instruments. Additionally, in circumstances where trading services are being provided on a coordinated basis for CMIA's accounts and the accounts of one or more Participating Affiliates in accordance with applicable law, it is possible that the allocation opportunities available to the Portfolio may be decreased, especially for less actively traded securities, or orders may take longer to execute, which may negatively impact Portfolio performance.

“Cross trades,” in which a portfolio manager sells a particular security held by the Portfolio to another account (potentially saving transaction costs for both accounts), could involve a potential conflict of interest if, for example, a portfolio manager is permitted to sell a security from one account to another account at a higher price than an independent third party would pay. CMIA has adopted compliance procedures that provide that any transactions between the Portfolio and another account managed by CMIA are to be made at a current market price, consistent with applicable laws and regulations.

Another potential conflict of interest may arise based on the different investment objectives and strategies of the Portfolio and other accounts managed by its portfolio manager(s). Depending on another account’s objectives and other factors, a portfolio manager may give advice to and make decisions for the Portfolio that may differ from advice given, or the timing or nature of decisions made, with respect to another account. A portfolio manager’s investment decisions are the product of many factors in addition to basic suitability for the particular account involved. Thus, a portfolio manager may buy or sell a particular security for certain accounts, and not for the Portfolio, even though it could have been bought or sold for the Portfolio at the same time. A portfolio manager also may buy a particular security for one or more accounts when one or more other accounts are selling the security (including short sales). There may be circumstances when a portfolio manager’s purchases or sales of portfolio securities for one or more accounts may have an adverse effect on other accounts, including the Portfolio.

The Portfolio’s portfolio manager(s) also may have other potential conflicts of interest in managing the Portfolio, and the description above is not a complete description of every conflict that could exist in managing the Portfolio and other accounts. Many of the potential conflicts of interest to which CMIA’s portfolio managers are subject are essentially the same or similar to the potential conflicts of interest related to CMIA activities of CMIA and its affiliates.

Dana Investment Advisors, Inc.

COMPENSATION. Dana’s portfolio managers receive a very competitive base salary that is commensurate with prior industry experience and overall assigned responsibilities. In addition to base salary, portfolio managers are also eligible to receive annual bonus compensation. While all bonus compensation is discretionary in nature, approximately 50% of a portfolio manager’s bonus compensation is directly based upon investment performance versus client benchmarks and client retention. The remaining 50% of a portfolio manager’s bonus compensation is based upon non-investment performance criteria such as firm profitability and an individual’s overall contribution to the firm’s marketing, client service, and other strategic initiatives.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Dana portfolio managers oversee the investments for multiple client accounts. In such cases, a potential conflict of interest may arise when allocating investment opportunities across these accounts. Dana has therefore implemented pre-trade investment allocation procedures as well as post trade settlement procedures that are designed to help ensure that all clients are treated fairly over time. In addition, because portfolio managers may buy and sell the same security for different client accounts at the same time, Dana has also implemented procedures designed to ensure that a client’s own individual investment considerations determine when transactions are affected for their account. Finally, in order to help further identify and address other potential conflicts of interest, Dana has incorporated a conflicts of interest checklist in the firm’s written Code of Ethics.

FIRST QUADRANT

FRANKLIN ADVISERS, INC.

Base salary Each portfolio manager is paid a base salary.

■	Investment performance. Primary consideration is given to the historic investment performance of all accounts managed by the portfolio manager over the 1, 3 and 5 preceding years measured against risk benchmarks developed by the fixed income management team. The pre-tax performance of each fund managed is measured relative to a relevant peer group and/or applicable benchmark as appropriate.
■	Non-investment performance. The more qualitative contributions of the portfolio manager to the investment manager’s business and the investment management team, including business knowledge, productivity, customer service, creativity, and contribution to team goals, are evaluated in determining the amount of any bonus award.
■	Responsibilities. The characteristics and complexity of funds managed by the portfolio manager are factored in the investment manager’s appraisal.

Portfolio managers also participate in benefit plans and programs available generally to all employees of the investment manager.

GOLDMAN SACHS ASSET MANAGEMENT, L.P. (including Goldman Sachs Asset Management International)

PORTFOLIO MANAGERS' COMPENSATION. Compensation for GSAM portfolio managers is comprised of a base salary and discretionary variable compensation. The base salary is fixed from year to year. Year-end discretionary variable compensation is primarily a function of each portfolio manager's individual performance and his or her contribution to overall team performance; the performance of GSAM and Goldman Sachs & Co. (Goldman Sachs); the team's net revenues for the past year which in part is derived from advisory fees, and for certain accounts, performance-based fees; and anticipated compensation levels among competitor firms. Portfolio managers may be rewarded, in part, for their delivery of investment performance, measured on a pre-tax basis, which is reasonably expected to meet or exceed the expectations of clients and fund shareholders in terms of: excess return over an applicable benchmark, peer group ranking, risk management and factors specific to certain funds such as yield or regional focus. Performance is judged over 1-, 3- and 5-year time horizons.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. The involvement of the GSAM, Goldman Sachs and their affiliates in the management of, or their interest in, other accounts and other activities of Goldman Sachs may present conflicts of interest with respect to one or more funds for which GSAM is a sub-adviser or adviser or limit such funds’ investment activities. Goldman Sachs is a worldwide, full service investment banking, broker dealer, asset management and financial services organization and a major participant in global financial markets that provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. As such, it acts as an investor, investment banker, research provider, investment manager, financier, advisor, market maker, trader, prime broker, lender, agent and principal. In those and other capacities, Goldman Sachs advises clients in all markets and transactions and purchases, sells, holds and recommends a broad array of investments, including securities, derivatives, loans, commodities, currencies, credit default swaps, indices, baskets and other financial instruments and products for its own account or for the accounts of its customers and has other direct and indirect interests in the global fixed income, currency, commodity, equity and other markets and the securities and issuers in which the certain funds directly and indirectly invest. Thus, it is likely that such funds may have multiple business relationships with and will invest in, engage in transactions with, make voting decisions with respect to, or obtain services from entities for which Goldman Sachs performs or seeks to perform investment banking or other services. GSAM acts as sub-adviser to certain of the funds. The fees earned by GSAM in this capacity are generally based on asset levels, the fees are not directly contingent on Portfolio performance, and GSAM would still receive significant compensation from a Portfolio even if shareholders lose money. Goldman Sachs and its affiliates engage in proprietary trading and advise accounts and funds which have investment objectives similar to those of the funds and/or which engage in and compete for transactions in the same types of securities, currencies and instruments as the funds. Goldman Sachs and its affiliates will not have any obligation to make available any information regarding their proprietary activities or strategies, or the activities or strategies used for other accounts managed by them, for the benefit of the management of the Portfolios. The results of a Portfolio’s investment activities, therefore, may differ from those of Goldman Sachs, its affiliates, and other accounts managed by Goldman Sachs and it is possible that a Portfolio could sustain losses during periods in which Goldman Sachs and its affiliates and other accounts achieve significant profits on their trading for proprietary or other accounts. In addition, a Portfolio may enter into transactions in which Goldman Sachs or its other clients have an adverse interest. For example, a Portfolio may take a long position in a security at the same time that Goldman Sachs or other accounts managed by the GSAM take a short position in the same security (or vice versa). These and other transactions undertaken by Goldman Sachs, its affiliates or Goldman Sachs advised clients may, individually or in the aggregate, adversely impact a Portfolio. Transactions by one or more Goldman Sachs advised clients or the GSAM may have the effect of diluting or otherwise disadvantaging the values, prices or investment strategies of a Portfolio. A Portfolio’s activities may be limited because of regulatory restrictions applicable to Goldman Sachs and its affiliates, and/or their internal policies designed to comply with such restrictions. As a global financial services firm, Goldman Sachs also provides a wide range of investment banking and financial services to issuers of securities and investors in securities. Goldman Sachs, its affiliates and others associated with it may create markets or specialize in, have positions in and effect transactions in, securities of issuers held by a Portfolio, and may also perform or seek to perform investment banking and financial services for those issuers. Goldman Sachs and its affiliates may have business relationships with and purchase or distribute or sell services or products from or to, distributors, consultants and others who recommend a Portfolio or who engage in transactions with or for a Portfolio.

