Lincoln Variable Insurance Products Trust

New Fund Name (effective 5/1/25)

Former Fund Name

LVIP BlackRock Equity Dividend Fund

LVIP Macquarie Value Fund

497 1 d841355d497.htm LINCOLN VARIABLE INSURANCE PRODUCTS TRUST Lincoln Variable Insurance Products Trust

LINCOLN VARIABLE INSURANCE PRODUCTS TRUST

LVIP Macquarie Value Fund

Supplement Dated February 12, 2025

Statutory Prospectus dated May 1, 2024

Unless otherwise defined in this supplement, capitalized terms used in this

supplement have the meanings assigned to them in the Statutory Prospectus

This Supplement updates certain information in the Statutory Prospectus for the LVIP Macquarie Value Fund (the “Fund”). You may obtain copies of the Fund’s Statutory Prospectuses free of charge, upon request, by calling toll-free 866-436-8717 or at www.lincolnfinancial.com/lvip.

At a meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of Lincoln Variable Insurance Products Trust (the “Trust”) on December 10-11, 2024, the Board approved the appointment of BlackRock Investment Management, LLC (“BlackRock”) as the new sub-adviser to the Fund, effective on or about May 1, 2025 (“Effective Date”). BlackRock will replace Delaware Investments Fund Advisers (“DIFA”).

As of the Effective Date, the Fund’s Statutory Prospectus is revised as follows:

All references to, and information regarding, DIFA are deleted in their entirety.

The Fund’s name is changed as noted. All references to the Fund’s name are revised accordingly.

The information under the heading Principal Investment Strategies beginning on page 1 is deleted and replaced with the following:

The Fund, under normal circumstances, seeks to achieve its objective by investing primarily in a diversified portfolio of equity securities. Lincoln Financial Investments Corporation serves as the Fund’s investment adviser. BlackRock Investment Management LLC (“BlackRock” or the “Sub-Adviser”) serves as the Fund’s sub-adviser.

The Fund generally will employ a value-oriented analysis and under normal circumstances will invest at least 80% of its net assets in large capitalization, dividend paying, equity securities. The Fund may invest in securities of companies with any market capitalization, but generally focuses on large-cap securities. Equity securities include common stock (both growth and value stocks) and preferred stock.

The Fund may invest in convertible securities. The fund may invest up to 25% of the Fund’s assets in securities of foreign issuers. The Fund may invest in securities from any country, including emerging markets. The Fund may invest in securities denominated in both U.S. dollars and non-U.S. dollar currencies.

Securities issued by certain companies organized outside the United States may not be deemed to be foreign securities (but rather deemed to be U.S. securities) if (i) the company’s principal operations are conducted from the U.S., (ii) the company’s equity securities trade principally on a U.S. stock exchange, (iii) the company does a substantial amount of business in the U.S or (iv) the issuer of securities is included in the Fund’s primary U.S. benchmark index..

For the “equity dividend” strategy, BlackRock selects investments that it believes will both increase in value over the long term and provide current income, focusing on investments that will do both, instead

of those that will favor current income over capital appreciation.

The information under the Principal Risks section on page 2 is deleted and replaced with the following:

All mutual funds carry risk. Accordingly, loss of money is a risk of investing in the Fund. The following risks reflect the principal risks of the Fund.

●

Market Risk. The value of portfolio investments may decline. As a result, your investment in the Fund may decline in value and you could lose money.

●

Issuer Risk. The prices of, and the income generated by, portfolio securities may decline in response to various factors directly related to the issuers of such securities.

●

Active Management Risk. The portfolio investments are actively-managed, rather than tracking an index or rigidly following certain rules, which may negatively affect investment performance. Consequently, there is the risk that the methods and analyses, including models, tools and data, employed in this process may be flawed or incorrect and may not produce desired results.

●

Real Estate and Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) Risk. Investing in real estate securities (including REITs) is subject to the risks associated with the direct ownership and development of real estate. These risks include, among others, declines in real estate values, fluctuations in rental income (due in part to vacancies and rates), increases in operating costs and property taxes, increases in financing costs or inability to procure financing, potential environmental liabilities and changes in zoning laws and other regulations. Changes in interest rates also may affect the value of an investment in real estate securities. REITs whose underlying properties are concentrated in a particular industry or geographic region are subject to risks affecting such industries and regions. The securities of REITs involve greater risks than those associated with larger, more established companies and may be subject to more abrupt or erratic price movements because of interest rate changes, economic conditions and other factors. Securities of such issuers may lack sufficient market liquidity to enable the Fund to effect sales at an advantageous time or without a substantial drop in price

●

Growth Stocks Risk. Growth stocks, due to their relatively high market valuations, typically have been more volatile than value stocks. Growth stocks may not pay dividends, or may pay lower dividends, than value stocks and may be more adversely affected in a down market.

●

Large-Cap Company Risk. The Fund may invest a relatively large percentage of its assets in the securities of large capitalization companies. While securities in this capitalization range may represent a significant percentage of a market, the Fund’s performance may be adversely affected if securities of large capitalization companies underperform that sector or the market as a whole.

●

those normally associated with larger companies. This is due to, among other things, the greater business risks of smaller size and limited product lines, markets, distribution channels, and financial and managerial resources

●

Income Stocks Risk. Income from stocks may be reduced by changes in the dividend policies of companies and the capital resources available for such payments at such companies. Depending upon market conditions, income producing common stock may not be widely available and/or may be highly concentrated in only a few market sectors, thereby limiting the ability to produce current income.

●

Convertible Bond Risk. The market value of a convertible bond performs like that of a regular debt security; that is, if market interest rates rise, the value of a convertible bond usually falls. In addition, convertible bonds are subject to the risk that the issuer will not be able to pay interest or dividends when due, and their market value may change based on changes in the issuer’s credit rating or the market’s perception of the issuer’s creditworthiness. Convertible bonds are also usually subordinate to other debt securities issued by the same issuer. Since it derives a portion of its value from the common stock into which it may be converted, a convertible bond is also subject to the same types of market and issuer risks that apply to the underlying security

●

to meet such obligations. The Fund’s liquidity risk management program requires that the Fund invest no more than 15% of its net assets in illiquid investments.

The following information is added under the Investment Adviser and Sub-Advisers section on page 3:

Investment Sub-Adviser: BlackRock Investment Management, LLC (“BlackRock”)

The table under the Portfolio Managers section on page 3 is deleted and replaced with the following:


BlackRock Portfolio Managers	Company Title	Experience with Fund

Tony DeSpirito	Portfolio Manager & Managing Director	Since May 2025

David Zhao	Portfolio Manager & Managing Director	Since May 2025

The information under the heading Investment Objective and Principal Investment Strategies beginning on page 5 is deleted and replaced with the following:

The investment objective of BlackRock Equity Dividend Fund (the “Fund”) is to seek long-term total return and current income.

Lincoln Financial Investments Corporation serves as the Fund’s adviser. BlackRock Investment Management, LLC (the “Sub-Adviser”) serves as the Fund’s sub-adviser. The Sub-Adviser is responsible for the day-to- day management of the Fund’s assets.

The 80% policy noted above is a non-fundamental policy of the Fund and may not be changed without 60 days’ prior notice to shareholders.

The information under the heading Principal Risks beginning on page 5 is deleted and replaced with the following:

All mutual funds carry risk. Accordingly, loss of money is a risk of investing in the Fund. The following risks reflect the principal risks of the Fund.

Market Risk. The value of portfolio investments may decline. As a result, your investment in the Fund may decline in value and you could lose money. A decline in value could result from, among other things, a negative development of the issuer of the security, an industry, a sector of the economy, or the overall securities market. In addition, the occurrence of geopolitical conflicts, war or terrorist activities could have adverse impacts on markets in various and unpredictable ways. For instance, war, terrorism, social unrest, recessions, supply chain disruptions, market manipulation, government defaults, government shutdowns, political changes, diplomatic developments, or the imposition of sanctions and other similar measures, public health emergencies (such as the spread of infectious diseases, pandemics and epidemics) and natural/environmental disasters can all negatively impact the securities markets, which could cause the Fund to lose value.

Stock Investing Risk. Stocks generally fluctuate in value more than bonds and may decline significantly over short time periods. Stock prices overall may decline because stock markets tend to move in cycles, with periods of rising and falling prices. The value of stocks may decline due to general weakness or volatility in the stock markets or because of factors that affect a particular company or industry. Stock declines may result from, among other things, political, regulatory, market, economic and/or social developments affecting the relevant market(s). In addition, increased inflation, tightening monetary policy or interest rate increases may negatively affect many issuers, which could have an adverse effect on stock prices.

Issuer Risk. The prices of, and the income generated by, portfolio securities may decline in response to various factors directly related to the issuers of such securities. These factors may include reduced demand for an issuer’s goods or services, poor management performance, major litigation, investigations or other controversies related to the issuer, changes in the issuer’s financial conditions or credit rating, changes in government regulations affecting the issuer or its competitive environment, and strategic initiatives such as mergers, acquisitions or dispositions and the market response to any such initiatives.

Value Stocks Risk. Value stocks tend to be inexpensive relative to their earnings or assets compared to other types of stocks, such as growth stocks. Value stocks can continue to be inexpensive for long periods of time, may not ever realize their potential value, and may even go down in price. Value stocks can react differently to issuer, political, market and economic developments than the market as a whole or other types of stocks. At times when the value investing style is out of favor, funds that invest in value stocks may underperform other equity funds that employ different investment styles.

Real Estate and Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) Risk. Investing in real estate securities (including REITs) is subject to the risks associated with the direct ownership and development of real estate. These risks include, among others, possible casualty or condemnation losses; fluctuations in rental income (due in part to vacancies and rates); declines in real estate values or other risks related to local or general economic conditions; the financial condition and default risk of tenants, buyers, and sellers of properties; increases in operating costs and property taxes; increases in financing costs or inability to procure financing; potential environmental liabilities; changes in zoning laws and other regulations; reduced supply and demand, including reduced demand for commercial and office space as well as increased maintenance or tenant improvement costs to convert properties for other uses; and the inability to re-lease space on attractive terms or to obtain mortgage financing on a timely basis or at all. Changes in interest rates also may affect the value of an investment in real estate securities. As

examples of the current risks faced by real estate-related assets; tenant vacancy rates, tenant turnover and tenant concentration have increased; owners of real estate have faced headwinds, delinquencies and difficulties in collecting rents and other payments (which increases the risk of owners being unable to pay or otherwise defaulting on their own borrowings and obligations); property values have declined; inflation, upkeep costs and other expenses have increased; and rents have declined for many properties.

Real estate companies may be highly leveraged, and financial covenants may affect the ability of these companies to operate effectively. These companies typically are subject to risks normally associated with debt financing. In addition, a real estate company’s obligation to comply with financial covenants, such as debt-to-asset ratios and secured debt-to-total asset ratios, and other contractual obligations may restrict that company’s range of operating activity. Such a company may, therefore, be limited from incurring additional indebtedness, selling its assets, and engaging in mergers or making acquisitions that may be beneficial to its operations.

REITs are pooled investment vehicles that own, and usually operate, income-producing real estate. REITs typically incur separate fees and therefore fund shareholders indirectly bear a proportionate share of the REITs’ operating expenses, in addition to paying mutual fund expenses. In addition, REITs are subject to the possibility of failing to: qualify for tax-free pass-through of income under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and/or maintain an exemption from the registration requirements of the Investment Company Act of 1940

Growth Stocks Risk. Growth stocks, due to their relatively high market valuations, typically have been more volatile than value stocks. Growth stocks may not pay dividends, or may pay lower dividends, than value stocks and may be more adversely affected in a down market. The price of a growth stock may experience a larger decline on a forecast of lower earnings, a negative fundamental development, or an adverse market development. The growth style may, over time, go in and out of favor. At times when the growth investing style is out of favor, funds that invest in growth stocks may underperform other equity funds that employ different investment styles.

Medium-Cap Company Risk. Securities issued by medium-sized companies may be subject to more abrupt market movements and may involve greater risks than investments in larger companies. These less developed, lesser-known companies may experience greater risks than those normally associated with larger companies. This is due to, among other things, the greater business risks of smaller size and limited product lines, markets, distribution channels, and financial and managerial resources. Historically, the price of medium capitalization companies has fluctuated more than the larger capitalization stocks. The securities of companies with medium capitalizations may trade less frequently and in limited volume. These companies also may have less certain growth prospects and greater sensitivity to changing economic conditions.

Medium-sized company stocks may decline in price as large company stock prices rise, or rise in price as large company stock prices decline. Many factors may lead to this result, including current and anticipated global economic conditions or change in interest rates.

Income Stocks Risk. Income from stocks may be reduced by changes in the dividend policies of companies and the capital resources available for such payments at such companies. Income-producing value stocks of companies that have had a record of paying dividends could reduce or eliminate their dividend payments for many reasons, including poor business prospects or a downward turn in the economy in general. Depending upon market conditions, income producing common stock may not be widely available and/or may be highly concentrated in only a few market sectors, thereby limiting the ability to produce current income.

Foreign Currency Risk. Foreign currency risk is the risk that the U.S. dollar value of investments in foreign (non-U.S.) currencies or in securities that trade in, and receive revenues in, foreign (non-U.S.) currencies, may be negatively affected by changes in foreign (non-U.S.) currency rates. Currency exchange rates may fluctuate significantly over short periods of time for a number of reasons, including rates of inflation, balance of payments and governmental surpluses or deficits, intervention (or the failure to intervene) by U.S. or foreign (non-U.S.) governments, central banks or supranational entities such as the International Monetary Fund, or by the imposition of currency controls or other political developments in the United States or abroad.

Foreign Investments Risk. Foreign investments have additional risks that are not present when investing in U.S. investments. Foreign currency fluctuations or economic or financial instability could cause the value of foreign investments to fluctuate. The value of foreign investments may be reduced by foreign taxes, such as foreign taxes on interest and dividends. Additionally, foreign investments include the risk of loss from foreign government or political actions including, for example, the imposition of exchange controls, the imposition of tariffs, economic and trade sanctions or embargoes, confiscations, and other government restrictions, or from problems in registration, settlement or custody. The governments of certain countries may prohibit or impose substantial restrictions on foreign investing in their capital markets or in certain sectors or industries. Foreign governments may also impose a heavy tax on a company, withhold a company’s payment of interest or dividends, seize assets of a company, take over a company, limit currency convertibility, or repatriation, or bar withdrawal of assets from the country. Investing in foreign investments may involve risks resulting from the reduced availability of public information concerning issuers. Foreign issuers generally are not subject to uniform accounting, auditing, and financial reporting standards or to other regulatory practices and requirements comparable to those applicable to U.S. issuers. The volume of transactions in certain foreign markets remains considerably below that of the U.S. markets. Accordingly, foreign investments may be less liquid and their prices more volatile than comparable investments in U.S. issuers. Investing in local markets may require special procedures or local governmental approvals or other actions, any of which may involve additional costs. These factors also may affect the liquidity of a foreign investment. Foreign brokerage commissions and custodian fees also are generally higher than in the U.S. In addition, certain foreign countries may be subject to terrorism, governmental collapse, regional conflicts and war, which could negatively impact investments in those countries. Recent examples include conflict, loss of life and disaster connected to ongoing armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine in Europe and Hamas and Israel in the Middle East, and an example of a country undergoing transformation is Venezuela. The extent, duration and impact of these conflicts, related sanctions and retaliatory actions are difficult to ascertain, but could be significant and have severe adverse effects on the region, including significant adverse effects on the regional or global economies and the markets for certain securities and commodities. These impacts could negatively affect a Fund’s investments in securities and instruments that are economically tied to the applicable region, and include (but are not limited to) declines in value and reductions in liquidity.

Emerging Markets Risk. Companies located in emerging markets tend to be less liquid, have more volatile prices, and have significant potential for loss in comparison to investments in developed markets. Emerging market countries may have especially unstable governments, economies based on only a few industries and securities markets that trade a small number of securities. Additional risks of emerging market investments may include: greater social, diplomatic, economic, and political instability; more substantial governmental involvement in the economy; less governmental supervision and regulation of issuers; companies that are newly organized and small; less developed auditing and financial reporting standards, which may result in unavailability of material information about issuers; and less developed legal systems. The impact of infectious diseases in emerging market countries may be greater due to less-established health care systems. Emerging markets also may have different clearance and settlement procedures, which may make it difficult to engage in securities transactions. Settlement problems may result in missed investment opportunities, holding a portion of assets in cash, or delays in disposing of investments. Investments in emerging market countries may be affected by national policies that restrict foreign investment in certain issuers or industries. Sanctions, export and import controls and other intergovernmental actions may be undertaken against an emerging market country, which may result in the devaluation of the country’s currency, a downgrade in the country’s credit rating, and a

decline in the value and liquidity of the country’s securities. Sanctions could result in the immediate freeze of securities issued by an emerging market company or government, impairing the ability of the Fund to buy, sell, receive or deliver these securities.

Preferred Securities Risk. Preferred securities are subject to issuer-specific and market risks applicable generally to equity securities. The value of preferred stock also can be affected by prevailing interest rates. Preferred securities may pay fixed or adjustable rates of return. In addition, a company’s preferred securities generally pay dividends only after the company makes required payments to holders of its bonds and other debt. For this reason, preferred stock is also subject to the credit quality of the issuer. Accordingly, the value of preferred securities will usually react more strongly than bonds and other debt to actual or perceived changes in the company’s financial condition or prospects. Preferred securities of smaller companies may be more vulnerable to adverse developments than preferred stock of larger companies.

