ETFS TRUST

STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

May 2, 2016

ETFS Zacks Earnings Large-Cap U.S. Index Fund

Ticker: ZLRG

ETFS Zacks Earnings Small-Cap U.S. Index Fund

Ticker: ZSML

ETFS Diversified-Factor U.S. Large Cap Index Fund

Ticker: SBUS

ETFS Diversified-Factor Developed Europe Index Fund

Ticker: SBEU 

Principal U.S. Listing Exchange: NYSE Arca, Inc.

This Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) is not a prospectus. The SAI should be read in conjunction with the current prospectus (the “Prospectus”) for the ETFS Zacks Earnings Large-Cap U.S. Index Fund, ETFS Zacks Earnings Small-Cap U.S. Index Fund, ETFS Diversified-Factor U.S. Large Cap Index Fund, and ETFS Diversified-Factor Developed Europe Index Fund (each a “Fund” and together the “Funds”), each a separate series of ETFS Trust (the “Trust”), as may be revised from time to time.

The current Prospectus for each Fund is dated May 2, 2016. Capitalized terms used herein that are not defined have the same meaning as in the Prospectus, unless otherwise noted. A copy of the Prospectus for each Fund may be obtained, without charge, by calling 1-844-383-7289, visiting www.etfsecurities.com, or writing to ETFS Trust, c/o ALPS Distributors, Inc., 1290 Broadway, Suite 1100, Denver, Colorado 80203.

THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (“SEC”) HAS NOT APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED THESE SECURITIES OR PASSED UPON THE ADEQUACY OF THIS SAI. ANY REPRESENTATION TO THE CONTRARY IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE TRUST AND THE FUNDS

The Trust was organized as a Delaware statutory trust on January 9, 2014 and is authorized to issue multiple series or portfolios. The Trust is an open-end management investment company, registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The offering of the Trust’s shares is registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”).

Each Fund seeks to track the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of a particular index (“Index” or “Underlying Index”). ETF Securities Advisors LLC serves as the investment adviser (the “Adviser”) and Vident Investment Advisory, LLC serves as the sub-adviser (the “Sub-Adviser”) to each Fund (the Adviser and Sub-Adviser may be referred to together herein as the “Advisers”). The Adviser is a directly-owned subsidiary of ETF Securities Limited. The Indexes of the ETFS Zacks Earnings Large-Cap U.S. Index Fund and ETFS Zacks Earnings Small-Cap U.S. Index Fund (each, a “Zacks Earnings Fund” and, together, the “Zacks Earnings Funds”) are created using proprietary methodology developed by Zacks Investment Research, Inc. (“Zacks”). The Indexes of the ETFS Diversified-Factor U.S. Large Cap Index Fund and ETFS Diversified-Factor Developed Europe Index Fund (each, a “Diversified Factor Fund” and, together, the “Diversified Factor Funds”) are created using proprietary methodology developed by EDHEC Risk Institute Asia Ltd. (“EDHEC”). Zacks and EDHEC (each, an “Index Provider” and together, the “Index Providers”) are independent of the Funds and the Advisers. ALPS Distributors, Inc. serves as the distributor (the “Distributor”) of the Creation Units Aggregations of the Funds.

Each Fund is an exchange traded fund (“ETF”). Each Fund issues and redeems shares at net asset value per share (“NAV”) only in large blocks of shares, typically 50,000 shares or more (“Creation Units” or “Creation Unit Aggregations”), though this may change from time to time. Creation Units are not expected to consist of less than 25,000 shares. These transactions are usually in exchange for a basket of securities included in the relevant Fund’s Index and/or an amount of cash. As a practical matter, only institutions or large investors purchase or redeem Creation Units. Except when aggregated in Creation Units, shares of the Funds are not redeemable securities.

Each Fund intends to qualify each year for treatment as a regulated investment company (a “RIC”) under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), so that it will not be subject to federal income tax on income and gains that are timely distributed to Fund shareholders. Each Fund will invest its assets, and otherwise conduct its operations, in a manner that is intended to satisfy the qualifying income, diversification and distribution requirements necessary to establish and maintain eligibility for such treatment.

Shares of the Funds are listed on a national securities exchange, such as the NYSE Arca, Inc. (the “NYSE Arca” or the “Listing Exchange”), and trade throughout the day on the Listing Exchange and other secondary markets at market prices that may differ from NAV. As in the case of other publicly traded securities, brokers’ commissions on transactions will be based on commission rates charged by the applicable broker.

The Trust reserves the right to adjust the prices of shares in the future to maintain convenient trading ranges for investors. Any adjustments would be accomplished through stock splits or reverse stock splits, which would have no effect on the net assets of the applicable Fund.

INVESTMENT STRATEGIES AND RISKS

Each Fund seeks to achieve its objective by investing primarily in securities issued by issuers that comprise its relevant Index and through transactions that provide substantially similar exposure to securities in the Index. Each Fund operates as an index fund and will not be actively managed. Adverse performance of a security in a Fund’s portfolio will ordinarily not result in the elimination of the security from the Fund’s portfolio. However, this investment strategy, known as “indexing,” may eliminate some of the risks of active portfolio management, such as poor security selection. In addition, indexing may also help increase after-tax investment performance by keeping portfolio turnover low in comparison to more actively managed investment strategies. Each Fund uses a “replication strategy” approach to try to achieve the Fund’s investment objective. “Replication strategy” is a passive indexing strategy that involves investing in the securities of the Underlying Index in approximately the same proportion as the Underlying Index. However, the Fund may utilize a representative sampling strategy with respect to the Underlying Index when a replication strategy may be detrimental to shareholders, such as when there are practical difficulties or substantial costs involved in compiling a portfolio of equity securities to track the Underlying Index.

Each Fund’s investment objective, principal investment strategies and associated risks are described in the Fund’s Prospectus. The sections below supplement these principal investment strategies and risks and describe the Funds’ additional investment policies and the different types of investments that may be made by a Fund as a part of its non-principal investment strategies. With respect to each Fund’s investments, unless otherwise noted, if a percentage limitation on investment is adhered to at the time of investment or contract, a subsequent increase or decrease as a result of market movement or redemption will not result in a violation of such investment limitation.

Each Fund is considered “diversified” as such term is used in the 1940 Act. With respect to 75% of its total assets, a “diversified” fund is limited by the 1940 Act such that it does not invest more than 5% of its total assets in securities of any one issuer and does not acquire more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of any one issuer (excluding cash and cash items, government securities, and securities of other investment companies). The remaining 25% of the fund’s total assets may be invested in any manner.

GENERAL RISKS

An investment in the Funds should be made with an understanding that the value of each Fund’s portfolio securities may fluctuate in accordance with changes in the financial condition of an issuer or counterparty, changes in specific economic or political conditions that affect a particular security or issuer and changes in general economic or political conditions. An investor in the Funds could lose money over short or long periods of time.

An investment in the Funds should also be made with an understanding of the risks inherent in an investment in equity securities, including the risk that the financial condition of issuers may become impaired or that the general condition of the stock market may deteriorate (either of which may cause a decrease in the value of a Fund’s portfolio securities and therefore a decrease in the value of Shares of the Fund). Common stocks are susceptible to general stock market fluctuations and to volatile increases and decreases in value as market confidence and perceptions change. These investor perceptions are based on various and unpredictable factors, including expectations regarding government, economic, monetary and fiscal policies; inflation and interest rates; economic expansion or contraction; and global or regional political, economic or banking crises.

Holders of common stocks incur more risk than holders of preferred stocks and debt obligations because common stockholders, as owners of the issuer, generally have inferior rights to receive payments from the issuer in comparison with the rights of creditors or holders of debt obligations or preferred stocks. Further, unlike debt securities, which typically have a stated principal amount payable at maturity (whose value, however, is subject to market fluctuations prior thereto), or preferred stocks, which typically have a liquidation preference and which may have stated optional or mandatory redemption provisions, common stocks have neither a fixed principal amount nor a maturity. Common stock values are subject to market fluctuations as long as the common stock remains outstanding.

Although all of the securities in the Indexes are listed on major U.S. or European stock exchanges, there can be no guarantee that a liquid market for such securities will be maintained. The existence of a liquid trading market for certain securities may depend on whether dealers will make a market in such securities. There can be no assurance that a market will be made or maintained or that any such market will be or remain liquid. The price at which securities may be sold and the value of the Fund’s Shares will be adversely affected if trading markets for the Fund’s portfolio securities are limited or absent, or if bid/ask spreads are wide.

Events in the financial sector have resulted, and may continue to result, in an unusually high degree of volatility in the financial markets, both domestic and foreign. Domestic and foreign fixed income and equity markets experienced extreme volatility and turmoil starting in late 2008 and volatility has continued to be experienced in the markets. Issuers that have exposure to the real estate, mortgage and credit markets have been particularly affected, and well-known financial institutions have experienced significant liquidity and other problems. Some of these institutions have declared bankruptcy or defaulted on their debt. It is uncertain whether or for how long these conditions will continue. These events and possible continuing market turbulence may have an adverse effect on Fund performance.

Authorized Participants should refer to the section herein entitled “Creation and Redemption of Creation Unit Aggregations” for additional information that may impact them.

SPECIFIC INVESTMENT STRATEGIES AND RISKS

A description of certain investment strategies and types of investments used by the Funds is set forth below.

BORROWING. Although the Funds do not intend to borrow money, a Fund may do so to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act. Under the 1940 Act, a fund may borrow up to 33% of its net assets. A Fund will borrow only for short-term or emergency purposes.

Borrowing will tend to exaggerate the effect on net asset value of any increase or decrease in the market value of a Fund’s portfolio. Money borrowed will be subject to interest costs that may or may not be recovered by earnings on the securities purchased. A Fund also may be required to maintain minimum average balances in connection with a borrowing or to pay a commitment or other fee to maintain a line of credit; either of these requirements would increase the cost of borrowing over the stated interest rate.

CYBER SECURITY. Investment companies, such as the Funds, and their service providers may be subject to operational and information security risks resulting from cyber attacks.  Cyber attacks include, among other behaviors, stealing or corrupting data maintained online or digitally, denial of service attacks on websites, the unauthorized release of confidential information or various other forms of cyber security breaches.  Cyber attacks affecting the Funds or the Adviser, Sub-Adviser, custodian, transfer agent, intermediaries and other third-party service providers may adversely impact the Funds.  For instance, cyber attacks may interfere with the processing of shareholder transactions, impact the Fund’s ability to calculate its net asset value, cause the release of private shareholder information or confidential company information, impede trading, subject a Fund to regulatory fines or financial losses, and cause reputational damage.  The Funds may also incur additional costs for cyber security risk management purposes.  Similar types of cyber security risks are also present for issuers of securities in which a Fund invests, which could result in material adverse consequences for such issuers, and may cause a Fund’s investment in such portfolio companies to lose value.

DERIVATIVES. Each Fund may use derivative instruments as part of its investment strategies. Generally, derivatives are financial contracts whose value depends upon, or is derived from, the value of an underlying asset, reference rate or index, and may relate to bonds, interest rates, currencies, commodities, and related indexes. Examples of derivative instruments include forward contracts, currency and interest rate swaps, currency options, futures contracts, options on futures contracts and swap agreements. The Fund’s use of derivative instruments will be underpinned by investments in short-term, high-quality instruments, such as U.S. money market securities.

With respect to certain kinds of derivative transactions that involve obligations to make future payments to third parties, including, but not limited to, futures contracts, forward contracts, swap contracts, the purchase of securities on a when-issued or delayed delivery basis, or reverse repurchase agreements, under applicable federal securities laws, rules, and interpretations thereof, the Funds must “set aside” liquid assets, or engage in other measures to “cover” open positions with respect to such transactions. For example, with respect to forward contracts and futures contracts that are not contractually required to “cash-settle,” the Funds must cover its open positions by setting aside liquid assets equal to the contracts’ full, notional value. The Funds treat deliverable forward contracts for currencies that are liquid as the equivalent of “cash-settled” contracts. As such, the Funds may set aside liquid assets in an amount equal to the Fund’s daily marked-to-market (net) obligation (i.e., the Fund’s daily net liability if any) rather than the full notional amount under such deliverable forward contracts. Similarly, with respect to futures contracts that are contractually required to “cash-settle” the Funds may set aside liquid assets in an amount equal to the Fund’s daily marked-to-market (net) obligation rather than the notional value. Each Fund reserves the right to modify these policies in the future.

Swap Agreements. Each Fund may enter into swap agreements, including interest rate swaps. A typical interest rate swap involves the exchange of a floating interest rate payment for a fixed interest payment. Swap agreements may be used to hedge or achieve exposure to, for example, interest rates, and money market securities without actually purchasing such securities. Each Fund may use swap agreements to invest in a market without owning or taking physical custody of the underlying securities in circumstances in which direct investment is restricted for legal reasons or is otherwise impracticable. Swap agreements will tend to shift the Fund’s investment exposure from one type of investment to another or from one payment stream to another. Depending on their structure, swap agreements may increase or decrease the Fund’s exposure to long- or short-term interest rates (in the United States or abroad), corporate borrowing rates, or other factors, and may increase or decrease the overall volatility of the Fund’s investments and its share price.

Futures, Options and Options on Futures Contracts. Each Fund may enter into U.S. options and options on futures contracts. When a Fund purchases a futures contract, it agrees to purchase a specified underlying instrument at a specified future date. When a Fund sells a futures contract, it agrees to sell the underlying instrument at a specified future date. The price at which the purchase and sale will take place is fixed when a Fund enters into the contract. Futures can be held until their delivery dates, or can be closed out before then if a liquid secondary market is available. To the extent a Fund uses futures and options, it will do so only in accordance with applicable requirements of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) and the rules thereunder.

Each Fund does not currently trade futures contracts, options on futures, retail off-exchange forex contracts, swaps, or similar securities that would require a Fund to obtain an exemption as a commodity pool operator (“CPO”) under revised U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) Rule 4.5. If a Fund invests in such securities, the Adviser will claim relief from the definition of a CPO under revised CFTC Rule 4.5. Specifically, pursuant to CFTC Rule 4.5, the Adviser may claim exclusion from the definition of CPO, and thus from having to register as a CPO, with regard to a Fund that enters into commodity futures, commodity options or swaps solely for “bona fide hedging purposes,” or that limits its investment in commodities to a “de minimis” amount, as defined in CFTC rules, so long as the Shares of such Fund are not marketed as interests in a commodity pool or other vehicle for trading in commodity futures, commodity options or swaps. It is expected that a Fund will be able to operate pursuant to the limitations under the revised CFTC Rule 4.5 without materially adversely affecting its ability to achieve its investment objective. If, however, these limitations were to make it difficult for a Fund to achieve its investment objective in the future, the Trust may determine to operate a Fund as a regulated commodity pool pursuant to the Adviser’s CPO registration or to reorganize or close a Fund or to materially change the Fund’s investment objective and strategy.

The risk of loss in trading futures contracts or uncovered call options in some strategies (e.g., selling uncovered stock index futures contracts) is potentially unlimited. The Funds do not currently plan to use futures and options contracts in this way. The risk of a futures position may still be large as traditionally measured due to the low margin deposits required. In many cases, a relatively small price movement in a futures contract may result in immediate and substantial loss or gain to the investor relative to the size of a required margin deposit. The Funds, however, intend to utilize futures and options contracts in a manner designed to limit its risk exposure to levels comparable to direct investment in stocks.

Utilization of futures and options on futures by a Fund involves the risk of imperfect or even negative correlation to the Underlying Index if the index underlying the futures contract differs from the Fund’s Underlying Index. There is also the risk of loss by a Fund of margin deposits in the event of bankruptcy of a broker with whom a Fund has an open position in the futures contract or option. The purchase of put or call options will be based upon predictions by a Fund as to anticipated trends, which predictions could prove to be incorrect.

The potential for loss related to the purchase of an option on a futures contract is limited to the premium paid for the option plus transaction costs. Because the value of the option is fixed at the point of sale, there are no daily cash payments by the purchaser to reflect changes in the value of the underlying contract; however, the value of the option changes daily and that change would be reflected in the NAV of the Fund. The potential for loss related to writing options may be unlimited.

Although the Funds intend to enter into futures contracts only if there is an active market for such contracts, there is no assurance that an active market will exist for the contracts at any particular time.

EQUITY SECURITIES. Equity securities, such as the common stocks of an issuer, are subject to stock market fluctuations and therefore may experience volatile changes in value as market conditions, consumer sentiment or the financial condition of the issuers change. A decrease in value of the equity securities in a Fund’s portfolio may also cause the value of the Fund’s Shares to decline.

EXCHANGE TRADED PRODUCTS. Each Fund may invest in exchange traded products (“ETPs”), which include exchange traded funds registered under the 1940 Act, exchange traded commodity trusts and exchange traded notes.

EXCHANGE TRADED FUNDS. Each Fund may invest in ETFs. ETFs are investment companies that trade like stocks on a securities exchange at market prices rather than NAV. As a result, ETF shares may trade at a price greater than NAV (premium) or less than NAV (discount). If a Fund invests in an ETF, the Fund will indirectly bear fees and expenses charged by the ETF in addition to the Fund’s direct fees and expenses. Investments in ETFs are also subject to brokerage and other trading costs that could result in greater expenses for a Fund.

EXCHANGE-TRADED NOTES. Each Fund may invest in exchange-traded notes (“ETNs”). ETNs generally are senior, unsecured, unsubordinated debt securities issued by a sponsor, such as an investment bank. ETNs are traded on exchanges and the returns are linked to the performance of market indexes. In addition to trading ETNs on exchanges, investors may redeem ETNs directly with the issuer on a periodic basis, typically in a minimum amount of 50,000 units, or hold the ETNs until maturity. The value of an ETN may be influenced by time to maturity, level of supply and demand for the ETN, volatility and lack of liquidity in the underlying market, changes in the applicable interest rates, and economic, legal, political or geographic events that affect the referenced market. Because ETNs are debt securities, they are subject to credit risk. If the issuer has financial difficulties or goes bankrupt, the Fund may not receive the return it was promised. If a rating agency lowers an issuer’s credit rating, the value of the ETN may decline and a lower credit rating reflects a greater risk that the issuer will default on its obligation. There may be restrictions on the Fund’s right to redeem its investment in an ETN. There are no periodic interest payments for ETNs, and principal is not protected. The Fund’s decision to sell its ETN holdings may be limited by the availability of a secondary market.

FLOATING AND ADJUSTABLE RATE NOTES. Each Fund may invest in floating-rate and adjustable rate obligations, such as demand notes, bonds, and commercial paper. Variable- and floating-rate securities generally are less sensitive to interest rate changes but may decline in value if their interest rates do not rise as much, or as quickly, as interest rates in general. Conversely, floating-rate securities will not generally increase in value if interest rates decline. When a Fund holds variable- or floating-rate securities, a decrease (or, in the case of inverse floating-rate securities, an increase) in market interest rates will adversely affect the income received from such securities and the net asset value of the Fund’s shares.

These securities may bear interest at a rate that resets based on standard money market indices or are remarketed at current market rates. They may permit the holder to demand payment of principal at any time or at specified intervals not exceeding 397 days. The issuer of such obligations may also have the right to prepay, in its discretion, the principal amount of the obligations plus any accrued interest. The “reset date” of securities held by a Fund may not be longer than 397 days. Given that most floating-rate securities reset their interest rates prior to their final maturity date, the Fund uses the period to the next reset date to calculate the securities contribution to the average portfolio maturity of the Fund.

ILLIQUID SECURITIES. Each Fund may invest up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities (calculated at the time of investment). Illiquid securities include securities subject to contractual or other restrictions on resale and other instruments that lack readily available markets, as determined in accordance with SEC staff guidance.

INVESTMENT COMPANY SECURITIES. Each Fund may invest in the securities of other investment companies subject to applicable limitations under Section 12(d)(1) of the 1940 Act. Pursuant to Section 12(d)(1), each Fund may invest in the securities of another investment company (the “acquired company”) provided that the Fund, immediately after such purchase or acquisition, does not own in the aggregate: (i) more than 3% of the total outstanding voting stock of the acquired company; (ii) securities issued by the acquired company having an aggregate value in excess of 5% of the value of the total assets of the Fund; or (iii) securities issued by the acquired company and all other investment companies (other than treasury stock of the Fund) having an aggregate value in excess of 10% of the value of the total assets of the Fund. To the extent allowed by law or regulation, the Fund may invest its assets in securities of investment companies that are money market funds in excess of the limits discussed above.

If the Fund invests in and, thus, is a shareholder of, another investment company, the Fund’s shareholders will indirectly bear the Fund’s proportionate share of the fees and expenses paid by such other investment company, including advisory fees, in addition to both the management fees payable directly by the Fund to the Fund’s own investment adviser and the other expenses that the Fund bears directly in connection with the Fund’s own operations.

Section 12(d)(1) of the 1940 Act restricts investments by registered investment companies in securities of other registered investment companies, including the Fund. The acquisition of the Fund’s Shares by registered investment companies is subject to the restrictions of Section 12(d)(1) of the 1940 Act, except as may be permitted by exemptive rules under the 1940 Act or as may at some future time be permitted by an exemptive order that permits registered investment companies to invest in the Fund beyond the limits of Section 12(d)(1), subject to certain terms and conditions, including that the registered investment company enter into an agreement with the Fund regarding the terms of the investment.

The Fund may rely on Section 12(d)(1)(F) and Rule 12d1-3 of the 1940 Act, which provide an exemption from Section 12(d)(1) that allows the Fund to invest all of its assets in other registered funds, including ETFs, if, among other conditions: (a) the Fund, together with its affiliates, acquires no more than three percent of the outstanding voting stock of any acquired fund, and (b) the sales load charged on the Fund’s shares is no greater than the limits set forth in Rule 2830 of the Conduct Rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”).

LENDING PORTFOLIO SECURITIES. While the Funds do not currently engage in securities lending, each Fund may lend portfolio securities to certain creditworthy borrowers in U.S. and non-U.S. markets in an amount not to exceed one third (33¹/₃%) of the value of its total assets. The borrowers provide collateral that is marked to market daily, in an amount at least equal to the current market value of the securities loaned. A Fund may terminate a loan at any time and obtain the securities loaned. A Fund receives the value of any interest or cash or non-cash distributions paid on the loaned securities. A Fund cannot vote proxies for securities on loan, but may recall loans to vote proxies if a material issue affecting the Fund’s economic interest in the investment is to be voted upon. Distributions received on loaned securities in lieu of dividend payments (i.e., substitute payments) would not be considered qualified dividend income.

With respect to loans that are collateralized by cash, the borrower will be entitled to receive a fee based on the amount of cash collateral. A Fund is compensated by the difference between the amount earned on the reinvestment of cash collateral and the fee paid to the borrower. In the case of collateral other than cash, a Fund is compensated by a fee paid by the borrower equal to a percentage of the market value of the loaned securities. Any cash collateral may be reinvested in certain short-term instruments either directly on behalf of the lending Fund or through one or more joint accounts or money market funds, which may include those managed by the Adviser.