A Portfolio may make brokerage and other payments to Goldman Sachs and its affiliates in connection with a Portfolio’s portfolio investment transactions, in accordance with applicable law.

JENNISON ASSOCIATES LLC

portfolio managers and senior research analysts, are eligible to participate in a voluntary deferred compensation program where all or a portion of the cash bonus can be deferred. Participants in the deferred compensation plan are permitted to allocate the deferred amounts among various options that track the gross-of-fee pre-tax performance of accounts or composites of accounts managed by Jennison.

The factors reviewed for the portfolio manager[s] are listed below.

The quantitative factors reviewed for the portfolio manager[s] may include:

■

The qualitative factors reviewed for the portfolio manager[s] may include:

■	The quality of the portfolio manager’s investment ideas and consistency of the portfolio manager’s judgment;
■	Historical and long-term business potential of the product strategies;
■	Qualitative factors such as teamwork and responsiveness; and
■	Individual factors such as years of experience and responsibilities specific to the individual’s role such as being a team leader or supervisor are also factored into the determination of an investment professional’s total compensation.

■	Long only accounts/long-short accounts: Jennison manages accounts in strategies that only hold long securities positions as well as accounts in strategies that are permitted to sell securities short. Jennison may hold a long position in a security in some client accounts while selling the same security short in other client accounts. For example, Jennison permits quantitatively hedged strategies to short securities that are held long in other strategies. Additionally, Jennison permits securities that are held long in quantitatively derived strategies to be shorted by other strategies. The strategies that sell a security short held long by another strategy could lower the price for the security held long. Similarly, if a strategy is purchasing a security that is held short in other strategies, the strategies purchasing the security could increase the price of the security held short.
■	Multiple strategies: Jennison may buy or sell, or may direct or recommend that one client buy or sell, securities of the same kind or class that are purchased or sold for another client, at prices that may be different. Jennison may also, at any time, execute trades of securities of the same kind or class in one direction for an account and in the opposite direction for another account, due to differences in investment strategy or client direction. Different strategies effecting trading in the same securities or types of securities may appear as inconsistencies in Jennison’s management of multiple accounts side-by-side.
■	Affiliated accounts/unaffiliated accounts and seeded/nonseeded accounts and accounts receiving asset allocation assets from affiliated investment advisers: Jennison manages accounts for its affiliates and accounts in which it has an interest alongside unaffiliated accounts. Jennison could have an incentive to favor its affiliated accounts over unaffiliated accounts. Additionally, Jennison’s affiliates may provide initial funding or otherwise invest in vehicles managed by Jennison. When an affiliate provides “seed capital” or other capital for a fund or account, it may do so with the intention of redeeming all or part of its interest at a particular future point in time or when it deems that sufficient additional capital has been invested in that fund or account. Jennison typically requests seed capital to start a track record for a new strategy or product. Managing “seeded” accounts alongside “non-seeded” accounts can create an incentive to favor the “seeded” accounts to establish a track record for a new strategy or product. Additionally, Jennison’s affiliated investment advisers could allocate their asset allocation clients’ assets to Jennison. Jennison could favor accounts used by its affiliate for their asset allocation clients to receive more assets from the affiliate.

■	Non-discretionary accounts or models: Jennison provides non-discretionary model portfolios to some clients and manages other portfolios on a discretionary basis. Recommendations for some non-discretionary models that are derived from discretionary portfolios are communicated after the discretionary portfolio has traded. The non-discretionary clients could be disadvantaged if Jennison delivers the model investment portfolio to them after Jennison initiates trading for the discretionary clients, or vice versa.
■	Higher fee paying accounts or products or strategies: Jennison receives more revenues from (1) larger accounts or client relationships than smaller accounts or client relationships and from (2) managing discretionary accounts than advising nondiscretionary models and from (3) non-wrap fee accounts than from wrap fee accounts and from (4) charging higher fees for some strategies than others. The differences in revenue that Jennison receives could create an incentive for Jennison to favor the higher fee paying or higher revenue generating account or product or strategy over another.
■	Personal interests: The performance of one or more accounts managed by Jennison’s investment professionals is taken into consideration in determining their compensation. Jennison also manages accounts that are investment options in its employee benefit plans such as its defined contribution plans or deferred compensation arrangements and where its employees may have personally invested alongside other accounts where there is no personal interest. These factors could create an incentive for Jennison to favor the accounts where it has a personal interest over accounts where Jennison does not have a personal interest.

How Jennison Addresses These Conflicts of Interest

■	Jennison has adopted trade aggregation and allocation procedures that seek to treat all clients (including affiliated accounts) fairly and equitably. These policies and procedures address the allocation of limited investment opportunities, such as initial public offerings (IPOs) and new issues, the allocation of transactions across multiple accounts, and the timing of transactions between its non-wrap accounts and its wrap fee accounts.
■	Jennison has policies that limit the ability to short securities in portfolios that primarily rely on its fundamental research and investment processes (fundamental portfolios) if the security is held long in other fundamental portfolios.
■	Jennison has adopted procedures to review allocations or performance dispersion between accounts with performance fees and non-performance fee based accounts and to review overlapping long and short positions among long accounts and long-short accounts.
■	Jennison has adopted a code of ethics and policies relating to personal trading.
■	Jennison provides disclosure of these conflicts as described in its Form ADV.

K2/D&S MANAGEMENT CO., L.L.C.

one fund or other account, the Fund may not be able to take full advantage of that opportunity due to an allocation of that opportunity across all eligible funds and other accounts. The investment manager seeks to manage such potential conflicts by using procedures intended to provide a fair allocation of buy and sell opportunities among funds and other accounts.

Finally, the management of personal accounts by a portfolio manager may give rise to potential conflicts of interest. While the funds and the investment manager have adopted a code of ethics which they believe contains provisions reasonably necessary to prevent a wide range of prohibited activities by portfolio managers and others with respect to their personal trading activities, there can be no assurance that the code of ethics addresses all individual conduct that could result in conflicts of interest.

Base salary Each portfolio manager is paid a base salary.

•	Investment performance. Primary consideration is given to the historic investment performance over the 1, 3 and 5 preceding years of all accounts managed by the portfolio manager. The pre-tax performance of each fund managed is measured relative to a relevant peer group and/or applicable benchmark as appropriate.
•	Non-investment performance. The more qualitative contributions of a portfolio manager to the investment manager’s business and the investment management team, including business knowledge, contribution to team efforts, mentoring of junior staff, and contribution to the marketing of the Fund, are evaluated in determining the amount of any bonus award.
•	Research. Where the portfolio management team also has research responsibilities, each portfolio manager is evaluated on the number and performance of recommendations over time.
•	Responsibilities. The characteristics and complexity of funds managed by the portfolio manager are factored in the investment manager’s appraisal.

