Item 2. Code of Ethics.
As of the end of the period covered by this report, Registrant had adopted a code of ethics, as defined in Item 2 of Form N-CSR, that applies to the Registrant’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer. There were no amendments to the Code during the period covered by the report. The Registrant did not grant any waivers, including implicit waivers, from any provisions of the Code during the period covered by this report. The code of ethics is filed herewith pursuant to Item 13(a)(1), Ex-99.CODE ETH.
Item 3. Audit Committee Financial Expert.
The Board of Trustees has determined that Colleen D. Baldwin, Martin J. Gavin, and Joseph E. Obermeyer are audit committee financial experts, as defined in Item 3 of Form N-CSR. Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Gavin, and Mr. Obermeyer are “independent” for purposes of Item 3 of Form N-CSR.
Item 4. Principal Accountant Fees and Services.
Below are the amount of fees that Ernst & Young LLP (“EY”), the Registrant’s current Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, billed and paid to the Fund during the Fund’s fiscal years ended February 28, 2023 and February 28, 2022.
| (a) | Audit Fees: The aggregate fees billed and paid for each of the last two fiscal years for professional services rendered by Ernst & Young LLP (“EY”), the principal accountant for the audit of the registrant’s annual financial statements or services that are normally provided by the accountant in connection with statutory and regulatory filings or engagements for those fiscal years were $26,770 for the year ended February 28, 2023 and $23,900 for the year ended February 28, 2022. |
| (b) | Audit-Related Fees: The aggregate fees billed and paid in each of the last two fiscal years for assurance and related services by EY that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit of the registrant’s financial statements and are not reported under paragraph (a) of this Item were $0 for the year ended February 28, 2023 and $0 for the year ended February 28, 2022. |
| (c) | Tax Fees: The aggregate fees billed and paid in each of the last two fiscal years for professional services rendered by EY for tax compliance, tax advice, and tax planning were $23,230 for the year ended February 28, 2023 and $18,541 for the year ended February 28, 2022. Such services included review of excise distribution calculations (if applicable), preparation of the Registrants’ federal, state, and excise tax returns, tax services related to mergers and routine consulting. |
| (d) | All Other Fees: The aggregate fees billed and paid in each of the last two fiscal years for products and services provided by EY, other than the services reported in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this Item were $0 for the year ended February 28, 2023 and $0 for the year ended February 28, 2022. |
| (e)(1) | Audit Committee Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures |
Appendix A
AUDIT AND NON-AUDIT SERVICES
PRE-APPROVAL POLICY
I. | Statement of Principles |
Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Act”), the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors or Trustees (the “Committee”) of the Voya funds (each a “Fund,” collectively, the “Funds”) set out on Exhibit A to this Audit and Non-Audit Services Pre-Approval Policy (“Policy”) is responsible for the oversight of the work of the Funds’ independent auditors. As part of its responsibilities, the Committee must pre-approve the audit and non-audit services performed by the auditors in order to assure that the provision of these services does not impair the auditors’ independence from the Funds. The Committee has adopted, and the Board has ratified, this Policy, which sets out the procedures and conditions under which the services of the independent auditors may be pre-approved.
Under Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) rules promulgated in accordance with the Act, the Funds may establish two different approaches to pre-approving audit and non-audit services. The Committee may approve services without consideration of specific case-by-case services (“general pre-approval”) or it may pre-approve specific services (“specific pre-approval”). The Committee believes that the combination of these approaches contemplated in this Policy results in an effective and efficient method for pre-approving audit and non-audit services to be performed by the Funds’ independent auditors. Under this Policy, services that are not of a type that may receive general pre-approval require specific pre-approval by the Committee. Any proposed services that exceed pre-approved cost levels or budgeted amounts will also require the Committee’s specific pre-approval.
For both types of approval, the Committee considers whether the subject services are consistent with the SEC’s rules on auditor independence and that such services are compatible with maintaining the auditors independence. The Committee also considers whether a particular audit firm is in the best position to provide effective and efficient services to the Funds. Reasons that the auditors are in the best position include the auditors’ familiarity with the Funds’ business, personnel, culture, accounting systems, risk profile, and other factors, and whether the services will enhance the Funds’ ability to manage and control risk or improve audit quality. Such factors will be considered as a whole, with no one factor being determinative.
The appendices attached to this Policy describe the audit, audit-related, tax-related, and other services that have the Committee’s general pre-approval. For any service that has been approved through general pre-approval, the general pre-approval will remain in place for a period 12 months from the date of pre-approval, unless the Committee determines that a different period is appropriate. The Committee will annually review and pre-approve the services that may be provided by the independent auditors without specific pre-approval. The Committee will revise the list of services subject to general pre-approval as appropriate. This Policy does not serve as a delegation to Fund management of the Committee’s duty to pre-approve services performed by the Funds’ independent auditors.
The annual audit services engagement terms and fees are subject to the Committee’s specific pre-approval. Audit services are those services that are normally provided by auditors in connection with statutory and regulatory filings or engagements or those that generally only independent auditors can reasonably provide. They include the Funds’ annual financial statement audit and procedures that the independent auditors must perform in order to form an opinion on the Funds’ financial statements (e.g., information systems and procedural reviews and testing). The Committee will monitor the audit services engagement and approve any changes in terms, conditions or fees deemed by the Committee to be necessary or appropriate.
The Committee may grant general pre-approval to other audit services, such as statutory audits and services associated with SEC registration statements, periodic reports and other documents filed with the SEC or issued in connection with securities offerings.
The Committee has pre-approved the audit services listed on Appendix A. The Committee must specifically approve all audit services not listed on Appendix A.
III. | Audit-related Services |
Audit-related services are assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or the review of the Funds’ financial statements or are traditionally performed by the independent auditors. The Committee believes that the provision of audit-related services will not impair the independent auditors’ independence, and therefore may grant pre-approval to audit-related services. Audit-related services include accounting consultations related to accounting, financial reporting or disclosure matters not classified as “audit services;” assistance with understanding and implementing new accounting and financial reporting guidance from rulemaking authorities; agreed-upon or expanded audit procedures relating to accounting and/or billing records required to respond to or comply with financial, accounting or regulatory reporting matters; and assistance with internal control reporting requirements under Form N-CEN or Form N-CSR.
The Committee has pre-approved the audit-related services listed on Appendix B. The Committee must specifically approve all audit-related services not listed on Appendix B.
The Committee believes the independent auditors can provide tax services to the Funds, including tax compliance, tax planning, and tax advice, without compromising the auditors’ independence. Therefore, the Committee may grant general pre-approval with respect to tax services historically provided by the Funds’ independent auditors that do not, in the Committee’s view, impair auditor independence and that are consistent with the SEC’s rules on auditor independence.
The Committee will not grant pre-approval if the independent auditors initially recommends a transaction the sole business purpose of which is tax avoidance and the tax treatment of which may not be supported in the Internal Revenue Code and related regulations. The Committee may consult outside counsel to determine that tax planning and reporting positions are consistent with this Policy.
The Committee has pre-approved the tax-related services listed on Appendix C. The Committee must specifically approve all tax-related services not listed on Appendix C.
The Committee believes it may grant approval of non-audit services that are permissible services for independent auditors to a Fund. The Committee has determined to grant general pre-approval to other services that it believes are routine and recurring, do not impair auditor independence, and are consistent with SEC rules on auditor independence.
The Committee has pre-approved the non-audit services listed on Appendix D. The Committee must specifically approve all non-audit services not listed on Appendix D.
A list of the SEC’s prohibited non-audit services is attached to this Policy as Appendix E. The SEC’s rules and relevant guidance should be consulted to determine the precise definitions of these impermissible services and the applicability of exceptions to certain of the SEC’s prohibitions.
VI. | Pre-approval of Fee levels and Budgeted Amounts |
The Committee will annually establish pre-approval fee levels or budgeted amounts for audit, audit-related, tax and non-audit services to be provided to the Funds by the independent auditors. Any proposed services exceeding these levels or amounts require the Committee’s specific pre-approval. The Committee considers fees for audit and non-audit services when deciding whether to pre-approve services. The Committee may determine, for a pre-approval period of 12 months, the appropriate ratio between the total amount of fees for the Fund’s audit, audit-related, and tax services (including fees for services provided to Fund affiliates that are subject to pre-approval), and the total amount of fees for certain permissible non-audit services for the Fund classified as other services (including any such services provided to Fund affiliates that are subject to pre-approval).
Requests or applications for services to be provided by the independent auditors will be submitted to management. If management determines that the services do not fall within those services generally pre-approved by the Committee and set out in the appendices to these procedures, management will submit the services to the Committee or its delagee. Any such submission will include a detailed description of the services to be rendered. Notwithstanding this paragraph, the Committee will, on a quarterly basis, receive from the independent auditors a list of services provided for the previous calendar quarter on a cumulative basis by the auditors during the Pre-Approval Period.
The Committee may delegate pre-approval authority to one or more of the Committee’s members. Any member or members to whom such pre-approval authority is delegated must report any pre-approval decisions, including any pre-approved services, to the Committee at its next scheduled meeting. The Committee will identify any member to whom pre-approval authority is delegated in writing. The member will retain such authority for a period of 12 months from the date of pre-approval unless the Committee determines that a different period is appropriate. The period of delegated authority may be terminated by the Committee or at the option of the member.
IX. | Additional Requirements |
The Committee will take any measures the Committee deems necessary or appropriate to oversee the work of the independent auditors and to assure the auditors’ independence from the Funds. This may include reviewing a formal written statement from the independent auditors delineating all relationships between the auditors and the Funds, consistent with Independence Standards Board No. 1, and discussing with the auditors their methods and procedures for ensuring independence.
Last Approved: November 17, 2022
Appendix A
Pre-Approved Audit Services for the Pre-Approval Period January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023
Service |
| The Fund(s) | Fee Range |
Statutory audits or financial audits (including tax services associated with audit services) | √ | As presented to Audit Committee1 |
Services associated with SEC registration statements, periodic reports and other documents filed with the SEC or other documents issued in connection with securities offerings (e.g., consents), and assistance in responding to SEC comment letters. | √ | Not to exceed $9,750 per filing |
Consultations by Fund management with respect to accounting or disclosure treatment of transactions or events and/or the actual or potential effect of final or proposed rules, standards or interpretations by the SEC, Financial Accounting Standards Board, or other regulatory or standard setting bodies. | √ | Not to exceed $8,000 during the Pre-Approval Period |
Seed capital audit and related review and issuance of consent on the N-2 registration statement | √ | Not to exceed $14,750 per audit |
Audit of summary portfolio of investments | √ | Not to exceed $840 per fund |
1 | For new Funds launched during the Pre-Approval Period, the fee ranges pre-approved will be the same as those for existing Funds, pro-rated in accordance with inception dates as provided in the auditors’ Proposal or any Engagement Letter covering the period at issue. Fees in the Engagement Letter will be controlling. |
Appendix B
Pre-Approved Audit-Related Services for the Pre-Approval Period January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023
Service |
| The Fund(s) | Fund Affiliates | Fee Range |
Services related to Fund mergers (Excludes tax services - See Appendix C for tax services associated with Fund mergers) | √ | √ | Not to exceed $10,000 per merger |
Consultations by Fund management with respect to accounting or disclosure treatment of transactions or events and/or the actual or potential effect of final or proposed rules, standards or interpretations by the SEC, Financial Accounting Standards Board, or other regulatory or standard setting bodies. [Note: Under SEC rules some consultations may be “audit” services and others may be “audit-related” services.] | √ | | Not to exceed $5,000 per occurrence during the Pre-Approval Period |
Review of the Funds’ semi-annual and quarterly financial statements | √ | | Not to exceed $2,700 per set of financial statements per fund |
Reports to regulatory or government agencies related to the annual engagement | √ | | Up to $5,000 per occurrence during the Pre-Approval Period |
Regulatory compliance assistance | √ | √ | Not to exceed $5,000 per quarter |
Training courses | | √ | Not to exceed $5,000 per course |
Appendix C
Pre-Approved Tax Services for the Pre-Approval Period January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023
Service |
| The Fund(s) | Fund Affiliates | Fee Range |
Preparation of federal and state income tax returns and federal excise tax returns for the Funds including assistance and review with excise tax distributions (Funds fees) | √ | | As presented to Audit Committee2 |
Review of IRC Sections 851(b) and 817(h) diversification testing on a real-time basis | √ | | As presented to Audit Committee2 |
Tax assistance and advice regarding statutory, regulatory or administrative developments | √ | √ | Not to exceed $5,000 for the Funds or for the Funds’ investment adviser during the Pre-Approval Period |
| 2 | For new Funds launched during the Pre-Approval Period, the fee ranges pre-approved will be the same as those for existing Funds, pro-rated in accordance with inception dates as provided in the auditors’ Proposal or any Engagement Letter covering the period at issue. Fees in the Engagement Letter will be controlling. |
Appendix C, continued Pre-Approved Tax Services for the Pre-Approval Period January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023
Service |
| The Fund(s) | Fund Affiliates | Fee Range |
Tax and technology training sessions | | √ | Not to exceed $5,000 per course during the Pre-Approval Period |
Tax services associated with Fund mergers | √ | √ | Not to exceed $4,000 per fund per merger during the Pre-Approval Period |
Tax compliance services related to return preparation for the Funds (Adviser Fees) | | √ | As presented to Audit Committee3 |
Other tax-related assistance and consultation, including, without limitation, assistance in evaluating derivative financial instruments and international tax issues, qualification and distribution issues, year-end reporting for 1099’s, tax compliance services in foreign jurisdictions and similar routine tax consultations as requested. | √ | | Not to exceed $300,000 during the Pre-Approval Period |
EU Reclaims IRS Closing Agreement Filings | √ | | $20,000 per Fund first closing agreement, $5,000 for subsequent closing agreements for same Fund |
| 3 | For new Funds launched during the Pre-Approval Period, the fee ranges pre-approved will be the same as those for existing Funds, pro-rated in accordance with inception dates as provided in the auditors’ Proposal or any Engagement Letter covering the period at issue. Fees in the Engagement Letter will be controlling. |
Appendix D
Pre-Approved Other Services for the Pre-Approval Period January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023
Service |
| The Fund(s) | Fund Affiliates | Fee Range |
Agreed-upon procedures for Class B share 12b-1 programs | | √ | Not to exceed $60,000 during the Pre-Approval Period |
Security counts performed pursuant to Rule 17f-2 of the 1940 Act (i.e., counts for Funds holding securities with affiliated sub-custodians) Cost to be borne 50% by the Funds and 50% by Voya Investments, LLC. | √ | √ | Not to exceed $5,700 per Fund during the Pre-Approval Period |
Agreed upon procedures for 15 (c) FACT Books | √ | | Not to exceed $50,000 during the Pre-Approval Period |
Appendix E
Prohibited Non-Audit Services
Dated: January 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023
| ● | Bookkeeping or other services related to the accounting records or financial statements of the Funds |
| ● | Financial information systems design and implementation |
| ● | Appraisal or valuation services, fairness opinions, or contribution-in-kind reports |
| ● | Internal audit outsourcing services |
| ● | Broker-dealer, investment adviser, or investment banking services |
| ● | Expert services unrelated to the audit |
| ● | Any other service that the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board determines, by regulation, is impermissible |
EXHIBIT A
VOYA ASIA PACIFIC HIGH DIVIDEND EQUITY INCOME FUND
VOYA BALANCED PORTFOLIO, INC.
VOYA CREDIT INCOME FUND
VOYA EMERGING MARKETS HIGH DIVIDEND EQUITY FUND
VOYA EQUITY TRUST
VOYA FUNDS TRUST
VOYA GLOBAL ADVANTAGE AND PREMIUM OPPORTUNITY FUND
VOYA GLOBAL EQUITY DIVIDEND AND PREMIUM OPPORTUNITY FUND
VOYA INFRASTRUCTURE, INDUSTRIALS, AND MATERIALS FUND
VOYA INTERMEDIATE BOND PORTFOLIO
VOYA INVESTORS TRUST
VOYA GOVERNMENT MONEY MARKET PORTFOLIO
VOYA MUTUAL FUNDS
VOYA PARTNERS, INC.
VOYA SEPARATE PORTFOLIOS TRUST
VOYA STRATEGIC ALLOCATIONS PORTFOLIOS, INC.
VOYA VARIABLE FUNDS
VOYA VARIABLE INSURANCE TRUST
VOYA VARIABLE PORTFOLIOS INC,
VOYA VARIABLE PRODUCTS TRUST
| (e)(2) | Percentage of services referred to in 4(b) – (4)(d) that were approved by the audit committee |
100% of the services were approved by the audit committee.
| (f) | Percentage of hours expended attributable to work performed by other than full time employees of EY if greater than 50% |
Not applicable.
| (g) | Non-Audit Fees: The following table presents (i) the aggregate non-audit fees (i.e., fees for audit-related, tax, and other services) billed and paid to the Registrant by the independent registered public accounting firm for the Registrant’s fiscal years ended, February 28, 2023 and February 28, 2022; and (ii) the aggregate non-audit fees billed to the investment adviser, or any of its affiliates that provide ongoing services to the registrant, by the independent registered public accounting firm for the same time periods. |
Registrant/Investment Adviser | | 2023 | | | 2022 | |
Voya Infrastructure, Industrials and Materials Fund | | $ | 23,230 | | | $ | 18,541 | |
Voya Investments, LLC (1) | | $ | 10,659,560 | | | $ | 12,007,569 | |
(1) The Registrant’s investment adviser and any of its affiliates, which are subsidiaries of Voya Financial, Inc.
| (h) | Principal Accountants Independence: The Registrant’s Audit committee has considered whether the provision of non-audit services that were rendered to the registrant’s investment adviser and any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the investment adviser that provides ongoing services to the registrant that were not pre-approved pursuant to Rule 2-01(c)(7)(ii) of Regulation S-X is compatible with maintaining EY’s independence. |
Item 5. Audit Committee of Listed Registrants.
| a. | The registrant has a separately-designated standing audit committee. The members are Colleen D. Baldwin, Martin J. Gavin, and Joseph E. Obermeyer. |
Item 6. Schedule of Investments.
| (a) | Schedule is included as part of the report to shareholders filed under Item 1 of this Form. |
Item 7. Disclosure of Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures for Closed-End Management Investment Companies.
PROXY VOTING Policy
VOYA FUNDS
VOYA iNVESTMENTS, LLC
Date Last Revised: March 16, 2023
Introduction
This document sets forth the proxy voting procedures (“Procedures”) and guidelines (“Guidelines”), collectively the “Proxy Voting Policy”, that Voya Investments, LLC (“Adviser”) shall follow when voting proxies on behalf of the Voya funds for which it serves as investment adviser (each a “Fund” and collectively, the “Funds”). The Funds’ Boards of Directors/Trustees (“Board”) have approved the Proxy Voting Policy.
The Board may determine to delegate proxy voting to a sub-adviser of one or more Funds (rather than to the Adviser) in which case the sub-adviser’s proxy policies and procedures for implementation on behalf of such Fund (a “Sub-Adviser-Voted Fund”) shall be subject to Board approval. Sub-Adviser-Voted Funds are not covered under the Proxy Voting Policy except as described in the Reporting and Record Retention section below relating to vote reporting requirements. Sub-Adviser-Voted Funds are governed by the applicable sub-adviser’s respective proxy policies provided that the Board has approved such policies.
The Proxy Voting Policy incorporates principles and guidance set forth in relevant pronouncements of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and its staff regarding the Adviser’s fiduciary duty to ensure that proxies are voted in a timely manner and that voting decisions are always in the Funds’ best interest.
Pursuant to the Policy, the Adviser’s Active Ownership team (“AO Team”) is delegated the responsibility to vote the Funds’ proxies in accordance with the Proxy Voting Policy on the Funds’ behalf.
The engagement of a Proxy Advisory Firm (as defined in the Proxy Advisory Firm section below) shall be subject to the Board’s initial approval and annual Board review and approval thereafter. The AO Team is responsible for Proxy Advisory Firm oversight and shall direct the Proxy Advisory Firm to vote proxies in accordance with the Guidelines.
The Board’s Compliance Committee (“Compliance Committee”) shall review the Proxy Voting Policy not less than annually and these documents shall be updated as appropriate. No material changes to the Proxy Voting Policy shall become effective without Board approval. The Compliance Committee may approve non-material amendments for immediate implementation subject to full Board ratification at its next regularly scheduled meeting.
Adviser’s Roles and Responsibilities
Active Ownership Team
The AO Team shall direct the Proxy Advisory Firm to vote proxies on the Funds’ and Adviser’s behalf in connection with annual and special shareholder meetings (except those regarding bankruptcy matters and/or related plans of reorganization).
The AO Team is responsible for overseeing the Proxy Advisory Firm and voting the Funds’ proxies in accordance with the Proxy Voting Policy on the Funds’ and the Adviser’s behalf.
The AO Team is authorized to direct the Proxy Advisory Firm to vote Fund proxies in accordance with the Proxy Voting Policy. Responsibilities assigned to the AO Team or activities in support thereof may be performed by such members of the Proxy Committee (as defined in the Proxy Committee section below) or employees of the Adviser’s affiliates as the Proxy Committee deems appropriate.
The AO Team is also responsible for identifying potential conflicts between the proxy issuer and the Proxy Advisory Firm, the Adviser, the Funds’ principal underwriters, or an affiliated person of the Funds. The AO Team shall identify such potential conflicts of interest based on information the Proxy Advisory Firm periodically provides; analyses of Voya’s clients, distributors, broker-dealers, and vendors; and information derived from other sources including but not limited to public filings.
Proxy Advisory Firm
The Proxy Advisory Firm is required to coordinate with the Funds’ custodians to ensure that those firms process all proxy materials they receive relating to portfolio securities in a timely manner. To the extent applicable the Proxy Advisory Firm is required to provide research, analysis, and vote recommendations under its Proxy Voting guidelines. The Proxy Advisory Firm is required to produce custom vote recommendations in accordance with the Guidelines and their vote recommendations.
Proxy Committee
The Proxy Committee shall ensure that the Funds vote proxies consistent with the Proxy Voting Policy. The Proxy Committee accordingly reviews and evaluates this Policy, oversees the development and implementation thereof, and resolves ad hoc issues that may arise from time to time. The Proxy Committee is comprised of senior leaders of Voya Investment Management, including fundamental research, ESG research, active ownership, compliance, legal, finance, and operations of the Adviser. The Proxy Committee membership may be amended at the Adviser’s discretion from time to time. The Board will be informed of any membership changes quarterly at the next regularly scheduled meeting.
Investment Professionals
The Funds’ sub-advisers and/or portfolio managers are each referred to herein as an “Investment Professional” and collectively, “Investment Professionals”. Investment Professionals are encouraged to submit recommendations to the AO Team regarding any proxy voting-related proposals relating to the portfolio securities over which they have daily portfolio management responsibility including proxy contests, proposals relating to issuers with dual class shares with superior voting rights, and/or mergers and acquisitions.
PROXY VOTING PROCEDURES
Vote Classification
Within-Guidelines Votes: Votes in Accordance with these Guidelines
A vote cast in accordance with these Guidelines is considered Within-Guidelines.
Out-of-Guidelines Votes: Votes Contrary to these Guidelines
A vote that is contrary to these Guidelines may be cast when the AO team and/or Proxy Committee determine that application of these Guidelines is inappropriate under the circumstances. A vote is considered contrary to these Guidelines when such vote contradicts the approach outlined in the Policy.
A vote would not be considered contrary to these Guidelines for cases in which these Guidelines stipulate a Case-by-Case consideration or an Investment Professional provides a written rationale for such vote.
Matters Requiring Case-by-Case Consideration
The Proxy Advisory Firm shall refer proxy proposals to the AO Team for consideration when the Procedures and Guidelines indicate a “Case-by-Case” consideration. Additionally, the Proxy Advisory Firm shall refer a proxy proposal under circumstances in which the application of the Procedures and Guidelines is uncertain, appears to involve unusual or controversial issues, or is silent regarding the proposal.
Upon receipt of a referral from the Proxy Advisory Firm, the AO Team may solicit additional research or clarification from the Proxy Advisory Firm, Investment Professional(s), or other sources.
The AO Team shall review matters requiring Case-by-Case consideration to determine whether such proposals require an Investment Professional and/or Proxy Committee input and a vote determination.
Non-Votes: Votes in which No Action is Taken
The AO Team shall make reasonable efforts to secure and vote all Fund proxies. Nevertheless a Fund may refrain from voting under certain circumstances including, but not limited to:
● | The economic effect on shareholder interests or the value of the portfolio holding is indeterminable or insignificant (e.g., proxies in connection with fractional shares), securities no longer held in a Fund, or a proxy is being considered for a Fund no longer in existence. |
● | The cost of voting a proxy outweighs the benefits (e.g., certain international proxies, particularly in cases in which share-blocking practices may impose trading restrictions on the relevant portfolio security). |
Conflicts of Interest
The Adviser shall act in the Funds’ best interests and strive to avoid conflicts of interest.
Conflicts of interest may arise in situations in which, but not limited to:
● | The issuer is a vendor whose products or services are material to the Funds, the Adviser, or their affiliates; |
● | The issuer is an entity participating to a material extent in the Funds’ distribution; |
● | The issuer is a significant executing broker-dealer for the Funds and/or the Adviser; |
● | Any individual who participates in the voting process for the Funds, including: |
| ○ | Investment Professionals; |
| ○ | Members of the Proxy Committee; |
| ○ | Employees of the Adviser; |
| ○ | Board Directors/Trustees; and |
| ○ | Individuals who serve as a director or officer of the issuer. |
● | The issuer is Voya Financial. |
Investment Professionals, the Proxy Advisory Firm, the Proxy Committee, and the AO Team shall disclose any potential conflicts of interest and/or confirm they do not have conflicts of interest relating to their participation in the voting process for portfolio securities.
The AO Team shall call a meeting of the Proxy Committee if a potential conflict exists and a member (or members) of the AO Team wishes to vote contrary to these Guidelines or an Investment Professional provides input regarding a meeting and has confirmed a conflict exists with regard thereto. The Proxy Committee shall then consider the matter and vote on a best course of action.
The AO Team shall use best efforts to convene the Proxy Committee with respect to all matters requiring its consideration. If the Proxy Committee cannot meet its quorum requirements by the voting deadline it shall execute the vote in accordance with these Guidelines.
The Adviser shall maintain records regarding any determinations to vote contrary to these Guidelines including those in which a potential Voya Investment Management Conflict exists. Such records shall include the rationale for the contrary vote.
Potential Conflicts with a Proxy Issuer
The AO Team shall identify potential conflicts with proxy issuers. In addition to obtaining potential conflict of interest information described in the Roles and Responsibilities section above, Proxy Committee members shall disclose to the AO Team any potential conflicts of interests with an issuer prior to discussing the Proxy Advisory Firm’s recommendation.
Proxy Committee members shall advise the AO Team in the event they believe a potential or perceived conflict of interest exists that may preclude them from making a vote determination in the Funds’ best interests. The Proxy Committee member may elect recusal from considering the relevant proxy. Proxy Committee members shall complete a Conflict of Interest Report when they verbally disclose a potential conflict of interest.
Investment Professionals shall also confirm that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest when submitting vote recommendations to the AO Team.
The AO Team gathers and analyzes the information provided by the:
● | Proxy Advisory Firm; |
● | Adviser; |
● | Funds’ principal underwriters; |
● | Fund affiliates; |
● | Proxy Committee members; |
● | Investment Professionals; and |
● | Fund Directors and Officers. |
Assessment of the Proxy Advisory Firm
On the Board’s and Adviser’s behalf the AO Team shall assess whether the Proxy Advisory Firm:
● | Is independent from the Adviser; |
● | Has resources that indicate it can competently provide analysis of proxy issues; |
● | Can make recommendations in an impartial manner and in the best interests of the Funds and their beneficial owners; and |
● | Has adequate compliance policies and procedures to: |
| ○ | Ensure that its proxy voting recommendations are based on current and accurate information; and |
| ○ | Identify and address conflicts of interest. |
The AO Team shall utilize and the Proxy Advisory Firm shall comply with such methods for completing the assessment as the AO Team may deem reasonably appropriate. The Proxy Advisory Firm shall also promptly notify the AO Team in writing of any material changes to information it previously provided to the AO Team in connection with establishing the Proxy Advisory Firm’s independence, competence, or impartiality.
Voting Funds of Funds, Investing Funds and Feeder Funds
Funds that are funds-of-funds1 (each a “Fund-of-Funds” and collectively, “Funds-of-Funds”) shall “echo” vote their interests in underlying mutual funds, which may include mutual funds other than the Funds indicated on Voya’s website (www.voyainvestments.com). Meaning that if the Fund-of-Funds must vote on a proposal with respect to an underlying investment issuer the Fund-of-Funds shall vote its interest in that underlying fund in the same proportion as all other shareholders in the underlying investment company voted their interests.
However, if the underlying fund has no other shareholders, the Fund-of-Funds shall vote as follows:
● | If the Fund-of-Funds and the underlying fund are solicited to vote on the same proposal (e.g., the election of fund directors/trustees), the Fund-of-Funds shall vote the shares it holds in the underlying fund in the same proportion as all votes received from the holders of the Fund-of-Funds’ shares with respect to that proposal. |
● | If the Fund-of-Funds is solicited to vote on a proposal for an underlying fund (e.g., a new sub-adviser to the underlying fund), and there is no corresponding proposal at the Fund-of-Funds level, the Adviser shall determine the most appropriate method of voting with respect to the underlying fund proposal. |
An Investing Fund2 (e.g., any Voya fund), while not a Fund-of-Funds shall have the foregoing Fund-of-Funds procedure applied to any Investing Fund that invests in one or more underlying funds. Accordingly:
● | Each Investing Fund shall “echo” vote its interests in an underlying fund if the underlying fund has shareholders other than the Investing Fund; |
● | In the event an underlying fund has no other shareholders and the Investing Fund and the underlying fund are solicited to vote on the same proposal, the Investing Fund shall vote its interests in the underlying fund in the same proportion as all votes received from the holders of its own shares on that proposal; and |
● | In the event an underlying fund has no other shareholders, and no corresponding proposal exists at the Investing Fund level, the Board shall determine the most appropriate method of voting with respect to the underlying fund proposal. |
A fund that is a “Feeder Fund” in a master-feeder structure passes votes requested by the underlying master fund to its shareholders. Meaning that, if the master fund solicits the Feeder Fund, the Feeder Fund shall request instructions from its own shareholders as to how it should vote its interest in an underlying master fund either directly or in the case of an insurance-dedicated Fund through an insurance product or retirement plan.
1 Invest in underlying funds beyond 12d-1 limits.
2 Invest in underlying funds but not beyond 12d-1 limits.
When a Fund is a feeder in a master-feeder structure, proxies for the master fund’s portfolio securities shall be voted pursuant to the master fund’s proxy voting policies and procedures. As such, Feeder Funds shall not be subject to the Procedures and Guidelines except as described in the Reporting and Record Retention section below.
Securities Lending
Many of the Funds participate in securities lending arrangements that generate additional revenue for the Fund. Accordingly, the Fund is unable to vote securities that are on loan under these arrangements. However, under certain circumstances, for voting issues that may have a significant impact on the investment, members of the Proxy Committee or AO Team may request that the Fund’s securities lending agent recall securities on loan if they determine that the benefit of voting outweighs the costs and lost revenue to the Fund as well as the administrative burden of retrieving the securities.
Investment Professionals may also deem a vote to be “material” in the context of the portfolio(s) they manage. They may therefore request that the Proxy Committee review lending activity on behalf of their portfolio(s) with respect to the relevant security and consider recalling and/or restricting the security. The Proxy Committee shall give primary consideration to relevant Investment Professional input in its determination as to whether a given proxy vote is material and if the associated security should accordingly be restricted from lending. The determination that a vote is material in the context of a Fund’s portfolio shall not mean that such vote is considered material across all Funds voting at that meeting. In order to recall or restrict shares on a timely basis for material voting purposes the AO Team shall use best efforts to consider and, when appropriate, act upon such requests on a timely basis. Any relevant Investment Professional may submit a request to review lending activity in connection with a potentially material vote for the Proxy Committee’s consideration at any time.
Reporting and Record Retention
Reporting by the Funds
Annually, as required, each Fund and each Sub-Adviser-Voted Fund shall post on the Voya Funds’ website its proxy voting record or a link to the prior one-year period ended June 30. The proxy voting record for each Fund and each Sub-Adviser-Voted Fund shall also be available on Form N-PX in the SEC’s EDGAR database on its website. For any Fund that is a feeder within a master-feeder structure, no proxy voting record related to the portfolio securities owned by the master fund shall be posted on the Funds’ website or included in the Fund’s Form N-PX; however, a cross-reference to the master fund’s proxy voting record as filed in the SEC’s EDGAR database shall be included in the Fund’s Form N-PX and posted on the Funds’ website. If an underlying master fund solicited any Feeder Fund for a vote during the reporting period, a record of the votes cast by means of the pass-through process described above shall be included on the Voya funds’ website and in the Feeder Fund’s Form N-PX.
Reporting to the Compliance Committee
At each quarterly Compliance Committee meeting the AO Team shall provide to the Compliance Committee a report outlining each proxy proposal, or a summary of such proposals, that was:
1. | Voted Out-of-Guidelines; and/or |
2. | When the Proxy Committee did not agree with an Investment Professional’s recommendation, as assessed when the Investment Professional raises a potential conflict of interest. |
The report shall include the name of the issuer, the substance of the proposal, a summary of the Investment Professional’s recommendation as applicable, and the reasons for voting or recommending an Out-of-Guidelines Vote or in the case of (2) above a vote which differed from that recommended by the Investment Professional.
Reporting by the AO Team on behalf of the Adviser
The Adviser shall maintain the records required by Rule 204-2(c)(2), as may be amended from time to time, including the following:
● | A copy of each proxy statement received regarding a Fund’s portfolio securities. Such proxy statements the issuers send are available either in the SEC’s EDGAR database or upon request from the Proxy Advisory Firm; |
● | A record of each vote cast on behalf of a Fund; |
● | A copy of any Adviser-created document that was material to making a proxy vote decision or that memorializes the basis for that decision; |
● | A copy of written requests for Fund proxy voting information and any written response thereto or to any oral request for information on how the Adviser voted proxies on behalf of a Fund; |
● | A record of all recommendations from Investment Professionals to vote contrary to these Guidelines; |
● | All proxy questions/recommendations that have been referred to the Compliance Committee; and |
● | All applicable recommendations, analyses, research, Conflict Reports, and vote determinations. |
All proxy voting materials and supporting documentation shall be retained for a minimum of six years.
Records Maintained by the Proxy Advisory Firm
The Proxy Advisory Firm shall retain a record of all proxy votes handled by the Proxy Advisory Firm. Such record must reflect all the information required to be disclosed in a Fund’s Form N-PX pursuant to Rule 30b1-4 under the Investment Company Act of 1940. Additionally, the Proxy Advisory Firm shall be responsible for maintaining copies of all proxy statements received by issuers and to promptly provide such materials to the Adviser upon request.
PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES
Introduction
Proxies shall be voted in the Funds’ best interests. These Guidelines summarize the Funds’ positions regarding certain matters of importance to shareholders and provide an indication as to how the Funds’ ballots shall be voted for certain types of proposals. These Guidelines are not exhaustive and do not provide guidance on all potential voting matters. Proposals may be addressed on a CASE-BY-CASE basis rather than according to these Guidelines when assessing the merits of available rationale and disclosure.
These Guidelines apply to securities of publicly traded issuers and to those of privately held issuers if publicly available disclosure permits such application. All matters for which such disclosure is not available shall be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Investment Professionals are encouraged to submit recommendations to the AO Team regarding proxy voting matters relating to the portfolio securities over which they have daily portfolio management responsibility. Investment Professionals may submit recommendations in connection with any proposal and they are likely to receive requests for recommendations relating to proxies for private equity or fixed income securities and/or proposals relating to merger transactions/corporate restructurings, proxy contests, or unusual or controversial issues.
Interpretation and application of these Guidelines is not intended to supersede any law, regulation, binding agreement, or other legal requirement to which an issuer may be or become subject. No proposal shall be supported where implementation would contravene such requirements.
General Policies
The Funds generally support the recommendation of an issuer’s management when the Proxy Advisory Firm’s recommendation also aligns with such recommendation and to vote in accordance with the Proxy Advisory Firm’s recommendation when management has made no recommendation. However, this policy shall not apply to CASE-BY-CASE proposals for which a contrary recommendation from the relevant Investment Professional(s) is utilized.
The rationale and vote recommendation from Investment Professionals shall receive primary consideration with respect to CASE-BY-CASE proposals considered on the relevant Fund’s behalf.
The Fund’s policy is to not support proposals that would negatively impact the existing rights of the Funds’ beneficial owners. Shareholder proposals shall not be supported if they impose excessive costs and/or are overly restrictive or prescriptive. Depending on the relevant market, appropriate opposition may be expressed as an ABSTAIN, AGAINST, or WITHHOLD vote.
In the event competing shareholder and board proposals appear on the same agenda at uncontested proxies, the shareholder proposal shall not be supported and the management proposal shall be supported when the management proposal meets the factors for support under the relevant topic/policy (e.g., Allocation of Income and Dividends); the competing proposals shall otherwise be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
International Policies
Companies incorporated outside the U.S. are subject to the following U.S. policies if they are listed on a U.S. exchange and treated as a U.S. domestic issuer by the SEC. Where applicable, certain U.S. policies may also be applied to issuers incorporated outside the U.S. (e.g., issuers with a significant base of U.S. operations and employees).
However, given the differing regulatory and legal requirements, market practices, and political and economic systems existing in various international markets, the Funds shall:
● | Vote AGAINST international proposals when the Proxy Advisory Firm recommends voting AGAINST such proposal due to inadequate relevant disclosure by the issuer or time provided for consideration of such disclosure; |
● | Consider proposals that are associated with a firm AGAINST vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis when the Proxy Advisory Firm recommends support when: |
| ● | The issuer or market transitions to better practices (e.g., committing to new regulations or governance codes); |
| ● | The market standard is stricter than the Fund’s Guidelines; and/or |
| ● | It is the more favorable choice when shareholders must choose between alternate proposals. |
Proposal Specific Policies
As mentioned above, these Guidelines may be overridden in any case as provided for in the Procedures. Similarly, the Procedures outline the proposals with Guidelines that prescribe a firm voting position that may instead be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis when unusual or controversial circumstances so dictate, in such circumstances the AO Team may deem it appropriate to seek input from the relevant Investment Professional(s).
Proxy Contests:
Votes in contested elections on shall be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis with primary consideration given to input from the relevant Investment Professional(s).
Uncontested Proxies:
Overview
The Funds may indicate disagreement with an issuer’s policies or practices by withholding support from the relevant proposal rather than from the director nominee(s) to which the Proxy Advisory Firm assigns fault or assigns an association.
The Funds shall withhold support from director(s) deemed responsible in cases in which the Funds’ disagreement is assigned to the board of directors. Responsibility may be attributed to the entire board, a committee, or an individual, and the Funds shall apply a vote accountability guideline (“Vote Accountability Guideline”) specific to the concerns under review. For example:
● | Relevant committee chair; |
● | Relevant committee member(s); and/or |
● | Board chair. |
If any director to whom responsibility has been attributed is not standing for election (e.g., the board is classified) support shall typically not be withheld from other directors in their stead. Additionally, the Funds shall typically vote FOR a director in connection with issues the Proxy Advisory Firm raises if the director did not serve on the board or relevant committee during the majority of the time period relevant to the concerns the Proxy Advisory Firm cited.
The Funds shall vote with the Proxy Advisory Firm’s recommendation when more candidates are presented than available seats and no other provisions under these Guidelines apply.
Vote with the Proxy Advisory Firm’s recommendation to withhold support from the legal entity and vote on the individual when a director holds one seat as an individual plus an additional seat as a representative of a legal entity.
Bundled Director Slates
The Funds shall WITHHOLD support from directors or slates of directors when they are presented in a manner not aligned with market best practice and/or regulation, irrespective of complying with independence requirements, such as:
● | Bundled slates of directors (e.g., Canada, France, Hong Kong, or Spain); |
● | In markets with term lengths capped by regulation or market practice, directors whose terms exceed the caps or are not disclosed; or |
● | Directors whose names are not disclosed in advance of the meeting or far enough in advance relative to voting deadlines to make an informed voting decision. |
For issuers with multiple slates in Italy, the Funds shall follow the Proxy Advisory Firm’s standards for assessing which slate is best suited to represent shareholder interests.
Independence
Director and Board/Committee Independence
The Funds expect boards and key committees to have an appropriate level of independence and shall accordingly consider the Proxy Advisory Firm’s standards to determine that adequate level of independence. A director would be deemed non-independent if the individual had/has a relationship with the issuer that could potentially influence the individual’s objectivity causing the inability to satisfy fiduciary standards on behalf of shareholders. Audit, compensation/remuneration, and nominating and/or governance committees are considered key committees and should be 100% independent. The Funds shall consider the Proxy Advisory Firm’s standards and generally accepted best practice (collectively “Independence Expectations”) with respect to determining director independence and Board/Committee independence levels. Note: Non-voting directors (e.g., director emeritus or advisory director) shall be excluded from calculations relating to board independence.
The Funds shall consider non-independent directors standing for election on a Case-by-Case basis when the full board or committee does not meet Independence Expectations. Additionally, the Funds shall:
● | WITHHOLD support from the non-independent nominating committee chair or non-independent board chair, and if necessary, fewest non-independent directors, including the Founder, Chair, or Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) if their removal would achieve the independence requirements across the remaining board or key committee, except that support may be withheld from additional directors whose relative level of independence cannot be differentiated, or the number required to achieve the independence requirements is equal to or greater than the number of non-independent directors standing for election; |
● | WITHHOLD support from the nominating committee chair or board chair if the board chair is non-independent and the board does not have a lead independent director; |
● | WITHHOLD support from slates of directors if the board’s independence cannot be ascertained due to inadequate disclosure or when the board’s independence does not meet Independence Expectations; |
● | WITHHOLD support from key committee slates if they contain non-independent directors; and/or |
● | WITHHOLD support from non-independent nominating committee chair, board chair, and/or directors if the full board serves or appears to serve as a key committee, the board has not established a key committee, or the board and/or a key committee(s) does not meet Independence Expectations. |
Self-Nominated/Shareholder-Nominated Director Candidates
The Funds shall consider self-nominated or shareholder-nominated director candidates on a CASE-BY-CASE basis and shall WITHHOLD support from the candidate when:
● | Adequate disclosure has not been provided (e.g., rationale for candidacy and candidate’s qualifications relative to the issuer); |
● | The candidate’s agenda is not in line with the long-term best interests of the issuer; or |
● | Multiple self-nominated candidates are considered to constitute a proxy contest if similar issues are raised (e.g., potential change in control). |
Management Proposals Seeking Non-Board Member Service on Key Committees
The Funds shall vote AGAINST proposals that permit non-board members to serve on the audit, remuneration (compensation), nominating, and/or governance committee, provided that bundled slates may be supported if no slate nominee serves on relevant committee(s) except in cases in which best market practice otherwise dictates.
The Funds shall consider other concerns regarding committee members on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Board Member Roles and Responsibilities
Attendance
The Funds shall WITHHOLD support from a director who, during both of the most recent two years, has served on the board during the two-year period but attended less than 75 percent of the board and committee meetings with no valid reason for the absences or if their two-year attendance record cannot be ascertained from available disclosure (e.g., the issuer did not disclose which director(s) attended less than 75 percent of the board and committee meetings during the director’s period of service without valid reasons for their absences).
The Funds shall WITHHOLD support from nominating committee members according to the Vote Accountability Guideline if a director has three or more years of poor attendance without a valid reason for their absences.
The Funds shall apply a two-year attendance policy relating to statutory auditors at Japanese issuer meetings.
Over-boarding
The Funds shall vote AGAINST directors who serve on:
● | More than two public issuer boards and are named executive officers at any public issuer, and shall WITHHOLD support only at their outside board(s); |
● | Six or more public issuer boards; or |
● | Four or more public issuer boards and is Board Chair at two or more public issuers and shall WITHHOLD support on boards for which such director does not serve as chair. |
The Funds shall vote AGAINST shareholder proposals limiting the number of public issuer boards on which a director may serve.
Combined Chair / CEO Role
The Funds shall vote FOR directors without regard to recommendations that the position of chair should be separate from that of CEO or should otherwise require independence unless other concerns requiring Case-by-Case consideration arise (e.g., a former CEO proposed as board chair).
The Funds shall consider shareholder proposals that require that the positions of chair and CEO be held separately on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Cumulative/Net Voting Markets
When cumulative or net voting applies, the Funds shall follow the Proxy Advisory Firm’s recommendation to vote FOR nominees, such as when the issuer assesses that such nominees are independent, irrespective of key committee membership, even if independence disclosure or criteria fall short of the Proxy Advisory Firm’s standards.
Board Accountability
Board Diversity
United States:
The Funds shall vote AGAINST directors according to the Vote Accountability Guideline if no women are on the issuer’s board. The Funds shall consider directors on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if gender diversity existed prior to the most recent annual meeting.
The Funds shall vote AGAINST directors according to the Vote Accountability Guideline when the board has no apparent racially or ethnically diverse members. The Funds shall consider directors on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if racial and/or ethnic diversity existed prior to the most recent annual meeting.
Diversity (Shareholder Proposals):
The Funds shall generally vote FOR shareholder proposals that request the issuer to improve/promote gender and/or racial/ethnic diversity and/or gender and/or racial/ethnic diversity-related disclosure.
International:
The Funds shall vote AGAINST directors according to the Vote Accountability Guideline when no women are on the issuer’s board or if its board’s gender diversity level does not meet a higher standard established by the relevant country’s corporate governance code and generally accepted best practice.
The Funds shall vote AGAINST directors according to the Vote Accountability Guideline when the relevant country’s corporate governance code contains a minimally acceptable threshold for racial/ethnic diversity and the board does not appear to meet this expectation.
Return on Equity
The Funds shall vote FOR the most senior executive at an issuer in Japan if the only reason the Proxy Advisory Firm withholds its recommendation results from the issuer underperforming in terms of capital efficiency or issuer performance (e.g., net losses or low return on equity (ROE)).
Compensation Practices
The Funds may WITHHOLD support from compensation committee members whose actions or disclosure do not appear to support compensation practices aligned with the best interests of the issuer and its shareholders.
“Say on Pay” Responsiveness. The Funds shall consider compensation committee members on a CASE-BY-CASE basis for failure to sufficiently address compensation concerns prompting significant opposition to the most recent advisory vote on executive officers’ compensation, “Say on Pay”, or continuing to maintain problematic pay practices, considering such factors as the level of shareholder opposition, subsequent actions taken by the compensation committee, and level of responsiveness disclosure, among others.
“Say on Pay Frequency”. The Funds shall WITHHOLD support according to the Vote Accountability Guideline if the Proxy Advisory Firm opposes directors due to the issuer’s failure to include a “Say on Pay” proposal and/or a “Say on Pay Frequency” proposal when required pursuant to SEC or market regulatory provisions; or implemented a “Say on Pay Frequency” schedule that is less frequent than the frequency most recently preferred by not less than a plurality of shareholders; or is an externally-managed issuer (EMI) or externally-managed REIT (EMR) and has failed to include a “Say on Pay” proposal or adequate disclosure of the compensation structure.
Commitments. The Funds shall vote FOR compensation committee members receiving an adverse recommendation from the Proxy Advisory Firm due to problematic pay practices or thresholds (e.g., burn rate) if the issuer makes a public commitment (e.g., via a Form 8-K filing) to rectify the practice on a going-forward basis. However, the Funds shall consider such proposal on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if the issuer does not rectify the practice prior to the issuer’s next annual general meeting.
For markets in which the issuer has not followed market practice by submitting a resolution on executive remuneration/compensation, the Funds shall consider remuneration/compensation committee members on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Accounting Practices
The Funds shall consider audit committee members, the issuer’s CEO or Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) when nominated as directors, or the board chair or lead director on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if poor accounting practice concerns are raised, considering, but not limited to, the following factors:
● | Audit committee failed to remediate known ongoing material weaknesses in the issuer’s internal controls for more than one year; |
● | Issuer has not yet had a full year to remediate the concerns since the time such issues were identified; and/or |
● | Issuer has taken adequate steps to remediate the concerns cited that would typically include removing or replacing the responsible executives and the concerning issues do not recur. |
The Funds shall vote FOR audit committee members, or the issuer’s CEO or CFO when nominated as directors, who did not serve on the committee or did not have responsibility over the relevant financial function during the majority of the time period relevant to the concerns cited.
The Funds shall WITHHOLD support on audit committee members according to the Vote Accountability Guideline if the issuer has failed to disclose audit fees and has not provided an auditor ratification or remuneration proposal for shareholder vote.
Problematic Actions
The Funds shall consider directors on a CASE-BY-CASE basis when the Proxy Advisory Firm cites them for problematic actions including a lack of due diligence in relation to a major transaction (e.g., a merger or an acquisition), material failures, inadequate oversight, scandals, malfeasance, or negligent internal controls at the issuer or that of an affiliate, factoring in the merits of the director’s performance, rationale, and disclosure when:
● | Culpability can be attributed to the director (e.g., director manages or is responsible for the relevant function); or |
● | The director has been directly implicated resulting in arrest, criminal charge, or regulatory sanction. |
The Funds shall consider members of the nominating committee on a CASE-BY-CASE basis when an issuer nominates a director who is subject to any of the above concerns to serve on its board.
The Funds shall vote AGAINST applicable directors due to share pledging concerns factoring in the pledged amount, unwinding time, and any historical concerns raised. Responsibility shall be assigned to the pledgor, where the pledged amount and unwinding time are deemed significant and therefore an unnecessary risk to the issuer.
The Funds shall WITHHOLD support from (a) all members of the governance committee or nominating committee if a formal governance committee has not been established, and (b) directors holding shares with superior voting rights if the issuer is controlled by means of a dual class share with superior/exclusive voting rights and does not have a reasonable sunset provision (e.g., fewer than five (5) years).
The Funds shall WITHHOLD support from incumbent directors (tenure of more than one year) if (a) no governance or nominating committee directors are under consideration or the issuer does not have governance or nominating committees, and (b) no director holding the shares with superior voting rights is under consideration; otherwise, the Funds shall consider all directors on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. Investment Professionals who have daily portfolio management responsibility for such issuers may be required to submit a recommendation to the AO Team.
The Funds shall WITHHOLD support from directors according to the Vote Accountability Guideline when the Proxy Advisory Firm recommends withholding support due to the board (a) unilaterally adopting by-law amendments that have a negative impact on existing shareholder rights or function as a diminution of shareholder rights and which are not specifically addressed under these Guidelines, or (b) failing to remove or subject to a reasonable sunset provision in its by-laws.
Anti-Takeover Measures
The Funds shall WITHHOLD support from directors according to the Vote Accountability Guideline if the issuer implements excessive anti-takeover measures.
The Funds shall WITHHOLD support from directors according to the Vote Accountability Guideline if the issuer fails to remove restrictive “poison pill” features, ensure a “poison pill” expiration, or submits the “poison pill” in a timely manner to shareholders for vote unless an issuer has implemented a policy that should reasonably prevent abusive use of its “poison pill”.
Board Responsiveness
The Funds shall vote FOR directors if the majority-supported shareholder proposal has been reasonably addressed.
| ○ | Proposals seeking shareholder ratification of a “poison pill” provision may be deemed reasonably addressed if the issuer has implemented a policy that should reasonably prevent abusive use of the “poison pill”. |
The Funds shall WITHHOLD support from directors according to the Vote Accountability Guideline if a shareholder proposal received majority support and the board has not disclosed a credible rationale for not implementing the proposal.
The Funds shall WITHHOLD support on a director if the board has not acted upon the director who did not receive shareholder support representing a majority of the votes cast at the previous annual meeting; and shall consider such directors on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if the issuer has a controlling shareholder(s).
The Funds shall vote FOR directors in cases in which an issue relevant to the majority negative vote has been adequately addressed or cured and which may include sufficient disclosure of the board’s rationale.
Board–Related Proposals
Classified/Declassified Board Structure
The Funds shall vote AGAINST proposals to classify the board unless the proposal represents an increased frequency of a director’s election in the staggered cycle (e.g., seeking to move from a three-year cycle to a two-year cycle).
The Funds shall vote FOR proposals to repeal classified boards and to elect all directors annually.
Board Structure
The Funds shall vote FOR management proposals to adopt or amend board structures unless the resulting change(s) would mean the board would not meet Independence Expectations.
For issuers in Japan, the Funds shall vote FOR proposals seeking a board structure that would provide greater independent oversight.
Board Size
The Funds shall vote FOR proposals seeking a board range if the range is reasonable in the context of market practice and anti-takeover considerations; however, the Funds shall vote AGAINST a proposal if the issuer seeks to remove shareholder approval rights or the board fails to meet market independence requirements.
Director and Officer Indemnification and Liability Protection
The Funds shall consider proposals on director and officer indemnification and liability protection on a CASE-BY-CASE basis using Delaware law as the standard.
The Funds shall vote against proposals to limit or eliminate entirely directors’ and officers’ liability in connection with monetary damages for violating their collective duty of care.
The Funds shall vote against indemnification proposals that would expand coverage beyond legal expenses to acts that are more serious violations of fiduciary obligation such as negligence.
Director and Officer Indemnification and Liability Protection
The Funds shall vote in accordance with the Proxy Advisory Firm’s standards (e.g., overly broad provisions).
Discharge of Management/Supervisory Board Members
The Funds shall vote FOR management proposals seeking the discharge of management and supervisory board members (including when the proposal is bundled) unless concerns surface relating to the past actions of the issuer’s auditors or directors, or legal or other shareholders take regulatory action against the board.
The Funds shall vote FOR such proposals in connection with remuneration practices otherwise supported under these Guidelines or as a means of expressing disapproval of the issuer’s or its board’s broader practices.
Establish Board Committee
The Funds shall vote FOR shareholder proposals that seek creation of a key board committee.
The Funds shall vote AGAINST shareholder proposals requesting creation of additional board committees or offices except as otherwise provided for herein.
Filling Board Vacancies / Removal of Directors
The Funds shall vote AGAINST proposals that allow removal of directors only for cause.
The Funds shall vote FOR proposals to restore shareholder ability to remove directors with or without cause.
The Funds shall vote AGAINST proposals that allow only continuing directors to elect replacement directors to fill board vacancies.
The Funds shall vote FOR proposals that permit shareholders to elect directors to fill board vacancies.
Stock Ownership Requirements
The Funds shall vote AGAINST such shareholder stock ownership requirement proposals.
Term Limits / Retirement Age
The Funds shall vote FOR management proposals and AGAINST shareholder proposals limiting the tenure of outside directors or imposing a mandatory retirement age for outside directors unless the proposal seeks to relax existing standards.
Frequency of Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation
The Funds shall vote FOR proposals seeking an annual “Say on Pay”, and AGAINST those seeking less frequent “Say on Pay”.
Proposals to Provide an Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Canada)
The Funds shall vote FOR if it is an ANNUAL vote unless the issuer already provides an annual shareholder vote.
Executive Pay Evaluation
Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation (Say on Pay) and Remuneration Reports or Committee Members in Absence of Such Proposals
The Funds shall vote FOR management proposals seeking ratification of the issuer’s executive compensation structure unless the program includes practices or features not supported under these Guidelines and the proposal receives a negative Proxy Advisory Firm recommendation.
Listed below are examples of compensation practices and provisions and respective consideration and treatment under these Guidelines that factor in whether the issuer has provided reasonable rationale/disclosure for such factors or the proposal in its entirety.
The Funds shall consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis:
● | Short-Term Investment Plans for which the board has exercised discretion to exclude extraordinary items; |
● | Retesting in connection with achievement of performance hurdles; |
● | Long-Term Incentive Plans for which executives already hold significant equity positions; |
● | Long-Term Incentive Plans for which the vesting or performance period is too short or stringency of performance criteria is called into question; |
● | Pay Practices (or combination of practices) that appear to have created a misalignment between executive(s) compensation pay and performance regarding shareholder value; |
● | Long-Term Incentive Plans that lack an appropriate equity component (e.g., “cash-based only”); and/or |
● | Excessive levels of discretionary bonuses, recruitment awards, retention awards, non-compete payments, severance/termination payments, perquisites (unreasonable levels in context of total compensation or purpose of the incentive awards or payouts). |
The Funds shall vote AGAINST:
● | Provisions that permit or give the Board sole discretion for repricing, replacement, buy back, exchange, or any other form of alternative options. (Note: cancellation of options would not be considered an exchange unless the cancelled options were re-granted or expressly returned to the plan reserve for reissuance.); |
● | Single Trigger Severance provisions that do not require an actual change in control to be triggered; |
● | Plans that allow named executive officers to have material input into setting their own compensation; |
● | Short-Term Incentive Plans in which treatment of payout factors has been inconsistent (e.g., exclusion of losses but not gains); |
● | Long-Term Incentive Plans in which performance measures hurdles/measures are set based on a backward-looking performance period; |
● | Company plans in international markets that provide for contract or notice periods or severance/termination payments that exceed market practices (e.g., relative to multiple of annual compensation); and/or |
● | Compensation structures at externally managed issuers (EMI) or externally managed REITs (EMR) that lack adequate disclosure based on the Proxy Advisory Firm’s assessment. |
Golden Parachutes
The Funds shall vote to ABSTAIN regarding “golden parachutes” if it is determined that the Funds would not have an economic interest in such arrangements (e.g., in the case of an all-cash transaction, regardless of payout terms, amounts, thresholds, etc.).
However, if an economic interest exists, vote AGAINST proposals due to:
● | Single or modified-single trigger severance provisions; |
● | Total Named Executive Officer (“NEO”) payout as a percentage of the total equity value; |
● | Aggregate of all single-triggered components (cash and equity) as a percentage of the total NEO payout; |
● | Excessive payout; and/or |
● | Recent material amendments or new agreements that incorporate problematic features. |
Equity-Based and Other Incentive Plans Including OBRA
Equity Compensation
The Funds shall consider compensation and employee benefit plans, including those in connection with OBRA3, or the issuance of shares in connection with such plans on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. The Funds shall vote the plan or issuance based on factors and related vote treatment under the Executive Pay Evaluation section above or based on circumstances specific to such equity plans as follows:
3 OBRA is an employee-funded defined contribution plan for certain employees of publicly held companies.
The Funds shall vote FOR a plan, if:
● | Board independence is the only concern; |
● | Amendment places a cap on annual grants; |
● | Amendment adopts or changes administrative features to comply with Section 162(m) of OBRA; |
● | Amendment adds performance-based goals to comply with Section 162(m) of OBRA; and/or |
● | Cash or cash-and-stock bonus components are approved for exemption from taxes under Section 162(m) of OBRA. |
| ○ | The Funds shall give primary consideration to management’s assessment that such plan meets the requirements for exemption of performance-based compensation. |
The Funds shall vote AGAINST a plan if it:
● | Exceeds recommended costs (U.S. or Canada); |
● | Incorporates share allocation disclosure methods that prevent a cost or dilution assessment; |
● | Exceeds recommended burn rates and/or dilution limits, including cases in which dilution cannot be fully assessed (e.g., due to inadequate disclosure); |
● | Permits deep or near-term discounts (or the equivalent, such as dividend equivalents on unexercised options) to executives or directors; |
● | Provides for retirement benefits or equity incentive awards to outside directors if not in line with market practice; |
● | Permits financial assistance to executives, directors, subsidiaries, affiliates, or related parties that is not in line with market practice; |
● | Permits plan administrators to benefit from the plan as potential recipients; |
● | Permits for an overly liberal change in control definition. (This refers to plans that would reward recipients even if the event does not result in an actual change in control or results in a change in control but does not terminate the employment relationship.); |
● | Permits for post-employment vesting or exercise of options if deemed inappropriate; |
● | Permits plan administrators to make material amendments without shareholder approval; and/or |
● | Permits procedure amendments that do not preserve shareholder approval rights. |
Amendment Procedures for Equity Compensation Plans and Employee Stock Purchase Plans (Toronto Stock Exchange Issuers)
The Funds shall vote AGAINST if the amendment procedures do not preserve shareholder approval rights.
Stock Option Plans for Independent Internal Statutory Auditors (Japan)
The Funds shall vote AGAINST such proposals.
Matching Share Plans
The Funds shall vote AGAINST such proposals if the matching share plan does not meet recommended standards considering holding period, discounts, dilution, participation, purchase price, or performance criteria.
Employee Stock Purchase Plans or Capital Issuance in Support Thereof
Voting decisions are generally based on the Proxy Advisory Firm’s approach to evaluating such proposals.
Director Compensation
Non-Executive Director Compensation
The Funds shall vote FOR cash-based proposals.
The Funds shall vote AGAINST performance-based equity-based proposals and patterns of excessive pay.
Bonus Payments (Japan)
The Funds shall vote FOR if all bonus payments are for directors or auditors who have served as executives of the issuer and AGAINST if any bonus payments are for outsiders.
Bonus Payments – Scandals
The Funds shall vote AGAINST bonus proposals for a retiring director or continuing director or auditor when culpability for any malfeasance may be attributable to the nominee.
The Funds shall consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis bundled bonus proposals for retiring directors or continuing directors or auditors where culpability for malfeasance may not be attributable to all nominees.
Severance Agreements
Vesting of Equity Awards upon Change in Control
The Funds shall vote FOR management proposals seeking a specific treatment (e.g., double-trigger or pro-rata) of equity that vests upon change in control unless evidence exists of abuse in historical compensation practices.
The Funds shall vote AGAINST shareholder proposals regarding the treatment of equity if change(s) in control severance provisions are double-triggered. The funds shall vote FOR the proposal if such provisions are not double-triggered.
Executive Severance or Termination Arrangements, including those Related to Executive Recruitment or Retention
The Funds shall vote FOR such compensation arrangements if:
● | The primary concerns raised would not result in a negative vote under these Guidelines on a management “Say on Pay” proposal or the relevant board or committee member(s); |
● | The issuer has provided adequate rationale and/or disclosure; or |
● | Support is recommended as a condition to a major transaction such as a merger. |
Treatment of Severance Provisions
The Funds shall vote AGAINST new or materially amended plans, contracts, or payments that include a single trigger change in control severance provisions or do not require an actual change in control in order to be triggered.
The Funds shall vote FOR shareholder proposals seeking double triggers on change in control severance provisions.
Compensation-Related Shareholder Proposals
Executive and Director Compensation
The Funds shall consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis shareholder proposals that seek to impose new compensation structures or policies.
Holding Periods
The Funds shall vote AGAINST shareholder proposals requiring mandatory issuer stock holding periods for officers and directors.
Submit Severance and Termination Payments for Shareholder Ratification
The Funds shall vote FOR shareholder proposals to submit executive severance agreements for shareholder ratification if such proposals specify change in control events, supplemental executive retirement plans, or deferred executive compensation plans, or if the listing exchange requires ratification thereof.
Auditor Ratification and/or Remuneration
The Funds shall vote FOR management proposals except in such cases as indicated below.
The Funds shall consider auditor ratification and/or remuneration on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if:
● | The Proxy Advisory Firm raises questions of auditor independence or disclosure including the auditor selection process; |
● | Total fees for non-audit services exceed 50 percent of aggregated auditor fees (including audit-related fees, and tax compliance and preparation fees as applicable); or |
● | Evidence exists of excessive compensation relative to the size and nature of the issuer. |
The Funds shall vote AGAINST an auditor ratification and/or remuneration proposal if the issuer has failed to disclose audit fees.
The Funds shall vote FOR shareholder proposals that ask the issuer to present its auditor for ratification annually.
Auditor Independence
The Funds shall consider shareholder proposals asking issuers to prohibit their auditors from engaging in non-audit services (or capping the level of non-audit services) on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Audit Firm Rotation
The Funds shall vote AGAINST shareholder proposals asking for mandatory audit firm rotation.
Indemnification of Auditors
The Funds shall vote AGAINST auditor indemnification proposals.
Independent Statutory Auditors (Japan)
The Funds shall vote AGAINST an independent statutory auditor proposal if the candidate is or was affiliated with the issuer, its primary bank(s), or one of its top shareholders.
The Funds shall vote AGAINST incumbent directors implicated in scandals, malfeasance, or at issuers exhibiting poor internal controls.
The Funds shall vote FOR remuneration so long as the amount is not excessive (e.g., significant increases should be supported by adequate rationale and disclosure), no evidence of abuse is evident, the recipient’s overall compensation appears reasonable, and the board and/or responsible committee meet exchange or market independence standards.
4- | Shareholder Rights and Defenses |
Advance Notice for Shareholder Proposals
The Funds shall vote FOR management proposals relating to advance notice period requirements provided that the period requested is in accordance with applicable law and no material governance concerns have arisen regarding the issuer.
Corporate Documents / Article and Bylaw Amendments or Related Director Actions
The Funds shall vote FOR such proposal if the change or policy is editorial in nature or if shareholder rights are protected.
The Funds shall vote AGAINST such proposal if it seeks to impose a negative impact on shareholder rights or diminishes accountability to shareholders including cases in which the issuer failed to opt out of a law that affects shareholder rights (e.g., staggered board).
The Funds shall, with respect to article amendments for Japanese issuers:
● | Vote FOR management proposals to amend an issuer’s articles to expand its business lines in line with its current industry; |
● | Vote FOR management proposals to amend an issuer’s articles to provide for an expansion or reduction in the size of the board unless the expansion/reduction is clearly disproportionate to the growth/decrease in the scale of the business or raises anti-takeover concerns; |
● | If anti-takeover concerns exist, the Funds shall vote AGAINST management proposals including bundled proposals to amend an issuer’s articles to authorize the Board to vary the annual meeting record date or to otherwise align them with provisions of a takeover defense; and/or |
● | Follow the Proxy Advisory Firm’s guidelines relating to management proposals regarding amendments to authorize share repurchases at the board’s discretion, and vote AGAINST proposals unless there is little to no likelihood of a creeping takeover or constraints on liquidity (free float of shares is low) and in cases in which the issuer trades at below book value or faces a real likelihood of substantial share sales, or in which this amendment is bundled with other amendments that are clearly in shareholders’ interest. |
Majority Voting Standard
The Funds shall vote FOR proposals that seek director election via an affirmative majority vote in connection with a shareholder meeting provided such vote contains a plurality carve-out for contested elections and provided such standard does not conflict with applicable law in the issuer’s country of incorporation.
The Funds shall vote FOR amendments to corporate documents or other actions promoting a majority standard.
Cumulative Voting
The Funds shall vote FOR shareholder proposals to restore or permit cumulative voting.
The Funds shall vote AGAINST management proposals to eliminate cumulative voting if the issuer:
● | Maintains a classified board of directors; or |
● | Maintains a dual class voting structure. |
Proposals may be supported irrespective of classified board status if an issuer plans to declassify its board or adopt a majority voting standard.
Confidential Voting
The Funds shall vote FOR management proposals to adopt confidential voting.
The Funds shall vote FOR shareholder proposals that request issuers to adopt confidential voting, use independent tabulators, and use independent election inspectors so long as the proposals include clauses for proxy contests as follows:
● | In the case of a contested election management should be permitted to request that the dissident group honors its confidential voting policy; |
● | If the dissidents agree the policy shall remain in place; and |
● | If the dissidents do not agree the confidential voting policy shall be waived. |
Fair Price Provisions
The Funds shall consider proposals to adopt fair price provisions on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
The Funds shall vote AGAINST fair price provisions containing shareholder vote requirements greater than a majority of disinterested shares.
Poison Pills
The Funds shall vote AGAINST management proposals in connection with poison pills or anti-takeover activities (e.g., disclosure requirements or issuances, transfers, or repurchases) that can be reasonably construed as an anti-takeover measure based on the Proxy Advisory Firm’s approach to evaluating such proposals.
The Funds shall vote FOR shareholder proposals that ask an issuer to submit its poison pill for shareholder ratification or to redeem that poison pill in lieu thereof, unless:
● | Shareholders have approved the plan’s adoption; |
● | The issuer has already implemented a policy that should reasonably prevent abusive use of the poison pill; or |
● | The board had determined that it was in the best interest of shareholders to adopt a poison pill without delay, provided that such plan shall be put to shareholder vote within twelve months of adoption or expire and would immediately terminate if not approved by a majority of the votes cast. |
The Funds shall consider shareholder proposals to redeem an issuer’s poison pill on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Proxy Access
The Funds shall vote FOR proposals to allow shareholders to nominate directors and list those nominees in the issuer’s proxy statement and on its proxy card, provided that criteria meet the Funds’ internal thresholds and that such standard does not conflict with applicable law in the country in which the issuer is incorporated. The Funds shall consider shareholder and management proposals that appear on the same agenda on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
The Funds shall vote FOR management proposals also supported by the Proxy Advisory Firm.
Quorum Requirements
The Funds shall consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals to lower quorum requirements for shareholder meetings below a majority of the shares outstanding.
Exclusive Forum
The Funds shall vote FOR management proposals to designate Delaware or New York as the exclusive forum for certain legal actions as defined by the issuer (“Exclusive Forum”) if the issuer’s state of incorporation is the same as its proposed Exclusive Forum, otherwise they shall consider such proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Reincorporation Proposals
The Funds shall consider proposals to change an issuer’s state of incorporation on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
The Funds shall vote FOR management proposals not assessed as:
● | A potential takeover defense; or |
● | A significant reduction of minority shareholder rights that outweigh the aggregate positive impact, but if assessed as such the Funds shall consider management’s rationale for the change. |
The Funds shall vote FOR management reincorporation proposals upon which another key proposal, such as a merger transaction, is contingent if the other key proposal is also supported.
The Funds shall vote AGAINST shareholder reincorporation proposals not supported by the issuer.
Shareholder Advisory Committees
The Funds shall consider proposals to establish a shareholder advisory committee on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Right to Call Special Meetings
The Funds shall vote FOR management proposals to permit shareholders to call special meetings.
The Funds shall consider management proposals to adjust the thresholds applicable to call a special meeting on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
The Funds shall vote FOR shareholder proposals that provide shareholders with the ability to call special meetings when any of the following apply:
● | Company does not currently permit shareholders to do so; |
● | Existing ownership threshold is greater than 25 percent; or |
● | Sole concern relates to a net-long position requirement. |
Written Consent
The Funds shall vote AGAINST shareholder proposals seeking the right to act via written consent if the issuer:
● | Permits shareholders to call special meetings; |
● | Does not impose supermajority vote requirements on business combinations/actions (e.g., a merger or acquisition) and on bylaw or charter amendments; and |
● | Has otherwise demonstrated its accountability to shareholders (e.g., the issuer has reasonably addressed majority-supported shareholder proposals). |
The Funds shall vote FOR shareholder proposals seeking the right to act via written consent if the above conditions are not present.
The Funds shall vote AGAINST management proposals to eliminate the right to act via written consent.
State Takeover Statutes
The Funds shall consider proposals to opt-in or out of state takeover statutes (including control share acquisition statutes, control share cash-out statutes, freeze-out provisions, fair price provisions, stakeholder laws, poison pill endorsements, severance pay and labor contract provisions, anti-greenmail provisions, and disgorgement provisions) on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Supermajority Shareholder Vote Requirement
The Funds shall vote AGAINST proposals to require a supermajority shareholder vote and FOR proposals to lower supermajority shareholder vote requirements, except:
The Funds shall consider such proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if the issuer has shareholder(s) holding significant ownership percentages and retaining existing supermajority requirements would protect minority shareholder interests.
Time-Phased Voting
The Funds shall vote AGAINST proposals to implement and FOR proposals to eliminate time-phased or other forms of voting that do not promote a “one share, one vote” standard.
5- | Capital and Restructuring |
The Funds shall consider management proposals to make changes to the capital structure not otherwise addressed under these Guidelines, on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, voting with the Proxy Advisory Firm’s recommendation unless they utilize a contrary recommendation from the relevant Investment Professional(s).
The Funds shall vote AGAINST proposals authorizing excessive board discretion.
Capital
Common Stock Authorization
The Funds shall consider proposals to increase the number of shares of common stock authorized for issuance on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. The Proxy Advisory Firm’s proprietary approach of determining appropriate thresholds shall be utilized in evaluating such proposals. In cases in which such requests are above the allowable threshold the Funds shall utilize an issuer-specific qualitative review (e.g., considering rationale and prudent historical usage).
The Funds shall vote FOR proposals within the Proxy Advisory Firm’s permissible thresholds or those in excess of but meeting Proxy Advisory Firm’s qualitative standards, to authorize capital increases, unless the issuer states that the additionally issued stock may be used as a takeover defense.
The Funds shall vote FOR proposals to authorize capital increases exceeding the Proxy Advisory Firm’s thresholds when an issuer’s shares are at risk of delisting.
Notwithstanding the above, the Funds shall vote AGAINST:
● | Proposals to increase the number of authorized shares of a class of stock if these Guidelines do not support the issuance which the increase is intended to service (e.g., merger or acquisition proposals). |
Dual Class Capital Structures
The Funds shall vote AGAINST:
● | Proposals to create or perpetuate dual class capital structures with unequal voting rights (e.g., exchange offers, conversions, and recapitalizations) unless supported by the Proxy Advisory Firm (e.g., utilize a “one share, one vote” standard, contain a sunset provision of five years or fewer to avert bankruptcy or generate non-dilutive financing, or are not designed to increase the voting power of an insider or significant shareholder). |
● | Proposals to increase the number of authorized shares of the class of stock that has superior voting rights in issuers that have dual-class capital structures. |
The Funds shall vote FOR proposals to eliminate dual-class capital structures.
General Share Issuances / Increases in Authorized Capital
The Funds shall consider specific issuance requests on a Case-by-Case basis based on the proposed use and the issuer’s rationale.
The Proxy Advisory Firm’s assessment shall govern Fund voting decisions to determine support for requests for general issuances (with or without preemptive rights), authorized capital increases, convertible bonds issuances, warrants issuances, or related requests to repurchase and reissue shares.
Preemptive Rights
The Funds shall consider shareholder proposals that seek preemptive rights or management proposals that seek to eliminate them on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. In evaluating proposals on preemptive rights, the Funds shall consider an issuer’s size and shareholder base characteristics.
Adjustments to Par Value of Common Stock
The Funds shall vote FOR management proposals to reduce the par value of common stock unless doing so raises other concerns not otherwise supported under these Guidelines.
Preferred Stock
Utilize the Proxy Advisory Firm's approach for evaluating issuances or authorizations of preferred stock considering the Proxy Advisory Firm's support of special circumstances such as mergers or acquisitions in addition to the following criteria:
The Funds shall consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals to increase the number of shares of “blank check” preferred shares or preferred stock authorized for issuance. This approach incorporates both qualitative and quantitative measures including a review of:
● | Past performance (e.g., board governance, shareholder returns, and historical share usage); and |
● | The current request (e.g., rationale, whether shares are “blank check” and “declawed”, and dilutive impact as determined through the Proxy Advisory Firm’s model for assessing appropriate thresholds). |
The Funds shall vote AGAINST proposals authorizing issuance of preferred stock or creation of new classes of preferred stock having unspecified voting, conversion, dividend distribution, and other rights (“blank check” preferred stock).
The Funds shall vote FOR proposals to issue or create “blank check” preferred stock in cases in which the issuer expressly states that the stock shall not be used as a takeover defense or not utilize a disparate voting rights structure.
The Funds shall vote AGAINST in cases in which the issuer expressly states that, or fails to disclose whether, the stock may be used as a takeover defense.
The Funds shall vote FOR proposals to authorize or issue preferred stock in cases in which the issuer specifies the voting, dividend, conversion, and other rights of such stock and the terms of the preferred stock appear reasonable.
Preferred Stock (International)
Fund voting decisions should generally be based on the Proxy Advisory Firm’s approach, and the Funds shall:
● | Vote FOR the creation of a new class of preferred stock or issuances of preferred stock up to 50 percent of issued capital unless the terms of the preferred stock would adversely affect the rights of existing shareholders; |
● | Vote FOR the creation/issuance of convertible preferred stock so long as the maximum number of common shares that could be issued upon conversion meets the Proxy Advisory Firm’s guidelines on equity issuance requests; and |
● | Vote AGAINST the creation of: |
(1) A new class of preference shares that would carry superior voting rights to common shares; or
(2) “Blank check” preferred stock unless the board states that the authorization shall not be used to thwart a takeover bid.
Shareholder Proposals Regarding Blank Check Preferred Stock
The Funds shall vote FOR shareholder proposals requesting shareholder ratification of “blank check” preferred stock placements other than those shares issued for the purpose of raising capital or making acquisitions in the normal course of business.
Share Repurchase Programs
The Funds shall vote FOR management proposals to institute open-market share repurchase plans in which all shareholders may participate on equal terms but vote AGAINST plans containing terms favoring selected parties.
The Funds shall vote FOR management proposals to cancel repurchased shares.
The Funds shall vote AGAINST proposals for share repurchase methods lacking adequate risk mitigation or exceeding appropriate market volume or duration parameters.
The Funds shall consider shareholder proposals seeking share repurchase programs on a CASE-BY-CASE basis giving primary consideration to input from the relevant Investment Professional(s).
Stock Distributions: Splits and Dividends
The Funds shall vote FOR management proposals to increase common share authorization for a stock split provided that the increase in authorized shares falls within the Proxy Advisory Firm’s allowable thresholds.
Reverse Stock Splits
The Funds shall consider management proposals to implement a reverse stock split on a CASE-BY-CASE considering management’s rationale and/or disclosure if the split constitutes a capital increase that effectively exceeds the Proxy Advisory Firm’s permissible threshold due to the lack of a proportionate reduction in the number of shares authorized.
Allocation of Income and Dividends
With respect to Japanese and South Korean issuers, the Funds shall consider management proposals concerning income allocation and the dividend distribution, including adjustments to reserves to make capital available for such purposes, on a CASE-BY-CASE basis voting with the Proxy Advisory Firm’s recommendations to oppose such proposals for cases in which:
● | The dividend payout ratio has been consistently below 30 percent without adequate explanation; or |
● | The payout is excessive given the issuer’s financial position. |
The Funds shall vote FOR such issuer management proposals in other markets.
The Funds shall vote AGAINST proposals in which issuers seek to establish or maintain disparate dividend distributions between stockholders of the same share class (e.g., long-term stockholders receiving a higher dividend ratio (“Loyalty Dividends”)).
In any market, in the event multiple proposals regarding dividends are on the same agenda the Funds shall vote FOR the management proposal if the proposal meets the support conditions described above and shall vote AGAINST the shareholder proposal; otherwise, the Funds shall consider such proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Stock (Scrip) Dividend Alternatives
The Funds shall vote FOR most stock (scrip) dividend proposals but vote AGAINST proposals that do not allow for a cash option unless management demonstrates that the cash option is harmful to shareholder value.
Tracking Stock
The Funds shall consider the creation of tracking stock on a CASE-BY-CASE basis giving primary consideration to the input from relevant Investment Professional(s).
Capitalization of Reserves
The Funds shall vote FOR proposals to capitalize the issuer’s reserves for bonus issues of shares or to increase the par value of shares unless the Proxy Advisory Firm raises concerns not otherwise supported under these Guidelines.
Debt Instruments and Issuance Requests (International)
The Funds shall vote AGAINST proposals authorizing excessive board discretion to issue or set terms for debt instruments (e.g., commercial paper).
The Funds shall vote FOR debt issuances for issuers when the gearing level (current debt-to-equity ratio) does not exceed the Proxy Advisory Firm’s defined thresholds.
The Funds shall vote AGAINST proposals in which the debt issuance will result in an excessive gearing level as set forth in the Proxy Advisory Firm’s defined thresholds, or for which inadequate disclosure precludes calculation of the gearing level, unless the Proxy Advisory Firm’s approach to evaluating such requests results in support of the proposal.
Acceptance of Deposits (India)
Fund voting decisions are based on the Proxy Advisory Firm’s approach to evaluating such proposals.
Debt Restructurings
The Funds shall consider proposals to increase common and/or preferred shares and to issue shares as part of a debt restructuring plan on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Financing Plans
The Funds shall vote FOR the adoption of financing plans if they are in shareholders’ best economic interests.
Investment of Company Reserves (International)
The Funds shall consider such proposals on a case-by-case basis.
Restructuring
Mergers and Acquisitions, Special Purpose Acquisition Corporations (SPACs) and Corporate Restructurings
The Funds shall vote FOR a proposal not typically supported under these Guidelines if a key proposal such as a merger transaction is contingent upon its support and a vote FOR is recommended by the Proxy Advisory Firm or relevant Investment Professional(s).
The Funds shall consider such proposals on a case-by-case basis based on the Proxy Advisory Firm’s evaluation approach if the relevant Investment Professional(s) do not provide input with regard thereto.
Waiver on Tender-Bid Requirement
The Funds shall consider proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if seeking a waiver for a major shareholder or concert party from the requirement to make a buyout offer to minority shareholders, voting FOR when little concern of a creeping takeover exists and the issuer has provided a reasonable rationale for the request.
Related Party Transactions
The Funds shall vote FOR approval of such transactions, unless the agreement requests a strategic move outside the issuer’s charter, contains unfavorable or high-risk terms (e.g., deposits without security interest or guaranty), or is deemed likely to have a negative impact on director or related party independence.
6- | Environmental and Social Issues |
Environmental and Social Proposals
Institutional shareholders now routinely scrutinize shareholder proposals regarding environmental and social matters. Accordingly, in addition to governance risks and opportunities, issuers should also assess their environmental and social risks and opportunities as they pertain to stakeholders including their employees, shareholders, communities, suppliers, and customers.
Issuers should adequately disclose how they evaluate and mitigate such material risks in order to allow shareholders to assess how well the issuers mitigate and leverage their social and environmental risks and opportunities. Issuers should adopt disclosure methodologies considering recommendations from the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), or Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) to foster uniform disclosure and to allow shareholders to assess risks across issuers.
Accordingly, the Funds shall vote FOR proposals related to environmental, sustainability and corporate social responsibility if the issuer’s disclosure and/or its management of the issue(s) appears inadequate relative to its peers and if the proposal:
● | applies to the issuer’s business, |
● | enhances long-term shareholder value, |
● | requests more transparency and commitment to improve the issuer’s environmental and/or social risks, |
● | aims to benefit the issuer’s stakeholders, |
● | is reasonable and not unduly onerous or costly, or |
● | is not requesting data that is primarily duplicative to data the issuer already publicly provides. |
Environmental
The Funds shall vote FOR proposals relating to environmental impact that reasonably:
● | aim to reduce negative environmental impact, including the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and other contributing factors to global climate change; and/or |
● | request disclosure relating to how the issuer addresses its climate impact. |
Social
The Funds shall vote FOR proposals relating to corporate social responsibility that request disclosure of how the issuer manages its:
● | employee and board diversity; and/or |
● | human capital management, human rights, and supply chain risks. |
Approval of Donations
The Funds shall vote FOR proposals if they are for single- or multi-year authorities and prior disclosure of amounts is provided. The Funds shall otherwise vote AGAINST such proposals.
Routine Management Proposals
The Funds shall consider proposals for which the Proxy Advisory Firm recommends voting AGAINST on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Authority to Call Shareholder Meetings on Less than 21 Days’ Notice
For issuers in the United Kingdom, the Funds shall consider such proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis assessing whether the issuer has provided clear disclosure of its compliance with any hurdle conditions for authority imposed by applicable law and has historically limited its use of such authority to time-sensitive matters.
Approval of Financial Statements and Director and Auditor Reports
The Funds shall vote AGAINST such proposals if concerns exist regarding inadequate disclosure, remuneration arrangements (including severance/termination payments exceeding local standards for multiples of annual compensation), or consulting agreements with non-executive directors.
The Funds shall consider such proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if other concerns exist regarding severance/termination payments.
The Funds shall vote AGAINST such proposals if concerns exist regarding the issuer’s financial accounts and reporting, including related party transactions.
The Funds shall vote AGAINST board-issued reports receiving a negative recommendation from the Proxy Advisory Firm resulting from concerns regarding board independence or inclusion of non-independent directors on the audit committee.
The Funds shall vote FOR such proposals if the only reason for a negative Proxy Advisory Firm recommendation is to express disapproval of broader issuer or board practices.
Other Business
The Funds shall vote AGAINST proposals for Other Business.
Adjournment
The Funds shall vote FOR when presented with a primary proposal such as a merger or corporate restructuring that is also supported.
The Funds shall vote AGAINST when not presented with a primary proposal, such as a merger, and a proposal on the ballot is opposed.
The Funds shall consider other circumstances on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Changing Corporate Name
The Funds shall vote FOR management proposals requesting a corporate name change.
Multiple Proposals
The Funds may vote FOR multiple proposals of a similar nature presented as options to the issuer management’s favored course of action, provided that:
● | Support for a single proposal is not operationally required; |
● | No single proposal is deemed superior in the interest of the Fund(s); and |
● | Each proposal would otherwise be supported under these Guidelines. |
The Funds shall vote AGAINST any proposals that would otherwise be opposed under these Guidelines.
Bundled Proposals
The Funds shall vote FOR such proposals if all of the bundled items are supported under these Guidelines.
The Funds shall consider such proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if one or more items are not supported under these Guidelines and/or the Proxy Advisory Firm deems the negative impact, on balance, to outweigh any positive impact.
Moot Proposals
This instruction pertains to items for which support has become moot (e.g., a director for whom support has become moot since the time the individual was nominated (e.g., due to death, disqualification, or determination not to accept appointment)); the Funds shall WITHHOLD support if the Proxy Advisory Firm recommends that course of action.
Approving New Classes or Series of Shares
The Funds shall vote FOR the establishment of new classes or series of shares.
Hiring and Terminating Sub-advisers
The Funds shall vote FOR management proposals that authorize the board to hire and terminate sub-advisers.
Master-Feeder Structure
The Funds shall vote FOR the establishment of a master-feeder structure.
Establishing Director Ownership Requirement
The Funds shall vote AGAINST shareholder proposals for the establishment of a director ownership requirement. All other matters should be examined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Item 8. Portfolio Managers of Closed-End Management Investment Companies.
(a)(1) Portfolio Management. The following individuals share responsibility for the day-to-day management of the Fund’s portfolio:
Vincent Costa is co-chief investment officer, equities at Voya Investment Management. Vincent is also the head of the global quantitative equities team and serves as a portfolio manager for the active quantitative and fundamental large cap value strategies. Previously at Voya, he was head of portfolio management for quantitative equity. Prior to joining Voya, he managed quantitative equity investments at both Merrill Lynch Investment Management and Bankers Trust Company. Vinnie earned an MBA in finance from New York University's Stern School of Business, a BS in quantitative business analysis from Pennsylvania State University and is a CFA® Charterholder.
Peg DiOrio is head of quantitative equity portfolio management and a portfolio manager for the active quantitative strategies at Voya Investment Management. Prior to joining Voya, she was a quantitative analyst with Alliance Bernstein/Sanford C. Bernstein responsible for multivariate and time series analysis for low volatility strategies, global equities, REITs, and options. Prior to that, she was a senior investment planning analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein. Peg formerly served as president of the Society of Quantitative Analysts and continues to serve on the board of directors. She is on the external advisory board for the Applied Math and Statistics Department of Stony Brook University. Peg earned a MS in Applied Mathematics, Statistics and Operations Research from the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, NYU and a BS from SUNY Stony Brook. Peg is a CFA® Charterholder.
Steven Wetter is a portfolio manager on the global quantitative equity team at Voya Investment Management responsible for the index, research enhanced index and smart beta strategies. Prior to joining Voya, Steve was co-head of international indexing at BNY Mellon responsible for managing ETFs, index funds and quantitative portfolios. Prior to that, he held similar positions at Northern Trust and Bankers Trust. Steve earned an MBA in finance from New York University's Stern School of Business and a BA from the University of California at Berkeley.
Paul Zemsky is the chief investment officer and founder of the Multi-Asset Strategies and Solutions Team (MASS) at Voya Investment Management. He is responsible for the firm’s suite of value-added, customized and off-the-shelf products and solutions that are supported by the team’s asset allocation, manager research, quantitative research, portfolio implementation and multi-manager capabilities. Prior to joining the firm, he co-founded CaliberOne Private Funds Management, a macro hedge fund. Paul began his career at JPMorgan Investment Management, where he held a number of key positions, including head of investments for over $300 Billion of Fixed Income assets. Paul is a member of the firm’s Management Committee and a board member of Pomona Capital. He holds a dual degree in finance and electrical engineering from the Management and Technology Program at the University of Pennsylvania and holds the Chartered Financial Analyst® designation.
(a)(2V-iii) Other Accounts Managed
The following table shows the number of accounts and total assets in the accounts managed by the portfolio managers of the Sub-Adviser as of February 28, 2023, unless otherwise noted:
Voya Infrastructure, Industrials and Materials Fund (IDE)
| | Mutual Funds Registered Investment Companies | | | Other Pooled Investment Vehicles | | | Other Accounts | |
Portfolio Managers | | Number of Accounts | | | Total Assets (rounded to the nearest million) | | | Number of Accounts | | | Total Assets (rounded to the nearest million) | | | Number of Accounts | | | Total Assets (rounded to the nearest million) | |
Paul Zemsky | | | 56 | | | $ | 18,015,409,399 | | | | 14 | | | $ | 5,614,183,055 | | | | 0 | | | $ | 0 | |
Vincent Costa | | | 22 | | | $ | 9,278,498,085 | | | | 31 | | | $ | 324,394,860 | | | | 16 | | | $ | 828,783,596 | |
Peg DiOrio | | | 13 | | | $ | 3,686,857,540 | | | | 0 | | | $ | 0 | | | | 10 | | | $ | 498,607,300 | |
Steven Wetter | | | 32 | | | $ | 23,843,654,809 | | | | 0 | | | $ | 0 | | | | 3 | | | $ | 398,894,851 | |
(a)(2)(iv) Conflicts of Interest
A portfolio manager may be subject to potential conflicts of interest because the portfolio manager is responsible for other accounts in addition to a Fund. These other accounts may include, among others, other mutual funds, separately managed advisory accounts, commingled trust accounts, insurance separate accounts, wrap fee programs and hedge funds. Potential conflicts may arise out of the implementation of differing investment strategies for the portfolio manager’s various accounts, the allocation of investment opportunities among those accounts or differences in the advisory fees paid by the portfolio manager’s accounts.
A potential conflict of interest may arise as a result of the portfolio manager’s responsibility for multiple accounts with similar investment guidelines. Under these circumstances, a potential investment may be suitable for more that one of the portfolio manager’s accounts, but the quantity of the investment available for purchase is less than the aggregate amount the accounts would ideally devote to the opportunity. Similar conflicts may arise with multiple accounts seek to dispose of the same investment.
A portfolio manager may also manage accounts whose objectives and policies differ from that of the Fund. These differences may be such that under certain circumstances, trading activity appropriate for one account managed by the portfolio manager may not be appropriate for the Fund. For example, if an account were to sell a significant position in a security, which could cause the market price of that security to decrease, while the Fund maintained its position in that security.
A potential conflict may arise when a portfolio manager is responsible for accounts that have different advisory fees – the difference in the fees may create an incentive for the portfolio manager to favor one account over another, for example, in terms of access to particularly appealing investment opportunities. This conflict may be heightened where an account is subject to a performance-based fee.
As part of its compliance program, Voya IM has adopted policies and procedures reasonable designed to address the potential conflicts of interest described above.
Finally, a potential conflict of interest may arise because the investment mandates for certain other accounts, such as hedge funds, may allow extensive use of short sales, which, in theory, could allow them to enter into short positions in securities where other accounts hold long positions. Voya IM has policies and procedures in reasonable designed to limit and monitor short sales by the other accounts to avoid harm to the Fund.
(a)(3) Compensation
Compensation consists of (a) a fixed base salary; (b) a bonus which is based on Voya IM performance, one-, three-, and five-year pre-tax performance of the accounts the portfolio managers are primarily and jointly responsible for relative to account benchmarks, peer universe performance, and revenue growth and net cash flow growth (changes in the accounts’ net assets not attributable to changes in the value of the accounts’ investments) of the accounts they are responsible for; and, in certain instances, (iii) long-term equity awards tied to the performance of the parent company, Voya Financial, Inc. and/or a notional investment in a pre-defined set of Voya IM sub-advised funds.
Portfolio managers are also eligible to receive an annual cash incentive award delivered in some combination of cash and a deferred award in the form of Voya stock. The overall design of the annual incentive plan was developed to tie pay to both performance and cash flows, structured in such a way as to drive performance and promote retention of top talent. As with base salary compensation, individual target awards are determined and set based on external market data and internal comparators. Investment performance is measured on both relative and absolute performance in all areas.
The measures for each team are outlined on a “scorecard” that is reviewed on an annual basis. These scorecards measure investment performance versus benchmark and peer groups over one-, three-, and five-year periods; and year-to-date net cash flow (changes in the accounts' net assets not attributable to changes in the value of the accounts' investments) for all accounts managed by each team. The results for overall Voya IM scorecards are typically calculated on an asset weighted performance basis of the Investment professionals' performance measures for bonus determinations are weighted by 25% being attributable to the overall Voya IM performance and 75% attributable to their specific team results (65% investment performance, 5% net cash flow, and 5% revenue growth).
Voya IM's long-term incentive plan is designed to provide ownership-like incentives to reward continued employment and to link long-term compensation to the financial performance of the business. Based on job function, internal comparators and external market data, employees may be granted long-term awards. All senior investment professionals participate in the long-term compensation plan. Participants receive annual awards determined by the management committee based largely on investment performance and contribution to firm performance. Plan awards are based on the current year's performance as defined by the Voya IM component of the annual incentive plan. Awards typically include a combination of performance shares, which vest ratably over a three-year period, and Voya restricted stock and/or a notional investment in a predefined set of Voya IM sub-advised funds, each subject to a three-year cliff-vesting schedule.
If a portfolio manager's base salary compensation exceeds a particular threshold, he or she may participate in Voya's deferred compensation plan. The plan provides an opportunity to invest deferred amounts of compensation in mutual funds, Voya stock or at an annual fixed interest rate. Deferral elections are done on an annual basis and the amount of compensation deferred is irrevocable.
Investment professionals’ performance measures for bonus determinations are weighted by 25% being attributable to the overall Voya IM performance and 75% attributable to their specific team results (65% investment performance, 5% net cash flow, and 5% revenue growth).
(a)(4) Ownership of Securities
The following table shows the dollar range of shares of the Fund owned by each team member as of February 28, 2023, including investments by their immediate family members and amounts invested through retirement and deferred compensation plans.
Ownership:
Portfolio Manager | | Dollar Range of Fund Shares Owned |
Vincent Costa | | None |
Peg DiOrio | | None |
Steven Wetter | | None |
Paul Zemsky | | None |
(b) None.
Item 9. Purchases of Equity Securities by Closed-End Management Investment Company and Affiliated Purchasers.
Period* | | Total Number of Shares (or Units) Purchased | | | Average Monthly Price Paid Per Share (or Unit) | | | Total Number of Shares (or Units) Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans or Programs | | | Maximum Number (or Approximate Dollar Value) of Shares (or Units) that May Yet Be Purchased Under the Plans or Programs | |
Mar 1-31, 2022 | | | 33,361 | | | $ | 10.93 | | | | 33,361 | | | | 0 | |
April 1-30, 2022 | | | 62,266 | | | $ | 10.92 | | | | 62,266 | | | | 0 | |
May 1-31, 2022 | | | 109,679 | | | $ | 10.19 | | | | 109,679 | | | | 0 | |
June 1-30, 2022 | | | 61,567 | | | $ | 10.32 | | | | 61,567 | | | | 0 | |
July 1-31, 2022 | | | 24,687 | | | $ | 9.74 | | | | 24,687 | | | | 0 | |
Aug 1-31, 2022 | | | 42,643 | | | $ | 10.17 | | | | 42,643 | | | | 0 | |
Sept 1-30, 2022 | | | 56,448 | | | $ | 9.39 | | | | 56,448 | | | | 0 | |
Oct 1-31, 2022 | | | 104,280 | | | $ | 8.78 | | | | 104,280 | | | | 0 | |
Nov 1-30, 2022 | | | 126,478 | | | $ | 9.35 | | | | 126,478 | | | | 0 | |
Dec 1-31, 2022 | | | 53,478 | | | $ | 9.83 | | | | 53,478 | | | | 0 | |
Jan 1-31, 2023 | | | 77,880 | | | $ | 9.74 | | | | 77,880 | | | | 0 | |
Feb 1-28, 2023 | | | 51,015 | | | $ | 9.89 | | | | 51,015 | | | | 0 | |
Total | | | 803,782 | | | | | | | | 803,782 | | | | | |
*Effective April 1, 2022, the Registrant announced the Fund could purchase up to 10% of its stock in open-market transactions through March 31, 2023.
Item 10. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.
Not applicable.
Item 11. Controls and Procedures.
| (a) | Based on our evaluation conducted within 90 days of the filing date, hereof, the design and operation of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures are effective to ensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known to the certifying officers by others within the appropriate entities, particularly during the period in which Forms N-CSR are being prepared, and the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures allow timely preparation and review of the information for the registrant’s Form N-CSR and the officer certifications of such Form N-CSR. |
| (b) | There were no significant changes in the registrant’s internal controls that occurred during the second fiscal quarter of the period covered by this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. |
Item 12. Disclosure of Securities Lending Activities for Closed-End Management Investment Companies.
The Bank of New York Mellon serves as the securities lending agent. As the securities lending agent, The Bank of New York Mellon administers the securities lending program.
The following table provides the dollar amounts of income and fees/compensation related to the securities lending activities of the Fund for its most recent fiscal year. There are no fees paid to the securities lending agent for cash collateral management services, administrative fees, indemnification fees, or other fees.
Fund | | Gross securities lending income | | Fees paid to securities lending agent from revenue split | | Positive Rebate | | Negative Rebate | | Net Rebate | | Total Aggregate fees/compensation paid to securities lending agent or broker | | Net Securities Income |
Voya Infrastructure, Industrials and Materials Fund | | None | | None | | None | | None | | None | | None | | None |
Item 13. Exhibits.
| (c) | Notices to the registrant's common shareholders in accordance with the order under Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”) granting an exemption from Section 19(b) of the 1940 Act and Rule 19b-1 under the 1940 Act, dated August 16, 2011.1 |
(c)(1) 2nd Qtr 2022
(c)(2) 3rd Qtr 2022
(c)(3) 4th Qtr 2022
(c)(4) 1st Qtr 2023
| 1 | The Fund has received exemptive relief from the Securities and Exchange Commission permitting it to make periodic distributions of long-term capital gains with respect to its outstanding common stock as frequently as twelve times each year, and as frequently as distributions are specified by or in accordance with the terms of its outstanding preferred stock. This relief is conditioned, in part, on an undertaking by the Fund to make the disclosures to the holders of the Fund's common shares, in addition to the information required by Section 19(a) of the 1940 Act and Rule 19a-1 thereunder. The Fund is likewise obligated to file with the SEC the information contained in any such notice to shareholders and, in that regard, has attached hereto copies of each such notice made during the period. |
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
(Registrant): Voya Infrastructure, Industrials and Materials Fund
By | /s/ Andy Simonoff | |
| Andy Simonoff | |
| Chief Executive Officer | |
Date: May 4, 2023
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.
By | /s/ Andy Simonoff | |
| Andy Simonoff | |
| Chief Executive Officer | |
Date: May 4, 2023
By | /s/ Todd Modic | |
| Todd Modic | |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer | |
Date: May 4, 2023