mandates, if any. The Board considered any differences between the Advisor’s and Subadvisor’s services to a Fund and the services they provide to other comparable clients or funds. The Board concluded that the advisory fee paid with respect to each of the Funds is reasonable in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided to the Funds under the Advisory Agreement.
Profitability/Fall out benefits. In considering the costs of the services to be provided and the profits to be realized by the Advisor and its affiliates from the Advisor’s relationship with the Trust, the Board:
(a)reviewed financial information of the Advisor;
(b)reviewed and considered information presented by the Advisor regarding the net profitability to the Advisor and its affiliates with respect to each Fund;
(c)received and reviewed profitability information with respect to the John Hancock Fund Complex as a whole and with respect to each Fund;
(d)received information with respect to the Advisor’s allocation methodologies used in preparing the profitability data and considered that the Advisor hired an independent third-party consultant to provide an analysis of the Advisor’s allocation methodologies;
(e)considered that the John Hancock insurance companies that are affiliates of the Advisor, as shareholders of the Trust directly or through their separate accounts, receive certain tax credits or deductions relating to foreign taxes paid and dividends received by certain Funds of the Trust and noted that these tax benefits, which are not available to participants in qualified retirement plans under applicable income tax law, are reflected in the profitability analysis reviewed by the Board;
(f)considered that the Advisor also provides administrative services to the Funds on a cost basis pursuant to an administrative services agreement;
(g)noted that the fund’s Subadvisor is an affiliate of the Advisor;
(h)noted that the Advisor also derives reputational and other indirect benefits from providing advisory services to the Funds;
(i)noted that the subadvisory fee is paid by the Advisor;
(j)noted that the Advisor also pays the Subadvisor a license fee in connection with each Fund’s use of its Underlying Index;
(k)considered the Advisor’s ongoing costs and expenditures necessary to improve services, meet new regulatory and compliance requirements, and adapt to other challenges impacting the fund industry; and
(l)considered that the Advisor should be entitled to earn a reasonable level of profits in exchange for the level of services it provides to each Fund and the risks that it assumes as Advisor, including entrepreneurial, operational, reputational, litigation and regulatory risk.
Based upon its review, the Board concluded that the level of profitability, if any, of the Advisor and its affiliates from their relationship with each Fund was reasonable and not excessive.
Economies of scale. In considering the extent to which a Fund may realize any economies of scale and whether fee levels reflect these economies of scale for the benefit of Fund shareholders, the Board:
(a)considered that the Advisor has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its management fee for certain funds of the John Hancock Fund Complex, including the Funds (the participating portfolios) or otherwise reimburse the expenses of the participating portfolios (the reimbursement). This waiver is based upon aggregate net assets of all the participating portfolios. The amount of the reimbursement is calculated daily and allocated among all the participating portfolios in proportion to the daily net assets of each Fund;
(b)the Board also took into account management’s discussion of each Fund’s advisory fee structure; and
(c)considered the effect of the Funds’ growth in size on their performance and fees. The Board also noted that if the Funds’ assets increase over time, the Funds may realize other economies of scale.
Approval of Subadvisory Agreement
In making its determination with respect to approval of the Subadvisory Agreement, the Board reviewed:
(1)information relating to the Subadvisor’s business, including current subadvisory services to the Trust (and other funds in the John Hancock Fund Complex);
(2)the historical and current performance of each Fund and comparative performance information relating to the Fund’s benchmark and comparable funds; and
(3)the subadvisory fee for each Fund, including the approved breakpoints for each of the Funds and to the extent available, comparable fee information prepared by an independent third-party provider of fund data.
Nature, extent, and quality of services. With respect to the services provided by the Subadvisor with respect to each Fund, the Board received information provided to the Board by the Subadvisor, including the Subadvisor’s Form ADV, as well as took into account information presented throughout the past year. The Board considered the Subadvisor’s current level of staffing and its overall resources, as well as received information relating to the Subadvisor’s compensation program. The Board reviewed the Subadvisor’s history and investment experience, as well as information regarding the qualifications, background, and responsibilities of the Subadvisor’s investment and compliance personnel who provide services to the Funds. The Board also considered, among other things, the Subadvisor’s compliance program and any disciplinary history. The Board also considered the Subadvisor’s risk assessment and monitoring process. The Board reviewed the Subadvisor’s regulatory history, including whether it was involved in any regulatory actions or investigations as well as material litigation, and any settlements and amelioratory actions undertaken, as
