nvcsr
OMB APPROVAL
OMB Number: 3235-0570
Expires: August 31, 2011
Estimated average burden hours per response: 18.9
UNITED
STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM N-CSR
CERTIFIED SHAREHOLDER REPORT OF
REGISTERED MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES
Investment Company Act file number: 811-22004
ING Asia Pacific High Dividend Equity Income Fund
(Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)
|
|
|
7337 E. Doubletree Ranch Rd., Scottsdale, AZ
|
|
85258 |
(Address of principal executive offices)
|
|
(Zip code) |
The Corporation Trust Company,
1209 Orange
Street,
Wilmington, DE 19801
(Name and address of agent for service)
Registrants telephone number, including area code:
1-800-992-0180
|
|
|
Date of fiscal year end:
|
|
February 28 |
|
|
|
Date of reporting period:
|
|
February 28, 2010 |
Annual Report
February 28,
2010
ING Asia Pacific High Dividend Equity Income Fund
E-Delivery
Sign-up details inside
This report is submitted for
general information to shareholders of the ING Funds. It is
not authorized for distribution to prospective shareholders
unless accompanied or preceded by a prospectus which includes
details regarding the funds investment objectives, risks,
charges, expenses and other information. This information should
be read carefully.
FUNDS
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
Go Paperless with
E-Delivery!
Sign up now for
on-line
prospectuses, fund reports, and proxy statements. In less than
five minutes, you can help reduce paper mail and lower fund
costs.
Just go to www.ingfunds.com, click
on the
E-Delivery
icon from the home page, follow the directions and complete the
quick 5 Steps to Enroll.
You will be notified by
e-mail when
these communications become available on the internet. Documents
that are not available on the internet will continue to be sent
by mail.
PROXY VOTING
INFORMATION
A description of the policies and procedures that the Fund uses
to determine how to vote proxies related to portfolio securities
is available (1) without charge, upon request, by calling
Shareholder Services toll-free at
(800) 992-0180;
(2) on the Funds website at www.ingfunds.com and
(3) on the SECs website at www.sec.gov. Information
regarding how the Fund voted proxies related to portfolio
securities during the most recent
12-month
period ended June 30 is available without charge on the
Funds website at www.ingfunds.com and on the SECs
website at www.sec.gov.
QUARTERLY
PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS
The Fund files its complete schedule of portfolio holdings with
the SEC for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year on
Form N-Q.
The Funds
Forms N-Q
are available on the SECs website at www.sec.gov. The
Funds
Forms N-Q
may be reviewed and copied at the SECs Public Reference
Room in Washington, DC, and information on the operation of
the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling
(800) SEC-0330;
and is available upon request from the Fund by calling
Shareholder Services toll-free at
(800) 992-0180.
(THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
Dear Shareholder,
ING Asia Pacific High Dividend Equity Income Fund (the
Fund) is a non-diversified, closed-end management
investment company whose shares are traded on the New York Stock
Exchange under the symbol IAE. The Funds
investment objective is total return through a combination of
current income, realized capital gains and capital appreciation.
The Fund seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing
primarily in a portfolio of high dividend yielding equity
securities of Asia Pacific companies. The Fund also seeks to
enhance total returns over a market cycle by selling call
options on selected Asia Pacific Indices and for equity
securities of Asia Pacific Companies.
For the fiscal year ended February 28, 2010, the Fund made
quarterly total distributions of $1.94 per share, including a
return of capital of $1.60 per share and net investment income
of $0.34 per share. During the fiscal year, the Fund reduced its
quarterly distribution from $0.498 to $0.448 per month,
commencing with the distribution paid on January 15, 2010.
Based on net asset value (NAV), the Fund provided a
total return of 69.95% for the fiscal year ended
February 28,
2010.(1)
This NAV return reflects an increase in its NAV from $11.34 on
February 28, 2009 to $17.02 on February 28, 2010.
Based on its share price as of February 28, 2010, the Fund
provided a total return of 100.78% for the fiscal year ended
February 28,
2010.(2)
This share price return reflects an increase in its share price
from $10.18 on February 28, 2009 to $18.05 on
February 28, 2010.
The global equity markets have witnessed a challenging and
turbulent period. Please read the Market Perspective and
Portfolio Managers Report for more information on the
market and the Funds performance.
At ING Funds our mission is to set the standard in helping our
clients manage their financial future. We seek to assist you and
your financial advisor by offering a range of global investment
solutions. We invite you to visit our website at
www.ingfunds.com. Here you will find information on our products
and services, including current market data and fund statistics
on our open- and closed-end funds. You will see that we offer a
broad variety of equity, fixed income and multi-asset funds that
aim to fulfill a variety of investor needs.
We thank you for trusting ING Funds with your investment assets,
and we look forward to serving you in the months and years ahead.
Sincerely,
Shaun P. Mathews
President & Chief Executive Officer
ING Funds
April 9, 2010
The views expressed in the
Presidents Letter reflect those of the President as of the
date of the letter. Any such views are subject to change at any
time based upon market or other conditions and ING Funds
disclaim any responsibility to update such views. These views
may not be relied on as investment advice and because investment
decisions for an ING Fund are based on numerous factors, may not
be relied on as an indication of investment intent on behalf of
any ING Fund. Reference to specific company securities should
not be construed as recommendations or investment advice.
International investing does pose special risks including
currency fluctuation, economic and political risks not found in
investments that are solely domestic.
For more complete information,
or to obtain a prospectus for any ING Fund, please call your
Investment Professional or the Funds Shareholder Service
Department at
(800) 992-0180
or log on to www.ingfunds.com. The prospectus should be read
carefully before investing. Consider the funds investment
objectives, risks, charges and expenses carefully before
investing. The prospectus contains this information and other
information about the fund. Check with your Investment
Professional to determine which funds are available for sale
within their firm. Not all funds are available for sale at all
firms.
|
|
(1)
|
Total investment return at net
asset value has been calculated assuming a purchase at net asset
value at the beginning of each period and a sale at net asset
value at the end of each period and assumes reinvestment of
dividends, capital gain distributions and return of capital
distributions/allocations, if any, in accordance with the
provisions of the Funds dividend reinvestment plan.
|
|
(2)
|
Total investment return at market
value measures the change in the market value of your investment
assuming reinvestment of dividends, capital gain distributions,
and return of capital distributions/allocations, if any, in
accordance with the provisions of the Funds dividend
reinvestment plan.
|
1
Market
Perspective: Year
Ended February 28, 2010
In our semi-annual report, we described how global equities in
the form of the MSCI World
IndexSM(1)
measured in local currencies, including net reinvested dividends
(MSCI for regions discussed below), staged a
dramatic recovery beginning on March 9, from a 22% deficit for
the calendar year to date. Smaller gains were made in the second
half of the fiscal year, and for the whole fiscal year the index
rose 46.06%. (The MSCI World
IndexSM(1)
returned 54.30% for the entire fiscal year, measured in
U.S. dollars.) In currencies, the U.S. dollar, on a
trade weighted basis, touched a
15-month low
in late November but rebounded somewhat against European
currencies. For the fiscal year, the U.S. dollar lost 6.9%
to the euro, 9.0% against the yen, and 6.4% against the pound.
Gradually, the seeds of recovery from global recession started
to bear fruit as opposed to just the green shoots on
which the prices of risky assets had improbably surged since
March. The financial crisis that caused the recession led
governments to intervene massively to recapitalize companies
considered systemically important, or at least make practically
unlimited amounts of liquidity available to them at low cost.
These were mainly banks and other financial institutions, but in
the U.S. also included major auto makers. Some financial
giants once thought impregnable now sit meekly under government
control. Interest rates have been reduced to record low levels
to encourage these institutions to lend and generally to support
demand. Bank lending has continued to stagnate however (except
in China, where banks tend to follow government directions).
Cash-for-Clunkers programs were successfully
introduced in a number of countries, under which governments
subsidized the trade-in of old vehicles for newer models. In the
U.S. the government offered an $8,000 tax credit to
first-time home buyers and extended jobless benefits. In Europe,
to reduce the number of workers being laid off, corporations
were subsidized to keep them on part time. The U.K. reduced
value added tax (VAT).
Government budget deficits have soared to
modern-day
records: in the U.S. alone $1.42 trillion for the fiscal
year ending September 2009. To keep interest rates down the
Federal Reserve Board and the Bank of England have been buying
U.S. Treasury bonds in a strategy known as quantitative
easing.
What will happen when large-scale government intervention ends,
is probably the greatest concern for investors. But Chinas
rate of gross domestic product (GDP) growth is now
back above 10% and some key areas of the economy are clearly
looking better.
House prices have started to rise again. The
Standard & Poors
(S&P)/Case-Shiller National U.S. Home
Price
Index(2)
of house prices in 20 cities was reported in February to
have risen for seven consecutive months and was only down 3.1%
from a year earlier. Sales of existing homes reached the highest
levels since February 2007 but then fell in December and
January, perhaps distorted by tax credit effects.
On the employment front, improvement has so far been too slow to
sustain a vigorous recovery. Jobs were still being lost as our
fiscal year ended, although the trend is falling. The
unemployment rate was reported at 9.7% in February, having
peaked at 10.2%. Wage growth remains weak and the participation
rate (percentage of the population in the labor force) fell to
64.6%, the lowest level since August 1985, before edging up in
January.
At least the economy has started to expand again after four
quarterly declines. In the third quarter of 2009, GDP in the
U.S. rose by 2.2% at an annual rate and in the fourth
quarter 5.90%, largely due to inventory rebuilding.
U.S. equities, represented by the S&P
500®
Composite Stock Price (S&P
500®)
Index(3)
including dividends returned 53.62% in the fiscal year, five
sixths of it in the first half. The rally was led by the
financials sector which almost doubled in value. The index
suffered its first monthly fall since February 2009 in October,
when a rather flat personal incomes report issued on the last
day of the month drove the market down by over 2%. A more
serious setback took place in January, when, after a bright
start, concerns over the employment situation, enforced credit
tightening in China and the possibility of sovereign debt
default in Greece depressed risk appetites and sent markets
tumbling. Profits for S&P
500®
companies suffered their ninth straight quarter of annual
decline in the third quarter before showing strong improvement
in the fourth.
In international markets, the MSCI
Japan®
Index(4)
rose 21.76% over the fiscal year, but actually fell nearly 6.00%
in the second half. GDP resumed growth in the fourth quarter,
bolstered by government
2
Market
Perspective: Year
Ended February 28, 2010
stimulus and because imports are falling faster than exports.
But domestic demand is generally weak, with wages down for 18
consecutive months and deflation again the norm. The MSCI Europe
ex
UK®
Index(5)
surged 44.27% for the entire fiscal year. As in the
U.S. the regions economy returned to growth in the
third quarter of 2009, by 0.4% over the previous quarter, but
only rose by 0.1% in the fourth quarter. Adding to the sense of
a stalled recovery, composite sentiment and purchasing
managers indices slipped after months of increase.
Unemployment rose to a decade-high 9.9% and stayed there.
Greeces credit rating was downgraded on concerns about its
burgeoning budget deficit. The MSCI
UK®
Index(6)
gained 46.17% for the entire fiscal year. The U.K. had to wait
until the fourth quarter for a rise in GDP, of 0.3%. Consumers
continued to pay down debt at record rates and the household
savings rate rose to 8.6%, the highest since 1998. Yet
unemployment stabilized at 7.8% and purchasing managers
indices held firmly in expansion mode. House prices resumed
rising on an annual basis but ominously fell in February for the
first month in ten.
(1) The
MSCI World
IndexSM
is an unmanaged index that measures the performance of over
1,400 securities listed on exchanges in the U.S., Europe,
Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Far East.
(2) The
S&P/Case-Shiller National U.S. Home Price Index tracks
the value of single-family housing within the United States. The
index is a composite of single-family home price indices for the
nine U.S. Census divisions and is calculated quarterly.
(3) The
S&P
500®
Index is an unmanaged index that measures the performance of
securities of approximately 500 large-capitalization companies
whose securities are traded on major U.S. stock markets.
(4) The
MSCI
Japan®
Index is a free float-adjusted market capitalization index that
is designed to measure developed market equity performance in
Japan.
(5) The
MSCI Europe ex
UK®
Index is a free float-adjusted market capitalization index that
is designed to measure developed market equity performance in
Europe, excluding the UK.
(6) The
MSCI
UK®
Index is a free float-adjusted market capitalization index that
is designed to measure developed market equity performance in
the UK.
All indices are unmanaged and investors cannot invest
directly in an index. Past performance does not guarantee future
results. The performance quoted represents past performance.
Investment return and principal value of an investment will
fluctuate, and shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less
than their original cost. The Funds performance is subject
to change since the periods end and may be lower or higher
than the performance data shown. Please call
(800) 992-0180
or log on to www.ingfunds.com to obtain performance data current
to the most recent month end.
Market Perspective reflects the views of INGs Chief
Investment Risk Officer only through the end of the period, and
is subject to change based on market and other conditions.
3
ING
Asia Pacific High Dividend Equity Income Fund
Portfolio
Managers Report
Country Allocation
as of February 28, 2010
(as a percent of net
assets)
Portfolio holdings are
subject to change daily.
ING Asia Pacific High Dividend Equity Income Fund (the
Fund) is a non-diversified, closed-end fund with the
investment objective of total return through a combination of
current income, realized capital gains and capital appreciation.
The Fund seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing
primarily in a portfolio of high dividend yielding equity
securities of Asia Pacific
Companies(1),
which are selected by one of the Funds
sub-advisers(2)
according to a combination of quantitative and fundamental
criteria. The Fund also seeks to enhance returns over a market
cycle by selling call options on selected Asia Pacific Indices
and/or
equity securities of Asia Pacific companies.
The Fund is managed by Teik Cheah and Bratin Sanyal, Portfolio
Managers, of ING Investment Management Asia/Pacific (Hong Kong)
Limited; and Bas Peeters, Frank van Etten and Willem van
Dommelen, Portfolio Managers of ING Investment Management
Advisors B.V.
Equity Portfolio Construction: The Fund uses an
initial screening process to select potential stocks for the
portfolio from the broader universe:
|
|
1)
|
An attractive dividend yield (currently above 2.5%)
|
|
2)
|
Sufficient market capitalization
|
|
3)
|
Sufficient liquidity of equity securities
|
|
4)
|
The
sub-adviser
then uses an internally developed quantitative model to identify
the most attractive candidates, which will undergo further
review by the teams fundamental analysts before inclusion
in the portfolio
|
|
5)
|
Under normal market conditions, the Fund invests in 75 to 110
dividend producing equity securities of Asia Pacific companies
|
|
6)
|
The Fund employs a strategy of writing call options on selected
Asia Pacific indices
and/or
equity securities of Asia Pacific companies, with the underlying
value of such calls representing 0% to 50% of the value of its
holdings in equity securities
|
Performance: Based on net asset value
(NAV) as of February 28, 2010, the Fund
provided a total return of 69.95% for the fiscal year. This NAV
return reflects an increase in its NAV from $11.34 on
February 28, 2009 to $17.02 on February 28, 2010.
Based on its share price as of February 28, 2010, the Fund
provided a total return of 100.78% for the fiscal year. This
share price return reflects an increase in its share price from
$10.18 on February 28, 2009 to $18.05 on February 28,
2010. To reflect the strategic emphasis of the Fund, the equity
portfolio uses the MSCI All Country (AC) Asia
Pacific
ex-Japan®
Index(3)as
a reference index. The MSCI AC Asia Pacific
ex-Japan®
Index (a market weighted equity index without any style tilt and
without call option writing) returned 88.91% for the reporting
period.
|
|
(1)
|
Asia Pacific companies are companies that are listed and traded
principally on Asia Pacific exchanges, including Australia,
China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New
Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and
Thailand.
|
|
(2)
|
ING Investments, LLC is the Funds investment adviser. ING
Investment Management Asia/Pacific (Hong Kong) Limited and ING
Investment Management Advisors B.V. are the Funds
sub-advisers. ING Investment Management Asia/Pacific (Hong Kong)
Limited is the sub-adviser responsible for implementing the
overall investment strategy, while ING Investment Management
Advisors B.V. is the sub-adviser responsible for structuring and
implementing the Funds sale of call options.
|
|
(3)
|
The MSCI AC Asia Pacific ex
Japan®
Index is a free float-adjusted market capitalization weighted
index that is designed to measure the equity market performance
of Asia, excluding Japan. As of January 2009 the index consisted
of the following 10 developed and emerging market country
indices: China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia,
Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand.
|
Top Ten Holdings
as of February 28, 2010
(as a percent of net
assets)
|
|
|
|
|
BHP Billiton Ltd.
|
|
|
4.2
|
%
|
Westpac Banking Corp.
|
|
|
2.8
|
%
|
Samsung Kodex200 Exchange Traded Fund
|
|
|
2.6
|
%
|
China Mobile Ltd.
|
|
|
2.4
|
%
|
Commonwealth Bank of Australia
|
|
|
2.3
|
%
|
Infosys Technologies Ltd.
|
|
|
2.3
|
%
|
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
|
|
|
1.9
|
%
|
DBS Group Holdings Ltd.
|
|
|
1.8
|
%
|
National Australia Bank Ltd.
|
|
|
1.8
|
%
|
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
|
|
|
1.8
|
%
|
Portfolio holdings are
subject to change daily.
4
ING
Asia Pacific High Dividend Equity Income Fund
Portfolio
Managers Report
During the period, the Fund made total quarterly distributions
of $1.94 per share, including a return of capital of $1.60 per
share and net investment income of $0.34 per share. During the
fiscal year, the Fund reduced its quarterly distribution from
$0.498 to $0.448 per quarter, commencing with the distribution
paid on January 15, 2010. As of February 28, 2010, the
Fund had 12,258,279 shares outstanding.
Market Review: For the one-year period, the
reference index MSCI AC Asia Pacific ex
Japan®
Index gained by 88.91%, while its peers, the MSCI
Europe®
Index and the MSCI
US®
Index returned 56.76% and 53.41%, respectively. The best
performing countries in the Asia Pacific region were Indonesia
and India.
Following the global sell-off of equities after the collapse of
Lehman Brothers at the end of 2008, central banks around the
world moved aggressively to stabilize the global economies by
pumping abundant liquidity into the global financial system
through bailouts, by cutting interest rates, and purchases of
troubled assets. Substantial fiscal stimulus packages were also
announced to stave off a potentially deflationary spiral.
Investor optimism gradually recovered, and global markets
rallied strongly between March 2009 and December 2009. Risk
aversion triggered by the increasing default risk of Greece and
potential increases of interest rates by central banks saw
markets retreat in January, followed by stronger markets in
February as this crisis appeared to be abating.
Equity Portfolio: The equity portfolio
underperformed the reference index for the reporting period. The
Funds underweight positions in the top-performing Indian
and Indonesian markets were drags on performance. By country,
stock selection also generally detracted, particularly in
Australia and Singapore. These negative effects were mitigated
by the Funds modest underweight position in China. The
Funds relative performance was hurt by an overweight in
the telecommunication sector, which performed poorly during the
reporting period despite its high cash flows and high dividend
yield. Selection of high dividend stocks in the energy and
consumer discretionary sectors also hurt the Funds return.
Option Portfolio: The Fund generates premiums
and seeks gains by writing (selling) call options on a basket of
international indexes on a portion of the equity
portfolios value. During the reporting period, the
managers sold call options on the Australia (ASX),
Hong Kong (Hang Seng), Korea (KOSPI) and
Taiwan (TWSE) indices. The coverage ratio was kept
low and stable at around 20.0 25.0% of total Fund
value. The Fund managers generally sold options
at-the-money,
with a maturity of about four weeks.
Sharply declining market volatility resulted in much lower call
premiums received, although the impact was muted by the strongly
recovering net asset value of the Fund. Consequently, the
amounts that needed to be paid on the expiry of the options
materially exceeded the option premiums received. Shareholders
benefited from this relatively low coverage ratio, as most of
the portfolio participated in the market recovery. Overall, the
call option overlay strategy detracted from Fund performance for
the period.
Current Strategy & Outlook: We are
cautiously optimistic about Asia Pacific equities over the
medium term. With a long-term horizon, though, we see attractive
investment opportunities. Gross domestic product growth for Asia
Pacific ex Japan, is expected to be substantially higher than
other major regions of the world. We also see more Asian
companies offering what we believe are attractive and
sustainable dividend yields.
In our view, the Funds high dividend strategy continues to
offer an attractive mix of potential benefit from long-term
capital appreciation in the Asia Pacific region, plus the
potential for downside risk control from its investment
discipline. We believe that market volatility will remain higher
than levels seen prior to the recent crisis, which should result
in continued attractive levels of call option premiums. We
believe the Funds relatively low coverage ratio should
allow a strong participation in the upside potential we foresee
for Asia Pacific ex-Japan equity markets.
Portfolio holdings and
characteristics are subject to change and may not be
representative of current holdings and
characteristics.
Performance data represents past
performance and is no guarantee of future results.
An index has no cash in its
portfolio, imposes no sales charges and incurs no operating
expenses. An investor cannot invest directly in an
index.
5
The Shareholders and Board of Trustees
ING Asia Pacific High Dividend Equity Income Fund
We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and
liabilities, including the portfolio of investments, of ING Asia
Pacific High Dividend Equity Income Fund as of February 28,
2010, and the related statement of operations for the year then
ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the
years in the two-year period then ended, and the financial
highlights for each of the years in the two-year period then
ended, and the period from March 27, 2007 (commencement of
operations) to February 29, 2008. These financial
statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements and financial highlights based on our
audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and
financial highlights are free of material misstatement. An audit
includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the
amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our
procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of
February 28, 2010, by correspondence with the custodian and
brokers or by other appropriate auditing procedures where
replies from brokers were not received. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant
estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits
provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements and financial
highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material
respects, the financial position of ING Asia Pacific High
Dividend Equity Income Fund as of February 28, 2010, and
the results of its operations, the changes in its net assets,
and the financial highlights for the periods specified in the
first paragraph above, in conformity with U.S. generally
accepted accounting principles.
Boston, Massachusetts
April 26, 2010
6
|
|
|
|
|
ASSETS:
|
|
|
|
|
Investments in securities at value*
|
|
$
|
206,631,022
|
|
Cash
|
|
|
3,430,569
|
|
Foreign currencies at value**
|
|
|
1,245,736
|
|
Receivables:
|
|
|
|
|
Investment securities sold
|
|
|
1,320,490
|
|
Dividends and interest
|
|
|
857,411
|
|
Prepaid expenses
|
|
|
1,852
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
213,487,080
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES:
|
|
|
|
|
Payable for investment securities purchased
|
|
|
2,740,184
|
|
Payable to affiliates
|
|
|
185,100
|
|
Payable for trustee fees
|
|
|
17,182
|
|
Other accrued expenses and liabilities
|
|
|
154,384
|
|
Written optionsˆ
|
|
|
1,347,740
|
|
Accrued Indian capital gain taxes
|
|
|
431,759
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
4,876,349
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET ASSETS (equivalent to $17.02 per share on
12,258,279 shares outstanding)
|
|
$
|
208,610,731
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET ASSETS WERE COMPRISED OF:
|
|
|
|
|
Paid-in capital shares of beneficial interest at
$0.01 par value (unlimited shares authorized)
|
|
$
|
256,955,972
|
|
Undistributed net investment income
|
|
|
401,702
|
|
Accumulated net realized loss on investments, foreign currency
related transactions and written options
|
|
|
(71,486,247
|
)
|
Net unrealized appreciation on investments, foreign currency
related transactions and written options
|
|
|
22,739,304
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET ASSETS
|
|
$
|
208,610,731
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Cost of investments in securities
|
|
$
|
183,754,692
|
|
** Cost of foreign currencies
|
|
$
|
1,233,999
|
|
ˆ Premiums received from written options
|
|
$
|
1,204,776
|
|
See
Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements
7
|
|
|
|
|
INVESTMENT INCOME:
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends, net of foreign taxes withheld*
|
|
$
|
6,431,036
|
|
Interest, net of foreign taxes withheld**
|
|
|
148,588
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investment income
|
|
|
6,579,624
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES:
|
|
|
|
|
Investment management fees
|
|
|
2,228,328
|
|
Transfer agent fees
|
|
|
22,484
|
|
Administrative service fees
|
|
|
193,766
|
|
Shareholder reporting expense
|
|
|
47,930
|
|
Professional fees
|
|
|
68,417
|
|
Custody and accounting expense
|
|
|
132,150
|
|
Trustee fees
|
|
|
3,736
|
|
Miscellaneous expense
|
|
|
43,011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses
|
|
|
2,739,822
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net investment income
|
|
|
3,839,802
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REALIZED AND UNREALIZED GAIN (LOSS) ON INVESTMENTS, FOREIGN
CURRENCY RELATED TRANSACTIONS AND WRITTEN OPTIONS:
|
|
|
|
|
Net realized gain (loss) on:
|
|
|
|
|
Investments (net of Indian capital gain tax withheld)***
|
|
|
(14,872,377
|
)
|
Foreign currency related transactions
|
|
|
32,612
|
|
Written options
|
|
|
(8,902,486
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net realized loss on investments, foreign currency related
transactions and written options
|
|
|
(23,742,251
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in unrealized appreciation or depreciation on:
|
|
|
|
|
Investments (net of Indian capital gain tax accrued)****
|
|
|
113,233,757
|
|
Foreign currency related transactions
|
|
|
39,254
|
|
Written options
|
|
|
(1,030,607
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in unrealized appreciation or depreciation on
investments, foreign currency related transactions and written
options
|
|
|
112,242,404
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments, foreign
currency related transactions and written options
|
|
|
88,500,153
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase in net assets resulting from operations
|
|
$
|
92,339,955
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Foreign taxes withheld
|
|
$
|
495,495
|
|
** Foreign taxes withheld
|
|
$
|
7,271
|
|
*** Foreign tax on sale of Indian investments
|
|
$
|
174,343
|
|
**** Foreign tax accrued on Indian investments
|
|
$
|
431,759
|
|
See
Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements
8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
|
February 28,
|
|
February 28,
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
FROM OPERATIONS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net investment income
|
|
$
|
3,839,802
|
|
|
$
|
7,904,420
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net realized loss on investments, foreign currency related
transactions and written options
|
|
|
(23,742,251
|
)
|
|
|
(45,309,134
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in unrealized appreciation or depreciation on
investments, foreign currency related transactions and written
options
|
|
|
112,242,404
|
|
|
|
(81,064,964
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations
|
|
|
92,339,955
|
|
|
|
(118,469,678
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FROM DISTRIBUTIONS TO SHAREHOLDERS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net investment income
|
|
|
(4,130,460
|
)
|
|
|
(7,852,410
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Return of capital
|
|
|
(19,471,116
|
)
|
|
|
(16,561,144
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total distributions
|
|
|
(23,601,576
|
)
|
|
|
(24,413,554
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FROM CAPITAL SHARE TRANSACTIONS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reinvestment of distributions
|
|
|
2,179,637
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of shares repurchased, net of commissions
|
|
|
(527,346
|
)
|
|
|
(655,419
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from capital
share transactions
|
|
|
1,652,291
|
|
|
|
(655,419
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in net assets
|
|
|
70,390,670
|
|
|
|
(143,538,651
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET ASSETS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beginning of year
|
|
|
138,220,061
|
|
|
|
281,758,712
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
End of year
|
|
$
|
208,610,731
|
|
|
$
|
138,220,061
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Undistributed net investment income at end of year
|
|
$
|
401,702
|
|
|
$
|
215,921
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See
Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements
9
Financial
Highlights
Selected data for a share of beneficial interest outstanding
throughout the year or period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 27,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007(1)
to
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
February 29,
|
|
|
|
|
February 28, 2010
|
|
February 28, 2009
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Per Share Operating
Performance:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net asset value, beginning of period
|
|
$
|
|
|
11.34
|
|
|
|
22.99
|
|
|
|
23.83(2)
|
|
Income (loss) from investment operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net investment income
|
|
$
|
|
|
0.32
|
*
|
|
|
0.64
|
*
|
|
|
0.72
|
|
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments
|
|
$
|
|
|
7.30
|
|
|
|
(10.30
|
)
|
|
|
0.13
|
|
Total from investment operations
|
|
$
|
|
|
7.62
|
|
|
|
(9.66
|
)
|
|
|
0.85
|
|
Less distributions from:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net investment income
|
|
$
|
|
|
0.34
|
|
|
|
0.64
|
|
|
|
0.77
|
|
Net realized gains on investments
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.92
|
|
Return of capital
|
|
$
|
|
|
1.60
|
|
|
|
1.35
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total distributions
|
|
$
|
|
|
1.94
|
|
|
|
1.99
|
|
|
|
1.69
|
|
Net asset value, end of period
|
|
$
|
|
|
17.02
|
|
|
|
11.34
|
|
|
|
22.99
|
|
Market value, end of period
|
|
$
|
|
|
18.05
|
|
|
|
10.18
|
|
|
|
20.65
|
|
Total investment return at net asset
value(3)
|
|
%
|
|
|
69.95
|
|
|
|
(43.57
|
)
|
|
|
3.61
|
|
Total investment return at market
value(4)
|
|
%
|
|
|
100.78
|
|
|
|
(43.61
|
)
|
|
|
(11.31
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratios and Supplemental
Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets, end of period (000s)
|
|
$
|
|
|
208,611
|
|
|
|
138,220
|
|
|
|
281,759
|
|
Ratios to average net assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross expenses prior to expense
waiver(5)
|
|
%
|
|
|
1.41
|
|
|
|
1.45
|
|
|
|
1.42
|
|
Net expenses after expense
waiver(5)
|
|
%
|
|
|
1.41
|
|
|
|
1.45
|
|
|
|
1.40
|
|
Net investment income after expense
waiver(5)
|
|
%
|
|
|
1.98
|
|
|
|
3.61
|
|
|
|
3.11
|
|
Portfolio turnover rate
|
|
%
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
|
121
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Commencement of operations.
|
|
(2) |
|
Net asset value at beginning of
period reflects the deduction of the sales load of
$1.125 per share and offering costs of $0.05 per share
paid by the shareholder from the $25.00 offering price.
|
|
(3) |
|
Total investment return at net
asset value has been calculated assuming a purchase at net asset
value at the beginning of each period and a sale at net asset
value at the end of each period and assumes reinvestment of
dividends, capital gain distributions and return of capital
distributions/allocations, if any, in accordance with the
provisions of the dividend reinvestment plan. Total investment
return at net asset value is not annualized for periods less
than one year.
|
|
(4) |
|
Total investment return at market
value measures the change in the market value of your investment
assuming reinvestment of dividends, capital gain distributions
and return of capital distributions/allocations, if any, in
accordance with the provisions of the Funds dividend
reinvestment plan. Total investment return at market value is
not annualized for periods less than one year.
|
|
(5) |
|
Annualized for periods less than
one year.
|
|
* |
|
Calculated using average number of
shares outstanding throughout the period.
|
See
Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements
10
NOTE 1
ORGANIZATION
ING Asia Pacific High Dividend Equity Income Fund (the
Fund) is a non-diversified, closed-end management
investment company registered under the Investment Company Act
of 1940, as amended (the 1940 Act). The Fund is
organized as a Delaware statutory trust.
NOTE 2 SIGNIFICANT
ACCOUNTING POLICIES
The following significant accounting policies are consistently
followed by the Fund in the preparation of its financial
statements, and such policies are in conformity with
U.S. generally accepted accounting principles for
investment companies.
|
|
A. |
Security Valuation. Investments in equity securities
traded on a national securities exchange are valued at the last
reported sale price. Securities reported by NASDAQ are valued at
the NASDAQ official closing prices. Securities traded on an
exchange or NASDAQ for which there has been no sale and equity
securities traded in the
over-the-counter-market
are valued at the mean between the last reported bid and ask
prices. All investments quoted in foreign currencies will be
valued daily in U.S. dollars on the basis of the foreign
currency exchange rates prevailing at that time. Debt securities
acquired with more than 60 days to maturity are valued
using matrix pricing methods determined by an independent
pricing service which takes into consideration such factors as
yields, maturities, liquidity, ratings and traded prices in
similar or identical securities. Securities for which valuations
are not readily available from an independent pricing service
may be valued by brokers which use prices provided by market
makers or estimates of fair market value obtained from yield
data relating to investments or securities with similar
characteristics. Investments in open-end mutual funds are valued
at the net asset value. Investment in securities maturing
60 days or less from date of acquisition are valued at
amortized cost which approximates market value.
|
Securities and assets for which market quotations are not
readily available (which may include certain restricted
securities that are subject to limitations as to their sale) are
valued at their fair values, as defined by the 1940 Act, and as
determined in good faith by or under the supervision of the
Funds Board of Trustees (Board), in accordance
with methods that are specifically authorized by the Board.