A Fund may pay a portion of the interest or fees earned from securities lending to a borrower as described above, and to one or more securities lending agents that would be approved by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board”) and who would administer the lending program for the Funds in accordance with guidelines that would be approved by the Board. In such capacity, the lending agent causes the delivery of loaned securities from a Fund to borrowers, arranges for the return of loaned securities to the Fund at the termination of a loan, requests deposit of collateral, monitors the daily value of the loaned securities and collateral, requests that borrowers add to the collateral when required by the loan agreements, and provides recordkeeping and accounting services necessary for the operation of the program.

Securities lending involves exposure to certain risks, including operational risk (i.e., the risk of losses resulting from problems in the settlement and accounting process), “gap” risk (i.e., the risk of a mismatch between the return on cash collateral reinvestments and the fees a Fund has agreed to pay a borrower), risk of loss of collateral, credit, legal, counterparty and market risk. While the Funds do not currently engage in securities lending, one or more Funds may do so in the future with the necessary approvals by the Board.

MONEY MARKET INSTRUMENTS. Each Fund may invest a portion of its assets in high-quality money market instruments on an ongoing basis to provide liquidity or for other reasons. The instruments in which a Fund may invest include: (i) short-term obligations issued by the U.S. Government; (ii) negotiable certificates of deposit (“CDs”), fixed time deposits and bankers’ acceptances of U.S. and foreign banks and similar institutions; (iii) commercial paper rated at the date of purchase “Prime-1” by Moody’s or “A-1+” or “A-1” by Standard & Poor’s (“S&P”) or, if unrated, of comparable quality as determined by the Fund; and (iv) repurchase agreements. CDs are short-term negotiable obligations of commercial banks. Time deposits are non-negotiable deposits maintained in banking institutions for specified periods of time at stated interest rates. Banker’s acceptances are time drafts drawn on commercial banks by borrowers, usually in connection with international transactions.

NON-U.S. SECURITIES. The ETFS Diversified-Factor Developed Europe Index Fund invests primarily in non-U.S. equity securities. Investments in non-U.S. equity securities involve certain risks that may not be present in investments in U.S. securities. For example, non-U.S. securities may be subject to currency risks or to foreign government taxes. There may be less information publicly available about a non-U.S. issuer than about a U.S. issuer, and a foreign issuer may or may not be subject to uniform accounting, auditing and financial reporting standards and practices comparable to those in the U.S. Other risks of investing in such securities include political or economic instability in the country involved, the difficulty of predicting international trade patterns and the possibility of imposition of exchange controls. The prices of such securities may be more volatile than those of domestic securities. With respect to certain foreign countries, there is a possibility of expropriation of assets or nationalization, imposition of withholding taxes on dividend or interest payments, difficulty in obtaining and enforcing judgments against foreign entities or diplomatic developments which could affect investment in these countries. Losses and other expenses may be incurred in converting between various currencies in connection with purchases and sales of foreign securities.

Non-U.S. stock markets may not be as developed or efficient as, and may be more volatile than, those in the U.S. While the volume of shares traded on non-U.S. stock markets generally has been growing, such markets usually have substantially less volume than U.S. markets. Therefore, a Fund’s investment in non-U.S. equity securities may be less liquid and subject to more rapid and erratic price movements than comparable securities listed for trading on U.S. exchanges. Non-U.S. equity securities may trade at price/earnings multiples higher than comparable U.S. securities and such levels may not be sustainable. There may be less government supervision and regulation of foreign stock exchanges, brokers, banks and listed companies abroad than in the U.S. Moreover, settlement practices for transactions in foreign markets may differ from those in U.S. markets. Such differences may include delays beyond periods customary in the U.S. and practices, such as delivery of securities prior to receipt of payment, that increase the likelihood of a failed settlement, which can result in losses to a Fund. The value of non-U.S. investments and the investment income derived from them may also be affected unfavorably by changes in currency exchange control regulations. Foreign brokerage commissions, custodial expenses and other fees are also generally higher than for securities traded in the U.S. This may cause the ETFS Diversified-Factor Developed Europe Index Fund to incur higher portfolio transaction costs than domestic equity funds. Fluctuations in exchange rates may also affect the earning power and asset value of the foreign entity issuing a security, even one denominated in U.S. dollars. Dividend and interest payments may be repatriated based on the exchange rate at the time of disbursement, and restrictions on capital flows may be imposed.

Investments in Europe. The ETFS Diversified-Factor Developed Europe Index Fund invests primarily in companies traded principally on a stock exchange in Europe. Most developed countries in Western Europe are members of the European Union (“EU”), and many are also members of the European Economic and Monetary Union (“EMU”), which requires compliance with restrictions on inflation rates, deficits, and debt levels. Unemployment in certain European nations is historically high and several countries face significant debt problems. These conditions can significantly affect every country in Europe. The euro is the official currency of the EU. The Fund may have significant exposure to the euro and events affecting the euro. Recent market events affecting several of the EU member countries have adversely affected the sovereign debt issued by those countries, and ultimately may lead to a decline in the value of the euro. A significant decline in the value of the euro may produce unpredictable effects on trade and commerce generally and could lead to increased volatility in financial markets worldwide.

REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS. Each Fund may enter into repurchase agreements with counterparties that are deemed to present acceptable credit risks. A repurchase agreement is a transaction in which a Fund purchases securities or other obligations from a bank or securities dealer (or its affiliate) and simultaneously commits to resell them to a counterparty at an agreed-upon date or upon demand and at a price reflecting a market rate of interest unrelated to the coupon rate or maturity of the purchased obligations. Each Fund maintains custody of the underlying obligations prior to their repurchase, either through its regular custodian or through a special “tri-party” custodian or sub-custodian that maintains separate accounts for both the Fund and its counterparty. Thus, the obligation of the counterparty to pay the repurchase price on the date agreed to or upon demand is, in effect, secured by such obligations.

Repurchase agreements carry certain risks not associated with direct investments in securities, including a possible decline in the market value of the underlying obligations. If their value becomes less than the repurchase price, plus any agreed-upon additional amount, the counterparty must provide additional collateral so that at all times the collateral is at least equal to the repurchase price plus any agreed-upon additional amount. The difference between the total amount to be received upon repurchase of the obligations and the price that was paid by the Fund upon acquisition is accrued as interest and included in its net investment income. Repurchase agreements involving obligations other than U.S. Government securities (such as commercial paper and corporate bonds) may be subject to special risks and may not have the benefit of certain protections in the event of the counterparty’s insolvency. If the seller or guarantor becomes insolvent, the Fund may suffer delays, costs and possible losses in connection with the disposition of collateral.

REVERSE REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS. Each Fund may enter into reverse repurchase agreements, which involve the sale of securities held by the Fund subject to its agreement to repurchase the securities at an agreed-upon date or upon demand and at a price reflecting a market rate of interest. Reverse repurchase agreements are subject to the Fund’s limitation on borrowings and may be entered into only with banks or securities dealers or their affiliates. While a reverse repurchase agreement is outstanding, the Fund will maintain the segregation, either on its records or with the Trust’s custodian, of cash or other liquid securities, marked-to-market daily, in an amount at least equal to its obligations under the reverse repurchase agreement.

Reverse repurchase agreements involve the risk that the buyer of the securities sold by the Fund might be unable to deliver them when that Fund seeks to repurchase. If the buyer of securities under a reverse repurchase agreement files for bankruptcy or becomes insolvent, the buyer or trustee or receiver may receive an extension of time to determine whether to enforce the Fund’s obligation to repurchase the securities, and the Fund’s use of the proceeds of the reverse repurchase agreement may effectively be restricted pending such decision.

TRACKING STOCKS. Each Fund may invest in tracking stocks. A tracking stock is a separate class of common stock whose value is linked to a specific business unit or operating division within a larger company and which is designed to “track” the performance of such business unit or division. The tracking stock may pay dividends to shareholders independent of the parent company. The parent company, rather than the business unit or division, generally is the issuer of tracking stock. However, holders of the tracking stock may not have the same rights as holders of the company’s common stock.

U.S. GOVERNMENT SECURITIES. Each Fund will invest in short-term obligations issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury or the agencies or instrumentalities of the U.S. government. Such obligations may be short-, intermediate- or long-term. U.S. government securities are obligations of, or guaranteed by, the U.S. government, its agencies or government-sponsored enterprises. U.S. government securities are subject to market and interest rate risk, and may be subject to varying degrees of credit risk. U.S. government securities include inflation-indexed fixed income securities, such as U.S. Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). U.S. government securities include zero coupon securities, which tend to be subject to greater market risk than interest-paying securities of similar maturities.

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS. The Trust’s the Board may, in the future, authorize a Fund to invest in securities contracts and investments other than those listed in this SAI and in the Fund’s Prospectus, provided they are consistent with the Fund’s investment objective and do not violate any investment restrictions or policies.

PROXY VOTING POLICY

Each Fund has delegated proxy voting responsibilities to the Adviser, subject to the Board’s oversight. In delegating proxy responsibilities, the Board has directed that proxies be voted consistent with each Fund’s and its shareholders’ best interests and in compliance with all applicable proxy voting rules and regulations. The Adviser has engaged a third party proxy solicitation firm to assist with voting proxies in a timely manner and who has adopted proxy voting policies and guidelines for this purpose (“Proxy Voting Policies”). A copy of the Proxy Voting Policies is set forth in Appendix A to this SAI. The Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) is responsible for monitoring the effectiveness of the Proxy Voting Policies. The Proxy Voting Policies have been adopted by the Trust as the policies and procedures that the Adviser will use when voting proxies on behalf of the Funds.

The Proxy Voting Policies address, among other things, material conflicts of interest that may arise between the interests of the Funds and the interests of the Adviser. The Proxy Voting Policies will ensure that all issues brought to shareholders are analyzed in light of the Adviser’s fiduciary responsibilities.

Information regarding how a Fund voted proxies relating to portfolio securities during the most recent 12-month period ended June 30 is available without charge, upon request, by calling 1-844-383-7289 or from the Funds’ website at http://www.etfsecurities.com, and on the SEC’S website at http://www.sec.gov.

PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS DISCLOSURE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

The Trust has adopted a Portfolio Holdings Policy (the “Policy”) designed to govern the disclosure of each Fund’s portfolio holdings and the use of material non-public information about Fund holdings. The Policy applies to all officers, employees, and agents of the Funds, including the Adviser. The Policy is designed to ensure that the disclosure of information about each Fund’s portfolio holdings is consistent with applicable legal requirements and otherwise in the best interest of the Funds.

As exchange-traded funds, information about each Fund’s portfolio holdings is made available on a daily basis in accordance with the provisions of any Order of the SEC applicable to the Funds, regulations of the Funds’ Listing Exchange and other applicable SEC regulations, orders and no-action relief. Such information typically reflects all or a portion of a Fund’s anticipated portfolio holdings as of the next Business Day.

A “Business Day” is any day on which the Listing Exchange is open for business. As of the date of this SAI, NYSE Arca observes the following holidays: New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Presidents’ Day, Good Friday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day.

Information about a Fund’s portfolio holdings is made available on a daily basis in accordance with the provisions of any Order of the SEC applicable to each Fund, regulations of each Fund’s Listing Exchange and other applicable SEC regulations, orders and no-action relief. Such information typically reflects all or a portion of the Fund’s anticipated portfolio holdings as of the next Business Day. This information is used in connection with the Creation and Redemption process and is disseminated on a daily basis through the facilities of the Listing Exchange, the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) and/or third-party service providers.

The Adviser may disclose on its website at the start of each Business Day the identities and quantities of the securities and other assets held by each Fund that will form the basis of the Fund’s calculation of its NAV on that Business Day. The portfolio holdings so disclosed will be based on information as of the close of business on the prior Business Day and/or trades that have been completed prior to the opening of business on that Business Day and that are expected to settle on that Business Day.

Daily access to each Fund’s portfolio holdings with no lag time is permitted to personnel of the Adviser, the Distributor and the Fund’s administrator (“Administrator”), custodian and accountant and other agents or service providers of the Trust who have need of such information in connection with the ordinary course of their respective duties to the Fund. The Fund’s CCO may authorize disclosure of portfolio holdings.

Each Fund may disclose its complete portfolio holdings or a portion of its portfolio holdings online at www.etfsecurities.com. Online disclosure of such holdings is publicly available at no charge.

Each Fund will disclose its complete portfolio holdings schedule in public filings with the SEC on a quarterly basis, based on the Fund’s fiscal year, within sixty (60) days of the end of the quarter, and will provide that information to shareholders, as required by federal securities laws and regulations thereunder.

No person is authorized to disclose a Fund’s portfolio holdings or other investment positions except in accordance with the Policy. The Board reviews the implementation of the Policy on a periodic basis.

INDEX DESCRIPTIONS

A description of each Index on which a Fund is based is provided in the relevant Fund’s Prospectus under “Principal Investment Strategies” with certain additional details provided below. Additional information about the Indexes of the Zacks Earnings Funds and the Diversified Factor Funds, including the components and weightings of the Indexes, as well as the rules that govern inclusion and weighting in each of the Indexes, is available at www.zacksindexservices.com and www.scientificbeta.com, respectively.

Quarterly Index Reconstitution. Each Index is “reconstituted” quarterly after the Market close on the 3rd Friday of March, June, September and December. If the day happens to be a holiday, reconstitution will take place on the following business day.

During each reconstitution, securities are screened to determine whether they comply with each Index Provider’s index methodology and are eligible to be included in the Indexes. The date of the determination is sometimes referred to as the “Index measurement date” or the “Screening Point.” Based on this screening, securities that meet the Index requirements are added to that Index, and securities that do not meet such requirements are dropped from that Index.

Index Maintenance. Index maintenance occurs throughout the year and includes monitoring and implementing the adjustments for company additions and deletions, stock splits, corporate restructurings and other corporate actions. Corporate actions are generally implemented after the close of trading on the day prior to the ex-date of such corporate actions. To the extent reasonably practicable, such changes will be announced at least two days prior to their implementation by the Index provider.

Index Availability: Each Index is calculated and disseminated throughout each day the NYSE Arca is open for trading.

Changes to the Index Methodology. Each Index is governed by a published, rules-based methodology. Changes to the methodology will be publicly disclosed at www.zacksindexservices.com and www.scientificbeta.com, respectively, prior to implementation. Sixty days’ notice will be given prior to the implementation of any such change.

Index Calculation Agent. Each Index Provider has retained an unaffiliated third party to calculate each Index (the “Calculation Agent”). The Calculation Agent, using the rules-based methodology, will calculate, maintain and disseminate the Index on a daily basis. Each Index Provider will monitor the results produced by the Calculation Agent to help ensure that each Index is being calculated in accordance with the rules-based methodology. In addition, each Index Provider has established policies and procedures designed to prevent non-public information about pending changes to the Index from being used or disseminated in an improper manner. Furthermore, the Adviser has established policies and procedures designed to prevent improper use and dissemination of non-public information about each Fund’s portfolio strategies and to prevent any Fund’s portfolio managers from having any influence on the construction of the Index methodology.

INVESTMENT LIMITATIONS

The following fundamental investment policies and limitations supplement those set forth in the Prospectus, as it applies to each Fund’s Prospectus. Unless otherwise noted, whenever a fundamental investment policy or limitation states a maximum percentage of a Fund’s assets that may be invested in any security or other asset, or sets forth a policy regarding quality standards, such standard or percentage limitation will be determined immediately after and as a result of the Fund’s acquisition of such security or other asset. Accordingly, other than with respect to a Fund’s limitations on borrowings, any subsequent change in values, net assets, or other circumstances will not be considered when determining whether the investment complies with the Fund’s investment policies and limitations.

Each Fund’s fundamental investment policies cannot be changed without the approval of the holders of a majority of the Fund’s outstanding voting securities as defined under the 1940 Act. Each Fund, however, may change the non-fundamental investment policies described below, its investment objective, and its Underlying Index without a shareholder vote provided that it obtains Board approval and notifies its shareholders with at least sixty (60) days’ prior written notice of any such change.

Fundamental Policies. The following investment policies and limitations are fundamental and may NOT be changed without shareholder approval.

A Fund, as a fundamental investment policy, may not:

Senior Securities

Issue senior securities, except as permitted under the 1940 Act.

Borrowing

Borrow money, except as permitted under the 1940 Act.

Underwriting

Act as an underwriter of another issuer’s securities, except to the extent that a Fund may be considered an underwriter within the meaning of the Securities Act in the disposition of portfolio securities.

Concentration

Purchase the securities of any issuer (other than securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities) if, as a result, more than 25% of the Fund’s total assets would be invested in the securities of companies whose principal business activities are in the same industry, except that a Fund will invest more than 25% of its total assets in securities of the same industry to approximately the same extent that the Fund’s Underlying Index concentrates in the securities of a particular industry or group of industries.

Real Estate

Purchase or sell real estate unless acquired as a result of ownership of securities or other instruments (but this shall not prevent a Fund from investing in securities or other instruments backed by real estate, real estate investment trusts or securities of companies engaged in the real estate business).

Commodities

Purchase or sell physical commodities unless acquired as a result of ownership of securities or other instruments (but this shall not prevent a Fund from purchasing or selling options and futures contracts or from investing in securities or other instruments backed by physical commodities).

Loans

Lend any security or make any other loan except as permitted under the 1940 Act.

This means that no more than 33 1/3% of its total assets would be lent to other parties. This limitation does not apply to purchases of debt securities or to repurchase agreements, or to acquisitions of loans, loan participations or other forms of debt instruments, permissible under the Fund’s investment policies.

With respect to issuing Senior Securities, as noted above, a Fund is not permitted to issue senior securities, except that a Fund may borrow from any bank if immediately after such borrowing the value of the Fund’s total assets is at least 300% of the principal amount of all of the Fund’s borrowings (i.e., the principal amount of the borrowings may not exceed 33 1/3% of the Fund’s total assets). In the event that such asset coverage shall at any time fall below 300% a Fund shall, within three days thereafter (not including Sundays and holidays), reduce the amount of its borrowings to an extent that the asset coverage of such borrowing shall be at least 300%. The fundamental investment limitations set forth above limit the Fund’s ability to engage in certain investment practices and purchase securities or other instruments to the extent permitted by, or consistent with, applicable law. As such, these limitations will change as the statute, rules, regulations or orders (or, if applicable, interpretations) change, and no shareholder vote will be required or sought.

With respect to Borrowing, as noted above, a Fund may not borrow money, except that a Fund may (i) borrow money from banks for temporary or emergency purposes (but not for leverage or the purchase of investments) and (ii) engage in other transactions permissible under the 1940 Act that may involve a borrowing (such as obtaining short-term credits as are necessary for the clearance of transactions, engaging in delayed-delivery transactions, or purchasing certain futures, forward contracts and options), provided that the combination of (i) and (ii) shall not exceed 33-1/3% of the value of the Fund’s total assets (including the amount borrowed), less the Fund’s liabilities (other than borrowings).

Non-Fundamental Policies. The following investment policies are not fundamental and may be changed without shareholder approval.

80% Policy

Under normal circumstances, each Fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets, plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes, in the types of securities suggested by the Fund’s name.

If, subsequent to an investment, the 80% requirement is no longer met, the Fund’s future investments will be made in a manner that will bring the Fund into compliance with this policy. Prior to any change in the Fund’s 80% policy, each Fund will provide shareholders with 60 days’ notice.

Illiquid Securities

The Funds may not invest, in the aggregate, more than 15% of its net assets in securities with legal or contractual restrictions on resale, securities that are not readily marketable and repurchase agreements with more than seven days to maturity.

CONTINUOUS OFFERING

The method by which Creation Unit Aggregations of shares are created and traded may raise certain issues under applicable securities laws. Because new Creation Unit Aggregations of shares are issued and sold by the Funds on an ongoing basis, at any point a “distribution,” as such term is used in the Securities Act, may occur. Broker-dealers and other persons are cautioned that some activities on their part may, depending on the circumstances, result in their being deemed participants in a distribution in a manner which could render them statutory underwriters and subject them to the prospectus delivery requirement and liability provisions of the Securities Act.

For example, a broker-dealer firm or its client may be deemed a statutory underwriter if it takes Creation Unit Aggregations after placing an order with the Funds’ Distributor, breaks them down into constituent shares, and sells such shares directly to customers, or if it chooses to couple the creation of a supply of new shares with an active selling effort involving solicitation of secondary market demand for shares. A determination of whether one is an underwriter for purposes of the Securities Act must take into account all the facts and circumstances pertaining to the activities of the broker-dealer or its client in the particular case, and the examples mentioned above should not be considered a complete description of all the activities that could lead to a categorization as an underwriter.

Broker-dealer firms should also note that dealers who are not “underwriters” but are effecting transactions in shares, whether or not participating in the distribution of shares, generally are required to deliver a prospectus. This is because the prospectus delivery exemption in Section 4(3) of the Securities Act is not available in respect of such transactions as a result of Section 24(d) of the 1940 Act. Firms that incur a prospectus delivery obligation with respect to shares of a Fund are reminded that, pursuant to Rule 153 under the Securities Act, a prospectus delivery obligation under Section 5(b)(2) of the Securities Act owed to an exchange member in connection with the sale on the Listing Exchange is satisfied by the fact that the prospectus is available at the Listing Exchange upon request. The prospectus delivery mechanism provided in Rule 153 is only available with respect to transactions on an exchange.

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUST

Board Responsibilities. The Board is responsible for overseeing the management and affairs of the Funds and the Trust. The Board has considered and approved contracts, as described herein, under which certain companies provide essential management and administrative services to the Trust. Like most ETFs, the day-to-day business of the Trust, including the day-to-day management of risk, is performed by third-party service providers, such as the Adviser, Distributor and Administrator. The Board is responsible for overseeing the Trust’s service providers and, thus, has oversight responsibility with respect to the risk management performed by those service providers. Risk management seeks to identify and eliminate or mitigate the potential effects of risks, i.e., events or circumstances that could have material adverse effects on the business, operations, shareholder services, investment performance or reputation of the Trust or the Funds. Under the overall supervision of the Board and the Audit Committee (discussed in more detail below), the service providers to the Funds employ a variety of processes, procedures and controls to identify risks relevant to the operations of the Trust and the Funds to lessen the probability of their occurrence and/or to mitigate the effects of such events or circumstances if they do occur. Each service provider is responsible for one or more discrete aspects of the Trust’s business (e.g., the Adviser is responsible for the day-to-day management of the Fund’s portfolio investments) and, consequently, for managing the risks associated with that activity.

The Board’s role in risk management oversight begins before the inception of a Fund, at which time the Fund’s Adviser presents the Board with information concerning the investment objective, strategies and risks of the Fund. Additionally, the Fund’s Adviser provides the Board with an overview of, among other things, its investment philosophy, brokerage practices and compliance infrastructure. Thereafter, the Board oversees the risk management of the Fund’s operations, in part, by requesting periodic reports from and otherwise communicating with various personnel of the Funds and its service providers, including the Trust’s CCO and the Fund’s independent registered public accountants. The Board and, with respect to identified risks that relate to its scope of expertise, the Audit Committee oversee efforts by management and service providers to manage risks to which the Funds may be exposed.