Liquidity Risk. Liquidity risk is the risk that the Fund cannot meet requests to redeem Fund-issued shares without significantly diluting the remaining investors’ interest in the Fund. This may result when portfolio holdings may be difficult to value and may be difficult to sell, both at the time or price desired. Liquidity risk may result from increased shareholder redemptions in the Fund. An increase in shareholder redemptions could require the Fund to sell securities at reduced prices, which would in turn reduce the value of the Fund. In addition, the market for a particular holding may become illiquid due to adverse market or economic conditions, completely apart from any specific conditions in the market for a particular security. Actions by governments and regulators may have the effect of reducing market liquidity, market resiliency and money supply, such as through higher interest rates, tighter financial regulations and proposals related to open-end fund liquidity that may prevent the Fund from participating in certain markets. Liquidity risk also refers to the risk that the Fund may be required to hold additional cash or sell other investments in order to obtain cash to close out derivatives or meet the liquidity demands that derivatives can create to make payments of margin, collateral, or settlement payments to counterparties. The Fund may have to sell a security at a disadvantageous time or price to meet such obligations. The Fund’s liquidity risk management program requires that the Fund invest no more than 15% of its net assets in illiquid investments.

The following information is added under the Sub-Adviser portion of Management and Organization beginning on page 6:

Sub-Adviser

BlackRock Investment Management, LLC (“BlackRock”) is an affiliate of BlackRock Advisors, LLC, a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of BlackRock, Inc., one of the largest publicly traded investment management firms in the United States with approximately $11.5 trillion in assets under management as of December 31, 2024.

BlackRock

Portfolio

Managers

Tony DeSpirito and David Zhao are responsible for the day-to-day management of the Fund’s assets.

Tony DeSpirito is a Managing Director and joined BlackRock in 2014. Mr. DeSpirito is Chief Investment Officer for the Fundamental Active Equity business of BlackRock’s Active Equities Group, Head of the U.S. Income & Value pillar and the lead Portfolio Manager for the BlackRock Equity Dividend portfolios. Mr. DeSpirito earned his B.S., summa cum laude, from the Wharton School of Business of the University of Pennsylvania and his J.D., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School.

David Zhao, is a Managing Director and joined BlackRock in 2016. Mr. Zhao is Co-Director of Research for the US Income & Value pillar within the Fundamental Active Equity business of BlackRock’s Active Equities Group. Mr. Zhao is a Portfolio Manager for the BlackRock Equity Dividend portfolios. He also has partial research coverage for the information technology and communication services sectors. Prior to joining BlackRock, Mr. Zhao was a Global Equity Senior Research Analyst and Principal at Pzena Investment Management covering Technology, US Banks/Brokers, Medical Technology, Non-Life Insurance, Financial Technology and select Industrials. Mr. Zhao holds a B.A. of Arts with degrees in Economics and Computer Information Systems and graduated Cum Laude from Northwestern University.

PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

LINCOLN VARIABLE INSURANCE PRODUCTS TRUST

LVIP Macquarie Value Fund

Supplement Dated February 12, 2025

to the to the Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) dated May 1, 2024

Unless otherwise defined in this supplement, capitalized terms used in this

supplement have the meanings assigned to them in the SAI

This Supplement updates certain information in the SAI for the LVIP Macquarie Value Fund (the “Fund”). You may obtain copies of the Fund’s SAI free of charge, upon request, by calling toll-free 866-436-8717 or at www.lincolnfinancial.com/lvip.

As of the Effective Date, the Fund’s SAI is revised as follows:

All references to, and information regarding, DIFA as they relate solely to the Fund are deleted in their entirety.

The Fund’s name is changed as noted. All references to the Fund’s name are revised accordingly.

The following is added alphabetically to the Sub-Advisers section under the heading Investment Adviser and Sub-Advisers beginning on page 40:

The following is added alphabetically to the Sub-Advisers section under the heading Investment Adviser and Sub-Advisers beginning on page 40:

BlackRock Investment Management, LLC (“BlackRock”) is a wholly owned subsidiary of BlackRock, Inc. BlackRock, Inc., through its subsidiaries and divisions, provides (i) investment management services to individuals and institutional investors through separate account management, non-discretionary advisory programs and commingled investment vehicles; (ii) risk management services, investment accounting and trade processing tools; (iii) transition management services, and (iv) securities lending services. BlackRock has been an investment advisor since 1999. Pursuant to certain sub-sub-advisory agreements, BlackRock may utilize sub-sub-advisers, BlackRock (Singapore) Limited located at Twenty Anson, #18-01 20 Anson Road, Singapore 079912, and BlackRock International Limited located at Exchange Place One, 1 Semple Street, Edinburgh EH3 8BL, Scotland, which are affiliates of BlackRock.

The following is added alphabetically to the chart in the Other Accounts Managed section under the heading Portfolio Managers beginning on page 45:


Adviser/Sub- Adviser Portfolio Manager(s)	Total Number of Other Accounts	Total Assets (in millions) of Other Accounts	Number of Other Accounts Paying Performance Fees	Total Assets (in millions) of other Accounts Paying Performance Fees

BlackRock Investment Management, LLC (as of November 30, 2024)

Tony DeSpirito
Registered Investment Companies	15	$31,290	0	$0
Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	12	$ 6,670	0	$0
Other Accounts	5	$ 964.6	1	$59.88

David Zhao
Registered Investment Companies	15	$31,290	0	$0
Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	12	$ 6,670	0	$0
Other Accounts	5	$ 964.6	1	$59.88

The following is added alphabetically to the section Material Portfolio Manager Conflicts of Interest under the heading Portfolio Managers beginning on page 45:

BlackRock Investment Management, LLC (BlackRock)

BlackRock has built a professional working environment, firm-wide compliance culture and compliance procedures and systems designed to protect against potential incentives that may favor one account over another. BlackRock has adopted policies and procedures that address the allocation of investment opportunities, execution of portfolio transactions, personal trading by employees and other potential conflicts of interest that are designed to ensure that all client accounts are treated equitably over time. Nevertheless, BlackRock furnishes investment management and advisory services to numerous clients in addition to the Fund, and BlackRock may, consistent with applicable law, make investment recommendations to other clients or accounts (including accounts which are hedge funds or have performance or higher fees paid to BlackRock, or in which portfolio managers have a personal interest in the receipt of such fees), which may be the same as or different from those made to the Fund. In addition, BlackRock, its affiliates and significant shareholders and any officer, director, shareholder or employee may or may not have an interest in the securities whose purchase and sale BlackRock recommends to the Fund. BlackRock, or any of its affiliates or significant shareholders, or any officer, director, shareholder, employee or any member of their families may take different actions than those recommended to the Fund by BlackRock with respect to the same securities. Moreover, BlackRock may refrain from rendering any advice or services concerning securities of companies of which any of BlackRock’s (or its affiliates’ or significant shareholders’) officers, directors or employees are directors

or officers, or companies as to which BlackRock or any of its affiliates or significant shareholders or the officers, directors and employees of any of them has any substantial economic interest or possesses material non-public information. Certain portfolio managers also may manage accounts whose investment strategies may at times be opposed to the strategy utilized for the Fund. It should also be noted that a portfolio manager may be managing hedge fund and/or long only accounts, or may be part of a team managing hedge fund and/or long only accounts, subject to incentive fees. Such portfolio managers may therefore be entitled to receive a portion of any incentive fees earned on such accounts. Currently, the portfolio managers of these funds are not entitled to receive a portion of incentive fees of other accounts.

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

The following is added alphabetically to Appendix B – Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures:

BlackRock Investment Management, LLC (“BlackRock”)

Introduction to BlackRock

BlackRock’s purpose is to help more and more people experience financial well-being. We manage assets on behalf of institutional and individual clients, across a full spectrum of investment strategies, asset classes, and regions. Our client base includes pension plans, endowments, foundations, charities, official institutions, insurers, and other financial institutions, as well as individuals around the world.

About BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship

BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship (BAIS) is a specialist team within the Portfolio Management Group and manages BlackRock’s stewardship engagement and voting on behalf of clients invested in active strategies globally. BAIS is also responsible for engagement with issuers in index fixed income strategies, where appropriate. Our activities are informed by these Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines (“the Guidelines”) and insights from active investment analysts and portfolio managers, with whom we work closely in engaging companies and voting at shareholder meetings.

Engagement with public companies is the foundation of our approach to stewardship within fundamental active investing. Through direct dialogue with company leadership, we seek to understand their businesses and how they manage risks and opportunities to deliver durable, risk adjusted financial returns. Generally, portfolio managers and stewardship specialists engage jointly on substantive matters. Our discussions focus on topics relevant to a company’s success over time including governance and leadership, corporate strategy, capital structure and financial performance, operations and sustainability- related risks, as well as macro-economic, geopolitical and sector dynamics. We aim to be constructive investors and are generally supportive of management teams that have a track record of financial value creation. We aim to build and maintain strong relationships with company leadership based on open dialogue and mutual respect.

Different active equity strategies may implement these voting guidelines differently, as a result of the latitude the portfolio manager has to make independent voting decisions aligned with their portfolio objectives and investment strategy. For example, BAIS will generally vote the holdings in Systematic Active Equity portfolios in accordance with these guidelines. We provide voting recommendations to fundamental equity portfolio managers, who may determine to vote differently based on their portfolio investment objectives and strategy.

These guidelines discuss corporate governance topics on which we may engage with management teams and board directors¹ and matters that routinely come to a shareholder vote. We recognize that accepted corporate governance norms can differ across markets, and believe these guidelines represent globally applicable elements of governance that support a company’s ability to manage material risks and opportunities and deliver financial returns to investors. Generally, we believe companies should observe accepted corporate governance norms within their local markets or, particularly in markets without well- established norms, aspire to widely recognized international best practices. As one of many minority shareholders, BlackRock cannot – and does not try to – direct a company’s strategy or its implementation. We look to companies to provide disclosures that explain how their approach to corporate governance best aligns with the financial interests of their investors.

¹ References to the board, board directors or non-executive directors should be understood to include supervisory boards and their members, where relevant.

Our approach to stewardship within active equities

As shareholders of public companies, BlackRock’s clients have certain fundamental rights, including the right to vote on proposals put forth by a company’s management or its shareholders. The voting rights attached to these clients’ holdings are an important mechanism for investors to express support for, or concern about, a company’s performance. As a fiduciary, BlackRock is legally required to make proxy voting determinations, on behalf of clients who have delegated voting authority to us, in a manner that is consistent with their investment objectives.

In general, we tend to support the recommendations of the board of directors and management. As indicated below, we may vote against management recommendations when we have concerns about how companies are serving the financial interests of our clients as their shareholders. We take a globally consistent approach to voting but consider the different corporate governance regulations and norms in various markets. Votes are determined on a case-by-case basis, in the context of a company’s situation and the investment mandate we have from clients. Please see page 16 for more information about how we fulfil and oversee BlackRock’s non-index equity investment stewardship responsibilities.

Our approach to stewardship within fixed income

Although fixed income investors do not have the right to vote at shareholder meetings, issuer engagement is a component of fixed income investment strategies at BlackRock, particularly those with sustainability objectives in addition to financial objectives. Most corporate governance-related fixed income engagements are undertaken in conjunction with the active investment stewardship team, and often active equity investors. In addition to the topics listed below, engagement with fixed income investment teams can help inform an issuer’s approach to structuring specialist issuances, such as green bonds, and the standard terms and information in bond documentation.

Boards of Directors

Roles and responsibilities

There is widespread consensus that the foundation of good corporate governance is an effective board of directors that is able to advise and supervise management in an independent and objective manner.²

²See the Corporate Governance Codes of Germany, Japan, and the UK, as well as the corporate governance principles of the US Business Roundtable as examples.

We look to the board of directors (hereafter ‘the board’) to have an oversight role in the establishment and realization of a company’s strategy, purpose and culture. These constructs are interdependent and, when aligned, can better position a company to be resilient in the face of a changing business environment, help reduce the risks of corporate or employee misconduct, and attract and retain the caliber of workers necessary to deliver financial performance over time.

In promoting the success of the company, the board ensures the necessary resources, policies and procedures are in place to help management meet its strategic objectives within an agreed risk tolerance.

One of the most important responsibilities of the board is to appoint, and remove as necessary, the chief executive officer (CEO). In addition, the board plays a meaningful role in monitoring the performance of the CEO and other key executives, determining executive compensation, ensuring a rigorous audit, overseeing strategy execution and risk management and engaging with shareholders, and other stakeholders, as necessary.

Composition and effectiveness

Appointment process

A formal and transparent process for identifying and appointing director candidates is critical to ensuring the board is composed of directors with the appropriate mix of skills and experience. The board or a sub- committee should determine the general criteria given the company’s circumstances (e.g., sector, maturity, geographic footprint) and any additional criteria for a specific role being filled (e.g., financial expertise, industry track record). To inform the process, we encourage companies to review the skills and experience of incumbent directors to identify any gaps and whether a director candidate’s characteristics would be additive. We welcome disclosures that explain how the board considered different skills, backgrounds and experience to ensure the directors collectively can be effective in fulfilling their responsibilities. We assess a company’s board composition against that of its peer group and local market requirements.

Shareholders periodically vote to elect, remove and nominate directors to serve on the board. We may vote against the election of the most senior independent director, or the chair of the relevant committee, where a company has not demonstrated it has an appointment process that results in a high functioning board with the appropriate complement of skills, backgrounds and experience amongst the directors to support strong financial performance over time. We may vote against newly nominated directors who do not seem to have the appropriate skills or experience to contribute to the board’s effectiveness.

Independence

Director independence from management, significant shareholders or other stakeholders (e.g., government or employees) is of paramount importance to the protection of the interests of minority shareholders such as BlackRock’s clients. At least half of the directors should be independent and free from conflicts of interest or undue influence.³ This ensures sufficient independent directors to have appropriately independent board committees. Companies domiciled in markets with a higher threshold for board independence should meet those requirements.

³ Common impediments to independence may include but are not limited to: current or recent employment at the company or a subsidiary; being, or representing, a shareholder with a substantial shareholding in the company; interlocking directorships; lengthy tenure, and having any other interest, business, or other relationship which could, or could reasonably be perceived to, materially interfere with a director’s ability to act in the best interests of the company and shareholders.

We may vote against the election of non-independent directors if the board does not have a sufficient balance of independence. We may also vote against the election of the chair of the committee responsible for board composition if this is a perennial issue.

Independent board leadership

Practices across markets differ, as do board structures, but we observe two main approaches to independent board leadership. One is a non-executive, independent chair of the board who is responsible for leading the board in the effective exercise of its duties. The other is a lead or senior independent director, who is responsible for coordinating with the other non-executive directors and working closely with the executive chair on the board agenda and other board procedures. In this case, the executive chair and the lead independent director work together to ensure the board is effectively fulfilling its responsibilities. In our view, the independent leader of the board, and/or the chair of a relevant committee, should be available to investors to discuss board governance matters such as CEO succession, executive pay, and board performance. We look to boards to explain their independent board leadership model and how it serves the interests of shareholders.

We may vote against the election of the chair of the committee responsible for board composition if there is not an identified independent leader of the board with clear responsibilities for board performance. We may vote against the most senior independent director if the board has a policy of not engaging with shareholders.

Tenure and succession

Boards should establish the length of time a director would normally be expected to serve, in line with market norms where those exist. In such markets, we find it helpful when companies disclose their approach to director tenure particularly around the contributions of directors who have served for longer periods than provided for in local practices. In our experience, long-serving directors could become less independent given their relationship with management and involvement in past board decisions.

Succession planning for board roles helps achieve the appropriate cadence of turnover that balances renewal through the regular introduction of directors with fresh perspectives and expertise with continuity through the retention of directors with long-term knowledge of the board and company.

In markets where there is not specific director tenure guidance, we may vote against the election of the chair of the committee responsible for board composition if there is not a clearly disclosed approach to director tenure and board renewal. We may vote against the election of directors who have served for longer duration than typical in markets with specific guidance, where the case for their continued service is not evident.

Capacity

To be effective and engaged, directors must commit appropriate time and energy to the role. A board should assess the ability of its members to maintain an appropriate focus on board matters and the company taking into consideration competing responsibilities. We recognize that board leadership roles vary across markets in responsibilities and required time commitment but note that they are generally more intensive than a standard directorship. We will take local norms and practices into consideration when making our voting determinations across markets.

We may vote against the election of directors who do not seem to have sufficient capacity to effectively fulfil their duties to the board and company.

Director elections

In support of director accountability to shareholders, directors should stand for election on a regular basis, ideally annually. A classified board structure may be justified by a company when it needs consistency and stability during a time of transition, or on the basis of its business model, e.g., a non- operating company such as closed-end funds.

Shareholders should have the opportunity to evaluate nominated directors individually rather than in bundled slates. We look to companies to provide sufficient information on each director standing for election so that shareholders can assess their capabilities and suitability. We will not support the election of directors whose names and biographical details have not been disclosed sufficiently in advance of the shareholder meeting.

Each director’s appointment should be dependent on receiving a simple majority of the votes cast at the shareholder meeting. Where a company’s practices differ, we look to the board to provide a detailed explanation as to how its approach best serves investors’ interests.

We may vote for shareholder or management proposals seeking to establish annual election of directors and/or a simple majority vote standard for director elections. We may vote against all the directors standing for election as part of a single slate if we have concerns about the profile or performance of an individual director.

Committees

Many boards establish committees to focus on specific responsibilities of the board such as audit and risk, governance and human capital, and executive compensation, amongst other matters. We do not prescribe to companies what committees they should establish but we seek to understand the board’s rationale for the committee structure it determines is appropriate. We note that, in some markets, regulation requires such committees. The responsibilities of each committee should be clear, and the board should ensure that all critical matters are assigned either to the full board or to one of the committees. The board should disclose to shareholders the structure, membership, proportion of independent directors, and responsibilities of each committee. The responsibilities we typically see assigned to the three most common committees include:

●

Audit and risk – oversight responsibilities for the integrity of financial reporting, risk management and compliance with legal and regulatory requirements; may also play an oversight role in relation to the internal audit function and whistleblowing mechanisms.

●

Nominating, governance and human capital – ensures appropriate corporate governance principles and practices including the periodic review of board performance; responsible for succession planning for CEO and key board roles, as well as the director appointment process; may also have oversight responsibilities for human capital management strategies including corporate culture and purpose.

●

Executive compensation – determines the compensation policies and programs for the CEO and other executive officers, approves annual awards and payments under the policies; may also have oversight responsibilities for firm-wide compensation policies.

We may vote against the election of the chair of the committee or other directors serving as committee members to convey our concerns and provide feedback on how a committee has undertaken its responsibilities. We may vote against the election of the most senior non-executive director if there is not a clearly disclosed approach to board committees.

Board and director evaluation

We consider it best practice for companies to conduct an annual review of the performance of the board, the committees, the chair and individual directors. Periodically, this review could be undertaken by an

independent third party able to bring objective perspectives to the board on governance and performance. We encourage companies to disclose their approach to and objectives of evaluations, including any changes made to the board’s approach as a result.

Access to independent advice

To support the directors in effectively fulfilling their duties to the company and shareholders, they should have access to independent advice. When circumstances warrant, boards should be able to retain independent third parties to advise on critical matters. These might include new industry developments such as emergent and disruptive technology, operating events with material consequences for the company’s reputation and/or performance, or significant transactions. Board committees may similarly retain third parties to advise them on specialist matters such as audit, compensation and succession planning.

Executive compensation

Boards should establish compensation arrangements that enable the company to recruit, retain and reward the caliber of executive management necessary to lead and operate the company to deliver superior financial returns over time. We focus on alignment between variable pay and a company’s financial performance.

Generally, executive compensation arrangements have four components: base salary, annual bonus that rewards performance against short-term metrics, share-based incentives that reward performance against long-term metrics, and pensions and benefits. In our observation, base salary, pensions and benefits are largely set relative to market norms and benchmarks. The annual bonus and share-based incentive, or variable pay plans, tend to be tailored to the company, its sector and long-term strategy, as well as the individuals the board is seeking to recruit and motivate.

Recognizing the unique circumstances of each company, we determine whether to support a company’s approach to executive compensation on a case-by-case basis. We rely on companies providing sufficient quantitative and qualitative information in their disclosures to enable shareholders to understand the compensation arrangements and assess the alignment with investors’ interests. Features we look for in compensation arrangements include:

●

Fixed pay components, including base salary, benefits and prerequisites that are appropriate in the context of the company’s size, sector and market.

●

Variable pay subject to performance metrics that are closely linked to the company’s short- and long-term strategic objectives.

●

Long-term incentives that motivate sustained performance across a multi-year period.

●

A balance between fixed and variable pay, short- and long-term incentives, and specific instruments (cash and equity awards) that promotes pay program durability and seldom necessitates one-off, discretionary payments.

●

Outcomes that are consistent with the returns to investors over the relevant time period.

●

Board discretion, if allowed within the variable pay arrangements, to be used sparingly, responsibly and transparently.

●

A requirement, that participants in long-term share-based incentive plans build a meaningful shareholding in the company within a defined time period, as determined by the board.

●

Change of control provisions that appropriately balance the interests of executives and shareholders.

●

Clawback or malus provisions that allow the company to recoup or hold back variable compensation

from individuals whose awards were based on fraudulent activities, misstated financial reports, or executive misconduct.

●

Severance arrangements that protect the company’s interests but do not cost more than is contractual.

We may vote against proposals to introduce new share-based incentives, approve existing policies or plans, or approve the compensation report where we do not see alignment between executive compensation arrangements and our clients’ financial interests. When there is not an alternative, or where there have been multi-year issues with compensation misaligned with performance, we may vote against the election of the chair of the responsible committee, or the most senior independent director.

Non-executive director compensation

Companies generally pay non-executive directors an annual retainer or fee in cash, shares or a combination of the two. Some companies also pay additional fees for service on board committees or in board leadership roles. We do not support non-executive directors participating in performance-based incentive plans as doing so may create a conflict of interest and undermine their independence from management, whom they oversee.

Capital structure

Boards are responsible for ensuring senior executive leadership has established a capital strategy that achieves appropriate capital allocation and management in support of long-term financial resilience.

Where company practices diverge from those set out below, we look for companies to disclose why they view these practices to be aligned with shareholders’ interests. We may vote against management proposals seeking capital-related authorities or the election of the most senior independent director if we have concerns about a company’s approach. We may also support a shareholder proposal seeking conversion of shares with differentiated voting rights to a one-share, one-vote standard.

Share issuance

We assess requests for share issuance for particular transactions on a case-by-case basis. We will generally support authorities to issue shares when subject to pre-emptive rights, and up to 20% absent pre-emptive rights. Companies should seek regular approval of these authorities to allow shareholders to take into consideration how prior authorities were used, as well as the current circumstances of the company and the market environment.

Share buybacks

We assess share buyback proposals in the context of the company’s disclosed capital management strategy and management’s determination of the appropriate balance between investment that supports the long-term growth of the company and returning cash to investors. We also take into consideration the effect of a buyback program on the company’s balance sheet and executive compensation arrangements and the price at which shares are repurchased relative to market price. Companies should seek regular approval of these authorities to allow shareholders to take into consideration how prior authorities were used, as well as the current circumstances of the company and the market environment.

We would normally expect companies to cancel repurchased shares. If a company plans to retain them as treasury shares, management should provide a detailed rationale in the context of the disclosed capital management strategy.

Dividends

We generally defer to management and the board on dividend policy but may engage to seek further clarification where a proposed dividend appears out of line with the company’s financial position.

Differentiated voting rights

We prefer companies to adopt a one-share, one-vote structure for share classes with the same economic exposure. Certain companies, particularly those new to public markets, could make the case to adopt a differentiated voting rights structure, or dual class stock. In those situations, we encourage companies to evaluate and seek approval for their capital structure on a periodic basis.

Transactions and special situations

We monitor developments in transactions and special situations closely and undertake our own detailed analyses of proposals.

Mergers and acquisitions

We evaluate proposed mergers or acquisitions by assessing the financial outcome for our clients as minority shareholders. Management should provide an assessment of the proposed transaction’s strategic and financial rationale, along with its execution and operational risks. We review each transaction independently based on these factors and the degree to which the transaction enhances shareholder value. The board should consider establishing an ad hoc transaction committee to undertake an independent assessment of a significant merger or acquisition, in advance of making its recommendation to shareholders.

We will vote against transactions that, in our assessment, do not advance our clients’ financial interests.

Anti-takeover defenses

In principle, we do not support companies using anti-takeover defenses, also known as poison pills or shareholder rights plans, as they can entrench management and boards which have not delivered long- term shareholder value. By exception, a poison pill may be supported if its purpose is to delay a takeover that is considered sub-optimal and enable management to seek an improved offer. Similarly, management could make the case to use a poison pill to block a shareholder activism campaign that may be counter to the interests of other investors. Defense mechanisms introduced in these circumstances should be limited in term and threshold, and also be closely monitored by the independent members of the board. We look for a shareholder vote for any mechanisms expected to be in place for more than 12 months.

Shareholder activism

When companies are the focus of an activism campaign, we may engage with the activist to understand their analysis and objectives, once they have gone public. We will also engage with company management and possibly board members, especially those the activist may be seeking to replace. In our assessment, we evaluate various factors, including the concerns raised by the activist and the case for change; the quality of both the activist’s and management’s plans; and the qualifications of each party’s candidates. We evaluate each contested situation by assessing the potential financial outcome for our clients as minority shareholders.

We may support board candidates nominated by a shareholder activist if the activist has demonstrated that their case for change enhances shareholder value, or if the incumbent board members do not demonstrate the relevant skills and expertise or have a poor track record of protecting shareholders’ interests.

Significant shareholders and related party transactions

Boards of companies with affiliated shareholders or directors should be able to demonstrate that the interests of all shareholders are given equitable consideration.

Transactions with related parties, such as significant shareholders or companies connected with the public company, should be disclosed in detail and conducted on terms similar to what would objectively have been agreed with a non-related party. Such transactions should be reviewed and approved by the independent members of the board, and if voted on, only disinterested shareholders should vote.

Corporate reporting, risk management and audit

Investors depend on corporate reporting, both regulatory and voluntary, to understand a company’s strategy, its implementation and financial performance, as well as to assess the quality of management and operations and potential for the company to create shareholder value over time. The board should oversee corporate reporting and the policies and procedures underpinning the internal audit function and external audit.

A company’s financial reporting should provide decision-useful information for investors and other stakeholders on its financial performance and position. It should provide an accurate and balanced assessment of the risks and opportunities the company faces in realizing its long-term strategy. Accordingly, the assumptions made by management and reviewed by the auditor in preparing the financial statements should be reasonable and justified. Financial statements should be prepared in accordance with globally developed reporting standards and any divergence from generally accepted accounting principles should be explained in detail and justified. Accounting restatements should be explained in detail and any remedial actions, and the implications of these, disclosed.

In this context, audit committees play a vital role in a company’s financial reporting system by providing independent oversight of the accounts, material financial and, where appropriate to the jurisdiction, nonfinancial information, internal control frameworks and Enterprise Risk Management systems. In our view, effective audit committee oversight strengthens the quality and reliability of a company’s financial statements and provides an important level of reassurance to shareholders. Audit committees should have a procedure in place for assessing the independence of the auditor and the quality of the external audit process annually.

Similarly, material sustainability-related factors that are integral to how a company manages risks or generates revenue should be disclosed. In our view, the standards developed by the International Sustainability Standards Board, can be helpful to companies in preparing such reports.⁴

⁴ The objective of IFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information is to require an entity to disclose information about its sustainability-related risks and opportunities that is useful to primary users of general-purpose financial reports in making decisions relating to providing resources to the entity. The objective of IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures is to require an entity to disclose information about its climate-related risks and opportunities that is useful to primary users of general-purpose financial reports in making decisions relating to providing resources to the entity.

Companies should establish robust risk management and internal control processes appropriate to the company’s business, risk tolerance, and regulatory environment. A credible whistleblowing system for employees, and potentially other stakeholders, can be a useful mechanism for ensuring that senior management and the board are aware of potential misconduct or breaches in risk management and internal control processes.

A comprehensive audit conducted by an independent audit firm contributes to investor confidence in the quality of corporate reporting. It is helpful when the audit report gives some insight into the scope and focus of the audit, as well as any critical audit matters identified and how these were resolved. A comprehensive and effective audit is time and resource intensive, and the audit fee should be commensurate. Fees paid to the audit firm for non-audit consulting should not exceed the audit fee to a degree that may prompt concerns about the independence of the audit. The audit committee should explain its position on auditor tenure and how it confirmed that the auditor remained independent.

We may vote against the election of the responsible directors if corporate reporting is insufficient or there are material misstatements in financial reports. In markets where relevant, we may vote against a proposal to approve the financial statements or the discharge of the board when we are concerned about the quality of the reporting or the audit. We may vote against proposals to appoint the auditor, ratify the audit report, or approve the audit fee if we are concerned about the auditor’s independence, the quality of the audit, or there are material misstatements in financial reports and the board has not established reasonable remediation plans.

Shareholder rights and protections

General shareholder meetings

Companies normally have an annual general meeting of shareholders at which routine and non-routine items of business are discussed and voted on by shareholders in attendance or submitting proxy votes. Companies should disclose materials relevant to the shareholder meeting sufficiently in advance so that shareholders can take them into consideration in their voting decisions. Many companies offer shareholders the option of participating in the meeting virtually which, whilst welcome, should not limit the rights of shareholders to participate as they would during an in-person meeting.

We may vote against directors when materials related to the business of the shareholder meeting are not provided in a timely manner or do not provide sufficient information for us to take an informed voting decision. We may vote against directors if the format of the shareholder meeting does not accommodate reasonable shareholder participation.

Bylaw amendments

We review bylaw amendments proposed by management on a case-by-case basis and will generally support those that are aligned with the interests of minority shareholders. Any material changes to the bylaws should be explained in detail and put to a shareholder vote.

We may vote against bylaw amendments that reduce shareholder rights and protections. We may vote against directors if material changes are made to the bylaws without shareholder approval. If not provided for in the relevant corporate law, company bylaws should allow shareholders, individually or as a group, with a meaningful shareholding the right to call a special meeting of shareholders. The shareholding required to exercise this right should balance its utility with the cost to the company of holding special meetings.

If not provided for in the relevant corporate law, company bylaws should allow shareholders, individually or as a group, with a meaningful shareholding the right to nominate directors to the company’s board. The threshold for this right should be set so that shareholders can exercise it without being unduly disruptive to the board’s own nomination process.

Whilst we would not use either of these rights ourselves, we see them as important accountability mechanisms. We may vote for a shareholder proposal seeking the addition of either of these provisions to a company’s bylaws.

Change of domicile

We generally defer to management on proposals to change a company’s domicile as long as the rationale for doing so is consistent with the company’s long-term strategy and business model and the related costs are immaterial.

We may vote against directors or a proposal to change a company’s domicile where it does not seem aligned with our clients’ financial interests.

Changes to a company’s purpose or the nature of its business

Plans to materially change the nature of a company’s business or its purpose should be disclosed and explained in the context of long-term strategy and business dynamics. Such changes may significantly alter an investor’s views on the suitability of a company for their investment strategy or portfolio.

Where relevant, we may vote against proposals to change a company’s purpose or the nature of its business if the board has not provided a credible argument for change.

Shareholder proposals

Shareholders in many markets, who meet certain eligibility criteria, have the right to submit proposals to the general shareholder meeting asking a company to take a particular course of action subject to the proposal being supported by a majority of votes cast at the meeting. The topics raised address a range of governance, social and environmental matters that may be relevant to a company’s business. Shareholder proposals are considered by many investors to be an escalation tool when a company is unresponsive to their engagement.

We vote on these proposals on a case-by-case basis. We assess the relevance of the topic raised to a company’s business and its current approach, whether the actions sought are consistent with shareholders’ interests, and what impact the proposal being acted upon might have on financial performance.

Our general approach where we have concerns about a company’s governance, disclosures or performance is to engage to understand the apparent difference in perspective. If we continue to believe the company is not acting in shareholders’ financial interests, we may vote against the election of directors. We may support a relevant shareholder proposal if doing so reinforces the points made in our engagement or is aligned with our clients’ financial interests. We generally do not support shareholder proposals that are legally binding on the company, seek to alter a company’s strategy or direct its operations, or are unrelated to how a company manages risk or generates financial returns.

BlackRock is subject to legal and regulatory requirements in the U.S. that place restrictions and limitations on how we can interact with the companies in which we invest on behalf of our clients, including our ability to submit shareholder proposals. We can vote on behalf of clients who authorize us to do so, on proposals put forth by others.

Corporate political activities

We seek to understand how companies ensure that their direct and indirect engagement in the policy making process is consistent with their public statements on policy matters important to the company’s long-term strategy. The board should be aware of the approach taken to corporate political activities as there can be reputational risks arising from inconsistencies. Companies should, as a minimum, meet all regulatory disclosure requirements on political activities, and ideally, provide accessible and clear disclosures to shareholders on policy positions, public policy engagement activities and political donations. To mitigate the risk of inconsistencies, companies can usefully assess the alignment between their policy priorities and the policy positions of the trade associations of which they are active members and any engagements undertaken by trade associations on behalf of members.

Generally, this is an engagement matter, although we may support a relevant shareholder proposal, or vote against directors, where a company’s disclosures are insufficient, or it becomes public that there is a material contradiction in a company’s public policy positions and its policy engagement.

Sustainability, or environmental and social, considerations

We seek to understand how companies manage the risks and opportunities inherent in their business operations. In our experience, sustainability-related factors⁵ that are relevant to a company’s business or

material to its financial performance, are generally operational considerations embedded into day-to-day management systems. Certain sustainability issues may also inform long-term strategic planning, for example, investing in product innovation in anticipation of changing consumer demand or adapting supply chains in response to changing regulatory requirements.

⁵By material sustainability-related risks and opportunities, we mean the drivers of risk and financial value creation in a company’s business model that have an environmental or social dependency or impact. Examples of environmental issues include, but are not limited to, water use, land use, waste management, and climate risk. Examples of social issues include, but are not limited to, human capital management, impacts on the communities in which a company operates, customer loyalty, and relationships with regulators. It is our view that well-managed companies will effectively evaluate and manage material sustainability-related risks and opportunities relevant to their businesses. Governance is the core means by which boards can oversee the creation of durable financial value over time. Appropriate risk oversight of business-relevant and material sustainability-related considerations is a component of a sound governance framework.

We recognize that the specific sustainability-related factors that may be financially material or business relevant will vary by company business model, sector, key markets, and time horizon, amongst other considerations. From company disclosures and our engagement, we aim to understand how management is identifying, assessing and integrating material sustainability-related risks and opportunities into their business decision-making and practices. Doing so helps us undertake a more holistic assessment of a company’s potential financial performance and the likely risk-adjusted returns of an investment.

We may vote against directors or support a relevant shareholder proposal if we have concerns about how a company is managing or disclosing its approach to material sustainability-related risks that may impact financial returns.

Key stakeholders

In our view, companies should understand and take into consideration the interests of the various parties on whom they depend for their success over time. It is for each company to determine their key stakeholders based on what is material to their business and long-term financial performance. For many companies, key stakeholders include employees, business partners (such as suppliers and distributors), clients and consumers, regulators, and the communities in which they operate. Companies that appropriately balance the interests of investors and other stakeholders are, in our experience, more likely to be financially resilient over time.

Climate and decarbonization investment objectives

Certain active BlackRock funds have climate and decarbonization objectives in addition to financial objectives. Consistent with the objectives of those investment strategies, our stewardship activity in relation to the holdings in those funds differs in some respects from BAIS’ benchmark guidelines, which are described above. Specifically, for those funds’ holdings, we look to investee companies to demonstrate that they are aligned with a decarbonization pathway that means their business model would be viable in a low-carbon economy, i.e., one in which global temperature rise is limited to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. This approach is only taken following BlackRock receiving the explicit approval from the applicable fund board.

The decarbonization stewardship guidelines focus on companies which produce goods and services that contribute to real world decarbonization or have a carbon intensive business model and face outsized impacts from the low carbon transition, based on reported and estimated scopes 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse gas emissions. These companies should provide disclosures that set out their governance, strategy, risk management processes and metrics and targets relevant to decarbonization. These disclosures should include an explanation of the decarbonization scenarios a company is using in its near- and long-term planning, as well as its scope 1, scope 2 and material scope 3 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and reduction targets for scope 1 and 2 emissions. As with the BAIS benchmark policies, we consider the

climate-risk reporting standard issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board, IFRS S2, a useful reference for such reporting.

Under these climate- and decarbonization-specific guidelines, BAIS may recommend a vote against directors or support for a relevant shareholder proposal if a company does not appear to be adequately addressing or disclosing material climate-related risks. We may recommend supporting shareholder proposals seeking information relevant to a company’s stated low-carbon transition strategy and targets that the company does not currently provide and that would be helpful to investment decision-making. As under the BAIS benchmark approach, the active portfolio managers are ultimately responsible for voting consistent with their investment mandate and fund objectives.

Appendix 1: How we fulfil and oversee our active investment stewardship responsibilities

Oversight

The Global Head of BAIS has primary oversight of and responsibility for the team’s activities, including voting in accordance with the BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines (“the Guidelines”), which require the application of professional judgment and consideration of each company’s unique circumstances, as well as input from active investors. BAIS is independent from BlackRock Investment Stewardship in our engagement and voting activities, reporting lines, and oversight.

The Active Investment Stewardship Oversight Committee, comprised of senior representatives of the active investment, legal and risk teams, reviews and advises on amendments to BAIS’ Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines. The Committee also considers developments in corporate governance, related public policy, and market norms and how these might influence BAIS’ policies and practices. The Committee does not determine voting decisions, which are the responsibility of BAIS and the relevant active equity investors.

In addition, there is a standing advisory group of senior active investors who counsel BAIS on complex or high-profile votes before a recommendation is finalized and escalated to the portfolio managers with holdings in the company under consideration. This group also formally reviews any revisions to the Engagement and Voting Guidelines proposed by BAIS as part of its annual review.

BAIS carries out engagement with companies in collaboration with active investment colleagues, executes proxy votes, and conducts vote operations (including maintaining records of votes cast) in a manner consistent with the Guidelines. BAIS also conducts research on corporate governance issues and participates in industry discussions to contribute to and keep abreast of important developments in the corporate governance field. BAIS may use third parties for certain of the foregoing activities and performs oversight of those third parties (see “Use and oversight of third-party vote services providers” below).

Voting guidelines and vote execution

BlackRock votes on proxy issues when our clients authorize us to do so. We carefully consider the voting items submitted to funds and other fiduciary account(s) (Fund or Funds) for which we have voting authority. BlackRock votes (or refrains from voting) for each Fund for which we have voting authority based on our evaluation of the alignment of the voting items with the long-term economic interests of our clients, in the exercise of our independent business judgment, and without regard to the relationship of the issuer (or any shareholder proponent or dissident shareholder) to the Fund, the Fund’s affiliates (if any), BlackRock or BlackRock’s affiliates, or BlackRock employees (see “Conflicts management policies and procedures,” below).

When exercising voting rights, BAIS will normally vote on specific proxy issues in accordance with the Guidelines, although portfolio managers have the right to vote differently on their holdings if they determine doing so is more aligned with the investment objective and financial interests of clients invested in the funds they manage.

The Guidelines are not intended to be exhaustive. BAIS applies the Guidelines on a case-by-case basis, in the context of the individual circumstances of each company and the specific issue under review. As such, the Guidelines do not indicate how BAIS will vote in every instance. Rather, they reflect our view about corporate governance issues generally, and provide insight into how we typically approach issues that commonly arise on corporate ballots. The Guidelines are reviewed annually and updated as necessary to reflect changes in market practices, developments in corporate governance and feedback from companies and clients. In this way, BAIS aims to maintain policies that explain our approach to governance practices most aligned with clients’ long-term financial interests.

In certain markets, proxy voting involves logistical issues which can affect BAIS’ ability to vote such proxies, as well as the desirability of voting such proxies. These issues include, but are not limited to: i) untimely notice of shareholder meetings; ii) restrictions on a foreigner’s ability to exercise votes; iii) requirements to vote proxies in person; iv) “share-blocking” (requirements that investors who exercise their voting rights surrender the right to dispose of their holdings for some specified period in proximity to the shareholder meeting); v) potential difficulties in translating the proxy; vi) regulatory constraints; and vii) requirements to provide local agents with unrestricted powers of attorney to facilitate voting instructions. We are not supportive of impediments to the exercise of voting rights such as share-blocking or overly burdensome administrative requirements.

BlackRock votes proxies in these situations on a “best-efforts” basis. In addition, BAIS may determine that it is generally in the interests of BlackRock’s clients not to vote proxies (or not to vote our full allocation) if the costs (including but not limited to opportunity costs associated with share-blocking constraints) associated with exercising a vote are expected to outweigh the benefit the client would derive by voting on the proposal.

Voting Choice

BlackRock offers Voting Choice, a program that provides eligible clients with more opportunities to participate in the proxy voting process where legally and operationally viable. Voting Choice is currently available for eligible clients invested in certain institutional pooled funds in the U.S., UK, and Canada that use systematic active equity (SAE) and multi-asset strategies. In addition, institutional clients in separately managed accounts (SMAs) are eligible for BlackRock Voting Choice regardless of their investment strategies.⁶

⁶With Voting Choice, SMAs have the ability to select from a set of voting policies from third-party proxy advisers the policy that best aligns with their views and preferences. BlackRock can then use its proxy voting infrastructure to cast votes based on the client’s selected voting policy.

As a result, the shares attributed to BlackRock in company share registers may be voted differently depending on whether our clients have authorized BAIS to vote on their behalf, have authorized BlackRock to vote in accordance with a third-party policy, or have elected to vote shares in accordance with their own policy. Our clients have greater control over proxy voting because of Voting Choice. BlackRock does not disclose client information, including a client’s selection of proxy policy, without client consent.

Use and oversight of third-party vote services providers

Third-party vote services providers – or proxy research firms—provide research and recommendations on proxy votes, as well as voting infrastructure. As mentioned previously, BlackRock contracts primarily with the vote services provider ISS and leverages its online platform to supply research and support voting, record keeping, and reporting processes. We also use Glass Lewis’ research and analysis as an input into our voting process. It is important to note that, although proxy research firms provide important data and analysis, BAIS does not rely solely on their information or follow their voting recommendations. A company’s disclosures, our past engagements and voting, investment colleagues’ insights and our voting guidelines are important inputs into our voting decisions on behalf of clients.

Given the large universe of actively held companies, BAIS employs the proxy services provider to streamline the voting process by making voting recommendations based on BAIS’ voting guidelines when the items on a shareholder meeting agenda are routine. Agenda items that are not routine are referred back to BAIS to assess, escalate as necessary to the relevant portfolio managers and vote. BAIS reviews and can override the recommendations of the vote services provider at any time prior to the vote deadline. Both BAIS and the vote services provider actively monitor securities filings, research reports, company announcements, and direct communications from companies to ensure awareness of supplemental disclosures and proxy materials that may require a modification of votes.

BAIS closely monitors the third-party vote services providers we contract with to ensure that they are meeting our service level expectations and have effective policies and procedures in place to manage potential conflicts of interest. Our oversight of service providers includes regular meetings with client service teams, systematic monitoring of vendor operations, as well as annual due diligence meetings in accordance with BlackRock’s firmwide policies.

Conflicts management policies and procedures

BAIS maintains policies and procedures that seek to prevent undue influence on BlackRock’s proxy voting activity. Such influence might stem from any relationship between the investee company (or any shareholder proponent or dissident shareholder) and BlackRock, BlackRock’s affiliates, a Fund or a Fund’s affiliates, or BlackRock employees. The following are examples of sources of perceived or potential conflicts of interest:

●

BlackRock clients who may be issuers of securities or proponents of shareholder resolutions

●

BlackRock business partners or third parties who may be issuers of securities or proponents of shareholder resolutions

●

BlackRock employees who may sit on the boards of public companies held in Funds managed by BlackRock

●

Significant BlackRock, Inc. investors who may be issuers of securities held in Funds managed by BlackRock

●

Securities of BlackRock, Inc. or BlackRock investment funds held in Funds managed by BlackRock

●

BlackRock, Inc. board members who serve as senior executives or directors of public companies held in Funds managed by BlackRock

●

BlackRock has taken certain steps to mitigate perceived or potential conflicts including, but not limited to, the following:

●

Adopted the Guidelines which are designed to advance our clients’ long-term economic interests in the companies in which BlackRock invests on their behalf

●

Established a reporting structure that separates BAIS from employees with sales, vendor management, or business partnership roles. In addition, BlackRock seeks to ensure that all engagements with corporate issuers, dissident shareholders or shareholder proponents are managed consistently and without regard to BlackRock’s relationship with such parties. Clients or business partners are not given special treatment or differentiated access. BAIS prioritizes engagements based on factors including, but not limited to, our need for additional information to make a voting decision or our view on the likelihood that an engagement could lead to positive outcome(s) over time for the economic value of the company. Within the normal course of business, BAIS may engage directly with BlackRock clients, business partners and/or third parties, and/or with employees with sales, vendor management, or business partnership roles, in discussions regarding

our approach to stewardship, general corporate governance matters, client reporting needs, and/or to otherwise ensure that proxy-related client service levels are met

●

Determined to engage, in certain instances, an independent third-party voting service provider to make proxy voting recommendations as a further safeguard to avoid potential conflicts of interest, to satisfy regulatory compliance requirements, or as may be otherwise required by applicable law. In such circumstances, the independent third-party voting service provider provides BlackRock with recommendations, in accordance with the Guidelines, as to how to vote such proxies. BlackRock uses an independent third-party voting service provider to make proxy voting recommendations for shares of BlackRock, Inc. and companies affiliated with BlackRock, Inc. BlackRock may also use an independent third-party voting service provider to make proxy voting recommendations for:

○

public companies that include BlackRock employees on their boards of directors

^○

public companies of which a BlackRock, Inc. board member serves as a senior executive or a member of the board of directors

^○

public companies that are the subject of certain transactions involving BlackRock Funds

^○

public companies that are joint venture partners with BlackRock, and

^○

public companies when legal or regulatory requirements compel BlackRock to use an independent third-party voting service provider

In selecting an independent third-party voting service provider, we assess several characteristics, including but not limited to: independence, an ability to analyze proxy issues and make recommendations in the economic interest of our clients in accordance with the Guidelines, reputation for reliability and integrity, and operational capacity to accurately deliver the assigned recommendations in a timely manner. We may engage more than one independent third-party voting service provider, in part to mitigate potential or perceived conflicts of interest at a single voting service provider. The Active Investment Stewardship Oversight Committee appoints and reviews the performance of the independent third-party voting service providers, generally on an annual basis.

Securities lending

When so authorized, BlackRock acts as a securities lending agent on behalf of Funds. Securities lending is a well-regulated practice that contributes to capital market efficiency. It also enables funds to generate additional returns while allowing fund providers to keep fund expenses lower.

With regard to the relationship between securities lending and proxy voting, BlackRock cannot vote shares on loan and may determine to recall them for voting, as guided by our fiduciary duty as an asset manager to our clients in helping them achieve their investment goals. While this has occurred in a limited number of cases, the decision to recall securities on loan as part of BlackRock’s securities lending program in order to vote is based on an evaluation of various factors that include, but are not limited to, assessing potential securities lending revenue alongside the potential long-term financial value to clients of voting those securities (based on the information available at the time of recall consideration). BAIS works with active portfolio managers, as well as colleagues in the Securities Lending and Risk and Quantitative Analysis teams, to evaluate the costs and benefits to clients of recalling shares on loan.

In almost all instances, BlackRock anticipates that the potential long-term financial value to clients of voting shares would not warrant recalling securities on loan. However, in certain instances, BlackRock may determine, in our independent business judgment as a fiduciary, that the value of voting outweighs the securities lending revenue loss to clients and would therefore recall shares to be voted in those instances.

Periodically, BlackRock reviews our process for determining whether to recall securities on loan in order to vote and may modify it as necessary.

Reporting and vote transparency

BAIS is committed to transparency in the stewardship work we do on behalf of clients. We inform clients about our engagement and voting policies and activities through direct communication and disclosure on our website.

Want to know more?

blackrock.com/stewardship | ContactActiveStewardship@blackrock.com

The document is provided for information purposes only and is subject to change. Reliance upon this information is at the sole discretion of the reader.

Prepared by BlackRock, Inc.

©2024 BlackRock, Inc. All rights reserved. BLACKROCK is a trademark of BlackRock, Inc., or its subsidiaries in the United States and elsewhere. All other trademarks are those of their respective owners.

The following is added alphabetically to the Appendix C – Compensation Structures and Methodologies of Portfolio Managers:

BlackRock Investment Management, LLC (“BlackRock”)

The discussion below describes the portfolio managers’ compensation as of November 30, 2024

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

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

Discretionary Incentive Compensation – Messrs. DeSpirito and Zhao

Generally, discretionary incentive compensation for Fundamental Equities portfolio managers is based on a formulaic compensation program. BlackRock’s formulaic portfolio manager compensation program is based on team revenue and pre-tax investment performance relative to appropriate competitors or benchmarks over 1-, 3- and 5-year performance periods, as applicable. In most cases, these benchmarks are the same as the benchmark or benchmarks against which the performance of the Funds or other accounts managed by the portfolio managers are measured. BlackRock’s Chief Investment Officers determine the benchmarks or rankings against which the performance of funds and other accounts managed by each portfolio management team is compared and the period of time over which performance is evaluated. With respect to these portfolio managers, the benchmark for the Funds and other accounts are: FTSE United States in GBP; MSCI All Country (AC) Americas Index; Russell 1000 Index (GBP); Russell 1000 Index (Gross Total Return); Russell 1000 Value Index (Total Return); Russell 1000 Value Index TR in GBP; Russell 1000 Value TR Customized Index Performance Benchmark JPY; Russell 1000, expressed in EUR; Russell MidCap Value Index; S&P United States MidSmallCap Index; S&P US MidSmallCap Index (GBP).

A smaller element of portfolio manager discretionary compensation may include consideration of: financial results, expense control, profit margins, strategic planning and implementation, quality of client service, market share, corporate reputation, capital allocation, compliance and risk control, leadership, technology and innovation. These factors are considered collectively by BlackRock management and the relevant Chief Investment Officers.

Distribution of Discretionary Incentive Compensation. Discretionary incentive compensation is distributed to portfolio managers in a combination of cash, deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock awards, and/or deferred cash awards that notionally track the return of certain BlackRock investment products.

Portfolio managers receive their annual discretionary incentive compensation in the form of cash. Portfolio managers whose total compensation is above a specified threshold also receive deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock awards annually as part of their discretionary incentive compensation. Paying a portion of discretionary incentive compensation in the form of deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock puts compensation earned by a portfolio manager for a given year “at risk” based on BlackRock’s ability to sustain and improve its performance over future periods. In some cases, additional deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock may be granted to certain key employees as part of a long-term incentive award to aid in retention, align interests with long-term shareholders and motivate performance. Deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock awards are generally granted in the form of BlackRock, Inc. restricted stock units that vest pursuant to the terms of the applicable plan and, once vested, settle in BlackRock, Inc. common stock. The portfolio managers of these Funds have deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock awards.

For certain portfolio managers, a portion of the discretionary incentive compensation is also distributed in the form of deferred cash awards that notionally track the returns of select BlackRock investment products they manage, which provides direct alignment of portfolio manager discretionary incentive compensation with investment product results. Deferred cash awards vest ratably over a number of years and, once vested, settle in the form of cash. Only portfolio managers who manage specified products and whose total compensation is above a specified threshold are eligible to participate in the deferred cash award program.

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

Incentive Savings Plans — BlackRock, Inc. has created a variety of incentive savings plans in which BlackRock employees are eligible to participate, including a 401(k) plan, the BlackRock Retirement Savings Plan (RSP), and the BlackRock Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP). The employer contribution components of the RSP include a company match equal to 50% of the first 8% of eligible pay contributed to the plan capped at $5,000 per year, and a company retirement contribution equal to 3-5% of eligible compensation up to the Internal Revenue Service limit ($345,000 for 2024). The RSP offers a range of investment options, including registered investment companies and collective investment funds managed by the firm. BlackRock contributions follow the investment direction set by participants for their own contributions or, absent participant investment direction, are invested into a target date fund that corresponds to, or is closest to, the year in which the participant attains age 65. The ESPP allows for investment in BlackRock common stock at a 5% discount on the fair market value of the stock on the purchase date. Annual participation in the ESPP is limited to the purchase of 1,000 shares of common stock or a dollar value of $25,000 based on its fair market value on the purchase date. All of the eligible portfolio managers are eligible to participate in these plans.

PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE