485APOS

NAME, YEAR OF BIRTH,

AND POSITION(S) WITH

THE TRUST;

(TERM OF OFFICE AND

LENGTH OF TIME

SERVED¹)

PRINCIPAL

OCCUPATIONS DURING

THE PAST FIVE YEARS

NUMBER OF

PORTFOLIOS

IN FUND

COMPLEX

OVERSEEN BY

THE TRUSTEE

OTHER

DIRECTORSHIPS

DURING THE PAST

FIVE YEARS

INDEPENDENT TRUSTEES

Mariann Byerwalter

1960

Trustee

(Trustee since 2000)

Chairman of JDN Corporate Advisory LLC.

Director, Redwood Trust, Inc. (1998 – present)

Director, PMI Group Inc.

(2001 – 2009)

John F. Cogan

1947

Trustee

(Trustee since 2008)

Senior Fellow: The Hoover Institution at Stanford University (Oct. 1979 – present); Senior Fellow Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research; Professor of Public Policy, Stanford University (Sept. 1994 – present).

Director, Gilead Sciences, Inc. (2005 – present)

Director, Monaco Coach Corporation (2005 – 2009)

485APOS 1 d428118d485apos.htm 485APOS 485APOS

FILE NOS. 33-62470 AND 811-7704

AS FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 22, 2012

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM N-1A


REGISTRATION STATEMENT *UNDER* *THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933* Post-Effective Amendment No. 119		þ
and
REGISTRATION STATEMENT *UNDER* *THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940* Amendment No. 120		þ

SCHWAB CAPITAL TRUST

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

211 Main Street, San Francisco, California 94105

(Address of Principal Executive Offices) (Zip code)

(800) 648-5300

(Registrant’s Telephone Number, including Area Code)

Marie Chandoha

211 Main Street, San Francisco, California 94105

(Name and Address of Agent for Service)

Copies of communications to:


Douglas P. Dick, Esq.	John M. Loder, Esq.	David J. Lekich, Esq.
Dechert LLP	Ropes & Gray LLP	Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc.
1775 I Street, NW	800 Boylston Street	211 Main Street
Washington, DC 20006-2401	Boston, MA 02199-3600	SF211MN-05-491 San Francisco, CA 94105

It is proposed that this filing will become effective (check appropriate box):

Immediately upon filing pursuant to paragraph (b)

On (date) pursuant to paragraph (b)

60 days after filing pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)

On (date) pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)

75 days after filing pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)

On (date) pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 485

If appropriate, check the following box:

This post-effective amendment designates a new effective date for a previously filed post-effective amendment.

Schwab Target Funds

LOGO

Prospectus

January , 2013


• Schwab Target 2045 Fund		[ ]
• Schwab Target 2050 Fund		[ ]
• Schwab Target 2055 Fund		[ ]


As with all mutual funds, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has not approved these securities or passed on whether the information in this prospectus is adequate and accurate. Anyone who indicates otherwise is committing a federal crime.

Subject to Completion, Dated, October 22, 2012 THE INFORMATION IN THIS PROSPECTUS IS NOT COMPLETE AND MAY BE CHANGED. WE MAY NOT SELL THESE SECURITIES UNTIL THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION IS EFFECTIVE. THIS PROSPECTUS IS NOT AN OFFER TO SELL THESE SECURITIES AND IS NOT SOLICITING AN OFFER TO BUY THESE SECURITIES IN ANY STATE WHERE THE OFFER OR SALE IS NOT PERMITTED.

Schwab Target Funds



Fund summaries

Schwab Target 2045 Fund			1

Schwab Target 2050 Fund			5

Schwab Target 2055 Fund			9

About the funds			13

Fund details

Investment objectives, strategies, and risks			14

Portfolio holdings			17

Financial highlights			18

The funds’ investments in underlying funds			18

Fund management			30

Investing in the funds			31

Investing through a financial intermediary			31

Investing directly with the funds			31

Share price			33

Additional policies affecting your investment			34

Distribution and taxes			36

Schwab Target 2045 Fund

Ticker Symbol:

Investment objective

The fund seeks to provide capital appreciation and income consistent with its current asset allocation.

Fund fees and expenses

This table describes the fees and expenses you may pay if you buy and hold shares of the fund.


Shareholder fees (fees paid directly from your investment)
Redemption fee (as a % of the amount sold or exchanged within 30 days of purchase)	[2.00	]

Annual fund operating expenses (expenses that you pay each year as a % of the value of your investment)
Management fees	[	]
Distribution (12b-1) fees	[	]
Other expenses¹	[	]
Acquired fund fees and expenses (AFFE)²	[	]

Total fund annual operating expenses²	[	]
Less expense reduction	[	]

Total annual fund operating expenses (including AFFE)³	[	]

¹	Based on estimated expenses for the current fiscal year.

The total annual fund operating expenses in the fee table may differ from the expense ratios in the fund’s “Financial highlights” because the financial highlights include only the fund’s direct operating expenses and do not include acquired fund fees and expenses (AFFE), which reflect the estimated amount of the fees and expenses incurred indirectly by the fund through its investments in the underlying funds during its prior fiscal year.

The investment adviser and its affiliates have agreed to limit the total annual fund operating expenses (excluding interest, taxes and certain non-routine expenses) of the fund to 0.00% for so long as the investment adviser serves as the adviser to the fund. This agreement may only be amended or terminated with the approval of the fund’s Board of Trustees. This agreement is limited to the fund’s direct operating expenses and does not apply to AFFE.

Example

This example is intended to help you compare the cost of investing in the fund with the cost of investing in other mutual funds. The example assumes that you invest $10,000 in the fund for the time periods indicated and then redeem all of your shares at the end of those time periods. The example also assumes that your investment has a 5% return each year and that the fund’s operating expenses remain the same. The figures are based on total annual fund operating expenses (including AFFE) after expense reduction. The

expenses would be the same whether you stayed in the fund or sold your shares at the end of each period. Your actual costs may be higher or lower.

Expenses on a $10,000 investment


1 year		3 years

Portfolio turnover

The fund pays transaction costs, such as commissions, when it buys and sells securities (or “turns over” its portfolio). A higher portfolio turnover may indicate higher transaction costs and may result in higher taxes when fund shares are held in a taxable account. These costs, which are not reflected in the annual fund operating expenses or in the example, affect the fund’s performance. The fund is new and therefore does not have a historical portfolio turnover rate.

Principal investment strategies

The fund seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing primarily in a combination of other Schwab Funds and Laudus Funds. The fund may also invest in unaffiliated third party mutual funds (referred to herein as unaffiliated funds and, together with Schwab Funds and Laudus Funds, the underlying funds). The fund invests in the underlying funds in accordance with its target portfolio allocation. These underlying funds invest their assets directly in equity, fixed income, cash and cash equivalents (including money market funds) in accordance with their own investment objectives and policies. The fund is managed based on the specific retirement date (target date) included in its name and assumes a retirement age of 65. The target date refers to the approximate year an investor in the fund would plan to retire and likely would stop making new investments in the fund. The fund is designed for an investor who anticipates retiring at or about the target date and plans to withdraw the value of the investor’s account in the fund gradually after retirement. As described below, the adviser will continue to modify the fund’s target asset allocation for 20 years beyond the target date.

The fund’s target asset allocation will be adjusted annually based on the adviser’s asset allocation strategy; however, the adviser reserves the right to modify the fund’s target asset allocations from time to time should circumstances warrant a change. In general, the fund’s allocation to equity securities will decrease and its allocation to fixed income securities will increase as the fund approaches its


Schwab Target 2045 Fund			1

target retirement date. The fund’s asset allocation at inception is anticipated to be approximately [91.50]% equity securities, [6.50]% fixed income securities, and [2]% cash and cash equivalents (including money market funds). The fund will continue to reduce its allocation to equity securities for 20 years beyond the fund’s stated target date. At such time, the fund’s asset allocation will remain fixed at approximately 25% equity securities, 68% fixed income securities, and 7% cash and cash equivalents (including money market funds).

In addition to the strategic annual adjustment of the fund’s target asset allocation, the adviser may adjust the fund’s underlying fund allocations within a particular asset class based on the following considerations, including, but not limited to, market trends, its outlook for a given market capitalization, and the underlying funds’ performance in various market conditions. Accordingly, the fund’s allocation to a particular underlying fund may increase or decrease throughout the year. Within the equity asset class, the fund will have exposure to one or more “style classes”. The style classes include domestic large-cap equity, domestic small-cap equity, and international equity. The adviser may adjust the fund’s allocation to a particular style class based on the following considerations: market trends, its outlook for a given style class, and the style classes’ performance in various market conditions. Accordingly, the fund’s allocation to a particular style class within the equity asset class may increase or decrease throughout the year.

The fund intends to invest in a combination of underlying funds; however, the fund may invest directly in equity and fixed income securities, exchange traded funds (ETFs) and money market securities. For temporary defensive purposes during unusual economic or market conditions or for liquidity purposes, the fund may invest up to 100% of its assets directly in cash, money market instruments, repurchase agreements and other short-term obligations. When the fund engages in such activities, it may not achieve its investment objective.

Principal risks

The fund is subject to risks, any of which could cause an investor to lose money. The fund’s principal risks include:

Asset Allocation Risk. The fund is subject to asset allocation risk, which is the risk that the selection of the underlying funds and the allocation of the fund’s assets among the various asset classes and market segments will cause the fund to underperform other funds with a similar investment objective.

Affiliated Fund Risk. The investment adviser’s authority to select and substitute underlying funds from a variety of affiliated and unaffiliated mutual funds may create a conflict of interest because the fees paid to it by some underlying funds are higher than the fees paid by other underlying funds. However, the portfolio manager is a fiduciary to the fund and is legally obligated to act in the fund’s best interests when selecting underlying funds, without taking fees into consideration.

Market Risk. Stock and bond markets rise and fall daily. As with any investment whose performance is tied to these markets, the

value of your investment in the fund will fluctuate, which means that you could lose money.

Underlying Fund Investment Risk. The value of your investment in the fund is based primarily on the prices of the underlying funds that the fund purchases. In turn, the price of each underlying fund is based on the value of its securities. Before investing in the fund, investors should assess the risks associated with the underlying funds in which the fund may invest and the types of investments made by those underlying funds. These risks include any combination of the risks described below, although the fund’s exposure to a particular risk will be proportionate to the fund’s overall asset allocation and underlying fund allocation.

—

Investment Risk. An investment in an underlying fund is not a bank deposit and is not insured or guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or any other government agency. The fund may experience losses with respect to its investment in an underlying fund. Further, there is no guarantee that an underlying fund will be able to achieve its objective.

—

Management Risk. Generally, the underlying funds are actively managed mutual funds. Any actively managed mutual fund is subject to the risk that its investment adviser (or sub-adviser(s)) will make poor security selections. An underlying fund’s adviser applies its own investment techniques and risk analyses in making investment decisions for the fund, but there can be no guarantee that they will produce the desired results.

—

Fixed Income Risk. Interest rates rise and fall over time, which will affect an underlying fund’s yield and share price. The credit quality of a portfolio investment could also cause an underlying fund’s share price to fall. An underlying fund could lose money if the issuer or guarantor of a portfolio investment or the counterparty to a derivatives contract fails to make timely principal or interest payments or otherwise honor its obligations. Fixed income securities may be paid off earlier or later than expected. Either situation could cause an underlying fund to hold securities paying lower-than-market rates of interest, which could hurt the fund’s yield or share price. Below investment-grade bonds (junk bonds) involve greater credit risk, are more volatile, involve greater risk of price declines and may be more susceptible to economic downturns than investment-grade securities.

—

Equity Risk. The prices of equity securities rise and fall daily. These price movements may result from factors affecting individual companies, industries or the securities market as a whole. In addition, equity markets tend to move in cycles, which may cause stock prices to fall over short or extended periods of time.

—

Large-, Mid- and Small-Cap Risk. Stocks of different market capitalizations tend to go in and out of favor based on market and economic conditions. Historically, small- and mid-cap stocks tend to be more volatile than large-cap stocks, and


2		Schwab Target 2045 Fund

small-cap stocks have been riskier than large- and mid-cap stocks. During a period when stocks of a particular market capitalization fall behind other types of investments — bonds or stocks of another capitalization range, for instance — an underlying fund’s large-, mid- or small-cap holdings could reduce performance.

—

Money Market Risk. Although an underlying money market fund seeks to maintain a stable $1 net asset value, it is possible to lose money by investing in a money market fund. In addition, a money market fund is not designed to offer capital appreciation.

—

Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) Risk. When a fund invests in an ETF, it will bear a proportionate share of the ETF’s expenses. In addition, lack of liquidity in an ETF can result in its value being more volatile than the underlying portfolio of securities.

—

Foreign Investment Risk. An underlying fund’s investments in securities of foreign issuers may involve certain risks that are greater than those associated with investments in securities of U.S. issuers. These include risks of adverse changes in foreign economic, political, regulatory and other conditions; changes in currency exchange rates or exchange control regulations (including limitations on currency movements and exchanges); differing accounting, auditing, financial reporting and legal standards and practices; differing securities market structures; and higher transaction costs. These risks may be heightened in connection with investments in emerging markets.

—

Emerging Market Risk. Emerging markets may be more likely to experience political turmoil or rapid changes in market or economic conditions than more developed countries. Such countries often have less uniformity in accounting and reporting requirements, unreliable securities valuation and greater risk associated with the custody of securities. In addition, the financial stability of issuers (including governments) in emerging market countries may be more precarious than in other countries. As a result, there will tend to be an increased risk of price volatility associated with an underlying fund’s investments in emerging market countries.

—

Derivatives Risk. An underlying fund’s use of derivative instruments involves risks different from, or possibly greater than, the risks associated with investing directly in securities and other traditional investments and could cause the fund to lose more than the principal amount invested.

—

Leverage Risk. Certain underlying fund transactions, such as derivatives, short sales, reverse repurchase agreements, and mortgage dollar rolls, may give rise to a form of leverage and may expose a fund to greater risk. Leverage tends to magnify the effect of any decrease or increase in the value of an underlying fund’s portfolio securities, which means even a small amount of leverage can have a disproportionately large impact on the fund.

—

Liquidity Risk. A particular investment may be difficult to purchase or sell. An underlying fund may be unable to sell illiquid securities at an advantageous time or price.

—

Portfolio Turnover Risk. Certain of the underlying funds may buy and sell portfolio securities actively. If they do, their portfolio turnover rate and transaction costs will rise, which may lower the underlying fund’s performance and may increase the likelihood of capital gain distributions.

Direct Investment Risk. The fund may invest a portion of its assets directly in equity and fixed income securities, ETFs and money market securities. The fund’s direct investment in these securities is subject to the same or similar risks as an underlying fund’s investment in the same security.

Your investment in the fund is not a bank deposit and is not insured or guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or any other government agency. You may experience losses in the fund, including losses near, at, or after the target date. There is no guarantee that the fund will be able to achieve its objective or provide adequate income at and through your retirement.

For more information on the risks of investing in the fund and the underlying funds please see the “Fund details” section in the prospectus.

Performance

Because the fund is new, no performance figures are given. This information will appear in a future version of the fund’s prospectus. Once available, the fund’s performance will be posted on the fund’s website at www.schwabfunds.com/prospectus.

Investment adviser

Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc.

Portfolio manager

Zifan Tang, a portfolio manager of the investment adviser, is responsible for the day-to-day management of the fund. She has managed the fund since its inception.

Purchase and sale of fund shares

The fund is open for business each day that the New York Stock Exchange is open. When you place orders to purchase, exchange or redeem fund shares through an account at Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (Schwab) or another financial intermediary, you must follow Schwab’s or the other financial intermediary’s transaction procedures.

Eligible Investors (as determined by the fund and which generally are limited to institutional investors) may invest directly in the fund by placing purchase, exchange and redemption orders through the fund’s transfer agent. Eligible Investors must contact the transfer agent by phone or in writing to obtain an account application. Eligible Investors may contact the transfer agent:

—

by telephone at 1-800-407-0256; or

—

by mail at Boston Financial Data Services, Attn: Schwab Funds, P.O. Box 8283, Boston, MA 02266-8323.


Schwab Target 2045 Fund			3

The minimum initial investment for the fund is $100. The fund may waive the minimum initial investment for certain investors or in the fund’s sole discretion.

Tax information

Dividends and capital gains distributions received from the fund will generally be taxable as ordinary income or capital gains, unless you are investing through an IRA, 401(k) or other tax-advantaged account.

Payments to financial intermediaries

If you purchase shares of the fund through a broker-dealer or other financial intermediary (such as a bank), the fund and its related companies may pay the intermediary for the sale of fund shares and related services. These payments may create a conflict of interest by influencing the broker-dealer or other financial intermediary and your salesperson to recommend the fund over another investment. Ask your salesperson or visit your financial intermediary’s website for more information.


4		Schwab Target 2045 Fund

Schwab Target 2050 Fund

Ticker Symbol:

Investment objective

The fund seeks to provide capital appreciation and income consistent with its current asset allocation.

Fund fees and expenses

This table describes the fees and expenses you may pay if you buy and hold shares of the fund.


Shareholder fees (fees paid directly from your investment)
Redemption fee (as a % of the amount sold or exchanged within 30 days of purchase)	[2.00	]

Annual fund operating expenses (expenses that you pay each year as a % of the value of your investment)
Management fees	[	]
Distribution (12b-1) fees	[	]
Other expenses¹	[	]
Acquired fund fees and expenses (AFFE)²	[	]

Total fund annual operating expenses²	[	]
Less expense reduction	[	]

Total annual fund operating expenses (including AFFE)³	[	]

¹	Based on estimated expenses for the current fiscal year.

Example

expenses would be the same whether you stayed in the fund or sold your shares at the end of each period. Your actual costs may be higher or lower.

Expenses on a $10,000 investment


1 year		3 years

Portfolio turnover

Principal investment strategies


Schwab Target 2050 Fund			5

target retirement date. The fund’s asset allocation at inception is anticipated to be approximately [94]% equity securities, [4]% fixed income securities, and [2]% cash and cash equivalents (including money market funds). The fund will continue to reduce its allocation to equity securities for 20 years beyond the fund’s stated target date. At such time, the fund’s asset allocation will remain fixed at approximately 25% equity securities, 68% fixed income securities, and 7% cash and cash equivalents (including money market funds).

Principal risks

The fund is subject to risks, any of which could cause an investor to lose money. The fund’s principal risks include:

Asset Allocation Risk. The fund is subject to asset allocation risk, which is the risk that the selection of the underlying funds and the allocation of the fund’s assets among the various asset classes and market segments will cause the fund to underperform other funds with a similar investment objective.

Market Risk. Stock and bond markets rise and fall daily. As with any investment whose performance is tied to these markets, the

value of your investment in the fund will fluctuate, which means that you could lose money.

—


6		Schwab Target 2050 Fund

—

Liquidity Risk. A particular investment may be difficult to purchase or sell. An underlying fund may be unable to sell illiquid securities at an advantageous time or price.

—

For more information on the risks of investing in the fund and the underlying funds please see the “Fund details” section in the prospectus.

Performance

Investment adviser

Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc.

Portfolio manager

Zifan Tang, a portfolio manager of the investment adviser, is responsible for the day-to-day management of the fund. She has managed the fund since its inception.

Purchase and sale of fund shares

—

by telephone at 1-800-407-0256; or

—

by mail at Boston Financial Data Services, Attn: Schwab Funds, P.O. Box 8283, Boston, MA 02266-8323.


Schwab Target 2050 Fund			7

The minimum initial investment for the fund is $100. The fund may waive the minimum initial investment for certain investors or in the fund’s sole discretion.

Tax information

Payments to financial intermediaries


8		Schwab Target 2050 Fund

Schwab Target 2055 Fund

Ticker Symbol:

Investment objective

The fund seeks to provide capital appreciation and income consistent with its current asset allocation.

Fund fees and expenses

This table describes the fees and expenses you may pay if you buy and hold shares of the fund.


Shareholder fees (fees paid directly from your investment)
Redemption fee (as a % of the amount sold or exchanged within 30 days of purchase)	[2.00	]

Annual fund operating expenses (expenses that you pay each year as a % of the value of your investment)
Management fees	[	]
Distribution (12b-1) fees	[	]
Other expenses¹	[	]
Acquired fund fees and expenses (AFFE)²	[	]

Total fund annual operating expenses²	[	]
Less expense reduction	[	]

Total annual fund operating expenses (including AFFE)³	[	]

¹	Based on estimated expenses for the current fiscal year.

Example

expenses would be the same whether you stayed in the fund or sold your shares at the end of each period. Your actual costs may be higher or lower.

Expenses on a $10,000 investment


1 year		3 years

Portfolio turnover

Principal investment strategies


Schwab Target 2055 Fund			9

target retirement date. The fund’s asset allocation at inception is anticipated to be approximately [95]% equity securities, [3]% fixed income securities, and [2]% cash and cash equivalents (including money market funds). The fund will continue to reduce its allocation to equity securities for 20 years beyond the fund’s stated target date. At such time, the fund’s asset allocation will remain fixed at approximately 25% equity securities, 68% fixed income securities, and 7% cash and cash equivalents (including money market funds).

Principal risks

The fund is subject to risks, any of which could cause an investor to lose money. The fund’s principal risks include:

Market Risk. Stock and bond markets rise and fall daily. As with any investment whose performance is tied to these markets, the

value of your investment in the fund will fluctuate, which means that you could lose money.

—


10		Schwab Target 2055 Fund

—

Liquidity Risk. A particular investment may be difficult to purchase or sell. An underlying fund may be unable to sell illiquid securities at an advantageous time or price.

—

Direct Investment Risk. The fund may invest a portion of its assets directly in equity and fixed income securities, ETFs, cash equivalents, including money market securities. The fund’s direct investment in these securities is subject to the same or similar risks as an underlying fund’s investment in the same security.

For more information on the risks of investing in the fund and the underlying funds please see the “Fund details” section in the prospectus.

Performance

Investment adviser

Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc.

Portfolio manager

Zifan Tang, a portfolio manager of the investment adviser, is responsible for the day-to-day management of the fund. She has managed the fund since its inception.

Purchase and sale of fund shares

—

by telephone at 1-800-407-0256; or

—

by mail at Boston Financial Data Services, Attn: Schwab Funds, P.O. Box 8283, Boston, MA 02266-8323.


Schwab Target 2055 Fund			11

The minimum initial investment for the fund is $100. The fund may waive the minimum initial investment for certain investors or in the fund’s sole discretion.

Tax information

Payments to financial intermediaries


12		Schwab Target 2055 Fund

About the funds

The Schwab Target Funds (the funds) share the same investment approach: each seeks to achieve its objective by investing in a combination of other Schwab Funds, Laudus Funds and unaffiliated, third party mutual funds (the underlying funds). These underlying funds will include stock, bond and will be used by the funds to meet their target asset allocations and investment styles. The funds are designed to provide investors with investment management, asset allocation and ongoing reallocation over time. Because the funds invest in other mutual funds, each fund is considered a “fund of funds.” A fund of funds bears its own direct expenses in addition to bearing a proportionate share of expenses charged to the underlying funds in which it invests.

Each fund is designed for an investor who anticipates retiring at or about the specific retirement date (target date) included in its name and plans to withdraw the value of the investor’s account in the fund gradually after retirement. These funds gradually decrease their equity holdings and increase fixed income holdings as the target date approaches and beyond, becoming more conservative over time. This rebalancing over time is often referred to as the glide path of the fund. The glide path is a pre-set investment schedule that reallocates risk based on an investor’s target date. Please see the fund’s glide path in the “Fund details” section.

Each fund is managed based on the target date included in its name and assumes a retirement age of 65. The target date refers to the approximate year an investor in a fund would plan to retire and likely would stop making new investments in the fund. The target date included in a fund’s name does not necessarily represent the specific year you expect to need your assets. It is intended only as a general guide.

The funds are designed for long-term investors. Their performance will fluctuate over time and, as with all investments, future performance may differ from past performance.

Investor profile

The funds are designed to offer investors a professionally managed investment plan that simplifies the investment management of an investor’s assets prior to, and continuing after, the investor’s retirement. The main component of the investment program is the funds’ ongoing reallocation of the investor’s assets among various asset classes, including equities, fixed income securities and cash and cash equivalents (including money market funds). In particular, the funds are designed for investors who are saving for retirement.

Who may want to invest in the funds?

The funds may be a suitable investment for investors

—

seeking an investment whose asset allocation mix becomes more conservative over time

—

seeking funds that combine the potential for capital appreciation and income

—

seeking the convenience of funds that allocate their assets among both stock and bond investments

Who may not want to invest in the funds?

The funds may not be suitable for investors

—

seeking to invest for a short period of time

—

uncomfortable with fluctuations in the value of their investment

—

seeking to use the funds for educational savings accounts

The funds are designed to be an integral part of an investor’s overall retirement investment strategy. However, they are not designed to provide investors with a complete solution to their retirement needs. Investors must consider many factors when choosing an investment strategy for their retirement. For example, factors such as an appropriate retirement date, your expected retirement needs and your sources of income all should be considered when you choose your overall retirement strategy.


About the funds			13

Fund details

Investment objectives, strategies and risks

Schwab Target Funds


Ticker symbols:		Target 2045 Fund:		Target 2050 Fund:		Target 2055 Fund:

Investment objective

Each of the Schwab Target 2045, Schwab Target 2050 and Schwab Target 2055 Funds seeks to provide capital appreciation and income consistent with its current asset allocation.

There is no guarantee that a fund will achieve its investment objective.

Principal investment strategies of the funds

Each of the funds seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing primarily in a combination of other Schwab Funds and Laudus Funds. Each fund may also invest in unaffiliated third party mutual funds (referred to herein as unaffiliated funds and, together with Schwab Funds and Laudus Funds, the underlying funds). Each fund invests in the underlying funds in accordance with its target portfolio allocation. These underlying funds invest their assets directly in equity, fixed income, money market and other securities in accordance with their own investment objectives and policies. For each of the funds, the target asset allocation will be adjusted annually based on the adviser’s asset allocation strategy, in accordance with a predetermined “glide path” illustrated below under the “Description of the Funds’ Asset Allocation Strategies” section. However, the adviser reserves the right to modify a fund’s target asset allocations from time to time should circumstances warrant a change. In general, each fund’s allocation to equity securities will decrease and its allocation to fixed income securities will increase as the fund approaches its target retirement date. At the stated target date, each fund’s allocation will be approximately 40% equity securities, 53% fixed income securities, and 7% cash and cash equivalents (including money market funds). Each fund will continue to reduce its allocation to equity securities for 20 years beyond the fund’s stated target date at which time each fund’s asset allocation will remain fixed at approximately 25% equity securities, 68% fixed income securities, and 7% cash and cash equivalents (including money market funds).

In addition to the strategic annual adjustment of each fund’s target asset allocation, the adviser may adjust each fund’s underlying fund allocations within a particular asset class based on the following considerations: market trends, its outlook for a given market capitalization, and the underlying funds’ performance in various market conditions. Accordingly, a fund’s allocation to a particular underlying fund may increase or decrease throughout the year. Within the equity asset class, each fund will have exposure to one or more “style classes”. The style classes include domestic large-cap equity, domestic small-cap equity, and international equity. The adviser may adjust a fund’s allocation to a particular style class based on the following considerations: market trends, its outlook for a given style class, and the style classes’ performance in various market conditions. Accordingly, a fund’s allocation to a particular style class within the equity asset class may increase or decrease throughout the year.

Each fund intends to invest in a combination of underlying funds; however, each fund may invest directly in equity and fixed income securities, exchange traded funds (ETFs) and cash and cash equivalents (including money market securities). The funds may also invest directly in derivatives, including futures contracts, primarily to seek returns on the funds’ otherwise uninvested cash assets.

For temporary defensive purposes during unusual economic or market conditions or for liquidity purposes, each fund may invest up to 100% of its assets directly in cash, money market instruments, repurchase agreements and other short-term obligations. When a fund engages in such activities, it may not achieve its investment objective.

Asset allocation and investment strategies

Each fund invests in a combination of underlying funds. Each fund’s target allocation is intended to allocate investments among various asset classes such as equity, fixed income, and cash and cash equivalents (including money market securities). As set forth below, each fund has its own distinct target portfolio allocation and is designed to accommodate different investment goals and risk tolerances.


14		Fund details

The following chart shows each fund’s target asset allocation among the various asset classes as of the date of this prospectus.

Target Asset Allocation*

Asset Class

Schwab
Target
2045 Fund

Schwab
Target
2050 Fund

Schwab
Target
2055 Fund

Equity Securities

[91.50

[94.00

[95

Fixed-Income Securities

[6.50

[4.00

[3.00

Cash and Cash Equivalents (Including Money Market Funds)

[2.00

*	Market appreciation or depreciation may cause the funds’ actual asset allocation to vary temporarily from the funds’ target asset allocation.

Funds with an earlier target retirement date are more heavily allocated to fixed income securities and money market funds; therefore these funds represent a more conservative approach. Funds with later target retirement dates take a more aggressive approach by allocating a greater amount of their assets to equity securities.

The target asset allocations of the funds have been developed with two general rules of investing in mind:

—

Higher investment returns are generally accompanied by a higher risk of losing money. Put another way, the greater an investment’s potential return, the greater its potential loss. For example, equity securities generally provide long-term returns that are superior to fixed income securities, although their returns have tended to be more volatile in the short-term.

—

Because their investments have more time to recover from losses, investors with longer time horizons generally have a higher risk tolerance.

For these reasons, the target asset allocations of the funds are expected to vary over time as your investment horizon changes.

Over time, the target allocation to asset classes will change according to a predetermined “glide path,” as illustrated in the following graph. As the glide path shows, each fund’s asset mix becomes more conservative as time elapses — both prior to and after the target retirement date. This reflects the need for reduced investment risk as retirement approaches and the need for greater certainty of income after retiring. The funds’ actual asset allocations may differ from the allocations shown in the illustration. Once a fund reaches its most conservative planned allocation, approximately 20 years after its target date, its allocation to equity securities will remain fixed at approximately 25% in equity securities, 68% in fixed income securities and 7% in cash and cash equivalents (including money market securities). The adviser reserves the right to modify the glide path from time to time should circumstances warrant.


Fund details			15

Target Glide Path

LOGO

Differences in the performance of underlying funds and the size and frequency of purchase and redemption orders may affect the fund’s actual allocations.

Principal risks of investing in the funds

The funds are intended for investors seeking an investment option whose asset mix becomes more conservative over time, and who are willing to accept the risks associated with the funds’ asset allocation strategies. In general, a fund with a later target date is expected to be more volatile than a fund with an earlier target date.

For more information on the principal risks of investing in the funds please see the Fund Summary sections and the section “Principal Risks of the Underlying Funds” in this prospectus.


16		Fund details

Risk spectrum

Each fund has a different level of risk and the amount of risk is relative to the time horizon included in its name. Funds with earlier target retirement dates will tend to be less risky and have lower expected returns than the funds with later target retirement dates. The following risk spectrum is designed to provide investors with a general overview of the relative risk characteristics of each fund.

[TO BE REVISED]

to include 2045, 2050, and 2055 Funds on higher end of risk spectrum

LOGO

Portfolio holdings

A description of the funds’ policies and procedures with respect to the disclosure of each fund’s portfolio securities is available in the funds’ SAI.


Fund details			17

Financial highlights

The funds are newly organized and therefore have not yet had any operations as of the date of this prospectus.

The funds’ investments in underlying funds

The following table shows which underlying funds may be used within each asset class and style class and each fund’s anticipated asset allocation to each underlying fund. Each fund’s allocation to a specified asset class, style class and underlying fund will change over time. Included in the current universe of underlying funds are five unaffiliated funds: one within the domestic large-cap equity style class, two within the international equity style class and two within the fixed income asset category. Similar to the Schwab Funds and Laudus Funds that serve as underlying funds, the investment objectives and principal investment strategies of these unaffiliated funds are described in the “Description of underlying funds” section of the prospectus under the sub-headings “Unaffiliated Large-Cap Value Fund,” “Unaffiliated International Growth Fund,” “Unaffiliated International Small-Cap Growth Fund,” “Unaffiliated Fixed Income Fund” and “Unaffiliated Fixed Income Fund II,” respectively.

The adviser may exclude one or more underlying funds from a fund’s asset allocation strategy at any given time. For additional details regarding how the adviser determines the funds’ underlying fund and style class allocations, please refer back to the “Principal Investment Strategies” section in the Fund Summary sections and the section “Fund details: Investment objectives, strategies and risks” in this prospectus. The adviser reserves the right to substitute other underlying funds and add additional underlying funds from time to time should circumstances warrant a change.

The allocations may not add to 100% due to rounding.


Asset Class, Style Class and Underlying Funds	Schwab Target 2045 Fund	Schwab Target 2050 Fund	Schwab Target 2055 Fund
Equity funds
Large-cap
Schwab Core Equity Fund
Schwab S&P 500 Index Fund
Schwab Dividend Equity Fund
Laudus Growth Investors U.S. Large Cap Growth Fund
Unaffiliated Large-Cap Value Fund
Small-cap
Schwab Small-Cap Equity Fund
Laudus Small-Cap MarketMasters Fund
Global Real Estate
Schwab Global Real Estate Fund
International
Laudus International MarketMasters Fund
Laudus Mondrian International Equity Fund
Laudus Mondrian Emerging Markets Fund
Unaffiliated International Growth Fund
Unaffiliated International Small-Cap Growth Fund
TOTAL EQUITY
Fixed-income funds
Intermediate-term bond
Schwab Total Bond Market Fund
Schwab Premier Income Fund
Unaffiliated Fixed Income Fund I
Unaffiliated Fixed Income Fund II
Short-term bond
Schwab Short-Term Bond Market Fund
Inflation-protected bond
Schwab Inflation Protected Fund


18		Schwab Target Funds


Asset Class, Style Class and Underlying Funds	Schwab Target 2045 Fund	Schwab Target 2050 Fund	Schwab Target 2055 Fund
International bond
Laudus Mondrian International Fixed Income Fund
TOTAL FIXED INCOME
Cash and cash equivalents (including money market funds)
Schwab Value Advantage Money Fund

Description of underlying funds

The funds invest primarily in the underlying funds. Therefore, each fund’s investment performance is directly related to the investment performance of these underlying funds. The following chart provides a brief description of the investment objective and principal investment strategies of the funds’ current underlying funds. Additional information about the underlying funds is provided in each underlying fund’s prospectus.


Asset Class, Style Class (if Applicable) & Underlying Fund		Investment Objective and Principal Investment Strategy

Equity Funds — Domestic Large-Cap
Schwab Core Equity Fund		Seeks long-term capital growth. The fund invests, under normal circumstances, at least 80% of its net assets in equity securities of U.S. companies. The fund seeks to assemble a portfolio with long-term performance that will exceed that of the S&P 500^® Index.
Schwab S&P 500 Index Fund		Seeks to track the total return of the S&P 500^® Index. Under normal circumstances, the fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets in stocks that are included in the S&P 500^® Index.
Schwab Dividend Equity Fund		Seeks current income and capital appreciation. The fund invests, under normal circumstances, at least 80% of its net assets in dividend paying common and preferred stock. The fund invests in securities of U.S. companies that tend to be either large- or mid-cap companies.
Laudus Growth Investors U.S. Large Cap Growth Fund		Seeks long-term capital appreciation. Under normal circumstances, the fund invests at least 80% of its net assets (plus borrowings for investment purposes, if any) in equity securities of U.S. large capitalization companies. The fund defines large capitalization companies as those with a market capitalization of at least $3 billion at the time of investment. In addition, up to 20% of the fund’s net assets may be invested in foreign equity securities. Investments in equity securities include common stock and preferred stock. The fund may, but is not required to, use derivative instruments for risk management purposes or as part of the fund’s investment strategies. When selecting securities for the fund, the subadviser considers earnings revision trends, expected earnings growth rates, sales acceleration, price earnings multiples and positive stock price momentum. The fund exhibits a “growth” style of investing.
Unaffiliated Large-Cap Value Fund		Seeks capital appreciation, with a secondary goal of current income. To purse this goal, the fund invests primarily in equity securities of large capitalization companies. The fund will invest (except when maintaining a temporary defensive position) at least 80% of the value of its net assets in equity securities of companies with a market capitalization of greater than $1 billion at the time of purchase. The fund will invest mostly in companies the portfolio managers believe are “value” companies. The portfolio management team seeks companies that they believe are neglected or out of favor and whose stock prices are low in relation to current earnings, cash flow, book value and sales and those companies that it believes have reasonable prospects for growth even though the expectations for these companies are low and their valuations are temporarily depressed.


Schwab Target Funds			19


Asset Class, Style Class (if Applicable) & Underlying Fund		Investment Objective and Principal Investment Strategy

Equity Funds — Domestic Small-Cap
Schwab Small-Cap Equity Fund		Seeks long-term capital growth. Under normal circumstances, the fund invests at least 80% of its net assets in small-cap equity securities. Small-cap equity securities generally are securities with market capitalizations of up to $2.5 billion or securities included in the Russell 2000 Index, each measured at time of purchase by the fund. In addition, small-cap equity securities may include those with market capitalizations of up to $5 billion so long as the purchase of those securities would not cause the average weighted market capitalization of the fund to exceed $2.5 billion. The fund seeks to assemble a portfolio with long-term performance that will exceed that of the Russell 2000 Index.
Laudus Small-Cap MarketMasters Fund		Seeks long-term capital appreciation. Under normal circumstances, the fund invests at least 80% of its net assets in equity securities of companies with small market capitalizations or investments with similar economic characteristics, such as futures. Companies with small market capitalizations generally are those with market capitalizations of $2.5 billion or less but may include companies with market capitalizations of up to $5 billion so long as the purchase of those securities would not cause the average weighted market capitalization of the fund to exceed $3 billion.

Equity Funds — Global Real Estate

Schwab Global Real Estate Fund		Seeks capital growth and income consistent with prudent investment management. The fund invests, under normal circumstances, at least 80% of its net assets in securities of real estate companies and companies related to the real estate industry. The fund may invest a significant portion of its total assets in real estate investment trusts (REITs) and other similar REIT-like structures. The fund does not invest directly in real estate.

Equity Funds — International

Laudus International MarketMasters Fund		Seeks long-term capital appreciation. The fund normally invests a substantial amount of its assets in equity securities of companies outside the United States and typically focuses on developed markets, but may invest in companies from emerging markets as well. The fund invests in companies across all market capitalization ranges.
Laudus Mondrian International Equity Fund		Seeks long-term capital appreciation. Under normal circumstances, the fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets (including, for this purpose, any borrowings for investment purposes) in equity securities. The fund pursues its investment objective primarily by investing in equity securities of non-U.S. large capitalization issuers, including the securities of emerging market companies. For purposes of investments to be made by the fund, large capitalization companies are currently defined to mean issuers that have a market capitalization of more than $6.5 billion at the time of purchase.
Laudus Mondrian Emerging Markets Fund		Seeks long-term capital appreciation. Under normal circumstances, the fund invests at least 80% of its net assets in the securities of emerging markets issuers. The fund generally invests in large capitalization equity securities of emerging market companies that, in the subadviser’s opinion, are undervalued at the time of purchase based on fundamental value analysis employed by the subadviser. The fund considers an “emerging country” to be any country except the United States, Canada, and those in the Morgan Stanley Capital International EAFE Index. Although this is not an exclusive list, the subadviser considers an emerging country security to be one that is issued by a company that exhibits one or more of the following characteristics: (1) its principal securities trading market is in an emerging country, as defined above; (2) while traded in any market, alone or on a consolidated basis, the company derives 50% or more of its annual revenues or annual profits from either goods produced, sales made or services performed in emerging countries; (3) the company has 50% of more of its assets located in an emerging country; or (4) it is organized under the laws of, and has a principal office in, an emerging country. Companies with large market capitalizations generally are those with market capitalizations of $3.5 billion or more at the time of purchase. Typically the fund will invest in securities of approximately 35-45 companies.


20		Schwab Target Funds


Asset Class, Style Class (if Applicable) & Underlying Fund		Investment Objective and Principal Investment Strategy

Equity Funds — International (continued)
Unaffiliated International Growth Fund		Seeks capital growth. Under normal market conditions, the fund invests primarily in equity securities of companies located in at least three developed countries outside the U.S. The fund may invest a portion of its assets in securities of companies located in emerging markets. The fund exhibits a “growth” style of investing.
Unaffiliated International Small-Cap Growth Fund		Seeks long-term capital appreciation. Under normal market conditions, the fund invests at least 80% of its net assets in stocks of small companies. For purposes of the fund, the investment adviser considers a company to be a small cap company if it has a market capitalization no larger than the largest capitalized company included in the MSCI All Country World Ex-U.S. Small Cap Index (Net). The fund primarily invests in a diversified portfolio of common stocks of small cap companies located in countries included in the MSCI All Country World Ex-U.S. Small Cap Index (Net). Normally, the fund’s investments will be divided among Continental Europe, the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan and the markets of the Pacific Basin. The fund may also invest in emerging markets. The fund’s investment adviser generally seeks common stocks of companies that historically have had and are expected to maintain superior growth, profitability and quality relative to local markets and relative to companies within the same industry worldwide.

Fixed Income Funds — Intermediate-term bond

Schwab Total Bond Market Fund		Seeks high current income by tracking the performance of the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index (“Barclays Capital Index”). The fund primarily invests in a diversified portfolio of investment grade debt instruments with varying maturities and is designed to track the performance of the Barclays Capital Index. The Barclays Capital Index includes investment-grade government, corporate, mortgage-, commercial mortgage-and asset-backed bonds that are denominated in U.S. dollars and have maturities longer than one year.
Schwab Premier Income Fund		Seeks high current income and may also seek capital appreciation. The fund invests primarily in fixed income instruments issued by U.S., non-U.S., and emerging market governments, governmental agencies, companies and entities and supranational entities of varying sectors, credit quality and maturities (bonds). The fund may also invest in income producing and non-income producing equity instruments of any kind issued by U.S., non U.S. and emerging market companies and entities. The fund may invest in investment-grade and below investment-grade bonds (junk bonds) and may invest all of its assets in either ratings category. The fund may invest in bonds of any maturity and may invest all of its assets in a single maturity category. The fund is non-diversified.
Unaffiliated Fixed Income Fund I		Seeks maximum total return, consistent with preservation of capital and prudent investment management. Under normal market circumstances, the fund invests at least 65% of its assets in a diversified portfolio of fixed income instruments of varying maturities, which may be represented by derivatives. The fund invests primarily in investment grade debt securities, but may invest up to 10% of its total assets in high yield securities (“junk bonds”) rated B or higher by Moody’s or equivalently rated by S&P or Fitch. The fund may invest all of its assets in derivative instruments, and may invest a portion of its assets in foreign securities, including those of companies located in emerging markets.
Unaffiliated Fixed Income Fund II		Seeks high total investment return through a combination of current income and capital appreciation. The fund invests, under normal circumstances, at least 80% of its net assets in investment-grade fixed-income securities. The fund may invest up to 10% of its assets in below investment-grade fixed-income securities and may invest in fixed-income securities of any maturity. The fund may invest up to 20% of its assets in securities of foreign issuers, including emerging markets securities, and may invest without limit in obligations of supranational entities (e.g., World Bank) and Canadian issuers. The fund may also engage in foreign currency hedging transactions, repurchase agreements and swap transactions (including credit default swaps) and other derivatives transactions for hedging or investment purposes.


Schwab Target Funds			21


Asset Class, Style Class (if Applicable) & Underlying Fund		Investment Objective and Principal Investment Strategy

Fixed Income Funds — Short-term bond
Schwab Short-Term Bond Market Fund		Seeks high current income by tracking the performance of the Barclays Capital U.S. Government/Credit 1-5 Years Index. The fund primarily invests in a diversified portfolio of investment grade debt instruments of varying maturities and is designed to track the performance of the Barclays Capital U.S. Government/Credit 1-5 Years Index. The Barclays Capital U.S. Government/Credit 1-5 Years Index includes investment-grade government and corporate bonds that are denominated in U.S. dollars and have maturities of one to five years. Under normal circumstances, the dollar-weighted average maturity of the fund’s portfolio is not expected to exceed three years.

Fixed Income Funds — Inflation-protected bond

Schwab Inflation Protected Fund		Seeks to provide total return and inflation protection. The fund normally invests at least 80% of its net assets in inflation-protected fixed income securities, which are securities that are structured to provide protection against inflation. The fund may invest in inflation-protected fixed income securities of any type, including those issued by the U.S. Government and its agencies and instrumentalities, foreign governments and their agencies and instrumentalities and U.S. and foreign corporations.

Fixed Income Funds — International bond

Laudus Mondrian International Fixed Income Fund		Seeks long-term value total return consistent with its value-oriented investment approach. Under normal circumstances, the fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets in fixed income securities. The fund primarily invests in issuers that are organized, have a majority of their assets or derive most of their operating income outside of the United States. The fund will attempt to achieve its objective by investing in a broad range of fixed income securities, including debt obligations of governments, their agencies, instrumentalities or political subdivisions and companies, that will generally be rated investment grade at the time of investment. In selecting fixed income instruments for the fund, the subadviser identifies those countries’ fixed income markets that it believes will provide the United States domiciled investor the highest yield over a market cycle while also offering the opportunity for capital gain and currency appreciation. The fund is non-diversified.

Money Market Funds

Schwab Value Advantage Money Fund		Seeks highest current income consistent with stability of capital and liquidity. Invests in high-quality, U.S. dollar-denominated money market securities. The fund seeks to maintain a stable $1 share price.


22		Schwab Target Funds

Principal risks of the underlying funds

The value of your investment in the funds is based primarily on the prices of the underlying funds that the funds purchase. In turn, the price of each underlying fund is based on the value of its securities. The prices of these securities change daily and each underlying fund’s performance reflects the risks of investing in a particular asset class or classes. As indicated in the following table, certain of the underlying funds reflect the risks of equity investing, while others reflect the risks of investing in fixed income securities, foreign securities or a combination of these types of securities. The degree to which the risks described below apply to a particular fund varies according to its allocation among underlying funds.

Schwab

Core

Equity

Fund

Schwab

S&P
500

Index

Fund

Schwab

Dividend

Equity

Fund

Laudus

Growth

Investors

U.S. Large

Cap

Growth

Fund

Unaffiliated

Large-Cap

Value

Fund

Schwab

Small-

Cap

Equity

Fund

Schwab

Global

Real

Estate

Fund

Laudus

Small-
Cap

Market

Masters

Fund

Laudus

International

Market

Masters

Fund

Laudus

Mondrian

International

Equity

Fund

Investment risk

Market risk

Market segment risk

Management risk

Equity risk

Large- and mid-cap risk

Small-cap risk

Exchange-traded funds risk

Convertible securities risk

“Growth” investing risk

“Value” investing risk

Interest rate risk

Credit risk

Prepayment and extension risk

U.S. Government securities risk

Inflation-protected securities risk

Money market fund risk

Foreign securities risk

Emerging markets risk

Currency risk

Real estate investment risk

Real estate investment trusts (REITs) risk

Short sales risk

Derivatives risk

Leverage risk

Non-diversification risk

Securities lending risk

Tracking error risk

Investment style risk

Portfolio turnover risk

Multi-manager risk

Liquidity risk


Schwab Target Funds			23

Laudus

Mondrian

Emerging

Markets

Fund

Unaffiliated

International

Growth

Fund

Unaffiliated

International

Small-
Cap

Growth

Fund

Schwab

Total

Bond

Market

Fund

Schwab

Short-
Term

Bond

Market

Fund

Schwab

Treasury

Inflation

Protected

Securities

Fund

Schwab

Premier

Income

Fund

Laudus

Mondrian

International

Fixed

Income

Fund

Unaffiliated

Fixed

Income

Fund I

Unaffiliated

Fixed

Income

Fund II

Schwab

Value

Advantage

Money

Fund

Investment risk

Market risk

Market segment risk

Management risk

Equity risk

Large- and mid-cap risk

Small-cap risk

Exchange-traded funds risk

Convertible securities risk

“Growth” investing risk

“Value” investing risk

Interest rate risk

Credit risk

Prepayment and extension risk

U.S. Government securities risk

Inflation-protected securities risk

Mortgage dollar-rolls risk

Money market fund risk

Foreign securities risk

Emerging markets risk

Currency risk

Real estate investment risk

Real estate investment trusts (REITs) risk

Short sales risk

Derivatives risk

Leverage risk

Non-diversification risk

Securities lending risk

Tracking error risk

Investment style risk

Portfolio turnover risk

Multi-manager risk

Liquidity risk

High yield risk

—

Investment risk. An investment in the underlying funds is not a bank deposit. The funds’ investments in the underlying funds are not insured or guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) or any other government agency.

—

Market risk. Stock and bond markets rise and fall daily. As with any investment whose performance is tied to these markets, the value of the funds’ investments in the underlying funds will fluctuate, which means that the funds could lose money on their investment.

—

Market segment risk. The underlying funds invest their assets in accordance with their own distinct investment objectives. As a result, the performance of an underlying fund will correlate directly with the performance of the particular segment of the stock or bond market that the fund invests in (e.g., large-cap securities, small-cap securities, foreign securities, fixed income securities or dividend-paying common stocks). This may cause the underlying fund to underperform funds that do not similarly restrict their investments to a particular market segment.


24		Schwab Target Funds

—

Management risk. Generally, the underlying funds are actively managed mutual funds. Any actively managed mutual fund is subject to the risk that its investment adviser (or sub-adviser) will make poor security selections. An underlying fund’s adviser applies its own investment techniques and risk analyses in making investment decisions for the fund, but there can be no guarantee that they will produce the desired results. In addition, with respect to certain of the underlying funds, the investment adviser makes investment decisions for the fund using a strategy based largely on historical information. There is no guarantee that a strategy based on historical information will produce the desired results in the future. In addition, if market dynamics change, the effectiveness of this strategy may be limited. Either of these risks may cause these underlying funds to underperform other funds with a similar investment objective.

—

Equity risk. The prices of equity securities in which the underlying funds invest rise and fall daily. These price movements may result from factors affecting individual companies, industries or the securities market as a whole. Individual companies may report poor results or be negatively affected by industry and/or economic trends and developments. The prices of securities issued by such companies may suffer a decline in response. In addition, the equity market tends to move in cycles, which may cause stock prices to fall over short or extended periods of time. Due to their fixed income features, preferred stocks provide higher income potential than issuers’ common stocks, but typically are more sensitive to interest rate changes than the underlying common stock. The rights of common stockholders are generally subordinate to the rights associated with an issuer’s preferred stocks and the rights of preferred stockholders are generally subordinate to the rights associated with an issuer’s debt securities on the distribution of an issuer’s assets in the event of a liquidation.

—

Large- and mid-cap risk. An underlying fund’s investments in large- and mid-cap companies will reflect the risks associated with the large-cap and mid-cap segments of the stock market. Both large-cap and mid-cap stocks tend to go in and out of favor based on market and economic conditions. However, stocks of mid-cap companies tend to be more volatile than those of large-cap companies because mid-cap companies tend to be more susceptible to adverse business or economic events than larger more established companies. During a period when large- and mid-cap stocks fall behind other types of investments — small-cap stocks, for instance — the performance of an underlying fund that focuses its investments in large- and mid-cap securities will lag these investments.

—

Small-cap risk. Historically, small-cap stocks have been riskier than large- and mid-cap stocks. Accordingly, underlying funds that invest in small-cap securities may be more volatile than underlying funds that invest in large- and mid-cap securities. Stock prices of smaller companies may be based in substantial part on future expectations rather than current achievements and may move sharply, especially during market upturns and downturns. Small-cap companies themselves may be more vulnerable to adverse business or economic events than larger, more established companies. In addition, smaller companies may have limited financial resources, product lines and markets, and their securities may trade less frequently and in more limited volumes than the securities of larger companies. Further, smaller companies may have less publicly available information and, when available, it may be inaccurate or incomplete. During a period when small-cap stocks fall behind other types of investments — large-cap stocks, for instance — the performance of an underlying fund that focuses its investments in small-cap securities will lag these investments.

—

Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) risk. When an underlying fund invests in an ETF, in addition to directly bearing the expenses associated with its own operations, it will bear a pro rata portion of the ETF’s expenses. Therefore, it may be more costly to own an ETF than to own the underlying securities directly. In addition, while the risks of owning shares of an ETF generally reflect the risks of owning the underlying securities the ETF is designed to track, lack of liquidity in an ETF can result in its value being more volatile than the underlying portfolio securities.

—

Convertible securities risk. Certain of the underlying funds may invest in convertible securities, which are bonds, debentures, notes, preferred stock or other securities that may be converted into or exercised for a prescribed amount of common stock at a specified time and price. Convertible securities provide an opportunity for equity participation, with the potential for a higher dividend or interest yield and lower price volatility compared to common stock. The value of a convertible security is influenced by changes in interest rates, with investment value declining as interest rates increase and increasing as interest rates decline, and the credit standing of the issuer. The price of a convertible security will also normally vary in some proportion to changes in the price of the underlying common stock because of the conversion or exercise feature.

—

“Growth” investing risk. Certain of the underlying funds pursue a “growth style” of investing. Growth investing focuses on a company’s prospects for growth of revenue and earnings. If a company’s earnings or revenues fall short of expectations, its stock price may fall dramatically. Growth stocks also can perform differently from the market as a whole and other types of stocks and can be more volatile than other types of stocks. Since growth companies usually invest a high portion of earnings in their business, they may lack the dividends of value stocks that can cushion stock prices in a falling market. Growth stocks may also be more expensive relative to their earnings or assets compared to value or other stocks.

—

“Value” investing risk. Certain of the underlying funds may pursue a “value style” of investing. Value investing focuses on companies whose stocks appear undervalued in light of factors such as the company’s earnings, book value, revenues or cash flow. If an underlying fund’s investment adviser’s (or sub-adviser’s) assessment of a company’s value or prospects for exceeding earnings expectations or market conditions is wrong, the underlying fund could suffer losses or produce poor performance relative to other funds. In addition, “value stocks” can continue to be undervalued by the market for long periods of time.


Schwab Target Funds			25

—

Interest rate risk. An underlying fund’s investments in fixed income securities are subject to the risk that interest rates rise and fall over time. As with any investment whose yield reflects current interest rates, an underlying fund’s yield will change over time. During periods when interest rates are low, an underlying fund’s yield (and total return) also may be low. Changes in interest rates also may affect an underlying fund’s share price: a sharp rise in interest rates could cause the fund’s share price to fall. This risk is greater when the underlying fund holds bonds with longer maturities. To the extent that the investment adviser (or sub-adviser) of an underlying fund anticipates interest rate trends imprecisely, the underlying fund could miss yield opportunities or its share price could fall. Inflation-protected securities may react differently to interest rate changes than other types of debt securities and, as discussed below, tend to react to changes in “real” interest rates.

—

Credit risk. Certain of the underlying funds are subject to the risk that a decline in the credit quality of a portfolio investment could cause the fund’s share price to fall. The underlying fund could lose money if the issuer or guarantor of a portfolio investment or the counterparty to a derivatives contract fails to make timely principal or interest payments or otherwise honor its obligations. Below investment-grade bonds (junk bonds) involve greater risks of default or downgrade and are more volatile than investment-grade bonds. Below investment-grade bonds also involve greater risk of price declines than investment-grade securities due to actual or perceived changes in an issuer’s creditworthiness. In addition, issuers of below investment-grade bonds may be more susceptible than other issuers to economic downturns. Such bonds are subject to the risk that the issuer may not be able to pay interest or dividends and ultimately to repay principal upon maturity. Discontinuation of these payments could substantially adversely affect the market value of the bonds.

—

Prepayment and extension risk. An underlying fund’s investments in fixed income securities are subject to the risk that the securities may be paid off earlier or later than expected. Either situation could cause the underlying fund to hold securities paying lower-than-market rates of interest, which could hurt the fund’s yield or share price. In addition, rising interest rates tend to extend the duration of certain fixed income securities, making them more sensitive to changes in interest rates. As a result, in a period of rising interest rates, an underlying fund that holds these securities may exhibit additional volatility. This is known as extension risk. When interest rates decline, borrowers may pay off their fixed income securities sooner than expected. This can reduce the returns of an underlying fund because the fund will have to reinvest that money at the lower prevailing interest rates. This is known as prepayment risk.

—

U.S. government securities risk. Some of the U.S. government securities that the underlying funds invest in are not backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government, which means they are neither issued nor guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury. Securities such as those issued by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks are supported by limited lines of credit maintained by their issuers with the U.S. Treasury. Others, such as obligations issued by the Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation, are supported solely by the credit of the issuer. There can be no assurance that the U.S. government will provide financial support to securities of its agencies and instrumentalities if it is not obligated to do so under law. Also, any government guarantees on securities the underlying funds own do not extend to shares of the underlying funds themselves. On September 7, 2008, the U.S. Treasury announced a federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, placing the two federal instrumentalities in conservatorship. Under the takeover, the U.S. Treasury agreed to acquire $1 billion of senior preferred stock of each instrumentality and obtained warrants for the purchase of common stock of each instrumentality. Under this agreement, the U.S. Treasury has pledged to provide up to $100 billion per instrumentality as needed, including the contribution of cash capital to the instrumentalities in the event their liabilities exceed their assets. This is intended to ensure that the instrumentalities maintain a positive net worth and meet their financial obligations, preventing mandatory triggering of receivership. No assurance can be given that the U.S. Treasury initiatives will be successful.

—

Inflation-protected securities risk. Certain of the underlying funds may invest in inflation-protected securities. The value of inflation-protected securities generally will fluctuate in response to changes in “real” interest rates. Real interest rates represent nominal (or stated) interest rates reduced by the expected impact of inflation. The value of an inflation-protected security generally decreases when real interest rates rise and generally increase when real interest rates fall. In addition, the principal value of an inflation-protected security is periodically adjusted up or down along with the rate of inflation. If the measure of inflation falls, the principal value of the inflation-protected security will be adjusted downwards, and consequently, the interest payable on the security will be reduced. Repayment of the original bond principal upon maturity (as adjusted for inflation) is guaranteed by the United States Treasury in the case of TIPS. For securities that do not provide a similar guarantee, the adjusted principal value of the security to be repaid at maturity is subject to credit risk.

—

Mortgage dollar rolls risk. Mortgage dollar rolls are transactions in which an underlying fund sells mortgage-backed securities to a dealer and simultaneously agrees to repurchase similar securities in the future at a predetermined price. An underlying fund’s mortgage dollar rolls could lose money if the price of the mortgage-backed securities sold falls below the agreed upon repurchase price, or if the counterparty is unable to honor the agreement.

—

Money market fund risk. In addition to the risks discussed under “Investment Risk” above, an investment by the funds in an underlying money market fund has additional risks. For example, although the underlying money market fund seeks to maintain a stable $1 net asset


26		Schwab Target Funds

value, it is possible to lose money by investing in a money market fund. In addition, a money market fund is not designed to offer capital appreciation. In exchange for their emphasis on stability and liquidity, money market investments may offer lower long-term performance than stock or bond investments.

—

Foreign securities risk. An underlying fund’s investments in securities of foreign issuers involve certain risks that are greater than those associated with investments in securities of U.S. issuers. These include risks of adverse changes in foreign economic, political, regulatory and other conditions, or changes in currency exchange rates or exchange control regulations (including limitations on currency movements and exchanges). In certain countries, legal remedies available to investors may be more limited than those available with respect to investments in the United States. The securities of some foreign companies may be less liquid and, at times, more volatile than securities of comparable U.S. companies. An underlying fund with foreign investments may also experience more rapid or extreme changes in value than a fund that invests solely in securities of U.S. companies because the securities markets of many foreign countries are relatively small, with a limited number of companies representing a small number of industries. There also is the risk that the cost of buying, selling, and holding foreign securities, including brokerage, tax, and custody costs, may be higher than those involved in domestic transactions. During any period when foreign securities underperform other types of investments — U.S. securities, for instance — the performance of an underlying fund that focuses its investments in foreign securities will lag these investments. To the extent that an underlying fund invests a significant portion of its assets in any one country, the underlying fund will be subject to a greater risk of loss or volatility than if the underlying fund always maintained wide geographic diversity among the countries in which it invests. Investing in any one country makes an underlying fund more vulnerable to the risks of adverse securities markets, exchange rates and social, political, regulatory and economic events in that one country.

—

Emerging markets risk. Emerging markets may be more likely to experience political turmoil or rapid changes in market or economic conditions than more developed countries. Emerging market countries often have less uniformity in accounting and reporting requirements and unreliable securities valuation. It is sometimes difficult to obtain and enforce court judgments in such countries and there is often a greater potential for nationalization and/or expropriation of assets by the government of an emerging market country. In addition, the financial stability of issuers (including governments) in emerging market countries may be more precarious than in other countries. As a result, there will tend to be an increased risk of price volatility associated with an underlying fund’s investments in emerging market countries, which may be magnified by currency fluctuations relative to the U.S. dollar.

—

Currency risk. As a result of an underlying fund’s investments in securities denominated in, and/or receiving revenues in, foreign currencies, the fund will be subject to currency risk. This is the risk that those currencies will decline in value relative to the U.S. dollar, or, in the case of hedging positions, that the U.S. dollar will decline in value relative to the currency hedged. In either event, the dollar value of an investment in the underlying fund would be adversely affected. Currencies in non-U.S. countries may fluctuate significantly over short periods of time for a number of reasons, including changes in interest rates, intervention by U.S. or foreign governments, central banks or supranational agencies, such as the International Monetary Fund, or by the imposition of currency controls or other political developments in the United State or abroad.

—

Real estate investment risk. Certain of the underlying funds have a policy of concentrating their investments in real estate companies and companies related to the real estate industry. Such an underlying fund is subject to risks associated with the direct ownership of real estate securities and a fund’s investment in such an underlying fund will be closely linked to the performance of the real estate markets. An investment by a fund in an underlying fund that invests, but does not concentrate, in real estate companies and companies related to the real estate industry will subject the fund to the risks associated with the direct ownership of real estate securities to a lesser extent. These risks include, among others, declines in the value of real estate; risks related to general and local economic conditions; possible lack of availability of mortgage funds; overbuilding; extended vacancies of properties; defaults by borrowers or tenants, particularly during an economic downturn; increasing competition; increases in property taxes and operating expenses; changes in zoning laws; losses due to costs resulting from the clean-up of environmental problems; liability to third parties for damages resulting from environmental problems; casualty or condemnation losses; limitations on rents; changes in market and sub-market values and the appeal of properties to tenants; and changes in interest rates.

—

Real estate investment trusts (REITs) risk. Certain of the underlying funds invest in REITs. In addition to the risks associated with investing in securities of real estate companies and real estate related companies, REITs are subject to certain additional risks. Equity REITs may be affected by changes in the value of the underlying properties owned by the trusts, and mortgage REITs may be affected by the quality of any credit extended. Further, REITs are dependent upon specialized management skills and may have their investments in relatively few properties, or in a small geographic area or a single property type. REITs are also subject to heavy cash flow dependency, defaults by borrowers and self-liquidation. In addition, REITs could possibly fail to qualify for tax free pass-through of income under the Internal Revenue Code, or to maintain their exemptions from registration under the Investment Company Act of 1940. The failure of a company to qualify as a REIT under federal tax law may have adverse consequences to an underlying fund that invests in that REIT. The above factors may also adversely affect a borrower’s or a lessee’s ability to meet its obligations to the REIT. In the event of a default by a


Schwab Target Funds			27

borrower or lessee, the REIT may experience delays in enforcing its rights as a mortgagee or lessor and may incur substantial costs associated with protecting its investments. In addition, REITs have their own expenses, and an underlying fund that invests in REITs will bear a proportionate share of those expenses.

—

Short sales risk. Certain underlying funds may engage in short sales, which are transactions in which the underlying fund sells a security it does not own. To complete a short sale, the underlying fund must borrow the security to deliver to the buyer. The underlying fund is then obligated to replace the borrowed security by purchasing the security at the market price at the time of replacement. This price may be more or less than the price at which the security was sold by the underlying fund and the underlying fund will incur a loss if the price of the security sold short increases between the time of the short sale and the time the underlying fund replaces the borrowed security.

—

Derivatives risk. An underlying fund may use derivatives to enhance returns or hedge against market declines. Examples of derivatives are options, futures, options on futures and swaps. An option is the right to buy or sell an instrument at a specific price before a specific date. A future is an agreement to buy or sell a financial instrument at a specific price on a specific day. A swap is an agreement whereby two parties agree to exchange payment streams calculated in relation to a rate, index, instrument or certain securities and a predetermined amount. A credit default swap is an agreement in which the seller agrees to make a payment to the buyer in the event of a specified credit event in exchange for a fixed payment or series of fixed payments. The use of derivatives, subject to regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), by an underlying fund could cause a fund to become a commodity pool, which would require the fund to comply with certain CFTC rules.

An underlying fund’s use of derivative instruments involves risks different from or possibly greater than the risks associated with investing directly in securities and other traditional investments. Certain of these risks, such as credit risk, leverage risk, liquidity risk, market risk and management risk, are discussed elsewhere in this section. An underlying fund’s use of derivatives is also subject to lack of availability risk, valuation risk, correlation risk and tax risk. Lack of availability risk is the risk that suitable derivative transactions may not be available in all circumstances for risk management or other purposes. Valuation risk is the risk that a particular derivative may be valued incorrectly. Correlation risk is the risk that changes in the value of the derivative may not correlate perfectly with the underlying asset, rate or index. Tax risk is the risk that the use of derivatives may cause the fund to realize higher amounts of short-term capital gain. These risks could cause the fund to lose more than the principal amount invested.

—

Leverage risk. Certain underlying fund transactions, such as derivatives, short sales, reverse repurchase agreements, and mortgage dollar rolls, may give rise to a form of leverage and may expose the underlying fund to greater risk. In a reverse repurchase agreement, the underlying fund would sell a security and enter into an agreement to repurchase the security at a specified future date and price. Leverage tends to magnify the effect of any decrease or increase in the value of the underlying fund’s portfolio securities. The use of leverage may cause the underlying fund to liquidate portfolio positions when it would not be advantageous to do so in order to satisfy its obligations.

—

Non-diversification risk. Certain of the underlying funds are non-diversified and, as such, may invest a greater percentage of their assets in the securities in a single issuer than an underlying fund that is diversified. A non-diversified underlying fund is more susceptible to risks associated with a single economic, political or regulatory occurrence than a diversified underlying fund.

—

Securities lending risk. Certain of the underlying funds may lend their portfolio securities to brokers, dealers, and other financial institutions provided a number of conditions are satisfied, including that the loan is fully collateralized. When an underlying fund lends portfolio securities, its investment performance will continue to reflect changes in the value of the securities loaned, and the underlying fund will also receive a fee or interest on the collateral. Securities lending involves the risk of loss of rights in the collateral or delay in recovery of the collateral if the borrower fails to return the security loaned or becomes insolvent. An underlying fund may pay lending fees to a party arranging the loan.

—

Tracking error risk. Certain underlying funds seek to track the performance of their benchmark indices, although they may not be successful in doing so. The divergence between the performance of an underlying fund and its benchmark index, positive or negative, is called “tracking error.” Tracking error can be caused by many factors and it may be significant. For example, an underlying fund may not invest in certain securities in its benchmark index, or match the securities’ weighting to the benchmark, due to regulatory, operational, custodial or liquidity constraints, which may result in tracking error. An underlying fund may attempt to offset the effects of not being invested in certain index securities by making substitute investments, but these efforts may not be successful. In addition, cash flows into and out of an underlying fund, operating expenses and trading costs all affect the ability of the fund to match the performance of its benchmark index, because the benchmark index does not have to manage cash flows and does not incur any costs.

—

Investment style risk. An underlying fund’s investment style may impact the performance of the fund. For example, an underlying fund may invest in accordance with an indexing investment style, causing the underlying fund to follow the performance of an index during upturns as well as downturns. In addition, an underlying fund may have an investment style that favors certain types of investments over others. As a result, such an underlying fund may underperform funds that do not limit their investments to the particular type of investment.


28		Schwab Target Funds

—

Portfolio turnover risk. Certain of the underlying funds may buy and sell portfolio securities actively. If they do, their portfolio turnover rate and transaction costs will rise, which may lower the underlying fund’s performance and may increase the likelihood of capital gain distributions.

—

Multi-manager risk. Certain of the underlying funds utilize a multi-manager approach to investing. Although the investment adviser monitors and seeks to coordinate the overall management of these underlying funds, each investment manager makes investment decisions independently, and it is possible that the investment styles of the investment managers may not complement one another. As a result, the exposure of these underlying funds to a given stock, industry or investment style could unintentionally be smaller than if the underlying funds had a single manager.

—

Liquidity risk. Liquidity risk exists when particular investments are difficult to purchase or sell. The market for certain investments may become illiquid due to specific adverse changes in the condition of a particular issuer or under adverse market or economic conditions independent of the issuer. An underlying fund’s investments in illiquid securities may reduce the returns of the fund because it may be unable to sell the illiquid securities at an advantageous time or price. Further, transactions in illiquid securities may entail transaction costs that are higher than those for transactions in liquid securities.

—

High yield risk. Underlying funds that invest in high yield securities and unrated securities of similar credit quality (sometimes called junk bonds) may be subject to greater levels of credit and liquidity risk than underlying funds that do not invest in such securities. These securities are considered predominately speculative with respect to the issuer’s continuing ability to make principal and interest payments. An economic downturn or period of rising interest rates could adversely affect the market for these securities and reduce an underlying fund’s ability to sell these securities (liquidity risk). If the issuer of a security is in default with respect to interest or principal payments, an underlying fund may lose its entire investment. Because of the risks involved in investing in high yield securities, an investment in an underlying fund that invests in such securities should be considered speculative.


Schwab Target Funds			29

Fund management

The investment adviser for the funds is Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. (“CSIM” or the “investment adviser”), 211 Main Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Founded in 1989, the firm today serves as investment adviser for all of the Schwab Funds^®, Schwab ETFs^® and Laudus Funds^®. As of 10/31/12, CSIM managed approximately billion in assets.

As the investment adviser, the firm oversees the asset management and administration of the funds. The firm does not receive a fee for the services it performs for the funds. However, the firm is entitled to receive an annual management fee from each of the Schwab funds and Laudus funds that serve as underlying funds.

A discussion regarding the basis for the Board of Trustees’ approval of each fund’s investment advisory agreement will be available in each fund’s semi-annual or annual report.

Zifan Tang, CFA, a portfolio manager of the investment adviser, is responsible for the day-to-day management of the funds. She has managed the funds since their inception. Prior to joining the firm in 2012, she had been employed by a large business data provider as a product manager since 2010. Prior to that position, she had been employed by a large investment manager as a portfolio manager since 1997.

Additional information about the portfolio manager’s compensation, other accounts managed by the portfolio manager and the portfolio manager’s ownership of securities in each fund is available in the SAI.


30		Fund management

Investing in the funds

In this section, you will find information on buying, selling and exchanging shares. You may invest in a fund through an intermediary by placing orders through your brokerage account at Schwab or an account with another broker/dealer, investment adviser, 401(k) plan, employee benefit plan, administrator, bank, or other financial intermediary (intermediary) that is authorized to accept orders on behalf of the fund (intermediary orders). Eligible Investors (as defined herein) may invest directly in a fund by placing orders through the fund’s transfer agent (direct orders). You also will see how to choose a distribution option for your investment. Helpful information on taxes is included as well.

Investing through a financial intermediary

Placing orders through your intermediary

When you place orders through Schwab or other intermediary, you are not placing your orders directly with a fund, and you must follow Schwab’s or the other intermediary’s transaction procedures. Your intermediary may impose different or additional conditions than the funds on purchases, redemptions and exchanges of fund shares. These differences may include initial, subsequent and maintenance investment requirements, exchange policies, fund choices, cut-off times for investment and trading restrictions. Your intermediary may independently establish and charge its customers transaction fees, account fees and other fees in addition to the fees charged by the funds. These additional fees may vary over time and would increase the cost of your investment and lower investment returns. You should consult your intermediary directly for information regarding these conditions and fees. The funds are not responsible for the failure of your intermediary to carry out its responsibilities.

Only certain intermediaries are authorized to accept orders on behalf of a fund. If your fund shares are no longer held by an authorized intermediary, the fund may impose restrictions on your ability to manage or maintain your shares. For example, you will not be able to place orders to purchase additional shares. To remove these restrictions, you have two options. First, you may move your shares to Schwab or another intermediary that is authorized to accept fund orders. Second, you may maintain a direct account with a fund if you meet the eligibility requirements for placing direct orders and your completed account application and supporting documentation is returned to and accepted by the fund’s transfer agent, Boston Financial Data Services (transfer agent). The eligibility requirements and instructions for submitting an account application are set forth in the “Investing directly with the funds” section of this prospectus. If you do not exercise one of these options within ninety days, the funds reserve the right to redeem your shares.

Buying, selling and exchanging shares through an intermediary

To purchase, redeem or exchange shares held in your Schwab account or in your account at another intermediary, you must place your orders with the intermediary that holds your shares. You may not purchase, redeem or exchange shares held in your intermediary account directly with a fund.

When selling or exchanging shares, you should be aware of the following fund policies:

•

The funds may take up to seven days to pay sale proceeds.

•

The funds reserve the right to honor redemptions in liquid portfolio securities instead of cash when your redemptions over a 90-day period exceed $250,000 or 1% of a fund’s assets, whichever is less. You may incur transaction expenses in converting these securities to cash.

•

Exchange orders are limited to other Schwab Funds^® or Laudus MarketMasters Funds^® that are not Sweep Investments^® and must meet the minimum investment and other requirements for the fund and share class into which you are exchanging.

•

You must obtain and read the prospectus for the fund into which you are exchanging prior to placing your order.

Investing directly with the funds

Investor eligibility requirements for placing direct orders

Only Eligible Investors (as defined below) may purchase shares directly from a fund’s transfer agent, Boston Financial Data Services. Eligible Investors include, but are not limited to, qualified and non-qualified employee benefit plans (including but not limited to defined benefit plans, defined contribution plans, 401(k) plans), foundations and endowments, banks, trusts, investment companies and corporate capital and cash management accounts. Eligible Investors may also be shareholders who receive shares of Schwab Funds as a result of a reorganization of a fund. The funds reserve the right to determine which potential investors qualify as Eligible Investors. Shares held by a non-Eligible Investor directly with a fund are subject to involuntary redemption by the fund.


Investing in the funds			31

Opening an account to place direct orders

You must satisfy the investor eligibility requirements for direct order clients in order to place direct orders for a fund’s shares. Eligible Investors must open an account with a fund through the fund’s transfer agent prior to placing direct orders. You may obtain an account application by calling the transfer agent at 1-800-407-0256. Your completed application and supporting documents must be returned to, and accepted by, the transfer agent before you can place direct orders. You cannot place direct orders through your Schwab account or through your account at another intermediary.

Initial and additional direct purchases by wire

Subject to acceptance by a fund, you may make your initial purchase and any additional purchases of shares by wiring federal funds to the transfer agent. If you have not yet opened an account with a fund, you must fax a signed, hard copy of the completed account application and all supporting documents to the transfer agent at 1-816-218-0490. You must call the transfer agent at 1-800-407-0256 prior to the close of a fund (generally 4:00 p.m. Eastern time or the close of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), whichever is earlier) to place your order and to receive wire instructions. Orders received by the transfer agent in good order on or prior to the close of a fund will be processed at the net asset value per share of the fund for that day. Your wired funds must be received and accepted by the transfer agent prior to 6:00 p.m. Eastern time or the deadline for the Fedwire Funds Service for initiating third party transfers, whichever is earlier, on the day your purchase order is placed. Please call the transfer agent at 1-800-407-0256 if you have any questions or need additional information.

Initial and additional direct purchases by mail

Subject to acceptance by a fund, you may open an account and make your initial purchase and any additional purchases of the fund’s shares by mail. To open an account by mail, complete and sign the account application and mail the account application, all supporting documents and a check for the desired purchase amount to the transfer agent at Boston Financial Data Services, Attn: Schwab Funds, PO Box 8283, Boston, MA 02266-8323. Additional investments may be made at any time by mailing a check (payable to Schwab Funds) to the transfer agent at the address above. Be sure to include your account number on your check.

Subject to acceptance by a fund, payment for the purchase of shares received by mail will be credited to a shareholder’s account at the net asset value per share of the fund next determined after receipt, even though the check may not yet have been converted into federal funds. For purposes of calculating the purchase price of fund shares, a purchase order is received by a fund on the day that it is in good order unless it is rejected by the fund’s transfer agent. For a cash purchase order of fund shares to be in good order on a particular day, a check must be received on or before the close of a fund (generally 4:00 p.m. Eastern time or the close of the NYSE, whichever is earlier) on that day. If the payment is received by a fund after the deadline, the purchase price of fund shares will be based upon the next determination of net asset value of fund shares. No currency, third party checks, foreign checks, starter checks, credit card checks, traveler’s checks or money orders will be accepted by the funds.

Direct redemptions and exchanges

When selling or exchanging shares directly, you should be aware of the following fund policies:

•

The funds may take up to seven days to pay sale proceeds.

•

If you are selling shares that were recently purchased by check, the proceeds may be delayed until the check for purchase clears; this may take up to 15 days from the date of purchase.

•

You must obtain and read the prospectus for the fund into which you are exchanging prior to placing your order.

Direct redemptions by telephone

If you authorized the telephone redemption option in the account application, you may place a redemption order by calling the transfer agent at 1-800-407-0256 and requesting that the redemption proceeds be wired per the authorized instructions in the account application or mailed to the primary registration address. Your redemption order will be processed at the net asset value per share of a fund next determined after receipt of your telephone redemption order by the transfer agent. Please note that the transfer agent may only act on telephone instructions believed by the transfer agent to be genuine. The transfer agent’s records of such instructions are binding on the shareholder. The funds and their service providers (including the transfer agent, Schwab and CSIM) are not responsible for any losses or costs that may arise from following telephone instructions that the transfer agent reasonably believes to be genuine. The transfer agent will employ reasonable procedures to confirm that instructions communicated are genuine. These procedures include tape recording of telephone instructions and requiring some form of personal identification prior to acting upon instructions received by telephone.


32		Investing in the funds

Direct redemptions by mail

You may redeem your fund shares by mail by sending a request letter to the funds’ transfer agent at Boston Financial Data Services, Attn: Schwab Funds, PO Box 8283, Boston, MA 02266-8323. Your redemption request will be processed by a fund at the net asset value per share of the fund next determined after the request is received in good order. To be in good order, the redemption request must include the name of the fund and the number of shares or the dollar amount to be redeemed, all required signatures and authorizations and any required signature guarantees.

Additional direct redemption information

To protect you, the funds and their service providers from fraud, signature guarantees may be required to enable the transfer agent to verify the identity of the person who has authorized a redemption from an account. Signature guarantees are required for (1) redemptions where the proceeds are to be sent to someone other than the registered shareholder(s) at the registered address, (2) redemptions if your account address has changed within the last 10 business days, (3) share transfer requests, and (4) redemptions where the proceeds are wired in connection with bank instructions not already on file with the transfer agent. Signature guarantees may be obtained from certain eligible financial institutions, including, but not limited to, the following: U.S. banks, trust companies, credit unions, securities brokers and dealers, savings and loan associations and participants in the Securities and Transfer Association Medallion Program (“STAMP”), the Stock Exchange Medallion Program (“SEMP”) or the New York Stock Exchange Medallion Signature Program (“MSP”). Signature guarantees from non-U.S. banks that do not include a stamp may require a U.S. consulate stamp. You may contact the transfer agent at 1-800-407-0256 for further details.

Direct exchange privileges

Upon request, and subject to certain limitations, shares of a fund may be exchanged into shares of any other Schwab Fund or Laudus MarketMasters Fund that is not a Sweep Investment. In order to exchange your shares to another fund, you must meet the minimum investment and other requirements for the fund and share class into which you are exchanging. Further, you must obtain and read the prospectus for the fund into which you are exchanging prior to placing your order. A new account opened by exchange must be established with the same name(s), address(es) and tax identification number(s) as the existing account. All exchanges will be made based on the respective net asset values next determined following receipt of the request by a fund containing the information indicated below.

The funds reserve the right to suspend or terminate the privilege of exchanging shares of the funds by mail or by telephone at any time.

Direct exchanges by telephone

If you authorized the telephone redemption option in the account application, you may exchange fund shares by telephone by calling the funds’ transfer agent at 1-800-407-0256. Please be prepared to provide the following information: (a) the account number, tax identification number and account registration; (b) the class of shares to be exchanged (if applicable); (c) the name of the fund from which and the fund into which the exchange is to be made; and (d) the dollar or share amount to be exchanged. Please note that the transfer agent may act only on telephone instructions believed by the transfer agent to be genuine. Please see the section entitled “Direct redemptions by telephone” for more information regarding transacting with the funds’ transfer agent via telephone.

Direct exchanges by mail

To exchange fund shares by mail, simply send a letter of instruction to the funds’ transfer agent at Boston Financial Data Services, Attn: Schwab Funds, PO Box 8283, Boston, MA 02266-8323. The letter of instruction must include: (a) your account number; (b) the class of shares to be exchanged (if applicable); (c) the fund from and the fund into which the exchange is to be made; (d) the dollar or share amount to be exchanged; and (e) the signatures of all registered owners or authorized parties.

Share price

The funds are open for business each day that the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) is open. Each fund calculates its share price each business day as of the close of the NYSE (generally 4 p.m. Eastern time). A fund’s share price is its net asset value per share, or NAV, which is the fund’s net assets divided by the number of its shares outstanding. Orders to buy, sell or exchange shares that are received by a fund in good order on or prior to the close of the fund (generally 4 p.m. Eastern time) will be executed at the next share price calculated that day.

If you place an order through your Schwab account or an account at another intermediary, please consult with your intermediary to determine when your order will be executed. Generally, you will receive the share price next calculated after a fund receives your order from your intermediary. However, some intermediaries, such as Schwab, may arrange with a fund for you to receive the share price next calculated after your intermediary has received your order. Some intermediaries may require that they receive orders prior to a specified cut-off time.

In valuing underlying fund investments, the funds use the NAVs reported by their underlying funds. In valuing other portfolio securities, the funds use market quotes or official closing prices if they are readily available. In cases where quotes are not readily available or the adviser deems them unreliable, a fund may value securities based on fair values developed using methods approved by the funds’ Board of Trustees.


Investing in the funds			33

Shareholders of a fund should be aware that because foreign markets are often open on weekends and other days when the fund is closed, the value of the fund’s portfolio may change on days when it is not possible to buy or sell shares of the fund.

Additional policies affecting your investment

Minimum initial investment

$100

The minimum may be waived for certain retirement plans and plan participants, and for certain investment programs, or in a fund’s sole discretion.

Choose an option for fund distributions If you are an Eligible Investor placing direct orders with a fund, you will have one of the three options described below for fund distributions. If you don’t indicate a choice, you will receive the first option. If you are placing orders through an intermediary, you will select from the options for fund distributions provided by your intermediary, which may be different than those provided by the funds to Eligible Investors. You should consult with your financial intermediary to discuss available options.


Option		Feature
Reinvestment		All dividends and capital gain distributions are invested automatically in shares of your fund.
Cash/reinvestment mix		You receive payment for dividends, while any capital gain distributions are invested in shares of your fund.
Cash		You receive payment for all dividends and capital gain distributions.

Each fund reserves certain rights, including the following:

•

To materially modify or terminate the exchange privilege upon 60 days’ written notice to shareholders.

•

To change or waive the fund’s investment minimums.

•

To suspend the right to sell shares back to the fund, and delay sending proceeds, during times when trading on the NYSE is restricted or halted, or otherwise as permitted by the SEC.

•

To withdraw or suspend any part of the offering made by this prospectus.

Payments by the investment adviser or its affiliates

The investment adviser or its affiliates may make cash payments out of their own resources, or provide products and services at a discount, to certain brokerage firms, banks, retirement plan service providers and other financial intermediaries that perform shareholder, recordkeeping, sub-accounting and other administrative services in connection with investments in fund shares. These payments or discounts are separate from, and may be in addition to, any shareholder service fees or other administrative fees the funds may pay to those intermediaries The investment adviser or its affiliates may also make cash payments out of their own resources, or provide products and services at a discount, to certain financial intermediaries that perform distribution, marketing, promotional or other distribution-related services. The payments or discounts described by this paragraph may be substantial; however, distribution-related services provided by such intermediaries are paid by the investment adviser or its affiliates, not by the funds or their shareholders.

Shareholder servicing plan

The Board of Trustees has adopted a Shareholder Servicing Plan (the “Plan”) on behalf of the funds. The Plan enables the funds to bear expenses relating to the provision by service providers, including Schwab, of certain account maintenance, customer liaison and shareholder services to the current shareholders of the funds. The funds are not subject to any fee under the Plan.

Policy regarding short-term or excessive trading

The funds are intended for long-term investment and not for short-term or excessive trading (collectively “market timing”). Market timing may adversely impact the funds’ performance by disrupting the efficient management of the fund, increasing fund transaction costs and taxes, causing the funds to maintain higher cash balances, and diluting the value of the funds’ shares.

In order to discourage market timing, each fund’s Board of Trustees has adopted policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to reduce the risk of market timing by fund shareholders. Each fund seeks to deter market timing through several methods. These methods may include: fair value pricing, imposition of redemption fees and trade activity monitoring. Fair value pricing and redemption fees are discussed more thoroughly in the subsequent pages of this prospectus and are considered to be key elements of the funds’ policy regarding short term or excessive trading. Trade activity monitoring is risk based and seeks to identify patterns of activity in amounts that might be detrimental to a fund.

Although these methods are designed to discourage market timing, there can be no guarantee that the funds will be able to identify and restrict investors that engage in such activities. In addition, some of these methods are inherently subjective and involve judgment in their


34		Investing in the funds

application. Each fund and its service providers seek to make these judgments and applications uniformly and in a manner that they believe is consistent with interests of the fund’s long-term shareholders. The funds may amend these policies and procedures in response to changing regulatory requirements or to enhance the effectiveness of the program.

The funds or their service providers maintain risk-based surveillance procedures designed to detect market timing in fund shares in amounts that might be detrimental to the funds. Under these procedures, the funds have requested that service providers to the funds monitor transactional activity in amounts and frequency determined by each fund to be significant to the fund and in a pattern of activity that potentially could be detrimental to the fund. If a fund, in its sole discretion based on these or other factors, determines that a shareholder has engaged in market timing, it may refuse to process future purchases or exchanges into the fund by that shareholder. These procedures may be modified from time to time as appropriate to improve the detection of market timing and to comply with applicable laws.

If trades are effected through a financial intermediary, each funds or its service providers will work with the intermediary to monitor possible market timing activity. The funds reserve the right to contact the intermediary to provide certain shareholder transaction information and may require the intermediary to restrict the shareholder from future purchases or exchanges in the funds. Transactions by fund shareholders investing through intermediaries may also be subject to the restrictions of the intermediary’s own frequent trading policies, which may differ from those of the funds.

The funds may defer to an intermediary’s frequent trading policies with respect to those shareholders who invest in the funds through such intermediary. The funds will defer to an intermediary’s policies only after the funds determine that the intermediary’s frequent trading policies are reasonably designed to deter transactional activity in amounts and frequency that are deemed to be significant to the funds and in a pattern of activity that potentially could be detrimental to the funds. Shareholders should consult with their intermediary to determine if additional frequent trading restrictions apply to their fund transactions.

The funds reserve the right to restrict, reject or cancel within a reasonable time, without prior notice, any purchase or exchange order for any reason.

Fair value pricing

The Board of Trustees has adopted procedures to fair value the funds’ securities when market prices are not “readily available” or are unreliable. For example, a fund may fair value a security when a security is de-listed or its trading is halted or suspended; when a security’s primary pricing source is unable or unwilling to provide a price; when a security’s primary trading market is closed during regular market hours; or when a security’s value is materially affected by events occurring after the close of the security’s primary trading market.

By fair valuing securities whose prices may have been affected by events occurring after the close of trading, the funds seek to establish prices that investors might expect to realize upon the current sales of these securities. This methodology is designed to deter “arbitrage” market timers, who seek to exploit delays between the change in the value of a fund’s portfolio holdings and the net asset value of the fund’s shares, and seeks to help ensure that the prices at which the fund’s shares are purchased and redeemed are fair and do not result in dilution of shareholder interest or other harm to shareholders.

Each fund makes fair value determinations in good faith in accordance with the fund’s valuation procedures. Due to the subjective and variable nature of fair value pricing, there can be no assurance that a fund could obtain the fair value assigned to the security upon the sale of such security. The respective prospectuses for the underlying funds in which the funds invest explain the circumstances in which those funds will use fair value pricing and the effect of fair value pricing.

Redemption fee

Shares redeemed or exchanged within 30 days of purchase, which shall be calculated to include the 30th day, will be subject to a fee of 2%, which is intended to limit short-term trading in the funds, or to the extent that short-term trading persists, to impose the costs of that type of activity on the shareholders who engage in it. Each fund treats shares that have been held the longest as being redeemed first. Each fund retains the redemption fees for the benefit of the remaining shareholders. Fund shares purchased with reinvested dividends are not subject to redemption fees. Each fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to waive such fee when, in its judgment, such waiver would be in the best interests of the fund and its long-term shareholders. A fund may waive the redemption fee for retirement plans, wrap or fee-based programs, charitable giving funds, unregistered separate accounts, redemptions pursuant to rebalancing programs or systematic withdrawal plans established by the fund or financial intermediaries, and registered investment companies and redemptions initiated by the fund. In addition, certain financial intermediaries may use criteria and methods for tracking, applying and calculating the fees that are different from a fund’s but which the fund, in its discretion, may determine are in the best interests of the fund and its long-term shareholders. While the funds discourage mutual fund market timing and maintain procedures designed to provide reasonable assurances that such activity will be identified and terminated, including the imposition of the redemption fee described above, no policy or procedure can guarantee that all such activity will in fact be identified or that such activity can be completely eliminated. The funds reserve the right to modify or eliminate the redemption fees or waivers at any time.


Investing in the funds			35

Large shareholder redemptions

Certain accounts or Schwab affiliates may from time to time own (beneficially or of record) or control a significant percentage of the fund’s shares. Redemptions by these shareholders of their holdings in the fund may impact the fund’s liquidity and NAV. These redemptions may also force the fund to sell securities, which may negatively impact the fund’s brokerage costs.

Customer identification and verification and anti-money laundering program

Federal law requires all financial institutions to obtain, verify and record information that identifies each person who opens an account. When you open your account, you will have to provide your name, address, date of birth, identification number and other information that will allow the funds or your financial intermediary to identify you. This information is subject to verification to ensure the identity of all persons opening an account.

The funds or your financial intermediary are required by law to reject your new account application if the required identifying information is not provided. A fund or your financial intermediary may contact you in an attempt to collect any missing information required on the application, and your application may be rejected if they are unable to obtain this information. In certain instances, a fund or your financial intermediary is required to collect documents, which will be used solely to establish and verify your identity.

The funds will accept investments and your order will be processed at the NAV next determined after receipt of your application in proper form (or upon receipt of all identifying information required on the application). The funds, however, reserve the right to close and/or liquidate your account at the then-current day’s price if the funds or your financial intermediary are unable to verify your identity. As a result, you may be subject to a gain or loss on fund shares and will be subject to corresponding tax consequences.

Customer identification and verification is part of a fund’s overall obligation to deter money laundering under Federal law. Each fund has adopted an Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Program designed to prevent the fund from being used for money laundering or the financing of terrorist activities. In this regard, the funds reserve the right to (i) refuse, cancel or rescind any purchase or exchange order; (ii) freeze any account and/or suspend account services; or (iii) involuntarily close your account in cases of threatening conduct or suspected fraudulent or illegal activity. These actions will be taken when, in the sole discretion of fund management, they are deemed to be in the best interest of a fund or in cases when the fund is requested or compelled to do so by governmental or law enforcement authority. If your account is closed at the request of governmental or law enforcement authority, you may not receive proceeds of the redemption if a fund is required to withhold such proceeds.

Distributions and taxes

Any investment in a fund typically involves several tax considerations. The information below is meant as a general summary for U.S. citizens and residents. Because each person’s tax situation is different, you should consult your tax advisor about the tax implications of your investment in a fund. You also can visit the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) web site at www.irs.gov.

As a shareholder, you are entitled to your share of the dividends and gains a fund earns. Every year, each fund distributes to its shareholders substantially all of its net investment income and net capital gains, if any. These distributions typically are paid in December to all shareholders of record. During the fourth quarter of the year, typically in early November, an estimate of each fund’s capital gain distribution, if any, may be made available on the funds’ website: www.schwab.com/schwabfunds.

Unless you are investing through an IRA, 401(k) or other tax-advantaged retirement account, your fund distributions generally have tax consequences. Each fund’s net investment income and short-term capital gains are distributed as dividends and will be taxable as ordinary income or qualified dividend income. Other capital gain distributions are taxable as long-term capital gains, regardless of how long you have held your shares in a fund. Absent further legislation, the reduced maximum rates on qualified dividend income and long-term capital gains will cease to apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012. Distributions generally are taxable in the tax year in which they are declared, whether you reinvest them or take them in cash.

Generally, any sale or exchange of your shares is a taxable event. For tax purposes, an exchange of your shares for shares of another Schwab Fund or Laudus MarketMasters Fund is treated the same as a sale. A sale may result in a capital gain or loss for you. The gain or loss generally will be treated as short term if you held the shares for one year or less, long term if you held the shares longer. Absent further legislation, the reduced maximum rates on long-term capital gains will cease to apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012. Any loss realized upon a taxable disposition of shares held for six months or less will be treated as long-term, rather than short-term, to the extent of any long-term capital gain distributions received (or deemed received) by you with respect to the shares. All or a portion of any loss realized upon a taxable disposition of shares will be disallowed if you purchase other substantially identical shares within 30 days before or after the disposition. In such a case, the basis of the newly purchased shares will be adjusted to reflect the disallowed loss.

At the beginning of every year, the funds provide shareholders with information detailing the tax status of any distributions a fund paid during the previous calendar year. Schwab customers also receive information on distributions and transactions in their monthly account statements.


36		Investing in the funds

Prior to January 1, 2012 when shareholders sold fund shares from a taxable account, they typically received information on their tax forms that calculated their gain or loss using the average cost method. This information was not previously reported to the IRS, and shareholders had the option of calculating gains or losses using an alternative IRS permitted method. However, in accordance with legislation passed by Congress in 2008, each fund began reporting cost basis information to the IRS for shares purchased on or after January 1, 2012 and sold thereafter. Each fund permits shareholders to elect their preferred cost basis method. In the absence of an election, a fund will use an average cost basis method. Please consult your tax adviser to determine the appropriate cost basis method for your particular tax situation and to learn more about how the new cost basis reporting laws apply to you and your investments, including investments made prior January 1, 2012 and sold thereafter.

The funds may be required to withhold U.S. federal income tax on all taxable distributions payable to shareholders if they fail to provide the funds with their correct taxpayer identification number or to make required certifications, or if they have been notified by the IRS that they are subject to backup withholding. Backup withholding is not an additional tax. Any amounts withheld may be credited against U.S. federal income tax liability.

Foreign shareholders may be subject to different U.S. federal income tax treatment, including withholding tax at the rate of 30% on amounts treated as ordinary dividends from the funds, as discussed in more detail in the SAI.


Investing in the funds			37

To learn more

This prospectus contains important information on the funds and should be read and kept for reference. You also can obtain more information from the following sources:

Annual and semi-annual reports, which are mailed to current fund investors, contain more information about the funds’ holdings and detailed financial information about the funds. Annual reports also contain information from the funds’ managers about strategies, recent market conditions and trends and their impact on fund performance.

The Statement of Additional Information (SAI) includes a more detailed discussion of investment policies and the risks associated with various investments. The SAI is incorporated by reference into the prospectus, making it legally part of the prospectus.

For a free copy of any of these documents or to request other information or ask questions about the funds, call Schwab Funds^® at 1-800-435-4000. In addition, you may visit Schwab Funds’ web site at www.schwabfunds.com/prospectus for a free copy of a prospectus, SAI or an annual or semi-annual report.

The SAI, the funds’ annual and semi-annual reports and other related materials are available from the EDGAR Database on the SEC’s web site (http://www.sec.gov). You can obtain copies of this information, after paying a duplicating fee, by sending a request by e-mail to publicinfo@sec.gov or by writing the Public Reference Section of the SEC, Washington, D.C. 20549-1520. You can also review and copy information about the funds, including the SAI, at the SEC’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. Call 1-202-551-8090 for information on the operation of the SEC’s Public Reference Room.

SEC File Number


Schwab Target 2045 Fund			811-7704

Schwab Target 2050 Fund			811-7704

Schwab Target 2055 Fund			811-7704

REGxxxxxFLT-xx

Schwab Target Funds

Prospectus

January , 2013

LOGO

STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

SCHWAB CAPITAL TRUST

SCHWAB TARGET FUNDS

Schwab Target 2045 Fund [ ]

Schwab Target 2050 Fund [ ]

Schwab Target 2055 Fund [ ]

January __, 2013

The Statement of Additional Information (SAI) is not a prospectus. It should be read in conjunction with the funds’ prospectus dated January __, 2013 (as amended from time to time).

The funds’ audited financial statements, as they become available, also contain important financial information about each fund. To obtain a free copy of these documents or to request other information or ask questions about the funds, call Schwab Funds^® at 1-800-435-4000. For TDD service call 1-800-345-2550. In addition, you may visit Schwab Funds’ web site at: http://www.schwabfunds.com/prospectus for a free copy of a prospectus, SAI or an annual or semi-annual report.

Each fund is a series of Schwab Capital Trust (the “trust”). The funds are part of the Schwab complex of funds (“Schwab Funds”).

Subject to Completion, Dated, October 22, 2012

THE INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NOT COMPLETE AND MAY BE CHANGED. WE MAY NOT SELL THESE SECURITIES UNTIL THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION IS EFFECTIVE. THIS STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NOT AN OFFER TO SELL THESE SECURITIES AND IS NOT SOLICITING AN OFFER TO BUY THESE SECURITIES IN ANY STATE WHERE THE OFFER OR SALE IS NOT PERMITTED.

REG-xxxxx-00

TABLE OF CONTENTS


	Page
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES		3
INVESTMENT STRATEGIES		3
INVESTMENTS, SECURITIES AND RISKS		5
INVESTMENT LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS		31
MANAGEMENT OF THE FUNDS		34
CONTROL PERSONS AND PRINCIPAL HOLDERS OF SECURITIES		44
INVESTMENT ADVISORY AND OTHER SERVICES		44
BROKERAGE ALLOCATION AND OTHER PRACTICES		49
DESCRIPTION OF THE TRUST		53
PURCHASE, REDEMPTION, DELIVERY OF SHAREHOLDER DOCUMENTS AND PRICING OF SHARES		54
TAXATION		57
APPENDIX– PRINCIPAL HOLDERS OF SECURITIES
APPENDIX –PROXY VOTING POLICY AND PROCEDURES

INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES

The Schwab Target 2045, Schwab Target 2050, and Schwab Target 2055 Funds each seeks to provide capital appreciation and income consistent with its current asset allocation.

The Schwab Target 2045, Schwab Target 2050, and Schwab Target 2055 Funds are referred to collectively as the “Schwab Target Funds” (a “fund” or the “funds”).

Change of Investment Objective

The investment objective for each fund may be changed only by vote of a majority of its outstanding voting shares. A majority of the outstanding voting shares of a fund means the affirmative vote of the lesser of: (a) 67% or more of the voting shares represented at the meeting, if more than 50% of the outstanding voting shares of the fund are represented at the meeting or (b) more than 50% of the outstanding voting shares of a fund. There is no guarantee a fund will achieve its objective.

INVESTMENT STRATEGIES

Each Schwab Target Fund seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing primarily in a combination of other Schwab and Laudus Funds. Each Schwab Target Fund may also invest in unaffiliated third party mutual funds. Each Schwab Target Fund invests in the underlying funds in accordance with its target portfolio allocation. These underlying funds invest their assets directly in equity, fixed income, money market and other securities, in accordance with their own investment objectives and policies. For each target fund, the target asset allocation will be adjusted annually based on the adviser’s asset allocation strategy. In general, each target fund’s allocation to equity securities will decrease and its allocation to fixed income securities will increase as the fund approaches its target retirement date. At the stated retirement date, each target year fund’s allocation will be approximately 40% equity securities, 53% fixed income securities, 7% cash and cash equivalents (including money market funds). Each Schwab Target Fund will continue to reduce its allocation to equity securities for 20 years beyond the fund’s stated retirement date. Each fund intends to invest in a combination of underlying funds; however, each fund may invest directly in equity, fixed income securities, cash equivalents, including money market securities, and futures. These investments and the risks normally associated with these investments are discussed below.

Mutual Funds (open-end mutual funds) are registered investment companies that issue and redeem their shares on a continuous basis. Closed-end funds are registered investment companies that offer a fixed number of shares and are usually listed on an exchange. These funds generally offer investors the advantages of diversification and professional investment management, by combining shareholders’ money and investing it in various types of securities, such as stocks, bonds and money market securities. These funds also make various investments and use certain techniques to enhance their performance. These may include entering into delayed-delivery and when-issued securities transactions or swap agreements; buying and selling futures contracts, illiquid and restricted securities and repurchase agreements; and borrowing or lending money and/or portfolio securities. The risks of investing in these funds generally reflect the risks of the securities in which these funds invest and the investment techniques they may employ. Also, these funds charge fees and incur operating expenses.

Stock Funds typically seek growth of capital and invest primarily in equity securities. Other investments generally include debt securities, such as U.S. government securities, and some illiquid and restricted securities. Stock funds typically may enter into delayed-delivery or when-issued securities transactions, repurchase agreements, swap agreements and futures and options contracts. Some stock funds invest exclusively in equity securities and may focus on a specialized segment of the stock market, like stocks of

small companies or foreign issuers, or may focus on a specific industry or group of industries. The greater a fund’s investment in stock, the greater exposure it will have to stock risk and stock market risk. Stock risk is the risk that a stock may decline in price over the short or long term. When a stock’s price declines, its market value is lowered even though the intrinsic value of the company may not have changed. Some stocks, like small company and international stocks, are more sensitive to stock risk than others. Diversifying investments across companies can help to lower the stock risk of a portfolio. Market risk is typically the result of a negative economic condition that affects the value of an entire class of securities, such as stocks or bonds. Diversification among various asset classes, such as stocks, bonds and cash, can help to lower the market risk of a portfolio. The underlying stock funds that the Schwab Target Funds may currently invest in are listed in the prospectus. A stock fund’s other investments and use of investment techniques also will affect its performance and portfolio value.

Small-Cap Stock Funds typically seek capital growth and invest primarily in equity securities of companies with smaller market capitalizations. Small-cap stock funds generally make similar types of investments and employ similar types of techniques as other stock funds, except that they focus on stocks issued by companies at the lower end of the total capitalization of the U.S. stock market. These stocks tend to be more volatile than stocks of companies of larger capitalized companies. Small-cap stock funds, therefore, tend to be more volatile than stock funds that invest in mid- or large-cap stocks, and are normally recommended for long-term investors. The underlying small-cap stock funds that the Schwab Target Funds may currently invest in are listed in the prospectus. For a more detailed discussion of the risks of small-cap stocks, please refer to “Small-Cap Stocks” later in the document.

International Stock Funds typically seek capital growth and invest primarily in equity securities of foreign issuers. Global stock funds invest primarily in equity securities of both domestic and foreign issuers. International and global stock funds generally make similar types of investments and employ similar types of investment techniques as other stock funds, except they focus on stocks of foreign issuers. Some international stock and global stock funds invest exclusively in foreign securities. Some of these funds invest in securities of issuers located in emerging or developing securities markets. These funds have greater exposure to the risks associated with international investing. International and global stock funds also may invest in foreign currencies and depositary receipts and enter into futures and options contracts on foreign currencies and forward foreign currency exchange contracts. The underlying international stock funds that the Schwab Target Funds may currently invest in are listed in the prospectus. For a more detailed discussion of the risks of international stock, please refer to “Foreign Securities” later in the document.

Bond Funds typically seek high current income by investing primarily in debt securities, including U.S. government securities, corporate bonds, stripped securities and mortgage- and asset-backed securities. Other investments may include some illiquid and restricted securities. Bond funds typically may enter into delayed-delivery or when-issued securities transactions, repurchase agreements, swap agreements and futures contracts. Bond funds are subject to interest rate and income risks as well as credit and prepayment risks. When interest rates fall, the prices of debt securities generally rise, which may affect the values of bond funds and their yields. For example, when interest rates fall, issuers tend to pre-pay their outstanding debts and issue new ones paying lower interest rates. A bond fund holding these securities would be forced to invest the principal received from the issuer in lower yielding debt securities. Conversely, in a rising interest rate environment, prepayment on outstanding debt securities generally will not occur. This risk is known as extension risk and may affect the value of a bond fund if the value of its securities are depreciated as a result of the higher market interest rates. In addition, when interest rates rise, bond prices fall as a general rule. This means that the value of an investor’s shares in a bond fund could decline in response to a rise in interest rates. Bond funds also are subject to the risk that the issuers of the securities in their portfolios will not make timely interest and/or principal payments or fail to make them at all. The underlying bond funds that the Schwab Target Funds may currently invest in are listed in the prospectus. For a more detailed discussion of the risks of bonds, please refer to “Debt Securities” later in the document.

Money Market Funds typically seek current income and a stable share price of $1.00 by investing in money market securities. Money market securities include commercial paper and short-term U.S. government securities, certificates of deposit, bankers’ acceptances and repurchase agreements. Some money market securities may be illiquid or restricted securities or purchased on a delayed-delivery or when issued basis. The underlying money market fund that the Schwab Target Funds may currently invest in is listed in the prospectus. For a more detailed discussion of the risks of money market securities, please refer to “Money Market Securities” later in the document.

INVESTMENTS, SECURITIES AND RISKS

The different types of investments that the underlying funds typically may invest in, the investment techniques they may use and the risks normally associated with these investments are also discussed below. The following investment strategies, risks and limitations supplement those set forth in the prospectus and may be changed without shareholder approval unless otherwise noted. Also, policies and limitations that state a maximum percentage of assets that may be invested in a security or other asset, or that set forth a quality standard, shall be measured immediately after and as a result of a fund’s acquisition of such security or asset unless otherwise noted. Thus, any subsequent change in values, net assets or other circumstances does not require a fund to sell an investment if it could not then make the same investment. Not all investment securities or techniques discussed below are eligible investments for each fund.

Each of the Schwab Target Funds also may invest in securities other than shares of underlying funds, such as stocks, bonds and money market securities, and engage in certain investment techniques, which are outlined below. Not all securities or techniques discussed below are eligible investments for each fund.

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

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

Concentration means that substantial amounts of assets are invested in a particular industry or group of industries. Concentration increases investment exposure to industry risk. For example, the automobile industry may have a greater exposure to a single factor, such as an increase in the price of oil, which may adversely affect the sale of automobiles and, as a result, the value of the industry’s securities.

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

Debt securities experience price changes when interest rates change. For example, when interest rates fall, the prices of debt securities generally rise. Also, issuers tend to pre-pay their outstanding debts and issue new ones paying lower interest rates. This is especially true for bonds with sinking fund provisions, which commit the issuer to set aside a certain amount of money to cover timely repayment of principal and typically allow the issuer to annually repurchase certain of its outstanding bonds from the open market or at a pre-set call price.

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

Debt securities also are subject to the risk that the issuers will not make timely interest and/or principal payments or fail to make them at all. This is called credit risk. Corporate debt securities (bonds) tend to have higher credit risk generally than U.S. government debt securities. Debt securities also may be subject to price volatility due to market perception of future interest rates, the creditworthiness of the issuer and general market liquidity (market risk). Investment-grade debt securities are considered medium- or/and high-quality securities, although some still possess varying degrees of speculative characteristics and risks. Debt securities rated below investment-grade are riskier, but may offer higher yields. These securities are sometimes referred to as high yield securities or “junk bonds.” The market for these securities has historically been less liquid than for investment-grade securities.

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

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

Although the two types of depositary receipt facilities (unsponsored or sponsored) are similar, there are differences regarding a holder’s rights and obligations and the practices of market participants. A depository may establish an unsponsored facility without participation by (or acquiescence of) the underlying issuer; typically, however, the depository requests a letter of non-objection from the

underlying issuer prior to establishing the facility. Holders of unsponsored depositary receipts generally bear all the costs of the facility. The depository usually charges fees upon the deposit and withdrawal of the underlying securities, the conversion of dividends into U.S. dollars or other currency, the disposition of non-cash distributions, and the performance of other services. The depository of an unsponsored facility frequently is under no obligation to distribute shareholder communications received from the underlying issuer or to pass through voting rights to depositary receipt holders with respect to the underlying securities.

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

Derivative Instruments are commonly defined to include securities or contracts whose values depend on (or “derive” from) the value of one or more other assets such as securities, currencies, or commodities. These “other assets” are commonly referred to as “underlying assets.”

A derivative instrument generally consists of, is based upon, or exhibits characteristics similar to options or forward contracts. Options and forward contracts are considered to be the basic “building blocks” of derivatives. For example, forward-based derivatives include forward contracts, as well as exchange-traded futures. Option-based derivatives include privately negotiated, over-the-counter (OTC) options (including caps, floors, collars, and options on forward and swap contracts) and exchange-traded options on futures. Diverse types of derivatives may be created by combining options or forward contracts in different ways, and applying these structures to a wide range of underlying assets.

Risk management strategies include investment techniques designed to facilitate the sale of portfolio securities, manage the average duration of the portfolio or create or alter exposure to certain asset classes, such as equity, other debt or foreign securities.

In addition to the derivative instruments and strategies described in this SAI, the investment adviser expects to discover additional derivative instruments and other hedging or risk management techniques. The investment adviser may utilize these new derivative instruments and techniques to the extent that they are consistent with a fund’s investment objective and permitted by a fund’s investment limitations, operating policies, and applicable regulatory authorities.

Forward Contracts are sales contracts between a buyer (holding the “long” position), and the seller (holding the “short” position) for an asset with delivery deferred to a future date. The buyer agrees to pay a fixed price at the agreed future date and the seller agrees to deliver the asset. The seller hopes that the market price on the delivery date is less than the agreed upon price, while the buyer hopes for the contrary. The change in value of a forward-based derivative generally is roughly proportional to the change in value of the underlying asset.

Futures Contracts are instruments that represent an agreement between two parties that obligates one party to buy, and the other party to sell, specific instruments at an agreed-upon price on a stipulated future date. In the case of futures contracts relating to an index or otherwise not calling for physical delivery at the close of the transaction, the parties usually agree to deliver the final cash settlement price of the contract. A fund

may purchase and sell futures contracts based on securities, securities indices and foreign currencies, interest rates, or any other futures contracts traded on U.S. exchanges or boards of trade that the Commodities Future Trading Commission (“CFTC”) licenses and regulates on foreign exchanges. Consistent with CFTC regulations, the funds have claimed an exclusion from the definition of the term “commodity pool operator” under the Commodity Exchange Act and, therefore, are not subject to registration or regulation as a pool operator. However, investors should note that the CFTC has adopted certain rules that significantly affect the exclusion available to a fund. CFTC rules require that a fund claiming an exclusion from commodity pool operator registration limit its trades in futures contracts with certain limited expectations. If a fund is unable to claim an exclusion from registration, the fund’s adviser may be required to register as a commodity pool operator and comply with certain CFTC rules. Additional regulation by the CFTC may cause a fund to change investment strategies or to incur additional expenses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A put option is the opposite of a call option. It gives the buyer the right to sell a specified number of shares of a security at a fixed price on or before a specified date in the future. Put option buyers are usually anticipating a decline in the price of the underlying security, and wish to offset those losses when selling the security at a later date. All put options a fund writes will be covered, which means that a fund will earmark or segregate cash, U.S. government securities or other liquid securities with a value at least equal to the exercise price of the put option, or will otherwise “cover” its position as required by the 1940 Act (e.g., the fund will hold a put option on the same underlying security with the same or higher strike price). The purpose of writing such options is to generate additional income for a fund. However, in return for the option premium, a fund accepts the risk that it may be required to purchase the underlying securities at a price in excess of the securities’ market value at the time of purchase.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Puts are agreements that allow the buyer to sell a security at a specified price and time to the seller or “put provider.” When a fund buys a security with a put feature, losses could occur if the put provider does not perform as agreed. If a put provider fails to honor its commitment upon a fund’s attempt to exercise the put, a fund may have to treat the security’s final maturity as its effective maturity. If that occurs, the security’s price may be negatively impacted, and its sensitivity to interest rate changes may be increased, possibly contributing to increased share price volatility for a fund. This also could lengthen a fund’s overall average effective maturity. Standby commitments are types of puts.

Diversification involves investing in a wide range of securities and thereby spreading and reducing the risks of investment. Each fund is a series of an open-end investment management company. Each fund is a diversified mutual fund.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Convertible securities are typically preferred stocks or bonds that are exchangeable for a specific number of another form of security (usually the issuer’s common stock) at a specified price or ratio. A convertible security generally entitles the holder to receive interest paid or accrued on bonds or the dividend paid on preferred stock until the convertible security matures or is redeemed, converted or exchanged. A corporation may issue a convertible security that is subject to redemption after a specified date, and usually under certain circumstances. A holder of a convertible security that is called for redemption would be required to tender it for redemption to the issuer, convert it to the underlying common stock or sell it to a third party. The convertible structure allows the holder of the convertible bond to participate in share price movements in the company’s common stock. The actual return on a convertible bond may exceed its stated yield if the company’s common stock appreciates in value and the option to convert to common stocks becomes more valuable. Convertible securities typically pay a lower interest rate than nonconvertible bonds of the same quality and maturity because of the convertible feature. Convertible securities are also rated below investment grade (“high yield”) or are not rated, and are subject to credit risk.

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

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

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

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

Master Limited Partnerships (“MLPs”). MLPs are limited partnerships in which the common units are publicly traded. MLP common units are freely traded on a securities exchange or in the over-the-counter market and are generally registered with the SEC. MLPs often own several properties or businesses (or own interests) that are related to real estate development and oil and gas industries, but they also may finance motion pictures, research and development and other projects. MLPs generally have two classes of owners, the general partner and limited partners. The general partner is typically owned by a major energy company, an investment fund, the direct management of the MLP or is an entity owned by one or more of such parties. The general partner may be structured as a private or publicly traded corporation or other entity. The general partner typically controls the operations and management of the MLP through an up to 2% equity interest in the MLP plus, in many cases, ownership of common units and subordinated units. Limited partners own the remainder of the partnership, through ownership of common units, and have a limited role, if any, in the partnership’s operations and management.

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

MLP common units represent a limited partnership interest in the MLP. Common units are listed and traded on U.S. securities exchanges or over-the-counter, with their value fluctuating predominantly based on prevailing market conditions and the success of the MLP. The funds may purchase common units in market transactions as well as directly from the MLP or other parties in private placements. Unlike owners of common stock of a corporation, owners of common units have limited voting rights and have no ability to annually elect directors. MLPs generally distribute all available cash flow (cash flow from operations less maintenance capital expenditures) in the form of quarterly distributions. Common units along with general partner units, have first priority to receive quarterly cash distributions up to the minimum quarterly distribution and have arrearage rights. In the event of liquidation, common units have preference over subordinated units, but not debt or preferred units, to the remaining assets of the MLP.

MLP subordinated units are typically issued by MLPs to their original sponsors, such as their founders, corporate general partners of MLPs, entities that sell assets to the MLP, and investors. Subordinated units may be purchased directly from these persons as well as newly-issued subordinated units from MLPs themselves. Subordinated units have similar voting rights as common units and are generally not publicly traded. Once the minimum quarterly distribution on the common units, including any arrearages, has been paid, subordinated units receive cash distributions up to the minimum quarterly distribution prior to any incentive payments to the MLP’s general partner. Unlike common units, subordinated units do not have arrearage rights. In the event of liquidation, common units and general partner interests have priority over subordinated units. Subordinated units are typically converted into common units on a one-to-one basis after certain time periods and/or performance targets have been satisfied. The purchase or sale price of subordinated units is generally tied to the common unit price less a discount. The size of the discount varies depending on the likelihood of conversion, the length of time remaining to conversion, the size of the block purchased relative to trading volumes, and other factors, including smaller capitalization partnerships or companies potentially having limited product lines, markets or financial resources, lacking management depth or experience, and being more vulnerable to adverse general market or economic development than larger more established companies.

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

Additional risks involved with investing in an MLP are risks associated with the specific industry or industries in which the partnership invests, such as the risks of investing in real estate, or oil and gas industries.

Certain MLPs are dependent on their parent companies or sponsors for a majority of their revenues. Any failure by an MLP’s parents or sponsors to satisfy their payments or obligations would impact the MLP’s revenues and cash flows and ability to make distributions.

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

Like any investment in real estate, a REIT’s performance depends on many factors, such as its ability to find tenants for its properties, to renew leases, and to finance property purchases and renovations. In general, REITs may be affected by changes in underlying real estate values, which may have an exaggerated effect to the extent a REIT concentrates its investment in certain regions or property types. For example, rental income could decline because of extended vacancies, increased competition from nearby properties, tenants’ failure to pay rent, or incompetent management. Property values could decrease because of overbuilding, environmental liabilities, uninsured damages caused by natural disasters, a general decline in the neighborhood, losses due to casualty or condemnation, increases in property taxes, or changes in zoning laws. Ultimately, a REIT’s performance depends on the types of properties it owns and how well the REIT manages its properties.

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

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

Rights and Warrants. Rights and warrants are types of securities that entitle the holder to purchase a proportionate amount of common stock at a specified price for a specific period of time. Rights allow a shareholder to buy more shares directly from the company, usually at a price somewhat lower than the

current market price of the outstanding shares. Warrants are usually issued with bonds and preferred stock. Rights and warrants can trade on the market separately from the company’s stock. The prices of rights and warrants do not necessarily move parallel to the prices of the underlying common stock. Rights usually expire within a few weeks of issuance, while warrants may not expire for several years. If a right or warrant is not exercised within the specified time period, it will become worthless and a fund will lose the purchase price it paid for the right or warrant and the right to purchase the underlying security.

Exchange Traded Funds (“ETFs”) such as Standard and Poor’s Depositary Receipts (“SPDRs”) Trust, are investment companies that typically are registered under the 1940 Act as open-end funds or unit investment trusts (“UITs”). ETFs are actively traded on national securities exchanges and are generally based on specific domestic and foreign market indices. Shares of an ETF may be bought and sold through the day at market prices, which may be higher or lower than the shares’ net asset value. An “index-based ETF” seeks to track the performance of an index holding in its portfolio either the contents of the index or a representative sample of the securities in the index. Because ETFs are based on an underlying basket of stocks or an index, they are subject to the same market fluctuations as these types of securities in volatile market swings. ETFs, like mutual funds, have expenses associated with their operation, including advisory fees. When a fund invests in an ETF, in addition to directly bearing expenses associated with its own operations, it will bear a pro rata portion of the ETF’s expenses. As with any exchange listed security, ETF shares purchased in the secondary market are subject to customary brokerage charges. Pursuant to an exemptive order issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) to iShares and procedures approved by the funds’ Board of Trustees, each fund may invest in iShares not to exceed 25% of the fund’s total assets, provided that the fund has described exchange-traded fund investments in its prospectuses and otherwise complies with the conditions of the exemptive order and other applicable investment limitations.

High Yield Securities, also called lower quality bonds (“junk bonds”), are frequently issued by companies without long track records of sales and earnings, or by those of questionable credit strength, and are more speculative and volatile (though typically higher yielding) than investment grade bonds. Adverse economic developments could disrupt the market for high yield securities, and severely affect the ability of issuers, especially highly-leveraged issuers, to service their debt obligations or to repay their obligations upon maturity.

Also, the secondary market for high yield securities at times may not be as liquid as the secondary market for higher-quality debt securities. As a result, the investment adviser could find it difficult to sell these securities or experience difficulty in valuing certain high yield securities at certain times. Prices realized upon the sale of such lower rated securities, under these circumstances, may be less than the prices at which a fund purchased them.

Thus, high yield securities are more likely to react to developments affecting interest rates and market and credit risk than are more highly rated securities, which primarily react to movements in the general level of interest rates. When economic conditions appear to be deteriorating, medium- to lower-quality debt securities may decline in value more than higher-quality debt securities due to heightened concern over credit quality, regardless of prevailing interest rates. Prices for high yield securities also could be affected by legislative and regulatory developments. These laws could adversely affect a fund’s net asset value and investment practices, the secondary market value for high yield securities, the financial condition of issuers of these securities and the value of outstanding high yield securities.

Inflation-Indexed Bonds are fixed income securities whose principal value is periodically adjusted according to the rate of inflation. Two structures are common. The U.S. Treasury and some other issuers use a structure that accrues inflation into the principal value of the bond. Most other issuers pay out the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) accruals as part of a semiannual coupon.

Inflation-indexed securities issued by the U.S. Treasury have maturities of five, ten or thirty years, although it is possible that securities with other maturities will be issued in the future. The U.S. Treasury securities pay interest on a semiannual basis, equal to a fixed percentage of the inflation-adjusted principal amount. For example, if a fund purchased an inflation-indexed bond with a par value of $1,000 and a 3% real rate of return coupon (payable 1.5% semi-annually), and inflation over the first six months was 1%, the mid -year par value of the bond would be $1,010 and the first semi–annual interest payment would be $15.15 ($1,010 times 1.5%). If inflation during the second half of the year resulted in the whole years’ inflation equaling 3%, the end-of-year par value of the bond would be $1,030 and the second semi-annual interest payment would be $15.45 ($1,030 times 1.5%).

If the periodic adjustment rate measuring inflation falls, the principal value of inflation-indexed bonds will be adjusted downward, and consequently the interest payable on these securities (calculated with respect to a smaller principal amount) will be reduced. Repayment of the original bond principal upon maturity (as adjusted for inflation) is guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury in the case of U.S. Treasury inflation-indexed bonds, even during a period of deflation. However, the current market value of the bonds is not guaranteed, and will fluctuate. A fund may also invest in other inflation related bonds, which may or may not provide a similar guarantee. If a guarantee of principal is not provided, the adjusted principal value of the bond repaid at maturity may be less than the original principal.

The value of inflation-indexed bonds is expected to change in response to changes in real interest rates. Real interest rates in turn are tied to the relationship between nominal interest rates and the rate of inflation. Therefore, if inflation were to rise at a faster rate than nominal interest rates, real interest rates might decline, leading to an increase in value of inflation-indexed bonds. In contrast, if nominal interest rates increased at a faster rate than inflation, real interest rates might rise, leading to a decrease in value of inflation-indexed bonds.

While these securities are expected to be protected from long-term inflationary trends, short-term increases in inflation may lead to a decline in value. If interest rates rise due to reasons other than inflation (for example, due to changes in currency exchange rates), investors in these securities may not be protected to the extent that the increase is not reflected in the bond’s inflation measure.

The periodic adjustment of U.S. inflation-indexed bonds is tied to the non-seasonally adjusted U.S. City Average All Items Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (“CPI-U”), which is calculated monthly by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The CPI-U is a measurement of changes in the cost of living, made up of components such as housing, food, transportation and energy. Inflation-indexed bonds issued by a foreign government are generally adjusted to reflect a comparable inflation index, calculated by that government. There can be no assurance that the CPI-U or any foreign inflation index will accurately measure the real rate of inflation in the prices of goods and services. Moreover, there can be no assurance that the rate of inflation in a foreign country will be correlated to the rate of inflation in the United States.

Any increase in the principal amount of an inflation-indexed bond will be considered taxable ordinary income, even though investors do not receive their principal until maturity.

International Bonds are certain obligations or securities of foreign issuers, including Eurodollar Bonds, which are U.S. dollar-denominated bonds issued by foreign issuers payable in Eurodollars (U.S. dollars held in banks located outside the United States, primarily Europe), Yankee Bonds, which are U.S. dollar-denominated bonds issued in the U.S. by foreign banks and corporations, and EuroBonds, which are bonds denominated in U.S. dollars and usually issued by large underwriting groups composed of banks

and issuing houses from many countries. Investments in securities issued by foreign issuers, including American Depositary Receipts and securities purchased on foreign securities exchanges, may subject a fund to additional investment risks, such as adverse political and economic developments, possible seizure, nationalization or expropriation of foreign investments, less stringent disclosure requirements, non-U.S. withholding taxes and the adoption of other foreign governmental restrictions.

Additional risks include less publicly available information, the risk that companies may not be subject to the accounting, auditing and financial reporting standards and requirements of U.S. companies, the risk that foreign securities markets may have less volume and therefore may be less liquid and their prices more volatile than U.S. securities, and the risk that custodian and transaction costs may be higher. Foreign issuers of securities or obligations are often subject to accounting requirements and engage in business practices different from those respecting domestic issuers of similar securities or obligations. Foreign branches of U.S. banks and foreign banks may be subject to less stringent reserve requirements than those applicable to domestic branches of U.S. banks.

Quality of Fixed Income Investments will be principally investment-grade for a fund’s assets. Investment-grade quality securities are rated by at least one NRSRO in one of the four highest rating categories (within which there may be sub-categories or gradations indicating relative standing) or have been determined to be of equivalent quality by the investment adviser or sub-adviser. Sometimes an investment-grade quality security may be downgraded to a below investment-grade quality rating. If a security no longer has at least one investment-quality rating from an NRSRO, the investment adviser would reanalyze the security in light of the downgrade and determine whether a fund should continue to hold the security. However, such downgrade would not require the investment adviser or sub-advisers to sell the security on behalf of a fund. Sometimes lower-quality securities may be downgraded to an even lower quality. The investment adviser may also elect to purchase high-yield securities that are rated (at the time of purchase) B or higher or the equivalent by Moody’s, S&P or Fitch, Inc. or are determined to be of similar investment quality by the investment manager.

Foreign Currency Transactions. A fund may invest in foreign currency-denominated securities, may purchase and sell foreign currency options and foreign currency futures contracts and related options and may engage in foreign currency transactions either on a spot (cash) basis at the rate prevailing in the currency exchange market at the time or through forward currency contracts (“forwards”) with terms generally of less than one year. A fund may engage in these transactions in order to protect against uncertainty in the level of future foreign exchange rates in the purchase and sale of securities.

A fund may also use foreign currency options and foreign currency forward contracts to increase exposure to a foreign currency or to shift exposure to foreign currency fluctuations from one country to another. A fund will earmark or segregate assets for any open positions in forwards used for non-hedging purposes and mark to market daily as may be required under the federal securities laws.

A forward involves an obligation to purchase or sell a specific currency at a future date, which may be any fixed number of days from the date of the contract agreed upon by the parties, at a price set at the time of the contract. These contracts may be bought or sold to protect a fund against a possible loss resulting from an adverse change in the relationship between foreign currencies and the U.S. dollar or to increase exposure to a particular foreign currency. Many foreign securities markets do not settle trades within a time frame that would be considered customary in the U.S. stock market. Therefore, a fund may engage in forward foreign currency exchange contracts in order to secure exchange rates for fund securities purchased or sold, but awaiting settlement. These transactions do not seek to eliminate any fluctuations in the underlying prices of the securities involved. Instead, the transactions simply establish a rate of exchange that can be expected when a fund settles its securities transactions in the future. Forwards involve certain risks. For example, if the counterparties to the contracts are unable to meet the terms of the contracts or if the value of the foreign currency changes unfavorably, a fund could sustain a loss.

A fund may engage in forward foreign currency exchange contracts to protect the value of specific portfolio positions, which is called “position hedging.” When engaging in position hedging, a fund may enter into forward foreign currency exchange transactions to protect against a decline in the values of the foreign currencies in which portfolio securities are denominated (or against an increase in the value of currency for securities that a fund expects to purchase).

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

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

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

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

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

Direct Hedge. If the investment adviser wants to eliminate substantially all of the risk of owning a particular currency, and/or if the investment adviser thinks that a fund can benefit from price appreciation in a given country’s bonds but does not want to hold the currency, it may employ a direct hedge back into the U.S. dollar. In either case, a fund would enter into a forward contract to sell the currency in which a portfolio security is denominated and purchase U.S. dollars at an exchange rate established at the time it initiated the contract. The cost of the direct hedge transaction may offset most, if not all, of the yield advantage offered by the foreign security, but a fund would benefit from an increase in value of the bond.

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

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

Tax Consequences of Hedging. Under applicable tax law, a fund may be required to limit its gains from hedging in foreign currency forwards, futures, and options. Although a fund is expected to comply with such limits, the extent to which these limits apply is subject to tax regulations as yet unissued. Hedging may also result in the application of the mark-to-market and straddle provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. Those provisions could result in an increase (or decrease) in the amount of taxable dividends paid by a fund and could affect whether dividends paid by a fund are classified as capital gains or ordinary income.

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

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

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

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

Hybrid Instruments are a type of potentially high-risk derivative that combines a traditional stock, bond, or commodity with an option or forward contract. Generally, the principal amount, amount payable upon maturity or redemption, or interest rate of a hybrid is tied (positively or negatively) to the price of some commodity, currency or securities index or another interest rate or some other economic factor (each a “benchmark”). The interest rate or (unlike most fixed income securities) the principal amount payable at maturity of a hybrid security may be increased or decreased, depending on changes in the value of the benchmark. An example of a hybrid could be a bond issued by an oil company that pays a small base level of interest with additional interest that accrues in correlation to the extent to which oil prices exceed a certain predetermined level. Such a hybrid instrument would be a combination of a bond and a call option on oil.

Hybrids can be used as an efficient means of pursuing a variety of investment goals, including currency hedging, duration management, and increased total return. Hybrids may not bear interest or pay dividends. The value of a hybrid or its interest rate may be a multiple of a benchmark and, as a result, may be leveraged and move (up or down) more steeply and rapidly than the benchmark. These benchmarks may be sensitive to economic and political events, such as commodity shortages and currency devaluations, which cannot be readily foreseen by the purchaser of a hybrid. Under certain conditions, the redemption value of a hybrid could be zero. Thus, an investment in a hybrid may entail significant market risks that are not associated with a similar investment in a traditional, U.S. dollar-denominated bond that has a fixed principal amount and pays a fixed rate or floating rate of interest. The purchase of hybrids also exposes a fund to the credit risk of the issuer of the hybrids. These risks may cause significant fluctuations in the net asset value of a fund. A fund will not invest more than 5% of its total assets in hybrid instruments.

Certain hybrid instruments may provide exposure to the commodities markets. These are derivative securities with one or more commodity-linked components that have payment features similar to commodity futures contracts, commodity options, or similar instruments. Commodity-linked hybrid instruments may be either equity or debt securities, and are considered hybrid instruments because they have both security and commodity-like characteristics. A portion of the value of these instruments may be derived from the value of a commodity, futures contract, index or other economic variable. A fund will only invest in commodity-linked hybrid instruments that qualify under applicable rules of the CFTC for an exemption from the provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act.

Certain issuers of structured products such as hybrid instruments may be deemed to be investment companies as defined in the 1940 Act. As a result, a fund’s investments in these products may be subject to limits applicable to investments in investment companies and may be subject to restrictions contained in the 1940 Act.

Illiquid Securities generally are any securities that cannot be disposed of promptly and in the ordinary course of business at approximately the amount at which a fund has valued the instruments. The liquidity of a fund’s investments is monitored under the supervision and direction of the Board of Trustees. Investments currently not considered liquid include repurchase agreements not maturing within seven days and certain restricted securities.

Interfund Borrowing and Lending. The SEC has granted an exemption to the Schwab Funds that permits the funds to borrow money from and/or lend money to other Schwab Funds. All loans are for temporary or emergency purposes and the interest rates to be charged will be the average of the overnight repurchase agreement rate and the short term bank loan rate. All loans are subject to numerous conditions designed to ensure fair and equitable treatment of all participating funds/portfolios. The interfund lending facility is subject to the oversight and periodic review of the Board of Trustees of the Schwab Funds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repurchase Agreements are instruments under which a buyer acquires ownership of certain securities (usually U.S. government securities) from a seller who agrees to repurchase the securities at a mutually agreed-upon time and price, thereby determining the yield during the buyer’s holding period. Any repurchase agreements a fund enters into will involve a fund as the buyer and banks or broker-dealers as sellers. The period of repurchase agreements is usually short—from overnight to one week, although the securities collateralizing a repurchase agreement may have longer maturity dates. Default by the seller might cause a fund to experience a loss or delay in the liquidation of the collateral securing the repurchase agreement. A fund also may incur disposition costs in liquidating the collateral. In the event of a bankruptcy or other default of a repurchase agreement’s seller, a fund might incur expenses in enforcing its rights, and could experience losses, including a decline in the value of the underlying securities and loss of income. A fund will make payment under a repurchase agreement only upon physical delivery or evidence of book entry transfer of the collateral to the account of its custodian bank.

Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) and other Asset-Backed Securities (ABS) may be purchased by a fund. MBS represent participations in mortgage loans, and include pass-through securities, collateralized mortgage obligations and stripped mortgage-backed securities. MBS may be issued or guaranteed by U.S. government agencies or instrumentalities, such as the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA or Ginnie Mae) and the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA or Fannie Mae) or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC or Freddie Mac).

The National Housing Act authorized GNMA to guarantee the timely payment of principal and interest on securities backed by a pool of mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or guaranteed by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The GNMA guarantee is backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. The GNMA is also empowered to borrow without limitation from the U.S. Treasury if necessary to make any payments required under its guarantee.

GNMA are mortgage securities which evidence an undivided interest in a pool or pools of mortgages. GNMA Certificates that a fund may purchase are the “modified pass-through” type, which entitle the holder to receive timely payment of all interest and principal payments due on the mortgage pool, net of fees paid to the “issuer” and GNMA, regardless of whether or not the mortgagor actually makes the payment.

The average life of a GNMA Certificate is likely to be substantially shorter than the original maturity of the mortgages underlying the securities. Prepayments of principal by mortgagors and mortgage foreclosures will usually result in the return of the greater part of principal investment long before the maturity of the mortgages in the pool. Foreclosures impose no risk to principal investment because of the GNMA guarantee, except to the extent that a fund has purchased the certificates above par in the secondary market.

FHLMC was created in 1970 to promote development of a nationwide secondary market in conventional residential mortgages. The FHLMC issues two types of mortgage pass-through securities (FHLMC Certificates): mortgage participation certificates (PCs) and guaranteed mortgage certificates (GMCs). PCs resemble GNMA Certificates in that each PC represents a pro rata share of all interest and principal payments made and owed on the underlying pool. The FHLMC guarantees timely monthly payment of interest on PCs and the ultimate payment of principal, but its issues are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government.

GMCs also represent a pro rata interest in a pool of mortgages. However, these instruments pay interest semi-annually and return principal once a year in guaranteed minimum payments. The expected average life of these securities is approximately 10 years. The FHLMC guarantee is not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government.

FNMA was established in 1938 to create a secondary market in mortgages the FHA insures. FNMA issues guaranteed mortgage pass-through certificates (FNMA Certificates). FNMA Certificates resemble GNMA Certificates in that each FNMA Certificate represents a pro rata share of all interest and principal payments made and owed on the underlying pool. FNMA guarantees timely payment of interest and principal on FNMA Certificates. The FNMA guarantee is not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government.

For more information on securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, see “U.S. Government Securities.”

MBS may also be issued by private issuers, generally originators and investors in mortgage loans, including savings associations, mortgage banks, commercial banks, and special purpose entities (collectively, “private lenders”). MBS are based on different types of mortgages including those on commercial real estate and residential property. MBS issued by private lenders may be supported by pools of mortgage loans or other MBS that are guaranteed, directly or indirectly, by the U.S. government or one of its agencies or instrumentalities, or they may be issued without any governmental guarantee of the underlying mortgage assets but with some form of credit enhancement.

Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities include securities that reflect an interest in, and are secured by, mortgage loans on commercial real property. The market for commercial mortgage-backed securities developed more recently and in terms of total outstanding principal amount of issues is relatively small compared to the market for residential single-family MBS. Many of the risks of investing in commercial MBS reflect the risks of investing in the real estate securing the underlying mortgage loans. These risks reflect the effects of local and other economic conditions on real estate markets, the ability of tenants to make loan payments, and the ability of a property to attract and retain tenants. Commercial MBS may be less liquid and exhibit greater price volatility than other types of mortgage- or asset-backed securities.

Collateralized Debt Obligations. A fund may invest in collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”), which include collateralized bond obligations (“CBOs”), collateralized loan obligations (“CLOs”) and other similarly structured securities. CBOs and CLOs are types of asset-backed securities. A CBO is a trust that is backed by a diversified pool of high risk, below investment grade fixed income securities. A CLO 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, including loans that may be rated below investment grade or equivalent unrated loans.

For both CBOs 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 CBO trust or CLO 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, CBO or CLO 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 CBO or CLO securities as a class.

The risks of an investment in a CDO depend largely on the type of the collateral securities and the class of the CDO in which a fund invests. Normally, CBOs, CLOs and other CDOs are privately offered and sold, and thus, are not registered under the securities laws. As a result, investments in CDOs may be characterized by a fund as illiquid securities, however an active dealer market may exist for CDOs allowing a CDO to qualify for Rule 144A transactions. In addition to the normal risks associated with fixed income securities discussed elsewhere in this SAI and a fund’s prospectus (e.g., interest rate risk

and default risk), CDOs carry additional risks including, but not limited to: (i) the possibility that distributions from collateral securities will not be adequate to make interest or other payments; (ii) the quality of the collateral may decline in value or default; (iii) a fund may invest in CDOs that are subordinate to other classes; and (iv) the complex structure of the security may not be fully understood at the time of investment and may produce disputes with the issuer or unexpected investment results.

Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (“CMO”) are a hybrid between mortgage-backed bonds and mortgage pass-through securities. Similar to a bond, interest and prepaid principal is paid, in most cases, on a monthly basis. CMOs may be collateralized by whole mortgage loans, but are more typically collateralized by portfolios of mortgage pass-through securities guaranteed by Ginnie Mae, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and their income streams.

CMOs are structured into multiple classes, each bearing a different stated maturity. Actual maturity and average life will depend upon the prepayment experience of the collateral. CMOs provide for a modified form of call protection through a de facto breakdown of the underlying pool of mortgages according to how quickly the loans are repaid. Monthly payment of principal received from the pool of underlying mortgages, including prepayments, is first returned to investors holding the shortest maturity class. Investors holding the longer maturity classes receive principal only after the first class has been retired. An investor is partially guarded against a sooner than desired return of principal because of the sequential payments.

In a typical CMO transaction, a corporation (“issuer”) issues multiple series (e.g., A, B, C, Z) of CMO bonds (“Bonds”). Proceeds of the Bond offering are used to purchase mortgages or mortgage pass-through certificates (“Collateral”). The Collateral is pledged to a third party trustee as security for the Bonds. Principal and interest payments from the Collateral are used to pay principal on the Bonds in the order A, B, C, Z. The Series A, B, and C Bonds all bear current interest. Interest on the Series Z Bond is accrued and added to principal and a like amount is paid as principal on the Series A, B, or C Bond currently being paid off. When the Series A, B, and C Bonds are paid in full, interest and principal on the Series Z Bond begins to be paid currently. With some CMOs, the issuer serves as a conduit to allow loan originators (primarily builders or savings and loan associations) to borrow against their loan portfolios.

The rate of principal payment on MBS and ABS generally depends on the rate of principal payments received on the underlying assets which in turn may be affected by a variety of economic and other factors. As a result, the price and yield on any MBS or ABS is difficult to predict with precision and price and yield to maturity may be more or less than the anticipated yield to maturity. If a fund purchases these securities at a premium, a prepayment rate that is faster than expected will reduce yield to maturity, while a prepayment rate that is slower than expected will have the opposite effect of increasing the yield to maturity. Conversely, if a fund purchases these securities at a discount, a prepayment rate that is faster than expected will increase yield to maturity, while a prepayment rate that is slower than expected will reduce yield to maturity. Amounts available for reinvestment by a fund are likely to be greater during a period of declining interest rates and, as a result, are likely to be reinvested at lower interest rates than during a period of rising interest rates.

While many MBS and ABS are issued with only one class of security, many are issued in more than one class, each with different payment terms. Multiple class MBS and ABS are issued as a method of providing credit support, typically through creation of one or more classes whose right to payments on the security is made subordinate to the right to such payments of the remaining class or classes. In addition, multiple classes may permit the issuance of securities with payment terms, interest rates, or other characteristics differing both from those of each other and from those of the underlying assets. Examples include stripped securities, which are MBS and ABS entitling the holder to disproportionate interest or principal compared with the assets backing the security, and securities with classes having characteristics

different from the assets backing the securities, such as a security with floating interest rates with assets backing the securities having fixed interest rates. The market value of such securities and CMO’s generally is more or less sensitive to changes in prepayment and interest rates than is the case with traditional MBS and ABS, and in some cases such market value may be extremely volatile.

CMO Residuals. CMO residuals are mortgage securities issued by agencies or instrumentalities of the U.S. Government or by private originators of, or investors in, mortgage loans, including savings and loan associations, homebuilders, mortgage banks, commercial banks, investment banks and special purpose entities of the foregoing.

The cash flow generated by the mortgage assets underlying a series of CMOs is applied first to make required payments of principal and interest on the CMOs and second to pay the related administrative expenses of the issuer. The residual in a CMO structure generally represents the interest in any excess cash flow remaining after making the foregoing payments. Each payment of such excess cash flow to a holder of the related CMO residual represents income and/or a return of capital. The amount of residual cash flow resulting from a CMO will depend on, among other things, the characteristics of the mortgage assets, the coupon rate of each class of CMO, prevailing interest rates, the amount of administrative expenses and the prepayment experience on the mortgage assets. In particular, the yield to maturity on CMO residuals is extremely sensitive to prepayments on the related underlying mortgage assets, in the same manner as an interest-only (“IO”) class of stripped mortgage-backed securities. See “Stripped Mortgage-Backed Securities.” In addition, if a series of a CMO includes a class that bears interest at an adjustable rate, the yield to maturity on the related CMO residual will also be extremely sensitive to changes in the level of the index upon which interest rate adjustments are based. As described below with respect to stripped mortgage-backed securities, in certain circumstances a fund may fail to recoup fully its initial investment in a CMO residual.

CMO residuals are generally purchased and sold by institutional investors through several investment banking firms acting as brokers or dealers. The CMO residual market has only very recently developed and CMO residuals currently may not have the liquidity of other more established securities trading in other markets. Transactions in CMO residuals are generally completed only after careful review of the characteristics of the securities in question. In addition, CMO residuals may, or pursuant to an exemption therefrom, may not have been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “1933 Act”). CMO residuals, whether or not registered under the 1933 Act, may be subject to certain restrictions on transferability, and may be deemed “illiquid” and subject to a fund’s limitations on investment in illiquid securities.

Stripped Mortgage-Backed Securities (SMBS). SMBS are derivative multi-class mortgage securities. SMBS may be issued by agencies or instrumentalities of the U.S. Government, or by private originators of, or investors in, mortgage loans, including savings and loan associations, mortgage banks, commercial banks, investment banks and special purpose entities of the foregoing.

SMBS are usually structured with two classes that receive different proportions of the interest and principal distributions on a pool of mortgage assets. A common type of SMBS will have one class receiving some of the interest and most of the principal from the mortgage assets, while the other class will receive most of the interest and the remainder of the principal. In the most extreme case, one class will receive all of the interest (the “IO” class), while the other class will receive all of the principal (the principal-only or “PO” class). The yield to maturity on an IO class is extremely sensitive to the rate of principal payments (including prepayments) on the related underlying mortgage assets, and a rapid rate of principal payments may have a material adverse effect on a fund’s yield to maturity from these securities. If the underlying mortgage assets experience greater than anticipated prepayments of principal, a fund may fail to recoup some or all of its initial investment in these securities even if the security is in one of the highest rating categories.

Under certain circumstances these securities may be deemed “illiquid” and subject to a fund’s limitations on investment in illiquid securities.

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

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

Reverse Repurchase Agreements and Mortgage Dollar Rolls may be used by a fund. A fund may engage in reverse repurchase agreements to facilitate portfolio liquidity, a practice common in the mutual fund industry, or for arbitrage transactions as discussed below. In a reverse repurchase agreement, a fund would sell a security and enter into an agreement to repurchase the security at a specified future date and price. A fund generally retains the right to interest and principal payments on the security. If a fund uses the cash it obtains to invest in other securities, this may be considered a form of leverage and may expose a fund to greater risk. Leverage tends to magnify the effect of any decrease or increase in the value on a fund’s portfolio securities. Because a fund receives cash upon entering into a reverse repurchase agreement, it may be considered a borrowing. When required by guidelines of the SEC, a fund will set aside permissible liquid assets earmarked or in a segregated account to secure its obligations to repurchase the security.

A fund also may enter into mortgage dollar rolls, in which a fund would sell MBS for delivery in the current month and simultaneously contract to purchase substantially similar securities on a specified future date. While a fund would forego principal and interest paid on the MBS during the roll period, a fund would be compensated by the difference between the current sales price and the lower price for the future purchase as well as by any interest earned on the proceeds of the initial sale. A fund also could be compensated through the receipt of fee income equivalent to a lower forward price. At the time a fund would enter into a mortgage dollar roll, it would set aside permissible liquid assets earmarked or in a segregated account to secure its obligation for the forward commitment to buy MBS. Mortgage dollar roll transactions may be considered a borrowing by a fund.

The mortgage dollar rolls and reverse repurchase agreements entered into by a fund may be used as arbitrage transactions in which a fund will maintain an offsetting position in short duration investment-grade debt obligations. Since a fund will receive interest on the securities or repurchase agreements in which it invests the transaction proceeds, such transactions may involve leverage. However, since such securities or repurchase agreements will be high quality and short duration, the investment adviser believes that such arbitrage transactions present lower risks to a fund than those associated with other types of leverage. There can be no assurance that a fund’s use of the cash it receives from a mortgage dollar roll will provide a positive return.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Temporary Defensive Investments. During unusual economic or market conditions or for temporary defensive or liquidity purposes, each of the Schwab Target Funds may invest up to 100% of their assets in cash, money market instruments, repurchase agreements and other short-term obligations.

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

On September 7, 2008, the U.S. Treasury announced a federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, placing the two federal instrumentalities in conservatorship. Under the takeover, the U.S. Treasury agreed to acquire $1 billion of senior preferred stock of each instrumentality and obtained warrants for the purchase of common stock of each instrumentality. Under these Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (SPAs), the U.S. Treasury has pledged to provide up to $100 billion per instrumentality as needed, including the contribution of cash capital to the instrumentalities in the event their liabilities exceed their assets. On May 6, 2009, the U.S. Treasury increased its maximum commitment to each instrumentality under the SPAs to $200 billion per instrumentality. On December 24, 2009, the U.S. Treasury further amended the SPAs to allow the cap on Treasury’s funding commitment to increase as necessary to accommodate any cumulative reduction in Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s net worth through the end of 2012. At the conclusion of 2012, the remaining U.S. Treasury commitment will then be fully available to be drawn per the terms of the SPAs. In December 2009, the U.S. Treasury also amended the SPAs to provide Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with some additional flexibility to meet the requirement to reduce their mortgage portfolios.

The actions of the U.S. Treasury are intended to ensure that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac maintain a positive net worth and meet their financial obligations preventing mandatory triggering of receivership. No assurance can be given that the U.S. Treasury initiatives will be successful.

On August 5, 2011, S&P lowered the long-term sovereign credit rating assigned to the United States to AA+ with a negative outlook. On August 8, 2011, S&P downgraded the long-term senior debt rating of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to AA+ with a negative outlook. The long-term impacts of any future downgrades are unknown. However, any future downgrades could have a material adverse impact on global financial markets and worldwide economic conditions, and could negatively impact the funds portfolios or certain underlying funds.

Wrap Agreements may be entered into by a fund with insurance companies, banks or other financial institutions (“wrapper providers”). A wrap agreement typically obligates the wrapper provider to maintain the value of the assets covered under the agreement (“covered assets”) up to a specified maximum dollar amount upon the occurrence of certain specified events. The value is pre-determined using the purchase price of the securities plus interest at a specified rate minus an adjustment for any defaulted securities. The specified interest rate may be adjusted periodically under the terms of the agreement. While the rate typically will reflect movements in the market rates of interest, it may at times be less or more than the actual rate of income earned on the covered assets. The rate also can be impacted by defaulted securities and by purchase and redemption levels in the fund. The fund also pays a fee under the agreement, which reduces the rate as well.

Wrap agreements may be used as a risk management technique intended to help minimize fluctuations in the fund’s NAV. However, the fund’s NAV will typically fluctuate at least minimally, and may fluctuate more at times when interest rates are fluctuating. Additionally, wrap agreements do not protect against losses the fund may incur if the issuers of portfolio securities do not make timely payments of interest and/or principal. A wrap agreement provider also could default on its obligations under the agreement. Therefore, the fund will only invest in a wrap provider with an investment-grade credit rating. There is no active trading market for wrap agreements and none is expected to develop. Therefore, wrap agreements are considered illiquid investments. There is no guarantee that the fund will be able to purchase any wrap agreements or replace ones that defaulted. Wrap agreements are valued using procedures adopted by the Board of Trustees. There are risks that the value of a wrap agreement may not be sufficient to minimize the fluctuations in the fund’s NAV. All of these factors might result in a decline in the value of the fund’s shares.

Zero-Coupon, Step-Coupon, and Pay-in-Kind Securities are debt securities that do not make regular cash interest payments. Zero-coupon and step-coupon securities are sold at a deep discount to their face value. Pay-in-kind securities pay interest through the issuance of additional securities. Because such securities do not pay current cash income, the price of these securities can be volatile when interest rates fluctuate. While these securities do not pay current cash income, federal income tax law requires the holders of zero-coupon, step-coupon, and pay-in-kind securities to include in income each year the portion of the original issue discount (or deemed discount) and other non-cash income on such securities accruing that year. To continue to qualify as a “regulated investment company” or “RIC” under the Code and avoid a certain excise tax, a fund may be required to distribute a portion of such discount and income and may be required to dispose of other portfolio securities, which may occur in periods of adverse market prices, in order to generate cash to meet these distribution requirements.

INVESTMENT LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS

Schwab Target Funds

The following investment policies and restrictions may be changed only by a vote of a majority of each fund’s outstanding voting shares:

Each fund may not:

(1)	Concentrate investments in a particular industry or group of industries, as concentration is defined under the 1940 Act, the rules or regulations thereunder or any exemption therefrom, as such statute, rules or regulations may be amended or interpreted from time to time.

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

(3)	Make loans to other persons, except to the extent permitted under the 1940 Act, the rules or regulations thereunder or any exemption therefrom, as such statute, rules or regulations may be amended or interpreted from time to time.

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

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

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

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

The following investment policies and restrictions are non-fundamental and may be changed by the Board of Trustees.

Each fund may not:

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

(2)

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

(3)

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

(4)

Purchase or sell commodities, commodity contracts or real estate, including interests in real estate limited partnerships, provided that the fund may (1) purchase securities of companies that deal in real estate or interests therein (including REITs); (2) purchase or sell futures contracts, options contracts, equity index participations and index participation contracts; and (3) purchase securities of companies that deal in precious metals or interests therein.

(5)

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

(6)	Lend any security or make any other loan if, as a result, more than 33 1/3% of its total assets would be lent to other parties (this restriction does not apply to purchases of debt securities or repurchase agreements).

(7)	Purchase securities (other than securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government, its agencies or instrumentalities) if, as a result of such purchase, 25% or more of the value of its total assets would be invested in any industry or group of industries.

The following descriptions of the 1940 Act may assist investors in understanding the above policies and restrictions.

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

Concentration. The SEC has defined concentration as investing 25% or more of an investment company’s total assets in an industry or group of industries, with certain exceptions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MANAGEMENT OF THE FUNDS

The funds are overseen by a Board of Trustees. The trustees are responsible for protecting shareholder interests. The trustees regularly meet to review the investment activities, contractual arrangements and the investment performance of each fund. The trustees met [__] times during the most recent fiscal year.

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

As used herein the terms “Fund Complex” and “Family of Investment Companies” each refer collectively to The Charles Schwab Family of Funds, Schwab Investments, Schwab Annuity Portfolios, Schwab Capital Trust, Schwab Strategic Trust, Laudus Trust, and Laudus Institutional Trust which, as of [ ,] 2013, included [__] funds.

Each of the officers and/or trustees also serves in the same capacity as described for the trust, for The Charles Schwab Family of Funds, Schwab Investments, Schwab Annuity Portfolios, Laudus Trust and Laudus Institutional Trust. The tables below provide information about the trustees and officers for the trust, which includes funds in this SAI. The address of each individual listed below is 211 Main Street, San Francisco, California 94105.

TABLE TO BE UPDATED CLOSE TO PUBLICATION

Walter W. Bettinger II²

1960

Trustee

(Trustee since 2008)

As of October 2008, President and Chief Executive Officer, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. and The Charles Schwab Corporation. Since October 2008, Director, The Charles Schwab Corporation. Since May 2008, Director, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. and Schwab Holdings, Inc. Since 2006, Director, Charles Schwab Bank. From 2004 through 2007, Executive Vice President and President, Schwab Investor Services. From 2004 through 2005, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Individual Investor Enterprise, and from 2002 through 2004, Executive Vice President, Corporate Services. Until October 2008, President and Chief Operating Officer, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. and The Charles Schwab Corporation.

None.


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

Marie Chandoha 1961 President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Investment Officer (Officer since 2010)		Executive Vice President, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (Sept. 2010 – present); Director, President and Chief Executive Officer (Dec. 2010 – present), Chief Investment Officer (Sept. 2010 – Oct. 2011), Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc.; President, Chief Executive Officer (Dec. 2010 – present), and Chief Investment Officer (Sept. 2010 – Oct. 2011), Schwab Funds, Laudus Funds and Schwab ETFs; Global Head of Fixed Income Business Division, BlackRock, Inc. (formerly Barclays Global Investors) (March 2007 – August 2010); Co-Head and Senior Portfolio Manager, Wells Capital Management (June 1999 – March 2007).

George Pereira 1964 Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer (Officer since 2004)		Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Nov. 2004 – present), Chief Operating Officer (Jan. 2011 – present), Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. (November 2004 – present); Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, Laudus Funds (2006 – present); Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer, Schwab Funds (Nov. 2004 – present) and Schwab ETFs (Oct. 2009 – present); Director, Charles Schwab Worldwide Fund, PLC and Charles Schwab Asset Management (Ireland) Limited (April 2005 – present); Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer, Excelsior Funds Inc., Excelsior Tax-Exempt Funds, Inc., and Excelsior Funds Trust (June 2006- June 2007).


NAME, YEAR OF BIRTH, AND POSITION(S) WITH THE TRUST; (TERM OF OFFICE AND LENGTH OF TIME SERVED³)		PRINCIPAL OCCUPATIONS DURING THE PAST FIVE YEARS
Omar Aguilar 1970 Senior Vice President and Chief Investment Officer – Equities (Officer since 2011)		Senior Vice President and Chief Investment Officer - Equities, Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. (April 2011 – present); Senior Vice President and Chief Investment Officer - Equities, Schwab Funds and Laudus Funds (June 2011 – present); Head of the Portfolio Management Group and Vice President of Portfolio Management, Financial Engines, Inc. (May 2009 – April 2011); Head of Quantitative Equity, ING Investment Management (July 2004 – Jan. 2009).

Brett Wander 1961 Senior Vice President and Chief Investment Officer – Fixed Income (Officer since 2011)		Senior Vice President and Chief Investment Officer – Fixed Income, Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. (April 2011 – present); Senior Vice President and Chief Investment Officer – Fixed Income, Schwab Funds and Laudus Funds (June 2011 – present); Senior Managing Director, Global Head of Active Fixed-Income Strategies, State Street Global Advisors (Jan. 2008 – Oct. 2010); Director of Alpha Strategies Loomis, Sayles & Company (April 2006 – Jan. 2008); Managing Director, Head of Market-Based Strategies State Street Research (August 2003 – Jan. 2005).

David Lekich 1964 Secretary (Officer since 2011)		Senior Vice President, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (Sept. 2011 – present); Senior Vice President and Chief Counsel, Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. (Sept. 2011 – present); Vice President, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., (March 2004 – Sept. 2011) and Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. (Jan. 2011 – Sept. 2011); Secretary (April 2011 – present) and Chief Legal Officer (Dec. 2011 – present), Schwab Funds (April 2011 – present); Vice President and Assistant Clerk, Laudus Funds (April 2011 – present); Secretary (May 2011 – present) and Chief Legal Officer (Nov. 2011 – present), Schwab ETFs.

Catherine MacGregor 1964 Vice President (Officer since 2005)		Vice President, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. (July 2005 – present); Vice President (Dec. 2005 – present), Chief Legal Officer and Clerk (March 2007 – present), Laudus Funds; Vice President (Nov. 2005 – present) and Assistant Secretary (June 2007 – present), Schwab Funds; Vice President and Assistant Secretary, Schwab ETFs (Oct. 2009 – present).

Trustees remain in office until they resign, retire or are removed by shareholder vote. The Schwab Funds^® retirement policy requires that independent trustees elected after January 1, 2000 retire at age 72 or after twenty years as a trustee, whichever comes first. In addition, the Schwab Funds retirement policy also requires any independent trustee of the Schwab Funds who also serves as an independent trustee of the Laudus Funds to retire from the Boards of the Schwab Funds upon their required retirement date from either the Boards of Trustees of the Schwab Funds or the Laudus Funds, whichever comes first.

²	Mr. Schwab and Mr. Bettinger are Interested Trustees because they are employees of Schwab. In addition to their employment with Schwab, Messrs. Schwab and Bettinger also own stock of The Charles Schwab Corporation, the parent company of Schwab and the investment adviser.

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

Board Leadership Structure

The Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Charles R. Schwab, is Chairman of the Board of Directors of The Charles Schwab Corporation and an interested person of the trust as that term is defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940. The trust does not have a single lead independent trustee. The Board is comprised of a super-majority (77 percent) of trustees who are not interested persons of the trust (i.e., “independent trustees”). There are three primary committees of the Board: the Audit and Compliance Committee; the Governance Committee; and the Investment Oversight Committee. Each of the Committees is chaired by an independent trustee, and each Committee is comprised solely of independent trustees. The Committee chairs preside at Committee meetings, participate in formulating agendas for those meetings, and coordinate with management to serve as a liaison between the independent trustees and management on matters within the scope of the responsibilities of each Committee as set forth in its Board-approved charter. The Board has determined that this leadership structure is appropriate given the specific characteristics and circumstances of the trust. The Board made this determination in consideration of, among other things, the fact that the independent trustees of the trust constitute a super-majority of the Board, the fact that Committee chairs are independent trustees, the number of funds (and classes) overseen by the Board, and the total number of trustees on the Board.

Board Oversight of Risk Management

Like most mutual funds, fund management and its other service providers have responsibility for day-to-day risk management for the funds. The Board, as part of its risk oversight of the trust consists of monitoring risks identified during regular and special reports to the Committees of the Board, as well as regular and special reports to the full Board. In addition to monitoring such risks, the Committees and the Board oversee efforts of fund management and service providers to manage risks to which the funds of the trust may be exposed. For example, the Investment Oversight Committee meets with portfolio managers and receives regular reports regarding investment risk and credit risk of a fund’s portfolio. The Audit and Compliance Committee meets with the funds’ Chief Compliance Officer and Chief Financial Officer and receives regular reports regarding compliance risks, operational risks and risks related to the valuation and liquidity of portfolio securities. From its review of these reports and discussions with management, each Committee receives information about the material risks of the funds of the trust and about how management and service providers mitigate those risks, enabling the independent Committee chairs and other independent members of the Committees to discuss these risks with the full Board.

The Board recognizes that not all risks that may affect the funds can be identified nor can processes and controls be developed to eliminate or mitigate the occurrence or effects of certain risks; some risks are simply beyond the reasonable control of the funds, their management, and service providers. Although the risk oversight functions of the Board, and the risk management policies of fund management and fund service providers, are designed to be effective, there is no guarantee that they will eliminate or mitigate all risks. In addition, it may be necessary to bear certain risks (such as investment-related risks) to achieve each fund’s investment objective. As a result of the foregoing and other factors, the funds’ ability to manage risk is subject to significant limitations.

Individual Trustee Qualifications

The Board has concluded that each of the trustees should initially and continue to serve on the Board because of (i) his or her ability to review and understand information about the trust provided to them by management, to identify and request other information they may deem relevant to the performance of their duties, to question management regarding material factors bearing on the management of the trust, and to exercise their business judgment in a manner that serves the best interests of the trust’s shareholders and (ii) the trustee’s experience, qualifications, attributes or skills as described below.

The Board has concluded that Mr. Bettinger should serve as trustee of the trust because of the experience he gained as president and chief executive officer of The Charles Schwab Corporation, his knowledge of and experience in the financial services industry, and the experience he has gained serving as trustee of the Schwab Funds since 2008.

The Board has concluded that Ms. Byerwalter should serve as trustee of the trust because of the experience she gained as chairman of her own corporate advisory and consulting firm and as former chief financial officer of a university and a bank, the experience she has gained serving as trustee of the Schwab Funds since 2000 and the Laudus Funds since 2004, and her service on other public company and mutual insurance company boards.

The Board has concluded that Mr. Cogan should serve as trustee of the trust because of the experience he has gained serving as a senior fellow and professor of public policy at a university and his former service in government, the experience he has gained serving as trustee of the Schwab Funds since 2008, and his service on other public company boards.

The Board has concluded that Mr. Hasler should serve as trustee of the trust because of the experience he gained serving as former vice chair of the consulting practice of an accounting firm and as former co-chief executive officer of a public company, his service as former dean of a business school, the experience he has gained serving as trustee of the Schwab Funds since 2000 and the Laudus Funds since 2004, his service on other public company boards, and his experience serving as Chair of the trust’s Audit and Compliance Committee.

The Board has concluded that Mr. Mahoney should serve as a trustee of the trust because of the experience he gained as co-chief executive officer of a healthcare services company, and his service on other public company boards.

The Board has concluded that Mr. Patel should serve as a trustee of the trust because of the experience he gained as executive vice president, general manager and chief financial officer of a software company, and his service on other public company boards.

The Board has concluded that Mr. Schwab should serve as trustee of the trust because of the experience he has gained as founder and chairman of the board of Schwab, and subsequently its parent corporation, The Charles Schwab Corporation, his experience in and knowledge of the financial services industry, the experience he has gained serving as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Schwab Funds since their inception, and his former service on other public company boards.

The Board has concluded that Mr. Smith should serve as trustee of the trust because of the experience he has gained as managing partner of his own investment advisory firm, the experience he has gained serving as trustee of the Schwab Funds since 2000, his service on other public company boards, and his experience serving as Chair of the trust’s Investment Oversight Committee.

The Board has concluded that Mr. Wender should serve as trustee of the trust because of the experience he gained serving as former partner and chairman of the finance committee of an investment bank, the experience he has gained serving as trustee of the Schwab Funds since 2008, and his service on other public company boards.

Trustee Committees

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

•

The Audit and Compliance Committee reviews the integrity of the trust’s financial reporting processes and compliance policies, procedures and processes, and the trust’s overall system of internal controls. The Audit and Compliance Committee also reviews and evaluates the qualifications, independence and performance of the trust’s independent auditors. This Committee is comprised of at least three Independent Trustees and currently has the following members: William A. Hasler (Chairman), Mariann Byerwalter and Kiran M. Patel. The charter directs that the Committee must meet four times annually, with additional meetings as the Committee deems appropriate. The Committee met [__] times during the most recent fiscal year.

•

The Governance Committee reviews and makes recommendations to the Board regarding trust governance-related matters, including but not limited to Board compensation practices, retirement policies and term limits, Board self-evaluations, the effectiveness and allocation of assignments and functions by the Board, the composition of Committees of the Board, and the training of Trustees. The Governance Committee is also responsible for selecting and nominating candidates to serve as Trustees. The Governance Committee does not have a policy with respect to consideration of candidates for Trustee submitted by shareholders. However, if the Governance Committee determined that it would be in the best interests of the trust to fill a vacancy on the Board of Trustees, and a shareholder submitted a candidate for consideration by the Board of Trustees to fill the vacancy, the Governance Committee would evaluate that candidate in the same manner as it evaluates nominees indentified by the Governance Committee. Nominee recommendations may be submitted to the Secretary of the trust at the trust’s principal business address. This Committee is comprised of at least three Independent Trustees and currently has the following members: Mariann Byerwalter (Chairman), John F. Cogan, William A. Hasler and Joseph H. Wender. The charter directs that the Committee meets at such times and with such frequency as is deemed necessary or appropriate by the Committee. The Committee met [__] times during the most recent fiscal year.

•

The Investment Oversight Committee reviews the investment activities of the trust and the performance of the Funds’ investment advisers. This Committee is comprised of at least three Trustees (at least two-thirds of whom shall be Independent Trustees) and currently has the following members: Gerald B. Smith (Chairman), John F. Cogan, David L. Mahoney and Joseph H. Wender. The charter directs that the Committee meet at such times and with such frequency as is deemed necessary or appropriate by the Committee. The Committee met [__] times during the most recent fiscal year.

Trustee Compensation

The following table provides trustee compensation for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2013¹.


Name of Trustee	($) Aggregate Compensation From the Trust	($) Total Compensation from Trust and Fund Complex Paid to Trustees
Interested Trustees
Charles R. Schwab	None	0
Walt Bettinger	None	0
Independent Trustees
Mariann Byerwalter
John F. Cogan
William A. Hasler
David L. Mahoney
Kiran M. Pate
Gerald B. Smith
Joseph H. Wender
Donald R. Stephens²
Michael Wilsey²

¹	Cumulative.

²	Mr. Stephens and Mr. Wilsey retired from the Board on December 31, 2010. The compensation paid to Mr. Stephens and Mr. Wilsey included consulting fees for the period October 31, 2011 to December 31, 2011.

Securities Beneficially Owned By Each Trustee

The following tables provide each trustee’s equity ownership of the funds and ownership of all registered investment companies overseen by each trustee in the Family of Investment Companies as of December 31, 2012.


Name of Trustee	Dollar Range of Trustee Ownership of a Fund			Aggregate Dollar Range of Trustee Ownership in the Family of Investment Companies
	Schwab Target 2045 Fund	Schwab Target 2050 Fund	Schwab Target 2055 Fund
Interested Trustees
Charles R. Schwab	None	None	None
Walter Bettinger	None	None	None
Independent Trustees
Mariann Byerwalter	None	None	None


John F. Cogan	None	None	None
William Hasler	None	None	None
David L. Mahoney	None	None	None
Kiran M. Patel	None	None	None
Gerald B. Smith	None	None	None
Joseph H. Wender	None	None	None

Deferred Compensation Plan

Independent Trustees may enter into a fee deferral plan. Under this plan, deferred fees will be credited to an account established by a trust as of the date that such fees would have been paid to the trustee. The value of this account will equal the value that the account would have if the fees credited to the account had been invested in the shares of Schwab Funds^® selected by the trustee. Currently, none of the Independent Trustees has elected to participate in this plan.

Code of Ethics

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

CONTROL PERSONS AND PRINCIPAL HOLDERS OF SECURITIES

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

Persons who owned of record or beneficially more than 25% of a fund’s outstanding shares may be deemed to control the fund within the meaning of the 1940 Act. Shareholders controlling the fund could have the ability to vote a majority of the shares of the fund on any matter requiring the approval of shareholders of the fund.

INVESTMENT ADVISORY AND OTHER SERVICES

Investment Adviser

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

Advisory Agreement

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

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

The investment adviser does not receive a fee for the services it performs for the funds. However, the investment adviser is entitled to receive an annual management fee from each of the underlying Schwab and Laudus funds.

Schwab and the investment adviser have agreed to maintain the “net operating expenses” of each of the funds (excluding interest, taxes and certain non-routine expenses) at 0.00% for so long as the investment adviser serves as adviser to the funds. This agreement is limited to each fund’s direct operating expenses and, therefore, does not apply to acquired fund fees and expenses, which are indirect expenses incurred by the fund through its investments in the underlying funds. This net operating expense agreement may only be amended or terminated with the approval of a fund’s Board of Trustees.

Distributor

Pursuant to an Amended and Restated Distribution Agreement between Schwab and the trust, Schwab is the principal underwriter for shares of the funds and is the trust’s agent for the purpose of the continuous offering of the funds’ shares. The funds pay for prospectuses and shareholder reports to be prepared and delivered to existing shareholders. Schwab pays such costs when the described materials are used in connection with the offering of shares to prospective investors and for supplemental sales literature and advertising. Schwab receives no fee under the Distribution Agreement.

Transfer Agent

Boston Financial Data Services, Inc., Two Heritage Drive, Quincy, Massachusetts 02171, serves as the funds’ transfer agent. As part of these services, the firm maintains records pertaining to the sale, redemption and transfer of the funds’ shares.

Custodians and Fund Accountant

Brown Brothers Harriman & Co., 40 Water Street, Boston, MA, 02109 serves as custodian for the funds. The custodian is responsible for the daily safekeeping of securities and cash held or sold by the funds.

State Street Bank and Trust Company, One Lincoln Street, Boston, MA 0211 also serves as fund accountant. The fund accountant maintains all books and records related to the funds’ transactions.

Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The funds’ independent registered public accounting firm, , audits and reports on the annual financial statements of the funds and reviews certain regulatory reports and each fund’s federal income tax return. They may also perform other auditing and tax services when the trust engages them to do so. Their address is . The funds’ audited financial statements from the funds’ annual reports for the fiscal year ended are incorporated by reference into this SAI.

PORTFOLIO MANAGERS

Other Accounts. The portfolio manager is responsible for the day-to-day management of certain accounts, as listed below. The accounts listed below are not subject to a performance-based advisory fee. The information below is provided as of [ ].

Name

Registered Investment

Companies

(this amount includes the

funds in this Statement of

Additional Information)

Other Pooled

Investment

Vehicles

Other Accounts

Number of
Accounts

Total Assets

Number

of Accounts

Total

Assets

Number of
Accounts

Total Assets

Zifan Tang

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

Knowledge of the Timing and Size of Fund Trades. A potential conflict of interest may arise as a result of the portfolio manager’s day-to-day management of a fund. Because of her position with a fund, the portfolio manager knows the size, timing, and possible market impact of fund trades. It is theoretically possible that the portfolio manager could use this information to the advantage of the Other Managed Accounts she manages and to the possible detriment of a fund. However, CSIM has adopted policies and procedures reasonably designed to allocate investment opportunities on a fair and equitable basis over time. Moreover, with respect to index funds, which seek to track their benchmark index, much of this information is publicly available. When it is determined to be in the best interest of both accounts, the portfolio manager may aggregate trade orders for the Other Managed Accounts, excluding Schwab Personal Portfolio Managed Accounts, with those of a fund. All aggregated orders are subject to CSIM’s aggregation and allocation policy and procedures, which provide, among other things, that (i) the portfolio manager will not aggregate orders unless she believes such aggregation is consistent with her duty to seek best execution; (ii) no account will be favored over any other account; (iii) each account that participates in an aggregated order will participate at the average security price with all transaction costs shared on a pro-rata basis; and (iv) if the aggregated order cannot be executed in full, the partial execution is allocated pro-rata among the participating accounts in accordance with the size of each account’s order.

Investment Opportunities. A potential conflict of interest may arise as a result of the portfolio manager’s management of a fund and Other Managed Accounts which, in theory, may allow her to allocate investment opportunities in a way that favors the Other Managed Accounts over a fund, which conflict of

interest may be exacerbated to the extent that CSIM or the portfolio manager receives, or expects to receive, greater compensation from her management of the Other Managed Accounts than the fund. Notwithstanding this theoretical conflict of interest, it is CSIM’s policy to manage each account based on its investment objectives and related restrictions and, as discussed above, CSIM has adopted policies and procedures reasonably designed to allocate investment opportunities on a fair and equitable basis over time and in a manner consistent with each account’s investment objectives and related restrictions. For example, while the portfolio manager may buy for an Other Managed Account securities that differ in identity or quantity from securities bought for a fund or refrain from purchasing securities for an Other Managed Account that the portfolio manager is otherwise buying for a fund in an effort to outperform its specific benchmark, such an approach might not be suitable for a fund given its investment objectives and related restrictions.

Fund of Funds Information Barrier. The portfolio manager for any Schwab fund that invests in other Schwab or Laudus Funds (“Underlying Affiliated Funds”) must make investment decisions without taking into consideration, or being in possession of, material non-public information about the Underlying Affiliated Funds. Despite the portfolio manager’s intention to not receive material, non-public information, CSIM has established procedures to prevent portfolio managers from having access to and trading on material, non-public information regarding Underlying Affiliated Funds. Under these procedures, the adviser monitors Schwab fund of funds’ trading activity in Underlying Affiliated Funds, escalates breaches of information barriers and develops enhancements to information barriers as necessary. In the event that the portfolio manager comes into possession of material, non-public information about an Underlying Affiliated Fund, the portfolio manager’s ability to initiate transactions in that Underlying Affiliated Fund could potentially be restricted as a result of the portfolio manager’s possession of such information. The trading restriction could have an adverse effect on the ability of a fund managed by the portfolio manager to participate in any potential gains or avoid any potential losses in the restricted Underlying Affiliated Fund. In some instances, these trading restrictions could continue in effect for a substantial period of time.

Compensation. During the most recent fiscal year, the portfolio manager’s compensation consisted of a fixed annual (“base”) salary and a discretionary bonus. The base salary is determined considering compensation payable for a similar position across the investment management industry and an evaluation of the individual portfolio manager’s overall performance such as the portfolio manager’s contribution to the investment process, good corporate citizenship, risk management and mitigation, and functioning as an active contributor to the firm’s success. The discretionary bonus is determined in accordance with the CSIM Equity and Fixed Income Portfolio Manager Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) as follows:

There are two independent funding components for the Plan:

•

75% of the funding is based on equal weighting of Investment Fund Performance and Risk Management and Mitigation

•

25% of the funding is based on Corporate results

Investment Fund Performance and Risk Management and Mitigation (75% weight)

Investment Fund Performance:

At the close of the year, each fund’s performance will be determined by its 1-year, 1 and 2-year, or 1 and 3-year percentile standing (based on pre-tax return before expenses) within its designated benchmark, peer group, or category, depending on the strategy of the fund (i.e., whether the fund is passively or actively managed) using standard statistical methods approved by CSIM senior management. Investment Fund Performance measurements may be changed or modified at the discretion of the CSIM President and CSIM Chief Operating Officer. As each participant may manage and/or support a number of funds, there may be several funds considered in arriving at the incentive compensation funding.

Risk Management and Mitigation:

Risk Management and Mitigation will be rated by CSIM’s Chief Investment Officer, CSIM’s Head of Investment Risk, CSIM’s Chief Legal Officer, CSIM’s Chief Compliance Officer and CSIM’s Head of Operations Risk (or individuals with comparable responsibilities). Factors they will consider will include, but are not limited to:

•

Balancing safety of fund principal with appropriate limits that provide investment flexibility given existing market conditions

•

Making timely sell recommendations to avoid significant deterioration of value resulting from the weakening condition of the issuer

•

Escalating operating events and errors for prompt resolution

•

Identifying largest risks and actively discussing with management

•

Accurately validating fund information disseminated to the public (e.g., Annual and Semi-Annual reports, fund fact sheets, fund prospectus)

•

Executing transactions timely and without material trade errors that result in losses to the funds

•

Ensuring ongoing compliance with prospectus and investment policy guidelines

•

Minimizing fund compliance exceptions

•

Actively following up and resolving compliance exceptions

Corporate Performance (25% weight)

The Corporate Bonus Plan is an annual bonus plan that provides discretionary awards based on the financial performance of The Charles Schwab Corporation (“CSC”) during the annual performance period. Quarterly advances may be paid for the first three quarters. Allocations are discretionary and aligned with CSC and individual performance. Funding for the Plan is determined at the conclusion of the calendar year. Funding will be capped at 200% of target.

At year-end, the full-year funding for both components of the Plan will be pooled together. The total pool is allocated to Plan participants by CSIM senior management based on their assessment of a variety of performance factors.

Factors considered in CSIM senior management’s allocation process will include objective and subjective factors that will take into consideration total performance and will include, but are not limited to:

•

Fund performance relative to performance measure

•

Risk management and mitigation

•

Individual performance against key objectives

•

Contribution to overall group results

•

Functioning as an active contributor to the firm’s success

•

Team work

•

Collaboration between Analysts and portfolio managers

•

Regulatory/Compliance management.

The portfolio manager’s compensation is not based on the value of the assets held in a fund’s portfolio.

Ownership of Fund Shares. The following table shows the dollar amount range of the portfolio manager’s “beneficial ownership” of shares of the funds she managed as of [ ]. Dollar amount ranges disclosed are established by the SEC. “Beneficial ownership” is determined in accordance with Rule 16a-1(a)(2) under the 1934 Act.

Portfolio Manager

Fund

Dollar Range of

Fund Shares

Zifan Tang

None

BROKERAGE ALLOCATION AND OTHER PRACTICES

Portfolio Turnover

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

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

Typically, funds with high turnover (such as 100% or more) tend to generate higher capital gains and transaction costs, such as brokerage commissions.

Variations in turnover rate may be due to a fluctuating volume of shareholder purchase and redemption orders, market conditions, and/or changes in the investment adviser’s investment outlook.

Because the funds have not commenced operations, none of the funds has had any turnover of its portfolio.

Portfolio Holdings Disclosure

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

The Board exercises on-going oversight of the disclosure of fund portfolio holdings by overseeing the implementation and enforcement of the fund’s policies and procedures by the Chief Compliance Officer and by considering reports and recommendations by the Chief Compliance Officer concerning any material compliance matters. The Board will receive periodic updates, at least annually, regarding entities which were authorized to be provided “early disclosure” (as defined below) of the funds’ portfolio holdings information.

A complete list of each fund’s portfolio holdings is published on the Schwab Funds website at www.schwabfunds.com/prospectus, under “Prospectuses & Reports”, typically 60-80 days after the end of each fund’s fiscal quarter. The portfolio holdings information available on the Schwab Funds’ website is the same that is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form N-Q or Form N-CSR. In addition, each fund’s top ten holdings list is posted on the Schwab Funds website monthly, typically with a 10-day lag. In addition to the top ten holdings information, the funds also provide on the website monthly information regarding certain attributes of a fund’s portfolio, such as a fund’s sector weightings, composition, credit quality and duration and maturity, as applicable. The information on the website is publicly available to all categories of persons.

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

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

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

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

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

Portfolio Transactions

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

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

The investment adviser may cause a fund to pay a higher commission than otherwise obtainable from other brokers or dealers in return for brokerage or research services or products if the investment adviser believes that such commission is reasonable in relation to the services provided. In addition to agency

transactions, the investment adviser may receive brokerage and research services or products in connection with certain riskless principal transactions, in accordance with applicable SEC and other regulatory guidelines. In both instances, these services or products may include: company financial data and economic data (e.g., unemployment, inflation rates and GDP figures), stock quotes, last sale prices and trading volumes, research reports analyzing the performance of a particular company or stock, narrowly distributed trade magazines or technical journals covering specific industries, products, or issuers, seminars or conferences registration fees which provide substantive content relating to eligible research, quantitative analytical software and software that provides analyses of securities portfolios, trading strategies and pre/post trade analytics, discussions with research analysts or meetings with corporate executives which provide a means of obtaining oral advice on securities, markets or particular issuers, short-term custody related to effecting particular transactions and clearance and settlement of those trades, lines between the broker-dealer and order management systems operated by a third party vendor, dedicated lines between the broker-dealer and the investment adviser’s order management system, dedicated lines providing direct dial-up service between the investment adviser and the trading desk at the broker-dealer, message services used to transmit orders to broker-dealers for execution, electronic communication of allocation instructions between institutions and broker-dealers, comparison services required by the SEC or another regulator (e.g., use of electronic confirmation and affirmation of institutional trades), exchange of messages among broker-dealers, custodians, and institutions related to a trade, post-trade matching of trade information, routing settlement instructions to custodian banks and broker-dealers’ clearing agents, software that provides algorithmic trading strategies, and trading software operated by a broker-dealer to route orders to market centers or direct market access systems. The investment adviser may use research services furnished by brokers or dealers in servicing all client accounts, and not all services may necessarily be used in connection with the account that paid commissions or spreads to the broker or dealer providing such services.

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

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

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

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

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

PROXY VOTING

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

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

Brokerage Commissions

Because the funds were not in operation prior to the date of this Statement of Additional Information, no brokerage commissions were paid for each of the last three fiscal years.

Regular Broker-Dealers

A fund’s regular broker-dealers during its most recent fiscal year are: (1) the ten broker-dealers that received the greatest dollar amount of brokerage commissions from the fund; (2) the ten broker-dealers that engaged as principal in the largest dollar amount of portfolio transactions; and (3) the ten broker-dealers that sold the largest dollar amount of the fund’s shares.

Because the funds were not in operation prior to the date of this Statement of Additional Information, the portfolios did not purchase any securities issued by their regular broker-dealers.

DESCRIPTION OF THE TRUST

Each fund is a series of Schwab Capital Trust, an open-end investment management company organized as a Massachusetts business trust on May 7, 1993. The funds may hold special shareholder meetings, which may cause the funds to incur non-routine expenses. These meetings may be called for purposes such as electing trustees, changing fundamental policies and amending management contracts. Shareholders are entitled to one vote for each share owned and may vote by proxy or in person. Proxy materials will be mailed to shareholders prior to any meetings, and will include a voting card and information explaining the matters to be voted upon.

The bylaws of the trust provide that a majority of shares entitled to vote shall be a quorum for the transaction of business at a shareholders’ meeting, except that where any provision of law, or of the Declaration of Trust or of the bylaws permits or requires that (1) holders of any series shall vote as a series, then a majority of the aggregate number of shares of that series entitled to vote shall be necessary to

constitute a quorum for the transaction of business by that series, or (2) holders of any class shall vote as a class, then a majority of the aggregate number of shares of that class entitled to vote shall be necessary to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business by that class. Any lesser number shall be sufficient for adjournments. Any adjourned session or sessions may be held, within a reasonable time after the date set for the original meeting, without the necessity of further notice. The Declaration of Trust specifically authorizes the Board of Trustees to terminate the trust (or any of its funds) by notice to the shareholders without shareholder approval.

Under Massachusetts law, shareholders of a Massachusetts business trust could, under certain circumstances, be held personally liable for the trust’s obligations. The Declaration of Trust, however, disclaims shareholder liability for the trust’s acts or obligations 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. In addition, the Declaration of Trust provides for indemnification out of the property of an investment portfolio in which a shareholder owns or owned shares for all losses and expenses of such shareholder or former shareholder if he or she is held personally liable for the obligations of the trust solely by reason of being or having been a shareholder. Moreover, the trust will be covered by insurance, which the trustees consider adequate to cover foreseeable tort claims. Thus, the risk of a shareholder incurring financial loss on account of shareholder liability is considered remote, because it is limited to circumstances in which a disclaimer is inoperative and the trust itself is unable to meet its obligations. There is a remote possibility that a fund could become liable for a misstatement in the prospectus or SAI about another fund.

As more fully described in the Declaration of Trust, the trustees may each year, or more frequently, distribute to the shareholders of each series accrued income less accrued expenses and any net realized capital gains less accrued expenses. Distributions of each year’s income of each series shall be distributed pro rata to shareholders in proportion to the number of shares of each series held by each of them. Distributions will be paid in cash or shares or a combination thereof as determined by the trustees. Distributions paid in shares will be paid at the net asset value as determined in accordance with the bylaws.

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

PURCHASE, REDEMPTION, DELIVERY OF SHAREHOLDER DOCUMENTS AND PRICING OF SHARES

Purchasing and Redeeming Shares of the Funds

Methods to purchase and redeem shares of the funds are set forth in the funds’ prospectus.

The funds are open each day that the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) is open (business days). The NYSE’s trading session is normally conducted from 9:30 a.m. Eastern time until 4:00 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday, although some days, such as in advance of and following holidays, the NYSE’s trading session closes early. The following holiday closings are currently scheduled for 2013-2014: New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Jr.’s Birthday, Presidents’ Day, Good Friday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Only orders that are received in good order by a fund’s transfer agent no later than the close of the NYSE’s trading session will be executed that day at the fund’s share price calculated that day. On any day that the NYSE closes early, the funds reserve the right to advance the time by which purchase, redemption and exchange orders must be received by the funds’ transfer agent that day in order to be executed that day at that day’s share price.

The funds have authorized one or more brokers to accept on their behalf purchase and redemption orders. Such brokers have also been authorized to designate other intermediaries to accept purchase and redemption orders on the funds’ behalf. The funds will be deemed to have received a purchase or redemption order when an authorized broker or, if applicable, a broker’s authorized designee, receives such order. Such orders will be priced at the respective fund’s net asset value per share next determined after such orders are received by an authorized broker or the broker’s authorized designee.

As long as the funds or Schwab follow reasonable procedures to confirm that an investor’s telephone or Internet order is genuine, they will not be liable for any losses the investor may experience due to unauthorized or fraudulent instructions. These procedures may include requiring a form of personal identification or other confirmation before acting upon any telephone or Internet order, providing written confirmation of telephone or Internet orders and tape recording all telephone orders.

Share certificates will not be issued in order to avoid additional administrative costs, however, share ownership records are maintained by Schwab.

The trust’s Declaration of Trust provides that shares may be automatically redeemed if held by a shareholder in an amount less than the minimum required by each fund. The fund’s minimum initial investments and minimum balance requirements, if any, are set forth in the prospectus. The minimums may be changed without prior notice.

As explained in more detail in the funds’ prospectuses, each fund that charges a redemption fee reserves the right to waive its early redemption fee for certain tax-advantaged retirement plans or charitable giving funds, certain fee-based or wrap programs, or in other circumstances when the funds’ officers determine that such a waiver is in the best interest of a fund and its shareholders.

Each of the funds has made an election with the SEC to pay in cash all redemptions requested by any shareholder of record limited in amount during any 90-day period to the lesser of $250,000 or 1% of its net assets at the beginning of such period. This election is irrevocable without the SEC’s prior approval. Redemption requests in excess of these limits may be paid, in whole or in part, in investment securities or in cash, as the Board of Trustees may deem advisable. Payment will be made wholly in cash unless the Board of Trustees believes that economic or market conditions exist that would make such payment a detriment to the best interests of a fund. If redemption proceeds are paid in investment securities, such securities will be valued as set forth in “Pricing of Shares.” A redeeming shareholder would normally incur transaction costs if he or she were to convert the securities to cash.

Each fund is designed for long-term investing. Because short-term trading activities can disrupt the smooth management of a fund and increase its expenses, each fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to refuse any purchase or exchange order, or large purchase or exchange orders, including any purchase or exchange order which appears to be associated with short-term trading activities or “market timing.” Because market timing decisions to buy and sell securities typically are based on an individual investor’s market outlook, including such factors as the perceived strength of the economy or the anticipated direction of interest rates, it is difficult for a fund to determine in advance what purchase or exchange orders may be deemed to be associated with market timing or short-term trading activities. The funds and Schwab reserve the right to refuse any purchase or exchange order, including large orders that may negatively impact their operations. More information regarding the funds’ policies regarding “market timing’ is included in the funds’ prospectuses.

In certain circumstances, shares of a fund may be purchased “in kind” (i.e., in exchange for securities, rather than for cash). The securities tendered as part of an in-kind purchase must be liquid securities that are not restricted as to transfer and have a value that is readily ascertainable as evidenced by a listing on the American Stock Exchange, the NYSE, or NASDAQ. Securities accepted by the fund will be valued, as set forth in the fund’s prospectus, as of the time of the next determination of net asset value after such acceptance. The shares of the fund that are issued to the shareholder in exchange for the securities will be determined as of the same time. All dividend, subscription, or other rights that are reflected in the market price of accepted securities at the time of valuation become the property of the fund and must be delivered to the fund by the investor upon receipt from the issuer. A fund will not accept securities in exchange for its shares unless such securities are, at the time of the exchange, eligible to be held by the fund and satisfy such other conditions as may be imposed by the fund’s investment adviser.

Exchanging Shares of the Funds

Methods to purchase and redeem shares of the fund are set forth in the funds’ prospectuses. An exchange order involves the redemption of all or a portion of the shares of one Schwab Fund or Laudus MarketMasters Fund and the simultaneous purchase of shares of another Schwab Fund or Laudus MarketMasters Fund. Exchange orders must meet the minimum investment and any other requirements of the fund or class purchased. Exchange orders may not be executed between shares of Sweep Investments^® and shares of non-Sweep Investments. Shares of Sweep Investments may be bought and sold automatically pursuant to the terms and conditions of your Schwab account agreement or by direct order as long as you meet the minimums for direct investments. In addition, different exchange policies may apply to Schwab Funds^® that are bought and sold through third-party investment providers and the exchange privilege between Schwab Funds may not be available through third-party investment providers.

The funds and Schwab reserve certain rights with regard to exchanging shares of the funds. These rights include the right to: (i) refuse any purchase or exchange order that may negatively impact a fund’s operations; (ii) refuse orders that appear to be associated with short-term trading activities; and (iii) materially modify or terminate the exchange privilege upon 60 days’ written notice to shareholders.

Delivery of Shareholder Documents

Typically once a year, an updated prospectus will be mailed to shareholders describing each fund’s investment strategies, risks and shareholder policies. Twice a year, financial reports will be mailed to shareholders describing each fund’s performance and investment holdings. To eliminate duplicate mailings of shareholder documents, each household may receive one copy of these documents, under certain conditions. This practice is commonly called “householding.” If you want to receive multiple copies, you may write or call your fund at the address or telephone number on the front of this SAI. Your instructions will be effective within 30 days of receipt by Schwab.

Pricing of Shares

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

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

In accordance with the 1940 Act, the underlying funds in which the funds invest are valued at their respective net asset values as determined by those funds. The underlying funds that are money market funds may value their portfolio securities based on the value or amortized cost method. The other underlying funds value their portfolio securities based on market quotes if they are readily available.

TAXATION

Federal Tax Information for the Funds

This discussion of federal income tax consequences is based on the International Revenue Cod of 1986, as amended (the Code) and the regulations issued thereunder as in effect on the date of this Statement of Additional Information. New legislation, as well as administrative changes or court decisions, may significantly change the conclusions expressed herein, and may have a retroactive effect with respect to the transactions contemplated herein.

It is each fund’s policy to qualify for taxation as a “regulated investment company” (RIC) by meeting the requirements of Subchapter M of the Code. By qualifying as a RIC, each fund expects to eliminate or reduce to a nominal amount the federal income tax to which it is subject. If a fund does not qualify as a RIC under the Code, it will be subject to federal income tax on its net investment income and any net realized capital gains. In addition, each fund could be required to recognize unrealized gains, pay substantial taxes and interest, and make substantial distributions before requalifying as a RIC.

Each fund is treated as a separate entity for federal income tax purposes and is not combined with the trust’s other funds. Each fund intends to qualify as a RIC so that it will be relieved of federal income tax on that part of its income that is distributed to shareholders. In order to qualify for treatment as a RIC, a fund must distribute annually to its shareholders at least 90% of its investment company taxable income (generally, net investment income plus the excess, if any, of net short-term capital gain over net long-term capital losses) and also must meet several additional requirements. Among these requirements are the following: (i) at least 90% of a fund’s gross income each taxable year must be derived from dividends, interest, payments with respect to securities loans, and gains from the sale or other disposition of stock,

securities or foreign currencies, or other income derived with respect to its business of investing in such stock or securities or currencies and net income derived from an interest in a qualified publicly traded partnership; (ii) at the close of each quarter of a fund’s taxable year, at least 50% of the value of its total assets must be represented by cash and cash items, U.S. Government securities, securities of other RICs and other securities, with such other securities limited, in respect of any one issuer, to an amount that does not exceed 5% of the value of a Fund’s assets and that does not represent more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of such issuer; and (iii) at the close of each quarter of a fund’s taxable year, not more than 25% of the value of its assets may be invested in securities (other than U.S. Government securities or the securities of other RICs) of any one issuer or of two or more issuers and which are engaged in the same, similar, or related trades or businesses if the fund owns at least 20% of the voting power of such issuers, or the securities of one or more qualified publicly traded partnerships.

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

The Code imposes a non-deductible excise tax on RICs that do not distribute in a calendar year (regardless of whether they otherwise have a non-calendar taxable year) an amount equal to 98% of their “ordinary income” (as defined in the Code) for the calendar year plus 98.2% of their net capital gain for the one-year period ending on October 31 of such calendar year, plus any undistributed amounts from prior years. The non-deductible excise tax is equal to 4% of the deficiency. For the foregoing purposes, a fund is treated as having distributed any amount on which it is subject to income tax for any taxable year ending in such calendar year and certain amounts with respect to which estimated taxes are paid in such calendar year. A fund may in certain circumstances be required to liquidate fund investments in order to make sufficient distributions to avoid federal excise tax liability at a time when the investment adviser might not otherwise have chosen to do so, and liquidation of investments in such circumstances may affect the ability of a fund to satisfy the requirements for qualification as a RIC.

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

Each fund is required for federal income tax purposes to mark-to-market and recognize as income for each taxable year its net unrealized gains and losses on certain futures contracts as of the end of the year as well as those actually realized during the year. Gain or loss from futures and options contracts on broad-based indexes required to be marked to market will be 60% long-term and 40% short-term capital gain or loss. Application of this rule may alter the timing and character of distributions to shareholders. Each fund may be required to defer the recognition of losses on futures contracts, options contracts and swaps to the extent of any unrecognized gains on offsetting positions held by the fund. It is anticipated that any net gain realized from the closing out of futures or options contracts will be considered gain from the sale of securities and therefore will be qualifying income for purposes of the 90% requirement

described above. Each fund distributes to shareholders at least annually any net capital gains which have been recognized for federal income tax purposes, including unrealized gains at the end of the fund’s fiscal year on futures or options transactions. Such distributions are combined with distributions of capital gains realized on the fund’s other investments and shareholders are advised on the nature of the distributions.

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

Federal Income Tax Information for Shareholders

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

Any dividends declared by a fund in October, November or December and paid the following January are treated, for tax purposes, as if they were received by shareholders on December 31 of the year in which they were declared. In general, distributions by a fund of investment company taxable income (including net short-term capital gains), if any, whether received in cash or additional shares, will be taxable to you as ordinary income. A portion of these distributions may be treated as qualified dividend income (eligible for the reduced maximum rate to individuals of 15% (lower rates apply to individuals in lower tax brackets)) to the extent that a fund receives qualified dividend income. Qualified dividend income is, in general, dividend income from taxable domestic corporations and certain foreign corporations (e.g., foreign corporations incorporated in a possession of the United States or in certain countries with a comprehensive tax treaty with the United States, or the stock of which is readily tradable on an established securities market in the United States). A dividend will not be treated as qualified dividend income to the extent that (i) the shareholder has not held the shares of the fund on which the dividend was paid for more than 60 days during the 121-day period that begins on the date that is 60 days before the date on which the shares of a fund become ex-dividend with respect to such dividend (and each fund also satisfies those holding period requirements with respect to the securities it holds that paid the dividends distributed to the shareholder), (ii) the shareholder is under an obligation (whether pursuant to a short sale or otherwise) to make related payments with respect to substantially similar or related property, or (iii) the shareholder elects to treat such dividend as investment income under section 163(d)(4)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code. Dividends received by each fund from a REIT or another RIC may be treated as qualified dividend income only to the extent the dividend distributions are attributable to qualified dividend income received by such REIT or RIC. It is expected that dividends received by a fund from a REIT and distributed to a shareholder generally will be taxable to the shareholder as ordinary income. Distributions from net capital gain (if any) that are designated as capital gains dividends are taxable as long-term capital gains without regard to the length of time the shareholder has held shares of a fund. However, if you receive a capital gains dividend with respect to fund shares held for six months or less, any loss on the sale or exchange of those shares shall, to the extent of the capital gains dividend, be treated as a long-term capital loss. Long-term capital gains also will be taxed at a maximum rate of 15%. Absent further legislation, the maximum 15% tax rate on qualified dividend income and long-term capital gains will cease to apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012.

A fund will inform you of the amount of your ordinary income dividends and capital gain distributions, if any, at the time they are paid and will advise you of their tax status for federal income tax purposes, including what portion of the distributions will be qualified dividend income, shortly after the close of each calendar year. For corporate investors in a fund, dividend distributions the fund designates to be from dividends received from qualifying domestic corporations will be eligible for the 70% corporate dividends-received deduction to the extent they would qualify if the fund were a regular corporation. Distributions by a fund also may be subject to state, local and foreign taxes, and its treatment under applicable tax laws may differ from the federal income tax treatment.

For taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012, an additional 3.8% Medicare tax will be imposed on certain net investment income (including ordinary dividends and capital gain distributions received from a fund and net gains from redemptions or other taxable dispositions of fund shares) of U.S. individuals, estates and trusts to the extent that such person’s “modified adjusted gross income” (in the case of an individual) or “adjusted gross income” (in the case of an estate or trust) exceeds a threshold amount.

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

Foreign shareholders (i.e., nonresident alien individuals and foreign corporations, partnerships, trusts and estates) are generally subject to U.S. withholding tax at the rate of 30% (or a lower tax treaty rate) on distributions derived from net investment income and short-term capital gains; provided, however, that for a fund’s taxable year beginning before January 1, 2012 (or a later date if extended by the U.S. Congress) , U.S. source interest related dividends and short-term capital gain dividends generally will not be subject to U.S. withholding taxes if a fund elects to make reports with respect to such dividends. Distributions to foreign shareholders of such short-term capital gain or interest dividends, of long-term capital gains and any gains from the sale or other disposition of shares of a fund generally are not subject to U.S. taxation, unless the recipient is an individual who either (1) meets the Code’s definition of “resident alien” or (2) is physically present in the U.S. for 183 days or more per year. Different tax consequences may result if the foreign shareholder is engaged in a trade or business within the United States. In addition, the tax consequences to a foreign shareholder entitled to claim the benefits of a tax treaty may be different than those described above. Notwithstanding the foregoing, income, if any, derived by a fund from investments in REITs that hold residual interests in real estate mortgage investment conduits (“REMICs”) may subject a foreign shareholder to U.S. federal income taxation and require that shareholder to file U.S. tax returns.

Effective January 1, 2014, the funds will be required to withhold U.S. tax (at a 30% rate) on payments of dividends and redemption proceeds made to certain non-U.S. entities that fail to comply with extensive new reporting and withholding requirements designed to inform the U.S. Department of the Treasury of U.S.-owned foreign investment accounts. Shareholders may be requested to provide additional information to the funds to enable the funds to determine whether withholding is required.

Certain tax-exempt shareholders, including qualified pension plans, individual retirement accounts, salary deferral arrangements, 401(k)s, and other tax-exempt entities, generally are exempt from federal income taxation except with respect to their unrelated business taxable income (“UBTI”). Under current law,

each fund generally serves to block UBTI from being realized by their tax-exempt shareholders. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, tax-exempt shareholders could realize UBTI by virtue of its investment in the fund where, for example, (i) a fund invests in REITs that hold residual interests in REMICs or (ii) shares in a fund constitute debt-financed property in the hands of the tax-exempt shareholder within the meaning of section 514(b) of the Code. Charitable remainder trusts are subject to special rules and should consult their tax advisors. There are no restrictions preventing a fund from holding investments in REITs that hold residual interests in REMICs, and a fund may do so. The Internal Revenue Service has issued recent guidance with respect to these issues and prospective shareholders, especially charitable remainder trusts, are strongly encouraged to consult with their tax advisors regarding these issues.

The funds can have income, gains or losses from any distributions or redemptions in the underlying funds. The funds cannot use gains distributed by one underlying fund to offset losses in another underlying fund. Redemptions of shares in an underlying fund, including those resulting from allocation changes, could also cause additional distributable gains to shareholders, a portion of which may be short-term capital gains distributable as ordinary income. Further, a portion of any losses on underlying fund share redemptions may be deferred under the “wash sale” rules. As a result of these factors, the funds’ “fund of funds” structure could affect the amount, timing and character of distributions to shareholders.

Income that a Schwab Target Fund receives from sources within various foreign countries may be subject to foreign income taxes withheld at the source. If any of these funds has more than 50% of its assets invested in foreign securities at the end of its taxable year, it may elect to “pass through” to its shareholders the ability to take either the foreign tax credit or the deduction for foreign taxes. Pursuant to this election, U.S. shareholders must include in gross income, even though not actually received, their respective pro rata share of foreign taxes, and may either deduct their pro rata share of foreign taxes (but not for alternative minimum tax purposes) or credit the tax against U.S. income taxes, subject to certain limitations described in Code sections 901 and 904. A shareholder who does not itemize deductions may not claim a deduction for foreign taxes. It is expected that the Schwab Target Funds will not have more than 50% of their assets invested in foreign securities at the close of their taxable years, and therefore will not be permitted to make this election. To the extent a Schwab Target Fund invests in an underlying mutual fund that elects to pass through foreign taxes, the Schwab Target Fund will not be able to pass through the taxes paid by the underlying mutual fund. Each shareholder’s respective pro rata share of foreign taxes a Schwab Target Fund pays will, therefore, be netted against its share of the Schwab Target Fund’s gross income. A fund may pass through foreign tax credits from an underlying mutual fund provided that at least 50% of the Schwab Target Fund’s assets at the end of each quarter of the taxable year consists of investments in other regulated investment companies.

The Schwab Target Funds may invest in a non-U.S. corporation, which could be treated as a passive foreign investment company (PFIC) or become a PFIC under the Code. This could result in adverse tax consequences upon the disposition of, or the receipt of “excess distributions” with respect to, such equity investments. To the extent any of these funds do invest in PFICs, they may elect to treat the PFIC as a “qualified electing fund” or mark-to-market its investments in PFICs annually. In either case, these funds may be required to distribute amounts in excess of realized income and gains. To the extent these funds do invest in foreign securities which are determined to be PFIC securities and are required to pay a tax on such investments, a credit for this tax would not be allowed to be passed through to the funds’ shareholders. Therefore, the payment of this tax would reduce a funds’ economic return from its PFIC shares, and excess distributions received with respect to such shares are treated as ordinary income rather than capital gains.

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

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

Page 1 of 5

Appendix – Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures

Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc.

The Charles Schwab Family of Funds

Schwab Investments

Schwab Capital Trust

Schwab Annuity Portfolios

Laudus Trust

Laudus Institutional Trust

Schwab Strategic Trust

Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures

As of April 2012

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

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

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

Page 2 of 5

Proxy Voting Policy

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

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

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

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

Page 3 of 5

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

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

•

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

•

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

•

Proxy Access: With respect to shareholder proposals requesting proxy access for shareholders, the Proxy Committee has instructed Glass Lewis to vote with management on such proposals unless the company does not meet one of the following triggers:

•

The company did not implement a shareholder proposal that was passed by shareholders at two previous shareholder meetings.

•

The company nominated directors for election that did not receive a majority of shareholder support at the previous shareholder meeting.

•

The company had material financial statement restatements.

•

The company’s board adopted a poison pill during the past year and did not put the adoption up for shareholder approval.

Page 4 of 5

In cases where a company fails to meet the threshold, the Proxy Committee has instructed Glass Lewis to vote shareholder proposals requesting proxy access in accordance with Glass Lewis’ Proxy Procedures.

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

If Glass Lewis does not provide an analysis or recommendation for voting a particular proxy measure or measures, CSIM will generally abstain, however (1) two members of the Proxy Committee, including at least one representative from Portfolio Management, in consultation with the Chair of the Proxy Committee or his/her designee, may decide how to vote such proxy, or (2) the Proxy Committee may meet to decide how to vote such proxy.

Conflicts of Interest. Except as described above for proxies solicited by the Funds or CSC and the exceptions to Glass Lewis’ Proxy Procedures, proxy issues that present material conflicts of interest between CSIM, and/or any of its affiliates, and CSIM’s clients, CSIM will delegate to Glass Lewis responsibility for voting such proxies in accordance with Glass Lewis’ Proxy Procedures.

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

•

proxy statements and ballots written in a foreign language;

•

untimely and/or inadequate notice of shareholder meetings;

•

restrictions of foreigner’s ability to exercise votes;

•

requirements to vote proxies in person;

•

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

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

Page 5 of 5

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

Sub-Advisory Relationships. Where CSIM has delegated day-to-day investment management responsibilities to an investment sub-adviser, CSIM may (but generally does not) delegate proxy voting responsibility to such investment sub-adviser. Each sub-adviser to whom proxy voting responsibility has been delegated will be required to review all proxy solicitation material and to exercise the voting rights associated with the securities it has been allocated in the best interest of each investment company and its shareholders, or other client. Prior to delegating the proxy voting responsibility, CSIM will review each sub-adviser’s proxy voting policy to determine whether it believes that each sub-adviser’s proxy voting policy is generally consistent with the maximization of economic benefits to the investment company or other client.

Reporting and Record Retention

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

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

LOGO

PROXY PAPER GUIDELINES

2012 PROXY SEASON

AN OVERVIEW OF

THE GLASS LEWIS APPROACH TO

PROXY ADVICE

United States

CONTENTS


I. A Board That Serves the Interests of Shareholders			1
Election of Directors			1
Independence			1
Performance			4
Experience			13
Other Considerations			13
Controlled Companies			15
Unofficially Controlled Companies and 20-50% Beneficial Owners			16
Exceptions for Recent IPOs			16
Mutual Fund Boards			17
Declassified Boards			18
Mandatory Director Term and Age Limits			19
Requiring Two or More Nominees per Board Seat			19
Shareholder Access			19
Majority Vote for the Election of Directors			19
The plurality vote standard			20
Advantages of a majority vote standard			20
II. Transparency and Integrity of Financial Reporting			21
Auditor Ratification			21
Voting Recommendations on Auditor Ratification			21
Pension Accounting Issues			22
III. The Link Between Compensation and Performance			23
Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (“Say-on-Pay”)			23
Say-on-Pay Voting Recommendations			24
Additional Scrutiny for Companies with Significant Opposition in 2011			25
Short-Term Incentives			25
Long-Term Incentives			25
Pay for Performance			26
Recoupment (“Clawback”) Provisions			27
Frequency of Say-on-Pay			27
Vote on Golden Parachute Arrangements			27
Equity-Based Compensation Plan Proposals			27
Option Exchanges			28
Option Backdating, Spring-Loading, and Bullet-Dodging			29
162(m) Plans			30
Director Compensation Plans			31


IV. Governance Structure and the Shareholder Franchise			32
Anti-Takeover Measures			32
Poison Pills (Shareholder Rights Plans)			32
NOL Poison Pills			32
Fair Price Provisions			33
Reincorporation			33
Exclusive Forum Provisions			34
Authorized Shares			35
Advance Notice Requirements			35
Voting Structure			36
Cumulative Voting			36
Supermajority Vote Requirements			36
Transaction of Other Business			37
Anti-Greenmail Proposals			37
Mutual Funds: Investment Policies and Advisory Agreements			37
V. Compensation, Environmental, Social and Governance Shareholder Initiatives			38
Compensation			38
Disclosure of Individual Compensation			38
Linking Pay with Performance			39
Retirement Benefits & Severance			39
Bonus Recoupments (“Clawbacks”)			39
Golden Coffins			40
Retention of Shares until Retirement			40
Tax Gross-Ups			41
Linking Executive Pay to Environmental and Social Criteria			41
Governance			41
Declassification of the Board			41
Right of Shareholders to Call a Special Meeting			41
Right of Shareholders to Act by Written Consent			42
Board Composition			43
Reimbursement of Solicitation Expenses			43
Majority Vote for the Election of Directors			43
Cumulative Vote for the Election of Directors			43
Supermajority Vote Requirements			44
Independent Chairman			44
Proxy Access			44
Environment			45
Climate Change and Green House Gas Emission Disclosure			46


Sustainability and other Environmentally-Related Reports			46
Oil Sands			47
Sustainable Forestry			47
Social Issues			48
Non-Discrimination Policies			48
MacBride Principles			48
Human Rights			49
Military and US Government Business Policies			49
Foreign Government Business Policies			49
Health Care Reform Principles			49
Tobacco			50
Reporting Contributions and Political Spending			50
Animal Welfare			51
Internet Censorship			51

III

I. A BOARD THAT SERVES THE INTERESTS OF SHAREHOLDERS

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

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

INDEPENDENCE

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

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

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

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

In our view, a director who is currently serving in an interim management position should be considered an insider, while a director who previously served in an interim management position for less than one year and is no longer serving in such capacity is considered independent. Moreover, a director who previously served in an interim management position for over one year and is no longer serving in such capacity is considered an affiliate for five years following the date of his/her resignation or departure from the interim management position. Glass Lewis applies a three-year look-back period to all directors who have an affiliation with the company other than former employment, for which we apply a five-year look-back.

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

Affiliated Director – An affiliated director has a material financial, familial or other relationship with the company or its executives, but is not an employee of the company.² This includes directors whose employers have a material financial relationship with the company.³ In addition, we view a director who owns or controls 20% or more of the company’s voting stock as an affiliate.⁴

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

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

•

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

•

$120,000 (or where no amount is disclosed) for those directors employed by a professional services firm such as a law firm, investment bank, or consulting firm where the company pays the firm, not the individual, for services. This dollar limit would also apply to charitable contributions to schools where a board member is a professor; or charities where a director serves on the board or is an executive;⁵ and any aircraft and real estate dealings between the company and the director’s firm; or

•

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

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

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

Inside Director – An inside director simultaneously serves as a director and as an employee of the company. This category may include a chairman of the board who acts as an employee of the company or is paid as an employee of the company. In our view, an inside director who derives

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

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

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

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

a greater amount of income as a result of affiliated transactions with the company rather than through compensation paid by the company (i.e., salary, bonus, etc. as a company employee) faces a conflict between making decisions that are in the best interests of the company versus those in the director’s own best interests. Therefore, we will recommend voting against such a director.

Voting Recommendations on the Basis of Board Independence

Glass Lewis believes a board will be most effective in protecting shareholders’ interests if it is at least two-thirds independent. We note that each of the Business Roundtable, the Conference Board, and the Council of Institutional Investors advocates that two-thirds of the board be independent. Where more than one-third of the members are affiliated or inside directors, we typically⁶ recommend voting against some of the inside and/or affiliated directors in order to satisfy the two-thirds threshold.

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

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

Committee Independence

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

Independent Chairman

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

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

A CEO should set the strategic course for the company, with the board’s approval, and the board should enable the CEO to carry out the CEO’s vision for accomplishing the board’s objectives.

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

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

Failure to achieve the board’s objectives should lead the board to replace that CEO with someone in whom the board has confidence.

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

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

Glass Lewis believes that the installation of an independent chairman is almost always a positive step from a corporate governance perspective and promotes the best interests of shareholders. Further, the presence of an independent chairman fosters the creation of a thoughtful and dynamic board, not dominated by the views of senior management. Encouragingly, many companies appear to be moving in this direction—one study even indicates that less than 12 percent of incoming CEOs in 2009 were awarded the chairman title, versus 48 percent as recently as 2002.⁸ Another study finds that 41 percent of S&P 500 boards now separate the CEO and chairman roles, up from 26 percent in 2001, although the same study found that of those companies, only 21 percent have truly independent chairs.⁹

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

PERFORMANCE

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

Voting Recommendations on the Basis of Performance

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

A director who fails to attend a minimum of 75% of board and applicable committee meetings, calculated in the aggregate.¹⁰

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

8	Ken Favaro, Per-Ola Karlsson and Gary Neilson. “CEO Succession 2000-2009: A Decade of Convergence and Compression.” Booz & Company (from Strategy+Business, Issue 59, Summer 2010).

9	Spencer Stuart Board Index, 2011, p. 6.

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

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

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

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

Audit Committees and Performance

Audit committees play an integral role in overseeing the financial reporting process because “[v]ibrant and stable capital markets depend on, among other things, reliable, transparent, and objective financial information to support an efficient and effective capital market process. The vital oversight role audit committees play in the process of producing financial information has never been more important.”¹¹

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

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

Standards For Assessing The Audit Committee

For an audit committee to function effectively on investors’ behalf, it must include members with sufficient knowledge to diligently carry out their responsibilities. In its audit and accounting recommendations, the Conference Board Commission on Public Trust and Private Enterprise said “members of the audit committee must be independent and have both knowledge and experience in auditing financial matters.”¹²

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

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

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

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

When assessing the decisions and actions of the audit committee, we typically defer to its judgment and would vote in favor of its members, but we would recommend voting against the following members under the following circumstances:¹³

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

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

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

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

Any audit committee member who sits on more than three public company audit committees, unless the audit committee member is a retired CPA, CFO, controller or has similar experience, in which case the limit shall be four committees, taking time and availability into consideration including a review of the audit committee member’s attendance at all board and committee meetings.¹⁴

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

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

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

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

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

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

10.

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

11.

The audit committee chair¹⁵ if the committee failed to put auditor ratification on the ballot for shareholder approval. However, if the non-audit fees or tax fees exceed audit plus audit-related fees in either the current or the prior year, then Glass Lewis will recommend voting against the entire audit committee.

12.

All members of an audit committee where the auditor has resigned and reported that a section 10A¹⁶ letter has been issued.

13.

All members of an audit committee at a time when material accounting fraud occurred at the company.¹⁷

14.

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

•

The restatement involves fraud or manipulation by insiders;

•

The restatement is accompanied by an SEC inquiry or investigation;

•

The restatement involves revenue recognition;

•

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

•

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

15.

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

16.

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

17.

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

18.

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

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

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

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

19.

All members of the audit committee if the contract with the auditor specifically limits the auditor’s liability to the company for damages.¹⁸

20.

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

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

Compensation Committee Performance

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

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

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

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

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

When assessing the performance of compensation committees, we will recommend voting against for the following:¹⁹

All members of the compensation committee who are up for election and served at the time of poor pay-for-performance (e.g., a company receives an F grade in our pay-for-performance analysis) when shareholders are not provided with an advisory vote on executive compensation at the annual meeting.²⁰

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

The compensation committee chair if the company received two D grades in consecutive years in our pay-for-performance analysis, and if during the past year the Company performed the same as or worse than its peers.²¹

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

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

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

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

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

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

10.

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

11.

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

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

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

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

12.

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

13.

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

14.

All members of the compensation committee during whose tenure the committee failed to implement a shareholder proposal regarding a compensation-related issue, where the proposal received the affirmative vote of a majority of the voting shares at a shareholder meeting, and when a reasonable analysis suggests that the compensation committee (rather than the governance committee) should have taken steps to implement the request.²²

15.

All members of a compensation committee during whose tenure the committee failed to address shareholder concerns following majority shareholder rejection of the say-on-pay proposal in the previous year. Where the proposal was approved but there was a significant shareholder vote (i.e., greater than 25% of votes cast) against the say-on-pay proposal in the prior year, if there is no evidence that the board responded accordingly to the vote including actively engaging shareholders on this issue, we will also consider recommending voting against the chairman of the compensation committee or all members of the compensation committee, depending on the severity and history of the compensation problems and the level of vote against.

Nominating and Governance Committee Performance

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

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

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

Regarding the nominating and or governance committee, we will recommend voting against the following:²³

All members of the governance committee²⁴ during whose tenure the board failed to implement a shareholder proposal with a direct and substantial impact on shareholders and their rights - i.e., where the proposal received enough shareholder votes (at least a majority) to allow the board to implement or begin to implement that proposal.²⁵ Examples of these types of shareholder proposals are majority vote to elect directors and to declassify the board.

The governance committee chair,²⁶ when the chairman is not independent and an independent lead or presiding director has not been appointed.²⁷

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

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

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

The governance committee chair, when during the past year the board adopted a forum selection clause (i.e. an exclusive forum provision)²⁸ without shareholder approval, or, if the board is currently seeking shareholder approval of a forum selection clause pursuant to a bundled bylaw amendment rather than as a separate proposal.

Regarding the nominating committee, we will recommend voting against the following:²⁹

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the absence of a governance committee, the nominating committee chair³⁰ when the chairman is not independent, and an independent lead or presiding director has not been appointed.³¹

The nominating committee chair, when there are less than five or the whole nominating committee when there are more than 20 members on the board.³²

The nominating committee chair, when a director received a greater than 50% against vote the prior year and not only was the director not removed, but the issues that raised shareholder concern were not corrected.³³

Board-level Risk Management Oversight

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

Our views on risk oversight are consistent with those expressed by various regulatory bodies. In its December 2009 Final Rule release on Proxy Disclosure Enhancements, the SEC noted that risk oversight is a key competence of the board and that additional disclosures would improve investor and shareholder understanding of the role of the board in the organization’s risk management practices. The final rules, which became effective on February 28, 2010, now explicitly require companies and mutual funds to describe (while allowing for some degree of flexibility) the board’s role in the oversight of risk.

When analyzing the risk management practices of public companies, we take note of any significant losses or writedowns on financial assets and/or structured transactions. In cases where a company has disclosed a sizable loss or writedown, and where we find that the company’s board-level risk committee contributed to the loss through poor oversight, we would recommend that shareholders vote against such committee members on that basis. In addition, in cases where a

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

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

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

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

company maintains a significant level of financial risk exposure but fails to disclose any explicit form of board-level risk oversight (committee or otherwise)³⁴, we will consider recommending to vote against the chairman of the board on that basis. However, we generally would not recommend voting against a combined chairman/CEO except in egregious cases.

EXPERIENCE

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

Voting Recommendations on the Basis of Director Experience

We typically recommend that shareholders vote against directors who have served on boards or as executives of companies with records of poor performance, inadequate risk oversight, overcompensation, audit-or accounting-related issues, and/or other indicators of mismanagement or actions against the interests of shareholders.³⁵

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

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

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

Conflicts of Interest

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

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

A director who is on an excessive number of boards: We will typically recommend voting against a director who serves as an executive officer of any public company while serving on more than two other public company boards and any other director who serves on more than six public company boards typically receives an against recommendation from Glass Lewis. Academic literature suggests that one board takes up approximately

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

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

200 hours per year of each member’s time. We believe this limits the number of boards on which directors can effectively serve, especially executives at other companies.³⁶ Further, we note a recent study has shown that the average number of outside board seats held by CEOs of S&P 500 companies is 0.6, down from 0.8 in 2006 and 1.2 in 2001.³⁷

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

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

Interlocking directorships: CEOs or other top executives who serve on each other’s boards create an interlock that poses conflicts that should be avoided to ensure the promotion of shareholder interests above all else.³⁸

All board members who served at a time when a poison pill was adopted without shareholder approval within the prior twelve months.³⁹ In the event a board is classified and shareholders are therefore unable to vote against all directors, we will recommend voting against the remaining directors the next year they are up for a shareholder vote.

Size of the Board of Directors

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

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

37	Spencer Stuart Board Index, 2011, p. 8.

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

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

To that end, we typically recommend voting against the chairman of the nominating committee at a board with fewer than five directors. With boards consisting of more than 20 directors, we typically recommend voting against all members of the nominating committee (or the governance committee, in the absence of a nominating committee).⁴⁰

CONTROLLED COMPANIES

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

Independence Exceptions

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Conference Board, at p. 23 in its May 2003 report “Corporate Governance Best Practices, Id.,” quotes one of its roundtable participants as stating, “[w]hen you’ve got a 20 or 30 person corporate board, it’s one way of assuring that nothing is ever going to happen that the CEO doesn’t want to happen.”

Size of the Board of Directors

We have no board size requirements for controlled companies.

Audit Committee Independence

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

UNOFFICIALLY CONTROLLED COMPANIES AND 20-50% BENEFICIAL OWNERS

Where an individual or entity owns more than 50% of a company’s voting power but the company is not a “controlled” company as defined by relevant listing standards, we apply a lower independence requirement of a majority of the board but believe the company should otherwise be treated like another public company; we will therefore apply all other standards as outlined above.

Similarly, where an individual or entity holds between 20-50% of a company’s voting power, but the company is not “controlled” and there is not a “majority” owner, we believe it is reasonable to allow proportional representation on the board and committees (excluding the audit committee) based on the individual or entity’s percentage of ownership.

EXCEPTIONS FOR RECENT IPOS

We believe companies that have recently completed an initial public offering (“IPO”) should be allowed adequate time to fully comply with marketplace listing requirements as well as to meet basic corporate governance standards. We believe a one-year grace period immediately following the date of a company’s IPO is sufficient time for most companies to comply with all relevant regulatory re-quirements and to meet such corporate governance standards. Except in egregious cases, Glass Lewis refrains from issuing voting recommendations on the basis of corporate governance best practices (eg. board independence, committee membership and structure, meeting attendance, etc.) during the one-year period following an IPO.

However, two specific cases warrant strong shareholder action against the board of a company that completed an IPO within the past year:

Adoption of a poison pill: in cases where a board implements a poison pill preceding an IPO, we will consider voting against the members of the board who served during the period of the poison pill’s adoption if the board (i) did not also commit to submit the poison pill to a shareholder vote within 12 months of the IPO or (ii) did not provide a sound rationale for adopting the pill and the pill does not expire in three years or less. In our view, adopting such an anti-takeover device unfairly penalizes future shareholders who (except for electing to buy or sell the stock) are unable to weigh in on a matter that could potentially negatively impact their ownership interest. This notion is strengthened when a board adopts a poison pill with a 5-10 year life immediately prior to having a public shareholder base so as to insulate management for a substantial amount of time while postponing and/or avoiding allowing public shareholders the ability to vote on the pill’s adoption. Such instances are indicative of boards that may subvert shareholders’ best interests following their IPO.

Adoption of an exclusive forum provision: consistent with our general approach to boards that adopt exclusive forum provisions without shareholder approval (refer to our discussion of nominating and governance committee performance in Section I of the guidelines), in cases

where a board adopts such a provision for inclusion in a company’s charter or bylaws before the company’s IPO, we will recommend voting against the chairman of the governance committee, or, in the absence of such a committee, the chairman of the board, who served during the period of time when the provision was adopted.

Further, shareholders should also be wary of companies in this category that adopt supermajority voting requirements before their IPO. Absent explicit provisions in the articles or bylaws stipulating that certain policies will be phased out over a certain period of time (e.g. a predetermined declassification of the board, a planned separation of the chairman and CEO, etc.) long-term shareholders could find themselves in the predicament of having to attain a supermajority vote to approve future proposals seeking to eliminate such policies.

MUTUAL FUND BOARDS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DECLASSIFIED BOARDS

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

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

In our view, there is no evidence to demonstrate that staggered boards improve shareholder returns in a takeover context. Research shows that shareholders are worse off when a staggered board blocks a transaction. A study by a group of Harvard Law professors concluded that companies whose staggered boards prevented a takeover “reduced shareholder returns for targets ... on the order of eight to ten percent in the nine months after a hostile bid was announced.”⁴¹ When a staggered board negotiates a friendly transaction, no statistically significant difference in premiums occurs.⁴² Further, one of those same professors found that charter-based staggered boards “reduce the market value of a firm by 4% to 6% of its market capitalization” and that “staggered boards bring about and not merely reflect this reduction in market value.”⁴³ A subsequent study reaffirmed that classified boards reduce shareholder value, finding “that the ongoing process of dismantling staggered boards, encouraged by institutional investors, could well contribute to increasing shareholder wealth.”⁴⁴

Shareholders have increasingly come to agree with this view. In 2011 more than 75% of S&P 500 companies had declassified boards, up from approximately 41% a decade ago.⁴⁵ Clearly, more shareholders have supported the repeal of classified boards. Resolutions relating to the repeal of staggered boards garnered on average over 70% support among shareholders in 2008, whereas in 1987, only 16.4% of votes cast favored board declassification.⁴⁶

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

41	Lucian Bebchuk, John Coates IV, Guhan Subramanian, “The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards: Further Findings and a Reply to Symposium Participants,” 55 Stanford Law Review 885-917 (2002), page 1.

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

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

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

45	Spencer Stuart Board Index, 2011, p. 14

46	Lucian Bebchuk, John Coates IV and Guhan Subramanian, “The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards: Theory, Evidence, and Policy,” 54 Stanford Law Review 887-951 (2002).

MANDATORY DIRECTOR TERM AND AGE LIMITS

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

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

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

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

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

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

REQUIRING TWO OR MORE NOMINEES PER BOARD SEAT

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

SHAREHOLDER ACCESS

We expect to see a number of shareholder proposals regarding this topic in 2012. For a discussion of recent regulatory events in this area, along with a detailed overview of the Glass Lewis approach to Shareholder Proposals regarding Proxy Access, refer to Section V. Compensation, Environmental, Social and Governance Shareholder Initiatives.

MAJORITY VOTE FOR THE ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

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

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

During 2011, Glass Lewis tracked over 40 proposals seeking to require a majority vote to elect directors at annual meetings in the U.S., a slight increase over 2010 when we tracked just under 35 proposals, but a sharp contrast to the 147 proposals tracked during 2006. The large drop in the number of proposals being submitted in recent years compared to 2006 is a result of many companies having already adopted some form of majority voting, including approximately 79% of companies in the S&P 500 index, up from 56% in 2008.⁴⁷ During 2009 these proposals received on average 59% shareholder support (based on for and against votes), up from 54% in 2008.

THE PLURALITY VOTE STANDARD

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

ADVANTAGES OF A MAJORITY VOTE STANDARD

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

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

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

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

47	Spencer Stuart Board Index, 2011, p. 14

II. TRANSPARENCY AND INTEGRITY OF FINANCIAL REPORTING

AUDITOR RATIFICATION

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

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

As such, shareholders should demand an objective, competent and diligent auditor who performs at or above professional standards at every company in which the investors hold an interest. Like directors, auditors should be free from conflicts of interest and should avoid situations requiring a choice between the auditor’s interests and the public’s interests. Almost without exception, shareholders should be able to annually review an auditor’s performance and to annually ratify a board’s auditor selection. Moreover, in October 2008, the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession went even further, and recommended that “to further enhance audit committee oversight and auditor accountability ... disclosure in the company proxy statement regarding shareholder ratification [should] include the name(s) of the senior auditing partner(s) staffed on the engagement.”⁴⁸

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

VOTING RECOMMENDATIONS ON AUDITOR RATIFICATION

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

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

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

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

Recent material restatements of annual financial statements, including those resulting in the reporting of material weaknesses in internal controls and including late filings by the company where the auditor bears some responsibility for the restatement or late filing.⁴⁹

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

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

When the company has aggressive accounting policies.

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

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

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

PENSION ACCOUNTING ISSUES

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

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

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

III. THE LINK BETWEEN COMPENSATION AND PERFORMANCE

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

Glass Lewis believes that comprehensive, timely and transparent disclosure of executive pay is critical to allowing shareholders to evaluate the extent to which the pay is keeping pace with company performance. When reviewing proxy materials, Glass Lewis examines whether the company discloses the performance metrics used to determine executive compensation. We recognize performance metrics must necessarily vary depending on the company and industry, among other factors, and may include items such as total shareholder return, earning per share growth, return on equity, return on assets and revenue growth. However, we believe companies should disclose why the specific performance metrics were selected and how the actions they are designed to incentivize will lead to better corporate performance.

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

ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (“SAY-ON-PAY”)

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) required most companies⁵⁰ to hold an advisory vote on executive compensation at the first shareholder meeting that occurs six months after enactment of the bill (January 21, 2011).

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

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

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

50	Small reporting companies (as defined by the SEC as below $75,000,000 in market capitalization) received a two-year reprieve and will only be subject to say-on-pay requirements beginning at meetings held on or after January 21, 2013.

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

Glass Lewis focuses on four main areas when reviewing Say-on-Pay proposals:

•

The overall design and structure of the Company’s executive compensation program including performance metrics;

•

The quality and content of the Company’s disclosure;

•

The quantum paid to executives; and

•

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

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

SAY-ON-PAY VOTING RECOMMENDATIONS

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

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

•

Inappropriate peer group and/or benchmarking issues

•

Inadequate or no rationale for changes to peer groups

•

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

•

Guaranteed bonuses

•

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

•

Bonus or long-term plan targets set at less than mean or negative performance levels

•

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

•

Performance targets lowered, without justification

•

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

•

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

•

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

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

ADDITIONAL SCRUTINY FOR COMPANIES WITH SIGNIFICANT OPPOSITION IN 2011

At companies that received a significant shareholder vote (anything greater than 25%) against their say on pay proposal in 2011, we believe the board should demonstrate some level of engagement and responsiveness to the shareholder concerns behind the discontent. While we recognize that sweeping changes cannot be made to a compensation program without due consideration and that a majority of shareholders voted in favor of the proposal, we will look for disclosure in the proxy statement and other publicly-disclosed filings that indicates the compensation committee is responding to the prior year’s vote results including engaging with large shareholders to identify the concerns causing the substantial vote against. In the absence of any evidence that the board is actively engaging shareholders on this issue and responding accordingly, we will recommend holding compensation committee members accountable for a failure to respond in consideration of the level of the vote against and the severity and history of the compensation problems.

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

SHORT-TERM INCENTIVES

A short-term bonus or incentive (“STI”) should be demonstrably tied to performance. Whenever possible, we believe a mix of corporate and individual performance measures is appropriate. We would normally expect performance measures for STIs to be based on internal financial measures such as net profit after tax, EPS growth and divisional profitability as well as non-financial factors such as those related to safety, environmental issues, and customer satisfaction. However, we accept variations from these metrics if they are tied to the Company’s business drivers.

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

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

Where management has received significant STIs but short-term performance as measured by such indicators as increase in profit and/or EPS growth over the previous year prima facie appears to be poor or negative, we believe the company should provide a clear explanation why these significant short-term payments were made.

LONG-TERM INCENTIVES

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

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

•

No re-testing or lowering of performance conditions

•

Performance metrics that cannot be easily manipulated by management

•

Two or more performance metrics

•

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

•

Performance periods of at least three years

•

Stretching metrics that incentivize executives to strive for outstanding performance

•

Individual limits expressed as a percentage of base salary

Performance measures should be carefully selected and should relate to the specific business/industry in which the company operates and, especially, the key value drivers of the company’s business.

Glass Lewis believes that measuring a company’s performance with multiple metrics serves to provide a more complete picture of the company’s performance than a single metric, which may focus too much management attention on a single target and is therefore more susceptible to manipulation. External benchmarks should be disclosed and transparent, such as total shareholder return (“TSR”) against a well-selected sector index, peer group or other performance hurdle. The rationale behind the selection of a specific index or peer group should be disclosed. Internal benchmarks (e.g. earnings per share growth) should also be disclosed and transparent, unless a cogent case for confidentiality is made and fully explained.

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

PAY FOR PERFORMANCE

Glass Lewis believes an integral part of a well-structured compensation package is a successful link between pay and performance. Therefore, Glass Lewis developed a proprietary pay-for-performance model to evaluate the link between pay and performance of the top five executives at US companies. Our model benchmarks these executives’ pay and company performance against four peer groups and across seven performance metrics. Using a forced curve and a school letter-grade system, we grade companies from A-F according to their pay-for-performance linkage. The grades guide our evaluation of compensation committee effectiveness and we generally recommend voting against compensation committee of companies with a pattern of failing our pay-for-performance analysis.

We also use this analysis to inform our voting decisions on say-on-pay proposals. As such, if a company receives a failing grade from our proprietary model, we are likely to recommend shareholders to vote against the say-on-pay proposal. However, there may be exceptions to this rule such as when a company makes significant enhancements to its compensation programs.

RECOUPMENT (“CLAWBACK”) PROVISIONS

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

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

FREQUENCY OF SAY-ON-PAY

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

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

VOTE ON GOLDEN PARACHUTE ARRANGEMENTS

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

Glass Lewis believes the narrative and tabular disclosure of golden parachute arrangements will benefit all shareholders. Glass Lewis will analyze each golden parachute arrangement on a case-by-case basis, taking into account, among other items: the ultimate value of the payments particularly compared to the value of the transaction, the tenure and position of the executives in question, and the type of triggers involved (single vs double).

EQUITY-BASED COMPENSATION PLAN PROPOSALS

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

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

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

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

We evaluate equity plans based on certain overarching principles:

Companies should seek more shares only when needed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plans should not permit re-pricing of stock options.

10.

Plans should not contain excessively liberal administrative or payment terms.

11.

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

12.

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

OPTION EXCHANGES

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

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

In short, repricings and option exchange programs change the bargain between shareholders and employees after the bargain has been struck.

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

Officers and board members cannot participate in the program;

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

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

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

OPTION BACKDATING, SPRING-LOADING, AND BULLET-DODGING

Glass Lewis views option backdating, and the related practices of spring-loading and bullet-dodging, as egregious actions that warrant holding the appropriate management and board members responsible. These practices are similar to re-pricing options and eliminate much of the downside risk inherent in an option grant that is designed to induce recipients to maximize shareholder return.

Backdating an option is the act of changing an option’s grant date from the actual grant date to an earlier date when the market price of the underlying stock was lower, resulting in a lower exercise price for the option. Since 2006, Glass Lewis has identified over 270 companies that have disclosed internal or government investigations into their past stock-option grants.

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

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

A 2006 study of option grants made between 1996 and 2005 at 8,000 companies found that option backdating can be an indication of poor internal controls. The study found that option backdating was more likely to occur at companies without a majority independent board and with a long-serving CEO; both factors, the study concluded, were associated with greater CEO influence on the company’s compensation and governance practices.⁵¹

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

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

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

162(M) PLANS

Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code allows companies to deduct compensation in excess of $1 million for the CEO and the next three most highly compensated executive officers, excluding the CFO, upon shareholder approval of the excess compensation. Glass Lewis recognizes the value of executive incentive programs and the tax benefit of shareholder-approved incentive plans.

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

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

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

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

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

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PLANS

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

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

IV. GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE AND THE SHAREHOLDER FRANCHISE

ANTI-TAKEOVER MEASURES

POISON PILLS (SHAREHOLDER RIGHTS PLANS)

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no fairness opinion requirement; and

There is a low to no premium requirement.

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

NOL POISON PILLS

Similarly, Glass Lewis may consider supporting a limited poison pill in the unique event that a company seeks shareholder approval of a rights plan for the express purpose of preserving Net Operating Losses (NOLs). While companies with NOLs can generally carry these losses forward to offset future taxable income, Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code limits companies’ ability to use NOLs in the event of a “change of ownership.”⁵² In this case, a company may adopt or amend a poison pill (“NOL pill”) in order to prevent an inadvertent change of ownership by multiple investors purchasing small chunks of stock at the same time, and thereby preserve the ability to carry the NOLs forward. Often such NOL pills have trigger thresholds much lower than the common 15% or 20% thresholds, with some NOL pill triggers as low as 5%.

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

Glass Lewis evaluates NOL pills on a strictly case-by-case basis taking into consideration, among other factors, the value of the NOLs to the company, the likelihood of a change of ownership based on the size of the holding and the nature of the larger shareholders, the trigger threshold and whether the term of the plan is limited in duration (i.e., whether it contains a reasonable “sunset” provision) or is subject to periodic board review and/or shareholder ratification. However, we will recommend that shareholders vote against a proposal to adopt or amend a pill to include NOL protective provisions if the company has adopted a more narrowly tailored means of preventing a change in control to preserve its NOLs. For example, a company may limit share transfers in its charter to prevent a change of ownership from occurring.

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

FAIR PRICE PROVISIONS

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

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

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

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

REINCORPORATION

In general, Glass Lewis believes that the board is in the best position to determine the appropriate jurisdiction of incorporation for the company. When examining a management proposal to reincorporate

to a different state or country, we review the relevant financial benefits, generally related to improved corporate tax treatment, as well as changes in corporate governance provisions, especially those relating to shareholder rights, resulting from the change in domicile. Where the financial benefits are de minimis and there is a decrease in shareholder rights, we will recommend voting against the transaction.

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

Is the board sufficiently independent?

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

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

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

Are there other material governance issues at the Company?

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

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

Does the company have an independent chairman?

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

EXCLUSIVE FORUM PROVISIONS

Glass Lewis believes that charter or bylaw provisions limiting a shareholder’s choice of legal venue are not in the best interests of shareholders. Such clauses may effectively discourage the use of shareholder derivative claims by increasing their associated costs and making them more difficult to pursue. As such, shareholders should be wary about approving any limitation on their legal recourse including limiting themselves to a single jurisdiction (e.g. Delaware) without compelling evidence that it will benefit shareholders.

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

AUTHORIZED SHARES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADVANCE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS

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

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

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

VOTING STRUCTURE

CUMULATIVE VOTING

Cumulative voting increases the ability of minority shareholders to elect a director by allowing shareholders to cast as many shares of the stock they own multiplied by the number of directors to be elected. As companies generally have multiple nominees up for election, cumulative voting allows shareholders to cast all of their votes for a single nominee, or a smaller number of nominees than up for election, thereby raising the likelihood of electing one or more of their preferred nominees to the board. It can be important when a board is controlled by insiders or affiliates and where the company’s ownership structure includes one or more shareholders who control a majority-voting block of company stock.

However, academic literature indicates that where a highly independent board is in place and the company has a shareholder-friendly governance structure, shareholders may be better off without cumulative voting. The analysis underlying this literature indicates that shareholder returns at firms with good governance structures are lower and that boards can become factionalized and prone to evaluating the needs of special interests over the general interests of shareholders collectively. We review cumulative voting proposals on a case-by-case basis, factoring in the independence of the board and the status of the company’s governance structure. But we typically find these proposals on ballots at companies where independence is lacking and where the appropriate checks and balances favoring shareholders are not in place. In those instances we typically recommend in favor of cumulative voting.

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

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

SUPERMAJORITY VOTE REQUIREMENTS

Glass Lewis believes that supermajority vote requirements impede shareholder action on ballot items critical to shareholder interests. An example is in the takeover context, where supermajority vote requirements can strongly limit the voice of shareholders in making decisions on such crucial matters as selling the business. This in turn degrades share value and can limit the possibility of buyout premiums

to shareholders. Moreover, we believe that a supermajority vote requirement can enable a small group of shareholders to overrule the will of the majority shareholders. We believe that a simple majority is appropriate to approve all matters presented to shareholders.

TRANSACTION OF OTHER BUSINESS

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

ANTI-GREENMAIL PROPOSALS

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

MUTUAL FUNDS: INVESTMENT POLICIES AND ADVISORY AGREEMENTS

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

•

The terms of any amended advisory or sub-advisory agreement;

•

Any changes in the fee structure paid to the investment advisor; and

•

Any material changes to the fund’s investment objective or strategy.

We generally support amendments to a fund’s investment advisory agreement absent a material change that is not in the best interests of shareholders. A significant increase in the fees paid to an investment advisor would be reason for us to consider recommending voting against a proposed amendment to an investment advisory agreement. However, in certain cases, we are more inclined to support an increase in advisory fees if such increases result from being performance-based rather than asset-based. Furthermore, we generally support sub-advisory agreements between a fund’s advisor and sub-advisor, primarily because the fees received by the sub-advisor are paid by the advisor, and not by the fund.

In matters pertaining to a fund’s investment objective or strategy, we believe shareholders are best served when a fund’s objective or strategy closely resembles the investment discipline shareholders understood and selected when they initially bought into the fund. As such, we generally recommend voting against amendments to a fund’s investment objective or strategy when the proposed changes would leave shareholders with stakes in a fund that is noticeably different than when originally contemplated, and which could therefore potentially negatively impact some investors’ diversification strategies.

V. COMPENSATION, ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND GOVERNANCE SHAREHOLDER INITIATIVES

Glass Lewis typically prefers to leave decisions regarding day-to-day management and policy decisions, including those related to social, environmental or political issues, to management and the board, except when there is a clear link between the proposal and value enhancement or risk mitigation. We feel strongly that shareholders should not attempt to micromanage the company, its businesses or its executives through the shareholder initiative process. Rather, we believe shareholders should use their influence to push for governance structures that protect shareholders and promote director accountability. Shareholders should then put in place a board they can trust to make informed decisions that are in the best interests of the business and its owners, and then hold directors accountable for management and policy decisions through board elections. However, we recognize that support of appropriately crafted shareholder initiatives may at times serve to promote or protect shareholder value.

To this end, Glass Lewis evaluates shareholder proposals on a case-by-case basis. We generally recommend supporting shareholder proposals calling for the elimination of, as well as to require shareholder approval of, antitakeover devices such as poison pills and classified boards. We generally recommend supporting proposals likely to increase and/or protect shareholder value and also those that promote the furtherance of shareholder rights. In addition, we also generally recommend supporting proposals that promote director accountability and those that seek to improve compensation practices, especially those promoting a closer link between compensation and performance.

The following is a discussion of Glass Lewis’ approach to certain common shareholder resolutions. We note that the following is not an exhaustive list of all shareholder proposals.

COMPENSATION

Glass Lewis carefully reviews executive compensation since we believe that this is an important area in which the board’s priorities and effectiveness are revealed. Executives should be compensated with appropriate base salaries and incentivized with additional awards in cash and equity only when their performance and that of the company warrants such rewards. Compensation, especially when also in line with the compensation paid by the company’s peers, should lead to positive results for shareholders and ensure the use of appropriate incentives that drives those results over time.

However, as a general rule, Glass Lewis does not believe shareholders should be involved in the approval and negotiation of compensation packages. Such matters should be left to the board’s compensation committee, which can be held accountable for its decisions through the election of directors. Therefore, Glass Lewis closely scrutinizes shareholder proposals relating to compensation to determine if the requested action or disclosure has already accomplished or mandated and whether it allows sufficient, appropriate discretion to the board to design and implement reasonable compensation programs.

DISCLOSURE OF INDIVIDUAL COMPENSATION

Glass Lewis believes that disclosure of information regarding compensation is critical to allowing shareholders to evaluate the extent to which a company’s pay is based on performance. However, we recognize that the SEC currently mandates significant executive compensation disclosure. In some cases, providing information beyond that which is required by the SEC, such as the details of individual employment agreements of employees below the senior level, could create internal personnel tension or put the company at a competitive disadvantage, prompting employee poaching by competitors. Further, it is difficult to see how this information would be beneficial to shareholders. Given these concerns, Glass Lewis typically does not believe that shareholders would benefit from additional disclosure of

individual compensation packages beyond the significant level that is already required; we therefore typically recommend voting against shareholder proposals seeking such detailed disclosure. We will, however, review each proposal on a case by basis, taking into account the company’s history of aligning executive compensation and the creation of shareholder value.

LINKING PAY WITH PERFORMANCE

Glass Lewis views performance-based compensation as an effective means of motivating executives to act in the best interests of shareholders. In our view, an executive’s compensation should be specific to the company and its performance, as well as tied to the executive’s achievements within the company.

However, when firms have inadequately linked executive compensation and company performance we will consider recommending supporting reasonable proposals seeking that a percentage of equity awards be tied to performance criteria. We will also consider supporting appropriately crafted proposals requesting that the compensation committee include multiple performance metrics when setting executive compensation, provided that the terms of the shareholder proposal are not overly prescriptive. Though boards often argue that these types of restrictions unduly hinder their ability to attract talent we believe boards can develop an effective, consistent and reliable approach to remuneration utilizing a wide range (and an appropriate mix) of fixed and performance-based compensation.

RETIREMENT BENEFITS & SEVERANCE

As a general rule, Glass Lewis believes that shareholders should not be involved in the approval of individual severance plans. Such matters should be left to the board’s compensation committee, which can be held accountable for its decisions through the election of its director members.

However, when proposals are crafted to only require approval if the benefit exceeds 2.99 times the amount of the executive’s base salary plus bonus, Glass Lewis typically supports such requests. Above this threshold, based on the executive’s average annual compensation for the most recent five years, the company can no longer deduct severance payments as an expense, and thus shareholders are deprived of a valuable benefit without an offsetting incentive to the executive. We believe that shareholders should be consulted before relinquishing such a right, and we believe implementing such policies would still leave companies with sufficient freedom to enter into appropriate severance arrangements.

Following the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”), the SEC proposed rules that would require that public companies hold advisory shareholder votes on compensation arrangements and understandings in connection with merger transactions, also known as “golden parachute” transactions. Effective April 4, 2011, the SEC requires that companies seeking shareholder approval of a merger or acquisition transaction must also provide disclosure of certain “golden parachute” compensation arrangements and, in certain circumstances, conduct a separate shareholder advisory vote to approve golden parachute compensation arrangements.

BONUS RECOUPMENTS (“CLAWBACKS”)

We believe it is prudent for boards to adopt detailed and stringent policies whereby, in the event of a restatement of financial results, the board will review all performance related bonuses and awards made to senior executives during the period covered by a restatement and will, to the extent feasible, recoup such bonuses to the extent that performance goals were not achieved. While the Dodd-Frank Act mandates that all companies adopt clawback policies that will require companies to develop a policy to recover compensation paid to current and former executives erroneously paid during the three year prior to a restatement, the SEC has yet to finalize the relevant rules. As a result, we expect to see shareholder proposals regarding clawbacks in the upcoming proxy season.

When examining proposals requesting that companies adopt recoupment policies, Glass Lewis will first review any relevant policies currently in place. When the board has already committed to a proper course, and the current policy covers the major tenets of the proposal, we see no need for further action. Further, in some instances, shareholder proposals may call for board action that contravenes legal obligations under existing employment agreements. In other cases proposals may excessively limit the board’s ability to exercise judgment and reasonable discretion, which may or may not be warranted, depending on the specific situation of the company in question. We believe it is reasonable that a mandatory recoupment policy should only affect senior executives and those directly responsible for the company’s accounting errors.

We note that where a company is entering into a new executive employment contract that does not include a clawback provision and the company has had a material restatement in the recent past, Glass Lewis will recommend voting against the responsible members of the compensation committee. The compensation committee has an obligation to shareholders to include reasonable controls in executive contracts to prevent payments in the case of inappropriate behavior.

GOLDEN COFFINS

Glass Lewis does not believe that the payment of substantial, unearned posthumous compensation provides an effective incentive to executives or aligns the interests of executives with those of shareholders. Glass Lewis firmly believes that compensation paid to executives should be clearly linked to the creation of shareholder value. As such, Glass Lewis favors compensation plans centered on the payment of awards contingent upon the satisfaction of sufficiently stretching and appropriate performance metrics. The payment of posthumous unearned and unvested awards should be subject to shareholder approval, if not removed from compensation policies entirely. Shareholders should be skeptical regarding any positive benefit they derive from costly payments made to executives who are no longer in any position to affect company performance.

To that end, we will consider supporting a reasonably crafted shareholder proposal seeking to prohibit, or require shareholder approval of, the making or promising of any survivor benefit payments to senior executives’ estates or beneficiaries. We will not recommend supporting proposals that would, upon passage, violate existing contractual obligations or the terms of compensation plans currently in effect.

RETENTION OF SHARES UNTIL RETIREMENT

We strongly support the linking of executive pay to the creation of long-term sustainable shareholder value and therefore believe shareholders should encourage executives to retain some level of shares acquired through equity compensation programs to provide continued alignment with shareholders. However, generally we do not believe that requiring senior executives to retain all or an unduly high percentage of shares acquired through equity compensation programs following the termination of their employment is the most effective or desirable way to accomplish this goal. Rather, we believe that restricting executives’ ability to exercise all or a supermajority of otherwise vested equity awards until they leave the company may hinder the ability of the compensation committee to both attract and retain executive talent. In our view, otherwise qualified and willing candidates could be dissuaded from accepting employment if he/she believes that his/her compensation could be dramatically affected by financial results unrelated to their own personal performance or tenure at the company. Alternatively, an overly strict policy could encourage existing employees to quit in order to realize the value locked in their incentive awards. As such, we will not typically recommend supporting proposals requiring the retention of significant amounts of equity compensation following termination of employment at target firms.

TAX GROSS-UPS

Tax gross-ups can act as an anti-takeover measure, as larger payouts to executives result in larger gross-ups, which could artificially inflate the ultimate purchase price under a takeover or merger scenario. Additionally, gross-ups can result in opaque compensation packages where shareholders are unlikely to be aware of the total compensation an executive may receive. Further, we believe that in instances where companies have severance agreements in place for executives, payments made pursuant to such arrangements are often large enough to soften the blow of any additional excise taxes. Finally, such payments are not performance based, providing no incentive to recipients and, if large, can be a significant cost to companies.

Given the above, we will typically recommend supporting proposals requesting that a compensation committee adopt a policy that it will not make or promise to make to its senior executives any tax gross-up payments, except those applicable to management employees of the company generally, such as a relocation or expatriate tax equalization policy.

LINKING EXECUTIVE PAY TO ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL CRITERIA

We recognize that a company’s involvement in environmentally sensitive and labor-intensive industries influences the degree to which a firm’s overall strategy must weigh environmental and social concerns. However, we also understand that the value generated by incentivizing executives to prioritize environmental and social issues is difficult to quantify and therefore measure, and necessarily varies among industries and companies.

When reviewing such proposals seeking to tie executive compensation to environmental or social practices, we will review the target firm’s compliance with (or contravention of) applicable laws and regulations, and examine any history of environmental and social related concerns including those resulting in material investigations, lawsuits, fines and settlements. We will also review the firm’s current compensation policies and practice. However, with respect to executive compensation, Glass Lewis generally believes that such policies should be left to the compensation committee.

GOVERNANCE

DECLASSIFICATION OF THE BOARD

Glass Lewis believes that classified boards (or “staggered boards”) do not serve the best interests of shareholders. Empirical studies have shown that: (i) companies with classified boards may show a reduction in firm value; (ii) in the context of hostile takeovers, classified boards operate as a takeover defense, which entrenches management, discourages potential acquirers and delivers less return to shareholders; and (iii) companies with classified boards are less likely to receive takeover bids than those with single class boards. Annual election of directors provides increased accountability and requires directors to focus on the interests of shareholders. When companies have classified boards shareholders are deprived of the right to voice annual opinions on the quality of oversight exercised by their representatives.

Given the above, Glass Lewis believes that classified boards are not in the best interests of shareholders and will continue to recommend shareholders support proposals seeking their repeal.

RIGHT OF SHAREHOLDERS TO CALL A SPECIAL MEETING

Glass Lewis strongly believes that shareholders should have the ability to call meetings of shareholders between annual meetings to consider matters that require prompt attention. However, in order to

prevent abuse and waste of corporate resources by a small minority of shareholders, we believe that shareholders representing at least a sizable minority of shares must support such a meeting prior to its calling. Should the threshold be set too low, companies might frequently be subjected to meetings whose effect could be the disruption of normal business operations in order to focus on the interests of only a small minority of owners. Typically we believe this threshold should not fall below 10-15% of shares, depending on company size.

In our case-by-case evaluations, we consider the following:

•

Company size

•

Shareholder base in both percentage of ownership and type of shareholder (e.g., hedge fund, activist investor, mutual fund, pension fund, etc.)

•

Responsiveness of board and management to shareholders evidenced by progressive shareholder rights policies (e.g., majority voting, declassifying boards, etc.) and reaction to shareholder proposals

•

Company performance and steps taken to improve bad performance (e.g., new executives/directors, spin-offs, etc.)

•

Existence of anti-takeover protections or other entrenchment devices

•

Opportunities for shareholder action (e.g., ability to act by written consent)

•

Existing ability for shareholders to call a special meeting

RIGHT OF SHAREHOLDERS TO ACT BY WRITTEN CONSENT

Glass Lewis strongly supports shareholders’ right to act by written consent. The right to act by written consent enables shareholders to take action on important issues that arise between annual meetings. However, we believe such rights should be limited to at least the minimum number of votes that would be necessary to authorize the action at a meeting at which all shareholders entitled to vote were present and voting.

In addition to evaluating the threshold for which written consent may be used (e.g. majority of votes cast or outstanding), we will consider the following when evaluating such shareholder proposals:

•

Company size

•

Shareholder base in both percentage of ownership and type of shareholder (e.g., hedge fund, activist investor, mutual fund, pension fund, etc.)

•

Responsiveness of board and management to shareholders evidenced by progressive shareholder rights policies (e.g., majority voting, declassifying boards, etc.) and reaction to shareholder proposals

•

Company performance and steps taken to improve bad performance (e.g., new executives/directors, spin offs, etc.)

•

Existence of anti-takeover protections or other entrenchment devices

•

Opportunities for shareholder action (e.g., ability and threshold to call a special meeting)

•

Existing ability for shareholders to act by written consent

BOARD COMPOSITION

Glass Lewis believes the selection and screening process for identifying suitably qualified candidates for a company’s board of directors is one which requires the judgment of many factors, including the balance of skills and talents, the breadth of experience and diversity of candidates and existing board members. Diversity of skills, abilities and points of view can foster the development of a more creative, effective and dynamic board. In general, however, we do not believe that it is in the best interests of shareholders for firms to be beholden to arbitrary rules regarding its board, or committee, composition. We believe such matters should be left to a board’s nominating committee, which is generally responsible for establishing and implementing policies regarding the composition of the board. Members of this committee may be held accountable through the director election process. However, we will consider supporting reasonable, well-crafted proposals to increase board diversity where there is evidence a board’s lack of diversity lead to a decline in shareholder value.

REIMBURSEMENT OF SOLICITATION EXPENSES

Where a dissident shareholder is seeking reimbursement for expenses incurred in waging a contest or submitting a shareholder proposal and has received the support of a majority of shareholders, Glass Lewis generally will recommend in favor of reimbursing the dissident for reasonable expenses. In those rare cases where a shareholder has put his or her own time and money into organizing a successful campaign to unseat a poorly performing director (or directors) or sought support for a shareholder proposal, we feel that the shareholder should be entitled to reimbursement of expenses by other shareholders, via the company. We believe that, in such cases, shareholders express their agreement by virtue of their majority vote for the dissident (or the shareholder proposal) and will share in the expected improvement in company performance.

MAJORITY VOTE FOR THE ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

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

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

CUMULATIVE VOTE FOR THE ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Glass Lewis believes that cumulative voting generally acts as a safeguard for shareholders by ensuring that those who hold a significant minority of shares can elect a candidate of their choosing to the board. This allows the creation of boards that are responsive to the interests of all shareholders rather than just a small group of large holders. However, when a company has both majority voting and cumulative voting in place, there is a higher likelihood of one or more directors not being elected as a result of not receiving a majority vote. This is because shareholders exercising the right to cumulate their votes could unintentionally cause the failed election of one or more directors for whom shareholders do not cumulate votes.

Given the above, where a company (i) has adopted a true majority vote standard; (ii) has simultaneously proposed a management-initiated true majority vote standard; or (iii) is simultaneously the target of a true majority vote standard shareholder proposal, Glass Lewis will recommend voting against cumulative voting proposals due to the potential incompatibility of the two election methods.

For companies that have not adopted a true majority voting standard but have adopted some form of majority voting, Glass Lewis will also generally recommend voting against cumulative voting proposals if the company has not adopted antitakeover protections and has been responsive to shareholders.

SUPERMAJORITY VOTE REQUIREMENTS

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

INDEPENDENT CHAIRMAN

Glass Lewis views an independent chairman as better able to oversee the executives and set a pro-shareholder agenda in the absence of the conflicts that a CEO, executive insider, or close company affiliate may face. Separating the roles of CEO and chairman may lead to a more proactive and effective board of directors. The presence of an independent chairman fosters the creation of a thoughtful and dynamic board, not dominated by the views of senior management. We believe that the separation of these two key roles eliminates the conflict of interest that inevitably occurs when a CEO, or other executive, is responsible for self-oversight. As such, we will typically support reasonably crafted shareholder proposals seeking the installation of an independent chairman at a target company. However, we will not support proposals that include overly prescriptive definitions of “independent.”

PROXY ACCESS

Shareholders have consistently sought mechanisms through which they could secure a meaningful voice in director elections in recent years. While many of these efforts have centered on regulatory changes at the SEC, the United States Congress and the Obama Administration have placed “Proxy Access” in the spotlight of the U.S. Government’s most recent corporate governance-related financial reforms. Regulations allowing or mandating the reimbursement of solicitation expenses for successful board candidates exist and further regulation is pending. A 2009 amendment to the Delaware Corporate Code allows companies to adopt bylaw provisions providing shareholders proxy access.

Further, in July 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, (the “Dodd-Frank Act”). This Act provides the SEC with the authority to adopt rules permitting shareholders to use issuer proxy solicitation materials to nominate director candidates. The SEC received over 500 comments regarding proposed proxy access, some of which questioned the agency’s authority to adopt such a rule. Nonetheless, in August 2010, the SEC adopted final Rule 14a-11, which under certain circumstances, gives shareholders (and shareholder groups) who have collectively held at least 3% of the voting power of a company’s securities continuously for at least three years, the right to nominate up to 25% of a board’s directors and have such nominees included on a company’s ballot and described in its proxy statement. While final Rule 14a-11 was originally scheduled to take effect on November 15, 2010, on October 4, 2010, the SEC announced that it would delay the rule’s implementation following the filing of a lawsuit by the U.S. Chamber Of Commerce and the Business Roundtable. In July 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled against the SEC based on what it perceived to be the SEC’s failure to fully consider the costs and the benefits of the proxy access rules. On September 6, 2011, the SEC announced that it would not be seeking rehearing

of the decision. However, while rule 14a-11 was vacated, the U.S. Court of Appeals issued a stay on the “private ordering” amendments to Rule 14a-8, meaning that companies are no longer able to exclude shareholder proposals requesting that they adopt procedures to allow for shareholder nominees to be included in proxy statements (“Statement by SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro on Proxy Access Ligation.” SEC Press Release. September 6, 2011).

Glass Lewis will consider supporting well-crafted and reasonable proposals requesting proxy access, as we believe that in some cases, adoption of this provision allows for improved shareholder rights and ensures that shareholders who maintain a long-term interest in the target company have an ability to nominate candidates for the board. Glass Lewis reviews proposals requesting proxy access on a case-by-case basis, and will consider the following in our analysis:

•

Company size;

•

The shareholder proponent and their reasoning for putting forth the proposal at the target company;

•

The percentage ownership requested and holding period requirement;

•

Shareholder base in both percentage of ownership and type of shareholder (e.g., hedge fund, activist investor, mutual fund, pension fund, etc.);

•

Responsiveness of board and management to shareholders evidenced by progressive shareholder rights policies (e.g., majority voting, declassifying boards, etc.) and reaction to shareholder proposals;

•

Company performance and steps taken to improve bad performance (e.g., new executives/directors, spin-offs, etc.);

•

Existence of anti-takeover protections or other entrenchment devices; and

•

Opportunities for shareholder action (e.g., ability to act by written consent or right to call a special meeting).

ENVIRONMENT

There are significant financial, legal and reputational risks to companies resulting from poor environmental practices or negligent oversight thereof. We believe part of the board’s role is to ensure that management conducts a complete risk analysis of company operations, including those that have environmental implications. Directors should monitor management’s performance in mitigating environmental risks attendant with operations in order to eliminate or minimize the risks to the company and shareholders.

When management and the board have displayed disregard for environmental risks, have engaged in egregious or illegal conduct, or have failed to adequately respond to current or imminent environmental risks that threaten shareholder value, we believe shareholders should hold directors accountable. When a substantial environmental risk has been ignored or inadequately addressed, we may recommend voting against responsible members of the governance committee, or members of a committee specifically charged with sustainability oversight.

With respect to environmental risk, Glass Lewis believes companies should actively consider their exposure to:

Direct environmental risk: Companies should evaluate financial exposure to direct environmental risks associated with their operations. Examples of direct environmental risks are those associated with

spills, contamination, hazardous leakages, explosions, or reduced water or air quality, among others. Further, firms should consider their exposure to environmental risks emanating from systemic change over which they may have only limited control, such as insurance companies affected by increased storm severity and frequency resulting from climate change.

Risk due to legislation/regulation: Companies should evaluate their exposure to shifts or potential shifts in environmental regulation that affect current and planned operations. Regulation should be carefully monitored in all jurisdictions within which the company operates. We look closely at relevant and proposed legislation and evaluate whether the company has responded appropriately.

Legal and reputational risk: Failure to take action on important issues may carry the risk of damaging negative publicity and potentially costly litigation. While the effect of high-profile campaigns on shareholder value may not be directly measurable, in general we believe it is prudent for firms to evaluate social and environmental risk as a necessary part in assessing overall portfolio risk.

If there is a clear showing that a company has inadequately addressed these risks, Glass Lewis may consider supporting appropriately crafted shareholder proposals requesting increased disclosure, board attention or, in limited circumstances, specific actions. In general, however, we believe that boards and management are in the best position to address these important issues, and will only rarely recommend that shareholders supplant their judgment regarding operations.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND GREEN HOUSE GAS EMISSION DISCLOSURE

Glass Lewis will consider recommending a vote in favor of a reasonably crafted proposal to disclose a company’s climate change and/or greenhouse gas emission strategies when (i) a company has suffered financial impact from reputational damage, lawsuits and/or government investigations, (ii) there is a strong link between climate change and its resultant regulation and shareholder value at the firm, and/or (iii) the company has inadequately disclosed how it has addressed climate change risks. Further, we will typically recommend supporting proposals seeking disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions at companies operating in carbon- or energy- intensive industries, such basic materials, integrated oil and gas, iron and steel, transportation, utilities, and construction. We are not inclined, however, to support proposals seeking emissions reductions, or proposals seeking the implementation of prescriptive policies relating to climate change.

SUSTAINABILITY AND oTHER ENVIRONMENTALLY-RELATED REPORTS

When evaluating requests that a firm produce an environmentally-related report, such as a sustainability report or a report on coal combustion waste or hydraulic fracturing, we will consider, among other things:

•

The financial risk to the company from the firm’s environmental practices and/or regulation;

•

The relevant company’s current level of disclosure;

•

The level of sustainability information disclosed by the firm’s peers;

•

The industry in which the firm operates;

•

The level and type of sustainability concerns/controversies at the relevant firm, if any;

•

The time frame within which the relevant report is to be produced; and

•

The level of flexibility granted to the board in the implementation of the proposal.

In general, we believe that firms operating in extractive industries should produce reports regarding the risks presented by their environmental activities, and will consider recommending a vote for reasonably crafted proposals requesting that such a report be produced; however, as with all shareholder proposals, we will evaluate these report requests on a case by case basis.

OIL SANDS

The procedure required to extract usable crude from oil sands emits significantly more greenhouse gases than do conventional extraction methods. In addition, development of the oil sands has a deleterious effect on the local environment, such as Canada’s boreal forests which sequester significant levels of carbon. We believe firms should strongly consider and evaluate exposure to financial, legal and reputational risks associated with investment in oil sands.

We believe firms should adequately disclose their involvement in the oil sands, including a discussion of exposure to sensitive political and environmental areas. Firms should broadly outline the scope of oil sands operations, describe the commercial methods for producing oil, and discuss the management of greenhouse gas emissions. However, we believe that detailed disclosure of investment assumptions could unintentionally reveal sensitive information regarding operations and business strategy, which would not serve shareholders’ interest. We will review all proposals seeking increased disclosure of oil sands operations in the above context, but will typically not support proposals seeking cessation or curtailment of operations.

SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY

Sustainable forestry provides for the long-term sustainable management and use of trees and other non-timber forest products. Retaining the economic viability of forests is one of the tenets of sustainable forestry, along with encouraging more responsible corporate use of forests. Sustainable land use and the effective management of land are viewed by some shareholders as important in light of the impact of climate change. Forestry certification has emerged as a way that corporations can address prudent forest management. There are currently several primary certification schemes such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (“SFI”) and the Forest Stewardship Council (“FSC”).

There are nine main principles that comprise the SFI: (i) sustainable forestry; (ii) responsible practices; (iii) reforestation and productive capacity; (iv) forest health and productivity; (v) long-term forest and soil productivity; (vi) protection of water resources; (vii) protection of special sites and biodiversity; (viii) legal compliance; and (ix) continual improvement.

The FSC adheres to ten basic principles: (i) compliance with laws and FSC principles; (ii) tenure and use rights and responsibilities; (iii) indigenous peoples’ rights; (iv) community relations and workers’ rights; (v) benefits from the forest; (vi) environmental impact; (vii) management plan; (viii) monitoring and assessment; (ix) maintenance of high conservation value forests; and (x) plantations.

Shareholder proposals regarding sustainable forestry have typically requested that the firm comply with the above SFI or FSC principles as well as to assess the feasibility of phasing out the use of uncertified fiber and increasing the use of certified fiber. We will evaluate target firms’ current mix of certified and uncertified paper and the firms’ general approach to sustainable forestry practices, both absolutely and relative to its peers but will only support proposals of this nature when we believe that the proponent has clearly demonstrated that the implementation of this proposal is clearly linked to an increase in shareholder value.

SOCIAL ISSUES

NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICIES

Companies with records of poor labor relations may face lawsuits, efficiency-draining turnover, poor employee performance, and/or distracting, costly investigations. Moreover, as an increasing number of companies adopt inclusive EEO policies, companies without comprehensive policies may face damaging recruitment, reputational and legal risks. We believe that a pattern of making financial settlements as a result of lawsuits based on discrimination could indicate investor exposure to ongoing financial risk. Where there is clear evidence of employment practices resulting in negative economic exposure, Glass Lewis may support shareholder proposals addressing such risks.

MACBRIDE PRINCIPLES

To promote peace, justice and equality regarding employment in Northern Ireland, Dr. Sean MacBride, founder of Amnesty International and Nobel Peace laureate, proposed the following equal opportunity employment principles:

Increasing the representation of individuals from underrepresented religious groups in the workforce including managerial, supervisory, administrative, clerical and technical jobs;

Adequate security for the protection of minority employees both at the workplace and while traveling to and from work;

The banning of provocative religious or political emblems from the workplace;

All job openings should be publicly advertised and special recruitment efforts should be made to attract applicants from underrepresented religious groups;

Layoff, recall, and termination procedures should not, in practice, favor particular religious groupings;

The abolition of job reservations, apprenticeship restrictions, and differential employment criteria, which discriminate on the basis of religion or ethnic origin;

The development of training programs that will prepare substantial numbers of current minority employees for skilled jobs, including the expansion of existing programs and the creation of new programs to train, upgrade, and improve the skills of minority employees;

The establishment of procedures to assess, identify and actively recruit minority employees with potential for further advancement; and

The appointment of senior management staff member to oversee the company’s affirmative action efforts and setting up of timetables to carry out affirmative action principles.

10.

Proposals requesting the implementation of the above principles are typically proposed at firms that operate, or maintain subsidiaries that operate, in Northern Ireland. In each case, we will examine the company’s current equal employment opportunity policy and the extent to which the company has been subject to protests, fines, or litigation regarding discrimination in the workplace, if any. Further, we will examine any evidence of the firm’s specific record of labor concerns in Northern Ireland.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Glass Lewis believes explicit policies set out by companies’ boards of directors on human rights provides shareholders with the means to evaluate whether the company has taken steps to mitigate risks from its human rights practices. As such, we believe that it is prudent for firms to actively evaluate risks to shareholder value stemming from global activities and human rights practices along entire supply chains. Findings and investigations of human rights abuses can inflict, at a minimum, reputational damage on targeted companies and have the potential to dramatically reduce shareholder value. This is particularly true for companies operating in emerging market countries in extractive industries and in politically unstable regions. As such, while we typically rely on the expertise of the board on these important policy issues, we recognize that, in some instances, shareholders could benefit from increased reporting or further codification of human rights policies.

MILITARY AND US GOVERNMENT BUSINESS POLICIES

Glass Lewis believes that disclosure to shareholders of information on key company endeavors is important. However, we generally do not support resolutions that call for shareholder approval of policy statements for or against government programs, most of which are subject to thorough review by the federal government and elected officials at the national level. We also do not support proposals favoring disclosure of information where similar disclosure is already mandated by law, unless circumstances exist that warrant the additional disclosure.

FOREIGN GOVERNMENT BUSINESS POLICIES

Where a corporation operates in a foreign country, Glass Lewis believes that the company and board should maintain sufficient controls to prevent illegal or egregious conduct with the potential to decrease shareholder value, examples of which include bribery, money laundering, severe environmental violations or proven human rights violations. We believe that shareholders should hold board members, and in particular members of the audit committee and CEO, accountable for these issues when they face reelection, as these concerns may subject the company to financial risk. In some instances, we will support appropriately crafted shareholder proposals specifically addressing concerns with the target firm’s actions outside its home jurisdiction.

HEALTH CARE REFORM PRINCIPLES

Health care reform in the United States has long been a contentious political issue and Glass Lewis therefore believes firms must evaluate and mitigate the level of risk to which they may be exposed regarding potential changes in health care legislation. Over the last several years, Glass Lewis has reviewed multiple shareholder proposals requesting that boards adopt principles for comprehensive health reform, such as the following based upon principles reported by the Institute of Medicine:

•

Health care coverage should be universal;

•

Health care coverage should be continuous;

•

Health care coverage should be affordable to individuals and families;

•

The health insurance strategy should be affordable and sustainable for society; and

•

Health insurance should enhance health and well-being by promoting access to high-quality care that is effective, efficient, safe, timely, patient-centered and equitable.

In general, Glass Lewis believes that individual corporate board rooms are not the appropriate forum in which to address evolving and contentious national policy issues. The adoption of a narrow set of principles could limit the board’s ability to comply with new regulation or to appropriately and flexibly respond to health care issues as they arise. As such, barring a compelling reason to the contrary, we typically do not support the implementation of national health care reform principles at the company level.

TOBACCO

Glass Lewis recognizes the contentious nature of the production, procurement, marketing and selling of tobacco products. We also recognize that tobacco companies are particularly susceptible to reputational and regulatory risk due to the nature of its operations. As such, we will consider supporting uniquely tailored and appropriately crafted shareholder proposals requesting increased information or the implementation of suitably broad policies at target firms on a case-by-case basis. However, we typically do not support proposals requesting that firms shift away from, or significantly alter, the legal production or marketing of core products.

REPORTING CONTRIBUTIONS AND POLITICAL SPENDING

While corporate contributions to national political parties and committees controlled by federal officeholders are prohibited under federal law, corporations can legally donate to state and local candidates, organizations registered under 26 USC Sec. 527 of the Internal Revenue Code and state-level political committees. There is, however, no standardized manner in which companies must disclose this information. As such, shareholders often must search through numerous campaign finance reports and detailed tax documents to ascertain even limited information. Corporations also frequently use trade associations, which are not required to report funds they receive for or spend on political activity, as a means for corporate political action.

Further, in 2010 the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision by the Supreme Court affirmed that corporations are entitled to the same free speech laws as individuals and that it is legal for a corporation to donate to political causes without monetary limit. While the decision did not remove bans on direct contributions to candidates, companies are now able to contribute indirectly, and substantially, to candidates through political organizations. Therefore, it appears companies will enjoy greater latitude in their political actions by this recent decision.

When evaluating whether a requested report would benefit shareholders, Glass Lewis seeks answers to the following three key questions:

•

Is the Company’s disclosure comprehensive and readily accessible?

•

How does the Company’s political expenditure policy and disclosure compare to its peers?

•

What is the Company’s current level of oversight?

Glass Lewis will consider supporting a proposal seeking increased disclosure of corporate political expenditure and contributions if the firm’s current disclosure is insufficient, or if the firm’s disclosure is significantly lacking compared to its peers. Further, we will typically recommend voting for proposals requesting reports on lobbying or political contributions and expenditures when there is no explicit board oversight or there is evidence of inadequate board oversight. Given that political donations are strategic decisions intended to increase shareholder value and have the potential to negatively affect the company, we believe the board should either implement processes and procedures to ensure the proper use of the funds or closely evaluate the process and procedures used by management. We will also consider supporting such proposals when there is verification, or credible allegations, that the company is mismanaging corporate funds through political donations. If Glass Lewis discovers particularly egregious actions by the company, we will consider recommending voting against the governance committee members or other responsible directors.

ANIMAL WELFARE

Glass Lewis believes that it is prudent for management to assess potential exposure to regulatory, legal and reputational risks associated with all business practices, including those related to animal welfare. A high-profile campaign launched against a company could result in shareholder action, a reduced customer base, protests and potentially costly litigation. However, in general, we believe that the board and management are in the best position to determine policies relating to the care and use of animals. As such, we will typically vote against proposals seeking to eliminate or limit board discretion regarding animal welfare unless there is a clear and documented link between the board’s policies and the degradation of shareholder value.

INTERNET CENSORSHIP

Legal and ethical questions regarding the use and management of the Internet and the worldwide web have been present since access was first made available to the public almost twenty years ago. Prominent among these debates are the issues of privacy, censorship, freedom of expression and freedom of access. Glass Lewis believes that it is prudent for management to assess its potential exposure to risks relating to the internet management and censorship policies. As has been seen at other firms, perceived violation of user privacy or censorship of Internet access can lead to high-profile campaigns that could potentially result in decreased customer bases or potentially costly litigation. In general, however, we believe that management and boards are best equipped to deal with the evolving nature of this issue in various jurisdictions of operation.

LOGO

San Francisco

Headquarters

Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC

One Sansome Street

Suite 3300

San Francisco, CA 94104

Tel: +1 415-678-4110

Tel: +1 888-800-7001

Fax: +1 415-357-0200

New York

Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC

48 Wall Street

15th Floor

New York, N.Y. 10005

Tel: +1 212-797-3777

Fax: +1 212-980-4716

Australia

CGI Glass Lewis

Suite 8.01, Level 8

261 George Street

Sydney NSW 2000

Australia

Tel: +61 2 9299 9266

Fax: +61 2 9299 1866

Ireland

Glass, Lewis & Co., Europe Ltd.

6th Floor, Riverpoint

Bishop’s Quay

Limerick, Ireland

Tel: +353 61 404700

Fax: +353 61 404711

Please direct general inquiries to info@glasslewis.com

LOGO

PROXY PAPER GUIDELINES

2012 PROXY SEASON

AN OVERVIEW OF

THE GLASS LEWIS APPROACH TO INTERNATIONAL PROXY ADVICE

International

CONTENTS


I. ELECTION OF DIRECTORS			3
Board Composition			4
Slate Elections			4
Board Committee Composition			4
Review of Risk Management Controls			4
Classified Boards			4
II. FINANCIAL REPORTING			5
Accounts and Reports			5
Income Allocation (Distribution of Dividend)			5
Appointment of Auditors and Authority to Set Fees			5
III. COMPENSATION			6
Compensation Report/Compensation Policy			6
Long Term Incentive Plans			6
Director Compensation			7
Limits on Executive Compensation			7
IV. GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE			8
Amendments to the Articles of Association			8
Anti-Takeover Measures			8
Increase in Authorized Shares			8
Issuance of Shares			9
Repurchase of Shares			9
V. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL RISK			10

PLEASE NOTE: GLASS LEWIS CREATES SEPARATE PROXY VOTING POLICIES DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL COUNTRY.

THE FOLLOWING IS A DISTILLATION OF THE VARIOUS COUNTRY-SPECIFIC POLICIES.

I. ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Boards are put in place to represent shareholders and protect their interests. Glass Lewis seeks boards with a proven record of protecting shareholders and delivering value over the medium- and long-term. In our view, boards working to protect and enhance the best interests of shareholders typically include some independent directors (the percentage will vary by local market practice and regulations), boast a record of positive performance, have directors with diverse backgrounds, and appoint directors with a breadth and depth of experience.

BOARD COMPOSITION

When companies disclose sufficient relevant information, we look at each individual on the board and examine his or her relationships with the company, the company’s executives and with other board members. The purpose of this inquiry is to determine whether pre-existing personal, familial or financial relationships are likely to impact the decisions of that board member. Where the company does not disclose the names and backgrounds of director nominees with sufficient time in advance of the shareholder meeting to evaluate their independence and performance, we will consider recommending abstaining on the directors’ election.

We vote in favor of governance structures that will drive positive performance and enhance shareholder value. The most crucial test of a board’s commitment to the company and to its shareholders is the performance of the board and its members. The performance of directors in their capacity as board members and as executives of the company, when applicable, and in their roles at other companies where they serve is critical to this evaluation.

We believe a director is independent if he or she has no material financial, familial or other current relationships with the company, its executives or other board members except for service on the board and standard fees paid for that service. Relationships that have existed within the three-five years prior to the inquiry are usually considered to be “current” for purposes of this test.

In our view, a director is affiliated if he or she has a material financial, familial or other relationship with the company or its executives, but is not an employee of the company. This includes directors whose employers have a material financial relationship with the Company. This also includes a director who owns or controls 10-20% or more of the company’s voting stock.

We define an inside director as one who simultaneously serves as a director and as an employee of the company. This category may include a chairman of the board who acts as an employee of the company or is paid as an employee of the company.

Although we typically vote for the election of directors, we will recommend voting against directors for the following reasons:

•

A director who attends less than 75% of the board and applicable committee meetings.

•

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

We also feel that the following conflicts of interest may hinder a director’s performance and will therefore recommend voting against a:

•

CFO who presently sits on the board.

•

Director who presently sits on an excessive number of boards.

•

Director, or a director whose immediate family member, provides material professional services to the company at any time during the past five years.

•

Director, or a director whose immediate family member, engages in airplane, real estate or other similar deals, including perquisite type grants from the company.

•

Director with an interlocking directorship.

SLATE ELECTIONS

In some countries, companies elect their board members as a slate, whereby shareholders are unable to vote on the election of each individual director, but rather are limited to voting for or against the board as a whole. If significant issues exist concerning one or more of the nominees or in markets where directors are generally elected individually, we will recommend voting against the entire slate of directors.

BOARD COMMITTEE COMPOSITION

We believe that independent directors should serve on a company’s audit, compensation, nominating and governance committees. We will support boards with such a structure and encourage change where this is not the case.

REVIEW OF RISK MANAGEMENT CONTROLS

We believe companies, particularly financial firms, should have a dedicated risk committee, or a committee of the board charged with risk oversight, as well as a chief risk officer who reports directly to that committee, not to the CEO or another executive. In cases where a company has disclosed a sizable loss or writedown, and where a reasonable analysis indicates that the company’s board-level risk committee should be held accountable for poor oversight, we would recommend that shareholders vote against such committee members on that basis. In addition, in cases where a company maintains a significant level of financial risk exposure but fails to disclose any explicit form of board-level risk oversight (committee or otherwise), we will consider recommending to vote against the chairman of the board on that basis.

CLASSIFIED BOARDS

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

II. FINANCIAL REPORTING

ACCOUNTS AND REPORTS

Many countries require companies to submit the annual financial statements, director reports and independent auditors’ reports to shareholders at a general meeting. Shareholder approval of such a proposal does not discharge the board or management. We will usually recommend voting in favor of these proposals except when there are concerns about the integrity of the statements/reports. However, should the audited financial statements, auditor’s report and/or annual report not be published at the writing of our report, we will recommend that shareholders abstain from voting on this proposal.

INCOME ALLOCATION (DISTRIBUTION OF DIVIDEND)

In many countries, companies must submit the allocation of income for shareholder approval. We will generally recommend voting for such a proposal. However, we will give particular scrutiny to cases where the company’s dividend payout ratio is exceptionally low or excessively high relative to its peers and the company has not provided a satisfactory explanation.

APPOINTMENT OF AUDITORS AND AUTHORITY TO SET FEES

We believe that role of the auditor is crucial in protecting shareholder value. Like directors, auditors should be free from conflicts of interest and should assiduously avoid situations that require them to make choices between their own interests and the interests of the shareholders.

We generally support management’s recommendation regarding the selection of an auditor and support granting the board the authority to fix auditor fees except in cases where we believe the independence of an incumbent auditor or the integrity of the audit has been compromised.

However, we recommend voting against ratification of the auditor and/or authorizing the board to set auditor fees for the following reasons:

•

When audit fees added to audit-related fees total less than one-half of total fees.

•

When there have been any recent restatements or late filings by the company where the auditor bears some responsibility for the restatement or late filing (e.g., a restatement due to a reporting error).

•

When the company has aggressive accounting policies.

•

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

•

When there are other relationships or issues of concern with the auditor that might suggest a conflict between the interest of the auditor and the interests of shareholders.

•

When the company is changing auditors as a result of a disagreement between the company and the auditor on a matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure or auditing scope or procedures.

III. COMPENSATION

COMPENSATION REPORT/COMPENSATION POLICY

We closely review companies’ remuneration practices and disclosure as outlined in company filings to evaluate management-submitted advisory compensation report and policy vote proposals. In evaluating these proposals, which can be binding or non-binding depending on the country, we examine how well the company has disclosed information pertinent to its compensation programs, the extent to which overall compensation is tied to performance, the performance metrics selected by the company and the levels of remuneration in comparison to company performance and that of its peers.

We will usually recommend voting against approval of the compensation report or policy when the following occur:

•

Gross disconnect between pay and performance;

•

Performance goals and metrics are inappropriate or insufficiently challenging;

•

Lack of disclosure regarding performance metrics and goals as well as the extent to which the performance metrics, targets and goals are implemented to enhance company performance and encourage prudent risk-taking;

•

Excessive discretion afforded to or exercised by management or the compensation committee to deviate from defined performance metrics and goals in making awards;

•

Ex gratia or other non-contractual payments have been made and the reasons for making the payments have not been fully explained or the explanation is unconvincing;

•

Guaranteed bonuses are established;

•

There is no clawback policy; or

•

Egregious or excessive bonuses, equity awards or severance payments.

LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLANS

Glass Lewis recognizes the value of equity-based incentive programs. When used appropriately, they can provide a vehicle for linking an employee’s pay to a company’s performance, thereby aligning their interests with those of shareholders. Tying a portion of an employee’s compensation to the performance of the Company provides an incentive to maximize share value. In addition, equity-based compensation is an effective way to attract, retain and motivate key employees.

In order to allow for meaningful shareholder review, we believe that incentive programs should generally include: (i) specific and appropriate performance goals; (ii) a maximum award pool; and (iii) a maximum award amount per employee. In addition, the payments made should be reasonable relative to the performance of the business and total compensation to those covered by the plan should be in line with compensation paid by the Company’s peers.

PERFORMANCE-BASED EQUITY COMPENSATION

Glass Lewis believes in performance-based equity compensation plans for senior executives. We feel that executives should be compensated with equity when their performance and that of the company warrants such rewards. While we do not believe that equity-based compensation plans for all employees need to be based on overall company performance, we do support such limitations for grants to senior

executives (although even some equity-based compensation of senior executives without performance criteria is acceptable, such as in the case of moderate incentive grants made in an initial offer of employment).

Boards often argue that such a proposal would hinder them in attracting talent. We believe that boards can develop a consistent, reliable approach, as boards of many companies have, that would still attract executives who believe in their ability to guide the company to achieve its targets. We generally recommend that shareholders vote in favor of performance-based option requirements.

There should be no retesting of performance conditions for all share- and option- based incentive schemes. We will generally recommend that shareholders vote against performance-based equity compensation plans that allow for re-testing.

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

Glass Lewis believes that non-employee directors should receive appropriate types and levels of compensation for the time and effort they spend serving on the board and its committees. Director fees should be reasonable in order to retain and attract qualified individuals. In particular, we support compensation plans that include non performance-based equity awards, which help to align the interests of outside directors with those of shareholders.

Glass Lewis compares the costs of these plans to the plans of peer companies with similar market capitalizations in the same country to help inform its judgment on this issue.

RETIREMENT BENEFITS FOR DIRECTORS

We will typically recommend voting against proposals to grant retirement benefits to non-executive directors. Such extended payments can impair the objectivity and independence of these board members. Directors should receive adequate compensation for their board service through initial and annual fees.

LIMITS ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

As a general rule, Glass Lewis believes that shareholders should not be involved in setting executive compensation. Such matters should be left to the board’s compensation committee. We view the election of directors, and specifically those who sit on the compensation committee, as the appropriate mechanism for shareholders to express their disapproval or support of board policy on this issue. Further, we believe that companies whose pay-for-performance is in line with their peers should be granted the flexibility to compensate their executives in a manner that drives growth and profit.

However, Glass Lewis favors performance-based compensation as an effective means of motivating executives to act in the best interests of shareholders. Performance-based compensation may be limited if a chief executive’s pay is capped at a low level rather than flexibly tied to the performance of the company.

IV. GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

AMENDMENTS TO THE ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION

We will evaluate proposed amendments to a company’s articles of association on a case-by-case basis. We are opposed to the practice of bundling several amendments under a single proposal because it prevents shareholders from evaluating each amendment on its own merits. In such cases, we will analyze each change individually and will recommend voting for the proposal only when we believe that the amendments on balance are in the best interests of shareholders.

ANTI-TAKEOVER MEASURES

POISON PILLS (SHAREHOLDER RIGHTS PLANS)

Glass Lewis believes that poison pill plans generally are not in the best interests of shareholders. Specifically, they can reduce management accountability by substantially limiting opportunities for corporate takeovers. Rights plans can thus prevent shareholders from receiving a buy-out premium for their stock.

We believe that boards should be given wide latitude in directing the activities of the company and charting the company’s course. However, on an issue such as this where the link between the financial interests of shareholders and their right to consider and accept buyout offers is so substantial, we believe that shareholders should be allowed to vote on whether or not they support such a plan’s implementation.

In certain limited circumstances, we will support a limited poison pill to accomplish a particular objective, such as the closing of an important merger, or a pill that contains what we believe to be a reasonable ‘qualifying offer’ clause.

SUPERMAJORITY VOTE REQUIREMENTS

Glass Lewis favors a simple majority voting structure. Supermajority vote requirements act as impediments to shareholder action on ballot items that are critical to our interests. One key example is in the takeover context where supermajority vote requirements can strongly limit shareholders’ input in making decisions on such crucial matters as selling the business.

INCREASE IN AUTHORIZED SHARES

Glass Lewis believes that having adequate capital stock available for issuance is important to the operation of a company. We will generally support proposals when a company could reasonably use the requested shares for financing, stock splits and stock dividends. While we think that having adequate shares to allow management to make quick decisions and effectively operate the business is critical, we prefer that, for significant transactions, management come to shareholders to justify their use of additional shares rather than providing a blank check in the form of large pools of unallocated shares available for any purpose.

In general, we will support proposals to increase authorized shares up to 100% of the number of shares currently authorized unless, after the increase the company would be left with less than 30% of its authorized shares outstanding.

ISSUANCE OF SHARES

Issuing additional shares can dilute existing holders in some circumstances. Further, the availability of additional shares, where the board has discretion to implement a poison pill, can often serve as a deterrent to interested suitors. Accordingly, where we find that the company has not disclosed a detailed plan for use of the proposed shares, or where the number of shares requested are excessive, we typically recommend against the issuance. In the case of a private placement, we will also consider whether the company is offering a discount to its share price.

In general, we will support proposals to issue shares (with pre-emption rights) when the requested increase is the lesser of (i) the unissued ordinary share capital; or (ii) a sum equal to one-third of the issued ordinary share capital. This authority should not exceed five years. In some countries, if the proposal contains a figure greater than one-third, the company should explain the nature of the additional amounts.

We will also generally support proposals to suspend pre-emption rights for a maximum of 5-20% of the issued ordinary share capital of the company, depending on the country in which the company is located. This authority should not exceed five years, or less for some countries.

REPURCHASE OF SHARES

We will recommend voting in favor of a proposal to repurchase shares when the plan includes the following provisions: (i) a maximum number of shares which may be purchased (typically not more than 15% of the issued share capital); and (ii) a maximum price which may be paid for each share (as a percentage of the market price).

V. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL RISK

We believe companies should actively evaluate risks to long-term shareholder value stemming from exposure to environmental and social risks and should incorporate this information into their overall business risk profile. In addition, we believe companies should consider their exposure to changes in environmental or social regulation with respect to their operations as well as related legal and reputational risks. Companies should disclose to shareholders both the nature and magnitude of such risks as well as steps they have taken or will take to mitigate those risks.

When we identify situations where shareholder value is at risk, we may recommend voting in favor of a reasonable and well-targeted shareholder proposal if we believe supporting the proposal will promote disclosure of and/or mitigate significant risk exposure. In limited cases where a company has failed to adequately mitigate risks stemming from environmental or social practices, we will recommend shareholders vote against: (i) ratification of board and/or management acts; (ii) approving a company’s accounts and reports and/or; (iii) directors (in egregious cases).

THIS DOCUMENT SETS FORTH THE PROXY VOTING POLICY AND GUIDELINES OF GLASS, LEWIS & CO., LLC. THE POLICIES INCLUDED HEREIN HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BASED ON GLASS LEWIS’ EXPERIENCE WITH PROXY VOTING AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE ISSUES AND ARE NOT TAILORED TO ANY SPECIFIC PERSON. MOREOVER, THESE GUIDELINES ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE EXHAUSTIVE AND DO NOT INCLUDE ALL POTENTIAL VOTING ISSUES. THE INFORMATION INCLUDED HEREIN IS REVIEWED PERIODICALLY AND UPDATED OR REVISED AS NECESSARY. GLASS LEWIS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN OR NOT TAKEN ON THE BASIS OF THIS INFORMATION. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF GLASS LEWIS.

LOGO

San Francisco

Headquarters

Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC

One Sansome Street

Suite 3300

San Francisco, CA 94104

Tel: +1 415-678-4110

Tel: +1 888-800-7001

Fax: +1 415-357-0200

New york

Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC

48 Wall Street

15th Floor

New york, N.y. 10005

Tel: +1 212-797-3777

Fax: +1 212-980-4716

Australia

CGI Glass Lewis Pty Limited

Suite 8.01, Level 8,

261 George St

Sydney NSW 2000

Australia

Tel: +61 2 9299 9266

Fax: +61 2 9299 1866

Switzerland

Glass Lewis International, Ltd.

Via Pazzalino 25

6962 Lugano Viganello

Switzerland

Phone: +41 76 346 0673

Fax: +41 91 260 6182

Ireland

Glass Lewis Europe, Ltd.

6th Floor, Riverpoint

Bishop’s Quay

Limerick, Ireland

Phone: +353 61 404700

Fax: +353 61 404711

Please direct general inquiries to info@glasslewis.com

PART C: OTHER INFORMATION

ITEM 28.

EXHIBITS.


(a)		Amended and Restated Agreement and Declaration of Trust, dated November 29, 2005, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (a) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 81 to Registrant's Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File No. 811-7704), electronically filed with the SEC on April 28, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “PEA No. 81”).

(b)		Amended and Restated By-Laws of the Registrant, adopted as of November 16, 2004, are incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (b) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 70 to Registrant's Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File No. 811-7704), electronically filed with the SEC on February 11, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “PEA No. 70”).

(c)(i)		Article III, Section 5, Article V, Article VI, Article VIII, Section 4 and Article IX, Sections 1, 5 and 7 of the Amended and Restated Agreement and Declaration of Trust, dated November 29, 2005, referenced in Exhibit (a) above, are incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (a) of PEA No. 81.

(c)(ii)		Articles 9 and 11 of the Amended and Restated Bylaws of the Registrant, adopted as of November 16, 2004, referenced in Exhibit (b) above, are incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (b) of PEA No. 70.

(d)(i)		Investment Advisory and Administration Agreement between Registrant and Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. (“Investment Adviser”), dated June 15, 1994, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 5(a) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 21 to Registrant's Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File No. 811-7704), electronically filed with the SEC on December 17, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as “PEA No. 21”).

(d)(ii)		Amended Schedules A and B, dated July 1, 2009, to the Investment Advisory and Administration Agreement between Registrant and the Investment Adviser, dated June 15, 1994, are incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (d)(ii) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 100 to Registrant's Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File No. 811-7704), electronically filed with the SEC on December 10, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “PEA No. 100”).

(d)(iii)		Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement between Registrant, Investment Adviser, and Harris Associates LP, dated January 11, 2002, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (d)(x) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 48 to Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File No. 811-7704), electronically filed with the SEC on May 30, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “PEA No. 48”).

(d)(iv)		Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement between Registrant, Investment Adviser, and TAMRO Capital Partners, LLC, dated July 1, 2007, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (d)(viii) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 98 to Registrant's Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File No. 811-7704), electronically filed with the SEC on February 27, 2009.

(d)(v)		Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement between Registrant, Investment Adviser, and William Blair & Company, L.L.C., dated January 31, 2002, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (d)(xvii) of PEA No. 48.

(d)(vi)		Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement between Investment Adviser and Mondrian Investment Partners Limited, dated May 24, 2006, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (d)(xiv) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 83 to Registrant's Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File No. 811-7704), electronically filed with the SEC on February 28, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “PEA No. 83”).

(d)(vii)		Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement between Investment Adviser and WHV Investment Management (formerly Wentworth, Hauser & Violich), dated May 23, 2006, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (d)(xv) of PEA No. 83.

(d)(viii)		Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement between Investment Adviser and American Century Investment Management, Inc., dated June 3, 2010, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (d)(x) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 106 of the Registrant’s Registration Statement, filed February 25, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “PEA No. 106”).

(d)(ix)		Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement between Investment Adviser and Neuberger Berman Management LLC, dated May 4, 2009, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (d)(xi) of PEA No. 106.

(d)(x)		Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement between Investment Adviser and Mellon Capital Management Corporation, dated January 20, 2012, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (d)(x) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 112 of the Registrant’s Registration Statement, filed February 27, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “PEA No. 112”).


(d)(xi)		Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement between Investment Adviser and Wellington Management Company, LLP, dated October 2, 2012, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (d)(xi) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 118 of the Registrant’s Registration Statement, filed October 17, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “PEA No. 118”).

(d)(xii)		Amendment to Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement between Registrant, Investment Adviser and Harris Associates LP, dated March 26, 2003, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (d)(xxii) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 60 of the Registrant’s Registration Statement, filed February 26, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as “PEA No. 60”).

(d)(xiii)		Amendment to Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement between Registrant, Investment Adviser, and William Blair & Company, L.L.C., dated March 26, 2003, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (d)(xxix) of PEA No. 60.

(d)(xiv)		Amendment to Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement between Registrant, Investment Adviser, and American Century Investment Management, Inc., dated July 16, 2010, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (d)(xvi) of PEA No. 106.

(d)(xv)		Amendment to Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement between Registrant, Investment Adviser and Harris Associates LP, dated December 2, 2004, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (d)(xvii) of PEA No. 106.

(d)(xvi)		Amendment to Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement between Registrant, Investment Adviser and William Blair & Company, L.L.C., dated December 2, 2004, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (d)(xx) of PEA No. 106.

(d)(xvii)		Amendment to Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement between Registrant, Investment Adviser and William Blair & Company, L.L.C., dated April 18, 2005, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (d)(xxi) of PEA No. 106.

(d)(xviii)		Amendment to Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement between Registrant, Investment Adviser and Neuberger Berman Management LLC, dated December 9, 2011, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (d)(xvii) of PEA No. 112.

(d)(xix)		Expense Limitation Agreement by and between Registrant, the Investment Adviser and Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (“Schwab”), dated July 1, 2009, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (d)(xxi) of PEA No. 100.

(e)		Amended and Restated Distribution Agreement between Registrant and Schwab, dated July 1, 2009, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (7)(a)(1) of the Registrant's Registration Statement on Form N-14 (File No. 333-161527) electronically filed with the SEC on August 24, 2009, and by reference to Exhibit (e) of PEA No. 100.

(f)		Inapplicable.

(g)(i)		Custodian Agreement and between Registrant and Brown Brothers Harriman & Co., dated June 29, 2001, is incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit (g)(vi), of Post-Effective Amendment No. 55 to Registrant's Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File No. 811-7704), electronically filed with the SEC on June 30, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “PEA No. 55”).

(g)(ii)		Amended Schedule A to Custodian Agreement between Registrant and Brown Brothers Harriman & Co., dated July 1, 2003, referenced at Exhibit (g)(vii), is incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit (g)(viii) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 56 to Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File No. 811-7704), electronically filed with the SEC on July 16, 2003.

(g)(iii)		Amended and Restated Master Custodian Agreement between Registrant and State Street Bank and Trust Company, dated October 17, 2005, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (g)(ix) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 79 to Registrant's Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File No. 811-7704), electronically filed with the SEC on February 27, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “PEA No. 79”).

(h)(i)		License Agreement between Schwab Capital Trust and Standard & Poor's is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (h) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 32 to Registrant's Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File No. 811-7704), electronically filed on February 26, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “PEA No. 32”).

(h)(ii)		Transfer Agency and Service Agreement between Registrant and Boston Financial Data Services, Inc., dated July 1, 2009, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (h)(ii) of PEA No. 100.

(h)(iii)		Shareholder Servicing Plan, dated July 1, 2009, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (h)(iii) of PEA No. 100.


(h)(iv)		Master Fund Accounting and Services Agreement between Registrant and State Street Bank and Trust Company, dated October 1, 2005, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (g)(i) of PEA No. 79.

(i)		To be filed by amendment.

(j)(i)		To be filed by amendment.

(j)(ii)		Power of Attorney executed by Mariann Byerwalter, dated September 13, 2010, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (j)(ii) of PEA No. 106.

(j)(iii)		Power of Attorney executed by William A. Hasler, dated September 13, 2010, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (j)(iii) of PEA No. 106.

(j)(iv)		Power of Attorney executed by Gerald B. Smith, dated September 13, 2010, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (j)(iv) of PEA No. 106.

(j)(v)		Power of Attorney executed by Charles R. Schwab, dated September 15, 2010, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (j)(v) of PEA No. 106.

(j)(vi)		Power of Attorney executed by David L Mahoney, dated February 16, 2011, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (j)(vi) of PEA No. 106.

(j)(vii)		Power of Attorney executed by Kiran M. Patel, dated February 16, 2011, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (j)(vii) of PEA No. 106.

(j)(viii)		Power of Attorney executed by George Pereira, dated September 13, 2010, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (j)(viii) of PEA No. 106.

(j)(ix)		Power of Attorney executed by Walter W. Bettinger, II, dated September 13, 2010, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (j)(ix) of PEA No. 106.

(j)(x)		Power of Attorney executed by Joseph Wender, dated September 13, 2010, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (j)(x) of PEA No. 106.

(j)(xi)		Power of Attorney executed by John F. Cogan, dated September 13, 2010, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (j)(xi) of PEA No. 106.

(j)(xii)		Power of Attorney executed by Marie Chandoha, dated December 3, 2010, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (j)(xii) of PEA No. 106.

(k)		Inapplicable.

(l)(i)		Purchase Agreement for the Schwab International Index Fund, dated June 17, 1993, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 13(a) of PEA No. 21.

(l)(ii)		Purchase Agreement for the Schwab Small-Cap Index Fund, dated October 13, 1993, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 13(b) of PEA No. 21.

(l)(iii)		Purchase Agreement for the Schwab MarketTrack Portfolios - Growth Portfolio, Balanced Portfolio and Conservative Portfolio (formerly Schwab Asset Director^® - High Growth, Schwab Asset Director - Balanced Growth, and Schwab Asset Director - Conservative Growth Funds) is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 13(c) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 6 to Registrant's Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File No. 811-7704), electronically filed with the SEC on December 15, 1996.

(l)(iv)		Purchase Agreement for the Schwab S&P 500 Fund-Investor Shares and e.Shares^® is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 13(d) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 7 to Registrant's Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File No. 811-7704), electronically filed with the SEC on February 27, 1996.

(l)(v)		Purchase Agreement for the Schwab Core Equity Fund (formerly Schwab Analytics Fund^®) is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 13(e) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 13 of Registrant's Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File No. 811-7704), electronically filed with the SEC on October 10, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “PEA No. 13”).


(l)(vi)		Purchase Agreement for Laudus International MarketMasters Fund (formerly Schwab International MarketMasters Fund, Schwab MarketManager International Portfolio and as Schwab OneSource Portfolios-International) is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 13(f) of PEA No. 13.

(l)(vii)		Purchase Agreement for Laudus U.S. MarketMasters Fund and Laudus Balanced MarketMasters Fund (formerly Schwab U.S. MarketMasters Fund and Schwab Balanced MarketMasters Fund, Schwab MarketManager^TM Growth Portfolio and Balanced Portfolio and as Schwab OneSource Portfolios-Growth Allocation and Schwab OneSource Portfolios-Balanced Allocation) is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 13(g), of Post-Effective Amendment No. 14 to Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File No. 811-7704), electronically filed with the SEC on December 18, 1996.

(l)(viii)		Purchase Agreement for Laudus Small-Cap MarketMasters Fund (formerly Schwab Small-Cap MarketMasters Fund, Schwab MarketManager Small Cap Portfolio and as Schwab OneSource^® Portfolios-Small Company) is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 13(h) of PEA No. 21.

(l)(ix)		Purchase Agreement for Schwab MarketTrack^TM All Equity Portfolio (formerly Schwab Asset Director-Aggressive Growth Fund) is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 13(i) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 26 to Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File No. 811-7704), electronically filed with the SEC on August 14, 1998.

(l)(x)		Purchase Agreement for Schwab Institutional Select S&P 500 Fund, Schwab Institutional Select Large-Cap Value Index Fund, and Schwab Institutional Select Small-Cap Value Index Fund (formerly Institutional Select S&P 500 Fund, Institutional Select Large-Cap Value Index Fund, and Institutional Select Small-Cap Value Index Fund) is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (l)(x) of PEA No 32.

(l)(xi)		Purchase Agreement for Schwab Total Stock Market Index Fund is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (l)(xi) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 33 to Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File No. 811-7704), electronically filed with the SEC on April 15, 1999.

(l)(xii)		Purchase Agreement for Schwab Financial Services Fund, Schwab Health Care Fund, and Schwab Technology Fund (formerly Schwab Focus Funds), is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (l)(xii) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 40 to Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File No. 811-7704), electronically filed with the SEC on February 26, 2001.

(l)(xiii)		Purchase Agreement for Schwab Hedged Equity Fund is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (l)(xiii) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 49 to Registrant's Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File No. 811-7704), electronically filed with the SEC on August 6, 2002.

(l)(xiv)		Purchase Agreement for Schwab Small-Cap Equity Fund is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (l)(xxiv) of PEA No. 55.

(l)(xv)		Purchase Agreement for Schwab Dividend Equity Fund is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (l)(xv) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 58 to Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File No. 811-7704), electronically filed with the SEC on December 11, 2003.

(l)(xvi)		Purchase Agreement for Schwab Premier Equity Fund is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (l)(xvi) of PEA No. 70.

(l)(xvii)		Purchase Agreement for Schwab Fundamental US Large Company Index Fund, Schwab Fundamental US Small-Mid Company Index Fund, and Schwab Fundamental International Large Company Index Fund is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (l)(xvii) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 84 to Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File No. 811-7704), electronically filed with the SEC on April 2, 2007.

(l)(xviii)		Purchase Agreement for Schwab Fundamental Emerging Markets Index Fund and Schwab Fundamental International Small-Mid Company Index Fund is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (l)(xviii) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 88 to Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File No. 811-7704), electronically filed with the SEC on December 15, 2007.

(l)(xix)		Purchase Agreement for Schwab Monthly Income Fund - Moderate Payout, Schwab Monthly Income Fund - Enhanced Payout, and Schwab Monthly Income Fund - Maximum Payout is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (l)(xix) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 94 to Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File No. 811-7704), electronically filed with the SEC on March 3, 2008.


(m)		Inapplicable.

(n)		Amended and Restated Multiple Class Plan, adopted on February 28, 1996, amended and restated as of February 28, 2007, amended and restated as of December 10, 2009, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (n) PEA No. 100.

(o)		Inapplicable.

(p)(i)		Registrant, Investment Adviser, and Schwab Code of Ethics, dated October 1, 2011, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (p)(i) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 110 to Registrant's Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File No. 811-7704), electronically filed with the SEC on December 19, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “PEA No. 110”).

(p)(ii)		American Century Investment Management, Inc. Code of Ethics, dated January 1, 2011, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (p)(ii) of PEA No. 106.

(p)(iii)		Harris Associates LLP Code of Ethics, dated June 25, 2012, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (p)(iii) of PEA 118.

(p)(iv)		TAMRO Capital Partners, LLC Code of Ethics, dated December 1, 2011, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (p)(iv) of PEA 112.

(p)(v)		William Blair & Company, L.L.C. Code of Ethics, dated February 18, 2010, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (p)(vii) of PEA No. 106.

(p)(vi)		Mondrian Investment Partners Limited Code of Ethics, effective January 1, 2012, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (p)(vi) of PEA 112.

(p)(vii)		WHV Investment Management Code of Ethics, dated January 1, 2012, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (p)(vii) of PEA 112.

(p)(viii)		Neuberger Berman Management LLC Code of Ethics, dated September 1, 2011, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (p)(viii) of PEA 112.

(p)(ix)		Mellon Capital Management Corporation Code of Ethics, dated October 1, 2011, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (p)(ix) of PEA 112.

(p)(x)		Wellington Management Company, LLP Code of Ethics, dated April 1, 2010, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (p)(x) of PEA 118.

ITEM 29.

PERSONS CONTROLLED BY OR UNDER COMMON CONTROL WITH REGISTRANT.

The Charles Schwab Family of Funds, Schwab Investments and Schwab Annuity Portfolios each are Massachusetts business trusts registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). Laudus Trust is a Massachusetts business trust registered under the 1940 Act. Laudus Institutional Trust is a Delaware statutory trust registered under the 1940 Act. Schwab Strategic Trust is a Delaware statutory trust registered under the 1940 Act. Each is advised by the Investment Adviser and The Charles Schwab Family of Funds, Schwab Investments and Schwab Annuity Portfolios employ Schwab as principal underwriter and shareholder services agent. As a result, The Charles Schwab Family of Funds, Schwab Investments, Schwab Annuity Portfolios, Laudus Trust, Laudus Institutional Trust and Schwab Strategic Trust may be deemed to be under common control with Registrant. The Investment Adviser and Schwab are both wholly owned subsidiaries of The Charles Schwab Corporation. Charles R. Schwab is the founder, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Director of The Charles Schwab Corporation. As a result of his ownership of and interests in The Charles Schwab Corporation, Mr. Schwab may be deemed to be a controlling person of the Investment Adviser and Schwab.

ITEM 30.

INDEMNIFICATION.

Article VIII of Registrant’s Amended and Restated Agreement and Declaration of Trust (Exhibit (1) hereto, which is incorporated by reference) provides in effect that Registrant will indemnify its officers and trustees against all liabilities and expenses, including but not limited to amounts paid in satisfaction of judgments, in compromise, or as fines and penalties, and counsel fees reasonably incurred by any such officer or trustee in connection with the defense or disposition of any action, suit, or other proceeding. However, in accordance with Section 17(h) and 17(i) of the 1940 Act and its own terms, said Amended and Restated Agreement and Declaration

of Trust does not protect any person against any liability to Registrant or its shareholders to which he or she would otherwise be subject by reason of willful misfeasance, bad faith, gross negligence or reckless disregard of the duties involved in the conduct of his or her office. In any event, Registrant will comply with 1940 Act Releases No. 7221 and 11330 respecting the permissible boundaries of indemnification by an investment company of its officers and trustees.

Insofar as indemnification for liability arising under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “1933 Act”), may be permitted to trustees, officers and controlling persons of the Registrant pursuant to the foregoing provisions, or otherwise, Registrant has been advised that, in the opinion of the Securities and Exchange Commission, such indemnification is against public policy as expressed in the 1933 Act and is, therefore, unenforceable. In the event that a claim for indemnification against such liabilities (other than the payment by Registrant of expenses incurred or paid by a trustee, officer or controlling person of Registrant in the successful defense of any action, suit or proceeding) is asserted by such trustee, officer or controlling person in connection with the securities being registered, Registrant will, unless in the opinion of its counsel the matter has been settled by controlling precedent, submit to a court of appropriate jurisdiction the question whether such indemnification by it is against public policy as expressed in the 1933 Act and will be governed by the final adjudication of such issue.

ITEM 31.

BUSINESS AND OTHER CONNECTIONS OF INVESTMENT ADVISER.

Registrant’s investment adviser, Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc., a Delaware corporation, organized in October 1989 to serve as investment manager to Registrant, also serves as the investment manager to The Charles Schwab Family of Funds, Schwab Investments, Schwab Annuity Portfolios, Schwab Strategic Trust, Laudus Trust and Laudus Institutional Trust, each an open-end management investment company. The principal place of business of the investment adviser is 211 Main Street, San Francisco, California 94105. The only business in which the investment adviser engages is that of investment adviser and administrator to Registrant, The Charles Schwab Family of Funds, Schwab Investments, Schwab Annuity Portfolios and Schwab Strategic Trust, investment adviser of Laudus Trust and Laudus Institutional Trust and any other investment companies that Schwab may sponsor in the future, and an investment adviser to certain non-investment company clients.

The business, profession, vocation or employment of a substantial nature in which each director and/or senior or executive officer of the investment adviser (CSIM) is or has been engaged during the past two fiscal years is listed below. The name of any company for which any director and/or senior or executive officer of the investment adviser serves as director, officer, employee, partner or trustee is also listed below.


Name and Position with Adviser	Name of Other Company	Capacity
Charles R. Schwab, Chairman and Director	Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.	Chairman and Director
	The Charles Schwab Bank, N.A.	Chairman and Director
	The Charles Schwab Corporation	Chairman and Director
	Schwab Holdings, Inc.	Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Director
	Schwab International Holdings, Inc.	Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
	Schwab (SIS) Holdings, Inc. I	Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
	Schwab Charitable Fund	Director
	Charles Schwab Foundation	Chairman and Director
	JustAnswer Corp.	Director
	Museum of American Finance	Advisory Board
	San Francisco Museum of Modern Art	Board of Trustees
	University of California, San Francisco	Chancellor’s Executive Board
	Charles and Helen Schwab Foundation	Director

Marie Chandoha, Director, President and Chief Executive Officer	Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.	Executive Vice President and President, Investment Management Services
	Schwab Funds	President, Chief Executive Officer
	Laudus Funds	President, Chief Executive Officer
	Schwab ETFs	President, Chief Executive Officer
	Charles Schwab Worldwide Funds, PLC	Director
	Charles Schwab Asset Management (Ireland) Limited	Director

Omar Aguilar, Senior Vice President and Chief Investment Officer – Equities	Schwab Funds	Senior Vice President and Chief Investment Officer – Equities
	Laudus Funds	Senior Vice President and Chief Investment Officer – Equities
	Schwab ETFs	Senior Vice President and Chief Investment Officer – Equities


Brett Wander, Senior Vice President and Chief Investment Officer – Fixed Income	Schwab Funds	Senior Vice President and Chief Investment Officer – Fixed Income
	Laudus Funds	Senior Vice President and Chief Investment Officer – Fixed Income
	Schwab ETFs	Senior Vice President and Chief Investment Officer – Fixed Income

David Lekich, Chief Counsel and Senior Vice President	Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.	Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel
	Schwab Funds	Secretary and Chief Legal Officer
	Laudus Funds	Vice President and Assistant Clerk
	Schwab ETFs	Secretary and Chief Legal Officer

Michael Hogan, Chief Compliance Officer	Schwab Funds	Chief Compliance Officer
	Schwab ETFs	Chief Compliance Officer
	Laudus Funds	Chief Compliance Officer
	Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.	Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer

George Pereira, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer	Schwab Funds	Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer

	Laudus Funds	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
	Schwab ETFs	Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer
	Charles Schwab Worldwide Funds, PLC	Director
	Charles Schwab Asset Management (Ireland) Limited	Director

ITEM 32.

PRINCIPAL UNDERWRITERS.

(a) Schwab acts as principal underwriter and distributor of Registrant’s shares. Schwab also acts as principal underwriter for the The Charles Schwab Family of Funds, Schwab Investments, and Schwab Annuity Portfolios and may act as such for any other investment company which Schwab may sponsor in the future.

(b) Information with respect to Schwab’s directors and officers is as follows:


Name	Position and Offices with the Underwriter	Position and Offices with the Registrant
Charles R. Schwab	Chairman	Chairman and Trustee

Walter Bettinger II	President and Chief Executive Officer	Trustee

Jay Allen	Executive Vice President, Human Resources	None

Benjamin Brigeman	Executive Vice President, Investor Services	None

Ron Carter	Executive Vice President and Head, Operational Services	None

Marie Chandoha	Executive Vice President, Investment Management Services	President and Chief Executive Officer

Bernie Clark	Executive Vice President, Advisor Services	None

John Clendening	Executive Vice President, Shared Strategic Services	None

Carrie Dwyer	Executive Vice President, Corporate Oversight	None

Laurine Garrity	Executive Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer	None


G. Andrew Gill	Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Schwab Investor Services	None

Lisa Kidd Hunt	Executive Vice President, Schwab Branch Network	None

Joseph Martinetto	Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer	None

James McCool	Executive Vice President, Institutional Services	None

Brad Peterson	Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer	None

Paul V. Woolway	Executive Vice President and President, Charles Schwab Bank	None

The principal business address of all directors and officers of Schwab is 211 Main Street, San Francisco, California 94105.

ITEM 33.

LOCATION OF ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS.

All accounts, books and other documents required to be maintained pursuant to Section 31(a) of the 1940 Act and the Rules thereunder are maintained at the offices of: Registrant and Registrant's investment adviser and administrator, Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc., 211 Main Street, San Francisco, California 94105; Registrant’s former sub-investment adviser, Dimensional Fund Advisors Inc., 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 1100, Santa Monica, California 90401; Registrant’s principal underwriter, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., 211 Main Street, San Francisco, California 94105; Registrant's custodian for the Schwab International Index Fund and the Schwab Small-Cap Index Fund, Brown Brothers Harriman & Co., 40 Water Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02109, Registrant’s custodian for the balance of the funds and fund accountant, State Street Bank and Trust Company, One Lincoln Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02111; and Registrant’s transfer agent, Boston Financial Data Services, Inc., Two Heritage Drive, Quincy Massachusetts, 02171.

ITEM 34.

MANAGEMENT SERVICES.

None.

ITEM 35.

UNDERTAKINGS.

Not applicable.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “1933 Act”), and the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, Registrant has duly caused this Post Effective Amendment No. 119 to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereto duly authorized, in the City of Washington in the District of Columbia, on this 22nd day of October, 2012.

SCHWAB CAPITAL TRUST

Registrant

Charles R. Schwab*

Charles R. Schwab, Chairman and Trustee

Pursuant to the requirements of the 1933 Act, this Post-Effective Amendment No. 119 to Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A has been signed below by the following persons in the capacities indicated on this 22nd day of October, 2012.


Signature		Title

Charles R. Schwab*		Chairman and Trustee
Charles R. Schwab

Walter W. Bettinger, II*		Trustee
Walter W. Bettinger, II

Mariann Byerwalter*		Trustee
Mariann Byerwalter

John F. Cogan*		Trustee
John F. Cogan

William A. Hasler*		Trustee
William A. Hasler

David L. Mahoney*		Trustee
David L. Mahoney

Kiran M. Patel*		Trustee
Kiran M. Patel

Gerald B. Smith*		Trustee
Gerald B. Smith

Joseph H. Wender*		Trustee
Joseph H. Wender

Marie Chandoha*		President and Chief Executive Officer
Marie Chandoha

George Pereira*		Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer
George Pereira



*By:		/s/ Douglas P. Dick
		Douglas P. Dick, Attorney-in-Fact Pursuant to Power of Attorney