The Board is responsible for overseeing the nature, extent and quality of the services provided to the Funds by the Adviser and receives information about those services at its regular meetings. In addition, on at least an annual basis, in connection with its consideration of whether to renew the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser, the Board meets with the Adviser to review such services. Among other things, the Board regularly considers the Adviser’s adherence to each Fund’s investment restrictions and compliance with various Fund policies and procedures and with applicable securities regulations. The Board also reviews information about each Fund’s performance and investments.

The Trust’s CCO meets regularly with the Board to review and discuss compliance and other issues. At least annually, the Trust’s CCO provides the Board with a report reviewing the adequacy and effectiveness of the Trust’s policies and procedures and those of its service providers, including the Adviser. The report addresses the operation of the policies and procedures of the Trust and each service provider since the date of the last report; material changes to the policies and procedures since the date of the last report; any recommendations for material changes to the policies and procedures; and material compliance matters since the date of the last report.

The Board receives reports from the Trust’s service providers regarding operational risks, portfolio valuation and other matters. Annually, an independent registered public accounting firm reviews with the Audit Committee its audit of the Trust’s financial statements, focusing on major areas of risk encountered by the Trust and noting any significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in the Trust’s internal controls.

The Board recognizes that not all risks that may affect a Fund can be identified, that it may not be practical or cost-effective to eliminate or mitigate certain risks, that it may be necessary to bear certain risks (such as investment-related risks) to achieve a Fund’s goals, and that the processes, procedures and controls employed to address certain risks may be limited in their effectiveness. Moreover, despite the periodic reports the Board receives and the Board’s discussions with the service providers to a Fund, it may not be made aware of all of the relevant information of a particular risk. Most of the Trust’s investment management and business affairs are carried out by or through the Funds’ Adviser and other service providers, each of which has an independent interest in risk management but whose policies and the methods by which one or more risk management functions are carried out may differ from the Trust’s and each other’s in the setting of priorities, the resources available or the effectiveness of relevant controls. As a result of the foregoing and other factors, the Board’s risk management oversight is subject to substantial limitations.

Members of the Board and Officers of the Trust. There are 3 members of the Board, 2 of whom are not interested persons of the Trust, as that term is defined in the 1940 Act (“Independent Trustees”). Graham Tuckwell, an interested person of the Trust, serves as Chairman of the Board. The Trust does not have a lead independent Trustee. The Board is comprised of a majority (66.7%) of Independent Trustees. There is an Audit Committee of the Board that is chaired by an Independent Trustee and comprised solely of Independent Trustees. The Audit Committee chair presides at the Committee meetings, participates in formulating agendas for Committee meetings, and coordinates with management to serve as a liaison between the Independent Trustees and management on matters within the scope of responsibilities of the Committee as set forth in its Board-approved charter. The Trust has determined its leadership structure is appropriate given the specific characteristics and circumstances of the Trust. The Trust made this determination in consideration of, among other things, the fact that the Independent Trustees constitute 66.7% of the Board, the number of Independent Trustees that constitute the Board, the amount of assets under management in the Trust, and the number of Funds overseen by the Board. The Board also believes that its leadership structure facilitates the orderly and efficient flow of information to the Independent Trustees from Fund management.

The Board of Trustees has two standing committees: the Audit Committee, and Nominating Committee. The Audit Committee and Nominating Committee are chaired by an Independent Trustee and composed of Independent Trustees.

Set forth below are the names, ages, positions with the Trust, length of term of office, and the principal occupations and other directorships held during at least the last five years of each of the persons currently serving as a Trustee of the Trust, as well as information about each officer. The business address of each Trustee and officer is ETFS Trust, 48 Wall Street, New York, NY 10005.

Board Committees. The Board has established the following standing committees:

Audit Committee. The Board has a standing Audit Committee that is composed of each Independent Trustees of the Trust. The Audit Committee operates under a written charter approved by the Board. The principal responsibilities of the Audit Committee include: recommending which firm to engage as each Fund’s independent registered public accounting firm and whether to terminate this relationship; reviewing the independent registered public accounting firm’s compensation, the proposed scope and terms of its engagement, and the firm’s independence; pre-approving audit and non-audit services provided by each Fund’s independent registered public accounting firm to the Trust and certain other affiliated entities; serving as a channel of communication between the independent registered public accounting firm and the Trustees; reviewing the results of each external audit, including any qualifications in the independent registered public accounting firm’s opinion, any related management letter, management’s responses to recommendations made by the independent registered public accounting firm in connection with the audit, reports submitted to the Committee by the internal auditing department of the Trust’s Administrator that are material to the Trust as a whole, if any, and management’s responses to any such reports; reviewing each Fund’s audited financial statements and considering any significant disputes between the Trust’s management and the independent registered public accounting firm that arose in connection with the preparation of those financial statements; considering, in consultation with the independent registered public accounting firm and the Trust’s senior internal accounting executive, if any, the independent registered public accounting firms’ report on the adequacy of the Trust’s internal financial controls; reviewing, in consultation with each Fund’s independent registered public accounting firm, major changes regarding auditing and accounting principles and practices to be followed when preparing each Fund’s financial statements; and other audit related matters. All of the Independent Trustees currently serve as members of the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee also acts as the Trust’s qualified legal compliance committee. The Audit Committee met 3 times in 2015.

Nominating Committee. The Board has a standing Nominating Committee that is composed of each Independent Trustees of the Trust. The Nominating Committee operates under a written charter approved by the Board. The principal responsibility of the Nominating Committee is to consider, recommend and nominate candidates to fill vacancies on the Trust’s Board, if any. The Nominating Committee generally will not consider nominees recommended by shareholders. All of the Independent Trustees currently serve as members of the Nominating Committee. The Nominating Committee met 0 times in 2015.

Individual Trustee Qualifications. The Trust has concluded that each of the Trustees should serve on the Board because of their ability to review and understand information about the Funds provided to them by management, to identify and request other information they may deem relevant to the performance of their duties, to question management and other service providers regarding material factors bearing on the management and administration of the Fund, and to exercise their business judgment in a manner that serves the best interests of the Fund’s shareholders. The Trust has concluded that each of the Trustees should serve as a Trustee based on their own experience, qualifications, attributes and skills as described below.

The Trust has concluded that Mr. Tuckwell should serve as Trustee of the Fund because of the experience he has gained as Chairman of ETF Securities, and his extensive knowledge of and experience in the financial services industry generally.

The Trust has concluded that Mr. O’Grady should serve as Trustee of the Fund because of the experience he has gained as a Partner in charge of the ETF Market Making unit of a prominent financial services firm, and his extensive knowledge of and experience in the financial services industry generally.

The Trust has concluded that Mr. Thomas should serve as Trustee of the Fund because of the experience he has gained as chief executive officer of a firm specializing in financial services, his experience in and knowledge of the financial services industry generally, and his service as chairman for another ETF family.

Fund Shares Owned by Board Members. The following table shows the dollar amount range of each Trustee’s “beneficial ownership” of shares of the Funds and each other series of the Trust as of the end of the most recently completed calendar year. Dollar amount ranges disclosed are established by the SEC. “Beneficial ownership” is determined in accordance with Rule 16a-1(a)(2) under the 1934 Act. The Trustees and officers of the Trust collectively own less than 1% of the outstanding shares of the Trust. 

Board Compensation. The Trust will pay the following fees to the Trustees during its current fiscal year ending December 31, 2015.

Control Persons and Principal Holders of Securities. Although the Trust does not have information concerning the beneficial ownership of shares held in the names of DTC Participants, as of April 20, 2016, the name, address and percentage ownership of each DTC Participant that owned of record 5% or more of the outstanding Shares of the Fund is set forth in the table below.

To the knowledge of the Trust’s management, as of the date of this prospectus, the officers and Trustees of the Trust, as a group, beneficially owned less than one percent of the Fund’s outstanding shares.

Investment Adviser. ETF Securities Advisors LLC serves as investment adviser to the Funds pursuant to an investment advisory agreement between the Trust and the Adviser (the “Investment Advisory Agreement”). The Adviser is a Delaware limited liability corporation registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”), and has offices located at 48 Wall Street, New York, NY 10005. The Adviser is a directly-owned subsidiary of ETF Securities Limited. As of March 31, 2016, ETF Securities Limited and its affiliates had assets under management totaling approximately $17.5 billion.

Under the Investment Advisory Agreement, the Adviser has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Adviser provides an investment program for the Funds. The Adviser also arranges for transfer agency, custody, fund administration, and all other non-distribution-related services necessary for the Funds to operate. Each Fund pays the Adviser a fee equal to a percentage of the Fund’s average daily net assets, as set forth below:

For the period ended December 31, 2015, the Funds paid advisory fees of $15,198, $12,289, $42,357, and $9,053for the ETFS Zacks Earnings Large-Cap U.S. Index Fund, ETFS Zacks Earnings Small-Cap U.S. Index Fund, ETFS Diversified-Factor U.S. Large Cap Index Fund, and ETFS Diversified-Factor Developed Europe Index Fund, respectively. 

Pursuant to the Investment Advisory Agreement, the Adviser has agreed to pay all expenses of the Funds, except for: (i) brokerage expenses and other fees, charges, taxes, levies or expenses (such as stamp taxes) incurred in connection with the execution of portfolio transactions or in connection with creation and redemption transactions (including without limitation any fees, charges, taxes, levies or expenses related to the purchase or sale of an amount of any currency, or the patriation or repatriation of any security or other asset, related to the execution of portfolio transactions or any creation or redemption transactions); (ii) legal fees or expenses in connection with any arbitration, litigation or pending or threatened arbitration or litigation, including any settlements in connection therewith; (iii) compensation and expenses of each Independent Trustee; (iv) compensation and expenses of counsel to the Independent Trustees; (v) compensation and expenses of the Trust’s CCO; (vi) extraordinary expenses (in each case as determined by a majority of the Independent Trustees); (vii) distribution fees and expenses paid by the Trust under any distribution plan adopted pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act; (viii) interest and taxes of any kind or nature (including, but not limited to, income, excise, transfer and withholding taxes); (ix) any fees and expenses related to the provision of securities lending services; and (x) the advisory fee payable to the Adviser. The internal expenses of pooled investment vehicles in which a Fund may invest (acquired fund fees and expenses) are not expenses of the Funds and are not paid by the Adviser.

The Adviser, from its own resources, including profits from advisory fees received from the Funds, provided such fees are legitimate and not excessive, may make payments to broker-dealers and other financial institutions for their expenses in connection with the distribution of a Fund shares, and otherwise currently pays all distribution costs for the Funds’ shares.

The Investment Advisory Agreement, with respect to each Fund, continues in effect for two years from its effective date, and thereafter is subject to annual approval by (i) the Board of Trustees of the Trust or (ii) the vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities (as defined in the 1940 Act) of each Fund, provided that in either event such continuance also is approved by a vote of a majority of the Trustees of the Trust who are not interested persons (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the Fund, by a vote cast in person at a meeting called for the purpose of voting on such approval. If the shareholders of a Fund fail to approve the Investment Advisory Agreement, the Adviser may continue to serve in the manner and to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act and rules and regulations thereunder.

The Investment Advisory Agreement, with respect to each Fund, is terminable without any penalty, by vote of the Board of Trustees of the Trust or by vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the Fund, or by the Adviser, in each case on not less than thirty (30) days’ nor more than sixty (60) days’ prior written notice to the other party; provided that a shorter notice period shall be permitted for a Fund in the event its shares are no longer listed on a national securities exchange. The Investment Advisory Agreement will terminate automatically and immediately in the event of its “assignment” (as defined in the 1940 Act).

Sub-Adviser. The Adviser has retained Vident Investment Advisory, LLC (the “Sub-Adviser”), 300 Colonial Center Parkway, Suite 330, Roswell, Georgia 30076, to serve as sub-adviser to the Fund. The Sub-Adviser is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vident Financial, LLC. Under a sub-advisory agreement between the Adviser and the Sub-Adviser (the “Sub-Advisory Agreement”) the Sub-Adviser is responsible for trading portfolio securities on behalf of the Funds, including selecting broker-dealers to execute purchase and sale transactions as instructed by the Adviser or in connection with any rebalancing or reconstitution of the Index, subject to the supervision of the Adviser and the Board of Trustees. Under the Sub-Advisory Agreement, the Adviser pays the Sub-Adviser a fee, calculated daily and paid monthly, at the following annual rate based on the average daily net assets of each Fund as follows:

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, the Adviser paid sub-advisory fees of $548, $548, $548, and $548 for the ETFS Zacks Earnings Large-Cap U.S. Index Fund, ETFS Zacks Earnings Small-Cap U.S. Index Fund, ETFS Diversified-Factor U.S. Large Cap Index Fund, and ETFS Diversified-Factor Developed Europe Index Fund, respectively, to Vident Investment Advisory, LLC and the Adviser paid sub-advisory fees of $1,091, $942, $5,254, and $1,213 for the ETFS Zacks Earnings Large-Cap U.S. Index Fund, ETFS Zacks Earnings Small-Cap U.S. Index Fund, ETFS Diversified-Factor U.S. Large Cap Index Fund, and ETFS Diversified-Factor Developed Europe Index Fund, respectively, to the Trust’s predecessor sub-adviser, Investment Management Solutions, LLC.

After the initial two-year term, the continuance of the Sub-Advisory Agreement must be specifically approved at least annually: (i) by the vote of the Trustees or by a vote of the shareholders of the Fund; and (ii) by the vote of a majority of the Trustees who are not parties to the Sub-Advisory Agreement or “interested persons” or of any party thereto, cast in person at a meeting called for the purpose of voting on such approval. The Sub-Advisory Agreement will terminate automatically in the event of its assignment, and is terminable at any time without penalty by the Trustees of the Trust or, with respect to the Fund, by a majority of the outstanding voting securities of the Fund. The Sub-Advisory Agreement also may be terminated, at any time, by the Adviser or Sub-Adviser upon 60 days’ written notice to the other party. As used in the Sub-Advisory Agreement, the terms “majority of the outstanding voting securities,” “interested persons” and “assignment” have the same meaning as such terms in the 1940 Act.

Portfolio Manager.

This section includes information about the Funds’ portfolio manager, including information about other accounts managed, the dollar range of Shares owned and compensation.

Denise Krisko serves at portfolio manager (“Portfolio Manager”) of the Funds.

Compensation. The Portfolio Manager receives a base salary and is eligible to earn discretionary bonuses from time to time. The availability and amount of any bonus will be based on factors such as the Sub-Adviser’s profitability, the Portfolio Manager’s individual performance and team contribution.

Other Accounts Managed by the Portfolio Manager. In addition to the Funds, the Portfolio Manager manage the following other accounts as of December 31, 2015:

* None of the accounts managed by the Portfolio Manager are subject to performance based advisory fees.

Portfolio Manager Fund Ownership. The Funds are required to show the dollar range of the Portfolio Manager’s “beneficial ownership” of shares of the Funds as of the end of the most recently completed fiscal year. Dollar amount ranges disclosed are established by the SEC. “Beneficial ownership” is determined in accordance with Rule 16a-1(a)(2) under the Exchange Act. As of the date of this SAI, the portfolio manager did not own shares of the Funds.

Description of Material Conflicts of Interest. The Portfolio Manager’s management of “other accounts” the management of the Funds’ investments, on the one hand, and the investments of the Portfolio Manager’s other accounts, on the other. The other accounts may have the same investment objectives as the Fund. Therefore, a potential conflict of interest may arise as a result of the identical investment objectives, whereby the Portfolio Manager could favor one account over another. Another potential conflict could include the Portfolio Manager’s knowledge about the size, timing, and possible market impact of Fund trades, whereby the Portfolio Manager could use this information to the advantage of other accounts and to the disadvantage of the Fund. However, the Sub-Adviser has established policies and procedures to ensure that the purchase and sale of securities among all accounts managed by the Portfolio Manager are fairly and equitably allocated.

Codes of Ethics. The Trust, the Adviser, the Sub-Adviser and the Distributor have each adopted a Code of Ethics pursuant to Rule 17j-1 under the 1940 Act and Rule 204A-1 under the Advisers Act, where applicable. Each Code of Ethics permits personnel subject to that Code of Ethics to invest in securities for their personal investment accounts, subject to certain limitations, including securities that may be purchased or held by the Funds. Each Code of Ethics is on public file with, and is available from, the SEC.

Administrator, Custodian, and Transfer Agent. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMorgan”) serves as administrator, custodian and transfer agent for the Funds. JPMorgan’s principal address is 383 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10179. Under the Administration Agreement with the Trust, JPMorgan (“Administrator”), subject to the general supervision of the Trust’s Board of Trustees, provides various administrative, compliance, tax, accounting and financial reporting services for the maintenance and operations of the Trust and the Funds. In addition, JPMorgan makes available the office space, equipment, personnel and facilities required to provide such services. Under the Global Custody Agreement with the Trust, JPMorgan (“Custodian”) holds the Trust’s cash and securities, maintains such cash and securities in separate accounts in the name of the Trust, maintains a statement of accounts for each account of the Trust, and may provide other services pursuant to the Custody Agreement and related agreements. The Custodian, upon the order of the Trust, receives, delivers and releases securities and makes payments for securities purchased by the Trust for the Funds. The Custodian is authorized to appoint one or more sub-custodians and is authorized to appoint foreign custodians or foreign custody managers for Trust investments outside the United States. Pursuant to an Agency Services Agreement with the Trust, JPMorgan (“Transfer Agent”) acts as transfer agent for the Trust’s authorized and issued shares of beneficial interest, and as dividend disbursing agent of the Trust. JPMorgan also provides services, as applicable, for any wholly-owned subsidiary of the Funds. As compensation for the foregoing services, JPMorgan receives certain out-of-pocket costs, transaction fees and asset-based fees which are accrued daily and paid monthly by the Trust from the Trust’s custody account with JPMorgan. The Funds are new and the Adviser paid JPMorgan $26,607, $27,740, $48,467, and $93,311 for the ETFS Zacks Earnings Large-Cap U.S. Index Fund, ETFS Zacks Earnings Small-Cap U.S. Index Fund, ETFS Diversified-Factor U.S. Large Cap Index Fund, and ETFS Diversified-Factor Developed Europe Index Fund, respectively, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

Distributor. ALPS Distributors, Inc. serves as Distributor for the Trust and its principal address is 1290 Broadway, Suite 1100, Denver, Colorado 80203. The Distributor has entered into a Distribution Agreement with the Trust pursuant to which it will serve as distributor with respect to Creation and Redemption of Creation Unit Aggregations. The Distribution Agreement will continue for two years from its effective date and is renewable annually. Shares are continuously offered for sale by a Fund through the Distributor only in Creation Unit Aggregations, as described in the applicable Prospectus and below in the Creation and Redemption of Creation Unit Aggregations section. Shares in less than Creation Unit Aggregations are not distributed by the Distributor. The Distributor will deliver the applicable Prospectus and, upon request, this SAI to Authorized Participants (as defined below) purchasing Creation Unit Aggregations and will maintain records of both orders placed with it and confirmations of acceptance furnished by it. The Distributor is a broker-dealer registered under the 1934 Act and a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”). The Distributor is not affiliated with ETF Securities Limited, the Adviser, or any stock exchange.

The Distribution Agreement for each Fund will provide that it may be terminated at any time, without the payment of any penalty, on at least sixty (60) days’ prior written notice to the other party (i) by vote of a majority of the Independent Trustees or (ii) by vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the Fund. The Distribution Agreement will terminate automatically in the event of its “assignment” (as defined in the 1940 Act).

The Distributor may also enter into agreements with securities dealers (“Soliciting Dealers”) who will solicit purchases of Creation Unit Aggregations of shares. Such Soliciting Dealers may also be Authorized Participants (as defined below) or DTC Participants (as defined below).

12b-1 Plan. The Trust has adopted a Distribution and Service Plan pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act (the “Plan”) pursuant to which each Fund may reimburse the Distributor up to a maximum annual rate of 0.25% of its average daily net assets.

Under the Plan and as required by Rule 12b-1, the Trustees will receive and review after the end of each calendar quarter a written report provided by the Distributor of the amounts expended under the Plan and the purpose for which such expenditures were made. With the exception of the Distributor and its affiliates, no “interested person” of the Trust (as that term is defined in the 1940 Act) and no Trustee of the Trust has a direct or indirect financial interest in the operation of the Plan or any related agreement.

The Plan was adopted in order to permit the implementation of the Fund’s method of distribution. However, no such fee is currently paid by the Funds.

Intermediary Compensation. The Adviser or its affiliates, out of their own resources and not out of Fund assets (i.e., without additional cost to the Funds or their shareholders), may pay certain broker dealers, banks and other financial intermediaries (“Intermediaries”) for certain activities related to the Funds, including participation in activities that are designed to make Intermediaries more knowledgeable about exchange traded products, including the Funds, or for other activities, such as marketing and educational training or support. These arrangements are not financed by the Funds and, thus, do not result in increased Fund expenses. They are not reflected in the fees and expenses listed in the fees and expenses sections of any Fund’s Prospectus and they do not change the price paid by investors for the purchase of a Fund’s shares or the amount received by a shareholder as proceeds from the redemption of Fund shares. 

Such compensation may be paid to Intermediaries that provide services to the Funds, including marketing and education support (such as through conferences, webinars and printed communications). The Adviser periodically assesses the advisability of continuing to make these payments. Payments to an Intermediary may be significant to the Intermediary, and amounts that Intermediaries pay to your adviser, broker or other investment professional, if any, may also be significant to such adviser, broker or investment professional. Because an Intermediary may make decisions about what investment options it will make available or recommend, and what services to provide in connection with various products, based on payments it receives or is eligible to receive, such payments create conflicts of interest between the Intermediary and its clients. For example, these financial incentives may cause the Intermediary to recommend the Funds over other investments. The same conflict of interest exists with respect to your financial adviser, broker or investment professionals if he or she receives similar payments from his or her Intermediary firm.

Intermediary information is current only as of the date of this SAI. Please contact your adviser, broker or other investment professional for more information regarding any payments his or her Intermediary firm may receive. Any payments made by the Adviser or its affiliates to an Intermediary may create the incentive for an Intermediary to encourage customers to buy shares of the Funds.

If you have any additional questions, please call 1-844-383-7289.