Securities traded on exchanges, including foreign exchanges,
which close earlier than the time that the Fund calculates its
net asset value (NAV) may also be valued at their
fair values, as defined by the 1940 Act and as determined in
good faith by or under the supervision of the Board, in
accordance with methods that are specifically authorized by the
Board. The value of a foreign security traded on an exchange
outside the United States is generally based on its price on the
principal foreign exchange where it trades as of the time the
Fund determines its NAV or if the foreign exchange closes prior
to the time the Fund determines its NAV, the most recent closing
price of the foreign security on its principal exchange. Trading
in certain
non-U.S. securities
may not take place on all days on which the NYSE Euronext
(NYSE) is open. Further, trading takes place in
various foreign markets on days on which the NYSE is not open.
Consequently, the calculation of the Funds NAV may not
take place contemporaneously with the determination of the
prices of securities held by the Fund in foreign securities
markets. Further, the value of the Funds assets may be
significantly affected by foreign trading on days when a
shareholder cannot purchase or redeem shares of the Fund. In
calculating the Funds NAV, foreign securities denominated
in foreign currency are converted to U.S. dollar
equivalents. If an event occurs after the time at which the
market for foreign securities held by the Fund closes but before
the time that the Funds NAV is calculated, such event may
cause the closing price on the foreign exchange to not represent
a readily available reliable market value quotation for such
securities at the time the Fund determines its NAV. In such a
case, the Fund will use the fair value of such securities as
determined under the Funds valuation procedures. Events
after the close of trading on a foreign market that could
require the Fund to fair value some or all of its foreign
securities include, among others, securities trading in the U.S.
and other markets, corporate announcements, natural and other
disasters, and political and other events. Among other elements
of analysis in the determination of a securitys fair
value, the Board has authorized the use of one or more
independent research services to assist with such
determinations. An independent research service
11
NOTES
TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
as of February 28,
2010 (continued)
NOTE 2 SIGNIFICANT
ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued)
may use statistical analyses and quantitative models to help
determine fair value as of the time the Fund calculates its NAV.
There can be no assurance that such models accurately reflect
the behavior of the applicable markets or the effect of the
behavior of such markets on the fair value of securities, or
that such markets will continue to behave in a fashion that is
consistent with such models. Unlike the closing price of a
security on an exchange, fair value determinations employ
elements of judgment. Consequently, the fair value assigned to a
security may not represent the actual value that the Fund could
obtain if it were to sell the security at the time of the close
of the NYSE. Pursuant to procedures adopted by the Board, the
Fund is not obligated to use the fair valuations suggested by
any research service, and valuation recommendations provided by
such research services may be overridden if other events have
occurred or if other fair valuations are determined in good
faith to be more accurate. Unless an event is such that it
causes the Fund to determine that the closing prices for one or
more securities do not represent readily available reliable
market value quotations at the time the Fund determines its NAV,
events that occur between the time of the close of the foreign
market on which they are traded and the close of regular trading
on the NYSE will not be reflected in the Funds NAV.
Options that are traded
over-the-counter
will be valued using one of three methods: (1) dealer
quotes; (2) industry models with objective inputs; or (3)
by using a benchmark arrived at by comparing prior-day dealer
quotes with the corresponding change in the underlying security
or index. Exchange traded options will be valued using the last
reported sale. If no last sale is reported, exchange traded
options will be valued using an industry accepted model such as
Black Scholes. Options on currencies purchased by
the Fund are valued using industry models with objective inputs
at their last bid price in the case of listed options or at the
average of the last bid prices obtained from dealers in the case
of
over-the-counter
options.
Fair value is defined as the price that the Fund would receive
to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly
transaction between market participants at the measurement data.
Each investment asset or liability of the Fund is assigned a
level at measurement date based on the significance and source
of the inputs to its valuation. Quoted prices in active markets
for identical securities are classified as
Level 1, inputs other than quoted prices for an
asset or liability that are observable are classified as
Level 2 and unobservable inputs, including the
sub-advisers
judgment about the assumptions that a market participant would
use in pricing an asset or liability are classified as
Level 3. The inputs used for valuing securities
are not necessarily an indication of the risks associated with
investing in those securities. Short-term securities of
sufficient credit quality which are valued at amortized cost,
which approximates fair value, are generally considered to be
Level 2 securities under applicable accounting rules. A
table summarizing the Funds investments under these levels
of classification is included following the Portfolio of
Investments.
For the year ended February 28, 2010, there have been no
significant changes to the fair valuation methodologies.
|
|
B.
|
Security Transactions and Revenue
Recognition. Security transactions are recorded on the
trade date. Realized gains or losses on sales of investments are
calculated on the identified cost basis. Interest income is
recorded on the accrual basis. Premium amortization and discount
accretion are determined using the effective yield method.
Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date, or in the
case of some foreign dividends, when the information becomes
available to the Fund.
|
|
C.
|
Foreign Currency Translation. The books and records
of the Fund are maintained in U.S. dollars. Any foreign
currency amounts are translated into U.S. dollars on the
following basis:
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
Market value of investment securities, other assets and
liabilities at the exchange rates prevailing at the
end of the day.
|
|
|
(2)
|
Purchases and sales of investment securities, income and
expenses at the rates of exchange prevailing on the
respective dates of such transactions.
|
Although the net assets and the market values are presented at
the foreign exchange rates at the end
12
NOTES
TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
as of February 28,
2010 (continued)
NOTE 2 SIGNIFICANT
ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued)
of the day, the Fund does not isolate the portion of the results
of operations resulting from changes in foreign exchange rates
on investments from the fluctuations arising from changes in
market prices of securities held. Such fluctuations are included
with the net realized and unrealized gains or losses from
investments. For securities, which are subject to foreign
withholding tax upon disposition, liabilities are recorded on
the Statement of Assets and Liabilities for the estimated tax
withholding based on the securities current market value. Upon
disposition, realized gains or losses on such securities are
recorded net of foreign withholding tax. Reported net realized
foreign exchange gains or losses arise from sales of foreign
currencies, currency gains or losses realized between the trade
and settlement dates on securities transactions, the difference
between the amounts of dividends, interest, and foreign
withholding taxes recorded on the Funds books and the
U.S. dollar equivalent of the amounts actually received or
paid. Net unrealized foreign exchange gains and losses arise
from changes in the value of assets and liabilities other than
investments in securities at period end, resulting from changes
in the exchange rate. Foreign security and currency transactions
may involve certain considerations and risks not typically
associated with investing in U.S. companies and
U.S. government securities. These risks include, but are
not limited to, revaluation of currencies and future adverse
political and economic developments which could cause securities
and their markets to be less liquid and prices more volatile
than those of comparable U.S. companies and
U.S. government securities. The foregoing risks are even
greater with respect to securities in emerging markets.
|
|
D. |
Distributions to Shareholders. The Fund intends to
make quarterly distributions from its cash available for
distribution, which consists of the Funds dividends and
interest income after payment of Fund expenses, net option
premiums and net realized and unrealized gains on investments.
At least annually, the Fund intends to distribute all or
substantially all of its net realized capital gains.
Distributions are recorded on the ex-dividend date.
Distributions are determined annually in accordance with federal
tax principles, which may differ from U.S. generally
accepted accounting principles for investment companies.
|
The tax treatment and characterization of the Funds
distributions may vary significantly from time to time depending
on whether the Fund has gains or losses on the call options
written on its portfolio versus gains or losses on the equity
securities in the portfolio. Each quarter, the Fund will provide
disclosures with distribution payments made that estimate the
percentages of that distribution that represent net investment
income, other income or capital gains, and return of capital, if
any. The final composition of the tax characteristics of the
distributions cannot be determined with certainty until after
the end of the Funds tax year, and will be reported to
shareholders at that time. A significant portion of the
Funds distributions may constitute a return of capital.
The amount of quarterly distributions will vary, depending on a
number of factors. As portfolio and market conditions change,
the rate of dividends on the common shares will change. There
can be no assurance that the Fund will be able to declare a
dividend in each period.
|
|
E.
|
Federal Income Taxes. It is the policy of the Fund
to comply with the requirements of subchapter M of the
Internal Revenue Code that are applicable to regulated
investment companies and to distribute substantially all of its
net investment income and any net realized capital gains to its
shareholders. Therefore, a federal income tax or excise tax
provision is not required. Management has considered the
sustainability of the Funds tax positions taken on federal
income tax returns for all open tax years in making this
determination. No capital gain distributions shall be made until
the capital loss carryforwards have been fully utilized or
expire.
|
|
F.
|
Use of Estimates. The preparation of financial
statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions
that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and
disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of
the financial statements and the reported amounts of increases
and decreases in net assets from operations during the reporting
period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
|
13
NOTES
TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
as of February 28,
2010 (continued)
NOTE 2 SIGNIFICANT
ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued)
|
|
G. |
Risk Exposures and the use of Derivative
Instruments. The Funds investment objectives
permit the Fund to enter into various types of derivatives
contracts, including, but not limited to, forward foreign
currency exchange contracts and purchased and written options.
In doing so, the Fund will employ strategies in differing
combinations to permit it to increase or decrease the level of
risk, or change the level or types of exposure to market risk
factors. This may allow the Fund to pursue its objectives more
quickly, and efficiently than if it were to make direct
purchases or sales of securities capable of affecting a similar
response to market factors.
|
Market Risk Factors. In pursuit of its investment
objectives, the Fund may seek to use derivatives to increase or
decrease their exposure to the following market risk factors:
Credit Risk. Credit risk relates to the ability of
the issuer to meet interest and principal payments, or both, as
they come due. In general, lower-grade, higher-yield bonds are
subject to credit risk to a greater extent than lower-yield,
higher-quality bonds.
Equity Risk. Equity risk relates to the change in
value of equity securities as they relate to increases or
decreases in the general market.
Foreign Exchange Rate Risk. Foreign exchange rate
risk relates to the change in U.S. dollar value of a security
held that is denominated in a foreign currency. The U.S. dollar
value of a foreign currency denominated security will decrease
as the dollar appreciates against the currency, while the U.S.
dollar value will increase as the dollar depreciates against the
currency.
Interest Rate Risk. Interest rate risk refers to the
fluctuations in value of fixed-income securities resulting from
the inverse relationship between price and yield. For example,
an increase in general interest rates will tend to reduce the
market value of already issued fixed-income investments, and a
decline in general interest rates will tend to increase their
value. In addition, debt securities with longer maturities,
which tend to have higher yields, are subject to potentially
greater fluctuations in value from changes in interest rates
than obligations with shorter maturities.
Risks of Investing in Derivatives. The Funds
use of derivatives can result in losses due to unanticipated
changes in the market risk factors and the overall market. In
instances where the Fund is using derivatives to decrease, or
hedge, exposures to market risk factors for securities held by
the Fund, there are also risks that those derivatives may not
perform as expected resulting in losses for the combined or
hedged positions.
The use of these strategies involves certain special risks,
including a possible imperfect correlation, or even no
correlation, between price movements of derivative instruments
and price movements of related investments. While some
strategies involving derivative instruments can reduce the risk
of loss, they can also reduce the opportunity for gain or even
result in losses by offsetting favorable price movements in
related investments or otherwise, due to the possible inability
of the Fund to purchase or sell a portfolio security at a time
that otherwise would be favorable or the possible need to sell a
portfolio security at a disadvantageous time because the Fund is
required to maintain asset coverage or offsetting positions in
connection with transactions in derivative instruments.
Additional associated risks from investing in derivatives also
exist and potentially could have significant effects on the
valuation of the derivative and the Fund. Associated risks are
not the risks that the Fund is attempting to increase or
decrease exposure to, per its investment objectives, but are the
additional risks from investing in derivatives. Examples of
these associated risks are liquidity risk, which is the risk
that the Fund will not be able to sell the derivative in the
open market in a timely manner, and counterparty credit risk,
which is the risk that the counterparty will not fulfill its
obligation to the Fund. Associated risks can be different for
each type of derivative and are discussed by each derivative
type in the following notes.
Counterparty Credit Risk and Credit Related Contingent
Features. Certain derivative positions are subject to
counterparty credit risk, which is the risk that the
counterparty will not fulfill its obligation to the Fund. The
Funds derivative counterparties are financial institutions
who are subject to market conditions that may weaken their
financial position. The Fund intends to enter into financial
transactions with counterparties that it believes to be
creditworthy
14
NOTES
TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
as of February 28,
2010 (continued)
NOTE 2 SIGNIFICANT
ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued)
at the time of the transaction. To reduce this risk, the Fund
generally enters into master netting arrangements, established
within the Funds International Swap and Derivatives
Association, Inc. (ISDA) Master Agreements
(Master Agreements). These agreements are with
select counterparties and they govern transactions, including
certain over-the-counter (OTC) derivative and
forward foreign currency contracts, entered into by the Fund and
the counterparty. The Master Agreements maintain provisions for
general obligations, representations, agreements, collateral,
and events of default or termination. The occurrence of a
specified event of termination may give a counterparty the right
to terminate all of its contracts and affect settlement of all
outstanding transactions under the applicable Master Agreement.
The Fund may also enter into collateral agreements with certain
counterparties to further mitigate OTC derivative and forward
foreign currency contracts. Subject to established minimum
levels, collateral is generally determined based on the net
aggregate unrealized gain or loss on contracts with a certain
counterparty. Collateral pledged to the Fund is held in a
segregated account by a third-party agent and can be in the form
of cash or debt securities issued by the U.S. government or
related agencies.
The Funds maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit
risk on OTC derivatives is generally the aggregate unrealized
gain in excess of any collateral pledged by the counterparty to
the Fund. For purchased OTC options, the Fund bears the risk of
loss in the amount of the premiums paid and the change in market
value of the options should the counterparty not perform under
the contracts. The Fund did not enter into any purchased OTC
options during the year ended February 28, 2010.
The Fund has credit related contingent features that if
triggered would allow its derivatives counterparties to close
out and demand payment or additional collateral to cover their
exposure from the Fund. Credit related contingent features are
established between the Fund and its derivatives counterparties
to reduce the risk that the Fund will not fulfill its payment
obligations to its counterparties. These triggering features
include, but are not limited to, a percentage decrease in the
Funds net assets and or a percentage decrease in the
Funds NAV, which could cause the Fund to accelerate
payment of any net liability owed to the counterparty. The
contingent features are established within the Funds
Master Agreements.
Written options by the Fund do not give rise to counterparty
credit risk, as written options obligate the Fund to perform and
not the counterparty. As of February 28, 2010, the total
value of written OTC call options subject to Master Agreements
in a net liability position was $1,347,740. If a contingent
feature had been triggered, the Fund could have been required to
pay this amount in cash to its counterparties. The Fund did not
hold or post collateral for its open written OTC call options at
year end.
|
|
H.
|
Forward Foreign Currency Contracts. The Fund may
enter into forward foreign currency contracts primarily to hedge
against foreign currency exchange rate risks on its
non-U.S. dollar
denominated investment securities. When entering into a currency
forward contract, the Fund agrees to receive or deliver a fixed
quantity of foreign currency for an agreed-upon price on an
agreed future date. These contracts are valued daily and the
Funds net equity therein, representing unrealized gain or
loss on the contracts as measured by the difference between the
forward foreign exchange rates at the dates of entry into the
contracts and the forward rates at the reporting date, is
included in the statement of assets and liabilities. Realized
and unrealized gains and losses on forward foreign currency
contracts are included on the Statement of Operations. These
instruments involve market and/or credit risk in excess of the
amount recognized in the statement of assets and liabilities.
Risks arise from the possible inability of counterparties to
meet the terms of their contracts and from movement in currency
and securities values and interest rates. The Fund did not enter
into any forward foreign currency contracts during the year
ended February 28, 2010.
|
|
I.
|
Options Contracts. The Fund may purchase put and
call options and may write (sell) put options and covered call
options. The premium received by the Fund upon the writing of a
put or call option is included in the Statement of Assets and
Liabilities
|
15
NOTES
TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
as of February 28,
2010 (continued)
NOTE 2 SIGNIFICANT
ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued)
|
|
|
as a liability which is subsequently marked-to-market until it
is exercised or closed, or it expires. The Fund will realize a
gain or loss upon the expiration or closing of the option
contract. When an option is exercised, the proceeds on sales of
the underlying security for a written call option or purchased
put option or the purchase cost of the security for a written
put option or a purchased call option is adjusted by the amount
of premium received or paid. The risk in writing a call option
is that the Fund gives up the opportunity for profit if the
market price of the security increases and the option is
exercised. The risk in buying an option is that the Fund pays a
premium whether or not the option is exercised. Risks may also
arise from an illiquid secondary market or from the inability of
counterparties to meet the terms of the contract.
|
The Fund is subject to equity price risk in the normal course of
pursuing its investment objectives. During the year ended
February 28, 2010, the Fund has written call options on
equity indices in an attempt to manage this risk. Please refer
to Note 6 for the volume of written option activity during
the year ended February 28, 2010.
|
|
J. |
Indemnifications. In the normal course of business,
the Fund may enter into contracts that provide certain
indemnifications. The Funds maximum exposure under these
arrangements is dependent on future claims that may be made
against the Fund and, therefore, cannot be estimated; however,
based on experience, management believes the risk of loss from
such claims is considered remote.
|
NOTE 3 INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE FEES
ING Investments, LLC (ING Investments or the
Investment Adviser), an Arizona limited liability
company, is the Investment Adviser of the Fund. The Fund pays
the Investment Adviser for its services under the investment
management agreement (Management Agreement), a fee,
payable monthly, based on an annual rate of 1.15% of the
Funds average daily managed assets. For purposes of the
Management Agreement, managed assets are defined as the
Funds average daily gross asset value, minus the sum of
the Funds accrued and unpaid dividends on any outstanding
preferred shares and accrued liabilities (other than liabilities
for the principal amount of any borrowings incurred, commercial
paper or notes issued by the Fund and the liquidation preference
of any outstanding preferred shares). As of February 28,
2010, there were no preferred shares outstanding.
The Investment Adviser entered into
sub-advisory
agreements (each a Sub-Advisory Agreement and
collectively the Sub-Advisory Agreements) with ING
Investment Management Asia/Pacific (Hong Kong) Limited
(ING IM Asia/Pacific) and ING Investment Management
Advisors B.V. (IIMA). Subject to policies as the
Board or the Investment Adviser might determine, ING IM
Asia/Pacific and IIMA manage the Funds assets in
accordance with the Funds investment objectives, policies
and limitations.
ING Funds are permitted to invest end-of-day cash balances into
ING Institutional Prime Money Market Fund. Investment management
fees paid by the Fund will be reduced by an amount equal to the
management fees paid indirectly to the ING Institutional Prime
Money Market Fund with respect to assets invested by the Fund.
For the year ended February 28, 2010, the Fund did not
invest in ING Institutional Prime Money Market Fund and thus
waived no such management fees. These fees are not subject to
recoupment.
ING Funds Services, LLC (the Administrator) serves
as Administrator to the Fund. The Fund pays the Administrator
for its services a fee based on an annual rate of 0.10% of the
Funds average daily managed assets. The Investment
Adviser, ING IM Asia/Pacific, IIMA, and the Administrator are
indirect, wholly-owned subsidiaries of ING Groep N.V. (ING
Groep). ING Groep is a global financial institution of
Dutch origin offering banking, investments, life insurance and
retirement services.
On October 19, 2008, ING Groep announced that it reached an
agreement with the Dutch government to strengthen its capital
position. ING Groep issued non-voting core Tier-1 securities for
a total consideration of EUR 10 billion to the Dutch
State. The transaction boosted ING Banks core Tier-1
ratio, strengthened the insurance balance sheet and reduced ING
Groeps Debt/Equity ratio.
On October 26, 2009, ING Groep announced that it will move
towards a complete separation of its banking and insurance
operations. A formal restructuring plan (Restructuring
Plan) was submitted to the European Commission
(EC), which approved it on November 18, 2009.
It is expected that the
16
NOTES
TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
as of February 28,
2010 (continued)
NOTE 3 INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE FEES (continued)
Restructuring Plan will be achieved over the next four years by
a divestment of all insurance operations (including ING
Investment Management) as well as a divestment of ING Direct US
by the end of 2013. ING Groep will explore all options,
including initial public offerings, sales or combinations
thereof.
On December 21, 2009, ING Groep announced that it has
completed its planned repurchase of EUR 5 billion of
Core Tier 1 securities issued in November 2008 to the Dutch
State and its EUR 7.5 billion rights issue.
NOTE 4 OTHER
TRANSACTIONS WITH AFFILIATED AND RELATED PARTIES
As of February 28, 2010, the Fund had the following amounts
recorded in payable to affiliates on the accompanying Statement
of Assets and Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued
|
|
|
|
|
Investment
|
|
Accrued
|
|
|
Management
|
|
Administrative
|
|
|
Fees
|
|
Fees
|
|
Total
|
|
$169,284
|
|
$15,816
|
|
$185,100
|
The Fund has adopted a Retirement Policy (Policy)
covering independent trustees of the Trust who were trustees on
or before May 9, 2007, and who will have served as an
independent trustee for at least five years as of the date of
their retirement (as that term is defined in the Policy).
Benefits under the Policy are based on an annual rate as defined
in the Policy.
The Fund has adopted a Deferred Compensation Plan (the
Plan), which allows eligible non-affiliated trustees
as described in the Plan to defer the receipt of all or a
portion of the trustees fees payable. Amounts deferred are
treated as though invested in various notional funds
advised by ING Investments until distribution in accordance with
the Plan.
NOTE 5 PURCHASES
AND SALES OF INVESTMENT SECURITIES
The cost of purchases and proceeds from sales of investments for
the year ended February 28, 2010, excluding short-term
securities, were $59,899,363 and $88,291,999, respectively.
NOTE 6 TRANSACTIONS
IN WRITTEN OPTIONS
Written option activity for the year ended February 28,
2010 was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
|
|
Contracts
|
|
Premium
|
|
Balance at 02/28/09
|
|
|
56,630,600
|
|
|
$
|
1,272,079
|
|
Options Written
|
|
|
637,046,200
|
|
|
|
14,671,366
|
|
Options Expired
|
|
|
(267,724,300
|
)
|
|
|
(5,392,292
|
)
|
Options Exercised
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options Terminated in Closing Purchase Transactions
|
|
|
(372,302,400
|
)
|
|
|
(9,346,377
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at 02/28/10
|
|
|
53,650,100
|
|
|
$
|
1,204,776
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTE 7 CONCENTRATION
OF INVESTMENT RISKS
All mutual funds involve risk some more than
others and there is always the chance that you could
lose money or not earn as much as you hope. The Funds risk
profile is largely a factor of the principal securities in which
it invests and investment techniques that it uses. For more
information regarding the types of securities and investment
techniques that may be used by the Fund and its corresponding
risks, see the Funds most recent Prospectus
and/or the
Statement of Additional Information.
Foreign Securities and Emerging Markets. The Fund
makes significant investments in foreign securities and
securities issued by companies located in countries with
emerging markets. Investments in foreign securities may entail
risks not present in domestic investments. Since investments in
securities are denominated in foreign currencies, changes in the
relationship of these foreign currencies to the U.S. dollar
can significantly affect the value of the investments and
earnings of the Fund. Foreign investments may also subject the
Fund to foreign government exchange restrictions, expropriation,
taxation or other political, social or economic developments, as
well as from movements in currency, security value and interest
rate, all of which could affect the market and/or credit risk of
the investments. The risks of investing in foreign securities
can be intensified in the case of investments in issuers located
in countries with emerging markets.
Leverage. Although the Fund has no current intention
to do so, the Fund is authorized to utilize leverage through the
issuance of preferred shares and/or borrowings, including the
issuance of debt securities. In the event that the Fund
determines in the future to utilize investment leverage, there
can be no assurance that such a leveraging strategy will be
successful during any period in which it is employed.
17
NOTES
TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
as of February 28,
2010 (continued)
NOTE 7 CONCENTRATION
OF INVESTMENT RISKS (continued)
Asia Pacific Regional and Country
Risks. Investments in the Asia Pacific region are
subject to special risks. The Asia Pacific region includes
countries in all stages of economic development. Some Asia
Pacific economies may be characterized by over-extension of
credit, currency devaluations and restrictions, underdeveloped
financial services sectors, heavy reliance on international
trade, and economic recessions. In addition, the economies of
many Asia Pacific countries are dependent on the economies of
the United States, Europe and other Asian countries, and a
deceleration in any of these economies could negatively impact
the economies of Asia Pacific countries. Currency fluctuations,
devaluations and trading restrictions in any one country can
have a significant effect on the entire Asia Pacific region.
Increased political and social instability in any Asia Pacific
country could cause further economic and market uncertainty in
the region, or result in significant downturns and volatility in
the economies of Asia Pacific countries. The development of Asia
Pacific economies, and particularly those of China, Japan and
South Korea, may also be affected by political, military,
economic and other factors related to North Korea.
Non-Diversified. The Fund is classified as a
non-diversified investment company under the 1940
Act, which means that the Fund may invest a greater proportion
of its assets in the securities of a smaller number of issuers.
If the Fund invests a relatively high percentage of its assets
in obligations of a limited number of issuers, the Fund will be
more at risk to any single corporate, economic, political or
regulatory event that impacts one or more of those issuers.
Conversely, even though classified as non-diversified, the Fund
may actually maintain a portfolio that is highly diversified
with a large number of issuers. In such an event, the Fund would
benefit less from appreciation in a single corporate issuer than
if it had greater exposure to that issuer.
NOTE 8 CAPITAL
SHARES
Transactions in capital shares and dollars were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Year
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
February 28,
|
|
February 28,
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
Number of Shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reinvestment of distributions
|
|
|
120,256
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares repurchased
|
|
|
(54,541
|
)
|
|
|
(63,236
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in shares outstanding
|
|
|
65,715
|
|
|
|
(63,236
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reinvestment of distributions
|
|
$
|
2,179,637
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Shares repurchased, net of commissions
|
|
|
(527,346
|
)
|
|
|
(655,419
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease)
|
|
$
|
1,652,291
|
|
|
$
|
(655,419
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share Repurchase
Program
Effective December 2008, the Board authorized an open-market
share repurchase program pursuant to which the Fund may
purchase, over the period ending December 31, 2009, up to
10% of its stock, in open-market transactions. There is no
assurance that the Fund will purchase shares at any particular
discount level or in any particular amounts. The share
repurchase program seeks to enhance shareholder value by
purchasing shares trading at a discount from their NAV per
share, in an attempt to reduce or eliminate the discount or to
increase the NAV per share of the applicable remaining shares of
the Fund.
For the year ended February 28, 2010, the Fund repurchased
54,541 shares, representing approximately 0.4% of the
Funds outstanding shares for a net purchase price of
$527,346 (including commissions of $1,636). Shares were
repurchased at a weighted-average discount from NAV per share of
13.62% and a weighted-average price per share of $9.64.
For the year ended February 28, 2009, the Fund repurchased
63,236 shares, representing approximately 0.5% of the
Funds outstanding shares for a net purchase price of
$655,419 (including commissions of $1,897). Shares were
repurchased at a weighted-average discount from NAV per share of
10.47% and a weighted-average price per share of $10.33.
NOTE 9 FEDERAL
INCOME TAXES
The amount of distributions from net investment income and net
realized capital gains are determined in accordance with federal
income tax regulations, which may differ from U.S. generally
accepted
18
NOTES
TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
as of February 28,
2010 (continued)
NOTE 9 FEDERAL
INCOME TAXES (continued)
accounting principles for investment companies. These book/tax
differences may be either temporary or permanent. Permanent
differences are reclassified within the capital accounts based
on their federal tax-basis treatment; temporary differences are
not reclassified. Key differences include the treatment of
short-term capital gains, foreign currency transactions, income
from passive foreign investment corporations and wash sale
deferrals. Distributions in excess of net investment income
and/or net
realized capital gains for tax purposes are reported as return
of capital.
The following permanent tax differences have been reclassified
as of the Funds tax year ended December 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Undistributed
|
|
Accumulated
|
Paid-in
|
|
Net Investment
|
|
Net Realized
|
Capital
|
|
Income
|
|
Gains/(Losses)
|
|
$(7,775)
|
|
$476,439
|
|
$(468,664)
|
Dividends paid by the Fund from net investment income and
distributions of net realized short-term capital gains are, for
federal income tax purposes, taxable as ordinary income to
shareholders.
The tax composition of dividends and distributions in the
current period will not be determined until after the
Funds tax year-end of December 31, 2010. The tax
composition of dividends and distributions as of the Funds
most recent tax year-ends were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax Year Ended
|
|
Tax Year Ended
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
Ordinary
|
|
Return
|
|
Ordinary
|
|
Return
|
Income
|
|
of Capital
|
|
Income
|
|
of Capital
|
|
$4,130,460
|
|
$19,471,116
|
|
$7,852,410
|
|
$16,561,144
|
The tax-basis components of distributable earnings and the
expiration dates of the capital loss carryforwards which may be
used to offset future realized capital gains for federal income
tax purposes as of the tax year ended December 31, 2009
were:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post-October
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
Currency Loss
|
|
Capital Loss
|
|
Expiration
|
Appreciation
|
|
Deferred
|
|
Carryforwards
|
|
Date
|
|
$30,559,629
|
|
$(27,589)
|
|
$(20,931,051)
|
|
2016
|
|
|
|
|
(48,053,405)
|
|
2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$(68,984,456)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Funds major tax jurisdictions are federal and Arizona.
The earliest tax year that remains subject to examination by
these jurisdictions is the Funds initial tax year of 2007.
As of February 28, 2010, no provision for income tax is
required in the Funds financial statements as a result of
tax positions taken on federal and state income tax returns for
open tax years. The Funds federal and state income and
federal excise tax returns for tax years for which the
applicable statutes of limitations have not expired are subject
to examination by the Internal Revenue Service and state
department of revenue.
NOTE 10 SUBSEQUENT
EVENTS
Distributions: Subsequent to February 28, 2010,
the Fund made a distribution of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per Share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
Declaration Date
|
|
Payable Date
|
|
Record Date
|
|
$0.448
|
|
|
3/19/2010
|
|
|
|
4/15/2010
|
|
|
|
4/6/2010
|
|
Each quarter, the Fund will provide disclosures with
distribution payments made that estimate the percentages of that
distribution that represent net investment income, capital
gains, and return of capital, if any. At the Funds tax
year end, the Fund may re-characterize payments over the course
of the year across ordinary income, capital gains, and return of
capital, if any. A significant portion of the quarterly
distribution payments made by the Fund may constitute a return
of capital.
The Fund has evaluated events occurring after the Statement of
Assets and Liabilities date (subsequent events) to determine
whether any subsequent events necessitated adjustment to or
disclosure in the financial statements. Other than the above, no
such subsequent events were identified.
19
ING
Asia Pacific High Dividend Equity Income Fund
as
of February 28, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
|
COMMON STOCK: 90.9%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Australia: 28.2%
|
|
160,792
|
|
|
S
|
|
Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd.
|
|
$
|
3,327,686
|
|
|
239,369
|
|
|
S
|
|
BHP Billiton Ltd.
|
|
|
8,778,208
|
|
|
101,224
|
|
|
S
|
|
Commonwealth Bank of Australia
|
|
|
4,878,821
|
|
|
100,100
|
|
|
S
|
|
CSL Ltd.
|
|
|
3,078,414
|
|
|
785,275
|
|
|
S
|
|
CSR Ltd.
|
|
|
1,140,013
|
|
|
526,697
|
|
|
S
|
|
Fosters Group Ltd.
|
|
|
2,539,169
|
|
|
30,361
|
|
|
|
|
Macquarie Group Ltd.
|
|
|
1,228,656
|
|
|
162,313
|
|
|
S
|
|
National Australia Bank Ltd.
|
|
|
3,698,373
|
|
|
35,071
|
|
|
S
|
|
Newcrest Mining Ltd.
|
|
|
989,719
|
|
|
125,000
|
|
|
S
|
|
Orica Ltd.
|
|
|
2,793,816
|
|
|
120,000
|
|
|
S
|
|
Origin Energy Ltd.
|
|
|
1,807,013
|
|
|
127,563
|
|
|
S
|
|
QBE Insurance Group Ltd.
|
|
|
2,442,452
|
|
|
48,069
|
|
|
S
|
|
Rio Tinto Ltd.
|
|
|
3,035,890
|
|
|
63,134
|
|
|
S
|
|
Santos Ltd.
|
|
|
734,215
|
|
|
170,000
|
|
|
S
|
|
Suncorp-Metway Ltd.
|
|
|
1,299,763
|
|
|
238,490
|
|
|
|
|
TABCORP Holdings Ltd.
|
|
|
1,443,823
|
|
|
760,320
|
|
|
S
|
|
Telstra Corp. Ltd.
|
|
|
2,020,504
|
|
|
117,000
|
|
|
S
|
|
Wesfarmers Ltd.
|
|
|
3,258,418
|
|
|
251,307
|
|
|
S
|
|
Westpac Banking Corp.
|
|
|
5,874,764
|
|
|
62,818
|
|
|
S
|
|
Woodside Petroleum Ltd.
|
|
|
2,443,357
|
|
|
83,916
|
|
|
S
|
|
Woolworths Ltd.
|
|
|
2,016,476
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
58,829,550
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
China: 11.6%
|
|
2,178,000
|
|
|
|
|
Anhui Expressway Co. Ltd.
|
|
|
1,440,944
|
|
|
7,287,000
|
|
|
|
|
Bank of China Ltd.
|
|
|
3,540,676
|
|
|
740,000
|
|
|
|
|
China Coal Energy Co. Class H
|
|
|
1,179,086
|
|
|
3,630,000
|
|
|
|
|
China Construction Bank
|
|
|
2,743,897
|
|
|
696,000
|
|
|
|
|
China Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
|
|
|
3,083,602
|
|
|
2,404,000
|
|
|
|
|
China Petroleum & Chemical Corp.
|
|
|
1,899,493
|
|
|
2,458,000
|
|
|
|
|
China Telecom Corp. Ltd.
|
|
|
1,083,590
|
|
|
379,000
|
|
|
|
|
China Yurun Food Group Ltd.
|
|
|
1,127,117
|
|
|
2,668,000
|
|
|
|
|
Datang International Power Generation Co. Ltd.
|
|
|
1,213,426
|
|
|
3,529,000
|
|
|
|
|
Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Ltd.
|
|
|
2,495,435
|
|
|
2,160,000
|
|
|
|
|
PetroChina Co. Ltd.
|
|
|
2,416,623
|
|
|
4,438,000
|
|
|
|
|
Renhe Commercial Holdings Co. Ltd
|
|
|
1,017,653
|
|
|
568,500
|
|
|
|
|
Shimao Property Holdings Ltd.
|
|
|
947,790
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,189,332
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hong Kong: 14.4%
|
|
194,000
|
|
|
|
|
Cheung Kong Holdings Ltd.
|
|
|
2,366,299
|
|
|
516,000
|
|
|
|
|
China Merchants Holdings International Co. Ltd.
|
|
|
1,858,136
|
|
|
514,500
|
|
|
|
|
China Mobile Ltd.
|
|
|
5,079,288
|
|
|
900,000
|
|
|
|
|
China Resources Land Ltd.
|
|
|
1,874,103
|
|
|
333,500
|
|
|
|
|
CLP Holdings Ltd.
|
|
|
2,305,067
|
|
|
1,529,000
|
|
|
|
|
CNOOC Ltd.
|
|
|
2,405,105
|
|
|
270,009
|
|
|
|
|
Esprit Holdings Ltd.
|
|
|
1,924,108
|
|
|
188,800
|
|
|
|
|
Hang Seng Bank Ltd.
|
|
|
2,759,913
|
|
|
82,100
|
|
|
|
|
Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Ltd.
|
|
|
1,373,217
|
|
|
227,000
|
|
|
|
|
HongKong Electric Holdings
|
|
|
1,270,672
|
|
|
198,000
|
|
|
|
|
Hutchison Whampoa Ltd.
|
|
|
1,420,153
|
|
|
509,000
|
|
|
|
|
Shanghai Industrial Holdings Ltd.
|
|
|
2,186,531
|
|
|
143,000
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Hung Kai Properties Ltd.
|
|
|
1,986,047
|
|
|
255,000
|
|
|
|
|
Wharf Holdings Ltd.
|
|
|
1,313,088
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30,121,727
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
India: 6.9%
|
|
31,025
|
|
|
|
|
HDFC Bank Ltd.
|
|
|
1,146,327
|
|
|
93,402
|
|
|
|
|
ICICI Bank Ltd.
|
|
|
1,767,322
|
|
|
29,500
|
|
|
|
|
ICICI Bank Ltd. ADR
|
|
|
1,128,375
|
|
|
83,541
|
|
|
|
|
Infosys Technologies Ltd.
|
|
|
4,725,170
|
|
|
76,700
|
|
|
|
|
Oil & Natural Gas Corp. Ltd.
|
|
|
1,860,548
|
|
|
116,200
|
|
|
|
|
Reliance Industries Ltd.
|
|
|
2,468,667
|
|
|
72,544
|
|
|
|
|
Sterlite Industries India Ltd.
|
|
|
1,230,044
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,326,453
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indonesia: 2.0%
|
|
1,385,000
|
|
|
|
|
Bank Rakyat Indonesia
|
|
|
1,063,228
|
|
|
999,500
|
|
|
|
|
PT Tambang Batubara Bukit Asam Tbk
|
|
|
1,674,588
|
|
|
1,619,500
|
|
|
|
|
Telekomunikasi Indonesia Tbk PT
|
|
|
1,446,660
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,184,476
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Malaysia: 2.6%
|
|
737,000
|
|
|
|
|
Commerce Asset Holdings BHD
|
|
|
2,819,363
|
|
|
354,302
|
|
|
|
|
Public Bank BHD
|
|
|
1,155,013
|
|
|
1,753,000
|
|
|
|
|
Resorts World BHD
|
|
|
1,401,561
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,375,937
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philippines: 0.5%
|
|
18,520
|
|
|
|
|
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co.
|
|
|
1,048,116
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,048,116
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Singapore: 3.7%
|
|
373,500
|
|
|
|
|
DBS Group Holdings Ltd.
|
|
|
3,714,896
|
|
|
881,000
|
|
|
|
|
Singapore Press Holdings Ltd.
|
|
|
2,323,393
|
|
|
758,000
|
|
|
|
|
Singapore Telecommunications Ltd.
|
|
|
1,643,192
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,681,481
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Korea: 8.0%
|
|
96,300
|
|
|
|
|
Kangwon Land, Inc.
|
|
|
1,369,559
|
|
|
45,262
|
|
|
|
|
KB Financial Group, Inc.
|
|
|
1,899,175
|
|
|
206,370
|
|
|
|
|
Korea Exchange Bank
|
|
|
2,265,074
|
|
|
29,990
|
|
|
|
|
KT&G Corp.
|
|
|
1,659,934
|
|
|
35,030
|
|
|
|
|
LG Corp.
|
|
|
1,841,233
|
|
|
4,785
|
|
|
|
|
Posco
|
|
|
2,198,639
|
|
|
6,322
|
|
|
|
|
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
|
|
|
4,052,933
|
|
|
9,687
|
|
|
|
|
SK Telecom Co. Ltd.
|
|
|
1,444,498
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,731,045
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taiwan: 11.1%
|
|
1,048,587
|
|
|
|
|
Acer, Inc.
|
|
|
2,941,010
|
|
|
1,008,370
|
|
|
|
|
Asia Cement Corp.
|
|
|
923,596
|
|
|
2,270,200
|
|
|
|
|
China Steel Corp.
|
|
|
2,278,762
|
|
|
779,550
|
|
|
|
|
Chunghwa Telecom Co. Ltd.
|
|
|
1,459,163
|
|
|
2,654,975
|
|
|
|
|
First Financial Holding Co. Ltd.
|
|
|
1,427,102
|
|
|
169,396
|
|
|
|
|
High Tech Computer Corp.
|
|
|
1,711,676
|
|
|
662,400
|
|
|
|
|
HON HAI Precision Industry Co. Ltd.
|
|
|
2,623,167
|
|
|
71,000
|
|
|
|
|
MediaTek, Inc.
|
|
|
1,117,897
|
|
|
1,247,350
|
|
|
|
|
Quanta Computer, Inc.
|
|
|
2,546,181
|
|
|
455,000
|
|
|
|
|
Taiwan Fertilizer Co. Ltd.
|
|
|
1,375,066
|
|
|
2,012,052
|
|
|
|
|
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
|
|
|
3,684,095
|
|
|
684,083
|
|
|
|
|
Wistron Corp.
|
|
|
1,173,325
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23,261,040
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thailand: 1.9%
|
|
457,800
|
|
|
|
|
Kasikornbank PCL
|
|
|
1,244,997
|
|
|
178,000
|
|
|
|
|
PTT PCL
|
|
|
1,247,518
|
|
|
202,700
|
|
|
|
|
Siam Cement PCL
|
|
|
1,402,755
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,895,270
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Common Stock
(Cost $169,365,735)
|
|
|
189,644,427
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Accompanying Notes to Financial
Statements
20
PORTFOLIO
OF INVESTMENTS
ING
Asia Pacific High Dividend Equity Income Fund
as
of February 28, 2010 (continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
|
REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUSTS: 3.4%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Australia: 1.0%
|
|
193,000
|
|
|
S
|
|
Westfield Group
|
|
$
|
2,074,986
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,074,986
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Singapore: 2.4%
|
|
3,452,000
|
|
|
|
|
Ascendas India Trust
|
|
|
2,382,045
|
|
|
1,835,733
|
|
|
|
|
Ascendas Real Estate Investment Trust
|
|
|
2,522,058
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,904,103
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Real Estate Investment Trusts
(Cost $7,356,637)
|
|
|
6,979,089
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXCHANGE-TRADED FUNDS: 2.6%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Korea: 2.6%
|
|
297,691
|
|
|
|
|
Samsung Kodex200 Exchange Traded Fund
|
|
|
5,435,896
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Exchange-Traded Funds
(Cost $2,634,461)
|
|
|
5,435,896
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PREFERRED STOCK: 2.2%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Korea: 2.2%
|
|
35,940
|
|
|
|
|
Hyundai Motor Co.
|
|
|
1,287,770
|
|
|
7,816
|
|
|
|
|
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
|
|
|
3,283,840
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Preferred Stock
(Cost $4,397,859)
|
|
|
4,571,610
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Investments in Securities
|
|
|
|
|
(Cost $183,754,692)*
|
|
|
99.1
|
%
|
|
$
|
206,631,022
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Assets and
Liabilities - Net
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
|
|
1,979,709
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Assets
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
208,610,731
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ADR
|
|
American Depositary Receipt
|
S
|
|
All or a portion of this security has been identified by the
Fund to cover future collateral requirements for applicable
futures, options, swaps, foreign currency contracts
and/or
when-issued or delayed-delivery securities.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Cost for federal income tax purposes is $186,760,055.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net unrealized appreciation consists of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross Unrealized Appreciation
|
|
$
|
36,039,548
|
|
Gross Unrealized Depreciation
|
|
|
(16,168,581
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Unrealized Appreciation
|
|
$
|
19,870,967
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of
|
Industry
|
|
Net Assets
|
|
|
Agriculture
|
|
|
0.8
|
%
|
Auto Manufacturers
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
Banks
|
|
|
22.5
|
|
Beverages
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
Biotechnology
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
Building Materials
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
Chemicals
|
|
|
0.7
|
|
Coal
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
Commercial Services
|
|
|
0.7
|
|
Computers
|
|
|
6.3
|
|
Diversified
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
Diversified Financial Services
|
|
|
2.8
|
|
Electric
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
Electronics
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
Entertainment
|
|
|
0.7
|
|
Food
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
Holding Companies Diversified
|
|
|
4.1
|
|
Insurance
|
|
|
2.7
|
|
Iron/Steel
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
Lodging
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
Media
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
Mining
|
|
|
8.1
|
|
Miscellaneous Manufacturing
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
Office Property
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
Oil & Gas
|
|
|
8.3
|
|
Real Estate
|
|
|
3.9
|
|
Retail
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
Semiconductors
|
|
|
5.8
|
|
Shopping Centers
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
Telecommunications
|
|
|
7.3
|
|
Other Long-Term Investments
|
|
|
2.6
|
|
Other Assets and Liabilities Net
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Assets
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurementsˆ
The following is a summary of the fair valuations according to
the inputs used as of February 28, 2010 in valuing the
Funds assets and liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted Prices
|
|
Significant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in Active Markets
|
|
Other
|
|
Significant
|
|
|
|
|
for Identical
|
|
Observable
|
|
Unobservable
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Investments
|
|
Inputs#
|
|
Inputs
|
|
at
|
|
|
(Level 1)
|
|
(Level 2)
|
|
(Level 3)
|
|
2/28/2010
|
|
|
Asset Table
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments, at value
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Australia
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
58,829,550
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
58,829,550
|
|
China
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,189,332
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,189,332
|
|
Hong Kong
|
|
|
3,575,739
|
|
|
|
26,545,988
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30,121,727
|
|
India
|
|
|
1,128,375
|
|
|
|
13,198,078
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,326,453
|
|
Indonesia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,184,476
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,184,476
|
|
Malaysia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,375,937
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,375,937
|
|
Philippines
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,048,116
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,048,116
|
|
Singapore
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,681,481
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,681,481
|
|
South Korea
|
|
|
1,659,934
|
|
|
|
15,071,111
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,731,045
|
|
Taiwan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23,261,040
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23,261,040
|
|
Thailand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,895,270
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,895,270
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Common Stock
|
|
|
6,364,048
|
|
|
|
183,280,379
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
189,644,427
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Real Estate Investment Trusts
|
|
|
2,382,045
|
|
|
|
4,597,044
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,979,089
|
|
Exchange-Traded Funds
|
|
|
5,435,896
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,435,896
|
|
Preferred Stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,571,610
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,571,610
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Investments, at value
|
|
$
|
14,181,989
|
|
|
$
|
192,449,033
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
206,631,022
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities Table
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Financial Instruments+:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Written options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,347,740
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,347,740
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(1,347,740
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(1,347,740
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Accompanying Notes to Financial
Statements
21
PORTFOLIO
OF INVESTMENTS
ING
Asia Pacific High Dividend Equity Income Fund
as
of February 28, 2010 (continued)
|
|
ˆ
|
See Note 2, Significant Accounting Policies in
the Notes to Financial Statements for additional information.
|
+
|
Other Financial Instruments are derivatives not reflected in the
Portfolio of Investments and may include open forward foreign
currency contracts, futures, swaps, and written options. Forward
foreign currency contracts and futures are reported at their
unrealized gain/loss at measurement date which represents the
amount due to/from the Fund. Swaps and written options are
reported at their market value at measurement date.
|
|
|
# |
The earlier close of the foreign markets gives rise to the
possibility that significant events, including broad market
moves, may have occurred in the interim and may materially
affect the value of those securities. To account for this, the
Portfolio may frequently value many of its foreign equity
securities using fair value prices based on third party vendor
modeling tools to the extent available. Accordingly, a
significant portion of the Portfolios investments are
categorized as Level 2 investments.
|
Written OTC Call Options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# of
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expiration
|
|
Strike
|
|
Premiums
|
|
|
Contracts
|
|
Counterparty
|
|
Description
|
|
Date
|
|
Price/Rate
|
|
Received
|
|
Value
|
|
4,900
|
|
Merrill Lynch
|
|
Australia S&P/ASX 200 Index
|
|
03/11/10
|
|
|
4,493.39 AUD
|
|
|
$
|
450,506
|
|
|
$
|
(669,552
|
)
|
5,200
|
|
Morgan Stanley
|
|
Hong Kong Hang Seng Index
|
|
03/11/10
|
|
|
20,237.97 HKD
|
|
|
|
345,360
|
|
|
|
(385,133
|
)
|
53,600,000
|
|
Citigroup
|
|
Korea KOSPI 200 Index
|
|
03/11/10
|
|
|
207.44 KRW
|
|
|
|
229,242
|
|
|
|
(159,919
|
)
|
40,000
|
|
Morgan Stanley
|
|
Taiwan TAIEX Index
|
|
03/11/10
|
|
|
7,444.76 TWD
|
|
|
|
179,668
|
|
|
|
(133,136
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,204,776
|
|
|
$
|
(1,347,740
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A summary of derivative instruments by primary risk exposure
is outlined in the following tables.
The fair value of derivative instruments as of February 28,
2010 was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives not accounted
|
|
|
|
|
for as hedging instruments
|
|
Location on Statement
|
|
|
under FASB ASC 815
|
|
of Assets and Liabilities
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
Liability Derivatives
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity contracts
|
|
Written options
|
|
$
|
1,347,740
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liability Derivatives
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,347,740
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The effect of derivative instruments on the Funds
Statement of Operations for the year ended February 28,
2010 was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives not
|
|
|
accounted for as
|
|
Amount of Realized Gain or (Loss)
|
hedging instruments
|
|
on Derivatives Recognized in Income
|
under FASB ASC 815
|
|
Written Options
|
|
Equity contracts
|
|
$
|
(8,902,486
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
(8,902,486
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives not
|
|
Change in Unrealized
|
accounted for as
|
|
Appreciation or (Depreciation)
|
hedging instruments
|
|
on Derivatives Recognized in Income
|
under FASB ASC 815
|
|
Written Options
|
|
Equity contracts
|
|
$
|
(1,030,607
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
(1,030,607
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Accompanying Notes to Financial
Statements
22
SUPPLEMENTAL
OPTION INFORMATION
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
Supplemental Call Option Statistics as of February 28,
2010
|
|
|
% of Total Net Assets against which calls written
|
|
25%
|
Average Days to Expiration at time written
|
|
28 days
|
Average Call Moneyness* at time written
|
|
ATM
|
Premium received for calls
|
|
$1,204,776
|
Value of calls
|
|
$(1,347,740)
|
|
|
*
|
Moneyness is the term
used to describe the relationship between the price of the
underlying asset and the options exercise or strike price.
For example, a call (buy) option is considered
in-the-money
when the value of the underlying asset exceeds the strike price.
Conversely, a put (sell) option is considered
in-the-money
when its strike price exceeds the value of the underlying asset.
Options are characterized for the purpose of Moneyness as,
in-the-money
(ITM),
out-of-the-money
(OTM) or
at-the-money
(ATM), where the underlying asset value equals the
strike price.
|
23
Distributions paid during the year ended February 28, 2010
were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Per Share Amount
|
|
|
|
|
NII
|
|
|
$
|
0.3399
|
|
|
|
|
ROC
|
|
|
$
|
1.6021
|
|
NII Net investment income
ROC Return of capital
Above figures may differ from those cited elsewhere in this
report due to differences in the calculation of income and gains
under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (book)
purposes and Internal Revenue Service (tax) purposes.
Shareholders are strongly advised to consult their own tax
advisers with respect to the tax consequences of their
investments in the Fund. In January, shareholders, excluding
corporate shareholders, receive an
IRS 1099-DIV
regarding the federal tax status of the dividends and
distributions they received in the calendar year.
24
The business and affairs of the Trust are managed under the
direction of the Trusts Board. A Trustee who is not an
interested person of the Trust, as defined in the 1940 Act, is
an independent trustee (Independent Trustee). The
Trustees and Officers of the Trust are listed below. The
Statement of Additional Information includes additional
information about trustees of the Trust and is available,
without charge, upon request at
(800) 992-0180.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Portfolios in
|
|
|
|
|
Position(s)
|
|
Term of Office
|
|
|
|
Fund Complex
|
|
Other Directorships/
|
|
|
Held With
|
|
and Length of
|
|
Principal Occupation(s)
|
|
Overseen by
|
|
Trusteeships Held
|
Name, Address, and Age
|
|
Trust
|
|
Time
Served(1)
|
|
During the Past Five Years
|
|
Trustee(2)
|
|
by Trustee
|
|
Independent Trustees:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colleen D. Baldwin
7337 E. Doubletree Ranch Rd.
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Age: 49
|
|
Trustee
|
|
October 2007 Present
|
|
Consultant, Glantuam Partners, LLC (January 2009
Present); President, National Charity League/Canaan Parish Board
(April 2005 March 2009) and Consultant (January
2005 Present).
|
|
136
|
|
None.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John V.
Boyer(4)
7337 E. Doubletree Ranch Rd.
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Age: 56
|
|
Trustee
|
|
January 2007 Present
|
|
President and Chief Executive Officer, Bechtler Arts Foundation
(January 2008 Present). Formerly, Consultant (July
2007 February 2008); President and Chief Executive
Officer, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute (March
2006 July 2007); and Executive Director, The Mark
Twain House & Museum (September 1989 March
2006).
|
|
136
|
|
None.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patricia W. Chadwick
7337 E. Doubletree Ranch Rd.
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Age: 61
|
|
Trustee
|
|
January 2007 Present
|
|
Consultant and President, Ravengate Partners LLC (January
2000 Present).
|
|
136
|
|
Wisconsin Energy Corporation (June 2006 Present) and
The Royce Fund (2009 Present).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter S. Drotch
7337 E. Doubletree Ranch Rd.
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Age: 68
|
|
Trustee
|
|
October 2007 Present
|
|
Retired partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP.
|
|
136
|
|
First Marblehead Corporation (September 2003
Present).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Michael Earley
7337 E. Doubletree Ranch Rd.
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Age: 64
|
|
Trustee
|
|
January 2007 Present
|
|
Retired. Formerly, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Bankers Trust Company, N.A., Des Moines (June 1992
December 2008).
|
|
136
|
|
None.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick W. Kenny
7337 E. Doubletree Ranch Rd.
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Age: 67
|
|
Trustee
|
|
January 2007 Present
|
|
Retired. Formerly, President and Chief Executive Officer,
International Insurance Society (June 2001 June
2009).
|
|
136
|
|
Assured Guaranty Ltd. (April 2004 Present).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sheryl K. Pressler
7337 E. Doubletree Ranch Rd.
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Age: 59
|
|
Trustee
|
|
January 2007 Present
|
|
Consultant (May 2001 Present).
|
|
136
|
|
Centerra Gold (May 2008 Present) and Stillwater
Mining Company (May 2002 Present).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roger B. Vincent
7337 E. Doubletree Ranch Rd.
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Age: 64
|
|
Chairman/
Trustee
|
|
January 2007 Present
|
|
President, Springwell Corporation (March 1989
Present).
|
|
136
|
|
UGI Corporation (February 2006 Present) and UGI
Utilities, Inc. (February 2006 Present).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trustees who are
Interested Persons:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert W.
Crispin(5)
7337 E. Doubletree Ranch Rd.
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Age: 63
|
|
Trustee
|
|
October 2007 Present
|
|
Retired. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, ING Investment
Management Co. (July 2001 December 2007).
|
|
136
|
|
Intact Financial Corporation (December 2004
Present).
|
25
TRUSTEE
AND OFFICER INFORMATION
(Unaudited)
(continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Portfolios in
|
|
|
|
|
Position(s)
|
|
Term of Office
|
|
|
|
Fund Complex
|
|
Other Directorships/
|
|
|
Held With
|
|
and Length of
|
|
Principal Occupation(s)
|
|
Overseen by
|
|
Trusteeships Held
|
Name, Address, and Age
|
|
Trust
|
|
Time
Served(1)
|
|
During the Past Five Years
|
|
Trustee(2)
|
|
by Trustee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shaun P.
Mathews(3)(5)
7337 E. Doubletree Ranch Rd.
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Age: 54
|
|
Trustee
|
|
January 2007 Present
|
|
President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Investments,
LLC(6)
(November 2006 Present). Formerly, Head of ING
Mutual Funds and Investment Products (November 2004
November 2006).
|
|
178
|
|
ING Retirement Holdings, Inc. (September 1998
Present); ING Services Holding Company, Inc. (May
2000 Present); ING Financial Advisers,
LLC(8)
(April 2002 Present); Southland Life Insurance
Company (June 2002 Present); and ING Capital
Corporation, LLC and ING Funds Distributor,
LLC(7)
(December 2005 Present); ING Funds Services, LLC,
ING Investments, LLC and ING Pilgrim Funding, Inc. (March
2006 Present); and Directed Services, LLC (December
2006 Present).
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The Board is divided into three
classes, with the term of one class expiring at each annual
meeting of the Fund. At each annual meeting, one class of
Trustees is elected to a three-year term and serves until their
successors are duly elected and qualified. The tenure of each
Trustee is subject to the Boards retirement policy, which
states that each duly elected or appointed Trustee who is not an
interested person of the Fund, as defined in the
Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (1940
Act) (Independent Trustees), shall retire from
service as a Trustee at the conclusion of the first regularly
scheduled meeting of the Board that is held after the Trustee
reaches the age of 72. A unanimous vote of the Board may
extend the retirement date of a Trustee for up to one year. An
extension may be permitted if the retirement would trigger a
requirement to hold a meeting of shareholders of the Fund under
applicable law, whether for purposes of appointing a successor
to the Trustee or if otherwise necessary under applicable law,
in which case the extension would apply until such time as the
shareholder meeting can be held or is no longer needed.
|
|
(2) |
|
For the purposes of this table
(except for Mr. Mathews),Fund Complex means the
following investment companies: ING Asia Pacific High Dividend
Equity Income Fund, ING Equity Trust; ING Funds Trust; ING
Global Equity Dividend and Premium Opportunity Fund; ING Global
Advantage and Premium Opportunity Fund; ING Infrastructure,
Industrials, and Materials Fund; ING International High Dividend
Equity Income Fund; ING Investors Trust; ING Mayflower Trust;
ING Mutual Funds; ING Partners, Inc.; ING Prime Rate Trust; ING
Risk Managed Natural Resources Fund; ING Senior Income Fund; ING
Separate Portfolios Trust; ING Variable Insurance Trust; and ING
Variable Products Trust.
|
|
(3) |
|
For Mr. Mathews, the Fund
Complex also includes the following investment companies: ING
Series Fund, Inc.; ING Strategic Allocation Portfolios,
Inc.; ING Variable Funds; ING Variable Portfolios, Inc.; ING
Balanced Portfolio, Inc.; ING Intermediate Bond Portfolio; and
ING Money Market Portfolio.
|
|
(4) |
|
Mr. Boyer held a seat on the
Board of Directors of The Mark Twain House & Museum
from September 1989 to November 2005. ING Groep N.V. makes
non-material, charitable contributions to The Mark Twain
House & Museum.
|
|
(5) |
|
Messrs. Mathews and Crispin
are deemed to be interested persons of the Fund as
defined in the 1940 Act because of their relationship with ING
Groep, N.V., the parent corporation of the Manager, ING
Investment Manager.
|
|
(6) |
|
ING Investments, LLC was previously
named ING Pilgrim Investments, LLC. ING Pilgrim Investments, LLC
is the successor in interest to ING Pilgrim Investments, Inc.,
which was previously known as Pilgrim Investments, Inc. and
before that was known as Pilgrim America Investments, Inc.
|
|
(7) |
|
ING Funds Distributor, LLC is the
successor in interest to ING Funds Distributor, Inc., which was
previously known as ING Pilgrim Securities, Inc., and before
that was known as Pilgrim Securities, Inc., and before that was
known as Pilgrim America Securities, Inc.
|
|
(8) |
|
ING Funds Services, LLC was
previously named ING Pilgrim Group, LLC. ING Pilgrim Group, LLC
is the successor in interest to ING Pilgrim Group, Inc., which
was previously known as Pilgrim Group, Inc. and before that was
known as Pilgrim America Group, Inc.
|
26
TRUSTEE
AND OFFICER INFORMATION
(Unaudited)
(continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Term of Office
|
|
|
|
|
Position(s) Held
|
|
and Length of
|
|
Principal Occupation(s)
|
Name, Address and Age
|
|
With the Trust
|
|
Time
Served(1)
|
|
During the Past Five Years
|
|
Officers:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shaun P.
Mathews(5)
7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd.
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Age: 54
|
|
President and Chief Executive Officer
|
|
January 2007 Present
|
|
President and Chief Executive Officer, ING Investments, LLC
(November 2006 Present). Formerly, President, ING
Mutual Funds and Investment Products (November 2004
November 2006).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael J. Roland
7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd.
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Age: 51
|
|
Executive Vice President
|
|
January 2007 Present
|
|
Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, ING
Investments,
LLC(2)
and ING Funds Services,
LLC(3)
(January 2007 Present). Formerly, Executive Vice
President, Head of Product Management (January 2005
January 2007); Chief Compliance Officer, ING Investments,
LLC(2)
and Directed Services
LLC(6)
(October 2004 December 2005).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stanley D. Vyner
230 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10169
Age: 59
|
|
Executive Vice President and Chief Investment Risk Officer
|
|
January 2007 Present September 2009
Present
|
|
Executive Vice President, ING Investments,
LLC(2)
(July 2000 Present) and Chief Investment Risk
Officer, ING Investments,
LLC(2)
(January 2003 Present).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joseph M. ODonnell
7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd.
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Age: 55
|
|
Executive Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer
|
|
January 2007 Present
|
|
Chief Compliance Officer of the ING Funds (November
2004 Present); Executive Vice President of the ING
Funds (March 2006 Present); Chief Compliance Officer
of ING Investments,
LLC(2)
(March 2006 July 2008 and October 2009
Present); and Investment Advisor Chief Compliance Officer,
Directed Services
LLC(6)
(March 2006 July 2008 and October 2009
Present). Formerly, Investment Advisor Chief Compliance Officer,
ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company (March 2006
December 2006).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Todd Modic
7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd.
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Age: 42
|
|
Senior Vice President, Chief/Principal Financial Officer and
Assistant Secretary
|
|
January 2007 Present
|
|
Senior Vice President, ING Funds Services,
LLC(3)
(March 2005 Present).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kimberly A. Anderson
7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd.
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Age: 45
|
|
Senior Vice President
|
|
January 2007 Present
|
|
Senior Vice President, ING Investments,
LLC(2)
(June 1995 Present).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Terris
7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd.
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Age: 39
|
|
Senior Vice President
|
|
January 2007 Present
|
|
Senior Vice President, Head of Division Operations, ING Funds
Services,
LLC(3)
(May 2006 Present). Formerly, Vice President of
Administration, ING Funds Services,
LLC(3)
(October 2001 May 2006).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robyn L. Ichilov
7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd.
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Age: 42
|
|
Vice President and Treasurer
|
|
January 2007 Present
|
|
Vice President and Treasurer, ING Funds Services,
LLC(3)
(November 1995 Present) and ING Investments,
LLC(2)
(August 1997 Present).
|
27
TRUSTEE
AND OFFICER INFORMATION
(Unaudited)
(continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Term of Office
|
|
|
|
|
Position(s) Held
|
|
and Length of
|
|
Principal Occupation(s)
|
Name, Address and Age
|
|
With the Trust
|
|
Time
Served(1)
|
|
During the Past Five Years
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lauren D. Bensinger
7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd.
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Age: 56
|
|
Vice President
|
|
January 2007 Present
|
|
Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer, ING Funds
Distributor,
LLC(4)
(August 1995 Present); Vice President, ING
Investments,
LLC(2)
and ING Funds Services,
LLC(3)
(February 1996 Present); and Director of Compliance,
ING Investments,
LLC(2)
(October 2004 Present).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
William Evans
10 State House Square
Hartford, Connecticut 06103
Age: 37
|
|
Vice President
|
|
September 2007 Present
|
|
Vice President, Head of Mutual Fund Advisory Group (April
2007 Present). Formerly, Vice President, U.S. Mutual
Funds and Investment Products (May 2005 April 2007)
and Senior Fund Analyst, U.S. Mutual Funds and Investment
Products (May 2002 May 2005).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maria M. Anderson
7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd.
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Age: 51
|
|
Vice President
|
|
January 2007 Present
|
|
Vice President, ING Funds Services,
LLC(3)
(September 2004 Present).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denise Lewis
7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd.
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Age: 46
|
|
Vice President
|
|
January 2007 Present
|
|
Vice President, ING Funds Services, LLC (December
2006 Present). Formerly, Senior Vice President, UMB
Investment Services Group, LLC (November 2003
December 2006).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kimberly K. Springer
7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd.
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Age: 52
|
|
Vice President
|
|
January 2007 Present
|
|
Vice President, ING Funds Services,
LLC(3)
(March 2006 Present) and Managing Paralegal
Registration Statements (June 2003 Present).
Formerly, Assistant Vice President, ING Funds Services,
LLC(3)
(August 2004 March 2006).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Wheeler
7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd.
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Age: 40
|
|
Assistant Vice President
|
|
May 2008 Present
|
|
Assistant Vice President Director of Tax, ING Funds
Services (March 2008 Present). Formerly, Tax
Manager, ING Funds Services (March 2005 March 2008).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Huey P. Falgout, Jr.
7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd.
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Age: 46
|
|
Secretary
|
|
January 2007 Present
|
|
Chief Counsel, ING Americas, U.S. Legal Services (October
2003 Present).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Theresa K. Kelety
7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd.
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Age: 47
|
|
Assistant Secretary
|
|
January 2007 Present
|
|
Senior Counsel, ING Americas, U.S. Legal Services (April
2008 Present). Formerly, Counsel, ING Americas, U.S.
Legal Services (April 2003 April 2008).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kathleen Nichols
7337 East Doubletree Ranch Rd.
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Age: 34
|
|
Assistant Secretary
|
|
May 2008 Present
|
|
Counsel, ING Americas, U.S. Legal Services (February
2008 Present). Formerly, Associate, Ropes &
Gray LLP (September 2005 February 2008).
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The officers hold office until the
next annual meeting of the Trustees and until their successors
shall have been elected and qualified.
|
|
(2) |
|
ING Investments, LLC was previously
named ING Pilgrim Investments, LLC. ING Pilgrim Investments, LLC
is the successor in interest to ING Pilgrim Investments, Inc.,
which was previously known as Pilgrim Investments, Inc. and
before that was known as Pilgrim America Investments, Inc.
|
|
(3) |
|
ING Funds Services, LLC was
previously named ING Pilgrim Group, LLC. ING Pilgrim Group, LLC
is the successor in interest to ING Pilgrim Group, Inc., which
was previously known as Pilgrim Group, Inc. and before that was
known as Pilgrim America Group, Inc.
|
|
(4) |
|
ING Funds Distributor, LLC is the
successor in interest to ING Funds Distributor, Inc., which was
previously known as ING Pilgrim Securities, Inc., and before
that was known as Pilgrim Securities, Inc., and before that was
known as Pilgrim America Securities, Inc.
|
|
(5) |
|
Mr. Mathews commenced services
as CEO and President of the ING Funds on November 11, 2006.
|
|
(6) |
|
Directed Services LLC is the
successor in interest to Directed Services, Inc.
|
28
BOARD
CONSIDERATION AND RE-APPROVAL OF INVESTMENT ADVISORY AND
SUB-ADVISORY
CONTRACTS
Section 15(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as
amended (the 1940 Act) provides that, after an
initial period, ING Asia Pacific High Dividend Equity Income
Funds (the Fund) existing investment advisory
and
sub-advisory
contracts will remain in effect only if the Board of Trustees
(the Board) of the Fund, including a majority of
Board members who have no direct or indirect interest in the
advisory and
sub-advisory
contracts, and who are not interested persons of the
Fund, as such term is defined under the 1940 Act (the
Independent Trustees), annually review and approve
them. Thus, at a meeting held on November 12, 2009, the
Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees,
considered whether to renew the investment advisory contract
(the Advisory Contract) between ING Investments, LLC
(the Adviser) and the
sub-advisory
contracts
(Sub-Advisory
Contracts) with ING Investment Management Asia/ Pacific
(Hong Kong) Limited and ING Investment Management Advisors B.V.
(the
Sub-Advisers).
The Independent Trustees also held separate meetings on October
13 and November 10, 2009 to consider the renewal of the
Advisory Contract and
Sub-Advisory
Contracts. As a result, subsequent references herein to factors
considered and determinations made by the Independent Trustees
include, as applicable, factors considered and determinations
made on those earlier dates by the Independent Trustees.
At its November 12, 2009 meeting, the Board voted to renew
the Advisory and
Sub-Advisory
Contracts for the Fund. In reaching these decisions, the Board
took into account information furnished to it throughout the
year at regular meetings of the Board and the Boards
committees, as well as information prepared specifically in
connection with the annual renewal process. Determinations by
the Independent Trustees also took into account various factors
that they believed, in light of the legal advice furnished to
them by K&L Gates LLP (K&L Gates), their
independent legal counsel, and their own business judgment, to
be relevant. Further, while the Advisory Contract and
Sub-Advisory
Contracts were considered at the same Board meeting, the
Trustees considered the Funds advisory and
sub-advisory
relationships separately.
Provided below is an overview of the Boards contract
approval process in general, as well as a discussion of certain
specific factors that the Board considered at its renewal
meeting. While the Board gave its attention to the information
furnished, at its request, that was most relevant to its
considerations, discussed below are a number of the primary
factors relevant to the Boards consideration as to whether
to renew the Advisory and
Sub-Advisory
Contracts for the one-year period ending November 30, 2010.
Each Board member may have accorded different weight to the
various factors in reaching his or her conclusions with respect
to the Funds advisory and
sub-advisory
arrangements.
Overview of the
Contract Renewal and Approval Process
Several years ago, the Independent Trustees instituted a revised
process by which they seek and consider relevant information
when they decide whether to approve new or existing advisory and
sub-advisory
arrangements for the investment companies in the ING Funds
complex under their jurisdiction, including the Funds
existing Advisory and
Sub-Advisory
Contracts. Among other actions, the Independent Trustees:
retained the services of independent consultants with experience
in the mutual fund industry to assist the Independent Trustees
in working with the personnel employed by the Adviser or its
affiliates who administer the Fund (Management) to
identify the types of information presented to the Board to
inform its deliberations with respect to advisory and
sub-advisory
relationships and to help evaluate that information; established
a specific format in which certain requested information is
provided to the Board; and determined the process for reviewing
such information in connection with advisory and
sub-advisory
contract renewals and approvals. The end result was an enhanced
process which is currently employed by the Independent Trustees
to review and analyze information in connection with their
annual renewal of the ING Funds advisory and
sub-advisory
contracts, as well as their review and approval of new advisory
relationships.
Since the current renewal and approval process was first
implemented, the Boards membership has changed
substantially through periodic retirements of some Trustees and
the appointment and election of new Trustees. In addition,
throughout this period the Independent Trustees have reviewed
and refined the renewal and approval process at least annually.
The
29
ADVISORY
CONTRACT APPROVAL DISCUSSION
(Unaudited)
(continued)
Board also established a Contracts Committee and two Investment
Review Committees (IRCs), including the
International/Balanced/Fixed Income Funds Investment Review
Committee (the I/B/F IRC). Among other matters, the
Contracts Committee provides oversight with respect to the
contracts renewal process, and the Fund is assigned to the I/B/F
IRC, which provides oversight regarding, among other matters,
investment performance.
The type and format of the information provided to the Board or
to legal counsel for the Independent Trustees in connection with
the contract approval and renewal process has been codified in
the ING Funds 15(c) Methodology Guide. This Guide
was developed under the direction of the Independent Trustees
and sets out a blueprint pursuant to which the Independent
Trustees request certain information that they deem important to
facilitate an informed review in connection with initial and
annual approvals of advisory and
sub-advisory
contracts.
Management provides certain of the information requested by the
15(c) Methodology Guide in Fund Analysis and
Comparison Tables (FACT sheets) prior to the
Independent Trustees review of advisory and
sub-advisory
arrangements (including the Funds Advisory and
Sub-Advisory
Contracts). The Independent Trustees previously retained an
independent firm to verify and test the accuracy of certain FACT
sheet data for a representative sample of funds in the ING Funds
complex. In addition, in 2007, 2008 and 2009, the Contracts
Committee employed the services of an independent consultant to
assist in its review and analysis of, among other matters, the
15(c) Methodology Guide, the content and format of the
FACT sheets, and proposed Selected Peer Group of investment
companies (SPG) to be used by the Fund for certain
comparison purposes during the renewal process.
As part of an ongoing process, the Contracts Committee
recommends or considers recommendations from Management for
refinements to the 15(c) Methodology Guide and other
aspects of the review process, and the Boards IRCs,
including the I/B/F IRC, review benchmarks used to assess the
performance of the funds in the ING Funds complex. The IRCs may
apply a heightened level of scrutiny in cases where performance
has lagged an ING Funds relevant benchmark
and/or SPG.
The Board employed its process for reviewing contracts when
considering the renewals of the Funds Advisory and
Sub-Advisory
Contracts that would be effective through November 30,
2010. Set forth below is a discussion of many of the
Boards primary considerations and conclusions resulting
from this process.
Nature, Extent
and Quality of Service
In determining whether to approve the Advisory and
Sub-Advisory
Contracts for the Fund for the year ending November 30,
2010, the Independent Trustees received and evaluated such
information as they deemed necessary regarding the nature,
extent and quality of services provided to the Fund by the
Adviser and
Sub-Advisers.
This included information regarding the Adviser and
Sub-Advisers
provided throughout the year at regular meetings of the Board
and its committees, as well as information furnished in
connection with the contract renewal meetings.
The materials requested by and provided to the Board
and/or to
K&L Gates prior to the November 12, 2009 Board meeting
included, among other information, the following items for the
Fund: (1) FACT sheets that provided information regarding
the performance and expenses of the Fund and other similarly
managed funds in its SPG, as well as information regarding the
Funds investment portfolio, objective and strategies;
(2) reports providing risk and attribution analyses of the
Fund; (3) the 15(c) Methodology Guide, which
describes how the FACT sheets were prepared, including the
manner in which the Funds benchmark and SPG were selected
and how profitability was determined; (4) responses from
the Adviser and
Sub-Advisers
to a series of questions posed by K&L Gates on behalf of
the Trustees; (5) copies of the forms of Advisory Contract
and
Sub-Advisory
Contracts; (6) copies of the Forms ADV for the Adviser
and
Sub-Advisers;
(7) financial statements for the Adviser and
Sub-Advisers;
(8) a draft of a narrative summary addressing key factors
the Board customarily considers in evaluating the renewals of
the ING Funds (including the Funds) advisory
contracts and
sub-advisory
contracts, including a written analysis for the Fund of how
performance, fees and expenses compare to its SPG and designated
benchmark; (9) independent analyses of Fund performance by
the Funds Chief Investment Risk Officer;
(10) information regarding net asset flows into and out of
the Fund; and (11) other information relevant to the
Boards evaluations.
30
ADVISORY
CONTRACT APPROVAL DISCUSSION
(Unaudited)
(continued)
The Funds common shares were used for purposes of certain
comparisons to the funds in its SPG. Common shares were selected
because they are the only Fund class issued and outstanding. The
common shares were compared to the analogous class of shares for
each fund in the SPG. The mutual funds included in the
Funds SPG were selected based upon criteria designed to
mirror the Fund share class being compared to the SPG.
In arriving at its conclusions with respect to the Advisory
Contract, the Board was mindful of the
manager-of-managers
platform of the ING Funds that has been developed by Management.
The Board also considered the techniques that the Adviser has
developed, at the Boards direction, to screen and perform
due diligence on the
sub-advisers
that are recommended to the Board to manage the investment
portfolios of the funds in the ING Funds complex. The Board
noted the resources that the Adviser has committed to the Board
and the I/B/F IRC to assist the Board and the I/B/F IRC with
their assessment of the investment performance of the funds in
the ING Funds complex (including the Fund) on an ongoing basis
throughout the year. This includes the appointment of a Chief
Investment Risk Officer and his staff, who report directly to
the Board and who have developed attribution analyses and other
metrics used by the Boards IRCs to analyze the key factors
underlying investment performance for the funds in the ING Funds
complex. The Board also noted the techniques used by the Adviser
to monitor the performance of the
Sub-Advisers.
In considering the Funds Advisory Contract, the Board also
considered the extent of benefits provided to the Funds
shareholders, beyond advisory services, from being part of the
ING family of funds. The Board also took into account the
Advisers efforts in recent years to reduce the expenses of
the ING Funds through renegotiated arrangements with the ING
Funds service providers. In addition, the Board considered
the efforts of the Adviser and the expenses that it incurred in
recent years to help make the ING Funds complex more efficient
by combinations of similar funds.
Further, the Board received periodic reports showing that the
investment policies and restrictions for the Fund were
consistently complied with and other periodic reports covering
matters such as compliance by Adviser and
Sub-Advisers
personnel with codes of ethics. The Board considered reports
from the Funds Chief Compliance Officer (CCO)
evaluating whether the regulatory compliance systems and
procedures of the Adviser and
Sub-Advisers
are reasonably designed to assure compliance with the federal
securities laws, including those related to, among others, late
trading and market timing, best execution, fair value pricing,
proxy voting and trade allocation practices. The Board also took
into account the CCOs annual and periodic reports and
recommendations with respect to service provider compliance
programs. In this regard, the Board also considered the policies
and procedures developed by the CCO in consultation with the
Boards Compliance Committee that guide the CCOs
compliance oversight function.
The Board reviewed the level of staffing, quality and experience
of the Funds portfolio management team. The Board took
into account the respective resources and reputations of the
Adviser and
Sub-Advisers,
and evaluated the ability of the Adviser and
Sub-Advisers
to attract and retain qualified investment advisory personnel.
The Board also considered the adequacy of the resources
committed to the Fund (and other relevant funds in the ING Funds
complex) by the Adviser and
Sub-Advisers,
and whether those resources are commensurate with the needs of
the Fund and are sufficient to sustain appropriate levels of
performance and compliance needs. In this regard, the Board
considered the financial stability of the Adviser and
Sub-Advisers.
Based on their deliberations and the materials presented to
them, the Board concluded that the advisory and related services
provided by the Adviser and
Sub-Advisers
are appropriate in light of the Funds operations, the
competitive landscape of the investment company business, and
investor needs, and that the nature and quality of the overall
services provided by the Adviser and
Sub-Adviser
were appropriate.
Fund Performance
In assessing the advisory and
sub-advisory
relationships, the Board placed emphasis on the net investment
returns of the Fund. While the Board considered the performance
reports and discussions with portfolio managers at Board and
committee meetings during the year, particular attention in
assessing performance was given to the FACT sheets furnished in
connection with the renewal process. The FACT sheet prepared for
the Fund included its investment performance compared to the
Funds
31
ADVISORY
CONTRACT APPROVAL DISCUSSION
(Unaudited)
(continued)
Morningstar category median, Lipper category median, SPG and
primary benchmark. The FACT sheet performance data was as of
June 30, 2009. In addition, the Board also considered at
its November 12, 2009 meeting certain additional data
regarding performance and the Funds asset level as of
September 30, 2009.
The Funds performance was compared to its Morningstar
category median and its primary benchmark, a broad-based
securities market index that appears in the Funds
prospectus. With respect to Morningstar quintile rankings, the
first quintile represents the highest (best) performance and the
fifth quintile represents the lowest performance.
In considering whether to approve the renewal of the Advisory
and
Sub-Advisory
Contracts for the Fund, the Board considered that, based on
performance data for the periods ended June 30, 2009:
(1) the Fund outperformed its Morningstar category median
for all periods presented, with the exception of the most recent
calendar quarter, during which it underperformed; (2) the
Fund underperformed its primary benchmark for the most recent
calendar quarter and
year-to-date
periods, but outperformed for the one-year period; and
(3) the Fund is ranked in the first (highest) quintile of
its Morningstar category for the
year-to-date
and one-year periods, and the fifth (lowest) quintile for the
most recent calendar quarter.
In analyzing this performance data, the Board took into account
the effect of the Funds options-writing strategy on its
relative investment performance.
Economies of
Scale
When evaluating the reasonableness of advisory fee rates, the
Board also considered whether economies of scale will be
realized by the Adviser as the Fund grows larger and the extent
to which any such economies are reflected in contractual fee
rates. In this regard, the Board considered the compensation
under an Advisory Contract with level fees that does not include
breakpoints, taking into account that the Fund is a closed-end
fund. The Board also considered the extent to which economies of
scale could be realized through waivers, reimbursements or
expense reductions.
In evaluating economies of scale, the Independent Trustees also
considered prior periodic management reports and industry
information on this topic, and the Independent Trustees who were
Board members at that time also considered a November 2006
evaluation and analysis presented to them by an independent
consultant regarding fee breakpoint arrangements and economies
of scale.
The Board also considered that the Fund had experienced material
declines in assets, especially during October 2008, due to
general market declines precipitated by the credit crises and
other generally adverse market developments. As a result of this
asset decline, the Board considered that there were fewer
opportunities to realize economies of scale.
Information
Regarding Services to Other Clients
The Board requested and considered information regarding the
nature of services and fee rates offered by the Adviser and
Sub-Advisers
to other clients, including other registered investment
companies and institutional accounts. The Board also noted that
the fee rates charged to the Fund and other institutional
clients of the Adviser or the
Sub-Advisers
(including other investment companies) may differ materially due
to, among other reasons: differences in services; different
regulatory requirements associated with registered investment
companies, such as the Fund, as compared to non-registered
investment company clients; market differences in fee rates that
existed when the Fund first was organized; differences in the
original sponsors of the Fund that now are managed by the
Adviser; investment capacity constraints that existed when
certain contracts were first agreed upon or that might exist at
present; and different pricing structures that are necessary to
be competitive in different marketing channels.
Fee Rates and
Profitability
The Board reviewed and considered the contractual investment
advisory fee rate payable by the Fund to the Adviser. The Board
also considered the contractual
sub-advisory
fee rates payable by the Adviser to the
Sub-Advisers
for
sub-advisory
services for the Fund. In addition, the Board considered fee
waivers and expense limitations applicable to the fees payable
by the Fund.
The Board considered: (1) the fee structure of the Fund as
it relates to the services provided under the contracts; and
(2) the potential fall-out benefits to the Adviser and
Sub-Advisers
and their respective affiliates from their association with the
Fund. For the Fund, the Board determined that the fees payable
to the Adviser and
Sub-Adviser
are reasonable for the services that each performs, which
32
ADVISORY
CONTRACT APPROVAL DISCUSSION
(Unaudited)
(continued)
were considered in light of the nature and quality of the
services that each has performed and is expected to perform.
The Board considered information on revenues, costs and profits
realized by the Adviser, which was prepared by Management in
accordance with the allocation methodology (including related
assumptions) specified in the 15(c) Methodology Guide. In
analyzing the profitability of the Adviser in connection with
its services to the Fund, the Board took into account the
sub-advisory
fee rate payable by the Adviser to the
Sub-Advisers.
The Board also considered information that it requested and was
provided by Management with respect to the profitability of
service providers affiliated with the Adviser, as well as
information provided by the
Sub-Advisers
with respect to their profitability. Further, the Board
considered that the decline in the Funds asset levels
caused by recent adverse economic conditions was likely to cause
a similar decline in any profits realized by the Adviser and
Sub-Advisers.
In considering the fees payable under the Advisory and
Sub-Advisory
Contracts for the Fund, the Board took into account the factors
described above and also considered: (1) the fairness of
the compensation under an Advisory Contract with level fees that
does not include breakpoints; and (2) the pricing structure
(including the expense ratio to be borne by shareholders) of the
Fund, as compared to its SPG, including that: (a) the
management fee (inclusive of a 0.10% administration fee) for the
Fund is above the median and the average management fees of the
funds in its SPG; and (b) the expense ratio for the Fund is
above the median and the average expense ratios of the funds in
its SPG.
In analyzing this fee data, the Board took into account
Managements representations that closed-end funds have
unique distribution characteristics and their pricing structures
are highly driven by the market and competitive environment at
the time of their initial offering when their fee structures
were established.
The Board recognized that analysis of the Advisers
profitability is not an exact science and there is no uniform
methodology for determining profitability for this purpose. In
this context, the Board realized that Managements
calculations regarding its costs incurred in establishing the
infrastructure necessary for the Funds operations may not
be fully reflected in the expenses allocated to the Fund in
determining profitability, and that the information presented
may not portray all of the costs borne by Management or capture
Managements entrepreneurial risk associated with offering
and managing a mutual fund complex in the current regulatory and
market environment. In addition, the Board recognized that the
use of different methodologies for purposes of calculating
profit data can give rise to dramatically different profit and
loss results.
Conclusion
After its deliberation, the Board reached the following
conclusions: (1) the Funds management fee rate is
reasonable in the context of all factors considered by the
Board; (2) the Funds expense ratio is reasonable in
the context of all factors considered by the Board;
(3) taking into account Managements analysis of the
Funds recent underperformance, it is reasonable to permit
the Fund to establish a longer performance record for purposes
of evaluating performance; and (4) the
sub-advisory
fee rates payable by the Adviser to the
Sub-Advisers
is reasonable in the context of all factors considered by the
Board. Based on these conclusions and other factors, the Board
voted to renew the Advisory and
Sub-Advisory
Contracts for the Fund for the year ending November 30,
2010. During this renewal process, different Board members may
have given different weight to different individual factors and
related conclusions.
33
A special meeting of shareholders of ING Asia Pacific High
Dividend Equity Income Fund was held June 23, 2009, at the
offices of ING Funds, 7337 East Doubletree Ranch Road,
Scottsdale, AZ 85258.
A brief description of each matter voted upon as well as the
results are outlined below:
Matters:
To elect three members of the Board of Trustees to represent the
interests of the holders of Common Shares of the Fund, with all
three individuals to serve as Class II Trustees, for a term
of three-years, and until the election and qualification of
their successors.
Results:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Against
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
or
|
|
Shares
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Proposal*
|
|
Voted for
|
|
Withheld
|
|
Abstained
|
|
Voted
|
|
Class II Trustees
|
|
Colleen D. Baldwin
|
|
|
9,759,823.496
|
|
|
|
1,362,227.378
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
11,122,050.874
|
|
|
|
Robert W. Crispin
|
|
|
9,754,886.107
|
|
|
|
1,367,164.767
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
11,122,050.874
|
|
|
|
Peter S. Drotch
|
|
|
9,747,920.332
|
|
|
|
1,374,130.542
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
11,122,050.874
|
|
34
During the period, there were no material changes in the
Funds investment objective or policies that were not
approved by the shareholders or the Funds charter or
by-laws or
in the principal risk factors associated with investment in the
Fund. Barbara Chan is no longer responsible for the
day-to-day
management of the Funds portfolio.
During the fiscal year, the Fund reduced its
quarterly distribution from $0.498 to $0.448 per quarter,
commencing with the distribution paid on January 15, 2010.
Dividend
Reinvestment Plan
Unless the registered owner of Common Shares elects to receive
cash by contacting BNY (the Plan Agent), all
dividends declared on Common Shares of the Fund will be
automatically reinvested by the Plan Agent for shareholders in
additional Common Shares of the Fund through the Funds
Dividend Reinvestment Plan (the Plan). Shareholders
who elect not to participate in the Plan will receive all
dividends and other distributions in cash paid by check mailed
directly to the shareholder of record (or, if the Common Shares
are held in street or other nominee name, then to such nominee)
by the Plan Agent. Participation in the Plan is completely
voluntary and may be terminated or resumed at any time without
penalty by notice if received and processed by the Plan Agent
prior to the dividend record date; otherwise such termination or
resumption will be effective with respect to any subsequently
declared dividend or other distribution. Some brokers may
automatically elect to receive cash on your behalf and may
re-invest that cash in additional Common Shares of the Fund for
you. If you wish for all dividends declared on your Common
Shares of the Fund to be automatically reinvested pursuant to
the Plan, please contact your broker.
The Plan Agent will open an account for each Common Shareholder
under the Plan in the same name in which such Common
Shareholders Common Shares are registered. Whenever the
Fund declares a dividend or other distribution (together, a
Dividend) payable in cash,
non-participants
in the Plan will receive cash and participants in the Plan will
receive the equivalent in Common Shares. The Common Shares will
be acquired by the Plan Agent for the participants
accounts, depending upon the circumstances described below,
either (i) through receipt of additional unissued but
authorized Common Shares from the Fund (Newly Issued
Common Shares) or (ii) by purchase of outstanding
Common Shares on the open market (Open-Market
Purchases) on the NYSE or elsewhere. Open-market purchases
and sales are usually made through a broker affiliated with the
Plan Agent.
If, on the payment date for any Dividend, the closing market
price plus estimated brokerage commissions per Common Share is
equal to or greater than the net asset value per Common Share,
the Plan Agent will invest the Dividend amount in Newly Issued
Common Shares on behalf of the participants. The number of Newly
Issued Common Shares to be credited to each participants
account will be determined by dividing the dollar amount of the
Dividend by the net asset value per Common Share on the payment
date; provided that, if the net asset value is less than or
equal to 95% of the closing market value on the payment date,
the dollar amount of the Dividend will be divided by 95% of the
closing market price per Common Share on the payment date. If,
on the payment date for any Dividend, the net asset value per
Common Share is greater than the closing market value plus
estimated brokerage commissions, the Plan Agent will invest the
Dividend amount in Common Shares acquired on behalf of the
participants in Open-Market Purchases. In the event of a market
discount on the payment date for any Dividend, the Plan Agent
will have until the last business day before the next date on
which the Common Shares trade on an
ex-dividend
basis or 30 days after the payment date for such Dividend,
whichever is sooner (the Last Purchase Date), to
invest the Dividend amount in Common Shares acquired in
Open-Market Purchases.
It is contemplated that the Fund will pay quarterly Dividends.
Therefore, the period during which Open-Market Purchases can be
made will exist only from the payment date of each Dividend
through the date before the next
ex-dividend
date, which typically will be approximately ten days.
If, before the Plan Agent has completed its Open-Market
Purchases, the market price per common share exceeds the net
asset value per Common Share, the average per Common Share
purchase price paid by the Plan Administrator may exceed the net
asset value of the Common Shares, resulting in the acquisition
of fewer Common Shares than if the Dividend had been paid in
Newly Issued Common Shares on the Dividend payment date. Because
of the foregoing difficulty with respect to Open-Market
Purchases, the Plan provides that if the Plan Agent is unable to
invest the full Dividend amount in Open-Market Purchases during
the purchase period or if the market discount shifts
35
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION (Unaudited)
(continued)
to a market premium during the purchase period, the Plan Agent
will cease making Open-Market Purchases and will invest the
un-invested
portion of the Dividend amount in Newly Issued Common Shares at
the net asset value per common share at the close of business on
the Last Purchase Date provided that, if the net asset value is
less than or equal to 95% of the then current market price per
Common Share, the dollar amount of the Dividend will be divided
by 95% of the market price on the payment date.
The Plan Agent maintains all shareholders accounts in the
Plan and furnishes written confirmation of all transactions in
the accounts, including information needed by shareholders for
tax records. Common Shares in the account of each Plan
participant will be held by the Plan Agent on behalf of the Plan
participant, and each shareholder proxy will include those
shares purchased or received pursuant to the Plan. The Plan
Agent will forward all proxy solicitation materials to
participants and vote proxies for shares held under the Plan in
accordance with the instructions of the participants.
In the case of shareholders such as banks, brokers or nominees
which hold shares for others who are the beneficial owners, the
Plan Agent will administer the Plan on the basis of the number
of Common Shares certified from time to time by the record
shareholders name and held for the account of beneficial
owners who participate in the Plan.
There will be no brokerage charges with respect to Common Shares
issued directly by the Fund. However, each participant will pay
a pro rata share of brokerage commissions incurred in connection
with Open-Market Purchases. The automatic reinvestment of
Dividends will not relieve participants of any federal, state or
local income tax that may be payable (or required to be
withheld) on such Dividends. Participants that request a partial
or full sale of shares through the Plan Agent are subject to a
$15.00 sales fee and a $0.10 per share brokerage
commission on purchases or sales, and may be subject to certain
other service charges.
The Fund reserves the right to amend or terminate the Plan.
There is no direct service charge to participants with regard to
purchases in the Plan; however, the Fund reserves the right to
amend the Plan to include a service charge payable by the
participants.
All questions concerning the Plan should be directed to the
Funds Shareholder Service Department at
(800) 992-0180.
KEY FINANCIAL
DATES CALENDAR 2010 DISTRIBUTIONS:
|
|
|
|
|
Declaration Date
|
|
Ex-Dividend Date
|
|
Payable Date
|
|
March 19, 2010
|
|
April 1, 2010
|
|
April 15, 2010
|
June 21, 2010
|
|
July 1, 2010
|
|
July 15, 2010
|
September 20, 2010
|
|
October 1, 2010
|
|
October 15, 2010
|
December 20, 2010
|
|
December 29, 2010
|
|
January 17, 2011
|
Record date will be two business days after each
Ex-Dividend
Date. These dates are subject to change.
Stock
Data
The Funds common shares are traded on the NYSE
(Symbol: IAE).
Repurchase of
Securities by Closed-End Companies
In accordance with Section 23(c) of the 1940 Act, and
Rule 23c-1
under the 1940 Act the Fund may from time to time purchase
shares of beneficial interest of the Fund in the open market, in
privately negotiated transactions and/or purchase shares to
correct erroneous transactions.
Number of
Shareholders
The approximate number of record holders of Common Stock as of
February 28, 2010 was 12,840 which does not include
beneficial owners of shares held in the name of brokers of other
nominees.
Certifications
In accordance with Section 303A.12 (a) of the New York
Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual, the Funds CEO
submitted the Annual CEO Certification on May 26, 2009
certifying that he was not aware, as of that date, of any
violation by the Fund of the NYSEs Corporate governance
listing standards. In addition, as required by Section 302
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and related SEC rules,
the Funds principal executive and financial officers have
made quarterly certifications, included in filings with the SEC
on
Forms N-CSR
and N-Q,
relating to, among other things, the Funds disclosure
controls and procedures and internal controls over financial
reporting.
36
Investment Adviser
ING Investments, LLC
7337 East Doubletree Ranch Road
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Administrator
ING Funds Services, LLC
7337 East Doubletree Ranch Road
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Transfer Agent
BNY Mellon Shareowner Services
480 Washington Boulevard
Jersey City, NJ 07310-1900
Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm
KPMG LLP
99 High Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
Custodian
The Bank of New York Mellon
One Wall Street
New York, New York 10286
Legal Counsel
Dechert LLP
1775 I Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Toll-Free
Shareholder Information
Call us from 9:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m. Eastern time on any business day for account or
other information, at (800) 992-0180
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 Registrants 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 10 (a)(1), Exhibit 99.CODE ETH.
Item 3. Audit Committee Financial Expert.
The Board
of Trustees has determined that J. Michael Earley and Peter S. Drotch
are audit committee financial experts, as defined in
Item 3 of Form N-CSR. Mr Earley and Mr. Drotch are independent for purposes of Item 3 of Form N-CSR.
Item 4. Principal Accountant Fees and Services.
(a) |
|
Audit Fees: The aggregate fees billed for professional
services rendered by KPMG LLP (KPMG), the principal
accountant for the audit of the registrants annual financial
statements, for services that are normally provided by the accountant
in connection with statutory and regulatory filings or engagements,
was $22,000 for the year ended February 28, 2010 and $22,000 for
the year ended February 28, 2009. |
|
(b) |
|
Audit-Related Fees: The aggregate fees billed in each
of the last two fiscal years for assurance and related services by
KPMG that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit of
the registrants financial statements and are not reported under
paragraph (a) of this item were $2,150 for the year ended February 28,
2010 and $4,225 for the year ended February 28, 2009. |
|
(c) |
|
Tax Fees: The aggregate fees billed for professional
services rendered by KPMG for tax compliance, tax advice, and tax
planning was $6,508 in the year ended February 28, 2010 and $5,989 in
the year ended February 28, 2009. Such
services include review of excise distribution calculations (if
applicable), preparation of the Funds federal, state and excise
tax returns, tax services related to mergers and routine consulting. |
|
(d) |
|
All Other Fees: NONE. |
|
(e)(1) |
|
Audit Committee Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures |
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 ING 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 Committees specific
pre-approval.
For both types of approval, the Committee considers whether the subject services are consistent
with the SECs 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 Committees 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 Committees duty to pre-approve services performed by the
Funds independent auditors.
II. Audit Services
The annual audit services engagement terms and fees are subject to the Committees 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-SAR 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.
IV. Tax Services
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 Committees view, impair auditor
independence and that are consistent with the SECs 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
2
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.
V. Other Services
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 SECs prohibited non-audit services is attached to this Policy as Appendix E. The
SECs 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 SECs 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 Committees 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 Funds 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).
VII. Procedures
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.
3
VIII. Delegation
The Committee may delegate pre-approval authority to one or more of the Committees 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.
Effective April 23, 2008, the KPMG LLP (KPMG) audit team for the ING Funds accepted the global
responsibility for monitoring the auditor independence for KPMG relative to the ING Funds. Using a
proprietary system called Sentinel, the audit team is able to identify and manage potential
conflicts of interest across the member firms of the KPMG International Network and prevent the
provision of prohibited services to the ING entities that would impair KPMG independence with the
respect to the ING Funds. In addition to receiving pre-approval from the ING Funds Audit Committee
for services provided to the ING Funds and for services for ING entities in the Investment Company
Complex, the audit team has developed a process for periodic notification via email to the ING
Funds Audit Committee Chairpersons regarding requests to provide services to ING Groep NV and its
affiliates from KPMG offices worldwide. Additionally, KPMG provides a quarterly summary of the
fees for services that have commenced for ING Groep NV and Affiliates at each Audit Committee
Meeting.
4
Last Approved: November 13, 2008
5
Appendix A
Pre-Approved Audit Services for the Pre-Approval Period January 1, 2009 through December 31,
2009
Service
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Fund(s) |
|
Fee Range |
Statutory audits or
financial audits (including
tax services associated
with audit services)
|
|
Ö
|
|
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.
|
|
Ö
|
|
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.
|
|
Ö
|
|
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
|
|
Ö
|
|
Not to exceed $12,600 per
audit |
|
|
|
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. |
6
Appendix B
Pre-Approved Audit-Related Services for the Pre-Approval Period January 1, 2009 through December
31, 2009
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)
|
|
Ö
|
|
Ö
|
|
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.]
|
|
Ö
|
|
|
|
Not to exceed
$5,000 per
occurrence during
the Pre-Approval
Period |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review of the Funds
semi-annual financial
statements
|
|
Ö
|
|
|
|
Not to exceed
$2,200 per set of
financial
statements per fund |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reports to regulatory or
government agencies related to
the annual engagement
|
|
Ö
|
|
|
|
Up to $5,000 per
occurrence during
the Pre-Approval
Period |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulatory compliance assistance
|
|
Ö
|
|
Ö
|
|
Not to exceed
$5,000 per quarter |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Training courses
|
|
|
|
Ö
|
|
Not to exceed
$2,000 per course |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For Prime Rate Trust, agreed
upon procedures for quarterly
reports to rating agencies
|
|
Ö
|
|
|
|
Not to exceed
$9,450 per quarter |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For Prime Rate Trust and Senior
Income Fund, agreed upon
procedures for the Revolving
Credit and Security Agreement
with Citigroup
|
|
Ö
|
|
|
|
Not to exceed
$21,000 per fund
per year |
7
Appendix C
Pre-Approved Tax Services for the Pre-Approval Period January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009
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
|
|
Ö
|
|
|
|
As presented to Audit
Committee2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review of IRC
Sections 851(b) and
817(h)
diversification
testing on a
real-time basis
|
|
Ö
|
|
|
|
As presented to Audit
Committee2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assistance and
advice regarding
year-end reporting
for 1099s
|
|
Ö
|
|
|
|
As presented to Audit
Committee2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax assistance and
advice regarding
statutory,
regulatory or
administrative
developments
|
|
Ö
|
|
Ö
|
|
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. |
8
Appendix C, continued
Service
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Fund(s) |
|
Fund Affiliates |
|
Fee Range |
Tax training courses
|
|
|
|
Ö
|
|
Not to exceed
$2,000 per course
during the
Pre-Approval Period |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax services associated with Fund mergers
|
|
Ö
|
|
Ö
|
|
Not to exceed
$4,000 per fund per
merger during the
Pre-Approval Period |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other tax-related assistance and
consultation, including, without
limitation, assistance in evaluating
derivative financial instruments and
international tax issues, qualification
and distribution issues, and similar
routine tax consultations.
|
|
Ö
|
|
|
|
Not to exceed
$120,000 during the
Pre-Approval Period |
9
Appendix D
Pre-Approved Other Services for the Pre-Approval Period January 1, 2009 through December 31,
2009
Service
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Fund(s) |
|
Fund Affiliates |
|
Fee Range |
Agreed-upon
procedures for
Class B share 12b-1
programs
|
|
|
|
Ö
|
|
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 ING
Investments, LLC.
|
|
Ö
|
|
Ö
|
|
Not to exceed
$5,000 per Fund
during the
Pre-Approval Period |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed upon
procedures for 15
(c) FACT Books
|
|
Ö
|
|
|
|
Not to exceed
$35,000 during the
Pre-Approval Period |
10
Appendix E
Prohibited Non-Audit Services
Dated: January 1, 2009
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Actuarial services |
|
|
|
|
Internal audit outsourcing services |
|
|
|
|
Management functions |
|
|
|
|
Human resources |
|
|
|
|
Broker-dealer, investment adviser, or investment banking services |
|
|
|
|
Legal services |
|
|
|
|
Expert services unrelated to the audit |
|
|
|
|
Any other service that the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board determines, by
regulation, is impermissible |
11
EXHIBIT A
ING EQUITY TRUST
ING FUNDS TRUST
ING ASIA PACIFIC HIGH DIVIDEND EQUITY INCOME FUND
ING GLOBAL ADVANTAGE AND PREMIUM OPPORTUNITY FUND
ING GLOBAL EQUITY DIVIDEND AND PREMIUM OPPORTUNITY FUND
ING INTERNATIONAL HIGH DIVIDEND EQUITY INCOME FUND
ING RISK MANAGED NATURAL RESOURCES FUND
ING INVESTORS TRUST
ING MAYFLOWER TRUST
ING MUTUAL FUNDS
ING PARTNERS, INC.
ING PRIME RATE TRUST
ING SENIOR INCOME FUND
ING SEPARATE PORTFOLIOS TRUST
ING VARIABLE INSURANCE TRUST
ING VARIABLE PRODUCTS TRUST
ING INFRASTRUCTURE, INDUSTRIALS AND MATERIALS
(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 KPMG if greater than 50%. |
|
|
|
Not applicable. |
|
(g) |
|
Non-Audit Fees: The non-audit fees billed by the registrants accountant for services
rendered to the registrant, and rendered to the registrants investment adviser, and any entity controlling,
controlled by, or under
common control with the adviser that provides ongoing services to the
registrant were $2,011,031 for year ended February 28, 2010 and
$1,637,485 for the year ended February 28, 2009. |
|
(h) |
|
Principal Accountants Independence: The
Registrants Audit committee has
considered whether the provision of
non-audit services that were rendered to the registrants 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
KPMGs independence.
|
Item 5. Audit Committee of Listed Registrants.
a. |
|
The registrant has a separately-designated standing audit committee. The members are
J. Michael Earley, Patricia W. Chadwick and Peter S. Drotch. |
|
b. |
|
Not applicable. |
Item 6. Schedule of Investments
Schedule is included as part of the report to shareholders filled under Item 1 of this Form.
Item 7.
Disclosure of Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures for Closed-End Management Investment
companies.
ING FUNDS
PROXY VOTING PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES
Effective Date: July 10, 2003
Revision Date: March 25, 2010
I. INTRODUCTION
The following are the Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines (the Procedures and Guidelines) of
the ING Funds set forth on Exhibit 1 attached hereto and each portfolio or series thereof, except
for any Sub-Adviser-Voted Series identified on Exhibit 1 and further described in Section III
below (each non-Sub-Adviser-Voted Series hereinafter referred to as a Fund and collectively, the
Funds). The purpose of these Procedures and Guidelines is to set forth the process by which each
Fund subject to these Procedures and Guidelines will vote proxies related to the equity assets in
its investment portfolio (the portfolio securities). The term proxies as used herein shall
include votes in connection with annual and special meetings of equity stockholders but not those
regarding bankruptcy matters and/or plans of reorganization. The Procedures and Guidelines have
been approved by the Funds Boards of Trustees/Directors1 (each a Board and
collectively, the Boards), including a majority of the independent Trustees/Directors2
of the Board. These Procedures and Guidelines may be amended only by the Board. The Board shall
review these Procedures and Guidelines at its discretion, and make any revisions thereto as deemed
appropriate by the Board.
II. COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE
The Boards hereby delegate to the Compliance Committee of each Board (each a Committee and
collectively, the Committees) the authority and responsibility to oversee the implementation of
these Procedures and Guidelines, and where applicable, to make determinations on behalf of the
Board with respect to the voting of proxies on behalf of each Fund. Furthermore, the Boards hereby
delegate to each Committee the authority to review and approve material changes to proxy voting
procedures of any Funds investment adviser (the Adviser). The Proxy Voting Procedures of the
Adviser (the Adviser Procedures) are attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Any determination regarding
the voting of proxies of each Fund
|
|
|
1 |
|
Reference in these Procedures to one or more
Funds shall, as applicable, mean those Funds that are under the jurisdiction of
the particular Board or Compliance Committee at issue. No provision in these
Procedures is intended to impose any duty upon the particular Board or
Compliance Committee with respect to any other Fund. |
|
2 |
|
The independent Trustees/Directors are those
Board members who are not interested persons of the Funds within the meaning
of Section 2(a)(19) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. |
Effective Date: 07/10/03
Revision Date: 03/25/10
that is made by a Committee, or any member thereof, as permitted herein, shall be deemed to be a
good faith determination regarding the voting of proxies by the full Board. Each Committee may
rely on the Adviser through the Agent, Proxy Coordinator and/or Proxy Group (as such terms are
defined for purposes of the Adviser Procedures) to deal in the first instance with the application
of these Procedures and Guidelines. Each Committee shall conduct itself in accordance with its
charter.
III. DELEGATION OF VOTING AUTHORITY
Except as otherwise provided for herein, the Board hereby delegates to the Adviser to each Fund the
authority and responsibility to vote all proxies with respect to all portfolio securities of the
Fund in accordance with then current proxy voting procedures and guidelines that have been approved
by the Board. The Board may revoke such delegation with respect to any proxy or proposal, and
assume the responsibility of voting any Fund proxy or proxies as it deems appropriate.
Non-material amendments to the Procedures and Guidelines may be approved for immediate
implementation by the President or Chief Financial Officer of a Fund, subject to ratification at
the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Compliance Committee.
A Board may elect to delegate the voting of proxies to the Sub-Adviser of a portfolio or series of
the ING Funds. In so doing, the Board shall also approve the Sub-Advisers proxy policies for
implementation on behalf of such portfolio or series (a Sub-Adviser-Voted Series).
Sub-Adviser-Voted Series shall not be covered under these Procedures and Guidelines but rather
shall be covered by such Sub-Advisers proxy policies, provided that the Board, including a
majority of the independent Trustees/Directors1, has approved them on behalf of such
Sub-Adviser-Voted Series, and ratifies any subsequent changes at the next regularly scheduled
meeting of the Compliance Committee and the Board.
When a Fund participates in the lending of its securities and the securities are on loan at record
date, proxies related to such securities will not be forwarded to the Adviser by the Funds
custodian and therefore will not be voted. However, the Adviser shall use best efforts to recall
or restrict specific securities from loan for the purpose of facilitating a material vote as
described in the Adviser Procedures.
Funds that are funds-of-funds will echo vote their interests in underlying mutual funds, which
may include ING Funds (or portfolios or series thereof) other than those set forth on Exhibit 1
attached hereto. This means that, if the fund-of-funds must vote on a proposal with respect to an
underlying investment company, the fund-of-funds will vote its interest in that underlying fund in
the same proportion all other shareholders in the investment company voted their interests.
A fund that is a feeder fund in a master-feeder structure does not echo vote. Rather, it passes
votes requested by the underlying master fund to its shareholders. This means that, if the feeder
|
|
|
1 |
|
The independent Trustees/Directors are those
Board members who are not interested persons of the Funds within the meaning
of Section 2(a)(19) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. |
2
fund is solicited by the master fund, it will request instructions from its own shareholders,
either directly or, in the case of an insurance-dedicated Fund, through an insurance product or
retirement plan, as to the manner in which to vote its interest in an underlying master fund.
When a Fund is a feeder in a master-feeder structure, proxies for the portfolio securities owned by
the master fund will be voted pursuant to the master funds proxy voting policies and procedures.
As such, and except as otherwise noted herein with respect to vote reporting requirements, feeder
Funds shall not be subject to these Procedures and Guidelines.
IV. APPROVAL AND REVIEW OF PROCEDURES
Each Funds Adviser has adopted proxy voting procedures in connection with the voting of portfolio
securities for the Funds as attached hereto in Exhibit 2. The Board hereby approves such
procedures. All material changes to the Adviser Procedures must be approved by the Board or the
Compliance Committee prior to implementation; however, the President or Chief Financial Officer of
a Fund may make such non-material changes as they deem appropriate, subject to ratification by the
Board or the Compliance Committee at its next regularly scheduled meeting.
V. VOTING PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES
The Guidelines that are set forth in Exhibit 3 hereto specify the manner in which the Funds
generally will vote with respect to the proposals discussed therein.
Unless otherwise noted, the defined terms used hereafter shall have the same meaning as defined in
the Adviser Procedures
A. Routine Matters
The Agent shall be instructed to submit a vote in accordance with the Guidelines where such
Guidelines provide a clear For, Against, Withhold or Abstain on a proposal.
However, the Agent shall be directed to refer any proxy proposal to the Proxy Coordinator
for instructions as if it were a matter requiring case-by-case consideration under
circumstances where the application of the Guidelines is unclear, it appears to involve
unusual or controversial issues, or an Investment Professional (as such term is defined for
purposes of the Adviser Procedures) recommends a vote contrary to the Guidelines.
B. Matters Requiring Case-by-Case Consideration
The Agent shall be directed to refer proxy proposals accompanied by its written analysis and
voting recommendation to the Proxy Coordinator where the Guidelines have noted
case-by-case consideration.
Upon receipt of a referral from the Agent, the Proxy Coordinator may solicit additional
research from the Agent, Investment Professional(s), as well as from any other source or
service.
3
Except in cases in which the Proxy Group has previously provided the Proxy Coordinator with
standing instructions to vote in accordance with the Agents recommendation, the Proxy
Coordinator will forward the Agents analysis and recommendation and/or any research
obtained from the Investment Professional(s), the Agent or any other source to the Proxy
Group. The Proxy Group may consult with the Agent and/or Investment Professional(s), as it
deems necessary.
The Proxy Coordinator shall use best efforts to convene the Proxy Group with respect to all
matters requiring its consideration. In the event quorum requirements cannot be timely met
in connection with a voting deadline, it shall be the policy of the Funds to vote in
accordance with the Agents recommendation, unless the Agents recommendation is deemed to
be conflicted as provided for under the Adviser Procedures, in which case no action shall be
taken on such matter (i.e., a Non-Vote).
|
1. |
|
Within-Guidelines Votes: Votes in Accordance with a Funds
Guidelines and/or, where applicable, Agent Recommendation |
In the event the Proxy Group, and where applicable, any Investment Professional
participating in the voting process, recommend a vote Within Guidelines, the Proxy
Group will instruct the Agent, through the Proxy Coordinator, to vote in this
manner. Except as provided for herein, no Conflicts Report (as such term is defined
for purposes of the Adviser Procedures) is required in connection with
Within-Guidelines Votes.
|
2. |
|
Non-Votes: Votes in Which No Action is Taken |
The Proxy Group may recommend that a Fund refrain from voting under circumstances
including, but not limited to, the following: (1) if the economic effect on
shareholders 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 the portfolio of an ING Fund or proxies being considered on behalf of
a Fund that is no longer in existence; or (2) if 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. In such instances, the Proxy Group may instruct the Agent,
through the Proxy Coordinator, not to vote such proxy. The Proxy Group may provide
the Proxy Coordinator with standing instructions on parameters that would dictate a
Non-Vote without the Proxy Groups review of a specific proxy. It is noted a
Non-Vote determination would generally not be made in connection with voting rights
received pursuant to class action participation; while a Fund may no longer hold the
security, a continuing economic effect on shareholders interests is likely.
4
Reasonable efforts shall be made to secure and vote all other proxies for the Funds,
but, particularly in markets in which shareholders rights are limited, Non-Votes
may also occur in connection with a Funds related inability to timely access
ballots or other proxy information in connection with its portfolio securities.
Non-Votes may also result in certain cases in which the Agents recommendation has
been deemed to be conflicted, as described in V.B. above and V.B.4. below.
|
3. |
|
Out-of-Guidelines Votes: Votes Contrary to Procedures and
Guidelines, or Agent Recommendation, where applicable, Where No Recommendation
is Provided by Agent, or Where Agents Recommendation is Conflicted |
If the Proxy Group recommends that a Fund vote contrary to the Procedures and
Guidelines, or the recommendation of the Agent, where applicable, if the Agent has
made no recommendation on a matter and the Procedures and Guidelines are silent, or
the Agents recommendation on a matter is deemed to be conflicted as provided for
under the Adviser Procedures, the Proxy Coordinator will then request that all
members of the Proxy Group, including any members who abstained from voting on the
matter or were not in attendance at the meeting at which the relevant proxy is being
considered, and each Investment Professional participating in the voting process
complete a Conflicts Report (as such term is defined for purposes of the Adviser
Procedures). As provided for in the Adviser Procedures, the Proxy Coordinator shall
be responsible for identifying to Counsel potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the Agent.
If Counsel determines that a conflict of interest appears to exist with respect to
the Agent, any member of the Proxy Group or the participating Investment
Professional(s), the Proxy Coordinator will then contact the Compliance Committee(s)
and forward to such Committee(s) all information relevant to their review, including
the following materials or a summary thereof: the applicable Procedures and
Guidelines, the recommendation of the Agent, where applicable, the recommendation of
the Investment Professional(s), where applicable, any resources used by the Proxy
Group in arriving at its recommendation, the Conflicts Report and any other written
materials establishing whether a conflict of interest exists, and findings of
Counsel (as such term is defined for purposes of the Adviser Procedures). Upon
Counsels finding that a conflict of interest exists with respect to one or more
members of the Proxy Group or the Advisers generally, the remaining members of the
Proxy Group shall not be required to complete a Conflicts Report in connection with
the proxy.
If Counsel determines that there does not appear to be a conflict of interest with
respect to the Agent, any member of the Proxy Group or the participating Investment
Professional(s), the Proxy Coordinator will instruct the Agent to vote the proxy as
recommended by the Proxy Group.
5
|
4. |
|
Referrals to a Funds Compliance Committee |
A Funds Compliance Committee may consider all recommendations, analysis, research
and Conflicts Reports provided to it by the Agent, Proxy Group and/or Investment
Professional(s), and any other written materials used to establish whether a
conflict of interest exists, in determining how to vote the proxies referred to the
Committee. The Committee will instruct the Agent through the Proxy Coordinator how
to vote such referred proposals.
The Proxy Coordinator shall use best efforts to timely refer matters to a Funds
Committee for its consideration. In the event any such matter cannot be timely
referred to or considered by the Committee, it shall be the policy of the Funds to
vote in accordance with the Agents recommendation, unless the Agents
recommendation is conflicted on a matter, in which case no action shall be taken on
such matter (i.e., a Non-Vote).
The Proxy Coordinator will maintain a record of all proxy questions that have been
referred to a Funds Committee, all applicable recommendations, analysis, research
and Conflicts Reports.
VI. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
In all cases in which a vote has not been clearly determined in advance by the Procedures and
Guidelines or for which the Proxy Group recommends an Out-of-Guidelines Vote, and Counsel has
determined that a conflict of interest appears to exist with respect to the Agent, any member of
the Proxy Group, or any Investment Professional participating in the voting process, the proposal
shall be referred to the Funds Committee for determination so that the Adviser shall have no
opportunity to vote a Funds proxy in a situation in which it or the Agent may be deemed to have a
conflict of interest. In the event a member of a Funds Committee believes he/she has a conflict
of interest that would preclude him/her from making a voting determination in the best interests of
the beneficial owners of the applicable Fund, such Committee member shall so advise the Proxy
Coordinator and recuse himself/herself with respect to determinations regarding the relevant proxy.
VII. REPORTING AND RECORD RETENTION
Annually in August, each Fund will post its proxy voting record, or a link thereto, for the prior
one-year period ending on June 30th on the ING Funds website. The proxy voting record
for each Fund will also be available on Form N-PX in the EDGAR database on the SECs website. For
any Fund that is a feeder in a master/feeder structure, no proxy voting record related to the
portfolio securities owned by the master fund will be posted on the ING Funds website or included
in the Funds Form N-PX; however, a cross-reference to the master funds proxy voting record as
filed in the SECs EDGAR database will be included in the Funds Form N-PX and posted on the ING
Funds website. If any feeder fund was solicited for vote by its underlying
6
master fund during the reporting period, a record of the votes cast by means of the pass-through
process described in Section III above will be included on the ING Funds website and in the Funds
Form N-PX.
7
EXHIBIT 1
to the
ING Funds
Proxy Voting Procedures
ING ASIA PACIFIC HIGH DIVIDEND EQUITY INCOME FUND
ING EQUITY TRUST
ING FUNDS TRUST
ING GLOBAL ADVANTAGE AND PREMIUM OPPORTUNITY FUND
ING GLOBAL EQUITY DIVIDEND AND PREMIUM OPPORTUNITY FUND
ING INFRASTRUCTURE, INDUSTRIALS AND MATERIALS FUND
ING INTERNATIONAL HIGH DIVIDEND EQUITY INCOME FUND
ING INVESTORS TRUST1
ING MAYFLOWER TRUST
ING MUTUAL FUNDS
ING PARTNERS, INC.
ING PRIME RATE TRUST
ING RISK MANAGED NATURAL RESOURCES FUND
ING SENIOR INCOME FUND
ING SEPARATE PORTFOLIOS TRUST
ING VARIABLE INSURANCE TRUST
ING VARIABLE PRODUCTS TRUST
|
|
|
1 |
|
Sub-Adviser-Voted Series: ING Franklin Mutual
Shares Portfolio |
EXHIBIT 2
to the
ING Funds
Proxy Voting Procedures
ING INVESTMENTS, LLC,
ING INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CO.
AND
DIRECTED SERVICES LLC
PROXY VOTING PROCEDURES
I. INTRODUCTION
ING Investments, LLC, ING Investment Management Co. and Directed Services LLC (each an Adviser
and collectively, the Advisers) are the investment advisers for the registered investment
companies and each series or portfolio thereof (each a Fund and collectively, the Funds)
comprising the ING family of funds. As such, the Advisers have been delegated the authority to
vote proxies with respect to securities for certain Funds over which they have day-to-day portfolio
management responsibility.
The Advisers will abide by the proxy voting guidelines adopted by a Funds respective Board of
Directors or Trustees (each a Board and collectively, the Boards) with regard to the voting of
proxies unless otherwise provided in the proxy voting procedures adopted by a Funds Board.
In voting proxies, the Advisers are guided by general fiduciary principles. Each must act
prudently, solely in the interest of the beneficial owners of the Funds it manages. The Advisers
will not subordinate the interest of beneficial owners to unrelated objectives. Each Adviser will
vote proxies in the manner that it believes will do the most to maximize shareholder value.
The following are the Proxy Voting Procedures of ING Investments, LLC, ING Investment Management
Co. and Directed Services LLC (the Adviser Procedures) with respect to the voting of proxies on
behalf of their client Funds as approved by the respective Board of each Fund.
Unless otherwise noted, best efforts shall be used to vote proxies in all instances.
II. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
A. Proxy Coordinator
The Proxy Coordinator identified in Appendix 1 will assist in the coordination of the voting
of each Funds proxies in accordance with the ING Funds Proxy Voting Procedures and
Guidelines (the Procedures or Guidelines and collectively the Procedures and
Guidelines). The Proxy Coordinator is authorized to direct the Agent to vote a Funds
proxy in accordance with the Procedures and Guidelines unless the Proxy Coordinator receives
a recommendation from an Investment Professional (as described below) to vote contrary to
the Procedures and Guidelines. In such event, and in connection with proxy proposals
requiring case-by-case consideration (except in cases in which the Proxy Group has
previously provided the Proxy Coordinator with standing instructions to vote in accordance
with the Agents recommendation), the Proxy Coordinator will call a meeting of the Proxy
Group (as described below).
Responsibilities assigned herein to the Proxy Coordinator, or activities in support thereof,
may be performed by such members of the Proxy Group or employees of the Advisers affiliates
as are deemed appropriate by the Proxy Group.
Unless specified otherwise, information provided to the Proxy Coordinator in connection with
duties of the parties described herein shall be deemed delivered to the Advisers.
B. Agent
An independent proxy voting service (the Agent), as approved by the Board of each Fund,
shall be engaged to assist in the voting of Fund proxies for publicly traded securities
through the provision of vote analysis, implementation, recordkeeping and disclosure
services. The Agent is ISS Governance Services, a unit of RiskMetrics Group, Inc. The
Agent is responsible for coordinating with the Funds custodians to ensure that all proxy
materials received by the custodians relating to the portfolio securities are processed in a
timely fashion. To the extent applicable, the Agent is required to vote and/or refer all
proxies in accordance with these Adviser Procedures. The Agent will retain a record of all
proxy votes handled by the Agent. Such record must reflect all the information required to
be disclosed in a Funds Form N-PX pursuant to Rule 30b1-4 under the Investment Company Act.
In addition, the Agent is responsible for maintaining copies of all proxy statements
received by issuers and to promptly provide such materials to the Adviser upon request.
The Agent shall be instructed to vote all proxies in accordance with a Funds Guidelines,
except as otherwise instructed through the Proxy Coordinator by the Advisers Proxy Group or
a Funds Compliance Committee (Committee).
10
The Agent shall be instructed to obtain all proxies from the Funds custodians and to review
each proxy proposal against the Guidelines. The Agent also shall be requested to
call the Proxy Coordinators attention to specific proxy proposals that although governed by
the Guidelines appear to involve unusual or controversial issues.
Subject to the oversight of the Advisers, the Agent shall establish and maintain adequate
internal controls and policies in connection with the provision of proxy voting services
voting to the Advisers, including methods to reasonably ensure that its analysis and
recommendations are not influenced by conflict of interest, and shall disclose such controls
and policies to the Advisers when and as provided for herein. Unless otherwise specified,
references herein to recommendations of the Agent shall refer to those in which no conflict
of interest has been identified.
C. Proxy Group
The Adviser shall establish a Proxy Group (the Group or Proxy Group) which shall assist
in the review of the Agents recommendations when a proxy voting issue is referred to the
Group through the Proxy Coordinator. The members of the Proxy Group, which may include
employees of the Advisers affiliates, are identified in Appendix 1, as may be amended from
time at the Advisers discretion.
A minimum of four (4) members of the Proxy Group (or three (3) if one member of the quorum
is either the Funds Chief Investment Risk Officer or Chief Financial Officer) shall
constitute a quorum for purposes of taking action at any meeting of the Group. The vote of
a simple majority of the members present and voting shall determine any matter submitted to
a vote. Tie votes shall be broken by securing the vote of members not present at the
meeting; provided, however, that the Proxy Coordinator shall ensure compliance with all
applicable voting and conflict of interest procedures and shall use best efforts to secure
votes from all or as many absent members as may reasonably be accomplished. A member of the
Proxy Group may abstain from voting on any given matter, provided that quorum is not lost
for purposes of taking action and that the abstaining member still participates in any
conflict of interest processes required in connection with the matter. The Proxy Group may
meet in person or by telephone. The Proxy Group also may take action via electronic mail in
lieu of a meeting, provided that each Group member has received a copy of any relevant
electronic mail transmissions circulated by each other participating Group member prior to
voting and provided that the Proxy Coordinator follows the directions of a majority of a
quorum (as defined above) responding via electronic mail. For all votes taken in person or
by telephone or teleconference, the vote shall be taken outside the presence of any person
other than the members of the Proxy Group and such other persons whose attendance may be
deemed appropriate by the Proxy Group from time to time in furtherance of its duties or the
day-to-day administration of the Funds. In its discretion, the Proxy Group may provide the
Proxy Coordinator with standing instructions to perform responsibilities assigned herein to
the Proxy Group, or activities in support thereof, on its behalf, provided that such
11
instructions do not contravene any requirements of these Adviser Procedures or a Funds
Procedures and Guidelines.
A meeting of the Proxy Group will be held whenever (1) the Proxy Coordinator receives a
recommendation from an Investment Professional to vote a Funds proxy contrary to the
Procedures and Guidelines, or the recommendation of the Agent, where applicable, (2) the
Agent has made no recommendation with respect to a vote on a proposal, or (3) a matter
requires case-by-case consideration, including those in which the Agents recommendation is
deemed to be conflicted as provided for under these Adviser Procedures, provided that, if
the Proxy Group has previously provided the Proxy Coordinator with standing instructions to
vote in accordance with the Agents recommendation and no issue of conflict must be
considered, the Proxy Coordinator may implement the instructions without calling a meeting
of the Proxy Group.
For each proposal referred to the Proxy Group, it will review (1) the relevant Procedures
and Guidelines, (2) the recommendation of the Agent, if any, (3) the recommendation of the
Investment Professional(s), if any, and (4) any other resources that any member of the Proxy
Group deems appropriate to aid in a determination of a recommendation.
If the Proxy Group recommends that a Fund vote in accordance with the Procedures and
Guidelines, or the recommendation of the Agent, where applicable, it shall instruct the
Proxy Coordinator to so advise the Agent.
If the Proxy Group recommends that a Fund vote contrary to the Procedures and Guidelines, or
the recommendation of the Agent, where applicable, or if the Agents recommendation on a
matter is deemed to be conflicted, it shall follow the procedures for such voting as
established by a Funds Board.
The Proxy Coordinator shall use best efforts to convene the Proxy Group with respect to all
matters requiring its consideration. In the event quorum requirements cannot be timely met
in connection with to a voting deadline, the Proxy Coordinator shall follow the procedures
for such voting as established by a Funds Board.
D. Investment Professionals
The Funds Advisers, sub-advisers and/or portfolio managers (each referred to herein as an
Investment Professional and collectively, Investment Professionals) may submit, or be
asked to submit, a recommendation to the Proxy Group regarding the voting of proxies related
to the portfolio securities over which they have day-to-day portfolio management
responsibility. The Investment Professionals may accompany their recommendation with any
other research materials that they deem appropriate or with a request that the vote be
deemed material in the context of the portfolio(s) they manage, such that lending activity
on behalf of such portfolio(s) with respect to the relevant security should be reviewed by
the Proxy Group and considered for recall and/or
12
restriction. Input from the relevant
sub-advisers and/or portfolio managers shall be given primary consideration in the Proxy
Groups determination of whether a given proxy vote is to be deemed material and the
associated security accordingly restricted from lending. The determination that a vote is
material in the context of a Funds portfolio shall not
mean that such vote is considered material across all Funds voting that meeting. In order
to recall or restrict shares timely for material voting purposes, the Proxy Group shall use
best efforts to consider, and when deemed appropriate, to act upon, such requests timely,
and requests to review lending activity in connection with a potentially material vote may
be initiated by any relevant Investment Professional and submitted for the Proxy Groups
consideration at any time.
III. VOTING PROCEDURES
|
A. |
|
In all cases, the Adviser shall follow the voting procedures as set forth in
the Procedures and Guidelines of the Fund on whose behalf the Adviser is exercising
delegated authority to vote. |
|
|
B. |
|
Routine Matters |
The Agent shall be instructed to submit a vote in accordance with the Guidelines where such
Guidelines provide a clear For, Against, Withhold or Abstain on a proposal.
However, the Agent shall be directed to refer any proxy proposal to the Proxy Coordinator
for instructions as if it were a matter requiring case-by-case consideration under
circumstances where the application of the Guidelines is unclear, it appears to involve
unusual or controversial issues, or an Investment Professional recommends a vote contrary to
the Guidelines.
|
C. |
|
Matters Requiring Case-by-Case Consideration |
The Agent shall be directed to refer proxy proposals accompanied by its written analysis and
voting recommendation to the Proxy Coordinator where the Guidelines have noted
case-by-case consideration.
Upon receipt of a referral from the Agent, the Proxy Coordinator may solicit additional
research from the Agent, Investment Professional(s), as well as from any other source or
service.
Except in cases in which the Proxy Group has previously provided the Proxy Coordinator with
standing instructions to vote in accordance with the Agents recommendation, the Proxy
Coordinator will forward the Agents analysis and recommendation and/or any research
obtained from the Investment Professional(s), the Agent or any other source to the Proxy
Group. The Proxy Group may consult with the Agent and/or Investment Professional(s), as it
deems necessary.
13
|
1. |
|
Within-Guidelines Votes: Votes in Accordance with a Funds
Guidelines and/or, where applicable, Agent Recommendation |
In the event the Proxy Group, and where applicable, any Investment Professional
participating in the voting process, recommend a vote Within Guidelines, the
Proxy Group will instruct the Agent, through the Proxy Coordinator, to vote in this
manner. Except as provided for herein, no Conflicts Report (as such term is defined
herein) is required in connection with Within-Guidelines Votes.
|
2. |
|
Non-Votes: Votes in Which No Action is Taken |
The Proxy Group may recommend that a Fund refrain from voting under circumstances
including, but not limited to, the following: (1) if the economic effect on
shareholders 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 the portfolio of an ING Fund or proxies being considered on behalf of
a Fund that is no longer in existence; or (2) if 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. In such instances, the Proxy Group may instruct the Agent,
through the Proxy Coordinator, not to vote such proxy. The Proxy Group may provide
the Proxy Coordinator with standing instructions on parameters that would dictate a
Non-Vote without the Proxy Groups review of a specific proxy. It is noted a
Non-Vote determination would generally not be made in connection with voting rights
received pursuant to class action participation; while a Fund may no longer hold the
security, a continuing economic effect on shareholders interests is likely.
Reasonable efforts shall be made to secure and vote all other proxies for the Funds,
but, particularly in markets in which shareholders rights are limited, Non-Votes
may also occur in connection with a Funds related inability to timely access
ballots or other proxy information in connection with its portfolio securities.
Non-Votes may also result in certain cases in which the Agents recommendation has
been deemed to be conflicted, as provided for in the Funds Procedures.
|
3. |
|
Out-of-Guidelines Votes: Votes Contrary to Procedures and
Guidelines, or Agent Recommendation, where applicable, Where No Recommendation
is Provided by Agent, or Where Agents Recommendation is Conflicted |
If the Proxy Group recommends that a Fund vote contrary to the Procedures and
Guidelines, or the recommendation of the Agent, where applicable, if the Agent has
made no recommendation on a matter and the Procedures and Guidelines are
14
silent, or
the Agents recommendation on a matter is deemed to be conflicted as provided for
under these Adviser Procedures, the Proxy Coordinator will then implement the
procedures for handling such votes as adopted by the Funds Board.
|
4. |
|
The Proxy Coordinator will maintain a record of all proxy
questions that have been referred to a Funds Compliance Committee, all
applicable recommendations, analysis, research and Conflicts Reports. |
IV. ASSESSMENT OF THE AGENT AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
In furtherance of the Advisers fiduciary duty to the Funds and their beneficial owners, the
Advisers shall establish the following:
|
A. |
|
Assessment of the Agent |
|
|
|
|
The Advisers shall establish that the Agent (1) is independent from the Advisers,
(2) has resources that indicate it can competently provide analysis of proxy issues
and (3) can make recommendations in an impartial manner and in the best interests of
the Funds and their beneficial owners. The Advisers shall utilize, and the Agent
shall comply with, such methods for establishing the foregoing as the Advisers may
deem reasonably appropriate and shall do not less than annually as well as prior to
engaging the services of any new proxy service. The Agent shall also notify the
Advisers in writing within fifteen (15) calendar days of any material change to
information previously provided to an Adviser in connection with establishing the
Agents independence, competence or impartiality. |
|
|
|
|
Information provided in connection with assessment of the Agent shall be forwarded
to a member of the mutual funds practice group of ING US Legal Services (Counsel)
for review. Counsel shall review such information and advise the Proxy Coordinator
as to whether a material concern exists and if so, determine the most appropriate
course of action to eliminate such concern. |
|
B. |
|
Conflicts of Interest |
|
|
|
|
The Advisers shall establish and maintain procedures to identify and address
conflicts that may arise from time to time concerning the Agent. Upon the Advisers
request, which shall be not less than annually, and within fifteen (15) calendar
days of any material change to such information previously provided to an Adviser,
the Agent shall provide the Advisers with such information as the Advisers deem
reasonable and appropriate for use in determining material relationships of the
Agent that may pose a conflict of interest with respect to the Agents proxy
analysis or recommendations. The Proxy Coordinator shall forward all such
information to Counsel for review. Counsel shall review such information |
15
|
|
|
and
provide the Proxy Coordinator with a brief statement regarding whether or not a
material conflict of interest is present. Matters as to which a material conflict
of interest is deemed to be present shall be handled as provided in the Funds
Procedures and Guidelines. |
In connection with their participation in the voting process for portfolio
securities, each member of the Proxy Group, and each Investment Professional
participating in the voting process, must act solely in the best interests of the
beneficial owners of the applicable Fund. The members of the Proxy Group may not
subordinate the interests of the Funds beneficial owners to unrelated objectives,
including taking steps to reasonably insulate the voting process from any conflict
of interest that may exist in connection with the Agents services or utilization
thereof.
For all matters for which the Proxy Group recommends an Out-of-Guidelines Vote, or
for which a recommendation contrary to that of the Agent or the Guidelines has been
received from an Investment Professional and is to be utilized, the Proxy
Coordinator will implement the procedures for handling such votes as adopted by the
Funds Board, including completion of such Conflicts Reports as may be required
under the Funds Procedures. Completed Conflicts Reports should be provided to the
Proxy Coordinator within two (2) business days and may be submitted to the Proxy
Coordinator verbally, provided the Proxy Coordinator documents the Conflicts Report
in writing. Such Conflicts Report should describe any known conflicts of either a
business or personal nature, and set forth any contacts with respect to the referral
item with non-investment personnel in its organization or with outside parties
(except for routine communications from proxy solicitors). The Conflicts Report
should also include written confirmation that any recommendation from an Investment
Professional provided in connection with an Out-of-Guidelines Vote or under
circumstances where a conflict of interest exists was made solely on the investment
merits and without regard to any other consideration.
The Proxy Coordinator shall forward all Conflicts Reports to Counsel for review.
Counsel shall review each report and provide the Proxy Coordinator with a brief
statement regarding whether or not a material conflict of interest is present.
Matters as to which a material conflict of interest is deemed to be present shall be
handled as provided in the Funds Procedures and Guidelines.
V. REPORTING AND RECORD RETENTION
The Adviser shall maintain the records required by Rule 204-2(c)(2), as may be amended from time to
time, including the following: (1) A copy of each proxy statement received regarding a Funds
portfolio securities. Such proxy statements received from issuers are available either in the
SECs EDGAR database or are kept by the Agent and are available upon request. (2) A
16
record of each
vote cast on behalf of a Fund. (3) A copy of any document created by the Adviser that was material
to making a decision how to vote a proxy, or that memorializes the basis for that decision. (4) 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. All proxy
voting materials and supporting documentation will be retained for a minimum of six (6) years.
17
APPENDIX 1
to the
Advisers Proxy Voting Procedures
Proxy Group for registered investment company clients of ING Investments, LLC, ING Investment
Management Co. and Directed Services LLC:
|
|
|
Name |
|
Title or Affiliation |
|
|
|
Stanley D. Vyner
|
|
Chief Investment Risk Officer and Executive
Vice President, ING Investments, LLC |
|
|
|
Todd Modic
|
|
Senior Vice President, ING Funds Services, LLC
and ING Investments, LLC; and Chief Financial
Officer of the ING Funds |
|
|
|
Maria Anderson
|
|
Vice President of Fund Compliance, ING Funds
Services, LLC |
|
|
|
Karla J. Bos
|
|
Proxy Coordinator for the ING Funds and
Assistant Vice President Proxy Voting, ING
Funds Services, LLC |
|
|
|
Julius A. Drelick III, CFA
|
|
Vice President, Platform Product Management and
Project Management, ING Funds Services, LLC |
|
|
|
Harley Eisner
|
|
Vice President of Financial Analysis, ING Funds
Services, LLC |
|
|
|
Theresa K. Kelety, Esq.
|
|
Senior Counsel, ING Americas US Legal Services |
Effective as of January 1, 2010
18
EXHIBIT 3
to the
ING Funds
Proxy Voting Procedures
PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES OF THE ING FUNDS
I. INTRODUCTION
The following is a statement of the Proxy Voting Guidelines (Guidelines) that have been adopted
by the respective Boards of Directors or Trustees of each Fund. Unless otherwise provided for
herein, any defined term used herein shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Funds and
Advisers Proxy Voting Procedures (the Procedures).
Proxies must be voted in the best interest of the Fund(s). The Guidelines summarize the Funds
positions on various issues of concern to investors, and give a general indication of how Fund
portfolio securities will be voted on proposals dealing with particular issues. The Guidelines are
not exhaustive and do not include all potential voting issues.
The Advisers, in exercising their delegated authority, will abide by the Guidelines as outlined
below with regard to the voting of proxies except as otherwise provided in the Procedures. In
voting proxies, the Advisers are guided by general fiduciary principles. Each must act prudently,
solely in the interest of the beneficial owners of the Funds it manages. The Advisers will not
subordinate the interest of beneficial owners to unrelated objectives. Each Adviser will vote
proxies in the manner that it believes will do the most to maximize shareholder value.
II. GUIDELINES
The following Guidelines are grouped according to the types of proposals generally presented to
shareholders of U.S. issuers: Board of Directors, Proxy Contests, Auditors, Proxy Contest
Defenses, Tender Offer Defenses, Miscellaneous, Capital Structure, Executive and Director
Compensation, State of Incorporation, Mergers and Corporate Restructurings, Mutual Fund Proxies,
and Social and Environmental Issues. An additional section addresses proposals most frequently
found in global proxies.
General Policies
These Guidelines apply to securities of publicly traded companies and to those of privately held
companies if publicly available disclosure permits such application. All matters for which such
disclosure is not available shall be considered CASE-BY-CASE.
It shall generally be the policy of the Funds to take no action on a proxy for which no Fund holds
a position or otherwise maintains an economic interest in the relevant security at the time the
vote is to be cast.
In all cases receiving CASE-BY-CASE consideration, including cases not specifically provided for
under these Guidelines, unless otherwise provided for under these Guidelines, it shall generally be
the policy of the Funds to vote in accordance with the recommendation provided by the Funds Agent,
ISS Governance Services, a unit of RiskMetrics Group, Inc.
Unless otherwise provided for herein, it shall generally be the policy of the Funds to vote in
accordance with the Agents recommendation in cases in which such recommendation aligns with the
recommendation of the relevant issuers management or management has made no recommendation.
However, this policy shall not apply to CASE-BY-CASE proposals for which a contrary recommendation
from the Investment Professional for the relevant Fund has been received and is to be utilized,
provided that incorporation of any such recommendation shall be subject to the conflict of interest
review process required under the Procedures.
Recommendations from the Investment Professionals, while not required under the Procedures, are
likely to be considered with respect to proxies for private equity securities and/or proposals
related to merger transactions/corporate restructurings, proxy contests, or unusual or
controversial issues. Such input shall be given primary consideration with respect to CASE-BY-CASE
proposals being considered on behalf of the relevant Fund.
Except as otherwise provided for herein, it shall generally be the policy of the Funds not to
support proposals that would impose a negative impact on existing rights of the Funds to the extent
that any positive impact would not be deemed sufficient to outweigh removal or diminution of such
rights.
The foregoing policies may be overridden in any case as provided for in the Procedures. Similarly,
the Procedures provide that proposals whose Guidelines prescribe a firm voting position may instead
be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis in cases in which unusual or controversial circumstances so
dictate.
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 whose implementation would contravene such requirements.
1. The Board of Directors
Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections
Unless otherwise provided for herein, the Agents standards with respect to determining director
independence shall apply. These standards generally provide that, to be considered completely
20
independent, a director shall have no material connection to the company other than the board seat.
Agreement with the Agents independence standards shall not dictate that a Funds vote shall be
cast according to the Agents corresponding recommendation. Votes on director nominees not subject
to specific policies described herein should be made on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Where applicable and except as otherwise provided for herein, it shall be the policy of the Funds
to lodge disagreement with an issuers policies or practices by withholding support from a proposal
for the relevant policy or practice rather than the director nominee(s) to which the Agent assigns
a correlation. Support shall be withheld from culpable nominees as appropriate, but if they are
not standing for election (e.g., the board is classified), support shall generally not be withheld
from others in their stead.
If application of the policies described herein would result in withholding votes from the majority
of independent outside directors sitting on a board, or removal of such directors is likely to
negatively impact majority board independence, primary consideration shall be given to retention of
such independent outside director nominees unless the concerns identified are of such grave nature
as to merit removal of the independent directors.
Where applicable and except as otherwise provided for herein, generally vote FOR nominees in
connection with issues raised by the Agent if the nominee did not serve on the board or relevant
committee during the majority of the time period relevant to the concerns cited by the Agent.
WITHHOLD support from a nominee who, during both of the most recent two years, attended less than
75 percent of the board and committee meetings without a valid reason for the absences. DO NOT
WITHHOLD support in connection with attendance issues for nominees who have served on the board for
less than the two most recent years.
WITHHOLD support from a nominee in connection with poison pill or anti-takeover considerations
(e.g., furtherance of measures serving to disenfranchise shareholders or failure to remove
restrictive pill features or ensure pill expiration or submission to shareholders for vote) in
cases for which culpability for implementation or renewal of the pill in such form can be
specifically attributed to the nominee.
Provided that a nominee served on the board during the relevant time period, WITHHOLD support from
a nominee who has failed to implement a shareholder proposal that was approved by (1) a majority of
the issuers shares outstanding (most recent annual meeting) or (2) a majority of the votes cast
for two consecutive years. However, in the case of shareholder proposals seeking shareholder
ratification of a poison pill, generally vote FOR a nominee in such cases if the company has
already implemented a policy that should reasonably prevent abusive use of the pill.
21
If a nominee has not acted upon negative votes (WITHHOLD or AGAINST, as applicable based on the
issuers election standard) representing a majority of the votes cast at the previous annual
meeting, consider such nominee on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. Generally, vote FOR nominees when:
|
(1) |
|
The issue relevant to the majority negative vote has been adequately addressed or cured
(issuers with nominees receiving majority negative votes related to adoption of poison
pills without shareholder approval will be expected to provide compelling rationale if they
do not elect to redeem the pill or put it to a vote), or |
|
|
(2) |
|
The Funds Guidelines or voting record do not support the relevant issue causing the
majority negative vote. |
WITHHOLD support from inside directors or affiliated outside directors who sit on the audit
committee.
Vote FOR inside directors or affiliated outside directors who sit on the nominating or compensation
committee, provided that such committee meets the applicable independence requirements of the
relevant listing exchange.
Vote FOR inside directors or affiliated outside directors if the full board serves as the
compensation or nominating committee OR has not created one or both committees, provided that the
issuer is in compliance with all provisions of the listing exchange in connection with performance
of relevant functions (e.g., performance of relevant functions by a majority of independent
directors in lieu of the formation of a separate committee).
Compensation Practices:
It shall generally be the policy of the Funds that matters of compensation are best determined by
an independent board and compensation committee. Votes on director nominees in connection with
compensation practices should be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, and generally:
|
(1) |
|
Where applicable and except as otherwise provided for herein, vote FOR nominees who did
not serve on the compensation committee, or board, as applicable based on the Agents
analysis, during the majority of the time period relevant to the concerns cited by the
Agent. |
|
|
(2) |
|
In cases in which the Agent has identified a pay for performance disconnect, or
internal pay disparity, as such issues are defined by the Agent, DO NOT WITHHOLD support
from director nominees. However, generally do WITHHOLD support from nominees cited by the
Agent for structuring or increasing equity compensation in a manner intended to deliver a
consistent dollar value without regard to performance measures. |
|
|
(3) |
|
If the Agent recommends withholding support from nominees in connection with overly
liberal change in control provisions, including those lacking a double trigger, vote FOR
such nominees if mitigating provisions or board actions (e.g., clawbacks) are present but
generally WITHHOLD support if they are not. |
|
|
(4) |
|
If the Agent recommends withholding support from nominees in connection with potential
change in control payments or tax-gross-ups on change in control payments, |
22
|
|
|
vote FOR the
nominees if the amount appears reasonable and no material governance concerns exist.
Generally WITHHOLD support if the amount is so significant
(individually or collectively) as to potentially influence an executives decision to
enter into a transaction or to effectively act as a poison pill. |
|
(5) |
|
If the Agent recommends withholding support from nominees in connection with their
failure to seek a shareholder vote on plans to reprice, replace, buy back or exchange
options, generally WITHHOLD support from such nominees, except that cancellation of options
would not be considered an exchange unless the cancelled options were regranted or
expressly returned to the plan reserve for reissuance. |
|
|
(6) |
|
If the Agent recommends withholding support from nominees that have approved
compensation that is ineligible for tax benefits to the company (e.g., under Section 162(m)
of OBRA), vote FOR such nominees if the company has provided adequate rationale or
disclosure or the plan itself is being put to shareholder vote at the same meeting. If the
plan is up for vote, the provisions under Section 8., OBRA-Related Compensation Proposals,
shall apply. |
|
|
(7) |
|
If the Agent recommends withholding support from nominees in connection with director
compensation in the form of perquisites, generally vote FOR the nominees if the cost is
reasonable in the context of the directors total compensation and the perquisites
themselves appear reasonable given their purpose, the directors duties and the companys
line of business. |
|
|
(8) |
|
Generally WITHHOLD support from nominees in connection with long-term incentive plans,
or total executive compensation packages, inadequately aligned with shareholders because
they are overly cash-based/lack an appropriate equity component, except that such cases
will be considered CASE-BY-CASE in connection with executives already holding significant
equity positions. Generally consider nominees on a CASE-BY-CASE basis in connection with
short-term incentive plans over which the nominee has exercised discretion to exclude
extraordinary items, and WITHHOLD support if treatment of such items has been inconsistent
(e.g., exclusion of losses but not gains). |
|
|
(9) |
|
If the Agent recommends withholding support from nominees in connection with executive
compensation practices related to tax gross-ups, perquisites, provisions related to
retention or recruitment, including contract length or renewal provisions, guaranteed
awards, pensions/SERPs, severance or termination arrangements, vote FOR such nominees if
the issuer has provided adequate rationale and/or disclosure, factoring in any overall
adjustments or reductions to the compensation package at issue. Generally DO NOT WITHHOLD
support solely due to such practices if the total compensation appears reasonable, but
consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis compensation packages representing a combination of such
provisions and deemed by the Agent to be excessive, and generally WITHHOLD support in such
cases when named executives have material input into setting their own compensation. |
|
|
(10) |
|
If the Agent has raised issues of options backdating, consider members of the
compensation committee, or board, as applicable, as well as company executives nominated as
directors, on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. |
23
|
(11) |
|
If shareholders have been provided with an advisory vote on executive compensation (say
on pay), and practices not supported under these Guidelines have been identified, it shall
generally be the policy of the Funds to align with the Agent when a vote AGAINST the say on
pay proposal has been recommended in lieu of withholding
support from certain nominees for compensation concerns. Issuers receiving negative
recommendations on both director nominees and say on pay regarding issues not otherwise
supported by these Guidelines will be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. |
|
|
(12) |
|
If the Agent has raised other considerations regarding poor compensation practices,
consider nominees on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. |
Accounting Practices:
|
(1) |
|
Generally, vote FOR independent outside director nominees serving on the audit
committee. |
|
|
(2) |
|
Where applicable and except as otherwise provided for herein, generally vote FOR
nominees serving on the audit committee, or the companys CEO or CFO if nominated as
directors, who did not serve on that committee or have responsibility over the relevant
financial function, as applicable, during the majority of the time period relevant to the
concerns cited by the Agent. |
|
|
(3) |
|
If the Agent has raised concerns regarding poor accounting practices, consider the
companys CEO and CFO, if nominated as directors, and nominees serving on the audit
committee on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. Generally vote FOR nominees if the company has taken
adequate steps to remediate the concerns cited, which would typically include removing or
replacing the responsible executives, and if the concerns are not re-occurring and/or the
company has not yet had a full year to remediate the concerns since the time they were
identified. |
|
|
(4) |
|
If total non-audit fees exceed the total of audit fees, audit-related fees and tax
compliance and preparation fees, the provisions under Section 3., Auditor Ratification,
shall apply. |
Board Independence:
It shall generally be the policy of the Funds that a board should be majority independent and
therefore to consider inside director or affiliated outside director nominees in cases in which the
full board is not majority independent on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. Generally:
|
(1) |
|
WITHHOLD support from the fewest directors whose removal would achieve majority
independence across the remaining board, except that support may be withheld from
additional nominees whose relative level of independence cannot be differentiated. |
|
|
(2) |
|
WITHHOLD support from all non-independent nominees, including the founder, chairman or
CEO, if the number required to achieve majority independence is equal to or greater than
the number of non-independent nominees. |
|
|
(3) |
|
Except as provided above, vote FOR non-independent nominees in the role of CEO, and
when appropriate, founder or chairman, and determine support for other non-independent
nominees based on the qualifications and contributions of the nominee as well as the Funds
voting precedent for assessing relative independence to |
24
|
|
|
management, e.g., insiders holding
senior executive positions are deemed less independent than affiliated outsiders with a
transactional or advisory relationship to the company, and affiliated outsiders with a
material transactional or advisory relationship are deemed less independent than those with
lesser relationships. |
|
(4) |
|
Non-voting directors (e.g., director emeritus or advisory director) shall be excluded
from calculations with respect to majority board independence. |
|
|
(5) |
|
When conditions contributing to a lack of majority independence remain substantially
similar to those in the previous year, it shall generally be the policy of the Funds to
vote on nominees in a manner consistent with votes cast by the Fund(s) in the previous
year. |
Generally vote FOR nominees without regard to over-boarding issues raised by the Agent unless
other concerns requiring CASE-BY-CASE consideration have been raised.
Generally, when the Agent recommends withholding support due to assessment that a nominee acted in
bad faith or against shareholder interests in connection with a major transaction, such as a merger
or acquisition, or if the Agent recommends withholding support due to other material failures or
egregious actions, consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, factoring in the merits of the nominees
performance and rationale and disclosure provided. If the Agent cites concerns regarding actions
in connection with a candidates service on another board, vote FOR the nominee if the issuer has
provided adequate rationale regarding the boards process for determining the appropriateness of
the nominee to serve on the board under consideration.
Performance Test for Directors
Consider nominees failing the Agents performance test, which includes market-based and operating
performance measures, on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. Input from the Investment Professional(s) for a
given Fund shall be given primary consideration with respect to such proposals.
Support will generally be WITHHELD from nominees receiving a negative recommendation from the Agent
due to sustained poor stock performance (measured by one- and three-year total shareholder returns)
combined with multiple takeover defenses/entrenchment devices if the issuer:
|
(1) |
|
Has a non-shareholder-approved poison pill in place, without provisions to redeem or
seek approval in a reasonable period of time, and |
|
|
(2) |
|
Maintains a dual class capital structure, has authority to issue blank check preferred
stock, or is a controlled company. |
Nominees receiving a negative recommendation from the Agent due to sustained poor stock performance
combined with other takeover defenses/entrenchment devices will be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE
basis.
Proposals Regarding Board Composition or Board Service
Generally, except as otherwise provided for herein, vote AGAINST shareholder proposals to impose
new board structures or policies, including those requiring that the positions of chairman and CEO
be held separately, except support proposals in connection with a binding agreement or other legal
requirement to which an issuer has or reasonably may expect to become subject, and
25
consider such
proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if the board is not majority independent or pervasive corporate
governance concerns have been identified. Generally, except as otherwise provided for herein, vote
FOR management proposals to adopt or amend board structures or policies, except consider such
proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if the board is not majority
independent, pervasive corporate governance concerns have been identified, or the proposal may
result in a material reduction in shareholders rights.
Generally, vote AGAINST shareholder proposals:
|
|
|
Asking that more than a simple majority of directors be independent. |
|
|
|
|
Asking that board compensation and/or nominating committees be composed
exclusively of independent directors. |
|
|
|
|
Limiting the number of public company boards on which a director may serve. |
|
|
|
|
Seeking to redefine director independence or directors specific roles (e.g.,
responsibilities of the lead director). |
|
|
|
|
Requesting creation of additional board committees or offices, except as
otherwise provided for herein. |
|
|
|
|
Limiting the tenure of outside directors or impose a mandatory retirement age
for outside directors (unless the proposal seeks to relax existing standards), but
generally vote FOR management proposals in this regard. |
Generally, vote FOR shareholder proposals that seek creation of an audit, compensation or
nominating committee of the board, unless the committee in question is already in existence or the
issuer has availed itself of an applicable exemption of the listing exchange (e.g., performance of
relevant functions by a majority of independent directors in lieu of the formation of a separate
committee).
Stock Ownership Requirements
Generally, vote AGAINST shareholder proposals requiring directors to own a minimum amount of
company stock in order to qualify as a director or to remain on the board.
Director and Officer Indemnification and Liability Protection
Proposals on director and officer indemnification and liability protection should be evaluated on a
CASE-BY-CASE basis, using Delaware law as the standard. Vote AGAINST proposals to limit or
eliminate entirely directors and officers liability for monetary damages for violating the duty
of care. Vote AGAINST indemnification proposals that would expand coverage beyond just legal
expenses to acts, such as negligence, that are more serious violations of fiduciary obligation than
mere carelessness. Vote FOR only those proposals providing such expanded coverage in cases when a
directors or officers legal defense was unsuccessful if:
|
(1) |
|
The director was found to have acted in good faith and in a manner that he reasonably
believed was in the best interests of the company, and |
|
|
(2) |
|
Only if the directors legal expenses would be covered.
|
26
2. Proxy Contests
These proposals should generally be analyzed on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. Input from the Investment
Professional(s) for a given Fund shall be given primary consideration with respect to proposals in
connection with proxy contests being considered on behalf of that Fund.
Voting for Director Nominees in Contested Elections
Votes in a contested election of directors must be evaluated on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Reimburse Proxy Solicitation Expenses
Voting to reimburse proxy solicitation expenses should be analyzed on a CASE-BY-CASE basis,
generally voting FOR if associated nominees are also supported.
3. Auditors
Ratifying Auditors
Generally, except in cases of poor accounting practices or high non-audit fees, vote FOR management
proposals to ratify auditors. Consider management proposals to ratify auditors on a CASE-BY-CASE
basis if the Agent cites poor accounting practices. If fees for non-audit services exceed 50
percent of total auditor fees as described below, consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, voting AGAINST
management proposals to ratify auditors only if concerns exist that remuneration for the non-audit
work is so lucrative as to taint the auditors independence. For purposes of this review, fees
deemed to be reasonable, generally non-recurring, exceptions to the non-audit fee category (e.g.,
those related to an IPO) shall be excluded. If independence concerns exist or an issuer has a
history of questionable accounting practices, also vote FOR shareholder proposals asking the issuer
to present its auditor annually for ratification, but in other cases generally vote AGAINST.
Auditor Independence
Generally, consider shareholder proposals asking companies 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:
Generally, vote AGAINST shareholder proposals asking for mandatory audit firm rotation.
4. Proxy Contest Defenses
Presentation of management and shareholder proposals on the same matter on the same agenda shall
not require a Fund to vote FOR one and AGAINST the other.
Board Structure: Staggered vs. Annual Elections
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals to classify the board or otherwise restrict shareholders ability
to vote upon directors and FOR proposals to repeal classified boards and to elect all directors
annually.
27
Shareholder Ability to Remove Directors
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals that provide that directors may be removed only for cause.
Generally, vote FOR proposals to restore shareholder ability to remove directors with or without
cause.
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals that provide that only continuing directors may elect
replacements to fill board vacancies.
Generally, vote FOR proposals that permit shareholders to elect directors to fill board vacancies.
Cumulative Voting
If the company maintains a classified board of directors, generally, vote AGAINST management
proposals to eliminate cumulative voting, except that such proposals may be supported irrespective
of classification in furtherance of an issuers plan to adopt a majority voting standard and vote
FOR shareholder proposals to restore or permit cumulative voting.
Time-Phased Voting
Generally, 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.
Shareholder Ability to Call Special Meetings or to Act by Written Consent
Generally, vote FOR management or shareholder proposals that provide shareholders with the ability
to call special meetings or to take action by written consent. Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis
management proposals about which the Agent has cited anti-takeover concerns.
Shareholder Ability to Alter the Size of the Board
Generally, vote FOR proposals that seek to fix the size of the board or designate a range for its
size.
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals that give management the ability to alter the size of the board
outside of a specified range without shareholder approval.
5. Tender Offer Defenses
Poison Pills
Generally, vote FOR shareholder proposals that ask a company to submit its poison pill for
shareholder ratification, or to redeem its pill in lieu thereof, unless (1) shareholders have
approved adoption of the plan, (2) a policy has already been implemented by the company that should
reasonably prevent abusive use of the pill, or (3) the board had determined that it was in the best
interest of shareholders to adopt a pill without delay, provided that such plan would be put to
shareholder vote within twelve months of adoption or expire, and if not approved by a majority of
the votes cast, would immediately terminate.
Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis shareholder proposals to redeem a companys poison pill.
Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis management proposals to approve or ratify a poison pill or any plan
that can reasonably be construed as an anti-takeover measure, with voting decisions generally based
on the Agents approach to evaluating such proposals, considering factors such
28
as rationale,
trigger level and sunset provisions. Votes will generally be cast in a manner that seeks to
preserve shareholder value and the right to consider a valid offer, voting AGAINST management
proposals in connection with poison pills or anti-takeover activities that do not meet the Agents
standards.
Fair Price Provisions
Vote proposals to adopt fair price provisions on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Generally, vote AGAINST fair price provisions with shareholder vote requirements greater than a
majority of disinterested shares.
Greenmail
Generally, vote FOR proposals to adopt anti-greenmail charter or bylaw amendments or otherwise
restrict a companys ability to make greenmail payments.
Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis anti-greenmail proposals when they are bundled with other charter or
bylaw amendments.
Pale Greenmail
Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis restructuring plans that involve the payment of pale greenmail.
Unequal Voting Rights
Generally, vote AGAINST dual-class exchange offers and dual-class recapitalizations.
Supermajority Shareholder Vote Requirement
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals to require a supermajority shareholder vote.
Generally, vote FOR management or shareholder proposals to lower supermajority shareholder vote
requirements, unless the proposal also asks the issuer to mount a solicitation campaign or similar
form of comprehensive commitment to obtain passage of the proposal, or, for companies with
shareholder(s) with significant ownership levels, the Agent recommends retention of existing
supermajority requirements in order to protect minority shareholder interests.
White Squire Placements
Generally, vote FOR shareholder proposals to require approval of blank check preferred stock issues
for other than general corporate purposes.
6. Miscellaneous
Amendments to Corporate Documents
Except to align with legislative or regulatory changes or when support is recommended by the Agent
or Investment Professional (including, for example, as a condition to a major transaction such as a
merger), generally, vote AGAINST proposals seeking to remove shareholder approval requirements or
otherwise remove or diminish shareholder rights, e.g., by (1) adding restrictive provisions, (2)
removing provisions or moving them to portions of the charter not requiring shareholder approval,
or (3) in corporate structures such as holding companies, removing provisions
29
in an active
subsidiarys charter that provide voting rights to parent company shareholders. This policy would
also generally apply to proposals seeking approval of corporate agreements or amendments to such
agreements that the Agent recommends AGAINST because a similar reduction in shareholder rights is
requested.
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals for charter amendments that may support board entrenchment or may
be used as an anti-takeover device, particularly if the proposal is bundled or the board is
classified.
Generally, vote FOR proposals seeking charter or bylaw amendments to remove anti-takeover
provisions.
Consider proposals seeking charter or bylaw amendments not addressed under these Guidelines on a
CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Confidential Voting
Generally, vote FOR shareholder proposals that request companies to adopt confidential voting, use
independent tabulators, and use independent inspectors of election as long as the proposals include
clauses for proxy contests as follows:
|
|
|
In the case of a contested election, management should be permitted to request
that the dissident group honor its confidential voting policy. |
|
|
|
|
If the dissidents agree, the policy remains in place. |
|
|
|
|
If the dissidents do not agree, the confidential voting policy is waived. |
Generally, vote FOR management proposals to adopt confidential voting.
Proxy Access
Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis shareholder proposals seeking access to managements proxy
material in order to nominate their own candidates to the board.
Majority Voting Standard
Except as otherwise provided for herein, it shall generally be the policy of the Funds to extend
discretion to issuers to determine when it may be appropriate to adopt a majority voting
standard. Generally, vote FOR management proposals, irrespective of whether the proposal
contains a plurality carve-out for contested elections, but AGAINST shareholder proposals unless
also supported by management, seeking election of directors by the affirmative vote of the majority
of votes cast in connection with a meeting of shareholders, including amendments to corporate
documents or other actions in furtherance of such standard, and provided such standard when
supported does not conflict with state law in which the company is incorporated. For issuers with
a history of board malfeasance or pervasive corporate governance concerns, consider such proposals
on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Bundled Proposals
Except as otherwise provided for herein, review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis bundled or conditioned
proxy proposals, generally voting AGAINST bundled proposals containing one or more items not
supported under these Guidelines if the Agent or an Investment Professional deems the negative
impact, on balance, to outweigh any positive impact.
30
Shareholder Advisory Committees
Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals to establish a shareholder advisory committee.
Reimburse Shareholder for Expenses Incurred
Voting to reimburse expenses incurred in connection with shareholder proposals should be analyzed
on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Other Business
In connection with proxies of U.S. issuers, generally vote FOR management proposals for Other
Business, except in connection with a proxy contest in which a Fund is not voting in support of
management.
Quorum Requirements
Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals to lower quorum requirements for shareholder meetings
below a majority of the shares outstanding.
Advance Notice for Shareholder Proposals
Generally, vote FOR management proposals related to advance notice period requirements, provided
that the period requested is in accordance with applicable law and no material governance concerns
have been identified in connection with the issuer.
Multiple Proposals
Multiple proposals of a similar nature presented as options to the course of action favored by
management may all be voted FOR, provided that support for a single proposal is not operationally
required, no one proposal is deemed superior in the interest of the Fund(s), and each proposal
would otherwise be supported under these Guidelines.
7. Capital Structure
Analyze on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Common Stock Authorization
Review proposals to increase the number of shares of common stock authorized for issuance on a
CASE-BY-CASE basis. Except where otherwise indicated, the Agents proprietary approach, utilizing
quantitative criteria (e.g., dilution, peer group comparison, company performance and history) to
determine appropriate thresholds and, for requests above such allowable threshold, a qualitative
review (e.g., rationale and prudent historical usage), will generally be utilized in evaluating
such proposals.
Generally vote FOR:
|
|
|
Proposals to authorize capital increases within the Agents allowable
thresholds or those in excess but meeting Agents qualitative standards, but consider on a
CASE-BY-CASE basis those requests failing the Agents review for proposals in connection
with which a contrary recommendation from the Investment Professional(s) has been received
and is to be utilized (e.g., in support of a merger or acquisition proposal). |
31
|
|
|
Proposals to authorize capital increases within the Agents allowable
thresholds or those in excess but meeting Agents qualitative standards, unless the company
states that the stock may be used as a takeover defense. In those cases, consider on a
CASE-BY-CASE basis if a contrary recommendation from the Investment Professional(s) has
been received and is to be utilized. |
|
|
|
|
Proposals to authorize capital increases exceeding the Agents thresholds when
a companys shares are in danger of being delisted or if a companys ability to continue to
operate as a going concern is uncertain. |
Generally, vote AGAINST:
|
|
|
Proposals to increase the number of authorized shares of a class of stock if
the issuance which the increase is intended to service is not supported under these
Guidelines. |
|
|
|
|
Nonspecific proposals authorizing excessive discretion to a board. |
Consider management proposals to make changes to the capital structure not otherwise addressed
under these Guidelines CASE-BY-CASE, generally voting with the Agents recommendation unless a
contrary recommendation has been received from the Investment Professional for the relevant Fund
and is to be utilized.
Dual Class Capital Structures
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals to increase the number of authorized shares of the class of stock
that has superior voting rights in companies that have dual class capital structures, but consider
CASE-BY-CASE if (1) bundled with favorable proposal(s), (2) approval of such proposal(s) is a
condition of such favorable proposal(s), or (3) part of a recapitalization for which support is
recommended by the Agent or an Investment Professional.
Generally, vote AGAINST management proposals to create or perpetuate dual class capital structures
with unequal voting rights, and vote FOR shareholder proposals to eliminate them, in cases in which
the relevant Fund owns the class with inferior voting rights, but generally vote FOR management
proposals and AGAINST shareholder proposals in cases in which the relevant Fund owns the class with
superior voting rights. Consider CASE-BY-CASE if bundled with favorable proposal(s), (2) approval
of such proposal(s) is a condition of such favorable proposal(s), or (3) part of a recapitalization
for which support is recommended by the Agent or an Investment Professional.
Consider management proposals to eliminate or make changes to dual class capital structures
CASE-BY-CASE, generally voting with the Agents recommendation unless a contrary recommendation has
been received from the Investment Professional for the relevant Fund and is to be utilized.
Stock Distributions: Splits and Dividends
Generally, vote FOR management proposals to increase common share authorization for a stock split,
provided that the increase in authorized shares falls within the Agents allowable thresholds, but
consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis those proposals exceeding the Agents threshold for proposals in
connection with which a contrary recommendation from the Investment Professional(s) has been
received and is to be utilized.
32
Reverse Stock Splits
Consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis management proposals to implement a reverse stock split. In the
event the split constitutes a capital increase effectively exceeding the Agents allowable
threshold because the request does not proportionately reduce the number of shares authorized, vote
FOR the split if management has provided adequate rationale and/or disclosure.
Preferred Stock
Review proposals to increase the number of shares of preferred stock authorized for issuance on a
CASE-BY-CASE basis, and except where otherwise indicated, generally utilize the Agents approach
for evaluating such proposals. 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 Agents proprietary model for assessing
appropriate thresholds).
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals authorizing the issuance of preferred stock or creation of new
classes of preferred stock with unspecified voting, conversion, dividend distribution, and other
rights (blank check preferred stock), but vote FOR if the Agent or an Investment Professional so
recommends because the issuance is required to effect a merger or acquisition proposal.
Generally, vote FOR proposals to issue or create blank check preferred stock in cases when the
company expressly states that the stock will not be used as a takeover defense. Generally vote
AGAINST in cases where the company expressly states that, or fails to disclose whether, the stock
may be used as a takeover defense, but vote FOR if the Agent or an Investment Professional so
recommends because the issuance is required to address special circumstances such as a merger or
acquisition.
Generally, vote FOR proposals to authorize or issue preferred stock in cases where the company
specifies the voting, dividend, conversion, and other rights of such stock and the terms of the
preferred stock appear reasonable.
Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to increase the number of blank check preferred shares after
analyzing the number of preferred shares available for issue given a companys industry and
performance in terms of shareholder returns.
Shareholder Proposals Regarding Blank Check Preferred Stock
Generally, vote FOR shareholder proposals to have blank check preferred stock placements, other
than those shares issued for the purpose of raising capital or making acquisitions in the normal
course of business, submitted for shareholder ratification.
Adjustments to Par Value of Common Stock
Generally, vote FOR management proposals to reduce the par value of common stock.
Preemptive Rights
Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis shareholder proposals that seek preemptive rights or management
proposals that seek to eliminate them. In evaluating proposals on preemptive rights, consider the
size of a company and the characteristics of its shareholder base.
33
Debt Restructurings
Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals to increase common and/or preferred shares and to issue
shares as part of a debt restructuring plan.
Share Repurchase Programs
Generally, vote FOR management proposals to institute open-market share repurchase plans in which
all shareholders may participate on equal terms, but vote AGAINST plans with terms favoring
selected, non-Fund parties.
Generally, vote FOR management proposals to cancel repurchased shares.
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals for share repurchase methods lacking adequate risk mitigation or
exceeding appropriate volume or duration parameters for the market.
Consider shareholder proposals seeking share repurchase programs on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with
input from the Investment Professional(s) for a given Fund to be given primary consideration.
Tracking Stock
Votes on the creation of tracking stock are determined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
8. Executive and Director Compensation
Except as otherwise provided for herein, votes with respect to compensation and employee benefit
plans should be determined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with voting decisions generally based on the
Agents approach to evaluating such plans, which includes determination of costs and comparison to
an allowable cap.
|
|
|
Generally, vote in accordance with the Agents recommendations FOR
equity-based plans with costs within such cap and AGAINST those with costs in excess of it,
except that plans above the cap may be supported if so recommended by the Agent or
Investment Professional as a condition to a major transaction such as a merger. |
|
|
|
|
Generally, vote AGAINST plans if the Agent suggests cost or dilution
assessment may not be possible due to the method of disclosing shares allocated to the
plan(s), except that such concerns arising in connection with evergreen provisions shall be
considered CASE-BY-CASE, voted FOR if the company has provided a reasonable rationale
and/or adequate disclosure regarding the plan as a whole. |
|
|
|
|
Generally, vote FOR plans with costs within the cap if the primary
considerations raised by the Agent pertain to matters that would not result in a negative
vote under these Guidelines on the relevant board or committee member(s), or equity
compensation burn rate or pay for performance as defined by Agent. |
|
|
|
|
Generally, vote AGAINST plans administered by potential grant recipients. |
|
|
|
|
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals to eliminate existing shareholder approval
requirements for material plan changes, unless the company has provided a reasonable
rationale and/or adequate disclosure regarding the requested changes. |
|
|
|
|
Generally vote AGAINST long-term incentive plans that are inadequately aligned
with shareholders because they lack an appropriate equity component, except that such cases |
34
|
|
|
will be considered CASE-BY-CASE in connection with executives already holding significant
equity positions. |
|
|
|
Generally, vote AGAINST plans that contain an overly liberal change in control
definition (e.g., does not result in actual change in control). |
|
|
|
|
Consider plans CASE-BY-CASE if the Agent raises other considerations not
otherwise provided for herein. |
Restricted Stock or Stock Option Plans
Consider proposals for restricted stock or stock option plans, or the issuance of shares in
connection with such plans, on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, considering factors such as level of
disclosure and adequacy of vesting or performance requirements. Plans that do not meet the Agents
criteria in this regard may be supported, but vote AGAINST if no disclosure is provided regarding
either vesting or performance requirements.
Management Proposals Seeking Approval to Reprice Options
Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis management proposals seeking approval to reprice, replace or
exchange options, considering factors such as rationale, historic trading patterns, value-for-value
exchange, vesting periods and replacement option terms. Generally, vote FOR proposals that meet
the Agents criteria for acceptable repricing, replacement or exchange transactions, except that
considerations raised by the Agent regarding burn rate or executive participation shall not be
grounds for withholding support.
Vote AGAINST compensation plans that (1) permit or may permit (e.g., history of repricing and no
express prohibition against future repricing) repricing of stock options, or any form or
alternative to repricing, without shareholder approval, (2) include provisions that permit
repricing, replacement or exchange transactions that do not meet the Agents criteria (except
regarding burn rate or executive participation as noted above), or (3) give the board sole
discretion to approve option repricing, replacement or exchange programs.
Director Compensation
Votes on stock-based plans for directors are made on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with voting decisions
generally based on the Agents quantitative approach described above as well as a review of
qualitative features of the plan in cases in which costs exceed the Agents threshold. DO NOT VOTE
AGAINST plans for which burn rate is the sole consideration raised by the Agent.
Employee Stock Purchase Plans
Votes on employee stock purchase plans, and capital issuances in support of such plans, should be
made on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with voting decisions generally based on the Agents approach to
evaluating such plans, except that negative recommendations by the Agent due to evergreen
provisions will be reviewed CASE-BY-CASE, voted FOR if the company has provided a reasonable
rationale and/or adequate disclosure regarding the plan as a whole.
35
OBRA-Related Compensation Proposals
Votes on plans intended to qualify for favorable tax treatment under the provisions of Section
162(m) of OBRA should be evaluated irrespective of the Agents assessment of board independence,
provided that the board meets the independence requirements of the relevant listing exchange and no
potential recipient under the plan(s) sits on the committee that exercises discretion over the
related compensation awards. Unless the issuer has provided a compelling rationale, generally vote
with the Agents recommendations AGAINST plans that deliver excessive compensation that fails to
qualify for favorable tax treatment.
Amendments that Place a Cap on Annual Grants or Amend Administrative Features
Generally, vote FOR plans that simply amend shareholder-approved plans to include administrative
features or place a cap on the annual grants any one participant may receive to comply with the
provisions of Section 162(m) of OBRA.
Amendments to Add Performance-Based Goals
Generally, vote FOR amendments to add performance goals to existing compensation plans to comply
with the provisions of Section 162(m) of OBRA.
Amendments to Increase Shares and Retain Tax Deductions Under OBRA
Votes on amendments to existing plans to increase shares reserved and to qualify the plan for
favorable tax treatment under the provisions of Section 162(m) should be evaluated on a
CASE-BY-CASE basis, generally voting FOR such plans that do not raise any negative concerns
under these Guidelines.
Approval of Cash or Cash-and-Stock Bonus Plans
Generally, vote FOR cash or cash-and-stock bonus plans to exempt the compensation from taxes
under the provisions of Section 162(m) of OBRA, with primary consideration given to managements
assessment that such plan meets the requirements for exemption of performance-based
compensation.
Shareholder Proposals Regarding Executive and Director Pay
Regarding the remuneration of individuals other than senior executives and directors, generally,
vote AGAINST shareholder proposals that seek to expand or restrict disclosure or require
shareholder approval beyond regulatory requirements and market practice. Vote AGAINST shareholder
proposals that seek disclosure of executive or director compensation if providing it would be out
of step with market practice and potentially disruptive to the business.
Unless evidence exists of abuse in historical compensation practices, and except as otherwise
provided for herein, generally vote AGAINST shareholder proposals that seek to impose new
compensation structures or policies, such as claw back recoupments or advisory votes.
Severance and Termination Payments
Generally, vote FOR shareholder proposals to have parachute arrangements submitted for shareholder
ratification (with parachutes defined as compensation arrangements related to
36
termination that
specify change in control events) and provided that the proposal does not include unduly
restrictive or arbitrary provisions such as advance approval requirements.
Generally vote AGAINST shareholder proposals to submit executive severance agreements for
shareholder ratification, unless such proposals specify change in control events, Supplemental
Executive Retirement Plans, or deferred executive compensation plans, or ratification is required
by the listing exchange.
Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis all proposals to approve, ratify or cancel executive severance or
termination arrangements, including those related to executive recruitment or retention, generally
voting FOR such compensation arrangements if the issuer has provided adequate rationale and/or
disclosure or support is recommended by the Agent or Investment Professional (e.g., as a condition
to a major transaction such as a merger). However, vote in accordance with the Agents
recommendations FOR new or materially amended plans, contracts or payments that require change in
control provisions to be double-triggered and defined to require an actual change in control,
except that plans, contracts or payments not meeting such standards may be supported if mitigating
provisions or board actions (e.g., clawbacks) are present.
Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs)
Generally, vote FOR proposals that request shareholder approval in order to implement an ESOP or to
increase authorized shares for existing ESOPs, except in cases when the number of shares allocated
to the ESOP is excessive (i.e., generally greater than five percent of outstanding shares).
401(k) Employee Benefit Plans
Generally, vote FOR proposals to implement a 401(k) savings plan for employees.
Holding Periods
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals requiring mandatory periods for officers and directors to hold
company stock.
Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation (Say on Pay)
Generally, management proposals seeking ratification of the companys compensation program will be
voted FOR unless the program includes practices or features not supported under these Guidelines
and the proposal receives a negative recommendation from the Agent. Unless otherwise provided for
herein, proposals not receiving the Agents support due to concerns regarding severance/termination
payments, incentive structures or vesting or performance criteria not otherwise supported by these
Guidelines will be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, factoring in whether the issuer has made
improvements to its overall compensation program and generally voting FOR if the company has
provided a reasonable rationale and/or adequate disclosure regarding the matter(s) under
consideration. For say on pay proposals not supported by the Agent and referencing incentive plan
concerns:
|
(1) |
|
Long-term incentive plans: Proposals will be voted AGAINST if they cite
long-term incentive plans that are inadequately aligned with shareholders because they are
cash-based or lack an appropriate equity component, except that such cases will be |
37
|
|
|
considered CASE-BY-CASE in connection with executives already holding significant equity
positions. |
|
(2) |
|
Short-term incentive plans: Proposals will be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE
basis if they cite short-term incentive plans over which the board has exercised discretion
to exclude extraordinary items, and voted AGAINST if treatment of such items has been
inconsistent (e.g., exclusion of losses but not gains). |
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals when named executives have material input into setting their own
compensation.
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals presented by issuers subject to Troubled Asset Relief Program
(TARP) provisions if there is inadequate discussion of the process for ensuring that incentive
compensation does not encourage excessive risk-taking.
9. State of Incorporation
Voting on State Takeover Statutes
Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals to opt in or out of state takeover statutes (including
control share acquisition statutes, control share cash-out statutes, freezeout provisions, fair
price provisions, stakeholder laws, poison pill endorsements, severance pay and labor contract
provisions, anti-greenmail provisions, and disgorgement provisions).
Voting on Reincorporation Proposals
Proposals to change a companys state of incorporation should be examined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis,
generally supporting management proposals not assessed as a potential takeover defense, but if so
assessed, weighing managements rationale for the change. Generally, 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. Generally, vote AGAINST shareholder
reincorporation proposals not also supported by the company.
10. Mergers and Corporate Restructurings
Input from the Investment Professional(s) for a given Fund shall be given primary consideration
with respect to proposals regarding business combinations, particularly those between otherwise
unaffiliated parties, or other corporate restructurings being considered on behalf of that Fund.
Generally, 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 accordingly
recommended by the Agent or an Investment Professional.
Mergers and Acquisitions
Votes on mergers and acquisitions should be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Corporate Restructuring
Votes on corporate restructuring proposals, including demergers, minority squeezeouts, leveraged
buyouts, spinoffs, liquidations, dispositions, divestitures and asset sales, should be
38
considered
on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with voting decisions generally based on the Agents approach to
evaluating such proposals.
Adjournment
Generally, vote FOR proposals to adjourn a meeting to provide additional time for vote solicitation
when the primary proposal is also voted FOR.
Appraisal Rights
Generally, vote FOR proposals to restore, or provide shareholders with, rights of appraisal.
Changing Corporate Name
Generally, vote FOR changing the corporate name.
11. Mutual Fund Proxies
Approving New Classes or Series of Shares
Generally, vote FOR the establishment of new classes or series of shares.
Authorizing the Board to Hire and Terminate Subadvisors Without Shareholder Approval
Generally, vote FOR these proposals.
Master-Feeder Structure
Generally, vote FOR the establishment of a master-feeder structure.
Establish Director Ownership Requirement
Generally, vote AGAINST shareholder proposals for the establishment of a director ownership
requirement.
The matters below should be examined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis:
|
|
|
Election of Directors |
|
|
|
|
Converting Closed-end Fund to Open-end Fund |
|
|
|
|
Proxy Contests |
|
|
|
|
Investment Advisory Agreements |
|
|
|
|
Preferred Stock Proposals |
|
|
|
|
1940 Act Policies |
|
|
|
|
Changing a Fundamental Restriction to a Nonfundamental Restriction |
|
|
|
|
Change Fundamental Investment Objective to Nonfundamental |
|
|
|
|
Name Rule Proposals |
|
|
|
|
Disposition of Assets/Termination/Liquidation |
|
|
|
|
Changes to the Charter Document |
|
|
|
|
Changing the Domicile of a Fund |
|
|
|
|
Change in Funds Subclassification
|
39
|
|
|
Distribution Agreements |
|
|
|
|
Mergers |
|
|
|
|
Reimburse Shareholder for Expenses Incurred |
|
|
|
|
Terminate the Investment Advisor |
12. Social and Environmental Issues
These issues cover a wide range of topics. In general, unless otherwise specified herein, vote
CASE-BY-CASE. While a wide variety of factors may go into each analysis, the overall principle
guiding all vote recommendations focuses on how or whether the proposal will enhance the economic
value of the company. Because a companys board is likely to have access to relevant, non-public
information regarding a companys business, such proposals will generally be voted in a manner
intended to give the board (rather than shareholders) latitude to set corporate policy and oversee
management.
Absent concurring support from the issuer, compelling evidence of abuse, significant public
controversy or litigation, the issuers significant history of relevant violations; or activities
not in step with market practice or regulatory requirements, or unless provided for otherwise
herein, generally vote AGAINST shareholder proposals seeking to dictate corporate conduct, apply
existing law, duplicate policies already substantially in place and/or addressed by the issuer, or
release information that would not help a shareholder evaluate an investment in the corporation as
an economic matter. Such proposals would generally include those seeking preparation of reports
and/or implementation or additional disclosure of corporate policies related to issues such as
consumer and public safety, environment and energy, labor standards and human rights, military
business and political concerns, workplace diversity and non-discrimination, sustainability, social
issues, vendor activities, economic risk or matters of science and engineering.
13. Global Proxies
The foregoing Guidelines provided in connection with proxies of U.S. issuers shall also be applied
to global proxies where applicable and not provided for otherwise herein. The following provide
for differing regulatory and legal requirements, market practices and political and economic
systems existing in various global markets.
Unless otherwise provided for herein, it shall generally be the policy of the Funds to vote AGAINST
global proxy proposals in cases in which the Agent recommends voting AGAINST such proposal because
relevant disclosure by the issuer, or the time provided for consideration of such disclosure, is
inadequate. For purposes of these global Guidelines, AGAINST shall mean withholding of support
for a proposal, resulting in submission of a vote of AGAINST or ABSTAIN, as appropriate for the
given market and level of concern raised by the Agent regarding the issue or lack of disclosure or
time provided.
40
In connection with practices described herein that are associated with a firm AGAINST vote, it
shall generally be the policy of the Funds to consider them on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if the Agent
recommends their support (1) as the issuer or market transitions to better practices (e.g., having
committed to new regulations or governance codes) or (2) as the more favorable choice in cases in
which shareholders must choose between alternate proposals.
Routine Management Proposals
Generally, vote FOR the following and other similar routine management proposals:
|
|
|
the opening of the shareholder meeting |
|
|
|
|
that the meeting has been convened under local regulatory requirements |
|
|
|
|
the presence of quorum |
|
|
|
|
the agenda for the shareholder meeting |
|
|
|
|
the election of the chair of the meeting |
|
|
|
|
the appointment of shareholders to co-sign the minutes of the meeting |
|
|
|
|
regulatory filings (e.g., to effect approved share issuances) |
|
|
|
|
the designation of inspector or shareholder representative(s) of minutes of
meeting |
|
|
|
|
the designation of two shareholders to approve and sign minutes of meeting |
|
|
|
|
the allowance of questions |
|
|
|
|
the publication of minutes |
|
|
|
|
the closing of the shareholder meeting |
Consider proposals seeking authority to call shareholder meetings on less than 21 days notice on a
CASE-BY-CASE basis, with voting decisions generally based on the Agents approach to consider
whether the issuer has provided clear disclosure of its compliance with any hurdle conditions for
the authority imposed by applicable law and has historically limited it use of such authority to
time-sensitive matters.
Discharge of Management/Supervisory Board Members
Generally, vote FOR management proposals seeking the discharge of management and supervisory board
members, unless the Agent recommends AGAINST due to concern about the past actions of the companys
auditors or directors or legal action is being taken against the board by other shareholders,
including when the proposal is bundled. Generally do not withhold support from such proposals in
connection with remuneration practices otherwise supported under these Guidelines or as a means of
expressing disapproval of broader practices of the issuer or its board.
Director Elections
Unless otherwise provided for herein, the Agents standards with respect to determining director
independence shall apply. These standards generally provide that, to be considered completely
independent, a director shall have no material connection to the company other than the board seat.
41
Agreement with the Agents independence standards shall not dictate that a Funds vote shall be
cast according to the Agents corresponding recommendation. Further, unless otherwise provided for
herein, the application of Guidelines in connection with such standards shall apply only in cases
in which the nominees level of independence can be ascertained based on available disclosure.
These policies generally apply to director nominees in uncontested elections; votes in contested
elections, and votes on director nominees not subject to policies described herein, should be made
on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with primary consideration in contested elections given to input from the
Investment Professional(s) for a given Fund.
For issuers domiciled in Canada, Finland, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden or tax haven
markets, generally vote AGAINST non-independent directors in cases in which the full board serves
as the audit committee, or the company does not have an audit committee.
For issuers in all markets, including those in tax haven markets and those in Japan that have
adopted the U.S.-style board-with-committees structure, vote AGAINST non-independent nominees to
the audit committee, or, if the slate of nominees is bundled, vote AGAINST the slate. If the slate
is bundled and audit committee membership is unclear or proposed as a separate agenda item, vote
FOR if the Agent otherwise recommends support. For Canadian issuers, the Funds U.S. Guidelines
with respect to audit committees shall apply; in addition, nominees (or slates of nominees) will be
voted AGAINST if they do not comply with regulatory requirements to disclose audit fees broken down
by category.
Negative recommendations from the Agent on slate ballots of nominees at Canadian issuers will be
considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if the board is classified or the Agent cites other
concerns not otherwise supported by these Guidelines, generally voting AGAINST when concerns relate
to dual class capital structures or other anti-takeover/entrenchment devices.
In tax haven markets, DO NOT VOTE AGAINST non-independent directors in cases in which the full
board serves as the compensation committee, or the company does not have a compensation committee.
Vote FOR non-independent directors who sit on the compensation or nominating committees if such
committee meets the applicable independence requirements of the relevant listing exchange.
In cases in which committee membership is unclear, consider non-independent director nominees on a
CASE-BY-CASE basis if no other issues have been raised in connection with his/her nomination.
Generally follow the Agents recommendations to vote AGAINST individuals nominated as
outside/non-executive directors who do not meet the Agents standard for independence, unless the
slate of nominees is bundled, in which case the proposal(s) to elect board members shall be
considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
42
For issuers in tax haven markets, generally withhold support (AGAINST or ABSTAIN, as appropriate)
from bundled slates of nominees if the board is non-majority independent. For issuers in Canada
and other global markets, generally follow the Agents standards for withholding support from
bundled slates or non-independent directors (typically excluding the CEO), as applicable, if the
board does not meet the Agents independence standards or the boards independence cannot be
ascertained due to inadequate disclosure.
For issuers in Japan, generally follow the Agents recommendations in furtherance of greater board
independence and minority shareholder protections. Specifically, at listed subsidiary companies
with publicly-traded parent companies, generally vote AGAINST reelection of top executives if the
board after the shareholder meeting does not include at least two directors deemed independent
under the Agents standards. At listed subsidiaries with the U.S.-style board-with-committees,
generally also vote AGAINST nominating committee members who are insiders or affiliated outsiders
if the board after the shareholder meeting does not include at least two directors deemed
independent under the Agents standards. However, so that companies may have time to identify and
recruit qualified candidates, for 2010, generally DO NOT VOTE AGAINST the reelection of executives
if the company has at least one independent director.
Generally, withhold support (AGAINST or ABSTAIN, as appropriate) from nominees or slates of
nominees presented in a manner not aligned with market practice and/or legislation, including:
|
|
|
Bundled slates of nominees (e.g., France, Hong Kong or Spain); |
|
|
|
|
Simultaneous reappointment of retiring directors (e.g., South Africa); |
|
|
|
|
In markets with term lengths capped by legislation or market practice,
nominees whose terms exceed the caps or are not disclosed (except that bundled slates with
such lack of disclosure shall be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis); or |
|
|
|
|
Nominees whose names are not disclosed in advance of the meeting (e.g.,
Austria, Philippines, Hong Kong or South Africa) or far enough in advance relative to
voting deadlines (e.g., Italy) to make an informed voting decision. |
Such criteria will not generally provide grounds for withholding support in countries in which they
may be identified as best practice but such legislation or market practice is not yet applicable,
unless specific governance shortfalls identified by the Agent (e.g., director terms longer than
four years) indicate diminished accountability to shareholders and so dictate that less latitude
should be extended to the issuer.
Generally vote FOR nominees without regard to recommendations that the position of chairman should
be separate from that of CEO or otherwise required to be independent, unless other concerns
requiring CASE-BY-CASE consideration have been raised. The latter would include former CEOs
proposed as board chairmen in markets such as the United Kingdom for which best practice and the
Agent recommend against such practice.
In cases in which cumulative or net voting applies, generally vote with Agents recommendation to
support nominees asserted by the issuer to be independent, even if independence disclosure or
criteria fall short of Agents standards.
43
Consider nominees for whom the Agent has raised concerns regarding scandals or internal controls on
a CASE-BY-CASE basis, generally withholding support (AGAINST or ABSTAIN, as appropriate) from
nominees or slates of nominees when:
|
|
|
The scandal or shortfall in controls took place at the company, or an
affiliate, for which the nominee is being considered; |
|
|
|
|
Culpability can be attributed to the nominee (e.g., nominee manages or audits
relevant function), and |
|
|
|
|
The nominee has been directly implicated, with resulting arrest and criminal
charge or regulatory sanction. |
Consider non-independent nominees on a CASE-BY-CASE basis when the Agent has raised concerns
regarding diminished shareholder value as evidenced by a significant drop in share price, generally
voting with Agents recommendation AGAINST such nominees when few, if any, outside directors are
present on the board and:
|
|
|
The founding family has retained undue influence over the company despite a
history of scandal or problematic controls; |
|
|
|
|
The nominees have engaged in protectionist activities such as introduction of
a poison pill or preferential and/or dilutive share issuances; or |
|
|
|
|
Evidence exists regarding compliance or accounting shortfalls. |
If the Agent recommends withholding support due to other material failures or egregious actions,
the Funds U.S. Guidelines with respect such issues shall apply.
Consider nominees serving on the remuneration committee on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if the Agent
recommends withholding support from nominees in connection with remuneration
practices not otherwise supported by these Guidelines, including cases in which the issuer has not
followed market practice by submitting a resolution on executive compensation.
For markets such as the tax havens, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore and South
Africa (and for outside directors in South Korea) in which nominees attendance records are
adequately disclosed, the Funds U.S. Guidelines with respect to director attendance shall apply.
The same two-year attendance policy shall be applied regarding attendance by directors and
statutory auditors of Japanese companies if year-over-year data can be tracked by nominee. For
issuers in Canada, generally vote AGAINST a slate of nominees if one or more nominees fail the
attendance Guideline, unless the Agent cites compelling reasons for supporting the slate (e.g., the
issuers commitment to replace slate elections with individual elections within a year).
Consider self-nominated director candidates on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with voting decisions
generally based on the Agents approach to evaluating such candidates, except that (1) an
unqualified candidate will generally not be supported simply to effect a protest vote and (2)
cases of multiple self-nominated candidates may be considered as a proxy contest if similar issues
are raised (e.g., potential change in control).
44
Generally vote FOR nominees without regard to over-boarding issues raised by the Agent unless
other concerns requiring CASE-BY-CASE consideration have been raised.
In cases where a director holds more than one board seat and corresponding votes, manifested as one
seat as a physical person plus an additional seat as a representative of a legal entity, generally
vote with the Agents recommendation to withhold support (AGAINST or ABSTAIN, as appropriate) from
the legal entity and vote on the physical person.
Generally, vote with the Agents recommendation to withhold support (AGAINST or ABSTAIN, as
appropriate) from nominees 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).
Generally, vote with the Agents recommendation when more candidates are presented than available
seats and no other provisions under these Guidelines apply.
For companies incorporated in tax haven markets but which trade exclusively in the U.S., the Funds
U.S. Guidelines with respect to director elections shall apply.
Board Structure
Generally, vote FOR proposals to fix board size, but also support proposals seeking a board range
if the range is reasonable in the context of market practice and anti-takeover considerations.
Proposed article amendments in this regard shall be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with voting
decisions generally based on the Agents approach to evaluating such proposals.
Director and Officer Indemnification and Liability Protection
Generally, vote in accordance with the Agents standards for indemnification and liability
protection for officers and directors, voting AGAINST overly broad provisions.
Independent Statutory Auditors
With respect to Japanese companies that have not adopted the U.S.-style board-with-committees
structure, vote AGAINST any nominee to the position of independent statutory auditor whom the
Agent considers affiliated, e.g., if the nominee has worked a significant portion of his career for
the company, its main bank or one of its top shareholders. Where shareholders are forced to vote
on multiple nominees in a single resolution, vote AGAINST all nominees. In cases in which multiple
slates of statutory auditors are presented, generally vote with the Agents recommendation,
typically to support nominees deemed to be more independent and/or aligned with interests of
minority shareholders.
Generally, vote AGAINST incumbent nominees at companies implicated in scandals or exhibiting poor
internal controls.
45
Key Committees
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals that permit non-board members to serve on the audit, compensation
or nominating committee, provided that bundled slates may be supported if no slate nominee serves
on the relevant committee(s). If not otherwise addressed under these Guidelines, consider other
negative recommendations from the Agent regarding committee members on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Director and Statutory Auditor Remuneration
Consider director compensation plans on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with voting decisions generally based
on the Agents approach to evaluating such proposals, while also factoring in the merits of the
rationale and disclosure provided.
Generally, vote FOR proposals to approve the remuneration of directors and auditors as long as the
amount is not excessive (e.g., significant increases should be supported by adequate rationale and
disclosure), there is no evidence of abuse, the recipients overall compensation appears
reasonable, and the board and/or responsible committee meets exchange or market standards for
independence.
For European issuers, vote AGAINST non-executive director remuneration if:
|
|
|
The advance general meeting documents do not specify fees paid to
non-executive directors; |
|
|
|
|
The company seeks to excessively increase the fees relative to market or
sector practices without providing a reasonable rationale for the increase; or |
|
|
|
|
It provides for granting of stock options or similarly structured equity-based
compensation. |
For Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) issuers, the Agents limits with respect to equity awards to
non-employee directors shall apply.
Bonus Payments
With respect to Japanese companies, generally vote FOR retirement bonus proposals if all payments
are for directors and auditors who have served as executives of the company.
Generally vote AGAINST such proposals if one or more payments are for non-executive, affiliated
directors or statutory auditors when one or more of the individuals to whom the grants are being
proposed (1) has not served in an executive capacity for the company for at least three years or
(2) has been designated by the company as an independent statutory auditor, regardless of the
length of time he/she has served. In all markets, if issues have been raised regarding a scandal
or internal controls, generally vote AGAINST bonus proposals for retiring directors or continuing
directors or auditors when culpability can be attributed to the nominee (e.g., if a Fund is also
voting AGAINST the nominee under criteria herein regarding issues of scandal or internal controls),
unless bundled with bonuses for a majority of directors or auditors a Fund is voting FOR.
Stock Option Plans for Independent Internal Statutory Auditors
With respect to Japanese companies, follow the Agents guidelines with respect to proposals
regarding option grants to independent internal statutory auditors or other outside parties,
generally voting AGAINST such plans.
46
Compensation Plans
Unless otherwise provided for herein, votes with respect to compensation plans, and awards
thereunder or capital issuances in support thereof, should be determined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis,
with voting decisions generally based on the Agents approach to evaluating such plans, considering
quantitative or qualitative factors as appropriate for the market.
Amendment Procedures for Equity Compensation Plans and ESPPs
For TSX issuers, votes with respect to amendment procedures for security-based compensation
arrangements and employee share purchase plans shall generally be cast in a manner designed to
preserve shareholder approval rights, with voting decisions generally based on the Agents
recommendation.
Shares Reserved for Equity Compensation Plans
Unless otherwise provided for herein, voting decisions shall generally be based on the Agents
methodology, including classification of a companys stage of development as growth or mature and
the corresponding determination as to reasonability of the share requests.
Generally, vote AGAINST equity compensation plans (e.g., option, warrant, restricted stock or
employee share purchase plans or participation in company offerings such as IPOs or private
placements), the issuance of shares in connection with such plans, or related management proposals
(e.g., article amendments) that:
|
|
|
Exceed Agents recommended dilution limits, including cases in which the Agent
suggests dilution cannot be fully assessed (e.g., due to inadequate disclosure); |
|
|
|
|
Provide deep or near-term discounts (or the equivalent, such as dividend
equivalents on unexercised options) to executives or directors, unless discounts to
executives are adequately mitigated by other requirements such as long-term vesting (e.g.,
Japan) or broad-based employee participation otherwise meeting the Agents standards (e.g.,
France); |
|
|
|
|
Are administered with discretion by potential grant recipients, unless such
discretion is deemed acceptable due to market practice or other mitigating provisions; |
|
|
|
|
Provide for retirement benefits or equity incentive awards to outside
directors if not in line with market practice (e.g., Australia, Belgium, The Netherlands); |
|
|
|
|
Permit financial assistance in the form of non-recourse (or essentially
non-recourse) loans in connection with executives participation; |
|
|
|
|
For matching share plans, do not meet the Agents standards, considering
holding period, discounts, dilution, participation, purchase price and performance
criteria; |
|
|
|
|
Provide for vesting upon change in control if deemed to evidence a conflict of
interest or anti-takeover device or if the change in control definition is too liberal
(e.g., does not result in actual change in control); |
|
|
|
|
Provide no disclosure regarding vesting or performance criteria (provided that
proposals providing disclosure in one or both areas, without regard to Agents criteria for
such disclosure, shall be supported provided they otherwise satisfy these Guidelines); |
|
|
|
|
Permit post-employment vesting if deemed inappropriate by the Agent;
|
47
|
|
|
Allow plan administrators to make material amendments without shareholder
approval unless adequate prior disclosure has been provided, with such voting decisions
generally based on the Agents approach to evaluating such plans; or |
|
|
|
|
Provide for retesting in connection with achievement of performance hurdles
unless the Agents analysis indicates that (1) performance targets are adequately increased
in proportion to the additional time available, (2) the retesting is de minimis as a
percentage of overall compensation or is acceptable relative to market practice, or (3) the
issuer has committed to cease retesting within a reasonable period of time. |
Generally, vote FOR such plans/awards or the related issuance of shares that (1) do not suffer from
the defects noted above, or (2) otherwise meet the Agents tests if the considerations raised by
the Agent pertain primarily to performance hurdles, contract or notice periods,
severance/termination payments relative to multiples of annual compensation, discretionary bonuses,
recruitment awards, retention incentives, non-compete payments or vesting upon change in control
(other than addressed above), if:
|
(1) |
|
The company has provided adequate disclosure and/or a reasonable rationale regarding
the relevant plan/award, practice or participation; |
|
|
(2) |
|
The recipients overall compensation appears reasonable; |
|
|
(3) |
|
Potential payments or awards are not so significant (individually or collectively) as
to potentially influence an executives decision-making (e.g., to enter into a transaction
that will result in a change of control payment) or to effectively act as a poison pill;
and |
|
|
(4) |
|
The board and/or responsible committee meets exchange or market standards for
independence. |
Unless otherwise provided for herein, market practice of the primary country in which a company
does business, or in which an employee is serving, as applicable, shall supersede that of the
issuers domicile.
Consider proposals in connection with such plans or the related issuance of shares in other
instances on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
Remuneration Reports (Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation)
Generally, withhold support (AGAINST or ABSTAIN as appropriate for specific market and level of
concerns identified by the Agent) from remuneration reports/advisory votes on compensation that
include compensation plans that:
|
(1) |
|
Permit practices or features not supported under these Guidelines, including financial
assistance under the conditions described above; |
|
|
(2) |
|
Permit retesting excessive relative to market practice (irrespective of the Agents
support for the report as a whole); |
|
|
(3) |
|
Cite long-term incentive plans deemed to be inadequately based on equity awards (e.g.,
cash-based plans or plans lacking an appropriate equity component); |
|
|
(4) |
|
Cite equity award valuation methods triggering a negative recommendation from the
Agent; |
|
|
(5) |
|
For issuers in the United Kingdom, include components, metrics or rationales that have
not been adequately disclosed; |
48
|
(6) |
|
For issuers in Australia, permit open market purchase of shares in support of equity
grants in lieu of seeking shareholder approval, but only if the issuer has a history of
significant negative votes when formally seeking approval for such grants; or |
|
|
(7) |
|
Include provisions for retirement benefits or equity incentive awards to outside
directors if not in line with market practice, except that reports will generally be voted
FOR if contractual components are reasonably aligned with market practices on a
going-forward basis (e.g., existing obligations related to retirement benefits or terms
contrary to evolving standards would not preclude support for the report). |
Reports receiving the Agents support and not triggering the concerns cited above will generally be
voted FOR. Unless otherwise provided for herein, reports not receiving the Agents support due to
concerns regarding severance/termination payments, leaver status, incentive structures and
vesting or performance criteria not otherwise supported by these Guidelines shall be considered on
a CASE-BY-CASE basis, generally voted FOR if:
|
(1) |
|
The company has provided a reasonable rationale and/or adequate disclosure regarding
the matter(s) under consideration; |
|
|
(2) |
|
The recipients overall compensation appears reasonable, and; |
|
|
(3) |
|
The board and/or responsible committee meets exchange or market standards for
independence. |
Reports with typically unsupported features may be voted FOR in cases in which the Agent recommends
their initial support as the issuer or market transitions to better practices (e.g., having
committed to new regulations or governance codes).
Shareholder Proposals Regarding Executive and Director Pay
The Funds U.S. Guidelines with respect to such shareholder proposals shall apply.
General Share Issuances
Unless otherwise provided for herein, voting decisions shall generally be based on the Agents
practice to determine support for general issuance requests (with or without preemptive rights), or
related requests to repurchase and reissue shares, based on their amount relative to currently
issued capital, appropriate volume and duration parameters, and market-specific considerations
(e.g., priority right protections in France, reasonable levels of dilution and discount in Hong
Kong). Requests to reissue repurchased shares will not be supported unless a related general
issuance request is also supported.
Consider specific issuance requests on a CASE-BY-CASE basis based on the proposed use and the
companys rationale.
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals to issue shares (with or without preemptive rights), convertible
bonds or warrants, to grant rights to acquire shares, or to amend the corporate charter relative to
such issuances or grants in cases in which concerns have been identified by the Agent with respect
to inadequate disclosure, inadequate restrictions on discounts, failure to meet the Agents
standards for general issuance requests, or authority to refresh share issuance amounts without
prior shareholder approval.
Generally, vote AGAINST nonspecific proposals authorizing excessive discretion to a board.
49
Increases in Authorized Capital
Unless otherwise provided for herein, voting decisions should generally be based on the Agents
approach, as follows. Generally:
|
|
|
Vote FOR nonspecific proposals, including bundled proposals, to increase
authorized capital up to 100 percent over the current authorization unless the increase
would leave the company with less than 30 percent of its new authorization outstanding. |
|
|
|
|
Vote FOR specific proposals to increase authorized capital, unless: |
|
|
|
The specific purpose of the increase (such as a share-based acquisition or
merger) does not meet these Guidelines for the purpose being proposed; or |
|
|
|
|
The increase would leave the company with less than 30 percent of its new
authorization outstanding after adjusting for all proposed issuances. |
|
|
|
Vote AGAINST proposals to adopt unlimited capital authorizations. |
|
|
|
|
The Agents market-specific exceptions to the above parameters (e.g., The
Netherlands, due to hybrid market controls) shall be applied. |
Preferred Stock
Unless otherwise provided for herein, voting decisions should generally be based on the Agents
approach, including:
|
|
|
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 as long as the
maximum number of common shares that could be issued upon conversion meets the Agents
guidelines on equity issuance requests. |
|
|
|
|
Vote AGAINST the creation of (1) a new class of preference shares that would
carry superior voting rights to the common shares or (2) blank check preferred stock unless
the board states that the authorization will not be used to thwart a takeover bid. |
Poison Pills/Protective Preference Shares
Generally, vote AGAINST management proposals in connection with poison pills or anti-takeover
activities (e.g., disclosure requirements or issuances, transfers or repurchases) that do not meet
the Agents standards. Generally vote in accordance with Agents recommendation to
withhold support from a nominee in connection with poison pill or anti-takeover considerations when
culpability for the actions can be specifically attributed to the nominee. Generally DO NOT VOTE
AGAINST director remuneration in connection with poison pill considerations raised by the Agent.
Waiver on Tender-Bid Requirement
Generally, consider proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis seeking a waiver for a major shareholder from
the requirement to make a buyout offer to minority shareholders, voting FOR when little concern of
a creeping takeover exists and the company has provided a reasonable rationale for the request.
50
Approval of Financial Statements and Director and Auditor Reports
Generally, vote FOR management proposals seeking approval of financial accounts and reports, unless
there is concern about the companys financial accounts and reporting, which, in the case of
related party transactions, would include concerns raised by the Agent regarding consulting
agreements with non-executive directors but not severance/termination payments exceeding the
Agents standards for multiples of annual compensation, provided the recipients overall
compensation appears reasonable and the board and/or responsible committee meets exchange or market
standards for independence. Unless otherwise provided for herein, reports not receiving the
Agents support due to other concerns regarding severance/termination payments not otherwise
supported by these Guidelines shall be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, factoring in the merits
of the rationale or disclosure provided and generally voted FOR if the overall compensation package
and/or program at issue appears reasonable. Generally, vote AGAINST board-issued reports receiving
a negative recommendation from the Agent due to concerns regarding independence of the board or the
presence of non-independent directors on the audit committee. However, generally do not withhold
support from such proposals in connection with remuneration practices otherwise supported under
these Guidelines or as a means of expressing disapproval of broader practices of the issuer or its
board.
Remuneration of Auditors
Generally, vote FOR proposals to authorize the board to determine the remuneration of auditors,
unless there is evidence of excessive compensation relative to the size and nature of the company.
Indemnification of Auditors
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals to indemnify auditors.
Ratification of Auditors and Approval of Auditors Fees
For Canadian issuers, the Funds U.S. Guidelines with respect to auditors and auditor fees shall
apply.
For other markets, generally, follow the Agents standards for proposals seeking auditor
ratification or approval of auditors fees, which indicate a vote FOR such proposals for European
companies in the MSCI EAFE index, provided the level of disclosure and independence meet the
Agents standards. However, if fees for non-audit services (excluding significant, one-time
events) exceed 50 percent of total auditor fees, consider on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, and vote
FOR ratification of auditors or approval of auditors fees if it appears that remuneration for the
non-audit work is not so lucrative as to taint the auditors independence.
In other cases, generally vote FOR such proposals unless there are material concerns raised by the
Agent about the auditors practices or independence.
Audit Commission
Consider nominees to the audit commission on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with voting decisions generally
based on the Agents approach to evaluating such candidates.
51
Allocation of Income and Dividends
With respect to Japanese companies, consider management proposals concerning allocation of income
and the distribution of dividends, including adjustments to reserves to make capital available for
such purposes, on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, generally voting with the Agents recommendations to
support such proposals unless:
|
|
|
The dividend payout ratio has been consistently below 30 percent without
adequate explanation; or |
|
|
|
|
The payout is excessive given the companys financial position. |
Generally vote FOR such proposals by issuers in other markets. In any markets, in the event
management offers multiple dividend proposals on the same agenda, primary consideration shall be
given to input from the relevant Investment Professional(s) and voted with the Agents
recommendation if no input is received.
Stock (Scrip) Dividend Alternatives
Generally, 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.
Debt Instruments
Generally, vote AGAINST proposals authorizing excessive discretion to a board to issue or set terms
for debt instruments (e.g., commercial paper).
Debt Issuance Requests
When evaluating a debt issuance request, the issuing companys present financial situation is
examined. The main factor for analysis is the companys current debt-to-equity ratio, or gearing
level. A high gearing level may incline markets and financial analysts to downgrade the companys
bond rating, increasing its investment risk factor in the process. A gearing level up to 100
percent is considered acceptable.
Generally, vote FOR debt issuances for companies when the gearing level is between zero and 100
percent. Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis proposals where the issuance of debt will result in the
gearing level being greater than 100 percent, or for which inadequate disclosure precludes
calculation of the gearing level, comparing any such proposed debt issuance to industry and market
standards, and with voting decisions generally based on the Agents approach to evaluating such
requests.
Financing Plans
Generally, vote FOR the adoption of financing plans if they are in the best economic interests of
shareholders.
Related Party Transactions
Consider related party transactions on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. Generally, vote FOR approval of such
transactions unless the agreement requests a strategic move outside the companys
52
charter or
contains unfavorable or high-risk terms (e.g., deposits without security interest or guaranty).
Approval of Donations
Generally, vote AGAINST such proposals unless adequate, prior disclosure of amounts is provided; if
so, single- or multi-year authorities may be supported.
Capitalization of Reserves
Generally, vote FOR proposals to capitalize the companys reserves for bonus issues of shares or to
increase the par value of shares.
Investment of Company Reserves
These proposals should generally be analyzed on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with primary consideration
given to input from the Investment Professional(s) for a given Fund.
Article Amendments
Review on a CASE-BY-CASE basis all proposals seeking amendments to the articles of association.
Generally, vote FOR an article amendment if:
|
|
|
It is editorial in nature; |
|
|
|
|
Shareholder rights are protected; |
|
|
|
|
There is negligible or positive impact on shareholder value; |
|
|
|
|
Management provides adequate reasons for the amendments or the Agent otherwise
supports managements position; |
|
|
|
|
It seeks to discontinue and/or delist a form of the issuers securities in
cases in which the relevant Fund does not hold the affected security type; or |
|
|
|
|
The company is required to do so by law (if applicable). |
Generally, vote AGAINST an article amendment if:
|
|
|
It removes or lowers quorum requirements for board or shareholder meetings
below levels recommended by the Agent; |
|
|
|
|
It reduces relevant disclosure to shareholders; |
|
|
|
|
It seeks to align the articles with provisions of another proposal not
supported by these Guidelines; |
|
|
|
|
It is not supported under these Guidelines, is presented within a bundled
proposal, and the negative impact, on balance, outweighs any positive impact; or |
|
|
|
|
It imposes a negative impact on existing shareholder rights, including rights
of the Funds, or diminishes accountability to shareholders to the extent that any positive
impact would not be deemed to be sufficient to outweigh removal or diminution of such
rights. |
With respect to article amendments for Japanese companies:
|
|
|
Generally vote FOR management proposals to amend a companys articles to
expand its business lines. |
53
|
|
|
Generally vote FOR management proposals to amend a companys 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, generally vote AGAINST management proposals,
including bundled proposals, to amend a companys articles to authorize the Board to vary
the annual meeting record date or to otherwise align them with provisions of a takeover
defense. |
|
|
|
|
Generally follow the Agents guidelines with respect to management proposals
regarding amendments to authorize share repurchases at the boards discretion, voting
AGAINST proposals unless there is little to no likelihood of a creeping takeover (major
shareholder owns nearly enough shares to reach a critical control threshold) or constraints
on liquidity (free float of shares is low), and where the company is trading at below book
value or is facing a real likelihood of substantial share sales; or where this amendment is
bundled with other amendments which are clearly in shareholders interest. |
Other Business
In connection with global proxies, vote in accordance with the Agents market-specific
recommendations on management proposals for Other Business, generally AGAINST.
54
Item 8. Portfolio Managers of Closed-End Management Investment Companies.
(a) (1) Portfolio Management. Set forth below is information regarding the members of the
investment team that are primarily responsible for the management of the Funds portfolio. The team
consists of investment professionals with a variety of specializations. It is expected that each
investment management team member listed below will play a role in the management of the Funds
portfolio from the inception of the Fund under the leadership of Nicholas Toovey.
Sub-Adviser
Teik Cheah. Dr. Cheah is the Regional Head of Quantitative Resources & Investment Risk at
ING IM Asia/Pacific and will be primarily responsible for the quantitative analyses and security
selection for the Funds common stock portfolio. He resides in Hong Kong, and the work of his team
involves the management of portfolios and the design of various investment processes and models,
asset allocation, security selection, risk analytics and derivatives strategies. The coverage of
his work is Asia Pacific and is applied to various retail, institutional and proprietary insurance
portfolios. Previously, he was the regional quantitative investment manager of the same company. He
joined ING IM Asia/Pacific in 2001. Prior to ING IM Asia/Pacific, he was the manager of proprietary
trading in Keppel Securities in Singapore, managing absolute return long/short portfolios,
arbitrage, derivatives trading, and structured derivatives for the companys proprietary capital.
His previous industry roles included working as a portfolio manager and also as an investment
analyst. His academic qualifications are a Doctor of Philosophy (Curtin University of Technology,
Australia), a Bachelor of Commerce (University of Western Australia, Australia), and a Bachelor of
Law (University of Western Australia, Australia). He is a Chartered Financial Analyst.
Bratin Sanyal. Mr. Sanyal joined ING IM Asia/Pacific as Head of Asian Equity Investments in
August 2004 and will be primarily responsible for the fundamental analysis and security selection
for the Funds common stock portfolio. He is responsible for regional equity strategy and
management of Asia ex-Japan equity funds. Prior to joining ING IM Asia/Pacific, Mr. Sanyal worked
for ING Investment Management in The Hague, from 1998 to 2004. In total he has worked with ING for
12 years in New York, Amsterdam, Luxembourg, Hong Kong and The Hague, and has been directly
involved in the management of Asian and Emerging Market Equity portfolios for 10 years. He started
his career in 1991 at the World Bank in the Debt Division. Mr. Sanyal received his Masters degree
in Physics from the Indian Institute of Technology, India in 1985. He switched his interest to
Financial Economics and obtained a MBA degree from Rutgers University, New Jersey and continued to
complete the Doctoral course (ABD) in Finance at the same university.
55
Option Sub-Adviser
Bas Peeters. Mr. Peeters joined ING Investment Management Advisors B.V. (IIMA) in 1998.
Currently, Mr. Peeters is Head of Structured Products and will be responsible for the structure of
the Funds option strategy. In this capacity he is responsible for the research, marketing and
portfolio management activities of this department. Previously he was Head of Research Structured
Products, where he worked on product development and implementation of structured products
research. Until 2001 he also was jointly responsible for portfolio management and derivatives
trading. In addition, since 2002 he has carried out research in financial economics at the Free
University of Amsterdam. His previous working experience comprises postdoctoral research positions
at universities in London and Belgium. Mr. Peeters obtained a Masters degree in Theoretical
Physics (Cum Laude) from the University of Utrecht, The Netherlands in 1990, where he also studied
Mathematics. He obtained his PhD in Theoretical Physics at Stony Brook University, New York in
1995.
Frank van Etten. Mr. van Etten joined IIMA in 2002 and will be responsible for the
structure and implementation of the Funds option strategy. Currently, Mr. van Etten is Senior
Investment Manager for Structured Products, where he started his career as well. In this capacity
he is responsible for managing a range of structured products and the execution of transactions in
the derivatives portfolios. Furthermore Mr. van Etten also carries out research in structured
products development and option strategies and markets. Mr. van Etten obtained his Masters degree
in Econometrics from Tilburg University, The Netherlands in 2003, specializing in quantitative
finance.
Willem van Dommelen. Mr. van Dommelen joined IIMA in 2002 and will be responsible for the
structure and implementation of the Funds option strategy. Currently Mr. van Dommelen is a member
of the Structured Products departments Fund Management team. In the capacity of Investment
Manager, he is responsible for managing a range of Structured Products and the execution of
transactions in the derivatives portfolios. Mr. van Dommelen started his career as Portfolio
Manager Institutional Clients, where he was responsible for the client servicing of around 80
institutional Clients of IIMA. Mr. van Dommelen obtained his Masters degree in Economics from
Tilburg University, The Netherlands in 2002, specializing in accountancy and investment theory. He
holds a RBA degree (registered investment analyst).
(a) (2) (i-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,
2010, unless otherwise indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered Investment |
|
|
Other Pooled |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Companies |
|
|
Investment Vehicles |
|
|
Other Accts* |
|
Portfolio |
|
Number of |
|
|
Total Assets |
|
|
Number of |
|
|
Total Assets |
|
|
Number of |
|
|
Total Assets |
|
Manager |
|
Accounts |
|
|
(in millions) |
|
|
Accounts |
|
|
(in millions) |
|
|
Accounts |
|
|
(in millions) |
|
ING IM Asia/Pacific |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teik Cheah |
|
|
2 |
|
|
$29 |
6 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
$71 |
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
$26 |
8 |
|
Bratin Sanyal |
|
|
5 |
|
|
$70 |
0 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
$99 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
IIMA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bas
Peeters |
|
|
5 |
|
|
$1,68 |
9 |
|
|
13 |
5 |
|
|
$13,000 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
Frank van
Etten |
|
|
5 |
|
|
$1,68 |
9 |
|
|
13 |
5 |
|
|
$13,000 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
Willem van
Dommelen |
|
|
3 |
|
|
$1,36 |
1 |
|
|
3 |
5 |
|
|
$8,000 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
* |
|
None of the accounts managed are subject to performance
fees. |
|
56
(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 the Fund. These other accounts may
include, among others, other mutual funds, separately managed advisory accounts, commingled trust
accounts, insurance, wrap fee programs and hedge funds. Potential conflicts may arise out of the
implementation of differing investment strategies for the portfolio managers various accounts, the
allocation of investment opportunities among those accounts or differences in the advisory fees
paid by the portfolio managers accounts.
A potential conflict of interest may arise as a result of the portfolio managers responsibility
for multiple accounts with similar investment guidelines. Under these circumstances, a potential
investment may be suitable for more than one of the portfolio managers 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 when multiple accounts seek to
dispose of the same investment.
A portfolio manager may also manage accounts whose objectives and policies differ from those of the
Fund. These differences may be such that under certain circumstances, trading activity appropriate
for one account managed by the portfolio manager may have adverse consequences for another account
managed by the portfolio manager. 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, ING IM Asia/Pacific and IIMA have each adopted policies and
procedures reasonably designed to address the potential conflicts of interest described above.
(a) (3) Compensation
ING IM Asia/Pacific
Compensation for portfolio managers employed by ING IM Asia/Pacific generally consists of (a) fixed
base salary; (b) bonus which is based on ING IM Asia/Pacifics calendar year performance,
consisting of one-year pre-tax performance of the accounts for which the portfolio managers are
primarily and jointly responsible compared to account benchmarks and relevant peer groups (as
described below), and revenue growth of the accounts for which they are responsible for; and (c)
long-term equity awards tied to the performance of ING Investments and ING IM Asia/Pacifics
parent company, ING Groep.
Portfolio managers are eligible to participation in an annual incentive plan. The overall design of
the ING IM Asia/Pacifics annual incentive plan was developed to closely tie compensation to
performance, structured in such a ways as to drive performance and promote retention of top talent.
Investment performance is measured on both index and Adviser relative performance in all areas. The
relevant index is the MSCI AC (All Countries) Asia Pacific ex Japan IndexSM. Relevant peer groups
include Morningstar Pacific/Asia-Ex Japan Stock funds and Lipper category China Region funds.
The portfolio managers participate in INGs Pension, Retirement and Options plans, which do not
discriminate in favor of portfolio managers or group of employees that include portfolio managers
and are available generally to all salaried employees.
IIMA
Compensation for portfolio managers employed by IIMA consists of (a) fixed base salary; (b) bonus
which is based on IIMAs performance, consisting of one-year pre-tax performance of the accounts
for which the
57
portfolio managers are primarily and jointly responsible compared to account
benchmarks and relevant peer groups (as described below), and revenue growth of the accounts for
which they are responsible for; and (c) long-term equity awards tied to the performance of the
IIMAs parent company, ING Groep.
Portfolio managers are eligible to participate in an annual incentive plan. The overall design of
the IIMA annual incentive plan was developed to closely tie compensation to performance, 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 index and manager relative
performance in all areas. Relevant indices include the MSCI World Index and the MSCI Europe Index.
Relevant peer groups include Morningstar global equity funds in the Netherlands and the rest of
Europe. The measures for each team are outlined on a scorecard that is reviewed on an annual
basis. These scorecards reflect a comprehensive approach to measuring investment performance versus
both benchmarks and peer groups over a one year period. The overall IIMA scorecards are calculated
based on an asset-weighted aggregation of the individual team scorecards.
Investment professionals performance measures for bonus determinations are weighted by 25% of the
weight attributable to the overall IIMA performance and 75% attributable to their specific team
results. For the specific team results, one-third is based on qualitative evaluation, and
two-thirds based on quantitative results (i.e., relative performance).
The portfolio managers participate in INGs Pension, Retirement and Option plans, which do not
discriminate in favor of portfolio managers or a group of employees that includes portfolio
managers and are available generally to all salaried employees.
(a) (4) Ownership of Securities
|
|
|
|
|
Portfolio Manager |
|
Dollar Range of Fund Shares Owned |
ING IM Asia/Pacific |
|
|
|
|
Teik Cheah |
|
|
none |
|
Bratin Sanyal |
|
|
none |
|
IIMA |
|
|
|
|
Bas Peeters |
|
|
none |
|
Frank van Etten |
|
|
none |
|
Willem van Dommelen |
|
|
none |
|
58
Item 9. Purchases of Equity Securities by Closed-End Management Investment Company and
Affiliated Purchasers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
(b) |
|
(c) |
|
(d)* |
|
|
TOTAL NUMBER |
|
AVERAGE |
|
TOTAL NUMBER OF SHARES |
|
MAXIMUM NUMBER (OR APPROXIMATE DOLLAR VALUE) |
|
|
OF SHARES (OR |
|
PRICE PAID |
|
(OR UNITS) PART OF PUBLICLY |
|
OF SHARES (OR UNITS) THAT MAY YET BE |
|
|
UNITS) |
|
PER SHARE (OR |
|
ANNOUNCED PLANS OR |
|
PURCHASED UNDER THE PLANS |
Period* |
|
PURCHASED |
|
UNIT) |
|
PROGRAMS |
|
OR PROGRAMS |
MARCH 1-31, 2009 |
|
|
54,541 |
|
|
$ |
9.64 |
|
|
|
54,541 |
|
|
|
1,170,459 |
|
APRIL 1-30, 2009 |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
1,170,459 |
|
MAY 1-31, 2009 |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
1,170,459 |
|
JUNE 1-30, 2009 |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
1,170,459 |
|
JULY 1-31, 2009 |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
1,170,459 |
|
AUGUST 1-31, 2009 |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
1,170,459 |
|
SEPTEMBER 1-30, 2009 |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
1,170,459 |
|
OCTOBER 1-31, 2009 |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
1,170,459 |
|
NOVEMBER 1-30, 2009 |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
1,170,459 |
|
DECEMBER 1-31, 2009 |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
1,170,459 |
|
JANUARY 1-31, 2010** |
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
FEBRUARY 1-28, 2010** |
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
TOTAL |
|
|
54,541 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
The Registrants repurchase program, which authorized the repurchase of 1,225,000 shares, was
announced on December 5, 2008.
Any repurchases made by the registrant pursuant to the program were made through open-market
transactions. |
|
** |
|
The repurchase program expired on December 31, 2009 |
Item 10. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.
The Board has a Nominating Committee for the purpose of considering and presenting to the Board
candidates it proposes for nomination to fill Independent Trustee vacancies on the Board. The
Committee currently consists of all Independent Trustees of the Board (6 individuals). The
Nominating Committee operates pursuant to a Charter approved by the Board. The primary purpose of
the Nominating Committee is to consider and present to the Board the candidates it proposes for
nomination to fill vacancies on the Board. In evaluating candidates, the Nominating Committee may
consider a variety of factors, but it has not at this time set any specific minimum qualifications
that must be met. Specific qualifications of candidates for Board membership will be based on the
needs of the Board at the time of nomination.
The Nominating Committee is willing to consider nominations received from shareholders and shall
assess shareholder nominees in the same manner as it reviews its own nominees. A shareholder
nominee for director should be submitted in writing to the Funds Secretary. Any such shareholder
nomination should include at a minimum the following information as to each individual proposed for
nomination as trustee: such individuals written consent to be named in the proxy statement as a
nominee (if nominated) and to serve as a trustee (if elected), and all information relating to such
individual that is required to be disclosed in the solicitation of proxies for election of
trustees, or is otherwise required, in each case under applicable federal securities laws, rules
and regulations.
The Secretary shall submit all nominations received in a timely manner to the Nominating Committee.
To be timely, any such submission must be delivered to the Funds Secretary not earlier than the
90th day prior to such meeting and not later than the close of business on the later of
the 60th day prior to such meeting or the 10th day following the day on which
public announcement of the date of the meeting is first made, by either disclosure in a press
release or in a document publicly filed by the Fund with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
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
registrants 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 registrants disclosure controls and
procedures allow
timely preparation and review of the information for the registrants Form N-CSR and the
officer certifications of
such Form N-CSR. |
(b) |
|
There were no significant changes in the registrants 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
registrants internal control over financial reporting. |
Item 12. Exhibits.
(a)(1) |
|
Code of Ethics pursuant to Item 2 of Form N-CSR is filed and attached hereto as
EX-99.CODE ETH. |
(a)(2) |
|
A separate certification for each principal executive officer and principal
financial officer of the registrant as required by Rule 30a-2 under the Act (17 CFR
270.30a-2) is attached hereto as EX-99.CERT. |
(b) |
|
The officer certifications required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 are attached hereto as EX-99.906CERT. |
59
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):
ING Asia Pacific High Dividend Equity Income Fund
|
|
|
|
|
By
|
|
/s/ Shaun P. Mathews
Shaun P. Mathews
|
|
|
|
|
President and Chief Executive Officer |
|
|
Date: May
7, 2010
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/ Shaun P. Mathews
Shaun P. Mathews
|
|
|
|
|
President and Chief Executive Officer |
|
|
Date: May
7, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
By
|
|
/s/ Todd Modic
Todd Modic
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
Date:
May 7, 2010
60