Portfolio managers also participate in benefit plans and programs available generally to all employees of the investment manager.

Longfellow Investment Management Co. LLC

Morgan Stanley Investment Management, Inc.

Base salary compensation. Generally, portfolio managers receive base salary compensation based on the level of their position with the Adviser.

Incentive compensation. In addition to base compensation, portfolio managers may receive discretionary year-end compensation.

Incentive compensation may include:

■	Cash Bonus.
■	Deferred Compensation:

■	A mandatory program that defers a portion of incentive compensation into restricted stock units or other awards based on Morgan Stanley common stock or other plans that are subject to vesting and other conditions.
■	IMAP is a cash-based deferred compensation plan designed to increase the alignment of participants’ interests with the interests of the Advisor’s clients. For eligible employees, a portion of their deferred compensation is mandatorily deferred into IMAP on an annual basis. Awards granted under IMAP are notionally invested in referenced funds available pursuant to the plan, which are funds advised by Investment Management. Portfolio managers are required to notionally invest a minimum of 25% of their account balance in the designated funds that they manage and are included in the IMAP notional investment fund menu.
■	Deferred compensation awards are typically subject to vesting over a multi-year period and are subject to cancellation through the payment date for competition, cause (i.e., any act or omission that constitutes a breach of obligation to the Company, including failure to comply with internal compliance, ethics or risk management standards, and failure or refusal to perform duties satisfactorily, including supervisory and management duties), disclosure of proprietary information, and solicitation of employees or clients. Awards are also subject to clawback through the payment date if an employee’s act or omission (including with respect to direct supervisory responsibilities) causes a restatement of the Firm’s consolidated financial results, constitutes a violation of the Firm’s global risk management principles, policies and standards, or causes a loss of revenue associated with a position on which the employee was paid and the employee operated outside of internal control policies.

■	Revenue and profitability of the business and/or each fund/accounts managed by the portfolio manager
■	Revenue and profitability of the Firm
■	Return on equity and risk factors of both the business units and Morgan Stanley
■	Assets managed by the portfolio manager
■	External market conditions
■	New business development and business sustainability
■	Contribution to client objectives
■	The pre-tax investment performance of the funds/accounts managed by the portfolio manager (which may, in certain cases, be measured against the applicable benchmark(s) and/or peer group(s) over one, three and five-year periods.
■	Individual contribution and performance

Other Accounts Managed by the Portfolio Managers

Brokerage Selection

Research services that benefit MSIM may be received in connection with commissions generated by clients of its affiliated investment advisers.

Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers LLC

The terms of our long-term retention incentives are as follows:

For confidentiality and privacy reasons, we cannot disclose individual equity holdings or program participation.

PGIM INVESTMENTS LLC

■	Attract and reward highly qualified employees
■	Align with critical business goals and objectives
■	Link to the performance results relevant to the business segment and Prudential
■	Retain top performers
■	Pay for results and differentiate levels of performance
■	Foster behaviors and contributions that promote Prudential's success

The components of compensation for a Vice President in PGIM Investments consists of base salary, annual incentive compensation and long term incentive compensation.

Company. Initial budgets are developed by determining the competitive market rates for incentives as compared to our comparator companies. Each organization's budget pool may be increased or decreased based on organizational performance. Organizational performance is determined by a review of performance relative to our comparator group, as well as key measures indicated in our business plan, such as Return on Required Equity (RORE), earnings and revenue growth.

PGIM FIXED INCOME

Cash Bonus

An investment professional’s annual cash bonus is paid from an annual incentive pool. The pool is developed as a percentage of our operating income and may be refined by factors such as:

■	business development initiatives, measured primarily by growth in operating income; and/or
■	investment performance of portfolios: (i) relative to appropriate peer groups and/or (ii) as measured against relevant investment indices.

Long-Term Compensation

Conflicts Related to Long-Term Compensation

■	elimination of the conflict;
■	disclosure of the conflict; or
■	management of the conflict through the adoption of appropriate policies and procedures.

■	Performance Fees— PGIM Fixed Income manages accounts with asset-based fees alongside accounts with performance-based fees. This side-by-side management may be deemed to create an incentive for PGIM Fixed Income and its investment professionals to favor one account over another. Specifically, PGIM Fixed Income could be considered to have the incentive to favor accounts for which it receives performance fees, and possibly take greater investment risks in those accounts, in order to bolster performance and increase its fees.
■	Affiliated accounts— PGIM Fixed Income manages accounts on behalf of its affiliates as well as unaffiliated accounts. PGIM Fixed Income could be considered to have an incentive to favor accounts of affiliates over others.
■	Large accounts—large accounts typically generate more revenue than do smaller accounts and certain of PGIM Fixed Income’s strategies have higher fees than others. As a result, a portfolio manager could be considered to have an incentive when allocating scarce investment opportunities to favor accounts that pay a higher fee or generate more income for PGIM Fixed Income.
■	Long only and long/short accounts— PGIM Fixed Income manages accounts that only allow it to hold securities long as well as accounts that permit short selling. PGIM Fixed Income may, therefore, sell a security short in some client accounts while holding the same security long in other client accounts. These short sales could reduce the value of the securities held in the long only accounts. In addition, purchases for long only accounts could have a negative impact on the short positions.
■	Securities of the same kind or class— PGIM Fixed Income may buy or sell for one client account securities of the same kind or class that are purchased or sold for another client at prices that may be different. PGIM Fixed Income may also, at any time, execute trades of securities of the same kind or class in one direction for an account and in the opposite direction for another account due to differences in investment strategy or client direction. Different strategies trading in the same securities or types of securities may appear as inconsistencies in PGIM Fixed Income’s management of multiple accounts side-by-side.
■	Financial interests of investment professionals— PGIM Fixed Income investment professionals may invest in investment vehicles that it advises. Also, certain of these investment vehicles are options under the 401(k) and deferred compensation plans offered by Prudential Financial. In addition, the value of grants under PGIM Fixed Income’s long-term incentive plan is affected by the performance of certain client accounts. As a result, PGIM Fixed Income investment professionals may have financial interests in accounts managed by PGIM Fixed Income or that are related to the performance of certain client accounts.
■	Non-discretionary accounts or models— PGIM Fixed Income provides non-discretionary investment advice and non-discretionary model portfolios to some clients and manages others on a discretionary basis. Trades in non-discretionary accounts could occur before, in concert with, or after PGIM Fixed Income executes similar trades in its discretionary accounts. The non-discretionary clients may be disadvantaged if PGIM Fixed Income delivers the model investment portfolio or investment advice to them after it initiates trading for the discretionary clients, or vice versa.

■

The head of PGIM Fixed Income and its chief investment officer periodically review and compare performance and performance attribution for each client account within its various strategies.

■

■	Conflicts Arising Out of Legal Restrictions. PGIM Fixed Income may be restricted by law, regulation or contract as to how much, if any, of a particular security it may purchase or sell on behalf of a client, and as to the timing of such purchase or sale. These restrictions may apply as a result of its relationship with Prudential Financial and its other affiliates. For example, PGIM Fixed Income’s holdings of a security on behalf of its clients may, under some SEC rules, be aggregated with the holdings of that security by other Prudential Financial affiliates. These holdings could, on an aggregate basis, exceed certain reporting thresholds that are monitored, and PGIM Fixed Income may restrict purchases to avoid exceeding these thresholds. In addition, PGIM Fixed Income could receive material, non-public information with respect to a particular issuer and, as a result, be unable to execute transactions in securities of that issuer for its clients. For example, PGIM Fixed Income’s bank loan team often invests in private bank loans in connection with which the borrower provides material, non-public information, resulting in restrictions on trading securities issued by those borrowers. PGIM Fixed Income has procedures in place to carefully consider whether to intentionally accept material, non-public information with respect to certain issuers. PGIM Fixed Income is generally able to avoid receiving material, non-public information from its affiliates and other units within PGIM by maintaining information barriers. In some instances, it may create an isolated information barrier around a small number of its employees so that material, non-public information received by such employees is not attributed to the rest of PGIM Fixed Income.
■	Conflicts Related to Outside Business Activity. From time to time, certain of PGIM Fixed Income employees or officers may engage in outside business activity, including outside directorships. Any outside business activity is subject to prior approval pursuant to PGIM Fixed Income’s personal conflicts of interest and outside business activities policy. Actual and potential conflicts of interest are analyzed during such approval process. PGIM Fixed Income could be restricted in trading the securities of certain issuers in client portfolios in the unlikely event that an employee or officer, as a result of outside business activity, obtains material, nonpublic information regarding an issuer. The head of PGIM Fixed Income serves on the board of directors of the operator of an electronic trading platform. PGIM Fixed Income has adopted procedures to address the conflict relating to trading on this platform. The procedures include independent monitoring by PGIM Fixed Income’s chief investment officer and chief compliance officer and reporting on PGIM Fixed Income’s use of this platform to the President of PGIM.
■	Conflicts Related to Investment of Client Assets in Affiliated Funds. PGIM Fixed Income may invest client assets in funds that it manages or sub-advises for an affiliate. PGIM Fixed Income may also invest cash collateral from securities lending transactions in these funds. These investments benefit both PGIM Fixed Income and its affiliate.
■	PICA General Account. Because of the substantial size of the general account of The Prudential Insurance Company of America (PICA), trading by PICA’s general account, including PGIM Fixed Income’s trades on behalf of the account, may affect market prices. Although PGIM Fixed Income doesn’t expect that PICA’s general account will execute transactions that will move a market frequently, and generally only in response to unusual market or issuer events, the execution of these transactions could have an adverse effect on transactions for or positions held by other clients.

Conflicts Related to Securities Holdings and Other Financial Interests

■

	client accounts. PGIM Fixed Income’s interest in having the debt repaid creates a conflict of interest. PGIM Fixed Income has adopted a refinancing policy to address this conflict. PGIM Fixed Income may be unable to invest client assets in the securities of certain issuers as a result of the investments described above.
■	Conflicts Related to the Offer and Sale of Securities. Certain of PGIM Fixed Income’s employees may offer and sell securities of, and interests in, commingled funds that it manages or sub-advises. There is an incentive for PGIM Fixed Income’s employees to offer these securities to investors regardless of whether the investment is appropriate for such investor since increased assets in these vehicles will result in increased advisory fees to it. In addition, such sales could result in increased compensation to the employee.
■	Conflicts Related to Long-Term Compensation. The performance of many client accounts is not reflected in the calculation of changes in the value of participation interests under PGIM Fixed Income’s long-term incentive plan. This may be because the composite representing the strategy in which the account is managed is not one of the composites included in the calculation or because the account is excluded from a specified composite due to guideline restrictions or other factors. As a result of the long-term incentive plan, PGIM Fixed Income’s portfolio managers from time to time have financial interests related to the investment performance of some, but not all, of the accounts they manage. To address potential conflicts related to these financial interests, PGIM Fixed Income has procedures, including trade allocation and supervisory review procedures, designed to ensure that each of its client accounts is managed in a manner that is consistent with PGIM Fixed Income’s fiduciary obligations, as well as with the account’s investment objectives, investment strategies and restrictions. For example, PGIM Fixed Income’s chief investment officer reviews performance among similarly managed accounts with the head of PGIM Fixed Income on a quarterly basis.
■	Other Financial Interests. PGIM Fixed Income and its affiliates may also have financial interests or relationships with issuers whose securities it invests in for client accounts. These interests can include debt or equity financing, strategic corporate relationships or investments, and the offering of investment advice in various forms. For example, PGIM Fixed Income may invest client assets in the securities of issuers that are also its advisory clients.

Conflicts Related to Valuation and Fees.

QUANTITATIVE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES LLC (QMA)

■	Elimination of the conflict;
■	Disclosure of the conflict; or
■	Management of the conflict through the adoption of appropriate policies and procedures.

■	Asset-Based Fees vs. Performance-Based Fees; Other Fee Considerations. QMA manages accounts with asset-based fees alongside accounts with performance-based fees. Asset-based fees are calculated based on the value of a client’s portfolio at periodic measurement dates or over specified periods of time. Performance-based fees are generally based on a share of the capital appreciation of a portfolio, and may offer greater upside potential to an investment manager than asset-based fees, depending on how the fees are structured. This side-by-side management can create an incentive for QMA and its investment professionals to favor one account over another. Specifically, QMA has the incentive to favor accounts for which it receives performance fees, and possibly take greater investment risks in those accounts, in order to bolster performance and increase its fees. In addition, since fees are negotiable, one client may be paying a higher fee than another client with similar investment objectives or goals. In negotiating fees, QMA takes into account a number of factors including, but not limited to, the investment strategy, the size of a portfolio being managed, the relationship with the client, and the required level of service. Fees may also differ based on account type. For example, fees for commingled vehicles, including those that QMA subadvises, may differ from fees charged for single client accounts.
■	Long Only/Long-Short Accounts. QMA manages accounts that only allow it to hold securities long as well as accounts that permit short selling. QMA may, therefore, sell a security short in some client accounts while holding the same security long in other client accounts, creating the possibility that QMA is taking inconsistent positions with respect to a particular security in different client accounts.
■	Compensation/Benefit Plan Accounts/Other Investments by Investment Professionals. QMA manages certain funds and strategies whose performance is considered in determining long-term incentive plan benefits for certain investment professionals. Investment professionals involved in the management of those accounts in these strategies have an incentive to favor them over other accounts they manage in order to increase their compensation. Additionally, QMA’s investment professionals may have an interest in funds in those strategies if the funds are chosen as options in their 401(k) or deferred compensation plans offered by Prudential or if they otherwise invest in those funds directly.
■	Affiliated Accounts. QMA manages accounts on behalf of its affiliates as well as unaffiliated accounts. QMA could have an incentive to favor accounts of affiliates over others.
■	Non-Discretionary Accounts or Models. QMA provides non-discretionary model portfolios to some clients and manages other portfolios on a discretionary basis. The non-discretionary clients may be disadvantaged if QMA delivers the model investment portfolio to them after it initiates trading for the discretionary clients, or vice versa.
■	Large Accounts. Large accounts typically generate more revenue than do smaller accounts. As a result, a portfolio manager has an incentive when allocating scarce investment opportunities to favor accounts that pay a higher fee or generate more income for QMA.
■	Securities of the Same Kind or Class. QMA may buy or sell, or may direct or recommend that one client buy or sell, securities of the same kind or class that are purchased or sold for another client, at prices that may be different. QMA may also, at any time, execute trades of securities of the same kind or class in one direction for an account and in the opposite direction for another account, due to differences in investment strategy or client direction. Different strategies effecting trading in the same securities or types of securities may appear as inconsistencies in QMA’s management of multiple accounts side-by-side.

Conflicts Related to QMA’s Affiliations.

QS INVESTORS, LLC (QS INVESTORS)

COMPENSATION. Compensation for all investment professionals includes a combination of base salary and annual discretionary bonus as well as a generous benefits package made available to all employees on a non-discretionary basis. Specifically, the compensation package includes:

Competitive base salaries;

Individual discretionary -based bonuses based on the investment professional’s added value to the products for which they are responsible. Bonuses are not directly tied to peer group and/or relative performance to any benchmark. The qualitative analysis of a portfolio manager’s individual performance is based on, among other things, the results of an annual management and internal peer review process, and management’s assessment of a portfolio manager contributions to the investment team, the investment process and overall performance (distinct from fund and other account performance). Other factors taken into consideration include the individual’s contributions to model and investment process research, risk management, client service and new business development; and

Corporate profit sharing.

Certain investment professionals may also have longer-term incentive packages that are tied to the success of the organization.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. QS Investors maintains policies and procedures reasonably designed to detect and minimize potential conflicts of interest inherent in circumstances when a portfolio manager has day-to-day portfolio management responsibilities for multiple portfolios. Nevertheless, no set of policies and procedures can possibly anticipate or relieve all potential conflicts of interest. These conflicts may be real, potential, or perceived; certain of these conflicts are described in detail below.

Allocation of Limited Investment Opportunities. If a portfolio manager identifies a limited investment opportunity (including initial public offerings) that may be suitable for multiple funds and/or accounts, the investment opportunity may be allocated among these several funds or accounts, which may limit a client’s ability to take full advantage of the investment opportunity, due to liquidity constraints or other factors.

QS Investors has adopted trade allocation procedures designed to ensure that allocations of limited investment opportunities are conducted in a fair and equitable manner between client accounts. Nevertheless, investment opportunities may be allocated differently among client accounts due to the particular characteristics of an account, such as the size of the account, cash position, investment guidelines and restrictions or its sector/country/region exposure or other risk controls, or market restrictions.

Similar Investment Strategies. QS Investors and its portfolio management team may manage multiple portfolios with similar investment strategies. Investment decisions for each portfolio are generally made based on each portfolio’s investment objectives and guidelines, cash availability, and current holdings. Purchases or sales of securities for the portfolios may be appropriate for other portfolios with like objectives and may be bought or sold in different amounts and at different times in multiple portfolios. In these cases, transactions are allocated to portfolios in a manner believed fair and equitable across client account portfolios by QS Investors methodology. Purchase and sale orders for a portfolio may be combined with those of other portfolios in the interest of achieving the most favorable net results for all clients.

Different Investment Strategies. QS Investors may manage long-short strategies alongside long-only strategies. As such, the potential exists for short sales of securities in certain portfolios while the same security is held long in one or more other portfolios. In an attempt to mitigate the inherent risks of simultaneous management of long-short and long-only strategies, QS Investors has established and implemented procedures to promote fair and equitable treatment of all portfolios. The procedures include monitoring and surveillance, supervisory reviews, and compliance oversight of short sale activity.

Differences in Financial Incentives. A conflict of interest may arise where the financial or other benefits available to a portfolio manager or an investment adviser differ among the funds and/or accounts under management. For example, when the structure of an investment adviser’s management fee differs among the funds and/or accounts under its management (such as where certain funds or accounts pay higher management fees or performance-based management fees), a portfolio manager might be motivated to favor certain funds and/or accounts over others. Performance-based fees could also create an incentive for an investment adviser to make investments that are riskier or more speculative. In addition, a portfolio manager might be motivated to favor funds and/or accounts in which he or she or the investment adviser and/or its affiliates have a financial interest. Similarly, the desire to maintain or raise assets under management or to enhance the portfolio manager’s performance record in a particular investment strategy or to derive other rewards, financial or otherwise, could influence a portfolio manager to lend preferential treatment to those funds and/or accounts that could most significantly benefit the portfolio manager. To manage conflicts that may arise from management of portfolios with performance-based fees, performance in portfolios with like strategies is regularly reviewed by management.

In multi-asset strategies where QS Investors is responsible for asset allocation and has the discretionary authority to direct assets to funds or accounts managed by QS Investors, affiliated managers and/or unaffiliated managers, QS Investors may have financial or other incentives to advise that client assets be directed to funds or accounts managed by QS Investors instead of funds or accounts managed by affiliated managers or unaffiliated managers, or to advise that client assets be directed to funds or accounts managed by affiliated managers instead of unaffiliated managers.

QS Investors has established and implemented various policies and procedures to promote fair and equitable treatment and to manage these and other potential conflicts that may arise from differences in financial incentives. For example, in regard to the management of portfolios with performance-based fees, performance in portfolios with like strategies is regularly reviewed by management. In regard to conflicts associated with fund/manager selection, QS Investors employs an asset allocation process that is primarily quantitative, and certain investment decisions that could be deemed to result in conflicts of interest (e.g., initial allocations or substantial increases in allocations to funds or accounts managed by QS Investors) are subject to review and pre-approval by certain management and compliance personnel.

Personal Holdings and Transactions. Investment professionals employed by QS Investors may manage personal accounts in which they have a fiduciary interest with holdings similar to those of client accounts. QS Investors also allows its employees to trade in securities that it recommends to advisory clients. QS Investors purchasing, holding or selling the same or similar securities for client account

portfolios and the actions taken by such individuals on a personal basis may differ from, or be inconsistent with, the nature and timing of advice or actions taken by QS Investors for its client accounts. QS Investors and its employees may also invest in mutual funds and other pooled investment vehicles that are managed by QS Investors. This may result in a potential conflict of interest since QS Investors’ employees have knowledge of such funds’ investment holdings, which is non-public information. QS Investors has implemented a Code of Ethics which is designed to address and mitigate the possibility that these professionals could place their own interests ahead of those of clients. The Code of Ethics addresses this potential conflict of interest by imposing pre-clearance and reporting requirements, blackout periods, supervisory oversight, and other measures designed to reduce conflict.

BRANDYWINE GLOBAL INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, INC. (BRANDYWINE GLOBAL)

COMPENSATION. Brandywine Global portfolio managers’ compensation includes a fixed base salary coupled with a bonus which is based on 1) the manager’s portfolio pre-tax performance versus a relevant peer-group universe over one quarter, one year, three year and five year time periods, and 2) the overall profitability of all portfolios managed by the portfolio managers. The bonus calculation treats every account under the portfolio manager’s direction in the same manner, including the Portfolio. More subjective measurements of an individual’s contributions to the success of their product group and to the overall success of the firms are also considered as part of the individual allocation decision. After this performance-based incentive compensation is allocated, profits associated with individual product groups are allocated to a pool shared by all product groups. Finally, Brandywine investment professionals are eligible for options on Legg Mason, Inc. stock, provided from time to time at Legg Mason, Inc.’s discretion to its investment management subsidiaries. Brandywine Global believes this system achieves the goal of retaining top-quality investment professionals, as it provides extremely competitive compensation with entrepreneurial potential, and of fostering excellent performance, growth and teamwork.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Brandywine Global believes that there are no material conflicts of interest that arise in connection with its simultaneous management of its various portfolios. All portfolios within a given investment style are treated in a similar fashion for all investment decisions, unless a client provides specific investment restrictions. All trade executions of a given investment decision are allocated in an unbiased manner to avoid any conflict over allocation of investment opportunities.

CLEARBRIDGE INVESTMENTS, LLC. (CLEARBRIDGE)

Base salary compensation. Base salary is fixed and primarily determined based on market factors and the experience and responsibilities of the investment professional within the firm.

Discretionary compensation. In addition to base compensation managers may receive discretionary compensation.

Discretionary compensation can include:

■

Cash Incentive Award

■

ClearBridge’s Deferred Incentive Plan (CDIP) — a mandatory program that typically defers 15% of discretionary year-end compensation into ClearBridge managed products. For portfolio managers, one-third of this deferral tracks the performance of their primary managed product, one-third tracks the performance of a composite portfolio of the firm’s new products and one-third can be elected to track the performance of one or more of ClearBridge managed funds. Consequently, portfolio managers can have two-thirds of their CDIP award tracking the performance of their primary managed product

■	For centralized research analysts, two-thirds of their deferral is elected to track the performance of one of more of ClearBridge managed funds, while one-third tracks the performance of the new product composite.
■	ClearBridge then makes a company investment in the proprietary managed funds equal to the deferral amounts by fund. This investment is a company asset held on the balance sheet and paid out to the employees in shares subject to vesting requirements.

■	Legg Mason Restricted Stock Deferral — a mandatory program that typically defers 5% of discretionary year-end compensation into Legg Mason restricted stock. The award is paid out to employees in shares subject to vesting requirements.
■	Legg Mason Restricted Stock and Stock Option Grants — a discretionary program that may be utilized as part of the total compensation program. These special grants reward and recognize significant contributions to our clients, shareholders and the firm and aid in retaining key talent.

Several factors are considered by ClearBridge Senior Management when determining discretionary compensation for portfolio managers. These include but are not limited to:

■	Investment performance. A portfolio manager’s compensation is linked to the pre-tax investment performance of the fund/accounts managed by the portfolio manager. Investment performance is calculated for 1-, 3-, and 5-year periods measured against the applicable product benchmark (e.g., a securities index and, with respect to a fund, the benchmark set forth in the fund’s Prospectus) and relative to applicable industry peer groups. The greatest weight is generally placed on 3- and 5-year performance
■	Appropriate risk positioning that is consistent with ClearBridge’s investment philosophy and the Investment Committee/CIO approach to generation of alpha;
■	Overall firm profitability and performance;
■	Amount and nature of assets managed by the portfolio manager;
■	Contributions for asset retention, gathering and client satisfaction;
■	Contribution to mentoring, coaching and/or supervising;
■	Contribution and communication of investment ideas in ClearBridge’s Investment Committee meetings and on a day to day basis;
■	Market compensation survey research by independent third parties

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Potential conflicts of interest may arise when the fund’s portfolio managers also have day-to-day management responsibilities with respect to one or more other funds or other accounts, as is the case for the fund’s portfolio managers.

WESTERN ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY/WESTERN ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED (WESTERN ASSET)

COMPENSATION. Western Asset maintains a compensation system for its portfolio managers that assigns each employee a total compensation range, which is derived from annual market surveys that benchmark each role with its job function and peer universe. This method is designed to reward employees with total compensation reflective of the external market value of their skills, experience and ability to produce desired results. Standard compensation includes competitive base salaries, generous employee benefits and a retirement plan.

In addition, Western Asset’s employees are eligible for bonuses. These are structured to closely align the interests of employees with those of Western Asset and are determined by the professional’s job function and pre-tax performance as measured by a formal review process. All bonuses are completely discretionary. The principal factor considered is an investment professional’s investment performance versus appropriate peer groups and benchmarks (e.g., a securities index). Performance is reviewed on a 1, 3 and 5 year basis for compensation—with 3 and 5 years having a larger emphasis. Western Asset may also measure an investment professional’s pre-tax investment performance against other benchmarks, as it determines appropriate. Because investment professionals are generally responsible for multiple accounts (including a portion of the Portfolio) with similar investment strategies, they are generally compensated on the performance of the aggregate group of similar accounts, rather than a specific account. Other factors that may be considered when making bonus decisions include client service, business development, length of service to the subadviser, management or supervisory responsibilities, contributions to developing business strategy and overall contributions to Western Asset’s business.

Finally, in order to attract and retain top talent, all investment professionals are eligible for additional incentives in recognition of outstanding performance. These are determined based upon the factors described above and include Legg Mason stock options and long-term incentives that vest over a set period of time past the award date.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Western Asset and its investment professionals have interests which conflict with the interests of the Portfolio. There is no guarantee that the policies and procedures adopted by Western Assets will be able to identify or mitigate these conflicts of interest.

Some examples of material conflicts of interest include:

Allocation of Limited Time and Attention. An investment professional who is responsible for managing multiple funds and/or accounts may devote unequal time and attention to the management of those funds and/or accounts. An investment professional may not be able to formulate as complete a strategy or identify equally attractive investment opportunities for each of those funds and accounts as might be the case if he or she were to devote substantially more attention to the management of a single fund. Such an investment professional may make general determinations across multiple funds, rather than tailoring a unique approach for the Portfolio. The effects of this conflict may be more pronounced where funds and/or accounts overseen by a particular investment professional have different investment strategies.

Allocation of Limited Investment Opportunities; Aggregation of Orders. If an investment professional identifies a limited investment opportunity that may be suitable for multiple funds and/or accounts, the opportunity may be allocated among these several funds or accounts, which may limit the fund’s ability to take full advantage of the investment opportunity. Additionally, Western Asset may aggregate transaction orders for multiple accounts for the purpose of execution. Such aggregation may cause the price or brokerage costs to be less favorable to a particular client than if similar transactions were not being executed concurrently for other accounts. In addition, Western Asset’s trade allocation policies may result in the Portfolio’s orders not being fully executed or being delayed in execution.

Pursuit of Differing Strategies. At times, an investment professional may determine that an investment opportunity may be appropriate for only some of the funds and/or accounts for which he or she exercises investment responsibility, or may decide that certain of the funds and/or accounts should take differing positions with respect to a particular security. In these cases, the investment professional may place separate transactions for one or more funds or accounts which may affect the market price of the security or the execution of the transaction, or both, to the detriment or benefit of one or more other funds and/or accounts. For example, an investment professional may determine that it would be in the interest of another account to sell a security that the fund holds long, potentially resulting in a decrease in the market value of the security held by the fund.

Cross Trades. Investment professionals may manage funds that engage in cross trades, where one of the manager’s funds or accounts sells a particular security to another fund or account managed by the same manager. Cross trades may pose conflicts of interest because of, for example, the possibility that one account sells a security to another account at a higher price than an independent third party would pay or otherwise enters into a transaction that it would not enter into with an independent party, such as the sale of a difficult-to-obtain security.

Selection of Broker/Dealers. Investment professionals may select or influence the selection of the brokers and dealers that are used to execute securities transactions for the funds and/or accounts that they supervise. In addition to executing trades, some brokers and dealers provide the subadviser with brokerage and research services. These services may be taken into account in the selection of brokers and dealers whether a broker is being selected to effect a trade on an agency basis for a commission or (as is normally the case for the fund) whether a dealer is being selected to effect a trade on a principal basis. This may result in the payment of higher brokerage fees and/or execution at a less favorable price than might have otherwise been available. The services obtained may ultimately be more beneficial to certain of the manager’s funds or accounts than to others (but not necessarily to the funds that pay the increased commission or incur the less favorable execution). A decision as to the selection of brokers and dealers could therefore yield disproportionate costs and benefits among the funds and/or accounts managed.

Variation in Financial and Other Benefits. A conflict of interest arises where the financial or other benefits available to an investment professional differ among the funds and/or accounts that he or she manages. If the amount or structure of the investment manager’s management fee and/or an investment professional’s compensation differs among funds and/or accounts (such as where certain funds or accounts pay higher management fees or performance-based management fees), the investment professional might be motivated to help certain funds and/or accounts over others. Similarly, the desire to maintain assets under management or to enhance the investment professional’s performance record or to derive other rewards, financial or otherwise, could influence the investment professional in affording preferential treatment to those funds and/or accounts that could most significantly benefit the investment professional. An investment professional may, for example, have an incentive to allocate favorable or limited opportunity investments or structure the timing of investments to favor such funds and/or accounts. Also, an investment professional’s or the Western Subadviser’s desire to increase assets under management could influence the investment professional to keep the fund open for new investors without regard to potential benefits of closing the fund to new investors. Additionally, the investment professional might be motivated to favor funds and/or accounts in which he or she has an ownership interest or in which the investment manager and/or its affiliates have ownership interests. Conversely, if an investment professional does not personally hold an investment in the fund, the investment professional’s conflicts of interest with respect to the fund may be more acute.

Related Business Opportunities. Western Asset or its affiliates may provide more services (such as distribution or recordkeeping) for some types of funds or accounts than for others. In such cases, an investment professional may benefit, either directly or indirectly, by devoting disproportionate attention to the management of funds and/or accounts that provide greater overall returns to Western Asset and its affiliates.

This compensation structure is used for all portfolios managed by the portfolio manager.

TEMPLETON GLOBAL ADVISORS LIMITED

Base salary Each portfolio manager is paid a base salary.

■	Investment performance. Primary consideration is given to the historic investment performance over the 1, 3 and 5 preceding years of all accounts managed by the portfolio manager. The pre-tax performance of each fund managed is measured relative to a relevant peer group and/or applicable benchmark as appropriate.
■	Research. Where the portfolio management team also has research responsibilities, each portfolio manager is evaluated on the number and performance of recommendations over time, productivity and quality of recommendations, and peer evaluation.
■	Non-investment performance. For senior portfolio managers, there is a qualitative evaluation based on leadership and the mentoring of staff.
■	Responsibilities. The characteristics and complexity of funds managed by the portfolio manager are factored in the investment manager’s appraisal.

Portfolio managers also participate in benefit plans and programs available generally to all employees of the investment manager.

Wellington Management Company LLP

Portfolio Manager Compensation

Portfolio	Benchmark Index and/or Peer Group for Incentive Period
AST Small Cap Growth Opportunities Portfolio	Russell 2000 Growth Index
AST Wellington Management Global Bond Portfolio	Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Bond Hedged to USD
AST Wellington Management Total Return Portfolio	Bloomberg Barclays US TIPS (1-10) Yr Index

Potential Conflicts

OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS

CUSTODIAN. The Bank of New York Mellon Corp., 225 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10286 serves as Custodian for the Trust's portfolio securities and cash, and in that capacity, maintains certain financial accounting books and records pursuant to an agreement with the Trust. Subcustodians provide custodial services for any foreign assets held outside the United States.

BNY Mellon Asset Servicing (US) Inc. (BNYAS) serves as sub-transfer agent to the Trust. PMFS has contracted with BNYAS, 301 Bellevue Parkway, Wilmington, Delaware 19809, to provide certain administrative functions to the Transfer Agent. PMFS will compensate BNYAS for such services.

INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM. KPMG LLP, 345 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10154, served as independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal period ended December 31, 2016, and in that capacity will audit the annual financial statements for the Trust for the next fiscal year.

Compensation Received by the Agent for Securities Lending
Portfolio	Amount
AST AB Global Bond Portfolio	$2,218
AST BlackRock Multi-Asset Income Portfolio	$3,487
AST Columbia Adaptive Risk Allocation Portfolio	$400
AST Emerging Managers Diversified Portfolio	$14
AST FQ Absolute Return Currency Portfolio	None
AST Franklin Templeton K2 Global Absolute Return Portfolio	$17
AST Goldman Sachs Global Growth Allocation Portfolio	$380
AST Goldman Sachs Global Income Portfolio	$1,130
AST Goldman Sachs Strategic Income Portfolio	$1,070
AST Jennison Global Infrastructure Portfolio	$47
AST Legg Mason Diversified Growth Portfolio	$3,236
AST Managed Alternatives Portfolio	None
AST Managed Equity Portfolio	None
AST Managed Fixed Income Portfolio	None
AST Morgan Stanley Multi-Asset Portfolio	None
AST Neuberger Berman Long/Short Portfolio	None
AST Prudential Flexible Multi-Strategy Portfolio	None
AST QMA International Core Equity Portfolio	$12,177
AST T. Rowe Price Diversified Real Growth Portfolio	None
AST Wellington Management Global Bond Portfolio	$1,665

Compensation Received by the Agent for Securities Lending
Portfolio	Amount
AST Wellington Management Real Total Return Portfolio	$124

DISTRIBUTOR. The Trust has distribution arrangements with PAD, pursuant to which PAD serves as the distributor for the shares of each Portfolio. PAD is an affiliate of the Investment Managers.

The Trust’s distribution agreement with respect to the Trust and the Portfolios (Distribution Agreement) has been approved by the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, with respect to each Portfolio. The Distribution Agreement will remain in effect from year to year provided that the Distribution Agreement’s continuance is approved annually by (i) a majority of the Independent Trustees who are not parties to the agreement and, if applicable, who have no direct or indirect financial interest in the operation of the Shareholder Services and Distribution Plan (the 12b-1 Plan) or any such related agreement, by a vote cast in person at a meeting called for the purpose of voting on such Agreements and (ii) either by a vote of a majority of the Trustees or a majority of the outstanding voting securities (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the Trust, as applicable.

The Trust has adopted the 12b-1 Plan in the manner prescribed under Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act. Under the 12b-1 Plan, each Portfolio (except for AST Managed Alternatives Portfolio, AST Managed Equity Portfolio and AST Managed Fixed Income Portfolio) is authorized to pay PAD an annual shareholder services and distribution fee of 0.25% of each Portfolio’s average daily net assets.

The shareholder services and distribution fee paid by each Portfolio to PAD is intended to compensate PAD and its affiliates for various administrative services, including but not limited to the filing, printing and delivery of the Trust’s prospectus and statement of additional information, annual and semi-annual shareholder reports, and other required regulatory documents, responding to shareholder questions and inquiries relating to the Portfolios, and related functions and services. In addition, pursuant to the 12b-1 Plan, the fee is intended to compensate PAD and its affiliates for various services rendered and expenses incurred in connection with activities intended to result in the sale or servicing of the shares of the covered Portfolios. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following:

■	printing and mailing of prospectuses, statements of additional information, supplements, proxy statement materials, and annual and semi-annual reports for current owners of variable life or variable annuity contracts indirectly investing in the shares (the Contracts);
■	reconciling and balancing separate account investments in the Portfolios;
■	reconciling and providing notice to the Trust of net cash flow and cash requirements for net redemption orders;
■	confirming transactions;
■	providing Contract owner services related to investments in the Portfolios, including assisting the Trust with proxy solicitations, including providing solicitation and tabulation services, and investigating and responding to inquiries from Contract owners that relate to the Portfolios;
■	providing periodic reports to the Trust and regarding the Portfolios to third-party reporting services;
■	paying compensation to and expenses, including overhead, of employees of PAD and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries that engage in the distribution of the shares including, but not limited to, commissions, service fees and marketing fees;
■	printing and mailing of prospectuses, statements of additional information, supplements and annual and semi-annual reports for prospective Contract owners;
■	paying expenses relating to the development, preparation, printing and mailing of advertisements, sales literature, and other promotional materials describing and/or relating to the Portfolios;
■	paying expenses of holding seminars and sales meetings designed to promote the distribution of the shares;
■	paying expenses of obtaining information and providing explanations to Contract owners regarding investment objectives, policies, performance and other information about the Trust and its Portfolios;
■	paying expenses of training sales personnel regarding the Portfolios; and

■	providing other services and bearing other expenses for the benefit of the Portfolios, including activities primarily intended to result in the sale of shares of the Trust.

The 12b-1Plan is of a type known as a “compensation” plan because payments are made for services rendered to the covered Portfolios of the Trust regardless of the level of actual expenditures by PAD. However, as part of their oversight of the operations of the Trust and the 12b-1Plan, the Trustees consider and examine all payments made to PAD and all expenditures by PAD for purposes of reviewing operations under the 12b-1 Plan. As required under Rule 12b-1, the 12b-1 Plan provides that PAD and any other person(s) authorized to direct the disposition of monies paid or payable by the Portfolios pursuant to the 12b-1 Plan or any related agreement will provide to the Board, and the Trustees shall review, at least quarterly, a written report of the amounts so expended and the purposes for which such expenditures were made. Fees payable to PAD under the 12b-1 Plan are accrued daily and paid bi-weekly.

The 12b-1 Plan and any related agreement will continue in effect, with respect to each Portfolio, for a period of more than one year only so long as such continuance is specifically approved at least annually by a vote of (a) the Board and (b) the Trust’s Independent Trustees, cast in person at a meeting called for the purpose of voting on the 12b-1Plan or such agreement, as applicable. In addition, the 12b-1 Plan and any related agreement may be terminated at any time with respect to any Portfolio by vote of a majority of the Independent Trustees or by vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities representing the shares of that Portfolio. The 12b-1 Plan may not be amended to increase materially the amount of distribution and shareholder service fees permissible with respect to any Portfolio until it has been approved by the Board and by a vote of at least a majority of the outstanding voting securities representing the shares of that Portfolio.

The amounts received and spent by PAD pursuant to the 12b-1 Plan during the most recently completed fiscal year are set out in the tables below:

Amounts Received by PAD
Portfolio Name	Amount
AST AB Global Bond Portfolio	$3,163,763
AST BlackRock Multi-Asset Income Portfolio	$81,936
AST Columbia Adaptive Risk Allocation Portfolio	$25,183
AST Emerging Managers Diversified Portfolio	$14,951
AST FQ Absolute Return Currency Portfolio	$19,455
AST Franklin Templeton K2 Global Absolute Return Portfolio	$46,913
AST Goldman Sachs Global Growth Allocation Portfolio	$54,605
AST Goldman Sachs Global Income Portfolio	$1,968,045
AST Goldman Sachs Strategic Income Portfolio	$936,841
AST Jennison Global Infrastructure Portfolio	$20,518
AST Legg Mason Diversified Growth Portfolio	$260,704
AST Managed Alternatives Portfolio	None
AST Managed Equity Portfolio	None
AST Managed Fixed Income Portfolio	None
AST Morgan Stanley Multi-Asset Portfolio	$38,093
AST Neuberger Berman Long/Short Portfolio	$35,058
AST Prudential Flexible Multi-Strategy Portfolio	$39,181
AST QMA International Core Equity Portfolio	$1,911,985
AST T. Rowe Price Diversified Real Growth Portfolio	$87,954
AST Wellington Management Global Bond Portfolio	$3,616,439
AST Wellington Management Real Total Return Portfolio	$40,116

PORTFOLIO TRANSACTIONS & BROKERAGE

The policy permits the Trust, the Investment Managers, and the subadvisers to use selling brokers to execute transactions in portfolio securities so long as the selection of such selling brokers is the result of a decision that executing such transactions is in the best interest of the Trust and is not influenced by considerations about the sale of Portfolio shares.

Total Brokerage Commissions Paid by the Portfolios
Portfolio	2016	2015	2014
AST AB Global Bond Portfolio	None	None	N/A
AST BlackRock Multi-Asset Income Portfolio	15,106	$4,843	$3,750
AST Columbia Adaptive Risk Allocation Portfolio	6,621	1,290	N/A
AST Emerging Managers Diversified Portfolio	928	777	N/A
AST FQ Absolute Return Currency Portfolio	N/A	N/A	N/A
AST Franklin Templeton K2 Global Absolute Return Portfolio	7,476	6,777	3,891
AST Goldman Sachs Global Growth Allocation Portfolio	1,667	929	119
AST Goldman Sachs Global Income Portfolio	N/A	N/A	N/A
AST Goldman Sachs Strategic Income Portfolio	N/A	N/A	N/A
AST Jennison Global Infrastructure Portfolio	16,758	13,625	6,459
AST Legg Mason Diversified Growth Portfolio	49,547	30,905	2,434
AST Managed Alternatives Portfolio	N/A	N/A	N/A
AST Managed Equity Portfolio	359	52	N/A
AST Managed Fixed Income Portfolio	10	N/A	N/A
AST Morgan Stanley Multi-Asset Portfolio	16,682	12,824	N/A
AST Neuberger Berman Long/Short Portfolio	13,130	6,741	N/A
AST Prudential Flexible Multi-Strategy Portfolio	1,531	1,286	159
AST QMA International Core Equity Portfolio	508,380	745,827	N/A
AST T. Rowe Price Diversified Real Growth Portfolio	15,145	12,064	3,973
AST Wellington Management Global Bond Portfolio	None	777	N/A
AST Wellington Management Real Total Return Portfolio	35,451	14,377	N/A

Brokerage Commissions Paid to Affiliated Brokers: Fiscal Year 2016
Portfolio	Commissions Paid	Broker Name	% of Commissions Paid to Broker	% of Dollar Amt. of Transactions Involving Commissions Effected through Broker
N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Brokerage Commissions Paid to Affiliated Brokers: Fiscal Year 2015
Portfolio	Commissions Paid	Broker Name	% of Commissions Paid to Broker	% of Dollar Amt. of Transactions Involving Commissions Effected through Broker
AST Morgan Stanley Multi-Asset Portfolio	$137	Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC	1.07%	0.33%

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Value Portfolio (formerly known as the Janus Strategic Value Portfolio) and the AST Lord Abbett Core Fixed Income Portfolio (formerly, the AST Lord Abbett Bond-Debenture Portfolio) were first offered on October 23, 2000. The AST AllianceBernstein Core Value (formerly known as the AST Sanford Bernstein Core Value) Portfolio was first offered on May 1, 2001.