BROKERAGE TRANSACTIONS

The Adviser assumes general supervision over placing orders on behalf of the Funds for the purchase and sale of portfolio securities. In selecting the brokers or dealers for any transaction in portfolio securities, the Adviser’s policy is to make such selection based on factors deemed relevant, including but not limited to, the breadth of the market in the security; the price of the security; the reasonableness of the commission or mark-up or mark-down, if any; execution capability; settlement capability; back office efficiency; and the financial condition of the broker or dealer, both for the specific transaction and on a continuing basis. The overall reasonableness of brokerage commissions paid is evaluated by the Adviser based upon its knowledge of available information as to the general level of commissions paid by other institutional investors for comparable services. Brokers may also be selected because of their ability to handle special or difficult executions, such as may be involved in large block trades, less liquid securities, broad distributions, or other circumstances. The Adviser does not consider the provision or value of research, products or services a broker or dealer may provide, if any, as a factor in the selection of a broker or dealer or the determination of the reasonableness of commissions paid in connection with portfolio transactions. The Trust has adopted policies and procedures that prohibit the consideration of sales of a Fund’s shares as a factor in the selection of a broker or a dealer to execute its portfolio transactions. To the extent creation or redemption transactions are conducted on a cash or “cash in lieu” basis, a Fund may contemporaneously transact with broker-dealers for the purchase or sale of portfolio securities in connection with such transactions (see “Creation and Redemption of Creation Unit Aggregations” herein). Such orders may be placed with an Authorized Participant in its capacity as broker-dealer or with an affiliated broker-dealer of such Authorized Participant. In such cases, the Funds will require such broker-dealer to achieve execution at a price that is at least as favorable to the Fund as the value of such securities used to calculate the Fund’s NAV. The broker-dealer will be required to reimburse the Funds for, among other things, any difference between the price (including applicable brokerage commissions, taxes and transaction costs) at which such securities were bought or sold and the value of such securities used to calculate a Fund’s NAV. This amount will vary depending on the quality of the execution and may be capped at amounts determined by the Adviser in its sole discretion.

Brokerage Commissions. The Funds paid brokerage commissions in the amount of $2,112.54, $3,559.62, $3,593.94, and $2,323.51 for the ETFS Zacks Earnings Large-Cap U.S. Index Fund, ETFS Zacks Earnings Small-Cap U.S. Index Fund, ETFS Diversified-Factor U.S. Large Cap Index Fund, and ETFS Diversified-Factor Developed Europe Index Fund, respectively, as of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

Directed Brokerage. For the period ended December 31, 2015, the Funds did not pay commissions on brokerage transactions directed to brokers pursuant to an agreement or understanding whereby the broker provides research or other brokerage services to the Adviser or Sub-Adviser.

Affiliated Brokers. The Funds may execute brokerage or other agency transactions through registered broker-dealer affiliates of the Fund, the Adviser, the Sub-Adviser or the Distributor for a commission in conformity with the 1940 Act, the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the SEC. These rules require that commissions paid to the affiliate by the Fund for exchange transactions not exceed “usual and customary” brokerage commissions. The rules define “usual and customary” commissions to include amounts which are “reasonable and fair compared to the commission, fee or other remuneration received or to be received by other brokers in connection with comparable transactions involving similar securities being purchased or sold on a securities exchange during a comparable period of time.” The Trustees, including those who are not “interested persons” of the Fund, have adopted procedures for evaluating the reasonableness of commissions paid to affiliates and review these procedures periodically.

From January 20, 2015, the commencement date of ETFS Zacks Earnings Large-Cap U.S. Index Fund and ETFS Zacks Earnings Small-Cap U.S. Index Fund and from January 27, 2015, the commencement date of ETFS Diversified-Factor U.S. Large Cap Index Fund and ETFS Diversified-Factor Developed Europe Index Fund through the fiscal year end December 31, 2105, the Funds did not pay brokerage commissions to affiliated brokers.

Regular Broker-Dealers. The Funds are required to identify any securities of its “regular brokers and dealers” (as such term is defined in the 1940 Act) which it may hold at the close of its most recent fiscal year. “Regular brokers or dealers” of the Trust are the ten brokers or dealers that, during the most recent fiscal year: (i) received the greatest dollar amounts of brokerage commissions from the Trust’s portfolio transactions; (ii) engaged as principal in the largest dollar amounts of portfolio transactions of the Trust; or (iii) sold the largest dollar amounts of the Trust’s shares. The Funds did not hold any securities of their regular brokers and dealers as of December 31, 2015.

Portfolio Turnover. Portfolio turnover may vary from year to year, as well as within a year. High turnover rates are likely to result in comparatively greater brokerage expenses. The overall reasonableness of brokerage commissions is evaluated by the Adviser based upon its knowledge of available information as to the general level of commissions paid by the other institutional investors for comparable services.

The portfolio turnover rate for the period ended December 31, 2015 was 82%, 110%, 50%, and 47% for the ETFS Zacks Earnings Large-Cap U.S. Index Fund, ETFS Zacks Earnings Small-Cap U.S. Index Fund, ETFS Diversified-Factor U.S. Large Cap Index Fund, and ETFS Diversified-Factor Developed Europe Index Fund, respectively.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE TRUST

Shares. The Trust was established as a Delaware statutory trust on January 9, 2014, and consists of multiple series of funds (“Funds”). Each Fund issues shares of beneficial interest. The Board may establish additional Funds. The Trust is registered with the SEC as an open-end management investment company.

Each share issued by a Fund has a pro rata interest in the assets of the Fund. Shares have no preemptive, exchange, subscription or conversion rights and are freely transferable. Each share is entitled to participate equally in dividends and distributions declared by the Board with respect to the Fund, and in the net distributable assets of a Fund on liquidation.

Each share has one vote with respect to matters upon which a shareholder vote is required consistent with the requirements of the 1940 Act and the rules promulgated thereunder. Shares of all Funds vote together as a single class except that if the matter being voted on affects only a particular Fund or if a matter affects a particular Fund differently from other Funds, that Fund will vote separately on such matter.

Under Delaware law, the Trust is not required to hold an annual meeting of shareholders unless required to do so under the 1940 Act. The policy of the Trust is not to hold an annual meeting of shareholders unless required to do so under the 1940 Act. All shares (regardless of the Fund) have non-cumulative voting rights for the Board. Under Delaware law, Trustees of the Trust may be removed by vote of the shareholders.

Following the creation of the initial Creation Unit Aggregation(s) of shares of a Fund and immediately prior to the commencement of trading in such Fund’s shares, a holder of shares may be a “control person” of the Fund, as defined in the 1940 Act. The Funds cannot accurately predict the length of time for which one or more shareholders may remain a control person or persons of a Fund. 

Shareholders may make inquiries by writing to the Trust, c/o ALPS Distributors, Inc., 1290 Broadway, Suite 1100, Denver, Colorado 80203.

Absent an applicable exemption or other relief from the SEC or its staff, beneficial owners of more than 5% of the shares of a Fund may be subject to the reporting provisions of Section 13 of the 1934 Act and the SEC’s rules promulgated thereunder. In addition, absent an applicable exemption or other relief from the SEC staff, officers and Trustees of the Funds and beneficial owners of 10% of the shares of a Fund (“Insiders”) may be subject to the insider reporting, short-swing profit and short-sale provisions of Section 16 of the 1934 Act and the SEC’s rules promulgated thereunder. Beneficial owners and Insiders should consult with their own legal counsel concerning their obligations under Sections 13 and 16 of the 1934 Act.

Termination of the Trust or the Fund. The Trust or a Fund may be terminated by a majority vote of the Board of Trustees or the affirmative vote of a super-majority of the holders of the Trust or a Fund entitled to vote on termination. Although the shares are not automatically redeemable upon the occurrence of any specific event, the Trust’s organizational documents provide that the Board will have the unrestricted power to alter the number of shares in a Creation Unit Aggregation. In the event of a termination of the Trust or the Fund, the Board, in its sole discretion, could determine to permit the shares to be redeemable in aggregations smaller than Creation Unit Aggregations or to be individually redeemable. In such circumstances, the Trust may make redemptions in-kind, for cash, or for a combination of cash and securities.

Role of the Depositary Trust Company (“DTC”). DTC acts as Securities Depository for the shares of the Trust. Shares of the Funds are represented by securities registered in the name of DTC or its nominee and deposited with, or on behalf of, DTC.

DTC, a limited-purpose trust company, was created to hold securities of its participants (“DTC Participants”) and to facilitate the clearance and settlement of securities transactions among the DTC Participants in such securities through electronic book-entry changes in accounts of the DTC Participants, thereby eliminating the need for physical movement of securities’ certificates. DTC Participants include securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, clearing corporations and certain other organizations, some of which (and/or their representatives) own DTC. More specifically, DTC is owned by a number of DTC Participants and by the NYSE, the AMEX and FINRA. Access to the DTC system is also available to others such as banks, brokers, dealers and trust companies that clear through or maintain a custodial relationship with a DTC Participant, either directly or indirectly (“Indirect Participants”).

Beneficial ownership of shares is limited to DTC Participants, Indirect Participants and persons holding interests through DTC Participants and Indirect Participants. Ownership of beneficial interests in shares (owners of such beneficial interests are referred to herein as “Beneficial Owners”) is shown on, and the transfer of ownership is effected only through, records maintained by DTC (with respect to DTC Participants) and on the records of DTC Participants (with respect to Indirect Participants and Beneficial Owners that are not DTC Participants). Beneficial Owners will receive from or through the DTC Participant a written confirmation relating to their purchase of shares. No Beneficial Owner shall have the right to receive a certificate representing such shares. 

Conveyance of all notices, statements and other communications to Beneficial Owners is effected as follows. Pursuant to the Depositary Agreement between the Trust and DTC, DTC is required to make available to the Trust upon request and for a fee to be charged to the Trust a listing of the shares of a Fund held by each DTC Participant. The Trust shall inquire of each such DTC Participant as to the number of Beneficial Owners holding shares, directly or indirectly, through such DTC Participant. The Trust shall provide each such DTC Participant with copies of such notice, statement or other communication, in such form and number and at such place as such DTC Participant may reasonably request, in order that such notice, statement or communication may be transmitted by such DTC Participant, directly or indirectly, to such Beneficial Owners. In addition, the Trust shall pay to each such DTC Participant a fair and reasonable amount as reimbursement for the expenses attendant to such transmittal, all subject to applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.

Share distributions shall be made to DTC or its nominee, Cede & Co., as the registered holder of all shares of the Trust. DTC or its nominee, upon receipt of any such distributions, shall immediately credit DTC Participants’ accounts with payments in amounts proportionate to their respective beneficial interests in shares of a Fund as shown on the records of DTC or its nominee. Payments by DTC Participants to Indirect Participants and Beneficial Owners of shares held through such DTC Participants will be governed by standing instructions and customary practices, as is now the case with securities held for the accounts of customers in bearer form or registered in a “street name,” and will be the responsibility of such DTC Participants.

The Trust has no responsibility or liability for any aspect of the records relating to or notices to Beneficial Owners, or payments made on account of beneficial ownership interests in such shares, or for maintaining, supervising or reviewing any records relating to such beneficial ownership interests, or for any other aspect of the relationship between DTC and the DTC Participants or the relationship between such DTC Participants and the Indirect Participants and Beneficial Owners owning through such DTC Participants. DTC may decide to discontinue its service with respect to shares of the Trust at any time by giving reasonable notice to the Trust and discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. Under such circumstances, the Trust shall take action to find a replacement for DTC to perform its functions at a comparable cost.

CREATION AND REDEMPTION OF CREATION UNIT AGGREGATIONS

Creation. The Trust issues and sells shares of the Funds only in Creation Unit Aggregations on a continuous basis through the Distributor, without a sales load, at the NAV next determined after receipt, on any Business Day, of an order in proper form.

Fund Deposit. The consideration for purchase of Creation Unit Aggregations of the Funds generally consists of the in-kind deposit of a designated portfolio of equity securities and other instruments closely approximating the holdings of a Fund (the “Deposit Securities”) and an amount of cash denominated in U.S. dollars (the “Cash Component”) computed as described below. Together, the Deposit Securities and the Cash Component constitute the “Fund Deposit,” which represents the minimum initial and subsequent investment amount for a Creation Unit Aggregation of a Fund.

Each Fund may permit or require the submission of a basket of equity securities and other instruments, or cash denominated in U.S. dollars that differs from the composition of the published basket. Each Fund may permit or require the consideration for Creation Unit Aggregations to consist solely of cash. Each Fund reserves the right to permit or require the substitution of an amount of cash denominated in U.S. dollars (i.e., a “cash in lieu” amount) to be added, at its discretion, to the Cash Component to replace any Deposit Security (typically 102%-110% of the value of any missing Deposit Security). For example, cash may be substituted to replace any Deposit Security that may not be available in sufficient quantity for delivery or that may not be eligible for transfer through the systems of DTC or the Clearing Process (discussed below). The Trust reserves the right to permit or require a “cash in lieu” amount where the delivery of the Deposit Security by the Authorized Participant (as described below) would be prohibited or restricted under applicable securities laws, or in certain other situations at the sole discretion of the Trust.

The Cash Component is sometimes also referred to as the “Balancing Amount.” The Cash Component is an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the shares (per Creation Unit Aggregation) and the value of Deposit Securities. If the Cash Component is a positive number, the Authorized Participant will deliver the Cash Component. If the Cash Component is a negative number, the Authorized Participant will receive the Cash Component. The Cash Component does not include any stamp duty tax or other similar fees and expenses payable upon transfer of beneficial ownership of the Deposit Securities. These are the sole responsibility of the Authorized Participant.

The Funds, through the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”), makes available on each Business Day, immediately prior to the opening of business on the Listing Exchange (currently 9:30 a.m., Eastern time), the list of the names and the required number of shares of Deposit Securities to be included in the current Fund Deposit (based on information at the end of the previous Business Day) for the Funds. Such Deposit Securities are applicable, subject to any adjustments, as described below, in order to effect creations of Creation Unit Aggregations of a Fund until such time as the next-announced composition of the Deposit Securities is made available.

The identity and number of shares of the Deposit Securities required for a Fund Deposit for each Fund changes from time to time based on changes to a Fund’s Underlying Index and other factors.

Procedures for Creation of Creation Unit Aggregations. To be eligible to place orders with the Distributor and to create a Creation Unit Aggregation of the Funds, an entity must be: (i) a “Participating Party,” i.e., a broker-dealer or other participant in the clearing process through the Continuous Net Settlement System of the NSCC (the “Clearing Process”), a clearing agency that is registered with the SEC; or (ii) a DTC Participant. In each case, such entity must have executed an agreement with the Distributor with respect to creations and redemptions of Creation Unit Aggregations (“Participant Agreement”). A Participating Party or DTC Participant that has entered a Participation Agreement is referred to as an “Authorized Participant.” Investors should contact the Distributor for the names of Authorized Participants that have signed a Participant Agreement. All shares of the Funds, however created, will be entered on the records of DTC in the name of Cede & Co. for the account of a DTC Participant.

All orders to create shares must be placed for one or more Creation Unit Aggregations. All orders to create Creation Unit Aggregations must be received by the Distributor from an Authorized Participant no later than the closing time of the regular trading session on the Listing Exchange (“Closing Time”) (ordinarily 4:00 p.m., Eastern time) on the date such orders are placed in order to receive that day’s NAV. All orders must be received in proper form. The date on which an order to create Creation Unit Aggregations is placed is referred to as the “Transmittal Date.” Orders must be transmitted by an Authorized Participant to the Distributor through the use of the Distributor’s electronic interface, by telephone or other transmission method acceptable to the Distributor pursuant to procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement, as described below, which procedures may change from time to time without notice at the discretion of the Trust. Economic or market disruptions or changes, or telephone or other communication failure, may impede the ability to reach the Distributor or an Authorized Participant. On days when the Listing Exchange or U.S. markets close earlier than normal, a Fund may require purchase orders to be placed earlier in the day. All questions as to the number of Deposit Securities to be delivered, and the validity, form and eligibility (including time of receipt) for the deposit of any tendered securities, will be determined by the Trust, whose determination shall be final and binding.

All orders to create Creation Unit Aggregations through an Authorized Participant shall be placed with an Authorized Participant, in the form required by such Authorized Participant in accordance with the Participant Agreement. In addition, the Authorized Participant may require an investor to make certain representations or enter into agreements with respect to the order, e.g., to provide for payments of cash, when required. Investors should be aware that their particular broker may not have executed a Participant Agreement and, in that case, orders to create Creation Unit Aggregations of a Fund have to be placed by each investor’s broker through an Authorized Participant that has executed a Participant Agreement. In such cases, there may be additional charges to such investor. At any given time, there may be only a limited number of broker-dealers that have executed a Participant Agreement and only a small number of such Authorized Participants may have international capabilities.

Those placing orders for Creation Unit Aggregations through the Clearing Process should afford sufficient time to permit proper submission of the order to the Distributor prior to the Closing Time on the Transmittal Date. Orders for Creation Unit Aggregations that are effected outside the Clearing Process are likely to require transmittal by the DTC Participant earlier on the Transmittal Date than orders effected using the Clearing Process. Those persons placing orders outside the Clearing Process should ascertain the deadlines applicable to DTC and the Federal Reserve Bank wire system by contacting the operations department of the broker or depository institution effectuating such transfer of Deposit Securities and the Cash Component.

Placement of Creation Orders Using the Clearing Process. Fund Deposits made through the Clearing Process must be delivered through a Participating Party that has executed a Participant Agreement. The Participant Agreement authorizes the Distributor to transmit to NSCC, on behalf of the Participating Party, such trade instructions as are necessary to effect the Participating Party’s creation order. Pursuant to such trade instructions to NSCC, the Participating Party agrees to deliver the requisite Deposit Securities and the Cash Component to the Trust, together with such additional information as may be required by the Distributor. An order to create Creation Unit Aggregations through the Clearing Process is deemed received by the Distributor on the Transmittal Date if: (i) such order is received by the Distributor not later than the Closing Time on such Transmittal Date; and (ii) all other procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement are properly followed.

Placement of Creation Orders Outside the Clearing Process. Fund Deposits made outside the Clearing Process must be delivered through a DTC Participant that has executed a Participant Agreement. A DTC Participant who wishes to place an order creating Creation Unit Aggregations to be effected outside the Clearing Process does not need to be a Participating Party, but such orders must state that the DTC Participant is not using the Clearing Process and that the creation of Creation Unit Aggregations will instead be effected through a transfer of securities and cash directly through DTC. The Fund Deposit transfer must be ordered by the DTC Participant on the Transmittal Date in a timely fashion so as to ensure the delivery of the requisite number of Deposit Securities through DTC to the account of the Fund by no later than 2:00 p.m., Eastern time, on the “Settlement Date.” The Settlement Date is typically the third Business Day following the Transmittal Date. Each Fund reserves the right to settle transactions on a basis other than “T” plus three Business Days (i.e., days on which NYSE is open) (“T+3”). In certain cases Authorized Participants will create and redeem Creation Unit Aggregations of the same Fund on the same trade date. In these instances, the Trust reserves the right to settle these transactions on a net basis. On days when the NYSE or U.S. markets close earlier than normal, a Fund may require purchase orders to be placed earlier in the day. All questions as to the number of Deposit Securities to be delivered, and the validity, form and eligibility (including time of receipt) for the deposit of any tendered securities, will be determined by the Trust, whose determination shall be final and binding. The amount of cash equal to the Cash Component must be transferred through the Federal Reserve Bank wire transfer system in a timely manner so as to be received no later than 2:00 p.m., Eastern time, on the Settlement Date. An order to create Creation Unit Aggregations outside the Clearing Process is deemed received by the Distributor on the Transmittal Date if: (i) such order is received by the Distributor not later than the Closing Time on such Transmittal Date; and (ii) all other procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement are properly followed. However, if the required Deposit Securities and the Cash Component are not received by the specified time on the Settlement Date, the Trust may cancel or revoke acceptance of such order. Upon written notice to the Distributor, such canceled or revoked order may be resubmitted the following Business Day using a Fund Deposit as newly constituted to reflect the then current NAV of the Fund. The delivery of Creation Unit Aggregations so created generally will occur no later than the Settlement Date.

Creation Unit Aggregations may be created in advance of receipt by the Trust of all or a portion of the applicable Deposit Securities as described below. In these circumstances, the initial deposit will have a value greater than the NAV of the shares on the date the order is placed in proper form since, in addition to available Deposit Securities, U.S. cash must be deposited in an amount equal to the sum of (i) the Cash Component, plus (ii) at least 102%, which the Trust may change from time to time, of the market value of the undelivered Deposit Securities (the “Additional Cash Deposit”) with the Fund pending delivery of any missing Deposit Securities.

If an Authorized Participant determines to post an Additional Cash Deposit as collateral for any undelivered Deposit Securities, such Authorized Participant must deposit the appropriate amount of federal funds by 2:00 p.m., Eastern time (or such other time as specified by the Trust), on the Settlement Date. If the Authorized Participant does not place its purchase order by the closing time or federal funds are not received in the appropriate amount by such time, then the order may be deemed to be rejected and the Authorized Participant shall be liable to the Fund for losses, if any, resulting therefrom. An additional amount of cash shall be required to be deposited, pending delivery of the missing Deposit Securities to the extent necessary to maintain the Additional Cash Deposit with the Trust in an amount at least equal to 102%, which the Trust may change from time to time, of the daily marked-to-market value of the missing Deposit Securities. To the extent that missing Deposit Securities are not received by the specified time on the Settlement Date, or in the event a marked-to-market payment is not made within one Business Day following notification by the Distributor that such a payment is required, the Trust may use the Additional Cash Deposit to purchase the missing Deposit Securities.

The Authorized Participant will be liable to the Trust for the costs incurred by the Trust in connection with any such purchases. These costs will be deemed to include the amount by which the actual purchase price of the Deposit Securities exceeds the market value of such Deposit Securities on the Transmittal Date plus the brokerage and related transaction costs associated with such purchases. The Trust will return any unused portion of the Additional Cash Deposit once all of the missing Deposit Securities have been properly received or purchased by the Trust and deposited into the Trust. In addition, a Transaction Fee, as listed below, will be charged in all cases. The delivery of Creation Unit Aggregations so created generally will occur no later than the Settlement Date.

Cash Purchases. When, in the sole discretion of the Trust, cash purchases of Creation Unit Aggregations of shares are available or specified for the Funds, such purchases shall be effected in essentially the same manner as in-kind purchases thereof. In the case of a cash purchase, the Authorized Participant must pay the cash equivalent of the Deposit Securities it would otherwise be required to provide through an in-kind purchase, plus the same Cash Component required to be paid by an in-kind purchaser. In addition, to offset brokerage and other costs associated with using cash to purchase the requisite Deposit Securities, the Authorized Participant must pay the Transaction Fees required by the Funds. If the Authorized Participant acts as a broker for the Funds in connection with the purchase of Deposit Securities, the Authorized Participant will also be required to pay certain brokerage commissions, taxes, and transaction and market impact costs as discussed under the heading “Brokerage Transactions” herein.

Acceptance of Orders for Creation Unit Aggregations. The Trust reserves the absolute right to reject or revoke acceptance of a creation order transmitted to it by the Distributor with respect to a Fund. Orders may be rejected and acceptance may be revoked if, for example: (i) the order is not in proper form; (ii) the investor(s), upon obtaining the shares ordered, would own 80% or more of the currently outstanding shares of the Fund; (iii) the Deposit Securities delivered are not the same as those disseminated through the facilities of the NSCC for that date by the Fund as described above; (iv) acceptance of the Deposit Securities would have certain adverse tax consequences to the Fund; (v) acceptance of the Fund Deposit would, in the opinion of counsel, be unlawful; (vi) acceptance of the Fund Deposit would otherwise, in the discretion of the Trust or the Adviser, have an adverse effect on the Trust or the rights of beneficial owners; or (vii) in the event that circumstances outside the control of the Trust, JPMorgan, the Distributor or the Adviser make it for all practical purposes impossible to process creation orders. Examples of such circumstances include acts of God; public service or utility problems such as fires, floods, extreme weather conditions and power outages resulting in telephone, telecopy and computer failures; market conditions or activities causing trading halts; systems failures involving computer or other information systems affecting the Trust, the Adviser, the Sub-Adviser, the Distributor, DTC, NSCC, JPMorgan or a sub-custodian or any other participant in the creation process and similar extraordinary events. The Distributor shall notify a prospective creator of a Creation Unit and/or the Authorized Participant acting on behalf of the creator of a Creation Unit Aggregation of its rejection of the order of such person. The Trust, JPMorgan, a sub-custodian and the Distributor are under no duty, however, to give notification of any defects or irregularities in the delivery of Fund Deposits nor shall any of them incur any liability for the failure to give any such notification.

All questions as to the number of shares of each security in the Deposit Securities and the validity, form, eligibility and acceptance for deposit of any securities to be delivered shall be determined by the Trust, and the Trust’s determination shall be final and binding.

Creation/Redemption Transaction Fee. Each Fund imposes a “Transaction Fee” on investors purchasing or redeeming Creation Units. The purpose of the Transaction Fee is to protect the existing shareholders of a Fund from the dilutive costs associated with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units. Where a Fund permits cash creations (or redemptions) or cash in lieu of depositing one or more Deposit Securities, the purchaser (or redeemer) may be assessed a higher Transaction Fee to offset the transaction cost to the Fund of buying (or selling) those particular Deposit Securities. Transaction Fees for a Fund will differ from Transaction Fees for other ETFS Funds, depending on the transaction expenses related to the Fund’s portfolio securities, and will be limited to amounts that have been determined by the Adviser to be appropriate. The maximum Transaction Fee, as set forth in the table below for the Fund, may be charged in cases where a Fund permits cash or cash in lieu of Deposit Securities. Investors purchasing or redeeming through the DTC process generally will pay a higher Transaction Fee than will investors doing so through the NSCC process. Also, investors who use the services of a broker or other such intermediary may be charged a fee for such services, in addition to the Transaction Fee imposed by the Fund.

The following table sets forth the standard and maximum creation and redemption Transaction Fee for the Fund. These fees may be changed by the Trust.

Placement of Redemption Orders Using the Clearing Process. Orders to redeem Creation Unit Aggregations through the Clearing Process must be delivered through a Participating Party that has executed the Participant Agreement. Except as described herein, an order to redeem Creation Unit Aggregations using the Clearing Process is deemed received by the Trust on the Transmittal Date if: (i) such order is received by JPMorgan (in its capacity as Transfer Agent) not later than the Closing Time on such Transmittal Date, and (ii) all other procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement are properly followed. Such order will be effected based on the NAV of a Fund as next determined. The consideration for redemption of Creation Unit Aggregations of each Fund generally consists of (i) a designated portfolio of equity securities and other instruments that closely approximate the holdings of the Fund (the “Fund Securities”) and (ii) an amount of cash denominated in U.S. dollars (the “Cash Redemption Amount”) as described below. The requisite Fund Securities and the Cash Redemption Amount generally will be transferred by the third NSCC Business Day following the date on which such request for redemption is deemed received.

Placement of Redemption Orders Outside the Clearing Process. Orders to redeem Creation Unit Aggregations outside the Clearing Process must be delivered through a DTC Participant that has executed the Participant Agreement. An order to redeem Creation Unit Aggregations outside the Clearing Process is deemed received by the Trust on the Transmittal Date if: (i) such order is received by JPMorgan (in its capacity as Transfer Agent) not later than the Closing Time on such Transmittal Date; (ii) such order is accompanied or followed by the requisite number of shares of the Fund specified in such order, which delivery must be made through DTC to the Custodian no later than 11:00 a.m., Eastern time, on the contracted settlement date; and (iii) all other procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement are properly followed. After the Trust has deemed an order for redemption outside the Clearing Process received, the Trust will initiate procedures to transfer the requisite Fund Securities which are expected to be delivered within three Business Days and the Cash Redemption Amount to the Authorized Participant on behalf of the redeeming Beneficial Owner by the Settlement Date. In certain cases Authorized Participants will redeem and create Creation Unit Aggregations of the same Fund on the same trade date. In these instances, the Trust reserves the right to settle these transactions on a net basis.

If the requisite number of shares of a Fund is not delivered on the Transmittal Date as described above, a Fund may reject or revoke acceptance of the redemption request because the Authorized Participant has not satisfied all of the settlement requirements. 

The current procedures for collateralization of missing shares require, among other things, that any cash collateral shall be in the form of U.S. dollars in immediately available funds and shall be held by the Custodian and marked-to-market daily, and that the fees of the Custodian and any sub-custodians in respect of the delivery, maintenance and redelivery of the cash collateral shall be payable by the Authorized Participant. The Authorized Participant’s agreement will permit the Trust, on behalf of the Fund, to purchase the missing shares or acquire the Deposit Securities and the Cash Component underlying such shares at any time and will subject the Authorized Participant to liability for any shortfall between the cost to the Trust of purchasing such shares, Deposit Securities or Cash Component and the value of the collateral.

The calculation of the value of the Fund Securities and the Cash Redemption Amount to be delivered upon redemption will be made according to the procedures set forth under Determination of NAV computed on the Business Day on which a redemption order is deemed received by the Trust. Therefore, if a redemption order in proper form is submitted by a DTC Participant not later than the Closing Time on the Transmittal Date, and the requisite number of shares of the Fund are delivered prior to the DTC cut-off time, then the value of the Fund Securities and the Cash Redemption Amount to be delivered will be determined on such Transmittal Date. If, however, a redemption order is submitted by a DTC Participant not later than the Closing Time on the Transmittal Date but either (i) the requisite number of shares of the Fund are not delivered by the DTC cut-off-time on such Transmittal Date, or (ii) the redemption order is not submitted in proper form, then the redemption order will not be deemed received as of the Transmittal Date. In such case, the value of the Fund Securities and the Cash Redemption Amount to be delivered will be computed on the Business Day that such order is deemed received by the Trust on which the shares of the Fund are delivered through DTC by the DTC cut-off-time on such Business Day pursuant to a properly submitted redemption order.

A Fund may also, in its sole discretion, upon request of a shareholder, provide such redeemer a portfolio of securities that differs from the exact composition of the Fund Securities but does not differ in NAV.

Redemptions of shares for Fund Securities will be subject to compliance with applicable federal and state securities laws and the Funds (whether or not it otherwise permits cash redemptions) reserves the right to redeem Creation Unit Aggregations for cash to the extent that the Trust could not lawfully deliver specific Fund Securities upon redemptions or could not do so without first registering the Fund Securities under such laws. An Authorized Participant or an investor for which it is acting subject to a legal restriction with respect to a particular security included in the Fund Securities applicable to the redemption of a Creation Unit Aggregation may be paid an equivalent amount of cash. The Authorized Participant may request the redeeming Beneficial Owner of the shares to complete an order form or to enter into agreements with respect to such matters as compensating cash payment.

Cash Redemptions. A Fund may pay out the proceeds of redemptions of Creation Unit Aggregations solely in cash or through any combination of cash or securities. In addition, an investor may request a redemption in cash that a Fund may, in its sole discretion, permit. In either case, the investor will receive a cash payment equal to the NAV of its shares based on the NAV of shares of the Fund next determined after the redemption request is received in proper form (minus a redemption transaction fee and additional charge for requested cash redemptions specified above, to offset the Trust’s brokerage and other transaction costs associated with the disposition of Fund Securities). Proceeds will be paid to the Authorized Participant redeeming shares on behalf of the redeeming investor as soon as practicable after the date of redemption. If the Authorized Participant acts as a broker for a Fund in connection with the sale of Fund Securities, the Authorized Participant will also be required to pay certain brokerage commissions, taxes, and transaction and market impact costs as discussed under the heading “Brokerage Transactions” herein.

Redemptions of shares for Fund Securities will be subject to compliance with applicable federal and state securities laws and each Fund (whether or not it otherwise permits cash redemptions) reserves the right to redeem Creation Unit Aggregations for cash to the extent that the Trust could not lawfully deliver specific Fund Securities upon redemptions or could not do so without first registering the Fund Securities under such laws.

In-Kind Redemptions. The ability of the Trust to effect in-kind creations and redemptions is subject, among other things, to the condition that, within the time period from the date of the order to the date of delivery of the securities, there are no days that are holidays in the applicable foreign market. For every occurrence of one or more intervening holidays in the applicable foreign market that are not holidays observed in the U.S. equity market, the redemption settlement cycle may be extended by the number of such intervening holidays. In addition to holidays, other unforeseeable closings in a foreign market due to emergencies may also prevent the Trust from delivering securities within the normal settlement period. The Funds will not suspend or postpone redemption beyond seven days, except as permitted under Section 22(e) of the 1940 Act. Section 22(e) provides that the right of redemption may be suspended or the date of payment postponed with respect to a Fund (1) for any period during which the NYSE is closed (other than customary weekend and holiday closings); (2) for any period during which trading on the NYSE is suspended or restricted; (3) for any period during which an emergency exists as a result of which disposal of the shares of the Fund’s portfolio securities or determination of its net asset value is not reasonably practicable; or (4) in such other circumstance as is permitted by the SEC.

REGULAR HOLIDAYS

The Funds generally intend to effect deliveries of Creation Unit Aggregations and portfolio securities on a basis of T+3. A Fund may effect deliveries of Creation Unit Aggregations and portfolio securities on a basis other than T+3 in order to accommodate local holiday schedules, to account for different treatment among foreign and U.S. markets of dividend record dates and ex-dividend dates, or under certain other circumstances. The ability of the Trust to effect in-kind creations and redemptions within three Business Days of receipt of an order in good form is subject, among other things, to the condition that, within the time period from the date of the order to the date of delivery of the securities, there are no days that are holidays in the applicable foreign market. For every occurrence of one or more intervening holidays in the applicable foreign market that are not holidays observed in the U.S. equity market, the redemption settlement cycle will be extended by the number of such intervening holidays. In addition to holidays, other unforeseeable closings in a foreign market due to emergencies may also prevent the Trust from delivering securities within the normal settlement period.

The securities delivery cycles currently practicable for transferring portfolio securities to redeeming investors, coupled with foreign market holiday schedules, will require a delivery process longer than seven calendar days for some Funds, in certain circumstances. The holidays applicable to the Fund during such periods are listed below, as are instances where more than seven days will be needed to deliver redemption proceeds. Although certain holidays may occur on different dates in subsequent years, the number of days required to deliver redemption proceeds in any given year is not expected to exceed the maximum number of days listed below for the Fund. The proclamation of new holidays, the treatment by market participants of certain days as “informal holidays” (e.g., days on which no or limited securities transactions occur, as a result of substantially shortened trading hours), the elimination of existing holidays, or changes in local securities delivery practices could affect the accuracy of information set forth herein.

Listed below are the anticipated dates in calendar year 2016 in which the regular holidays in non-U.S. markets may impact Fund settlement. This list is based on information available to the Fund. The list is subject to change:

Regular Holidays through December 31, 2016.

Austria

Belgium

Denmark 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

 Ireland 

Italy 

The Netherlands 

Norway 

Portugal

Spain

 Sweden

Switzerland

The United Kingdom

Listed below are the anticipated dates in calendar year 2017 in which the regular holidays in non-U.S. markets may impact Fund settlement. This list is based on information available to the Fund. The list is subject to change:

Austria

Belgium 

Denmark 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Ireland 

Italy 

The Netherlands 

Norway 

Portugal 

Spain 

Sweden 

Switzerland 

The United Kingdom 

Redemptions. The longest redemption cycle for a Fund is a function of the longest redemption cycle among the countries whose securities comprise the Fund. In the calendar year 2016, the dates of regular holidays affecting the following securities markets present the worst-case redemption cycles* for a Fund as follows:

Redemptions. The longest redemption cycle for a Fund is a function of the longest redemption cycle among the countries whose securities comprise the Fund. In the calendar year 2017, the dates of regular holidays affecting the following securities markets present the worst-case redemption cycles* for a Fund as follows:

TAXES

The following is a summary of certain federal income tax considerations generally affecting the Funds and their shareholders that supplements the discussion in the Prospectus. No attempt is made to present a comprehensive explanation of the federal, state, local or foreign tax treatment of the Funds or their shareholders, and the discussion here and in the Prospectus is not intended to be a substitute for careful tax planning.

The following general discussion of certain federal income tax consequences is based on the Code and the regulations issued thereunder as in effect on the date of this Statement of Additional Information. New legislation, as well as administrative changes or court decisions, may significantly change the conclusions expressed herein, and may have a retroactive effect with respect to the transactions contemplated herein.

The following information should be read in conjunction with the section in the Prospectus entitled “Additional Tax Information.”

Taxation of the Funds. Each Fund has elected or will elect and intends to qualify each year to be treated as a separate RIC under Subchapter M of the Code. As such, each Fund should not be subject to federal income tax on its net investment income and capital gains, if any, to the extent that it timely distributes such income and capital gains to its shareholders. In order to qualify for treatment as a RIC, a Fund must distribute annually to its shareholders at least the sum of 90% of its net investment income (generally including the excess of net short-term capital gains over net long-term capital losses) and 90% of its net tax exempt interest income, if any (the “Distribution Requirement”) and also must meet several additional requirements. Among these requirements are the following: (i) at least 90% of a Fund’s gross income each taxable year must be derived from dividends, interest, payments with respect to certain securities loans, gains from the sale or other disposition of stock, securities or foreign currencies, or other income derived with respect to its business of investing in such stock, securities or currencies, and net income derived from interests in qualified publicly traded partnerships (the “Qualifying Income Requirement”); and (ii) at the end of each quarter of a Fund’s taxable year, its assets must be diversified so that (a) at least 50% of the market value of its total assets must be represented by cash and cash items, U.S. government securities, securities of other RICs and other securities, with such other securities limited, in respect to any one issuer, to an amount not greater in value than 5% of the value of the Fund’s total assets and to not more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of such issuer, and (b) not more than 25% of the value of its total assets is invested in the securities (other than U.S. government securities or securities of other RICs) of any one issuer, the securities (other than securities of other RICs) of two or more issuers that it controls and that are engaged in the same, similar, or related trades or businesses, or the securities of one or more qualified publicly traded partnerships (the “Diversification Requirement”).

Each Fund is treated as a separate corporation for federal income tax purposes. Each Fund therefore is considered to be a separate entity in determining its treatment under the rules for RICs described herein and in the Prospectus. Losses in one Fund do not offset gains in any other fund and the requirements (other than certain organizational requirements) for qualifying RIC status are determined at the Fund level rather than at the Trust level.

If a Fund fails to satisfy the Qualifying Income Requirement or the Diversification Requirement in any taxable year, such Fund may be eligible for relief provisions if the failures are due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect, if a penalty tax is paid with respect to each failure to satisfy the applicable requirements, and the Fund takes certain required actions. Additionally, relief is provided for certain de minimis failures of the Diversification Requirement where a Fund corrects the failure within a specified period of time. In order to be eligible for the relief provisions with respect to a failure to meet the Diversification Requirement, a Fund may be required to dispose of certain assets. If these relief provisions were not available to a Fund and it were to fail to qualify for treatment as a RIC for a taxable year, all of its taxable income would be subject to tax at regular corporate rates without any deduction for distributions to shareholders, and its distributions (including capital gains distributions) generally would be taxable as ordinary income dividends to its shareholders, subject to the dividends-received deduction for corporate shareholders and the lower tax rates on qualified dividend income received by noncorporate shareholders. To requalify for treatment as a RIC in a subsequent taxable year, the Fund would be required to satisfy the RIC qualification requirements for that year and to distribute any earnings and profits from any year in which the Fund failed to qualify for tax treatment as a RIC. If a Fund failed to qualify as a RIC for a period greater than two taxable years, it would generally be required to pay a Fund-level tax on certain net built-in gains recognized with respect to certain of its assets upon a disposition of such assets within ten years of qualifying as a RIC in a subsequent year. The Board reserves the right not to maintain the qualification of a Fund for treatment as a RIC if it determines such course of action to be beneficial to shareholders.

Each Fund intends to distribute substantially all of its net investment income and its capital gains for each taxable year. If a Fund meets the Distribution Requirement but retains some or all of its income or gains, it will be subject to federal income tax to the extent any such income or gains are not distributed. A Fund may designate certain amounts retained as undistributed net capital gain in a notice to its shareholders, who (i) will be required to include in income for U.S. federal income tax purposes, as long-term capital gain, their proportionate shares of the undistributed amount so designated, (ii) will be entitled to credit their proportionate shares of the income tax paid by the Fund on that undistributed amount against their federal income tax liabilities and to claim refunds to the extent such credits exceed their tax liabilities and (iii) will be entitled to increase their tax basis, for federal income tax purposes, in their Shares in the Fund by an amount equal to the excess of the amount of undistributed net capital gain included in their respective income over their respective income tax credits.

A Fund will be subject to a 4% excise tax on certain undistributed income if it does not distribute to its shareholders in each calendar year an amount at least equal to 98% of its ordinary income for the calendar year plus 98.2% of its capital gain net income for the twelve months ended October 31 of such year, subject to an increase for any shortfall in the prior year’s distribution. Each Fund intends to declare and distribute dividends and distributions in the amounts and at the times necessary to avoid the application of this 4% excise tax.

A Fund may elect to treat part or all of any “qualified late year loss” as if it had been incurred in the succeeding taxable year in determining the Fund’s taxable income, net capital gain, net short-term capital gain, and earnings and profits. The effect of this election is to treat any such “qualified late year loss” as if it had been incurred in the succeeding taxable year in characterizing Fund distributions for any calendar year. A “qualified late year loss” generally includes net capital loss, net long-term capital loss, or net short-term capital loss incurred after October 31 of the current taxable year (commonly referred to as “post-October losses”) and certain other late-year losses.

Capital losses in excess of capital gains (“net capital losses”) are not permitted to be deducted against a RIC’s net investment income. Instead, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, potentially subject to certain limitations, a Fund may carry net capital losses from any taxable year forward indefinitely to offset its capital gains, if any, in years following the year of the loss. To the extent subsequent capital gains are offset by such losses, they will not result in U.S. federal income tax liability to the Fund and may not be distributed as capital gains to its shareholders. Generally, the Funds may not carry forward any losses other than net capital losses.

Taxation of Shareholders - Distributions. Each Fund intends to distribute annually to its shareholders substantially all of its investment company taxable income (computed without regard to the deduction for dividends paid), its net tax-exempt income, if any, and any net capital gain (net recognized long-term capital gains in excess of net recognized short-term capital losses, taking into account any capital loss carryovers). The Funds will report to shareholders annually the amounts of dividends paid from ordinary income, the amount of distributions of net capital gain, the portion of dividends which may qualify for the dividends-received deduction for corporations, and the portion of dividends which may qualify for treatment as qualified dividend income, if any.

Subject to certain limitations, dividends reported by a Fund as qualified dividend income will be taxable to noncorporate shareholders at rates of up to 20%. Dividends may be reported by a Fund as qualified dividend income if they are attributable to qualified dividend income received by the Fund. Qualified dividend income includes, in general, subject to certain holding period requirements and other requirements, dividend income from certain U.S. and foreign corporations. Subject to certain limitations, eligible foreign corporations include those incorporated in possessions of the United States, those incorporated in certain countries with comprehensive tax treaties with the United States and other foreign corporations if the stock with respect to which the dividends are paid is tradable on an established securities market in the United States. A dividend generally will not be treated as qualified dividend income to the extent that (i) the shareholder has not held the stock on which the dividend was paid for more than 60 days during the 121-day period that begins on the date that is 60 days before the date on which the stock becomes ex-dividend with respect to such dividend or, in the case of certain preferred stock, for more than 90 days during the 181-day period beginning 90 days before such date, (ii) the shareholder is under an obligation (whether pursuant to a short sale or otherwise) to make related payments with respect to substantially similar or related property, or (iii) the shareholder elects to treat such dividend as investment income under section 163(d)(4)(B) of the Code. The holding period requirements described in this paragraph apply to the shareholders’ investments in the Funds and to the Funds’ investments in the underlying dividend paying stock. Dividends received by a Fund from a real estate investment trust (a “REIT”) or another RIC may be treated as qualified dividend income generally only to the extent the dividend distributions are attributable to qualified dividend income received by such REIT or RIC. It is expected that dividends received by a Fund from a REIT and distributed by that Fund to a shareholder generally will be taxable to the shareholder as ordinary income. If 95% or more of a Fund’s gross income (calculated without taking into account net capital gain derived from sales or other dispositions of stock or securities) consists of qualified dividend income, that Fund may report all distributions of such income as qualified dividend income.

Certain dividends received by a Fund from U.S. corporations (generally, dividends received by a Fund in respect of any share of stock (1) with a tax holding period of at least 46 days during the 91-day period beginning on the date that is 45 days before the date on which the stock becomes ex-dividend as to that dividend and (2) that is held in an unleveraged position) and distributed and appropriately so reported by the Fund may be eligible for the 70% dividends-received deduction generally available to corporations under the Code. Certain preferred stock must have a holding period of at least 91 days during the 181-day period beginning on the date that is 90 days before the date on which the stock becomes ex-dividend as to that dividend in order to be eligible. Capital gain dividends distributed to a Fund from other regulated investment companies are not eligible for the dividends-received deduction. In order to qualify for the deduction, corporate shareholders in a Fund must meet the minimum holding period requirement stated above with respect to their shares in the Fund, taking into account any holding period reductions from certain hedging or other transactions or positions that diminish their risk of loss with respect to their Fund shares, and, if they borrow to acquire or otherwise incur debt attributable to shares in the Fund, they may be denied a portion of the dividends-received deduction with respect to those shares. The entire dividend, including the otherwise deductible amount, will be included in determining the excess, if any, of a corporation’s adjusted current earnings over its alternative minimum taxable income, which may increase a corporation’s alternative minimum tax liability. Any corporate shareholder should consult its tax adviser regarding the possibility that its tax basis in its shares may be reduced, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, by reason of “extraordinary dividends” received with respect to the shares and, to the extent such basis would be reduced below zero, current recognition of income may be required.

Distributions from net short-term capital gains will generally be taxable to shareholders as ordinary income. Distributions from a Fund’s net capital gain will be taxable to shareholders at long-term capital gains rates, regardless of how long shareholders have held their Shares in the Fund. Long-term capital gains are generally taxed to noncorporate shareholders at rates of up to 20%.

Although dividends generally will be treated as distributed when paid, any dividend declared by a Fund in October, November or December and payable to shareholders of record in such a month that is paid during the following January will be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as received by shareholders on December 31 of the calendar year in which it was declared.

If a Fund’s distributions exceed its earnings and profits, all or a portion of the distributions made in the taxable year may be treated as a return of capital to shareholders. A return of capital distribution generally will not be taxable but will reduce the shareholder’s cost basis and result in a higher capital gain or lower capital loss when the Shares on which the distribution was received are sold. After a shareholder’s basis in the Shares has been reduced to zero, distributions in excess of earnings and profits will be treated as gain from the sale of the shareholder’s Shares.

Distributions that are reinvested in additional Shares of a Fund through the means of a dividend reinvestment service, if offered by your broker-dealer, will nevertheless be taxable dividends to the same extent as if such dividends had been received in cash.

U.S. individuals with income exceeding $200,000 ($250,000 if married and filing jointly) are subject to a 3.8% Medicare contribution tax on all or a portion of their “net investment income,” which includes taxable interest, dividends, and certain capital gains (including capital gains realized on the sale of Shares). This 3.8% tax also applies to all or a portion of the undistributed net investment income of certain shareholders that are estates and trusts.

Distributions of ordinary income and capital gains may also be subject to foreign, state and local taxes depending on a shareholder’s circumstances.

Taxation of Shareholders - Sale of Shares. In general, a sale of Shares results in capital gain or loss, and for individual shareholders, is taxable at a federal rate dependent upon the length of time the Shares were held. A sale of Fund Shares held for a period of one year or less at the time of such sale will, for tax purposes, generally result in short-term capital gains or losses, and a sale of those held for more than one year will generally result in long-term capital gains or losses. Long-term capital gains are generally taxed to noncorporate shareholders at rates of up to 20%.

Gain or loss on the sale of Shares in a Fund is measured by the difference between the amount received and the adjusted tax basis of the Shares. Shareholders should keep records of investments made (including Shares acquired through reinvestment of dividends and distributions) so they can compute the tax basis of their Shares. The cost basis of shares in a Fund acquired by purchase will generally be based on the amount paid for the shares and then may be subsequently adjusted for other applicable transactions as required by the Code. The difference between the selling price and the cost basis of shares in a Fund generally determines the amount of the capital gain or loss realized on the sale or exchange of such shares. Shareholders should contact the broker through whom they purchased their shares in a Fund to obtain information with respect to the available cost basis reporting methods and elections for their account.

A loss realized on a sale of Shares of a Fund may be disallowed if substantially identical Shares are acquired (whether through the reinvestment of dividends or otherwise) within a sixty-one (61) day period beginning thirty (30) days before and ending thirty (30) days after the date that the Shares are disposed of. In such a case, the basis of the Shares acquired must be adjusted to reflect the disallowed loss. Any loss upon the sale of Shares held for six (6) months or less is treated as long-term capital loss to the extent of any amounts treated as distributions to the shareholder of long-term capital gain (including any amounts credited to the shareholder as undistributed capital gains).

Taxation of Fund Investments. Dividends and interest received by a Fund on foreign securities may give rise to withholding and other taxes imposed by foreign countries. Tax conventions between certain countries and the United States may reduce or eliminate such taxes. If a Fund meets certain requirements, which include a requirement that more than 50% of the value of the Fund’s total assets at the close of its respective taxable year consist of stocks or securities of foreign corporations, then the Fund should be eligible to file an election with the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) that may enable its shareholders, in effect, to receive either the benefit of a foreign tax credit, or a tax deduction, with respect to certain foreign and U.S. possessions income taxes paid by the Fund, subject to certain limitations. Pursuant to this election, the Fund will treat those taxes as dividends paid to its shareholders. Each such shareholder will be required to include a proportionate share of those taxes in gross income as income received from a foreign source and must treat the amount so included as if the shareholder had paid the foreign tax directly. The shareholder may then either deduct the taxes deemed paid by him or her in computing his or her taxable income or, alternatively, use the foregoing information in calculating any foreign tax credit the shareholder may be entitled to use against such shareholder’s federal income tax. No deduction for such taxes will be permitted to individuals in computing their alternative minimum tax liability. If a Fund is eligible to, and makes, this election, the Fund will report annually to its shareholders the respective amounts per share of the Fund’s income from sources within, and taxes paid to, foreign countries and U.S. possessions. If a Fund does not make this election, the Fund will be entitled to claim a deduction for certain foreign taxes incurred by the Fund. The ETFS Zacks Earnings Large-Cap U.S. Index Fund, the ETFS Zacks Earning Small-Cap U.S. Fund, and the ETFS Diversified-Factor U.S. Large Cap Index Fund do not expect to satisfy the requirements for passing through to their shareholders any share of foreign taxes paid by such Funds, with the result that shareholders of those Funds will not include such taxes in their gross incomes and will not be entitled to a tax deduction or credit for such taxes on their own tax returns.

Certain of the Funds’ investments may be subject to complex provisions of the Code (including provisions relating to hedging transactions, straddles, integrated transactions, foreign currency contracts, forward foreign currency contracts, and notional principal contracts) that, among other things, may affect the character of gains and losses realized by the Funds (e.g., may affect whether gains or losses are ordinary or capital), accelerate recognition of income to the Funds and defer losses. These rules could therefore affect the character, amount and timing of distributions to shareholders. These provisions also may require a Fund to mark-to-market certain types of positions in its portfolio (i.e., treat them as if they were closed out) which may cause the Fund to recognize income without receiving cash with which to make distributions in amounts necessary to satisfy the RIC distribution requirements for avoiding income and excise taxes. The Funds intend to monitor their transactions, intend to make appropriate tax elections, and intend to make appropriate entries in their books and records in order to mitigate the effect of these rules and preserve the Funds’ qualification for treatment as RICs.

If a Fund acquires any equity interest (under Treasury regulations that may be promulgated in the future, generally including not only stock but also an option to acquire stock such as is inherent in a convertible bond) in certain foreign corporations (i) that receive at least 75% of their annual gross income from passive sources (such as interest, dividends, certain rents and royalties, or capital gains) or (ii) where at least 50% of the corporation’s assets (computed based on average fair market value) either produce or are held for the production of passive income (“passive foreign investment companies” or “PFICs”), the Fund could be subject to U.S. federal income tax and nondeductible interest charges on “excess distributions” received from such companies or on gain from the sale of stock in such companies, even if all income or gain actually received by the Fund is timely distributed to its shareholders. The Fund would not be able to pass through to its shareholders any credit or deduction for such a tax. A “qualified electing fund” election or a “mark to market” election may be available that would ameliorate these adverse tax consequences, but such elections could require a Fund to recognize taxable income or gain (subject to the distribution requirements applicable to RICs, as described above) without the concurrent receipt of cash. In order to satisfy the distribution requirements and avoid a tax at the Fund level, a Fund may be required to liquidate portfolio securities that it might otherwise have continued to hold, potentially resulting in additional taxable gain or loss to the Fund. Gains from the sale of stock of PFICs may also be treated as ordinary income. In order for a Fund to make a qualified electing fund election with respect to a PFIC, the PFIC would have to agree to provide certain tax information to the Fund on an annual basis, which it might not agree to do. A Fund may limit and/or manage its holdings in PFICs to limit its tax liability or maximize its returns from these investments.

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

Tax-Exempt Shareholders. Certain tax-exempt shareholders, including qualified pension plans, individual retirement accounts, salary deferral arrangements, 401(k) plans, and other tax-exempt entities, generally are exempt from federal income taxation except with respect to their unrelated business taxable income (“UBTI”). Under current law, a Fund generally serves to block UBTI from being realized by its tax-exempt shareholders. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, tax-exempt shareholders could realize UBTI by virtue of their investment in a Fund where, for example, (i) the Fund invests in REITs that hold residual interests in real estate mortgage investment conduits (“REMICs”) or (ii) Shares in the Fund constitute debt-financed property in the hands of the tax-exempt shareholders within the meaning of section 514(b) of the Code. Charitable remainder trusts are subject to special rules and should consult their tax advisors. There are no restrictions preventing a Fund from holding investments in REITs that hold residual interests in REMICs, and a Fund may do so. The IRS has issued guidance with respect to these issues and prospective shareholders, especially charitable remainder trusts, are strongly encouraged to consult with their tax advisors regarding these issues.

Foreign Shareholders. Dividends paid by a Fund to shareholders who are nonresident aliens or foreign entities will be subject to a 30% United States withholding tax unless a reduced rate of withholding or a withholding exemption is provided under applicable treaty law to the extent derived from investment income and short-term capital gain or unless such income is effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business carried on in the United States. Nonresident shareholders are urged to consult their own tax advisors concerning the applicability of the United States withholding tax and the proper withholding form(s) to be submitted to a Fund. A non-U.S. shareholder who fails to provide an appropriate IRS Form W-8 may be subject to backup withholding at the appropriate rate.

Unless certain non-U.S. entities that hold Fund Shares comply with IRS requirements that will generally require them to report information regarding U.S. persons investing in, or holding accounts with, such entities, a 30% withholding tax may apply to Fund distributions payable to such entities after June 30, 2014 (or, in certain cases, after later dates) and redemptions and certain capital gain dividends payable to such entities after December 31, 2016. A non-U.S. shareholder may be exempt from the withholding described in this paragraph under an applicable intergovernmental agreement between the U.S. and a foreign government, provided that the shareholder and the applicable foreign government comply with the terms of the agreement.

Backup Withholding. A Fund will be required in certain cases to withhold (as “backup withholding”) on amounts payable to any shareholder who (1) has provided the Fund either an incorrect tax identification number or no number at all, (2) is subject to backup withholding by the IRS for failure to properly report payments of interest or dividends, (3) has failed to certify to the Fund that such shareholder is not subject to backup withholding, or (4) has not certified that such shareholder is a U.S. person (including a U.S. resident alien). The backup withholding rate is 28%. Backup withholding will not be applied to payments that have been subject to the 30% withholding tax on shareholders who are neither citizens nor permanent residents of the U.S.

Creation Units. An Authorized Participant who exchanges securities for Creation Units generally will recognize a gain or a loss. The gain or loss will be equal to the difference between the market value of the Creation Units at the time and the sum of the exchanger’s aggregate basis in the securities surrendered plus the amount of cash paid for such Creation Units. A person who redeems Creation Units will generally recognize a gain or loss equal to the difference between the exchanger’s basis in the Creation Units and the sum of the aggregate market value of any securities received plus the amount of any cash received for such Creation Units. The IRS, however, may assert that a loss realized upon an exchange of securities for Creation Units cannot be deducted currently under the rules governing “wash sales,” or on the basis that there has been no significant change in economic position.

Any capital gain or loss realized upon the creation of Creation Units will generally be treated as long-term capital gain or loss if the securities exchanged for such Creation Units have been held for more than one year. Any capital gain or loss realized upon the redemption of Creation Units will generally be treated as long-term capital gain or loss if the Shares comprising the Creation Units have been held for more than one year. Otherwise, such capital gains or losses will generally be treated as short-term capital gains or losses. Any loss upon a redemption of Creation Units held for six (6) months or less will be treated as a long-term capital loss to the extent of any amounts treated as distributions to the applicable Authorized Participant of long-term capital gain with respect to the Creation Units (including any amounts credited to the Authorized Participant as undistributed capital gains).

A Fund has the right to reject an order for Creation Units if the purchaser (or group of purchasers) would, upon obtaining the Shares so ordered, own 80% or more of the outstanding shares of the Fund and if, pursuant to section 351 of the Code, the Fund would have a basis in the deposit securities different from the market value of such securities on the date of deposit. A Fund also has the right to require information necessary to determine beneficial Share ownership for purposes of the 80% determination. If a Fund does issue Creation Units to a purchaser (or group of purchasers) that would, upon obtaining the Shares so ordered, own 80% or more of the outstanding shares of the Fund, the purchaser (or group of purchasers) may not recognize gain or loss upon the exchange of securities for Creation Units.

Persons purchasing or redeeming Creation Units should consult their own tax advisors with respect to the tax treatment of any creation or redemption transaction.

Certain Potential Tax Reporting Requirements. Under promulgated Treasury regulations, if a shareholder recognizes a loss on disposition of a Fund’s Shares of $2 million or more for an individual shareholder or $10 million or more for a corporate shareholder (or certain greater amounts over a combination of years), the shareholder must file with the IRS a disclosure statement on IRS Form 8886. Direct shareholders of portfolio securities are in many cases excepted from this reporting requirement, but under current guidance, shareholders of a RIC are not excepted. Significant penalties may be imposed for the failure to comply with the reporting requirements. The fact that a loss is reportable under these regulations does not affect the legal determination of whether the taxpayer’s treatment of the loss is proper. Shareholders should consult their tax advisers to determine the applicability of these regulations in light of their individual circumstances.

The foregoing discussion is a summary only and is not intended as a substitute for careful tax planning. Purchasers of Shares should consult their own tax advisors as to the tax consequences of investing in such Shares, including under state, local and other tax laws. Finally, the foregoing discussion is based on applicable provisions of the Code, regulations, judicial authority and administrative interpretations in effect on the date hereof. Changes in applicable authority could materially affect the conclusions discussed above, and such changes often occur.

DETERMINATION OF NAV

The NAV of each Fund’s shares is calculated each day the national securities exchanges are open for trading as of the close of regular trading on the Listing Exchange, generally 4:00 p.m. New York time (the “NAV Calculation Time”). NAV per share is calculated by dividing a Fund’s net assets by the number of Fund shares outstanding.

In calculating each Fund’s NAV, Fund investments generally are valued using market valuations. Short-term debt securities with remaining maturities of sixty (60) days or less generally are valued on the basis of amortized cost, which approximates fair value. U.S. fixed income assets may be valued as of the announced closing time for such securities on any day that the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association announces an early closing time. The values of any assets or liabilities of a Fund that are denominated in a currency other than the U.S. dollar are converted into U.S. dollars using an exchange rate deemed appropriate by the Fund.

Investments in futures are valued at market value, which is generally determined using the last reported official closing price or last trading price on the exchange or market on which the futures contract is primarily traded at the time of valuation. Generally, trading in futures, U.S. government securities (such as U.S. Treasury securities), money market instruments and certain fixed-income securities is substantially completed each day at various times prior to the NAV Calculation Time. The values of such securities used in computing the NAV of a Fund are, unless fair valued, determined as of such times.

In certain instances, such as when reliable market valuations are not readily available or are not deemed to reflect current market values, the Fund’s investments will be valued in accordance with the Fund’s pricing policy and procedures. Securities that may be valued using “fair value” pricing may include, but are not limited to, securities for which there are no current market quotations or whose issuer is in default or bankruptcy, securities subject to corporate actions (such as mergers or reorganizations), securities subject to non-U.S. investment limits or currency controls, and securities affected by “significant events.” An example of a significant event is an event occurring after the close of the market in which a security trades but before the Fund’s next NAV Calculation Time that may materially affect the value of the Fund’s investment (e.g., government action, natural disaster, or significant market fluctuation). Price movements in U.S. markets that are deemed to affect the value of foreign securities, or reflect changes to the value of such securities, also may cause securities to be “fair valued.”

When fair-value pricing is employed, the prices of securities used by a Fund to calculate its NAV may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities.

Fund shares are purchased or sold on a national securities exchange at market prices, which may be higher or lower than NAV. No secondary sales will be made to brokers or dealers at a concession by the Distributor or by the Fund. Purchases and sales of shares in the secondary market, which will not involve the Fund, will be subject to customary brokerage commissions and charges. Transactions in Fund shares will be priced at NAV only if you purchase or redeem shares directly from a Fund in Creation Units.

DIVIDENDS AND DISTRIBUTIONS

Each Fund intends to pay out dividends, if any, on a quarterly basis. Each Fund intends to distribute its net realized capital gains, if any, to investors annually. The Funds may occasionally be required to make supplemental distributions at some other time during the year. Distributions in cash may be reinvested automatically in additional whole shares only if the broker through whom you purchased shares makes such option available. Your broker is responsible for distributing the income and capital gain distributions to you.

The Trust reserves the right to declare special distributions if, in its reasonable discretion, such action is necessary or advisable to preserve the status of a Fund as a RIC or to avoid imposition of income or excise taxes on undistributed income.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

The Funds’ audited financial statements for the period ended December 31, 2015, including notes thereto and the report of KPMG LLP, the Funds’ Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, are incorporated by reference into this SAI.

MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION

Counsel. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, with offices located at 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004, serves as legal counsel to the Trust.

Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm. KPMG LLP, with offices located at 345 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10154 serves as the independent registered public accounting firm to the Trust.

PROXY PAPER™

GUIDELINES

2016 PROXY SEASON

AN OVERVIEW OF THE GLASS LEWIS

APPROACH TO PROXY ADVICE

UNITED STATES

COPYRIGHT 2016 GLASS, LEWIS & CO., LLC

Glass Lewis evaluates these guidelines on an ongoing basis and formally updates them on an annual basis. This year we’ve made noteworthy revisions in the following areas, which are summarized below but discussed in greater detail in the relevant section of this document:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES FOR THE 2016 UNITED STATES POLICY GUIDELINES

CONFLICTING MANAGEMENT AND SHAREHOLDER PROPOSALS

We have outlined our approach to analyzing and determining whether to support conflicting management and shareholder proposals. Specifically, we will consider the following:

EXCLUSIVE FORUM PROVISIONS

We have refined our approach to companies that include exclusive forum provisions in their governing documents in connection with an initial public offering. Specifically, we will no longer recommend that shareholders vote against the chairman of the nominating and governance committee in such situations. Instead, we will weigh the presence of an exclusive forum provision in a newly-public company’s bylaws in conjunction with other provisions that we believe will unduly limit shareholder rights such as supermajority vote requirements, a classified board or a fee-shifting bylaw. However, our policy to recommend voting against the chairman of the nominating and governance committee when a company adopts an exclusive forum provision without shareholder approval outside of a spin-off, merger or IPO will not change.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL RISK OVERSIGHT

We have codified our policy regarding our view of the responsibilities of directors for oversight of environmental and social issues. The codification provides more clarity about instances when we may consider recommending shareholders vote against directors for lapses in environmental and social risk management at companies (see p. 15).

NOMINATING COMMITTEE PERFORMANCE

We have revised the guidelines to clarify that we may consider recommending shareholders vote against the chair of the nominating committee where the board’s failure to ensure the board has directors with relevant experience, either through periodic director assessment or board refreshment, has contributed to a company’s poor performance (see p. 14).

DIRECTOR OVERBOARDING POLICY

Glass Lewis recognizes that the time directors are devoting to their board obligations has increased in recent years. That, coupled with increased investor scrutiny of directors’ commitments, has resulted in directors serving on fewer boards. Therefore, in 2016 Glass Lewis will closely review director board commitments and may note as a concern instances of directors serving on more than five total boards, for directors who are not also executives, and more than two total boards for a director who serves as an executive of a public company. Our voting recommendations in 2016, however, will be continue to be based on our existing thresholds of three total boards for a director who serves as an executive of a public company and six total boards for directors who are not public company executives (see p. 16). Beginning in 2017, Glass Lewis will generally recommend voting against a director who serves as an executive officer of any public company while serving on a total of more than two public company boards and any other director who serves on a total of more than five public company boards.

COMPENSATION UPDATES 

We have added additional information to our discussion of one-time and transitional awards to highlight some of the specific factors we evaluate in considering these awards as well as our expectations regarding the relevant disclosure. We have also added minor clarifications regarding the quantitative and qualitative factors we use to analyze equity compensation plans.

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

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

INDEPENDENCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 If a company does not consider a non-employee director to be independent, Glass Lewis will classify that director as an affiliate.

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

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

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

Glass Lewis applies a three-year look back period to all directors who have an affiliation with the company other than former employment, for which we apply a five-year look back.

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

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

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

Inside Director – An inside director simultaneously serves as a director and as an employee of the company. This category may include a chairman of the board who acts as an employee of the company or is paid as an employee of the company. In our view, an inside director who derives a greater amount of income as a result of affiliated transactions with the company rather than through compensation paid by the company (i.e., salary, bonus, etc. as a company employee) faces a conflict between making decisions that are in the best interests of the company versus those in the director’s own best interests. Therefore, we will recommend voting against such a director.

Additionally, we believe a director who is currently serving in an interim management position should be considered an insider, while a director who previously served in an interim management position for less than one year and is no longer serving in such capacity is considered independent. Moreover, a director who previously served in an interim management position for over one year and is no longer serving in such capacity is considered an affiliate for five years following the date of his/her resignation or departure from the interim management position.

5 We may deem such a transaction to be immaterial where the amount represents less than 1% of the firm’s annual revenues and the board provides a compelling rationale as to why the director’s independence is not affected by the relationship.

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

7 This includes cases where a director is employed by, or closely affiliated with, a private equity firm that profits from an acquisition made by the company. Unless disclosure suggests otherwise, we presume the director is affiliated.

VOTING RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE BASIS OF BOARD INDEPENDENCE

Glass Lewis believes a board will be most effective in protecting shareholders’ interests if it is at least two-thirds independent. We note that each of the Business Roundtable, the Conference Board, and the Council of Institutional Investors advocates that two-thirds of the board be independent. Where more than one-third of the members are affiliated or inside directors, we typically⁸ recommend voting against some of the inside and/or affiliated directors in order to satisfy the two-thirds threshold.

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

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

COMMITTEE INDEPENDENCE

We believe that only independent directors should serve on a company’s audit, compensation, nominating, and governance committees.⁹ We typically recommend that shareholders vote against any affiliated or inside director seeking appointment to an audit, compensation, nominating, or governance committee, or who has served in that capacity in the past year.

Pursuant to Section 952 of the Dodd-Frank Act, as of January 11, 2013, the SEC approved new listing requirements for both the NYSE and NASDAQ which require that boards apply enhanced standards of independence when making an affirmative determination of the independence of compensation committee members. Specifically, when making this determination, in addition to the factors considered when assessing general director independence, the board’s considerations must include: (i) the source of compensation of the director, including any consulting, advisory or other compensatory fee paid by the listed company to the director (the “Fees Factor”); and (ii) whether the director is affiliated with the listing company, its subsidiaries, or affiliates of its subsidiaries (the “Affiliation Factor”).

Glass Lewis believes it is important for boards to consider these enhanced independence factors when assessing compensation committee members. However, as discussed above in the section titled Independence, we apply our own standards when assessing the independence of directors, and these standards also take into account consulting and advisory fees paid to the director, as well as the director’s affiliations with the company and its subsidiaries and affiliates. We may recommend voting against compensation committee members who are not independent based on our standards.

INDEPENDENT CHAIRMAN

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

While many companies have an independent lead or presiding director who performs many of the same functions of an independent chairman (e.g., setting the board meeting agenda), we do not believe this alternate form of independent board leadership provides as robust protection for shareholders as an independent chairman. 

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

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

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

A CEO should set the strategic course for the company, with the board’s approval, and the board should enable the CEO to carry out the CEO’s vision for accomplishing the board’s objectives. Failure to achieve the board’s objectives should lead the board to replace that CEO with someone in whom the board has confidence.

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

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

Glass Lewis believes that the installation of an independent chairman is almost always a positive step from a corporate governance perspective and promotes the best interests of shareholders. Further, the presence of an independent chairman fosters the creation of a thoughtful and dynamic board, not dominated by the views of senior management. Encouragingly, many companies appear to be moving in this direction—one study indicates that only 10 percent of incoming CEOs in 2014 were awarded the chairman title, versus 48 percent in 2002.¹⁰ Another study finds that 47 percent of S&P 500 boards now separate the CEO and chairman roles, up from 37 percent in 2009, although the same study found that only 28 percent of S&P 500 boards have truly independent chairs.¹¹ 

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

Further, where the company has neither an independent chairman nor independent lead director, we will recommend voting against the chair of the governance committee.

PERFORMANCE

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

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

VOTING RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE BASIS OF PERFORMANCE

We typically recommend that shareholders vote against directors who have served on boards or as executives of companies with records of poor performance, inadequate risk oversight, excessive compensation, audit-or accounting-related issues, and/or other indicators of mismanagement or actions against the interests of shareholders. We will reevaluate such directors based on, among other factors, the length of time passed since the incident giving rise to the concern, shareholder support for the director, the severity of the issue, the

10 Ken Favaro, Per-Ola Karlsson and Gary L. Nelson. “The $112 Billion CEO Succession Problem.” (Strategy+Business, Issue 79, Summer 2015).

11 Spencer Stuart Board Index, 2014, p. 23.

director’s role (e.g., committee membership), director tenure at the subject company, whether ethical lapses accompanied the oversight lapse, and evidence of strong oversight at other companies.

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

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

BOARD RESPONSIVENESS

Glass Lewis believes that any time 25% or more of shareholders vote contrary to the recommendation of management, the board should, depending on the issue, demonstrate some level of responsiveness to address the concerns of shareholders. These include instances when 25% or more of shareholders (excluding abstentions and broker non-votes): WITHHOLD votes from (or vote AGAINST) a director nominee, vote AGAINST a management-sponsored proposal, or vote FOR a shareholder proposal. In our view, a 25% threshold is significant enough to warrant a close examination of the underlying issues and an evaluation of whether or not a board response was warranted and, if so, whether the board responded appropriately following the vote. While the 25% threshold alone will not automatically generate a negative vote recommendation from Glass Lewis on a future proposal (e.g., to recommend against a director nominee, against a say-on-pay proposal, etc.), it may be a contributing factor to our recommendation to vote against management’s recommendation in the event we determine that the board did not respond appropriately.

As a general framework, our evaluation of board responsiveness involves a review of publicly available disclosures (e.g., the proxy statement, annual report, 8-Ks, company website, etc.) released following the date of the company’s last annual meeting up through the publication date of our most current Proxy Paper. Depending on the specific issue, our focus typically includes, but is not limited to, the following:

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

 

	7

Our Proxy Paper analysis will include a case-by-case assessment of the specific elements of board responsiveness that we examined along with an explanation of how that assessment impacts our current voting recommendations.

THE ROLE OF A COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN

Glass Lewis believes that a designated committee chairman maintains primary responsibility for the actions of his or her respective committee. As such, many of our committee-specific voting recommendations are against the applicable committee chair rather than the entire committee (depending on the seriousness of the issue). However, in cases where we would ordinarily recommend voting against a committee chairman but the chair is not specified, we apply the following general rules, which apply throughout our guidelines:

In our view, companies should provide clear disclosure of which director is charged with overseeing each committee. In cases where that simple framework is ignored and a reasonable analysis cannot determine which committee member is the designated leader, we believe shareholder action against the longest serving committee member(s) is warranted. Again, this only applies if we would ordinarily recommend voting against the committee chair but there is either no such position or no designated director in such role.

On the contrary, in cases where there is a designated committee chair and the recommendation is to vote against the committee chair, but the chair is not up for election because the board is staggered, we do not recommend voting against any members of the committee who are up for election; rather, we will note the concern with regard to the committee chair.

AUDIT COMMITTEES AND PERFORMANCE

Audit committees play an integral role in overseeing the financial reporting process because “[v]ibrant and stable capital markets depend on, among other things, reliable, transparent, and objective financial information to support an efficient and effective capital market process. The vital oversight role audit committees play in the process of producing financial information has never been more important.”¹³

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

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

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

	8

STANDARDS FOR ASSESSING THE AUDIT COMMITTEE

For an audit committee to function effectively on investors’ behalf, it must include members with sufficient knowledge to diligently carry out their responsibilities. In its audit and accounting recommendations, the Conference Board Commission on Public Trust and Private Enterprise said “members of the audit committee must be independent and have both knowledge and experience in auditing financial matters.”¹⁴

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

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

When assessing the decisions and actions of the audit committee, we typically defer to its judgment and generally recommend voting in favor of its members. However, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against the following:¹⁵

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

15 As discussed under the section labeled “Committee Chairman,” where the recommendation is to vote against the committee chair but the chair is not up for election because the board is staggered, we do not recommend voting against the members of the committee who are up for election; rather, we will note the concern with regard to the committee chair.

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

17 As discussed under the section labeled “Committee Chairman,” in all cases, if the chair of the committee is not specified, we recommend voting against the director who has been on the committee the longest.

18 Auditors are required to report all potential illegal acts to management and the audit committee unless they are clearly inconsequential in nature.

If the audit committee or the board fails to take appropriate action on an act that has been determined to be a violation of the law, the independent auditor is required to send a section 10A letter to the SEC. Such letters are rare and therefore we believe should be taken seriously.

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

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

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

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE PERFORMANCE

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

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

Finally, compensation committees are responsible for oversight of internal controls over the executive compensation process. This includes controls over gathering information used to determine compensation, establishment of equity award plans, and granting of equity awards. For example, the use of a compensation consultant who maintains a business relationship with company management may cause the committee to make decisions based on information that is compromised by the consultant’s conflict of interests. Lax controls can also contribute to improper awards of compensation such as through granting of backdated or spring-loaded options, or granting of bonuses when triggers for bonus payments have not been met.

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

When assessing the performance of compensation committees, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against the following:²¹

21 As discussed under the section labeled “Committee Chairman,” where the recommendation is to vote against the committee chair and the chair is not up for election because the board is staggered, we do not recommend voting against any members of the committee who are up for election; rather, we will note the concern with regard to the committee chair.

22 Where there are multiple CEOs in one year, we will consider not recommending against the compensation committee but will defer judgment on compensation policies and practices until the next year or a full year after arrival of the new CEO. In addition, if a company provides shareholders with a say-on-pay proposal, we will initially only recommend voting against the company’s say-on-pay proposal and will not recommend voting against the members of the compensation committee unless there is a pattern of failing to align pay and performance and/or the company exhibits egregious compensation practices. However, if the company repeatedly fails to align pay and performance, we will then recommend against the members of the compensation committee in addition to recommending voting against the say-on-pay proposal.

23 In cases where a company has received two consecutive D grades, or if its grade improved from an F to a D in the most recent period, and during the most recent year the company performed better than its peers (based on our analysis), we refrain from recommending to vote against the compensation committee chair. In addition, if a company provides shareholders with a say-on-pay proposal in this instance, we will consider voting against the advisory vote rather than the compensation committee chair unless the company exhibits unquestionably egregious practices.

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

NOMINATING AND GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE PERFORMANCE

The nominating and governance committee, as an agent for the shareholders, is responsible for the governance by the board of the company and its executives. In performing this role, the committee is responsible and accountable for selection of objective and competent board members. It is also responsible for providing leadership on governance policies adopted by the company, such as decisions to implement shareholder proposals that have received a majority vote. (At most companies, a single committee is charged with these oversight functions; at others, the governance and nominating responsibilities are apportioned among two separate committees.)

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

Regarding the committee responsible for governance, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against the following:²⁵

25 As discussed in the guidelines section labeled “Committee Chairman,” where we would recommend to vote against the committee chair but the chair is not up for election because the board is staggered, we do not recommend voting against any members of the committee who are up for election; rather, we will note the concern with regard to the committee chair.

26 If the board does not have a committee responsible for governance oversight and the board did not implement a shareholder proposal that received the requisite support, we will recommend voting against the entire board. If the shareholder proposal at issue requested that the board adopt a declassified structure, we will recommend voting against all director nominees up for election.

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

28 As discussed in the guidelines section labeled “Committee Chairman,” if the committee chair is not specified, we recommend voting against the director who has been on the committee the longest. If the longest-serving committee member cannot be determined, we will recommend voting against the longest-serving board member serving on the committee.

29 We believe that one independent individual should be appointed to serve as the lead or presiding director. When such a position is rotated among directors from meeting to meeting, we will recommend voting against the governance committee chair as we believe the lack of fixed lead or presiding director means that, effectively, the board does not have an independent board leader.

In addition, we may recommend that shareholders vote against the chairman of the governance committee, or the entire committee, where the board has amended the company’s governing documents to reduce or remove important shareholder rights, or to otherwise impede the ability of shareholders to exercise such right, and has done so without seeking shareholder approval. Examples of board actions that may cause such a recommendation include: the elimination of the ability of shareholders to call a special meeting or to act by written consent; an increase to the ownership threshold required for shareholders to call a special meeting; an increase to vote requirements for charter or bylaw amendments; the adoption of provisions that limit the ability of shareholders to pursue full legal recourse—such as bylaws that require arbitration of shareholder claims or that require shareholder plaintiffs to pay the company’s legal expenses in the absence of a court victory (i.e., “fee-shifting” or “loser pays” bylaws); the adoption of a classified board structure; and the elimination of the ability of shareholders to remove a director without cause.

Regarding the nominating committee, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against the following:³¹

In addition, we may consider recommending shareholders vote against the chair of the nominating committee where the board’s failure to ensure the board has directors with relevant experience, either through periodic director assessment or board refreshment, has contributed to a company’s poor performance.

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

31 As discussed in the guidelines section labeled “Committee Chairman,” where we would recommend to vote against the committee chair but the chair is not up for election because the board is staggered, we do not recommend voting against any members of the committee who are up for election; rather, we will note the concern with regard to the committee chair.

32 As discussed under the section labeled “Committee Chairman,” if the committee chair is not specified, we will recommend voting against the director who has been on the committee the longest. If the longest-serving committee member cannot be determined, we will recommend voting against the longest-serving board member on the committee.

33 In the absence of both a governance and a nominating committee, we will recommend voting against the chairman of the board on this basis, unless if the chairman also serves as the CEO, in which case we will recommend voting against the longest-serving director.

34 In the absence of both a governance and a nominating committee, we will recommend voting against the chairman of the board on this basis, unless if the chairman also serves as the CEO, in which case we will recommend voting against the the longest-serving director.

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

BOARD-LEVEL RISK MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT 

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

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

When analyzing the risk management practices of public companies, we take note of any significant losses or writedowns on financial assets and/or structured transactions. In cases where a company has disclosed a sizable loss or writedown, and where we find that the company’s board-level risk committee’s poor oversight contributed to the loss, we will recommend that shareholders vote against such committee members on that basis. In addition, in cases where a company maintains a significant level of financial risk exposure but fails to disclose any explicit form of board-level risk oversight (committee or otherwise)³⁶, we will consider recommending to vote against the chairman of the board on that basis. However, we generally would not recommend voting against a combined chairman/CEO, except in egregious cases.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL RISK OVERSIGHT

Companies face significant financial, legal and reputational risks resulting from poor environmental and social practices, or negligent oversight thereof. Therefore, Glass Lewis views the identification, mitigation and management of environmental and social risks as integral components when evaluating a company’s overall risk exposure. We believe boards should ensure that management conducts a complete risk analysis of company operations, including those that have environmental and social implications. Directors should monitor management’s performance in managing and mitigating these environmental and social risks in order to eliminate or minimize the risks to the company and its shareholders. In cases where the board or management has failed to sufficiently identify and manage a material environmental or social risk that did or could negatively impact shareholder value, we will recommend shareholders vote against directors responsible for risk oversight in consideration of the nature of the risk and the potential effect on shareholder value. 

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

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

Conflicts of Interest

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

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

Size of the Board of Directors

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

37 For meetings held in 2016, Glass Lewis will note as a concern instances of a director who serves as an executive of a public company while serving on more than two boards and any other director who serves on more than five boards. Beginning in 2017, our voting recommendations will be based on these lowered thresholds. Glass Lewis will not recommend voting against the director at the company where he or she serves as an executive officer, only at the other public companies where he or she serves on the board. 

38 NACD Public Company Governance Survey 2015-2016. p. 22.

39 Spencer Stuart Board Index, 2014, p. 22.

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

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

To that end, we typically recommend voting against the chairman of the nominating committee (or the governance committee, in the absence of a nominating committee) at a board with fewer than five directors or more than 20 directors.⁴²

CONTROLLED COMPANIES

We believe controlled companies warrant certain exceptions to our independence standards. The board’s function is to protect shareholder interests; however, when an individual, entity (or group of shareholders party to a formal agreement) owns more than 50% of the voting shares, the interests of the majority of shareholders are the interests of that entity or individual. Consequently, Glass Lewis does not apply our usual two-thirds board independence rule and therefore we will not recommend voting against boards whose composition reflects the makeup of the shareholder population.

Independence Exceptions

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

Size of the Board of Directors

We have no board size requirements for controlled companies.

Audit Committee Independence

Despite a controlled company’s status, unlike for the other key committees, we nevertheless believe that audit committees should consist solely of independent directors. Regardless of a company’s controlled status, the interests of all shareholders must be protected by ensuring the integrity and accuracy of the company’s financial statements. Allowing affiliated directors to oversee the preparation of financial reports could create an insurmountable conflict of interest.

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

SIGNIFICANT SHAREHOLDERS

Where an individual or entity holds between 20-50% of a company’s voting power, we believe it is reasonable to allow proportional representation on the board and committees (excluding the audit committee) based on the individual or entity’s percentage of ownership.

EXCEPTIONS FOR RECENT IPOs

We believe companies that have recently completed an initial public offering (“IPO”) should be allowed adequate time to fully comply with marketplace listing requirements as well as to meet basic corporate governance standards. We believe a one-year grace period immediately following the date of a company’s IPO is sufficient time for most companies to comply with all relevant regulatory requirements and to meet such corporate governance standards. Except in egregious cases, Glass Lewis refrains from issuing voting recommendations on the basis of corporate governance best practices (e.g., board independence, committee membership and structure, meeting attendance, etc.) during the one-year period following an IPO.

However, two specific cases warrant strong shareholder action against the board of a company that completed an IPO within the past year:

In addition, shareholders should also be wary of companies that adopt supermajority voting requirements before their IPO. Absent explicit provisions in the articles or bylaws stipulating that certain policies will be phased out over a certain period of time (e.g., a predetermined declassification of the board, a planned separation of the chairman and CEO, etc.) long-term shareholders could find themselves in the predicament of having to attain a supermajority vote to approve future proposals seeking to eliminate such policies.

DUAL-LISTED COMPANIES

For those companies whose shares trade on exchanges in multiple countries, and which may seek shareholder approval of proposals in accordance with varying exchange- and country-specific rules, we will apply the governance standards most relevant in each situation. We will consider a number of factors in determining which Glass Lewis country-specific policy to apply, including but not limited to: (i) the corporate governance structure and features of the company including whether the board structure is unique to a particular market; (ii) the nature of the proposals; (iii) the location of the company’s primary listing, if one can be determined;

(iv) the regulatory/governance regime that the board is reporting against; and (v) the availability and completeness of the company’s SEC filings.

MUTUAL FUND BOARDS

Mutual funds, or investment companies, are structured differently from regular public companies (i.e., operating companies). Typically, members of a fund’s adviser are on the board and management takes on a different role from that of regular public companies. Thus, we focus on a short list of requirements, although many of our guidelines remain the same.

The following mutual fund policies are similar to the policies for regular public companies:

The following differences from regular public companies apply at mutual funds:

DECLASSIFIED BOARDS

Glass Lewis favors the repeal of staggered boards and the annual election of directors. We believe staggered boards are less accountable to shareholders than boards that are elected annually. Furthermore, we feel the annual election of directors encourages board members to focus on shareholder interests.

Empirical studies have shown: (i) staggered boards are associated with a reduction in a firm’s valuation; and (ii) in the context of hostile takeovers, staggered boards operate as a takeover defense, which entrenches management, discourages potential acquirers, and delivers a lower return to target shareholders.

In our view, there is no evidence to demonstrate that staggered boards improve shareholder returns in a takeover context. Some research has indicated that shareholders are worse off when a staggered board blocks a transaction; further, when a staggered board negotiates a friendly transaction, no statistically significant difference in premium occurs.⁴³ Additional research found that charter-based staggered boards “reduce the market value of a firm by 4% to 6% of its market capitalization” and that “staggered boards bring about and not merely reflect this reduction in market value.”⁴⁴ A subsequent study reaffirmed that classified boards reduce shareholder value, finding “that the ongoing process of dismantling staggered boards, encouraged by institutional investors, could well contribute to increasing shareholder wealth.”⁴⁵

Shareholders have increasingly come to agree with this view. In 2013, 91% of S&P 500 companies had declassified boards, up from approximately 40% a decade ago.⁴⁶ Management proposals to declassify boards are approved with near unanimity and shareholder proposals on the topic also receive strong shareholder support; in 2014, shareholder proposals requesting that companies declassify their boards received average support of 84% (excluding abstentions and broker non-votes), whereas in 1987, only 16.4% of votes cast favored board declassification.⁴⁷ Further, a growing number of companies, nearly half of all those targeted by shareholder proposals requesting that all directors stand for election annually, either recommended shareholders support the proposal or made no recommendation, a departure from the more traditional management recommendation to vote against shareholder proposals.

Given our belief that declassified boards promote director accountability, the empirical evidence suggesting staggered boards reduce a company’s value and the established shareholder opposition to such a structure, Glass Lewis supports the declassification of boards and the annual election of directors.

MANDATORY DIRECTOR TERM AND AGE LIMITS

Glass Lewis believes that director age and term limits typically are not in shareholders’ best interests. Too often age and term limits are used by boards as a crutch to remove board members who have served for an extended period of time. When used in that fashion, they are indicative of a board that has a difficult time making “tough decisions.”

Academic literature suggests that there is no evidence of a correlation between either length of tenure or age and director performance. On occasion, term limits can be used as a means to remove a director for boards that are unwilling to police their membership and to enforce turnover. Some shareholders support term limits as a way to force change when boards are unwilling to do so.

While we understand that age limits can be a way to force change where boards are unwilling to make changes on their own, the long-term impact of age limits restricts experienced and potentially valuable board members from service through an arbitrary means. Further, age limits unfairly imply that older (or, in rare cases, younger) directors cannot contribute to company oversight.

43 Lucian Bebchuk, John Coates IV, Guhan Subramanian, “The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards: Further Findings and a Reply to Symposium Participants,” 55 Stanford Law Review 885-917 (2002).

44 Lucian Bebchuk, Alma Cohen, “The Costs of Entrenched Boards” (2004).

45 Lucian Bebchuk, Alma Cohen and Charles C.Y. Wang, “Staggered Boards and the Wealth of Shareholders: Evidence from a Natural Experiment,” SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1706806 (2010), p. 26.

46 Spencer Stuart Board Index, 2013, p. 4

47 Lucian Bebchuk, John Coates IV and Guhan Subramanian, “The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards: Theory, Evidence, and Policy”.

In our view, a director’s experience can be a valuable asset to shareholders because of the complex, critical issues that boards face. However, we support routine director evaluation, preferably performed independently by an external firm, and periodic board refreshment to foster the sharing of new perspectives in the boardroom and the generation of new ideas and business strategies. Further, we believe the board should evaluate the need for changes to board composition based on an analysis of skills and experience necessary for the company, as well as the results of an independent board evaluation, instead of relying on arbitrary age or tenure limits. When necessary, shareholders can address concerns regarding proper board composition through director elections.

We believe that shareholders are better off monitoring the board’s approach to corporate governance and the board’s stewardship of company performance rather than imposing inflexible rules that don’t necessarily correlate with returns or benefits for shareholders.

However, if a board adopts term/age limits, it should follow through and not waive such limits. If the board waives its term/age limits, Glass Lewis will consider recommending shareholders vote against the nominating and/or governance committees, unless the rule was waived with sufficient explanation, such as consummation of a corporate transaction like a merger.

PROXY ACCESS

In lieu of running their own contested election, proxy access would not only allow certain shareholders to nominate directors to company boards but the shareholder nominees would be included on the company’s ballot, significantly enhancing the ability of shareholders to play a meaningful role in selecting their representatives. Glass Lewis generally supports affording shareholders the right to nominate director candidates to management’s proxy as a means to ensure that significant, long-term shareholders have an ability to nominate candidates to the board.

Companies generally seek shareholder approval to amend company bylaws to adopt proxy access in response to shareholder engagement or pressure, usually in the form of a shareholder proposal requesting proxy access, although some companies may adopt some elements of proxy access without prompting. Glass Lewis considers several factors when evaluating whether to support proposals for companies to adopt proxy access including the specified minimum ownership and holding requirement for shareholders to nominate one or more directors, as well as company size, performance and responsiveness to shareholders.

For a discussion of recent regulatory events in this area, along with a detailed overview of the Glass Lewis approach to Shareholder Proposals regarding Proxy Access, refer to Glass Lewis’ Proxy Paper Guidelines for Shareholder Initiatives, available at www.glasslewis.com.

MAJORITY VOTE FOR THE ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Majority voting for the election of directors is fast becoming the de facto standard in corporate board elections. In our view, the majority voting proposals are an effort to make the case for shareholder impact on director elections on a company-specific basis.

While this proposal would not give shareholders the opportunity to nominate directors or lead to elections where shareholders have a choice among director candidates, if implemented, the proposal would allow shareholders to have a voice in determining whether the nominees proposed by the board should actually serve as the overseer-representatives of shareholders in the boardroom. We believe this would be a favorable outcome for shareholders.

During the first half of 2014, Glass Lewis tracked approximately 28 shareholder proposals seeking to require a majority vote to elect directors at annual meetings in the U.S. While this is roughly on par with what we have reviewed in each of the past several years, it is a sharp contrast to the 147 proposals tracked during all of 2006. This large drop in the number of proposals being submitted in recent years compared to 2006 is a result of many companies having already adopted some form of majority voting, including approximately 84% of companies in the S&P 500 Index, up from 56% in 2008.⁴⁸

48 Spencer Stuart Board Index, 2013, p. 13

Investors are also increasingly supporting this measure. During the 2014 proxy season, shareholder proposals requesting that companies adopt a majority voting standard for director elections received, on average, 59% shareholder support (excluding abstentions and broker non-votes). Further, nearly half of these resolutions received majority shareholder support and a number of companies either recommended shareholders vote in favor of or did not make a recommendation for how shareholders should vote on these proposals.

THE PLURALITY VOTE STANDARD

Today, most US companies still elect directors by a plurality vote standard. Under that standard, if one shareholder holding only one share votes in favor of a nominee (including that director, if the director is a shareholder), that nominee “wins” the election and assumes a seat on the board. The common concern among companies with a plurality voting standard is the possibility that one or more directors would not receive a majority of votes, resulting in “failed elections.”

ADVANTAGES OF A MAJORITY VOTE STANDARD

If a majority vote standard were implemented, a nominee would have to receive the support of a majority of the shares voted in order to be elected. Thus, shareholders could collectively vote to reject a director they believe will not pursue their best interests. Given that so few directors (less than 100 a year) do not receive majority support from shareholders, we think that a majority vote standard is reasonable since it will neither result in many failed director elections nor reduce the willingness of qualified, shareholder-focused directors to serve in the future. Further, most directors who fail to receive a majority shareholder vote in favor of their election do not step down, underscoring the need for true majority voting.

We believe that a majority vote standard will likely lead to more attentive directors. Although shareholders only rarely fail to support directors, the occasional majority vote against a director’s election will likely deter the election of directors with a record of ignoring shareholder interests. Glass Lewis will therefore generally support proposals calling for the election of directors by a majority vote, excepting contested director elections.

In response to the high level of support majority voting has garnered, many companies have voluntarily taken steps to implement majority voting or modified approaches to majority voting. These steps range from a modified approach requiring directors that receive a majority of withheld votes to resign (i.e., a resignation policy) to actually requiring a majority vote of outstanding shares to elect directors.

We feel that the modified approach does not go far enough because requiring a director to resign is not the same as requiring a majority vote to elect a director and does not allow shareholders a definitive voice in the election process. Further, under the modified approach, the corporate governance committee could reject a resignation and, even if it accepts the resignation, the corporate governance committee decides on the director’s replacement. And since the modified approach is usually adopted as a policy by the board or a board committee, it could be altered by the same board or committee at any time.

CONFLICTING PROPOSALS

On January 16, 2015, the SEC announced that for the 2015 proxy season it would not opine on the application of Rule 14a-8(i)(9) that allows companies to exclude shareholder proposals, including those seeking proxy access, that conflict with a management proposal on the same issue. While the announcement did not render the rule ineffective, a number of companies opted not to exclude a shareholder proposal but rather to allow shareholders a vote on both management and shareholder proposals on the same issue, generally proxy access. The management proposals typically imposed more restrictive terms than the shareholder proposal in order to exercise the particular shareholder right at issue, e.g., a higher proxy access ownership threshold. On October 22, 2015, the SEC issued Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14H (“SLB 14H”) clarifying its rule concerning the exclusion of certain shareholder proposals when similar items are also on the ballot. SLB 14H increases the burden on companies to prove to SEC staff that a conflict exists; therefore, some companies may still choose to place management proposals alongside similar shareholder proposals in the coming year.

When Glass Lewis reviews conflicting management and shareholder proposals, we will consider the following:

AUDITOR RATIFICATION

The auditor’s role as gatekeeper is crucial in ensuring the integrity and transparency of the financial information necessary for protecting shareholder value. Shareholders rely on the auditor to ask tough questions and to do a thorough analysis of a company’s books to ensure that the information provided to shareholders is complete, accurate, fair, and that it is a reasonable representation of a company’s financial position. The only way shareholders can make rational investment decisions is if the market is equipped with accurate information about a company’s fiscal health. As stated in the October 6, 2008 Final Report of the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession to the U.S. Department of the Treasury:

“The auditor is expected to offer critical and objective judgment on the financial matters under consideration, and actual and perceived absence of conflicts is critical to that expectation. The Committee believes that auditors, investors, public companies, and other market participants must understand the independence requirements and their objectives, and that auditors must adopt a mindset of skepticism when facing situations that may compromise their independence.”

As such, shareholders should demand an objective, competent and diligent auditor who performs at or above professional standards at every company in which the investors hold an interest. Like directors, auditors should be free from conflicts of interest and should avoid situations requiring a choice between the auditor’s interests and the public’s interests. Almost without exception, shareholders should be able to annually review an auditor’s performance and to annually ratify a board’s auditor selection. Moreover, in October 2008, the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession went even further, and recommended that “to further enhance audit committee oversight and auditor accountability ... disclosure in the company proxy statement regarding shareholder ratification [should] include the name(s) of the senior auditing partner(s) staffed on the engagement.”⁴⁹

On August 16, 2011, the PCAOB issued a Concept Release seeking public comment on ways that auditor independence, objectivity and professional skepticism could be enhanced, with a specific emphasis on mandatory audit firm rotation. The PCAOB convened several public roundtable meetings during 2012 to further discuss such matters. Glass Lewis believes auditor rotation can ensure both the independence of the auditor and the integrity of the audit; we will typically recommend supporting proposals to require auditor rotation when the proposal uses a reasonable period of time (usually not less than 5-7 years), particularly at companies with a history of accounting problems.

VOTING RECOMMENDATIONS ON AUDITOR RATIFICATION

We generally support management’s choice of auditor except when we believe the auditor’s independence or audit integrity has been compromised. Where a board has not allowed shareholders to review and ratify an auditor, we typically recommend voting against the audit committee chairman. When there have been material restatements of annual financial statements or material weaknesses in internal controls, we usually recommend voting against the entire audit committee.

Reasons why we may not recommend ratification of an auditor include:

49 “Final Report of the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession to the U.S. Department of the Treasury.” p. Vlll: 20, October 6, 2008.

50 An auditor does not audit interim financial statements. Thus, we generally do not believe that an auditor should be opposed due to a restatement of interim financial statements unless the nature of the misstatement is clear from a reading of the incorrect financial statements.

PENSION ACCOUNTING ISSUES

A pension accounting question occasionally raised in proxy proposals is what effect, if any, projected returns on employee pension assets should have on a company’s net income. This issue often arises in the executive-compensation context in a discussion of the extent to which pension accounting should be reflected in business performance for purposes of calculating payments to executives.

Glass Lewis believes that pension credits should not be included in measuring income that is used to award performance-based compensation. Because many of the assumptions used in accounting for retirement plans are subject to the company’s discretion, management would have an obvious conflict of interest if pay were tied to pension income. In our view, projected income from pensions does not truly reflect a company’s performance.

Glass Lewis carefully reviews the compensation awarded to senior executives, as we believe that this is an important area in which the board’s priorities are revealed. Glass Lewis strongly believes executive compensation should be linked directly with the performance of the business the executive is charged with managing. We believe the most effective compensation arrangements provide for an appropriate mix of performance-based short- and long-term incentives in addition to fixed pay elements while promoting a prudent and sustainable level of risk-taking.

Glass Lewis believes that comprehensive, timely and transparent disclosure of executive pay is critical to allowing shareholders to evaluate the extent to which pay is aligned with company performance. When reviewing proxy materials, Glass Lewis examines whether the company discloses the performance metrics used to determine executive compensation. We recognize performance metrics must necessarily vary depending on the company and industry, among other factors, and may include a wide variety of financial measures as well as industry-specific performance indicators. However, we believe companies should disclose why the specific performance metrics were selected and how the actions they are designed to incentivize will lead to better corporate performance.

Moreover, it is rarely in shareholders’ interests to disclose competitive data about individual salaries below the senior executive level. Such disclosure could create internal personnel discord that would be counterproductive for the company and its shareholders. While we favor full disclosure for senior executives and we view pay disclosure at the aggregate level (e.g., the number of employees being paid over a certain amount or in certain categories) as potentially useful, we do not believe share-holders need or will benefit from detailed reports about individual management employees other than the most senior executives.

ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (“SAY-ON-PAY”)

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) required companies to hold an advisory vote on executive compensation at the first shareholder meeting that occurs six months after enactment of the bill (January 21, 2011).

This practice of allowing shareholders a non-binding vote on a company’s compensation report is standard practice in many non-US countries, and has been a requirement for most companies in the United Kingdom since 2003 and in Australia since 2005. Although say-on-pay proposals are non-binding, a high level of “against” or “abstain” votes indicates substantial shareholder concern about a company’s compensation policies and procedures.

Given the complexity of most companies’ compensation programs, Glass Lewis applies a highly nuanced approach when analyzing advisory votes on executive compensation. We review each company’s compensation on a case-by-case basis, recognizing that each company must be examined in the context of industry, size, maturity, performance, financial condition, its historic pay for performance practices, and any other relevant internal or external factors.

We believe that each company should design and apply specific compensation policies and practices that are appropriate to the circumstances of the company and, in particular, will attract and retain competent executives and other staff, while motivating them to grow the company’s long-term shareholder value.

Where we find those specific policies and practices serve to reasonably align compensation with performance, and such practices are adequately disclosed, Glass Lewis will recommend supporting the company’s approach. If, however, those specific policies and practices fail to demonstrably link compensation with performance, Glass Lewis will generally recommend voting against the say-on-pay proposal.

Glass Lewis reviews say-on-pay proposals on both a qualitative basis and a quantitative basis, with a focus on several main areas:

We also review any significant changes or modifications, and the rationale for such changes, made to the company’s compensation structure or award amounts, including base salaries.

SAY-ON-PAY VOTING RECOMMENDATIONS

In cases where we find deficiencies in a company’s compensation program’s design, implementation or management, we will recommend that shareholders vote against the say-on-pay proposal. Generally such instances include evidence of a pattern of poor pay-for-performance practices (i.e., deficient or failing pay for performance grades), unclear or questionable disclosure regarding the overall compensation structure (e.g., limited information regarding benchmarking processes, limited rationale for bonus performance metrics and targets, etc.), questionable adjustments to certain aspects of the overall compensation structure (e.g., limited rationale for significant changes to performance targets or metrics, the payout of guaranteed bonuses or sizable retention grants, etc.), and/or other egregious compensation practices.

Although not an exhaustive list, the following issues when weighed together may cause Glass Lewis to recommend voting against a say-on-pay vote:

In instances where a company has simply failed to provide sufficient disclosure of its policies, we may recommend shareholders vote against this proposal solely on this basis, regardless of the appropriateness of compensation levels.

Where we identify egregious compensation practices, we may also recommend voting against the compensation committee based on the practices or actions of its members during the year. Such practices may include: approving large one-off payments, the inappropriate, unjustified use of discretion, or sustained poor pay for performance practices.

COMPANY RESPONSIVENESS

At companies that received a significant level of shareholder opposition (25% or greater) to their say-on-pay proposal at the previous annual meeting, we believe the board should demonstrate some level of engagement and responsiveness to the shareholder concerns behind the discontent, particularly in response to shareholder engagement. While we recognize that sweeping changes cannot be made to a compensation program without due consideration and that a majority of shareholders voted in favor of the proposal, given that the average approval rate for say-on-pay proposals is about 90% we believe the compensation committee should provide some level of response to a significant vote against, including engaging with large shareholders to identify their concerns. In the absence of any evidence that the board is actively engaging shareholders on these issues and responding accordingly, we may recommend holding compensation committee members accountable for failing to adequately respond to shareholder opposition, giving careful consideration to the level of shareholder protest and the severity and history of compensation problems.

PAY FOR PERFORMANCE

Glass Lewis believes an integral part of a well-structured compensation package is a successful link between pay and performance. Our proprietary pay-for-performance model was developed to better evaluate the link between pay and performance of the top five executives at US companies. Our model benchmarks these executives’ pay and company performance against peers selected using Equilar’s market-based peer groups and across five performance metrics. By measuring the magnitude of the gap between two weighted-average percentile rankings (executive compensation and performance), we grade companies based on a school letter system: “A”, “B”, “F”, etc. The grades guide our evaluation of compensation committee effectiveness and we generally recommend voting against compensation committee of companies with a pattern of failing our pay-for-performance analysis.

We also use this analysis to inform our voting decisions on say-on-pay proposals. As such, if a company receives a failing grade from our proprietary model, we are more likely to recommend that shareholders vote against the say-on-pay proposal. However, other qualitative factors such as an effective overall incentive structure, the relevance of selected performance metrics, significant forthcoming enhancements or reasonable long-term payout levels may give us cause to recommend in favor of a proposal even when we have identified a disconnect between pay and performance.

SHORT-TERM INCENTIVES

A short-term bonus or incentive (“STI”) should be demonstrably tied to performance. Whenever possible, we believe a mix of corporate and individual performance measures is appropriate. We would normally expect performance measures for STIs to be based on company-wide or divisional financial measures as well as non-financial factors such as those related to safety, environmental issues, and customer satisfaction. While we recognize that companies operating in different sectors or markets may seek to utilize a wide range of metrics, we expect such measures to be appropriately tied to a company’s business drivers.

Further, the target and potential maximum awards that can be achieved under STI awards should be disclosed. Shareholders should expect stretching performance targets for the maximum award to be achieved. Any increase in the potential target and maximum award should be clearly justified to shareholders.

Glass Lewis recognizes that disclosure of some measures may include commercially confidential information. Therefore, we believe it may be reasonable to exclude such information in some cases as long as the company provides sufficient justification for non-disclosure. However, where a short-term bonus has been paid, companies should disclose the extent to which performance has been achieved against relevant targets, including disclosure of the actual target achieved.

Where management has received significant STIs but short-term performance over the previous year prima facie appears to be poor or negative, we believe the company should provide a clear explanation of why these significant short-term payments were made.

LONG-TERM INCENTIVES

Glass Lewis recognizes the value of equity-based incentive programs, which are often the primary long-term incentive for executives. When used appropriately, they can provide a vehicle for linking an executive’s pay to company performance, thereby aligning their interests with those of shareholders. In addition, equity-based compensation can be an effective way to attract, retain and motivate key employees.

There are certain elements that Glass Lewis believes are common to most well-structured long-term incentive (“LTI”) plans. These include:

Performance measures should be carefully selected and should relate to the specific business/industry in which the company operates and, especially, the key value drivers of the company’s business.

While cognizant of the inherent complexity of certain performance metrics, Glass Lewis generally believes that measuring a company’s performance with multiple metrics serves to provide a more complete picture of the company’s performance than a single metric; further, reliance on just one metric may focus too much management attention on a single target and is therefore more susceptible to manipulation. When utilized for relative measurements, external benchmarks such as a sector index or peer group should be disclosed and transparent. The rationale behind the selection of a specific index or peer group should also be disclosed. Internal benchmarks should also be disclosed and transparent, unless a cogent case for confidentiality is made and fully explained. Similarly, actual performance and vesting levels for previous grants earned during the fiscal year should be disclosed.

We also believe shareholders should evaluate the relative success of a company’s compensation programs, particularly with regard to existing equity-based incentive plans, in linking pay and performance when evaluating new LTI plans to determine the impact of additional stock awards. We will therefore review the company’s pay-for-performance grade (see below for more information) and specifically the proportion of total compensation that is stock-based.

TRANSITIONAL AND ONE-OFF AWARDS

Glass Lewis believes shareholders should generally be wary of awards granted outside of the standard incentive schemes outlined above, as such awards have the potential to undermine the integrity of a company’s regular incentive plans, the link between pay and performance or both. We generally believe that if the existing incentive programs fail to provide adequate incentives to executives, companies should redesign their compensation programs rather than make additional grants.

However, we recognize that in certain circumstances, additional incentives may be appropriate. In these cases, companies should provide a thorough description of the awards, including a cogent and convincing explanation of their necessity and why existing awards do not provide sufficient motivation. Further, such awards should be tied to future service and performance whenever possible.

Similarly, we acknowledge that there may be certain costs associated with transitions at the executive level. We believe that sign-on arrangements should be clearly disclosed and accompanied by a meaningful explanation of the payments and the process by which the amounts are reached. Furthermore, the details of and basis for

any “make-whole” payments (which are paid as compensation for forfeited awards from a previous employer) should be provided.

While in limited circumstances such deviations may not be inappropriate, we believe shareholders should be provided with a meaningful explanation of any additional benefits agreed upon outside of the regular arrangements. For severance or sign-on arrangements, we may consider the executive’s regular target compensation levels or the sums paid to other executives (including the recipient’s predecessor, where applicable) in evaluating the appropriateness of such an arrangement.

Additionally, we believe companies making supplemental or one-time awards should also describe if and how the regular compensation arrangements will be affected by these additional grants. In reviewing a company’s use of supplemental awards, Glass Lewis will evaluate the terms and size of the grants in the context of the company’s overall incentive strategy and granting practices, as well as the current operating environment.

RECOUPMENT PROVISIONS (“CLAWBACKS”)

We believe it is prudent for boards to adopt detailed and stringent bonus recoupment policies to prevent executives from retaining performance-based awards that were not truly earned. We believe such “clawback” policies should be triggered in the event of a restatement of financial results or similar revision of performance indicators upon which bonuses were based. Such policies would allow the board to review all performance-related bonuses and awards made to senior executives during the period covered by a restatement and would, to the extent feasible, allow the company to recoup such bonuses in the event that performance goals were not actually achieved. We further believe clawback policies should be subject to only limited discretion to ensure the integrity of such policies.

Section 954 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the SEC to create a rule requiring listed companies to adopt policies for recouping certain compensation during a three-year look-back period. The rule applies to incentive-based compensation paid to current or former executives if the company is required to prepare an accounting restatement due to erroneous data resulting from material non-compliance with any financial reporting requirements under the securities laws. However, the SEC has yet to finalize the relevant rules.

These recoupment provisions are more stringent than under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in three respects: (i) the provisions extend to current or former executive officers rather than only to the CEO and CFO; (ii) it has a three-year look-back period (rather than a twelve-month look-back period); and (iii) it allows for recovery of compensation based upon a financial restatement due to erroneous data, and therefore does not require misconduct on the part of the executive or other employees.

HEDGING OF STOCK

Glass Lewis believes that the hedging of shares by executives in the shares of the companies where they are employed severs the alignment of interests of the executive with shareholders. We believe companies should adopt strict policies to prohibit executives from hedging the economic risk associated with their shareownership in the company.

PLEDGING OF STOCK

Glass Lewis believes that shareholders should examine the facts and circumstances of each company rather than apply a one-size-fits-all policy regarding employee stock pledging. Glass Lewis believes that shareholders benefit when employees, particularly senior executives have “skin-in-the-game” and therefore recognizes the benefits of measures designed to encourage employees to both buy shares out of their own pocket and to retain shares they have been granted; blanket policies prohibiting stock pledging may discourage executives and employees from doing either.

However, we also recognize that the pledging of shares can present a risk that, depending on a host of factors, an executive with significant pledged shares and limited other assets may have an incentive to take steps to avoid a forced sale of shares in the face of a rapid stock price decline. Therefore, to avoid substantial losses from a forced sale to meet the terms of the loan, the executive may have an incentive to boost the stock price in the

short term in a manner that is unsustainable, thus hurting shareholders in the long-term. We also recognize concerns regarding pledging may not apply to less senior employees, given the latter group’s significantly more limited influence over a company’s stock price. Therefore, we believe that the issue of pledging shares should be reviewed in that context, as should polices that distinguish between the two groups.

Glass Lewis believes that the benefits of stock ownership by executives and employees may outweigh the risks of stock pledging, depending on many factors. As such, Glass Lewis reviews all relevant factors in evaluating proposed policies, limitations and prohibitions on pledging stock, including:

COMPENSATION CONSULTANT INDEPENDENCE

As mandated by Section 952 of the Dodd-Frank Act, as of January 11, 2013, the SEC approved new listing requirements for both the NYSE and NASDAQ which require compensation committees to consider six factors in assessing compensation advisor independence. These factors include: (1) provision of other services to the company; (2) fees paid by the company as a percentage of the advisor’s total annual revenue; (3) policies and procedures of the advisor to mitigate conflicts of interests; (4) any business or personal relationships of the consultant with any member of the compensation committee; (5) any company stock held by the consultant; and (6) any business or personal relationships of the consultant with any executive officer of the company. According to the SEC, “no one factor should be viewed as a determinative factor.” Glass Lewis believes this six-factor assessment is an important process for every compensation committee to undertake but believes companies employing a consultant for board compensation, consulting and other corporate services should provide clear disclosure beyond just a reference to examining the six points to allow shareholders to review the specific aspects of the various consultant relationships.

We believe compensation consultants are engaged to provide objective, disinterested, expert advice to the compensation committee. When the consultant or its affiliates receive substantial income from providing other services to the company, we believe the potential for a conflict of interest arises and the independence of the consultant may be jeopardized. Therefore, Glass Lewis will, when relevant, note the potential for a conflict of interest when the fees paid to the advisor or its affiliates for other services exceeds those paid for compensation consulting.

FREQUENCY OF SAY-ON-PAY

The Dodd-Frank Act also requires companies to allow shareholders a non-binding vote on the frequency of say-on-pay votes, i.e. every one, two or three years. Additionally, Dodd-Frank requires companies to hold such votes on the frequency of say-on-pay votes at least once every six years.

We believe companies should submit say-on-pay votes to shareholders every year. We believe that the time and financial burdens to a company with regard to an annual vote are relatively small and incremental and are outweighed by the benefits to shareholders through more frequent accountability. Implementing biannual or triennial votes on executive compensation limits shareholders’ ability to hold the board accountable for its compensation practices through means other than voting against the compensation committee. Unless a company provides a compelling rationale or unique circumstances for say-on-pay votes less frequent than annually, we will generally recommend that shareholders support annual votes on compensation.

VOTE ON GOLDEN PARACHUTE ARRANGEMENTS

The Dodd-Frank Act also requires companies to provide shareholders with a separate non-binding vote on approval of golden parachute compensation arrangements in connection with certain change-in-control transactions. However, if the golden parachute arrangements have previously been subject to a say-on-pay vote which shareholders approved, then this required vote is waived.

Glass Lewis believes the narrative and tabular disclosure of golden parachute arrangements benefits all shareholders. Glass Lewis analyzes each golden parachute arrangement on a case-by-case basis, taking into account, among other items: the nature of the change-in-control transaction, the ultimate value of the payments particularly compared to the value of the transaction, any excise tax gross-up obligations, the tenure and position of the executives in question before and after the transaction, any new or amended employment agreements entered into in connection with the transaction, and the type of triggers involved (i.e., single vs. double).

EQUITY-BASED COMPENSATION PLAN PROPOSALS

We believe that equity compensation awards, when not abused, are useful for retaining employees and providing an incentive for them to act in a way that will improve company performance. Glass Lewis recognizes that equity-based compensation plans are critical components of a company’s overall compensation program and we analyze such plans accordingly based on both quantitative and qualitative factors.

Our quantitative analysis assesses the plan’s cost and the company’s pace of granting utilizing a number of different analyses, comparing the program with absolute limits we believe are key to equity value creation and with a carefully chosen peer group. In general, our model seeks to determine whether the proposed plan is either absolutely excessive or is more than one standard deviation away from the average plan for the peer group on a range of criteria, including dilution to shareholders and the projected annual cost relative to the company’s financial performance. Each of the analyses (and their constituent parts) is weighted and the plan is scored in accordance with that weight.

We compare the program’s expected annual expense with the business’s operating metrics to help determine whether the plan is excessive in light of company performance. We also compare the plan’s expected annual cost to the enterprise value of the firm rather than to market capitalization because the employees, managers and directors of the firm contribute to the creation of enterprise value but not necessarily market capitalization (the biggest difference is seen where cash represents the vast majority of market capitalization). Finally, we do not rely exclusively on relative comparisons with averages because, in addition to creeping averages serving to inflate compensation, we believe that some absolute limits are warranted.

We then consider qualitative aspects of the plan such as plan administration, the method and terms of exercise, repricing history, express or implied rights to reprice, and the presence of evergreen provisions. We also closely review the choice and use of, and difficulty in meeting, the awards’ performance metrics and targets, if any. We believe significant changes to the terms of a plan should be explained for shareholders and clearly indicated. Other factors such as a company’s size and operating environment may also be relevant in assessing the severity

of concerns or the benefits of certain changes. Finally, we may consider a company’s executive compensation practices in certain situations, as applicable.

We evaluate equity plans based on certain overarching principles: