|
|
Management fees | |
Distribution and service (12b-1) fees | |
Other expenses1 | |
Total annual Fund operating expenses |
1 | |
Year 1 | Year 3 |
$ |
$ |
|
|
Management fees | |
Distribution and service (12b-1) fees | |
Other expenses | |
Total annual Fund operating expenses |
Year 1 | Year 3 | Year 5 | Year 10 |
$ |
$ |
$ |
$ |
One Year |
Five Years |
Since Inception ( | |
Return Before Taxes | |||
Return After Taxes on Distributions | |||
Return After Taxes on Distributions and Sale of Fund Shares | |||
Markit iBoxx USD Liquid Leveraged Loan Index (reflects no deduction for fees, expenses or taxes) | |||
Morningstar LSTA US Leveraged Loan 100 Index (reflects no deduction for fees, expenses or taxes) | |||
Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index (reflects no deduction for fees, expenses or taxes) | - |
|
|
Management fees | |
Distribution and service (12b-1) fees | |
Other expenses | |
Total annual Fund operating expenses |
Year 1 | Year 3 | Year 5 | Year 10 |
$ |
$ |
$ |
$ |
One Year |
Five Years |
Since Inception ( | |
Return Before Taxes | |||
Return After Taxes on Distributions | - |
||
Return After Taxes on Distributions and Sale of Fund Shares | |||
JP Morgan Corporate Emerging Market Bond Index Broad Diversified (reflects no deduction for fees, expenses or taxes) | |||
Bloomberg Global Aggregate Bond Index (reflects no deduction for fees, expenses or taxes) | - |
|
|
Management fees | |
Distribution and service (12b-1) fees | |
Other expenses | |
Total annual Fund operating expenses |
Year 1 | Year 3 | Year 5 | Year 10 |
$ |
$ |
$ |
$ |
• | security selection within a given sector; |
• | relative performance of the various market sectors; |
• | the shape of the yield curve; and |
• | fluctuations in the overall level of interest rates. |
One Year |
Five Years |
Since Inception ( | |
Return Before Taxes | - |
||
Return After Taxes on Distributions | - |
||
Return After Taxes on Distributions and Sale of Fund Shares | - |
||
Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate 1-3 Year Index (reflects no deduction for fees, expenses or taxes) | - |
||
Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index (reflects no deduction for fees, expenses or taxes) | - |
|
|
Management fees | |
Distribution and service (12b-1) fees | |
Other expenses | |
Total annual Fund operating expenses |
Year 1 | Year 3 | Year 5 | Year 10 |
$ |
$ |
$ |
$ |
• | Security selection within a given sector; |
• | Relative performance of the various market sectors; |
• | The shape of the yield curve; and |
• | Fluctuations in the overall level of interest rates. |
One Year |
Five Years |
Since Inception ( | |
Return Before Taxes | - |
||
Return After Taxes on Distributions | - |
||
Return After Taxes on Distributions and Sale of Fund Shares | - |
||
Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index (reflects no deduction for fees, expenses or taxes) | - |
|
|
Management fees | |
Distribution and service (12b-1) fees | |
Other expenses | |
Total annual Fund operating expenses |
Year 1 | Year 3 | Year 5 | Year 10 |
$ |
$ |
$ |
$ |
|
Management fees | |
Distribution and service (12b-1) fees | |
Other expenses | |
Total annual Fund operating expenses |
Year 1 | Year 3 | Year 5 | Year 10 |
$ |
$ |
$ |
$ |
|
Management fees | |
Distribution and service (12b-1) fees | |
Other expenses1 | |
Total annual Fund operating expenses |
1 | |
Year 1 | Year 3 |
$ |
$ |
|
|
Management fees | |
Distribution and service (12b-1) fees | |
Other expenses | |
Total annual Fund operating expenses |
Year 1 | Year 3 | Year 5 | Year 10 |
$ |
$ |
$ |
$ |
One Year |
Since Inception | |
Return Before Taxes | - |
|
Return After Taxes on Distributions | - |
|
Return After Taxes on Distributions and Sale of Fund Shares | - |
|
Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index (reflects no deduction for fees, expenses or taxes) | - |
|
|
Management fees | |
Distribution and service (12b-1) fees | |
Other expenses | |
Total annual Fund operating expenses |
Year 1 | Year 3 | Year 5 | Year 10 |
$ |
$ |
$ |
$ |
One Year |
Five Years |
Since Inception ( | |
Return Before Taxes | |||
Return After Taxes on Distributions | |||
Return After Taxes on Distributions and Sale of Fund Shares | |||
MSCI ACWI IMI Index (reflects no deduction for fees, expenses or taxes other than withholding taxes on reinvested dividends) | |||
Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index (reflects no deduction for fees, expenses or taxes) | - |
|
|
Management fees | |
Distribution and service (12b-1) fees | |
Other expenses | |
Total annual Fund operating expenses |
Year 1 | Year 3 | Year 5 | Year 10 |
$ |
$ |
$ |
$ |
One Year |
Five Years |
Since Inception ( | |
Return Before Taxes | |||
Return After Taxes on Distributions | |||
Return After Taxes on Distributions and Sale of Fund Shares | |||
MSCI World Index (reflects no deduction for fees, expenses or taxes other than withholding taxes on reinvested dividends) | |||
Bloomberg US Long Government/Credit Bond Index (reflects no deduction for fees, expenses or taxes) | - |
||
Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index (reflects no deduction for fees, expenses or taxes) | - |
|
|
Management fees | |
Distribution and service (12b-1) fees | |
Other expenses | |
Total annual Fund operating expenses |
Year 1 | Year 3 | Year 5 | Year 10 |
$ |
$ |
$ |
$ |
One Year |
Five Years |
Since Inception ( | |
Return Before Taxes | |||
Return After Taxes on Distributions | |||
Return After Taxes on Distributions and Sale of Fund Shares | |||
Bloomberg U.S. Government Inflation-Linked Bond Index (reflects no deduction for fees, expenses or taxes) | |||
DBIQ Optimum Yield Diversified Commodity Index Excess Return (reflects no deduction for fees, expenses or taxes) | - | ||
Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index (reflects no deduction for fees, expenses or taxes) | - |
|
|
Management fees | |
Distribution and service (12b-1) fees | |
Other expenses | |
Total annual Fund operating expenses |
Year 1 | Year 3 | Year 5 | Year 10 |
$ |
$ |
$ |
$ |
One Year |
Five Years |
Since Inception ( | |
Return Before Taxes | |||
Return After Taxes on Distributions | |||
Return After Taxes on Distributions and Sale of Fund Shares | |||
Bloomberg US Treasury Bellwether 3 Month Index (reflects no deduction for fees, expenses or taxes) | |||
Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index (reflects no deduction for fees, expenses or taxes) | - |
|
|
Management fees | |
Distribution and service (12b-1) fees | |
Other expenses | |
Total annual Fund operating expenses |
Year 1 | Year 3 | Year 5 | Year 10 |
$ |
$ |
$ |
$ |
One Year |
Since Inception | |
Return Before Taxes | ||
Return After Taxes on Distributions | ||
Return After Taxes on Distributions and Sale of Fund Shares | ||
S&P 500 Index (reflects no deduction for fees, expenses or taxes) |
Fund Name | HYBL | SRLN | EMTL | STOT | TOTL | OBND | MBND | MBNE | FISR | GAL | INKM | RLY | ULST | XLSR |
Affiliated ETF Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||||||
Affiliated ETP Risk | x | x | x | x | ||||||||||
Agriculture Companies Risk | x | |||||||||||||
Asset Allocation Risk | x | x | x | x | x |
Fund Name | HYBL | SRLN | EMTL | STOT | TOTL | OBND | MBND | MBNE | FISR | GAL | INKM | RLY | ULST | XLSR |
Asset-Backed and Mortgage-Backed Securities Risk | x | x | x | |||||||||||
Bank Loan Risk | x | x | x | x | ||||||||||
Below Investment-Grade Securities Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||
Call/Prepayment Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
Cash Position Risk | x | x | x | x | x | |||||||||
Cash Transaction Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |||||||
Collateralized Debt Obligations Risk | x | x | x | |||||||||||
Collateralized Bond Obligation Risk | x | |||||||||||||
Collateralized Loan Obligation Risk | x | x | x | x | x | |||||||||
Collateralized Mortgage Obligation Risk | x | |||||||||||||
Commodities Risk | x | x | ||||||||||||
Communication Services Sector Risk | x | |||||||||||||
Consumer Discretionary Sector Risk | x | |||||||||||||
Consumer Staples Sector Risk | x | |||||||||||||
Convertible Securities Risk | x | x | ||||||||||||
Counterparty Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |||||||
Credit Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x |
Fund Name | HYBL | SRLN | EMTL | STOT | TOTL | OBND | MBND | MBNE | FISR | GAL | INKM | RLY | ULST | XLSR |
Currency Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||||||
Currency Hedging Risk | x | |||||||||||||
Debt Securities Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
Defaulted Securities Risk | x | x | x | |||||||||||
Depositary Receipts Risk | x | x | x | x | ||||||||||
Derivatives Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |||||||
Contracts for Differences Risk | x | |||||||||||||
Forward Contracts Risk | x | x | x | x | ||||||||||
Futures Contract Risk; Other Exchange-Traded Derivatives Risk | x | x | x | x | x | |||||||||
Options Risk | x | x | x | x | ||||||||||
Rights and Warrants Risk | x | |||||||||||||
Swaps Risk | x | x | x | x | ||||||||||
Emerging Markets Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||||||
Energy Sector Risk | x | x | ||||||||||||
Equity Investing Risk | x | x | x | x | x | |||||||||
ESG Investing Risk | x | |||||||||||||
Exchange Traded Funds Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |||||
Exchange Traded Products Risk | x | x | x | x | x |
Fund Name | HYBL | SRLN | EMTL | STOT | TOTL | OBND | MBND | MBNE | FISR | GAL | INKM | RLY | ULST | XLSR |
Extension Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
Financial Sector Risk | x | x | x | |||||||||||
Fluctuation of Net Asset Value, Share Premiums and Discounts Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x |
Geographic Focus Risk | x | |||||||||||||
Asia Risk | x | |||||||||||||
Latin America Risk | x | |||||||||||||
Pacific Region Risk | x | |||||||||||||
Health Care Sector Risk | x | |||||||||||||
Income Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
Industrial Sector Risk | x | x | x | |||||||||||
Inflation-Indexed Securities Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |||||||
Infrastructure-Related Companies Risk | x | x | ||||||||||||
Interest Rate Only and Principal Only Securities Risk | x | |||||||||||||
Interest Rate Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
Investment in ETNs | x | x | x | x | x | |||||||||
Investments in Exchange Traded Commodity Trusts | x | x | ||||||||||||
Large-Capitalization Securities Risk | x | x | x | x |
Fund Name | HYBL | SRLN | EMTL | STOT | TOTL | OBND | MBND | MBNE | FISR | GAL | INKM | RLY | ULST | XLSR |
Lender Liability Risk | x | x | ||||||||||||
Leveraging Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||||||||
LIBOR Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||||||||
Limited Track Record Risk | x | x | ||||||||||||
Liquidity Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
Low Short-Term Interest Rates Risk | x | |||||||||||||
Management Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x |
Market Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x |
Materials Sector Risk | x | x | ||||||||||||
Metals and Mining Companies Risk | x | |||||||||||||
Mid-Capitalization Securities Risk | x | x | x | |||||||||||
Models and Data Risk | x | x | ||||||||||||
Modeling Risk | x | x | x | x | x | |||||||||
Money Market Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||||||||
Mortgage-Related and Other Asset-Backed Securities Risk | x | x | x | |||||||||||
Municipal Obligations Risk | x | x | x | x | ||||||||||
Natural Resources Risk | x | |||||||||||||
New Fund Risk | x | x | x | |||||||||||
Non-Diversification Risk | x | x | x | x | x |
Fund Name | HYBL | SRLN | EMTL | STOT | TOTL | OBND | MBND | MBNE | FISR | GAL | INKM | RLY | ULST | XLSR |
Non-Senior Loans and Other Debt Securities Risk | x | x | ||||||||||||
Non-U.S. Securities Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |||
Pass-Through Securities Risk | x | |||||||||||||
Perpetual Bond Risk | x | x | ||||||||||||
Political Risk | x | x | x | |||||||||||
Portfolio Turnover Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |||||||
Preferred Securities Risk | x | x | x | x | ||||||||||
Privately Issued Securities Risk | x | |||||||||||||
Real Estate Sector Risk | x | x | x | x | ||||||||||
REIT Risk | x | x | x | |||||||||||
Reinvestment Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
REMIC Risk | x | |||||||||||||
Repurchase Agreement Risk | x | x | ||||||||||||
Restricted Securities Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||||||
Reverse Repurchase Agreement Risk | x | x | ||||||||||||
Risks of Loan Assignments and Participations | x | x | ||||||||||||
Senior Loan Risk | x | x | x | x | ||||||||||
Settlement Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x |
Fund Name | HYBL | SRLN | EMTL | STOT | TOTL | OBND | MBND | MBNE | FISR | GAL | INKM | RLY | ULST | XLSR |
Small-Capitalization Securities Risk | x | x | x | |||||||||||
Sovereign Debt Obligations Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||||||
Structured Securities Risk | x | x | ||||||||||||
Systematic Strategies Related to Bond Investments Risk | x | |||||||||||||
Tax Risk-Qualifying Income | x | x | ||||||||||||
Tax Exemption Risk | x | x | ||||||||||||
Technology Sector Risk | x | |||||||||||||
Unconstrained Sector Risk | x | x | ||||||||||||
U.S. Government Securities Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||||||
U.S. Treasury Obligations Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |||||||
Utilities Sector Risk | x | x | ||||||||||||
Valuation Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
Variable and Floating Rate Securities Risk | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||||||
When-Issued Securities Risk | x | |||||||||||||
When-Issued, TBA and Delayed Delivery Securities Risk | x | x |
Fund Name | HYBL | SRLN | EMTL | STOT | TOTL | OBND | MBND | MBNE | FISR | GAL | INKM | RLY | ULST | XLSR |
Zero-Coupon Bond Risk | x | x | x |
SPDR Blackstone High Income ETF |
0.70% (1) |
SPDR Blackstone Senior Loan ETF |
0.70% |
SPDR DoubleLine Emerging Markets Fixed Income ETF |
0.65% |
SPDR DoubleLine Short Duration Total Return Tactical ETF |
0.45% |
SPDR DoubleLine Total Return Tactical ETF |
0.55% |
SPDR Loomis Sayles Opportunistic Bond ETF |
0.51% (2) |
SPDR Nuveen Municipal Bond ETF |
0.40% |
SPDR Nuveen Municipal Bond ESG ETF |
0.43% (3) |
SPDR SSGA Fixed Income Sector Rotation ETF |
0.39% |
SPDR SSGA Global Allocation ETF |
0.11% |
SPDR SSGA Income Allocation ETF |
0.11% |
SPDR SSGA Multi-Asset Real Return ETF |
0.05% |
SPDR SSGA Ultra Short Term Bond ETF |
0.20% |
SPDR SSGA US Sector Rotation ETF |
0.54% |
(1) | The Fund commenced operations on February 17, 2022. |
(2) | The Fund commenced operations on September 28, 2021. |
(3) | The Fund commenced operations on April 5, 2022. |
Portfolio Managers | Fund |
Michael Martel, Jeremiah Holly and Leo Law |
SPDR SSGA Fixed Income Sector Rotation ETF |
Michael Martel and Jeremiah Holly |
SPDR SSGA Global Allocation ETF, SPDR SSGA Income Allocation ETF |
Robert Guiliano and Michael Narkiewicz |
SPDR SSGA Multi-Asset Real Return ETF |
James Palmieri and John Mele |
SPDR SSGA Ultra Short Term Bond ETF |
Michael Martel, Michael Narkiewicz and Jeremiah Holly |
SPDR SSGA US Sector Rotation ETF |
Portfolio Managers | Fund |
Daniel T. McMullen, Adam Dwinells, Dan Smith, Bonnie Brookshaw, Gordon McKemie and Paul Harrison |
SPDR Blackstone High Income ETF |
Daniel T. McMullen, Gordon McKemie and Bonnie Brookshaw |
SPDR Blackstone Senior Loan ETF |
Portfolio Managers | Fund |
Luz Padilla, Mark Christensen and Su Fei Koo |
SPDR DoubleLine Emerging Markets Fixed Income ETF |
Jeffrey Gundlach and Jeffrey Sherman |
SPDR DoubleLine Short Duration Total Return Tactical ETF, SPDR DoubleLine Total Return Tactical ETF |
Portfolio Managers | Fund |
Timothy T. Ryan and Joel Levy |
SPDR Nuveen Municipal Bond ETF |
Timothy T. Ryan and David J. Blair |
SPDR Nuveen Municipal Bond ESG ETF |
SPDR Blackstone High Income ETF | |
For the Period 02/17/22*- 6/30/22 | |
Net asset value, beginning of period |
$30.00 |
Income (loss) from investment operations: | |
Net investment income (loss) (a) |
0.50 |
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) (b) |
(2.86) |
Total from investment operations |
(2.36) |
Net equalization credits and charges (a) |
0.00(c) |
Other capital (a) |
0.00(c) |
Distributions to shareholders from: | |
Net investment income |
(0.36) |
Net asset value, end of period |
$27.28 |
Total return (d) |
(7.93)% |
Ratios and Supplemental Data: | |
Net assets, end of period (in 000s) |
$117,312 |
Ratios to average net assets: | |
Total expenses |
0.70%(e) |
Net investment income (loss) |
4.63%(e) |
Portfolio turnover rate |
55%(f) |
* | Commencement of operations. |
(a) | Per share numbers have been calculated using average shares outstanding, which more appropriately presents the per share data for the year. |
(b) | Amounts shown in this caption for a share outstanding may not accord with the change in aggregate gains and losses in securities for the fiscal period because of the timing of sales and repurchases of Fund shares in relation to fluctuating market values for the Fund. |
(c) | Amount is less than $0.005 per share. |
(d) | Total return is calculated assuming a purchase of shares at net asset value on the first day and a sale at net asset value on the last day of each period reported. Distributions are assumed, for the purpose of this calculation, to be reinvested at net asset value per share on the respective payment dates of each distribution. Total returns for periods of less than one year are not annualized. Broker commission charges are not included in this calculation. |
(e) | Annualized. |
(f) | Not annualized. |
SPDR Blackstone Senior Loan ETF | |||||||||
Year Ended 6/30/22 |
Year Ended 6/30/21 |
Year Ended 6/30/20(a) |
Year Ended 6/30/19(a) |
Year Ended 6/30/18(a) | |||||
Net asset value, beginning of period |
$46.30 | $43.36 | $46.25 | $47.04 | $47.41 | ||||
Income (loss) from investment operations: | |||||||||
Net investment income (loss) (b) |
1.95 | 1.98 | 2.34 | 2.48 | 2.04 | ||||
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) (c) |
(4.44) | 3.02 | (3.06) | (0.86) | (0.50) | ||||
Total from investment operations |
(2.49) | 5.00 | (0.72) | 1.62 | 1.54 | ||||
Net equalization credits and charges (b) |
0.01 | 0.06 | (0.04) | (0.03) | 0.04 | ||||
Contribution from Affiliate (Note 4) |
— | 0.00(d) | 0.01 | — | — | ||||
Other capital (b) |
0.06 | 0.02 | 0.21 | 0.09 | 0.02 | ||||
Distributions to shareholders from: | |||||||||
Net investment income |
(2.04) | (2.14) | (2.35) | (2.47) | (1.97) | ||||
Return of Capital |
(0.01) | — | — | — | — | ||||
Total distributions |
(2.05) | — | — | — | — | ||||
Net asset value, end of period |
$41.83 | $46.30 | $43.36 | $46.25 | $47.04 | ||||
Total return (e) |
(5.46)% | 11.97%(f) | (1.23)%(f) | 3.68% | 3.43% | ||||
Ratios and Supplemental Data: | |||||||||
Net assets, end of period (in 000s) |
$8,460,243 | $6,294,196 | $1,433,094 | $2,222,400 | $3,189,624 | ||||
Ratios to average net assets: | |||||||||
Total expenses |
0.70% | 0.70% | 0.70% | 0.70% | 0.70% | ||||
Net investment income (loss) |
4.33% | 4.31% | 5.17% | 5.33% | 4.30% | ||||
Portfolio turnover rate |
140% | 176% | 195%(g) | 124%(g) | 90%(g) |
(a) | The per share amounts and percentages include the Fund's proportionate share of income and expenses of the Portfolio prior to discontinuance of the master feeder structure. |
(b) | Per share numbers have been calculated using average shares outstanding, which more appropriately presents the per share data for the year. |
(c) | Amounts shown in this caption for a share outstanding may not accord with the change in aggregate gains and losses in securities for the fiscal period because of the timing of sales and repurchases of Fund shares in relation to fluctuating market values for the Fund. |
(d) | Amount is less than $0.005 per share. |
(e) | Total return is calculated assuming a purchase of shares at net asset value on the first day and a sale at net asset value on the last day of each period reported. Distributions are assumed, for the purpose of this calculation, to be reinvested at net asset value per share on the respective payment dates of each distribution. Total returns for periods of less than one year are not annualized. Broker commission charges are not included in this calculation. |
(f) | If an affiliate had not made a contribution during the years ended June 30, 2021 and June 30, 2020, the total return would have remained 11.97% and (1.23)%, respectively. |
(g) | Portfolio turnover rate is from the the affiliated Portfolio prior to the discontinuance of the master feeder structure. |
SPDR DoubleLine Emerging Markets Fixed Income ETF | |||||||||
Year Ended 6/30/22 |
Year Ended 6/30/21 |
Year Ended 6/30/20 |
Year Ended 6/30/19 |
Year Ended 6/30/18 | |||||
Net asset value, beginning of period |
$50.99 | $49.09 | $51.02 | $48.25 | $50.45 | ||||
Income (loss) from investment operations: | |||||||||
Net investment income (loss) (a) |
1.49 | 1.48 | 1.87 | 1.98 | 1.31 | ||||
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) |
(8.60) | 1.83 | (2.06) | 2.60 | (1.74) | ||||
Total from investment operations |
(7.11) | 3.31 | (0.19) | 4.58 | (0.43) | ||||
Net equalization credits and charges (a) |
(0.01) | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.04 | ||||
Other capital (a) |
0.03 | 0.09 | 0.13 | 0.08 | 0.10 | ||||
Distributions to shareholders from: | |||||||||
Net investment income |
(1.47) | (1.53) | (1.91) | (1.92) | (1.36) | ||||
Net realized gains |
(1.22) | — | — | — | (0.55) | ||||
Total distributions |
(2.69) | (1.53) | (1.91) | (1.92) | (1.91) | ||||
Net asset value, end of period |
$41.21 | $50.99 | $49.09 | $51.02 | $48.25 | ||||
Total return (b) |
(14.57)% | 7.09% | (0.04)% | 9.99% | (0.65)% | ||||
Ratios and Supplemental Data: | |||||||||
Net assets, end of period (in 000s) |
$74,181 | $123,643 | $94,494 | $65,050 | $48,253 | ||||
Ratios to average net assets: | |||||||||
Total expenses |
0.65% | 0.72% | 0.75% | 0.75% | 0.76% | ||||
Net expenses |
0.65% | 0.65% | 0.65% | 0.65% | 0.65% | ||||
Net investment income (loss) |
3.12% | 2.95% | 3.77% | 4.06% | 2.64% | ||||
Portfolio turnover rate (c) |
38% | 77% | 54% | 37% | 55% |
(a) | Per share numbers have been calculated using average shares outstanding, which more appropriately presents the per share data for the year. |
(b) | Total return is calculated assuming a purchase of shares at net asset value on the first day and a sale at net asset value on the last day of each period reported. Distributions are assumed, for the purpose of this calculation, to be reinvested at net asset value per share on the respective payment dates of each distribution. Total returns for periods of less than one year are not annualized. Broker commission charges are not included in this calculation. |
(c) | Portfolio turnover rate excludes securities received or delivered from in-kind processing of creations or redemptions. |
SPDR DoubleLine Short Duration Total Return Tactical ETF | |||||||||
Year Ended 6/30/22 |
Year Ended 6/30/21 |
Year Ended 6/30/20 |
Year Ended 6/30/19 |
Year Ended 6/30/18 | |||||
Net asset value, beginning of period |
$49.69 | $49.57 | $49.53 | $48.81 | $49.61 | ||||
Income (loss) from investment operations: | |||||||||
Net investment income (loss) (a) |
0.69 | 0.68 | 1.08 | 1.30 | 1.02 | ||||
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) (b) |
(2.96) | 0.14 | 0.07 | 0.62 | (0.99) | ||||
Total from investment operations |
(2.27) | 0.82 | 1.15 | 1.92 | 0.03 | ||||
Net equalization credits and charges (a) |
(0.01) | 0.01 | 0.00(c) | 0.03 | 0.05 | ||||
Other capital (a) |
0.07 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.12 | ||||
Distributions to shareholders from: | |||||||||
Net investment income |
(0.73) | (0.72) | (1.14) | (1.29) | (1.00) | ||||
Net realized gains |
(0.16) | — | — | — | — | ||||
Total distributions |
(0.89) | (0.72) | (1.14) | (1.29) | (1.00) | ||||
Net asset value, end of period |
$46.59 | $49.69 | $49.57 | $49.53 | $48.81 | ||||
Total return (d) |
(4.52)% | 1.70% | 2.43% | 4.18% | 0.43% | ||||
Ratios and Supplemental Data: | |||||||||
Net assets, end of period (in 000s) |
$131,605 | $160,239 | $142,519 | $121,344 | $82,984 | ||||
Ratios to average net assets: | |||||||||
Total expenses |
0.45% | 0.49% | 0.50% | 0.50% | 0.50% | ||||
Net expenses |
0.45% | 0.45% | 0.45% | 0.45% | 0.45% | ||||
Net investment income (loss) |
1.41% | 1.36% | 2.18% | 2.65% | 2.07% | ||||
Portfolio turnover rate (e) |
104% | 58% | 43% | 62% | 50% |
(a) | Per share numbers have been calculated using average shares outstanding, which more appropriately presents the per share data for the year. |
(b) | Amounts shown in this caption for a share outstanding may not accord with the change in aggregate gains and losses in securities for the fiscal period because of the timing of sales and repurchases of Fund shares in relation to fluctuating market values for the Fund. |
(c) | Amount is less than $0.005 per share. |
(d) | Total return is calculated assuming a purchase of shares at net asset value on the first day and a sale at net asset value on the last day of each period reported. Distributions are assumed, for the purpose of this calculation, to be reinvested at net asset value per share on the respective payment dates of each distribution. Total returns for periods of less than one year are not annualized. Broker commission charges are not included in this calculation. |
(e) | Portfolio turnover rate excludes securities received or delivered from in-kind processing of creations or redemptions. |
SPDR DoubleLine Total Return Tactical ETF | |||||||||
Year Ended 6/30/22 |
Year Ended 6/30/21 |
Year Ended 6/30/20 |
Year Ended 6/30/19 |
Year Ended 6/30/18(a) | |||||
Net asset value, beginning of period |
$48.46 | $49.40 | $48.96 | $47.60 | $49.03 | ||||
Income (loss) from investment operations: | |||||||||
Net investment income (loss) (b) |
1.30 | 1.09 | 1.37 | 1.56 | 1.34 | ||||
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) (c) |
(5.91) | (0.70) | 0.59 | 1.44 | (1.34) | ||||
Total from investment operations |
(4.61) | 0.39 | 1.96 | 3.00 | 0.00(d) | ||||
Net equalization credits and charges (b) |
(0.00)(d) | 0.00(d) | (0.00)(d) | 0.00(d) | 0.00(d) | ||||
Contribution from Affiliate |
— | 0.00(d) | — | — | — | ||||
Other capital (b) |
0.01 | 0.00(d) | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.02 | ||||
Distributions to shareholders from: | |||||||||
Net investment income |
(1.59) | (1.33) | (1.55) | (1.68) | (1.45) | ||||
Net asset value, end of period |
$42.27 | $48.46 | $49.40 | $48.96 | $47.60 | ||||
Total return (e) |
(9.75)% | 0.81%(f) | 4.13% | 6.53% | 0.04% | ||||
Ratios and Supplemental Data: | |||||||||
Net assets, end of period (in 000s) |
$2,244,695 | $3,188,671 | $3,191,242 | $3,336,881 | $3,182,239 | ||||
Ratios to average net assets: | |||||||||
Total expenses |
0.55% | 0.62% | 0.65% | 0.65% | 0.65% | ||||
Net expenses |
0.55% | 0.55% | 0.55% | 0.55% | 0.55% | ||||
Net investment income (loss) |
2.79% | 2.22% | 2.80% | 3.27% | 2.78% | ||||
Portfolio turnover rate |
119%(g) | 82%(g) | 25%(g) | 47%(g) | 34%(h) |
(a) | The per share amounts and percentages include the Fund's proportionate share of income and expenses of the Portfolio prior to discontinuance of the master feeder structure. |
(b) | Per share numbers have been calculated using average shares outstanding, which more appropriately presents the per share data for the year. |
(c) | Amounts shown in this caption for a share outstanding may not accord with the change in aggregate gains and losses in securities for the fiscal period because of the timing of sales and repurchases of Fund shares in relation to fluctuating market values for the Fund. |
(d) | Amount is less than $0.005 per share. |
(e) | Total return is calculated assuming a purchase of shares at net asset value on the first day and a sale at net asset value on the last day of each period reported. Distributions are assumed, for the purpose of this calculation, to be reinvested at net asset value per share on the respective payment dates of each distribution. Total returns for periods of less than one year are not annualized. Broker commission charges are not included in this calculation. |
(f) | If an affiliate had not made a contribution during the year ended ended June 30, 2021, the total return would have remained 0.81%. |
(g) | Portfolio turnover rate excludes securities received or delivered from in-kind processing of creations or redemptions. |
(h) | Portfolio turnover is from the Fund's Portfolio prior to discontinuance of master-feeder structure. |
SPDR Loomis Sayles Opportunistic Bond ETF | |
For the Period 9/28/2021*- 6/30/22 | |
Net asset value, beginning of period |
$30.00 |
Income (loss) from investment operations: | |
Net investment income (loss) (a) |
0.67 |
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) (b) |
(4.05) |
Total from investment operations |
(3.38) |
Net equalization credits and charges (a) |
(0.02) |
Other capital (a) |
0.06 |
Distributions to shareholders from: | |
Net investment income |
(0.57) |
Net asset value, end of period |
$26.09 |
Total return (c) |
(11.25)% |
Ratios and Supplemental Data: | |
Net assets, end of period (in 000s) |
$28,703 |
Ratios to average net assets: | |
Total expenses |
0.55%(d) |
Net expenses |
0.51%(d) |
Net investment income (loss) |
3.11%(d) |
Portfolio turnover rate (e) |
101%(f) |
* | Commencement of operations. |
(a) | Per share numbers have been calculated using average shares outstanding, which more appropriately presents the per share data for the year. |
(b) | Amounts shown in this caption for a share outstanding may not accord with the change in aggregate gains and losses in securities for the fiscal period because of the timing of sales and repurchases of Fund shares in relation to fluctuating market values for the Fund. |
(c) | Total return is calculated assuming a purchase of shares at net asset value on the first day and a sale at net asset value on the last day of each period reported. Distributions are assumed, for the purpose of this calculation, to be reinvested at net asset value per share on the respective payment dates of each distribution. Total returns for periods of less than one year are not annualized. Broker commission charges are not included in this calculation. |
(d) | Annualized. |
(e) | Portfolio turnover rate excludes securities received or delivered from in-kind processing of creations or redemptions. |
(f) | Not annualized. |
SPDR Nuveen Municipal Bond ETF | |||
Year Ended 6/30/22 |
For the Period 2/3/21*- 6/30/21 | ||
Net asset value, beginning of period |
$30.11 | $30.00 | |
Income (loss) from investment operations: | |||
Net investment income (loss) (a) |
0.17 | 0.07 | |
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) (b) |
(2.80) | 0.11 | |
Total from investment operations |
(2.63) | 0.18 | |
Net equalization credits and charges (a) |
(0.00)(c) | 0.00(c) | |
Other capital (a) |
0.01 | 0.03 | |
Distributions to shareholders from: | |||
Net investment income |
(0.30) | (0.10) | |
Net realized gains |
(0.22) | — | |
Total distributions |
(0.52) | (0.10) | |
Net asset value, end of period |
$26.97 | $30.11 | |
Total return (d) |
(8.83)% | 0.69% | |
Ratios and Supplemental Data: | |||
Net assets, end of period (in 000s) |
$35,061 | $45,164 | |
Ratios to average net assets: | |||
Total expenses |
0.40% | 0.40%(e) | |
Net investment income (loss) |
0.57% | 0.57%(e) | |
Portfolio turnover rate (f) |
49% | 51%(g) |
* | Commencement of operations. |
(a) | Per share numbers have been calculated using average shares outstanding, which more appropriately presents the per share data for the year. |
(b) | Amounts shown in this caption for a share outstanding may not accord with the change in aggregate gains and losses in securities for the fiscal period because of the timing of sales and repurchases of Fund shares in relation to fluctuating market values for the Fund. |
(c) | Amount is less than $0.005 per share. |
(d) | Total return is calculated assuming a purchase of shares at net asset value on the first day and a sale at net asset value on the last day of each period reported. Distributions are assumed, for the purpose of this calculation, to be reinvested at net asset value per share on the respective payment dates of each distribution. Total returns for periods of less than one year are not annualized. Broker commission charges are not included in this calculation. |
(e) | Annualized. |
(f) | Portfolio turnover rate excludes securities received or delivered from in-kind processing of creations or redemptions. |
(g) | Not annualized. |
SPDR Nuveen Municipal Bond ESG ETF | |
For the Period 4/5/2022*- 6/30/22 | |
Net asset value, beginning of period |
$30.00 |
Income (loss) from investment operations: | |
Net investment income (loss) (a) |
0.14 |
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) (b) |
(0.57) |
Total from investment operations |
(0.43) |
Net equalization credits and charges (a) |
0.00(c) |
Other capital (a) |
0.03 |
Distributions to shareholders from: | |
Net investment income |
(0.09) |
Net asset value, end of period |
$29.51 |
Total return (d) |
(1.31)% |
Ratios and Supplemental Data: | |
Net assets, end of period (in 000s) |
$32,465 |
Ratios to average net assets: | |
Total expenses |
0.43%(e) |
Net investment income (loss) |
2.00%(e) |
Portfolio turnover rate (f) |
5%(g) |
* | Commencement of operations. |
(a) | Per share numbers have been calculated using average shares outstanding, which more appropriately presents the per share data for the year. |
(b) | Amounts shown in this caption for a share outstanding may not accord with the change in aggregate gains and losses in securities for the fiscal period because of the timing of sales and repurchases of Fund shares in relation to fluctuating market values for the Fund. |
(c) | Amount is less than $0.005 per share. |
(d) | Total return is calculated assuming a purchase of shares at net asset value on the first day and a sale at net asset value on the last day of each period reported. Distributions are assumed, for the purpose of this calculation, to be reinvested at net asset value per share on the respective payment dates of each distribution. Total returns for periods of less than one year are not annualized. Broker commission charges are not included in this calculation. |
(e) | Annualized. |
(f) | Portfolio turnover rate excludes securities received or delivered from in-kind processing of creations or redemptions. |
(g) | Not annualized. |
SPDR SSGA Fixed Income Sector Rotation ETF | |||||||
Year Ended 6/30/22 |
Year Ended 6/30/21 |
Year Ended 6/30/20 |
For the Period 4/3/2019*- 6/30/19 | ||||
Net asset value, beginning of period |
$31.31 | $31.98 | $31.08 | $30.10 | |||
Income (loss) from investment operations: | |||||||
Net investment income (loss) (a) |
0.52 | 0.63 | 0.81 | 0.15 | |||
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) (b) |
(4.02) | (0.37) | 1.31 | 0.99 | |||
Total from investment operations |
(3.50) | 0.26 | 2.12 | 1.14 | |||
Net equalization credits and charges (a) |
(0.14) | (0.16) | (0.17) | 0.00(c) | |||
Distributions to shareholders from: | |||||||
Net investment income |
(0.54) | (0.77) | (1.05) | (0.16) | |||
Net asset value, end of period |
$27.13 | $31.31 | $31.98 | $31.08 | |||
Total return (d) |
(11.78)% | 0.29% | 6.42% | 3.81% | |||
Ratios and Supplemental Data: | |||||||
Net assets, end of period (in 000s) |
$118,545 | $82,974 | $47,014 | $10,877 | |||
Ratios to average net assets: | |||||||
Total expenses (e) |
0.39% | 0.39% | 0.31% | 0.31%(f) | |||
Net investment income (loss) |
1.76% | 1.99% | 2.57% | 1.98%(f) | |||
Portfolio turnover rate (g) |
75% | 79% | 150% | 32%(h) |
* | Commencement of operations. |
(a) | Per share numbers have been calculated using average shares outstanding, which more appropriately presents the per share data for the period. |
(b) | Amounts shown in this caption for a share outstanding may not accord with the change in aggregate gains and losses in securities for the fiscal period because of the timing of sales and repurchases of Fund shares in relation to fluctuating market values for the Fund. |
(c) | Amount is less than $0.005 per share. |
(d) | Total return is calculated assuming a purchase of shares at net asset value on the first day and a sale at net asset value on the last day of each period reported. Distributions are assumed, for the purpose of this calculation, to be reinvested at net asset value per share on the respective payment dates of each distribution. Total returns for periods of less than one year are not annualized. Broker commission charges are not included in this calculation. |
(e) | Does not include expenses of the Underlying Funds in which the Fund invests. |
(f) | Annualized. |
(g) | Portfolio turnover rate excludes securities received or delivered from in-kind processing of creations or redemptions. |
(h) | Not annualized. |
SPDR SSGA Global Allocation ETF | |||||||||
Year Ended 6/30/22 |
Year Ended 6/30/21 |
Year Ended 6/30/20 |
Year Ended 6/30/19 |
Year Ended 6/30/18(a) | |||||
Net asset value, beginning of period |
$46.04 | $36.88 | $38.33 | $37.72 | $35.52 | ||||
Income (loss) from investment operations: | |||||||||
Net investment income (loss) (b) |
1.61 | 0.91 | 1.07 | 1.03 | 0.81 | ||||
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) (c) |
(6.71) | 9.16 | (1.44) | 0.57 | 2.18 | ||||
Total from investment operations |
(5.10) | 10.07 | (0.37) | 1.60 | 2.99 | ||||
Net equalization credits and charges (b) |
0.00(d) | (0.00)(d) | 0.00(d) | 0.01 | 0.01 | ||||
Other capital (b) |
— | — | 0.00(d) | — | — | ||||
Distributions to shareholders from: | |||||||||
Net investment income |
(1.62) | (0.91) | (1.08) | (1.00) | (0.80) | ||||
Net realized gains |
(0.35) | — | — | — | — | ||||
Total distributions |
(1.97) | (0.91) | (1.08) | (1.00) | (0.80) | ||||
Net asset value, end of period |
$38.97 | $46.04 | $36.88 | $38.33 | $37.72 | ||||
Total return (e) |
(11.58)% | 27.51% | (1.00)% | 4.37% | 8.46% | ||||
Ratios and Supplemental Data: | |||||||||
Net assets, end of period (in 000s) |
$240,834 | $282,690 | $237,850 | $255,687 | $248,929 | ||||
Ratios to average net assets: | |||||||||
Total expenses (f) |
0.11% | 0.17% | 0.09% | 0.15% | 0.20% | ||||
Net expenses |
0.11% | 0.17% | 0.09% | 0.15% | 0.09% | ||||
Net investment income (loss) |
3.59% | 2.16% | 2.84% | 2.76% | 2.14% | ||||
Portfolio turnover rate (g) |
153% | 110% | 94% | 71% | 43% |
(a) | The per share amounts and percentages include the Fund's proportionate share of income and expenses of the Portfolio prior to discontinuance of the master feeder structure. |
(b) | Per share numbers have been calculated using average shares outstanding, which more appropriately presents the per share data for the year. |
(c) | Amounts shown in this caption for a share outstanding may not accord with the change in aggregate gains and losses in securities for the fiscal period because of the timing of sales and repurchases of Fund shares in relation to fluctuating market values for the Fund. |
(d) | Amount is less than $0.005 per share. |
(e) | Total return is calculated assuming a purchase of shares at net asset value on the first day and a sale at net asset value on the last day of each period reported. Distributions are assumed, for the purpose of this calculation, to be reinvested at net asset value per share on the respective payment dates of each distribution. Total returns for periods of less than one year are not annualized. Broker commission charges are not included in this calculation. |
(f) | Does not include expenses of the Underlying Funds in which the Fund invests. |
(g) | Portfolio turnover rate excludes securities received or delivered from in-kind processing of creations or redemptions. |
SPDR SSGA Income Allocation ETF | |||||||||
Year Ended 6/30/22 |
Year Ended 6/30/21 |
Year Ended 6/30/20 |
Year Ended 6/30/19 |
Year Ended 6/30/18(a) | |||||
Net asset value, beginning of period |
$35.62 | $30.37 | $33.32 | $32.42 | $32.33 | ||||
Income (loss) from investment operations: | |||||||||
Net investment income (loss) (b) |
1.33 | 1.35 | 1.43 | 1.53 | 1.02 | ||||
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) (c) |
(4.92) | 5.18 | (2.95) | 0.91 | 0.09 | ||||
Total from investment operations |
(3.59) | 6.53 | (1.52) | 2.44 | 1.11 | ||||
Net equalization credits and charges (b) |
(0.01) | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.03 | (0.01) | ||||
Other capital (b) |
— | — | — | 0.00(d) | — | ||||
Distributions to shareholders from: | |||||||||
Net investment income |
(1.29) | (1.32) | (1.46) | (1.57) | (1.01) | ||||
Net asset value, end of period |
$30.73 | $35.62 | $30.37 | $33.32 | $32.42 | ||||
Total return (e) |
(10.41)% | 21.90% | (4.56)% | 7.93% | 3.34% | ||||
Ratios and Supplemental Data: | |||||||||
Net assets, end of period (in 000s) |
$95,559 | $125,039 | $126,039 | $104,613 | $92,389 | ||||
Ratios to average net assets: | |||||||||
Total expenses (f) |
0.12% | 0.16% | 0.18% | 0.18% | 0.39% | ||||
Net investment income (loss) |
3.85% | 4.02% | 4.41% | 4.71% | 3.07% | ||||
Portfolio turnover rate |
58% | 60% | 38% | 71% | 29% |
(a) | The per share amounts and percentages include the Fund's proportionate share of income and expenses of the Portfolio prior to discontinuance of the master feeder structure. |
(b) | Per share numbers have been calculated using average shares outstanding, which more appropriately presents the per share data for the year. |
(c) | Amounts shown in this caption for a share outstanding may not accord with the change in aggregate gains and losses in securities for the fiscal period because of the timing of sales and repurchases of Fund shares in relation to fluctuating market values for the Fund. |
(d) | Amount is less than $0.005 per share. |
(e) | Total return is calculated assuming a purchase of shares at net asset value on the first day and a sale at net asset value on the last day of each period reported. Distributions are assumed, for the purpose of this calculation, to be reinvested at net asset value per share on the respective payment dates of each distribution. Total returns for periods of less than one year are not annualized. Broker commission charges are not included in this calculation. |
(f) | Does not include expenses of the Underlying Funds in which the Fund invests. |
SPDR SSGA Multi-Asset Real Return ETF | |||||||||
Year Ended 6/30/22 |
Year Ended 6/30/21 |
Year Ended 6/30/20 |
Year Ended 6/30/19 |
Year Ended 6/30/18(a) | |||||
Net asset value, beginning of period |
$28.52 | $21.25 | $25.18 | $26.62 | $23.97 | ||||
Income (loss) from investment operations: | |||||||||
Net investment income (loss) (b) |
2.99 | 0.65 | 0.78 | 0.69 | 0.53 | ||||
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) (c) |
(0.44) | 7.15 | (3.89) | (1.43) | 2.64 | ||||
Total from investment operations |
2.55 | 7.80 | (3.11) | (0.74) | 3.17 | ||||
Net equalization credits and charges (b) |
0.34 | 0.02 | (0.02) | 0.00(d) | (0.00)(d) | ||||
Other capital |
0.00(d) | — | — | — | — | ||||
Distributions to shareholders from: | |||||||||
Net investment income |
(3.48) | (0.55) | (0.80) | (0.70) | (0.52) | ||||
Net asset value, end of period |
$27.93 | $28.52 | $21.25 | $25.18 | $26.62 | ||||
Total return (e) |
10.57% | 37.12% | (12.71)% | (2.71)% | 13.26% | ||||
Ratios and Supplemental Data: | |||||||||
Net assets, end of period (in 000s) |
$468,031 | $130,358 | $53,750 | $112,792 | $143,742 | ||||
Ratios to average net assets: | |||||||||
Total expenses (f) |
0.05% | 0.08% | 0.08% | 0.12% | 0.22% | ||||
Net investment income (loss) |
10.09% | 2.56% | 3.30% | 2.76% | 2.04% | ||||
Portfolio turnover rate |
38% | 49% | 30% | 28% | 44% |
(a) | The per share amounts and percentages include the Fund's proportionate share of income and expenses of the Portfolio prior to discontinuance of the master feeder structure. |
(b) | Per share numbers have been calculated using average shares outstanding, which more appropriately presents the per share data for the year. |
(c) | Amounts shown in this caption for a share outstanding may not accord with the change in aggregate gains and losses in securities for the fiscal period because of the timing of sales and repurchases of Fund shares in relation to fluctuating market values for the Fund. |
(d) | Amount is less than $0.005 per share. |
(e) | Total return is calculated assuming a purchase of shares at net asset value on the first day and a sale at net asset value on the last day of each period reported. Distributions are assumed, for the purpose of this calculation, to be reinvested at net asset value per share on the respective payment dates of each distribution. Total returns for periods of less than one year are not annualized. Broker commission charges are not included in this calculation. |
(f) | Does not include expenses of the Underlying Funds in which the Fund invests. |
SPDR SSGA Ultra Short Term Bond ETF | |||||||||
Year Ended 6/30/22 |
Year Ended 6/30/21 |
Year Ended 6/30/20 |
Year Ended 6/30/19 |
Year Ended 6/30/18(a) | |||||
Net asset value, beginning of period |
$40.46 | $40.26 | $40.41 | $40.27 | $40.26 | ||||
Income (loss) from investment operations: | |||||||||
Net investment income (loss) (b) |
0.21 | 0.27 | 0.81 | 1.02 | 0.68 | ||||
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) (c) |
(0.63) | 0.25 | (0.11) | 0.04 | (0.14) | ||||
Total from investment operations |
(0.42) | 0.52 | 0.70 | 1.06 | 0.54 | ||||
Net equalization credits and charges (b) |
(0.01) | 0.00(d) | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.04 | ||||
Other capital (b) |
0.01 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.06 | ||||
Distributions to shareholders from: | |||||||||
Net investment income |
(0.21) | (0.33) | (0.90) | (0.97) | (0.63) | ||||
Net asset value, end of period |
$39.83 | $40.46 | $40.26 | $40.41 | $40.27 | ||||
Total return (e) |
(1.05)% | 1.34% | 1.86% | 2.79% | 1.60% | ||||
Ratios and Supplemental Data: | |||||||||
Net assets, end of period (in 000s) |
$302,728 | $402,603 | $298,907 | $167,719 | $50,344 | ||||
Ratios to average net assets: | |||||||||
Total expenses |
0.20% | 0.20% | 0.20% | 0.20% | 0.20% | ||||
Net investment income (loss) |
0.51% | 0.67% | 2.02% | 2.54% | 1.70% | ||||
Portfolio turnover rate |
68% | 76% | 71% | 100% | 76% |
(a) | The per share amounts and percentages include the Fund's proportionate share of income and expenses of the Portfolio prior to discontinuance of the master feeder structure. |
(b) | Per share numbers have been calculated using average shares outstanding, which more appropriately presents the per share data for the year. |
(c) | Amounts shown in this caption for a share outstanding may not accord with the change in aggregate gains and losses in securities for the fiscal period because of the timing of sales and repurchases of Fund shares in relation to fluctuating market values for the Fund. |
(d) | Amount is less than $0.005 per share. |
(e) | Total return is calculated assuming a purchase of shares at net asset value on the first day and a sale at net asset value on the last day of each period reported. Distributions are assumed, for the purpose of this calculation, to be reinvested at net asset value per share on the respective payment dates of each distribution. Total returns for periods of less than one year are not annualized. Broker commission charges are not included in this calculation. |
SPDR SSGA US Sector Rotation ETF | |||||||
Year Ended 6/30/22 |
Year Ended 6/30/21 |
Year Ended 6/30/20 |
For the Period 4/3/2019*- 6/30/19 | ||||
Net asset value, beginning of period |
$44.38 | $32.83 | $30.73 | $30.09 | |||
Income (loss) from investment operations: | |||||||
Net investment income (loss) (a) |
0.47 | 0.36 | 0.57 | 0.23 | |||
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) (b) |
(5.07) | 11.62 | 1.98 | 0.55 | |||
Total from investment operations |
(4.60) | 11.98 | 2.55 | 0.78 | |||
Net equalization credits and charges (a) |
(0.03) | (0.04) | 0.03 | (0.03) | |||
Distributions to shareholders from: | |||||||
Net investment income |
(0.46) | (0.39) | (0.48) | (0.11) | |||
Net realized gains |
(1.23) | — | — | — | |||
Total distributions |
(1.69) | (0.39) | (0.48) | (0.11) | |||
Net asset value, end of period |
$38.06 | $44.38 | $32.83 | $30.73 | |||
Total return (c) |
(11.02)% | 36.48% | 8.52% | 2.50% | |||
Ratios and Supplemental Data: | |||||||
Net assets, end of period (in 000s) |
$203,245 | $174,396 | $68,617 | $14,136 | |||
Ratios to average net assets: | |||||||
Total expenses (d) |
0.54% | 0.52% | 0.49% | 0.49%(e) | |||
Net investment income (loss) |
1.06% | 0.89% | 1.79% | 3.12%(e) | |||
Portfolio turnover rate (f) |
202% | 263% | 154% | 39%(g) |
* | Commencement of operations. |
(a) | Per share numbers have been calculated using average shares outstanding, which more appropriately presents the per share data for the period. |
(b) | Amounts shown in this caption for a share outstanding may not accord with the change in aggregate gains and losses in securities for the fiscal period because of the timing of sales and repurchases of Fund shares in relation to fluctuating market values for the Fund. |
(c) | Total return is calculated assuming a purchase of Units at net asset value per Unit on the first day and a sale at net asset value per Unit on the last day of each period reported. Distributions are assumed, for the purposes of this calculation, to be reinvested at the net asset value per Unit on the respective payment dates of the Trust. Broker commission charges are not included in this calculation. |
(d) | Does not include expenses of the Underlying Funds in which the Fund invests. |
(e) | Annualized. |
(f) | Portfolio turnover rate excludes securities received or delivered from in-kind processing of creations or redemptions. |
(g) | Not annualized. |
ACTSTATPRO | The Trust's Investment Company Act Number is 811-22542. |
FUND | TICKER | |
SPDR® Blackstone High Income ETF | HYBL | |
SPDR Blackstone Senior Loan ETF | SRLN | |
SPDR DoubleLine® Emerging Markets Fixed Income ETF | EMTL | |
SPDR DoubleLine Short Duration Total Return Tactical ETF | STOT | |
SPDR DoubleLine Total Return Tactical ETF | TOTL | |
SPDR Loomis Sayles Opportunistic Bond ETF | OBND | |
SPDR Nuveen Municipal Bond ETF | MBND | |
SPDR Nuveen Municipal Bond ESG ETF | MBNE | |
SPDR SSGA Fixed Income Sector Rotation ETF | FISR | |
SPDR SSGA Global Allocation ETF | GAL | |
SPDR SSGA Income Allocation ETF | INKM | |
SPDR SSGA Multi-Asset Real Return ETF | RLY | |
SPDR SSGA Ultra Short Term Bond ETF | ULST | |
SPDR SSGA US Sector Rotation ETF | XLSR |
3 | |
3 | |
39 | |
54 | |
55 | |
56 | |
65 | |
110 | |
119 | |
120 | |
125 | |
132 | |
132 | |
133 | |
143 | |
143 | |
144 | |
144 | |
A-1 | |
B-1 | |
C-1 | |
D-1 | |
E-1 | |
F-1 | |
G-1 |
1. | (Except SPDR Blackstone High Income ETF, SPDR SSGA Ultra Short Term Bond ETF, SPDR Nuveen Municipal Bond ETF, SPDR Nuveen Municipal Bond ESG ETF and SPDR Loomis Sayles Opportunistic Bond ETF) Purchase securities of an issuer that would cause the Fund to fail to satisfy the diversification requirement for a diversified management company under the 1940 Act, the rules or regulations thereunder or any exemption therefrom, as such statute, rules or regulations may be amended or interpreted from time to time; |
2. | Concentrate investments in a particular industry or group of industries, as concentration is defined under the 1940 Act, the Rules and regulations thereunder or any exemption therefrom, as such statute, rules or regulations may be amended or interpreted from time to time;(1) |
3. | Make loans to another person except as permitted by the 1940 Act or other governing statute, by the Rules thereunder, or by the SEC or other regulatory agency with authority over the Funds; |
4. | Issue senior securities or borrow money except as permitted by the 1940 Act or other governing statute, by the Rules thereunder, or by the SEC or other regulatory agency with authority over the Funds; |
5. | Invest directly in real estate unless the real estate is acquired as a result of ownership of securities or other instruments. This restriction shall not preclude a Fund from investing in companies that deal in real estate or in instruments that are backed or secured by real estate; |
6. | Act as an underwriter of another issuer's securities, except to the extent the Fund may be deemed to be an underwriter within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Fund's purchase and sale of portfolio securities; |
7. | Invest in commodities except as permitted by the 1940 Act or other governing statute, by the Rules thereunder, or by the SEC or other regulatory agency with authority over the Funds; or |
8. | With respect to SPDR Nuveen Municipal Bond ETF and SPDR Nuveen Municipal Bond ESG ETF, invest, under normal circumstances, less than 80% of its assets, plus the amount of borrowings for investment purposes, in investments the income of which is exempt from federal income tax. |
1. | Invest in the securities of a company for the purpose of exercising management or control, provided that the Trust may vote the investment securities owned by the Fund in accordance with its views; |
2. | With respect to the SPDR SSGA Fixed Income Sector Rotation ETF, under normal circumstances, invest less than 80% of its net assets (plus the amount of borrowings for investment purposes) directly, or indirectly through investments in underlying ETFs, in fixed income securities. Prior to any change in this 80% investment policy, the Fund will provide shareholders with 60 days' written notice; |
3. | With respect to the SPDR SSGA US Sector Rotation ETF, under normal circumstances, invest less than 80% of its net assets (plus the amount of borrowings for investment purposes) directly, or indirectly through investments in underlying ETFs, in securities of U.S. companies. Prior to any change in this 80% investment policy, the Fund will provide shareholders with 60 days' written notice; |
(1) | The SEC Staff considers concentration to involve more than 25% of a fund's assets to be invested in an industry or group of industries. |
4. | With respect to the SPDR SSGA Ultra Short Term Bond ETF, under normal circumstances, invest less than 80% of its net assets (plus the amount of borrowings for investment purposes) in debt securities. Prior to any change in this 80% investment policy, the Fund will provide shareholders with 60 days' written notice; |
5. | With respect to the SPDR Blackstone Senior Loan ETF, under normal circumstances, invest less than 80% of its net assets (plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes) in senior loans. For purposes of this 80% test, “senior loans” are first lien senior secured floating rate bank loans. Prior to any change this 80% investment policy, the Fund will provide shareholders with 60 days' written notice; |
6. | With respect to the SPDR DoubleLine Emerging Markets Fixed Income ETF, under normal circumstances, invest less than 80% of its net assets (plus the amount of borrowings for investment purposes) in emerging market fixed income instruments or in derivatives or other instruments that provide investment exposure to emerging market fixed income instruments. Prior to any change in this 80% investment policy, the Fund will provide shareholders with 60 days' written notice; |
7. | With respect to the SPDR DoubleLine Short Duration Total Return Tactical ETF, under normal circumstances, invest less than 80% of its net assets (plus the amount of borrowings for investment purposes) in fixed-income securities. Prior to any change in this 80% investment policy, the Fund will provide shareholders with 60 days' written notice; or |
8. | With respect to the SPDR Loomis Sayles Opportunistic Bond ETF, under normal circumstances, less than 80% of its assets, plus the amount of borrowings for investment purposes, directly, or indirectly through investments in underlying ETFs, in debt securities. Prior to any change in the Fund's 80% investment policy, the Fund will provide shareholders with 60 days' written notice. |
Name, Address and Year of Birth |
Position(s) With Funds |
Term of Office and Length of Time Served |
Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years |
Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex Overseen by Trustee† |
Other Directorships Held by Trustee During Past Five Years | |||||
INDEPENDENT TRUSTEES | ||||||||||
CARL G. VERBONCOEUR c/o SSGA Active Trust One Iron Street Boston, MA 02210 1952 |
Independent Trustee, Chairman, Trustee Committee Chair | Term: Unlimited Served: since March 2011 | Self-employed consultant since 2009. | 125 | The Motley Fool Funds Trust (Trustee). | |||||
DWIGHT D. CHURCHILL c/o SSGA Active Trust One Iron Street Boston, MA 02210 1953 |
Independent Trustee, Audit Committee Chair | Term: Unlimited Served: since March 2011 | Self-employed consultant since 2010; CEO and President, CFA Institute (June 2014 - January 2015). | 125 | Affiliated Managers Group, Inc. (Chairman, Director and Audit Committee Chair). | |||||
CLARE S. RICHER c/o SSGA Active Trust One Iron Street Boston, MA 02210 1958 |
Independent Trustee | Term: Unlimited Served: since July 2018 | Retired. Chief Financial Officer, Putnam Investments LLC (December 2008 - May 2017). | 125 | Principal Financial Group (Director and Financial Committee Chair); Bain Capital Specialty Finance (Director); University of Notre Dame (Trustee); Putnam Acquisition Financing Inc. (Director); Putnam Acquisition Financing LLC (Director); Putnam GP Inc. (Director); Putnam Investor Services, Inc. (Director); Putnam Investments Limited (Director). | |||||
SANDRA G. SPONEM c/o SSGA Active Trust One Iron Street Boston, MA 02210 1958 |
Independent Trustee | Term: Unlimited Served: since July 2018 | Retired. Chief Financial Officer, M.A. Mortenson Companies, Inc. (construction and real estate company) (February 2007 - April 2017). | 125 | Rydex Series Funds, Rydex Dynamic Funds, Rydex Variable Trust, Guggenheim Funds Trust, Guggenheim Variable Funds Trust, Guggenheim Strategy Funds Trust, Transparent Value Trust, Fiduciary/ Claymore Energy Infrastructure Fund, Guggenheim Taxable Municipal Bond & Investment Grade Debt Trust, Guggenheim Strategic Opportunities Fund, Guggenheim Enhanced Equity Income Fund, Guggenheim Credit Allocation Fund, Guggenheim Energy & Income Fund, Guggenheim Active Allocation Fund (Trustee and Audit Committee Chair). | |||||
CAROLYN M. CLANCY c/o SSGA Active Trust One Iron Street Boston, MA 02210 1960 |
Independent Trustee | Term Unlimited Served: since October | Retired. Executive Vice President, Head of Strategy, Analytics and Market Readiness, Fidelity Investments | 125 | Assumption University (Trustee); Big Sister Association of Greater Boston (Director). |
Name, Address and Year of Birth |
Position(s) With Funds |
Term of Office and Length of Time Served |
Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years |
Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex Overseen by Trustee† |
Other Directorships Held by Trustee During Past Five Years | |||||
2022 | (April 2020 – June 2021); Executive Vice President, Head of Broker Dealer Business, Fidelity Investments (July 2017 – March 2020). | |||||||||
KRISTI L. ROWSELL c/o SSGA Active Trust One Iron Street Boston, MA 02210 1966 |
Independent Trustee | Term Unlimited Served: since October 2022 | Partner and President, Harris Associates (2010 – 2021). | 125 | Oakmark Funds (Trustee); Board of Governors, Investment Company Institute (Member); Habitat for Humanity Chicago (Director). | |||||
INTERESTED TRUSTEES | ||||||||||
JAMES E. ROSS* c/o SSGA Active Trust One Iron Street Boston, MA 02210 1965 |
Interested Trustee | Term: Unlimited Served as Trustee: since March 2011 | Non-Executive Chairman, Fusion Acquisition Corp II (February 2020 – present); Non-Executive Chairman, Fusion Acquisition Corp. (June 2020 – September 2021); Retired Chairman and Director, SSGA Funds Management, Inc. (2005 – March 2020); Retired Executive Vice President, State Street Global Advisors (2012 – March 2020); Retired Chief Executive Officer and Manager, State Street Global Advisors Funds Distributors, LLC (May 2017 – March 2020); Director, State Street Global Markets, LLC (2013 – April 2017); President, SSGA Funds Management, Inc. (2005 – 2012); Principal, State Street Global Advisors (2000 – 2005). | 136 | The Select Sector SPDR Trust (November 2005 – present); SSGA SPDR ETFs Europe I plc (Director) (November 2016 – March 2020); SSGA SPDR ETFs Europe II plc (Director) (November 2016 – March 2020); State Street Navigator Securities Lending Trust (July 2016 – March 2020); SSGA Funds (January 2014 – March 2020); State Street Institutional Investment Trust (February 2007 – March 2020); State Street Master Funds (February 2007 – March 2020); Elfun Funds (July 2016 – December 2018). | |||||
GUNJAN CHAUHAN** c/o SSGA Active Trust One Iron Street Boston, MA 02210 1982 |
Interested Trustee | Term Unlimited Served: since October 2022 | Senior Managing Director, State Street Global Advisors (April 2018 – Present); Managing Director, State Street Global Advisors (June 2015– March 2018). | 125 | State Street ICAV (Director). |
† | For the purpose of determining the number of portfolios overseen by the Trustees, “Fund Complex” comprises registered investment companies for which SSGA Funds Management, Inc. serves as investment adviser, which includes series of the SSGA Active Trust, SPDR Series Trust and SPDR Index Shares Funds. |
* | Mr. Ross is an Interested Trustee because of his former position with the Adviser and ownership interest in an affiliate of the Adviser. |
** | Ms. Chauhan is an Interested Trustee because of her position with an affiliate of the Adviser. |
Name, Address and Year of Birth |
Position(s) With Funds |
Term of Office and Length of Time Served |
Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years | |||
ELLEN M. NEEDHAM SSGA Funds Management, Inc. One Iron Street Boston, MA 02210 1967 |
President | Term: Unlimited Served: since October 2012 | Chairman, SSGA Funds Management, Inc. (March 2020 - present); President and Director, SSGA Funds Management, Inc. (2001 - present)*; Senior Managing Director, State Street Global Advisors (1992 - present)*; Manager, State Street Global Advisors Funds Distributors, LLC (May 2017 - present). | |||
BRUCE S. ROSENBERG SSGA Funds Management, Inc. One Iron Street Boston, MA 02210 1961 |
Treasurer | Term: Unlimited Served: since February 2016 | Managing Director, State Street Global Advisors and SSGA Funds Management, Inc. (July 2015 - present); Director, Credit Suisse (April 2008 - July 2015). | |||
ANN M. CARPENTER SSGA Funds Management, Inc. One Iron Street Boston, MA 02210 1966 |
Vice President; Deputy Treasurer | Term: Unlimited Served: since August 2012 (with respect to Vice President); Unlimited Served: since February 2016 (with respect to Deputy Treasurer) | Chief Operating Officer, SSGA Funds Management, Inc. (April 2005 - present)*; Managing Director, State Street Global Advisors (April 2005 - present).* | |||
MICHAEL P. RILEY SSGA Funds Management, Inc. One Iron Street Boston, MA 02210 1969 |
Vice President | Term: Unlimited Served: since March 2011 | Managing Director, State Street Global Advisors (2005 - present).* | |||
SEAN O'MALLEY SSGA Funds Management, Inc. One Iron Street Boston, MA 02210 1969 |
Chief Legal Officer | Term: Unlimited Served: since August 2019 | Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, State Street Global Advisors (November 2013 - present). | |||
DAVID URMAN SSGA Funds Management, Inc. One Iron Street Boston, MA 02210 1985 |
Secretary | Term: Unlimited Served: since August 2019 | Vice President and Senior Counsel, State Street Global Advisors (April 2019 - present); Vice President and Counsel, State Street Global Advisors (August 2015 - April 2019); Associate, Ropes & Gray LLP (November 2012 - August 2015). | |||
DAVID BARR SSGA Funds Management, Inc. One Iron Street Boston, MA 02210 1974 |
Assistant Secretary | Term: Unlimited Served: since November 2020 | Vice President and Senior Counsel, State Street Global Advisors (October 2019 - present); Vice President and Counsel, Eaton Vance Corp. (October 2010 - October 2019). | |||
CHAD C. HALLETT SSGA Funds Management, Inc. One Iron Street Boston, MA 02210 1969 |
Deputy Treasurer | Term: Unlimited Served: since February 2016 | Vice President, State Street Global Advisors and SSGA Funds Management, Inc. (November 2014 - present). | |||
DARLENE ANDERSON-VASQUEZ SSGA Funds Management, Inc. One Iron Street Boston, MA 02210 1968 |
Deputy Treasurer | Term: Unlimited Served: since November 2016 | Managing Director, State Street Global Advisors and SSGA Funds Management, Inc. (May 2016 - present); Senior Vice President, John Hancock Investments (September 2007 - May 2016). | |||
ARTHUR A. JENSEN SSGA Funds Management, Inc. 1600 Summer Street Stamford, CT 06905 1966 |
Deputy Treasurer | Term: Unlimited Served: since August 2017 | Vice President, State Street Global Advisors and SSGA Funds Management, Inc. (July 2016 - present); Mutual Funds Controller, GE Asset Management Incorporated (April 2011 - July 2016). |
Name, Address and Year of Birth |
Position(s) With Funds |
Term of Office and Length of Time Served |
Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years | |||
DAVID LANCASTER SSGA Funds Management, Inc. One Iron Street Boston, MA 02210 1971 |
Assistant Treasurer | Term: Unlimited Served: since November 2020 | Vice President, State Street Global Advisors and SSGA Funds Management, Inc. (July 2017 - present); Assistant Vice President, State Street Bank and Trust Company (November 2011 - July 2017).* | |||
RYAN HILL SSGA Funds Management, Inc. One Iron Street Boston, MA 02210 1982 |
Assistant Treasurer | Term: Unlimited Served: since May 2022 | Vice President, State Street Global Advisors and SSGA Funds Management Inc. (May 2017 – present); Assistant Vice President, State Street Bank and Trust Co. (May 2014 – May 2017). | |||
JOHN BETTENCOURT SSGA Funds Management, Inc. One Iron Street Boston, MA 02210 1976 |
Assistant Treasurer | Term: Unlimited Served: since May 2022 | Vice President, State Street Global Advisors and SSGA Funds Management Inc. (March 2020 – present); Assistant Vice President, State Street Global Advisors (June 2007 – March 2020). | |||
BRIAN HARRIS SSGA Funds Management, Inc. One Iron Street Boston, MA 02210 1973 |
Chief Compliance Officer; Anti-Money Laundering Officer; Code of Ethics Compliance Officer | Term: Unlimited Served: since November 2013 | Managing Director, State Street Global Advisors and SSGA Funds Management, Inc. (June 2013 - present).* |
* | Served in various capacities and/or with various affiliated entities during the noted time period. |
Name of Trustee |
Aggregate Compensation from the Trust(1) |
Pension or Retirement Benefits Accrued as Part of Trust Expenses |
Estimated Annual Benefits Upon Retirement |
Total Compensation from the Trust and Fund Complex Paid to Trustees(1) | ||||
Independent Trustees: | ||||||||
Carl G. Verboncoeur |
$21,801 | N/A | N/A | $432,500 | ||||
Dwight D. Churchill |
$19,795 | N/A | N/A | $387,500 | ||||
Clare S. Richer |
$18,457 | N/A | N/A | $357,500 | ||||
Sandra G. Sponem |
$18,457 | N/A | N/A | $357,500 | ||||
Carolyn M. Clancy(2) |
N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||
Kristi L. Rowsell(2) |
N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||
Interested Trustees: | ||||||||
James E. Ross |
$18,457 | N/A | N/A | $357,500 | ||||
Gunjan Chauhan(3) |
N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
(1) | The Fund Complex includes SPDR Series Trust, SSGA Active Trust and SPDR Index Shares Funds. |
(2) | Trustee was elected to the Board as of October 20, 2022, and therefore did not receive any compensation from the Fund Complex for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022. |
(3) | Not compensated by the Trust due to Ms. Chauhan's position with an affiliate of the Adviser. |
Name of Trustee | Fund | Dollar Range of Equity Securities in the Trust |
Aggregate Dollar Range of Equity Securities in All Funds Overseen by Trustee in Family of Investment Companies(1) | |||
Independent Trustees: |
||||||
Carl G. Verboncoeur |
None | None | $10,001 - $50,000 | |||
Dwight D. Churchill |
SPDR Blackstone Senior Loan ETF | Over $100,000 | Over $100,000 | |||
Clare S. Richer |
SPDR Blackstone Senior Loan ETF | $10,001 - $50,000 | Over $100,000 | |||
SPDR DoubleLine Total Return Tactical ETF | $50,001 - $100,000 | |||||
Sandra G. Sponem |
SPDR Blackstone Senior Loan ETF | $50,001 - $100,000 | Over $100,000 | |||
Carolyn M. Clancy |
None | None | None | |||
Kristi L. Rowsell |
None | None | None | |||
Interested Trustees: |
||||||
James E. Ross |
SPDR DoubleLine Short Duration Total Return Tactical ETF | $10,001 - $50,000 | ||||
SPDR DoubleLine Total Return Tactical ETF | $50,001 - $100,000 | Over $100,000 | ||||
Gunjan Chauhan |
None | None | None |
Fund | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | |||
SPDR Blackstone High Income ETF(1) |
$321,813 | N/A | N/A | |||
SPDR Blackstone Senior Loan ETF |
$60,687,519 | $20,422,992 | $12,940,867 | |||
SPDR DoubleLine Emerging Markets Fixed Income ETF(2) |
$609,220 | $677,417 | $582,952 | |||
SPDR DoubleLine Short Duration Total Return Tactical ETF(3) |
$742,404 | $710,070 | $671,492 | |||
SPDR DoubleLine Total Return Tactical ETF(4) |
$15,388,985 | $20,074,065 | $21,349,833 | |||
SPDR Loomis Sayles Opportunistic Bond ETF(5) |
$171,713 | N/A | N/A | |||
SPDR Nuveen Municipal Bond ESG ETF(6) |
$32,752 | N/A | N/A | |||
SPDR Nuveen Municipal Bond ETF(7) |
$161,289 | $64,580 | N/A | |||
SPDR SSGA Fixed Income Sector Rotation ETF |
$417,685 | $232,271 | $80,659 | |||
SPDR SSGA Global Allocation ETF |
$315,566 | $435,891 | $215,937 | |||
SPDR SSGA Income Allocation ETF |
$126,355 | $177,566 | $223,466 | |||
SPDR SSGA Multi-Asset Real Return ETF |
$124,947 | $55,778 | $70,916 | |||
SPDR SSGA Ultra Short Term Bond |
$848,800 | $650,007 | $465,044 | |||
SPDR SSGA US Sector Rotation ETF |
$1,047,939 | $548,060 | $181,978 |
(1) | The Fund commenced operations on February 17, 2022. |
(2) | For the fiscal years ended June 30, 2022, June 30, 2021 and June 30, 2020, the Adviser reimbursed the Fund in the amounts of $0, $64,946 and $79,090, respectively. |
(3) | For the fiscal years ended June 30, 2022, June 30, 2021 and June 30, 2020, the Adviser reimbursed the Fund in the amounts of $0, $53,010 and $69,417, respectively. |
(4) | For the fiscal years ended June 30, 2022, June 30, 2021 and June 30, 2020, the Adviser reimbursed the Fund in the amounts of $0, $2,355,432 and $3,332,350, respectively. |
(5) | The Fund commenced operations on September 28, 2021. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022, the Adviser reimbursed the Fund in the amount of $12,925. |
(6) | The Fund commenced operations on April 5, 2022. |
(7) | The Fund commenced operations on February 3, 2021. |
Fund | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | |||
SPDR Blackstone High Income ETF (1) |
$123,826 | N/A | N/A | |||
SPDR Blackstone Senior Loan ETF |
$27,919,282 | $9,332,105 | $6,289,505 |
Fund | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | |||
SPDR DoubleLine Emerging Markets Fixed Income ETF |
$227,835 | $229,820 | $173,815 | |||
SPDR DoubleLine Short Duration Total Return Tactical ETF |
$285,251 | $237,615 | $211,422 | |||
SPDR DoubleLine Total Return Tactical ETF |
$7,066,924 | $8,102,885 | $8,326,751 |
Fund | 2022 | |
SPDR Loomis Sayles Opportunistic Bond ETF(1) |
$64,868 |
Fund | 2022 | 2021 | ||
SPDR Nuveen Municipal Bond ESG ETF (1) |
$13,011 | N/A | ||
SPDR Nuveen Municipal Bond ETF (2) |
$40,817 | $19,404 |
(1) | The Fund commenced operations on April 5, 2022. |
(2) | The Fund commenced operations on February 3, 2021. |
Portfolio Management Team | Fund | |
Daniel McMullen, Adam Dwinells, Dan Smith, Bonnie Brookshaw, Gordon McKemie and Paul Harrison | SPDR Blackstone High Income ETF | |
Daniel T. McMullen, Gordon McKemie and Bonnie Brookshaw | SPDR Blackstone Senior Loan ETF | |
Luz Padilla, Mark Christensen and Su Fei Koo | SPDR DoubleLine Emerging Markets Fixed Income ETF | |
Jeffrey Gundlach and Jeffrey Sherman | SPDR DoubleLine Short Duration Total Return Tactical ETF SPDR DoubleLine Total Return Tactical ETF | |
Kevin Kearns, Andrea DiCenso and Tom Stolberg | SPDR Loomis Sayles Opportunistic Bond ETF | |
Timothy T. Ryan and Joel H. Levy | SPDR Nuveen Municipal Bond ETF | |
Timothy T. Ryan and David J. Blair | SPDR Nuveen Municipal Bond ESG ETF | |
Michael Martel, Jeremiah Holly and Leo Law | SPDR SSGA Fixed Income Sector Rotation ETF | |
Michael Martel and Jeremiah Holly | SPDR SSGA Global Allocation ETF SPDR SSGA Income Allocation ETF |
Portfolio Management Team | Fund | |
Robert Guiliano and Michael Narkiewicz | SPDR SSGA Multi-Asset Real Return ETF | |
James Palmieri and John Mele | SPDR SSGA Ultra Short Term Bond ETF | |
Michael Martel, Michael Narkiewicz and Jeremiah Holly | SPDR SSGA US Sector Rotation ETF |
Portfolio Manager | Registered Investment Company Accounts |
Assets Managed (billions) |
Other Pooled Investment Vehicle Accounts |
Assets Managed (billions) |
Other Accounts |
Assets Managed (billions) |
Total Assets Managed (billions) | |||||||
Robert Guiliano |
25 | $16.32 | 155 | $173.60 | 188* | $76.63* | $266.55 | |||||||
Jeremiah Holly |
25 | $16.32 | 155 | $173.60 | 188* | $76.63* | $266.55 | |||||||
Leo Law |
25 | $16.32 | 155 | $173.60 | 188* | $76.63* | $266.55 | |||||||
Michael Martel |
25 | $16.32 | 155 | $173.60 | 188* | $76.63* | $266.55 | |||||||
Michael Narkiewicz |
25 | $16.32 | 155 | $173.60 | 188* | $76.63* | $266.55 | |||||||
John Mele |
8 | $3.03 | 1 | $1.47 | 49** | $20.48** | $24.98 | |||||||
James Palmieri |
8 | $3.03 | 1 | $1.47 | 49** | $20.48** | $24.98 |
* | Includes 4 accounts (totaling $211.42 million in assets under management) with performance-based fees. |
** | Includes 3 accounts (totaling $2.60 billion in assets under management) with performance-based fees. |
Portfolio Manager | Fund | Dollar Range of Trust Shares Beneficially Owned | ||
Robert Guiliano |
SPDR SSGA Multi-Asset Real Return ETF | $1 - $10,000 | ||
Jeremiah Holly |
SPDR SSGA Fixed Income Sector Rotation ETF | $1 - $10,000 | ||
SPDR SSGA Global Allocation ETF | $50,001 - $100,000 | |||
SPDR SSGA Income Allocation ETF | $10,001 - $50,000 | |||
SPDR SSGA US Sector Rotation ETF | $50,001 - $100,000 | |||
Michael Martel |
SPDR SSGA Fixed Income Sector Rotation ETF | $1 - $10,000 | ||
SPDR SSGA Income Allocation ETF | $1 - $10,000 | |||
SPDR SSGA US Sector Rotation ETF | $10,001 - $50,000 |
• | Promoting employee ownership to connect employees directly to the company's success. |
• | Using rewards to reinforce mission, vision, values and business strategy. |
• | Seeking to recognize and preserve the firm's unique culture and team orientation. |
• | Providing all employees the opportunity to share in the success of SSGA. |
Portfolio Manager | Registered Investment Company Accounts |
Assets Managed (billions)* |
Other Pooled Investment Vehicle Accounts |
Assets Managed (billions)* |
Other Accounts |
Assets Managed (billions)* |
Total Assets Managed (billions) | |||||||
Bonnie Brookshaw |
0 | $0 | 3 | $1.25 | 23 | $9.11 | $10.36 | |||||||
Adam Dwinells |
0 | $0 | 8 | $2.43 | 22 | $13.97 | $16.40 | |||||||
Paul Harrison |
0 | $0 | 8 | $2.43 | 22 | $13.97 | $16.40 | |||||||
Gordon McKemie |
4 | $1.89 | 0 | $0 | 0 | $0 | $1.89 | |||||||
Daniel T. McMullen |
0 | $0 | 3 | $1.25 | 23 | $9.11 | $10.36 | |||||||
Dan Smith |
0 | $0 | 0 | $0 | 0 | $0 | $0 |
* | There are no performance-based fees associated with these accounts. |
Portfolio Manager | Fund | Dollar Range of Trust Shares Beneficially Owned | ||
Daniel T. McMullen |
SPDR Blackstone High Income ETF | $10,001 - $50,000 | ||
SPDR Blackstone Senior Loan ETF | $50,001 - $100,000 | |||
Gordon McKemie |
SPDR Blackstone Senior Loan ETF | $1 - $10,000 |
Portfolio Manager | Registered Investment Company Accounts* |
Assets Managed (billions) |
Other Pooled Investment Vehicle Accounts** |
Assets Managed (billions) |
Other Accounts*** |
Assets Managed (billions) |
Total Assets Managed (billions) | |||||||
Mark Christensen |
5 | $1.86 | 1 | $0.01 | 2(1) | $0.54(1) | $2.41 | |||||||
Jeffrey Gundlach |
30 | $76.54 | 17(2) | $7.35(2) | 78(3) | $16.17(3) | $100.06 | |||||||
Su Fei Koo |
5 | $1.86 | 1 | $0.01 | 2(1) | $0.54(1) | $2.41 | |||||||
Luz Padilla |
8 | $10.99 | 3(4) | $1.51(4) | 5(1) | $1.47(1) | $13.97 | |||||||
Jeffrey Sherman |
20 | $31.40 | 9 | $2.84 | 21 | $4.24 | $38.48 |
* | “Registered Investment Companies” include only those funds for which a portfolio manager is listed in the prospectus. |
** | “Pooled Investment Vehicle” indicates private accounts and undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities. |
*** | “Other” indicates DoubleLine's view of the portfolio manager primarily responsible to manage those accounts. |
(1) | Includes 1 account (totaling $427.39 million in assets under management) with performance-based fees. |
(2) | Includes 2 accounts (totaling $1.59 billion in assets under management) with performance-based fees. |
(3) | Includes 2 accounts (totaling $869.01 million in assets under management) with performance-based fees. |
(4) | Includes 1 account (totaling $1.49 billion in assets under management) with performance-based fees. |
Portfolio Manager | Registered Investment Company Accounts |
Assets Managed (billions) |
Other Pooled Investment Vehicle Accounts |
Assets Managed (billions) |
Other Accounts* |
Assets Managed (billions)* |
Total Assets Managed (billions) | |||||||
Kevin Kearns |
2 | $0.61 | 10 | $4.43 | 44 | $4.63 | $9.67 | |||||||
Andrea DiCenso |
1 | $0.35 | 10 | $4.39 | 25 | $2.65 | $7.39 | |||||||
Tom Stolberg |
0 | $0 | 4 | $2.79 | 22 | $2.54 | $5.33 |
* | Includes 4 accounts (totaling $756.53 million in assets under management) with performance-based fees. |
Portfolio Manager | Registered Investment Company Accounts |
Assets Managed (billions)* |
Other Pooled Investment Vehicle Accounts |
Assets Managed (billions)* |
Other Accounts |
Assets Managed (billions)* |
Total Assets Managed (billions) | |||||||
Timothy T. Ryan |
10 | $25.97 | 0 | $0 | 16 | $2.25 | $28.22 | |||||||
Joel H. Levy |
4 | $10.25 | 0 | $0 | 0 | $0 | $10.25 | |||||||
David J. Blair |
0 | $0 | 0 | $0 | 2,198 | $2.75 | $2.75 |
* | There are no performance-based fees associated with these accounts. |
Gross income earned by the Fund from securities lending activities |
Fees and/or compensation paid by the Fund for securities lending activities and related services |
Aggregate fees and/or compensation paid by the Fund for securities lending activities and related services |
Net income from securities lending activities | ||||||||||||||
Fees paid to State Street from a revenue split |
Fees paid for any cash collateral management service (including fees deducted from a pooled cash collateral reinvestment vehicle) that are not included in a revenue split |
Admini- strative fees not included in a revenue split |
Indemnifi- cation fees not included in a revenue split |
Rebate (paid to borrower) |
Other fees not included in a revenue split |
||||||||||||
SPDR Blackstone High Income ETF(1) |
$0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||
SPDR Blackstone Senior Loan ETF |
$0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||
SPDR DoubleLine Emerging Markets Fixed Income ETF |
$0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||
SPDR DoubleLine Short Duration Total Return Tactical ETF |
$0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||
SPDR DoubleLine Total Return Tactical ETF |
$0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||
SPDR Loomis Sayles Opportunistic Bond ETF(2) |
$0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||
SPDR SSGA Fixed Income Sector Rotation ETF |
$318,638 | $47,032 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $5,074 | $0 | $52,106 | $266,531 | ||||||||
SPDR SSGA Global Allocation ETF |
$440,108 | $60,459 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $37,008 | $0 | $97,467 | $342,641 | ||||||||
SPDR SSGA Income Allocation ETF |
$257,491 | $37,504 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $7,445 | $0 | $44,949 | $212,543 | ||||||||
SPDR SSGA Multi-Asset Real Return ETF |
$332,858 | $45,271 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $31,024 | $0 | $76,294 | $256,563 | ||||||||
SPDR SSGA Ultra Short Term Bond ETF |
$0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||
SPDR SSGA US Sector Rotation ETF |
$157,739 | $16,067 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $50,608 | $0 | $66,675 | $91,064 |
(1) | The Fund commenced operations on February 17, 2022. |
(2) | The Fund commenced operations on September 28, 2021. |
• | Prompt and reliable execution; |
• | The competitiveness of commission rates and spreads, if applicable; |
• | The financial strength, stability and/or reputation of the trading counterparty; |
• | The willingness and ability of the executing trading counterparty to execute transactions (and commit capital) of size in liquid and illiquid markets without disrupting the market for the security; |
• | Local laws, regulations or restrictions; |
• | The ability of the trading counterparty to maintain confidentiality; |
• | The availability and capability of execution venues, including electronic communications networks for trading and execution management systems made available to Adviser; |
• | Market share; |
• | Liquidity; |
• | Price; |
• | Execution related costs; |
• | History of execution of orders; |
• | Likelihood of execution and settlement; |
• | Order size and nature; |
• | Clearance and settlement capabilities, especially in high volatility market environments; |
• | Availability of lendable securities; |
• | Sophistication of the trading counterparty's trading capabilities and infrastructure/facilities; |
• | The operational efficiency with which transactions are processed and cleared, taking into account the order size and complexity; |
• | Speed and responsiveness to the Adviser; |
• | Access to secondary markets; |
• | Counterparty exposure; and |
• | Depending upon the circumstances, the Adviser may take other relevant factors into account if the Adviser believes that these are important in taking all sufficient steps to obtain the best possible result for execution of the order. |
(i) | The nature and characteristics of the order or transaction. For example, size of order, market impact of order, limits, or other instructions relating to the order; |
(ii) | The characteristics of the financial instrument(s) or other assets which are the subject of that order. For example, whether the order pertains to an equity, fixed income, derivative or convertible instrument; |
(iii) | The characteristics of the execution venues to which that order can be directed, if relevant. For example, availability and capabilities of electronic trading systems; |
(iv) | Whether the transaction is a ‘delivery versus payment' or ‘over the counter' transaction. The creditworthiness of the trading counterparty, the amount of existing exposure to a trading counterparty and trading counterparty settlement capabilities may be given a higher relative importance in the case of ‘over the counter' transactions; and/or |
(v) | Any other circumstances that the Adviser believes are relevant at the time. |
Fund | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | |||
SPDR Blackstone High Income ETF(1) |
$0 | $0 | $0 | |||
SPDR Blackstone Senior Loan ETF(2) |
$0 | $0 | $0 | |||
SPDR DoubleLine Emerging Markets Fixed Income ETF |
$0 | $0 | $0 | |||
SPDR DoubleLine Short Duration Total Return Tactical ETF |
$0 | $0 | $0 | |||
SPDR DoubleLine Total Return Tactical ETF |
$0 | $418 | $0 | |||
SPDR Loomis Sayles Opportunistic Bond ETF(3) |
$5,479 | $0 | $0 | |||
SPDR Nuveen Municipal Bond ESG ETF(4) |
$0 | $0 | $0 | |||
SPDR Nuveen Municipal Bond ETF(5) |
$0 | $0 | $ N/A | |||
SPDR SSGA Fixed Income Sector Rotation ETF |
$44,461 | $24,520 | $19,090 | |||
SPDR SSGA Global Allocation ETF |
$222,283 | $124,853 | $138,680 | |||
SPDR SSGA Income Allocation ETF |
$33,331 | $36,570 | $27,035 | |||
SPDR SSGA Multi-Asset Real Return ETF |
$54,691 | $21,129 | $14,517 | |||
SPDR SSGA Ultra Short Term Bond ETF |
$1,877 | $0 | $0 | |||
SPDR SSGA US Sector Rotation ETF |
$83,546 | $69,040 | $22,917 |
(1) | The Fund commenced operations on February 17, 2022. |
(2) | Prior to September 9, 2019, the Fund operated as a feeder fund in a master-feeder arrangement and payments were made by the Fund's master portfolio. |
(3) | The Fund commenced operations on September 28, 2021. |
(4) | The Fund commenced operations on April 5, 2022. |
(5) | The Fund commenced operations on February 3, 2021. |
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC |
$4,199,375 |
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC. |
$235,264 |
Fund | Name and Address | % Ownership | ||
SPDR BLACKSTONE HIGH INCOME ETF | Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated 4803 Deer Lake Drive W Jacksonville, FL 32246 |
38.37% | ||
BofA Securities, Inc. One Bryant Park New York, NY 10036 |
15.98% | |||
Barclays Bank PLC 745 7th Ave New York, NY 10020 |
14.36% | |||
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. 388 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10013 |
13.37% | |||
BofA Securities, Inc./Safekeeping One Bryant Park New York, NY 10036 |
11.40% | |||
SPDR BLACKSTONE SENIOR LOAN ETF | Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. 101 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 |
11.91% | ||
National Financial Services Corporation 200 Liberty Street New York, NY 10281 |
10.79% | |||
TD Ameritrade Clearing, Inc. 4211 South 102nd Street Omaha, NE 68127 |
10.21% | |||
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated 4803 Deer Lake Drive W Jacksonville, FL 32246 |
8.29% | |||
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC 1 Harborside Financial Center, Plaza II Jersey City, NJ 07311 |
7.61% | |||
LPL Financial Corporation 4707 Executive Drive San Diego, CA 92121 |
7.04% | |||
State Street Bank and Trust Company 1776 Heritage Drive, 5th Floor Quincy, MA 02171 |
6.14% |
Fund | Name and Address | % Ownership | ||
SPDR DOUBLELINE EMERGING MARKETS FIXED INCOME ETF | Pershing LLC One Pershing Plaza Jersey City, NJ 07399 |
28.71% | ||
TD Ameritrade Clearing, Inc. 4211 South 102nd Street Omaha, NE 68127 |
19.70% | |||
Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. 101 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 |
19.52% | |||
LPL Financial Corporation 4707 Executive Drive San Diego, CA 92121 |
14.13% | |||
National Financial Services Corporation 200 Liberty Street New York, NY 10281 |
6.07% | |||
SPDR DOUBLELINE SHORT DURATION TOTAL RETURN TACTICAL ETF | Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. 101 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 |
33.14% | ||
TD Ameritrade Clearing, Inc. 4211 South 102nd Street Omaha, NE 68127 |
26.32% | |||
LPL Financial Corporation 4707 Executive Drive San Diego, CA 92121 |
10.65% | |||
SPDR DOUBLELINE TOTAL RETURN TACTICAL ETF | Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. 101 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 |
26.10% | ||
National Financial Services Corporation 200 Liberty Street New York, NY 10281 |
15.21% | |||
TD Ameritrade Clearing, Inc. 4211 South 102nd Street Omaha, NE 68127 |
10.62% | |||
LPL Financial Corporation 4707 Executive Drive San Diego, CA 92121 |
9.65% | |||
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC 1 Harborside Financial Center, Plaza II Jersey City, NJ 07311 |
7.45% | |||
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated 4803 Deer Lake Drive W Jacksonville, FL 32246 |
5.52% | |||
Pershing LLC One Pershing Plaza Jersey City, NJ 07399 |
5.15% | |||
SPDR LOOMIS SAYLES OPPORTUNISTIC BOND ETF | National Financial Services Corporation 200 Liberty Street New York, NY 10281 |
47.70% |
Fund | Name and Address | % Ownership | ||
BofA Securities, Inc./Safekeeping One Bryant Park New York, NY 10036 |
44.56% | |||
SPDR NUVEEN MUNICIPAL BOND ETF | Citibank, N.A. 3800 Citigroup Center Tampa Tampa, FL 33610 |
34.23% | ||
BofA Securities, Inc./Safekeeping One Bryant Park New York, NY 10036 |
34.14% | |||
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association 14201 Dallas Parkway Chase International Plaza Dallas, TX 75254 |
11.65% | |||
Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. 101 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 |
8.50% | |||
TD Ameritrade Clearing, Inc. 4211 South 102nd Street Omaha, NE 68127 |
5.93% | |||
SPDR NUVEEN MUNICIPAL BOND ESG ETF | Citibank, N.A. 3800 Citigroup Center Tampa Tampa, FL 33610 |
41.67% | ||
BofA Securities, Inc./Safekeeping One Bryant Park New York, NY 10036 |
41.25% | |||
SPDR SSGA FIXED INCOME SECTOR ROTATION ETF | LPL Financial Corporation 4707 Executive Drive San Diego, CA 92121 |
28.09% | ||
National Financial Services Corporation 200 Liberty Street New York, NY 10281 |
27.17% | |||
Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. 101 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 |
18.15% | |||
TD Ameritrade Clearing, Inc. 4211 South 102nd Street Omaha, NE 68127 |
14.97% | |||
Pershing LLC One Pershing Plaza Jersey City, NJ 07399 |
6.70% | |||
SPDR SSGA GLOBAL ALLOCATION ETF | Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. 101 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 |
18.70% | ||
National Financial Services Corporation 200 Liberty Street New York, NY 10281 |
17.43% | |||
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated 4803 Deer Lake Drive W Jacksonville, FL 32246 |
14.89% |
Fund | Name and Address | % Ownership | ||
Raymond James & Associates, Inc. 880 Carillon Parkway St. Petersburg, FL 33733 |
14.02% | |||
TD Ameritrade Clearing, Inc. 4211 South 102nd Street Omaha, NE 68127 |
6.12% | |||
SPDR SSGA INCOME ALLOCATION ETF | State Street Bank and Trust Company 1776 Heritage Drive, 5th Floor Quincy, MA 02171 |
43.08% | ||
RBC Capital Markets, LLC 3 World Financial Center 200 Vesey Street New York, NY |
7.20% | |||
TD Ameritrade Clearing, Inc. 4211 South 102nd Street Omaha, NE 68127 |
6.68% | |||
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC 1 Harborside Financial Center, Plaza II Jersey City, NJ 07311 |
5.66% | |||
Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. 101 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 |
5.24% | |||
SPDR SSGA MULTI-ASSET REAL RETURN ETF | Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. 101 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 |
20.44% | ||
National Financial Services Corporation 200 Liberty Street New York, NY 10281 |
18.08% | |||
TD Ameritrade Clearing, Inc. 4211 South 102nd Street Omaha, NE 68127 |
13.74% | |||
LPL Financial Corporation 4707 Executive Drive San Diego, CA 92121 |
8.18% | |||
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated 4803 Deer Lake Drive W Jacksonville, FL 32246 |
6.33% | |||
UBS Financial Services Inc. 1200 Harbor Boulevard Weehawken, NJ 07086 |
5.88% | |||
SPDR SSGA ULTRA SHORT TERM BOND ETF | LPL Financial Corporation 4707 Executive Drive San Diego, CA 92121 |
20.37% | ||
TD Ameritrade Clearing, Inc. 4211 South 102nd Street Omaha, NE 68127 |
18.64% | |||
National Financial Services Corporation 200 Liberty Street New York, NY 10281 |
18.56% |
Fund | Name and Address | % Ownership | ||
Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. 101 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 |
14.43% | |||
Pershing LLC One Pershing Plaza Jersey City, NJ 07399 |
6.45% | |||
SPDR SSGA US SECTOR ROTATION ETF | LPL Financial Corporation 4707 Executive Drive San Diego, CA 92121 |
36.01% | ||
TD Ameritrade Clearing, Inc. 4211 South 102nd Street Omaha, NE 68127 |
21.87% | |||
National Financial Services Corporation 200 Liberty Street New York, NY 10281 |
15.82% | |||
Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. 101 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 |
9.22% | |||
Pershing LLC One Pershing Plaza Jersey City, NJ 07399 |
9.15% |
Fund | Name and Address | % Ownership | ||
SPDR BLACKSTONE HIGH INCOME ETF | Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated 4803 Deer Lake Drive W Jacksonville, FL 32246 |
38.37% | ||
SPDR DOUBLELINE EMERGING MARKETS FIXED INCOME ETF | Pershing LLC One Pershing Plaza Jersey City, NJ 07399 |
28.71% | ||
SPDR DOUBLELINE SHORT DURATION TOTAL RETURN TACTICAL ETF | Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. 101 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 |
33.14% | ||
TD Ameritrade Clearing, Inc. 4211 South 102nd Street Omaha, NE 68127 |
26.32% | |||
SPDR DOUBLELINE TOTAL RETURN TACTICAL ETF | Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. 101 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 |
26.10% | ||
SPDR LOOMIS SAYLES OPPORTUNISTIC BOND ETF | National Financial Services Corporation 200 Liberty Street New York, NY 10281 |
47.70% |
Fund | Name and Address | % Ownership | ||
BofA Securities, Inc. One Bryant Park New York, NY 10036 |
44.56% | |||
SPDR NUVEEN MUNICIPAL BOND ETF | Citibank, N.A. 3800 Citigroup Center Tampa Tampa, FL 33610 |
34.23% | ||
BofA Securities, Inc. One Bryant Park New York, NY 10036 |
34.14% | |||
SPDR NUVEEN MUNICIPAL BOND ESG ETF | Citibank, N.A. 3800 Citigroup Center Tampa Tampa, FL 33610 |
41.67% | ||
BofA Securities, Inc. One Bryant Park New York, NY 10036 |
41.25% | |||
SPDR SSGA FIXED INCOME SECTOR ROTATION ETF | LPL Financial Corporation 4707 Executive Drive San Diego, CA 92121 |
28.09% | ||
National Financial Services Corporation 200 Liberty Street New York, NY 10281 |
27.17% | |||
SPDR SSGA INCOME ALLOCATION ETF | State Street Bank and Trust Company 1776 Heritage Drive, 5th Floor Quincy, MA 02171 |
43.08% | ||
SPDR SSGA US SECTOR ROTATION ETF | LPL Financial Corporation 4707 Executive Drive San Diego, CA 92121 |
36.01% |
FUND | CREATION* | REDEMPTION* | ||
SPDR Blackstone High Income ETF |
Cash | Cash | ||
SPDR Blackstone Senior Loan ETF |
Cash | Cash | ||
SPDR DoubleLine Emerging Markets Fixed Income ETF |
Cash | Cash | ||
SPDR DoubleLine Short Duration Total Return Tactical ETF |
Cash | Cash | ||
SPDR DoubleLine Total Return Tactical ETF |
Cash | Cash | ||
SPDR Loomis Sayles Opportunistic Bond ETF |
Cash | Cash | ||
SPDR Nuveen Municipal Bond ETF |
Cash | In-Kind | ||
SPDR Nuveen Municipal Bond ESG ETF |
Cash | In-Kind | ||
SPDR SSGA Fixed Income Sector Rotation ETF |
In-Kind | In-Kind |
FUND | CREATION* | REDEMPTION* | ||
SPDR SSGA Global Allocation ETF |
In-Kind | In-Kind | ||
SPDR SSGA Income Allocation ETF |
In-Kind | In-Kind | ||
SPDR SSGA Multi-Asset Real Return ETF |
In-Kind | In-Kind | ||
SPDR SSGA Ultra Short Term Bond ETF |
Cash | Cash | ||
SPDR SSGA US Sector Rotation ETF |
In-Kind | In-Kind |
* | May be revised at any time without notice. |
Fund | Transaction Fee*, ** |
Maximum Transaction Fee*, ** | ||
SPDR Blackstone High Income ETF |
$250 | $1,000 | ||
SPDR Blackstone Senior Loan ETF |
$50 | $200 | ||
SPDR DoubleLine Emerging Markets Fixed Income ETF |
$500 | $2,000 | ||
SPDR DoubleLine Short Duration Total Return Tactical ETF |
$500 | $2,000 | ||
SPDR DoubleLine Total Return Tactical ETF |
$500 | $2,000 | ||
SPDR Loomis Sayles Opportunistic Bond ETF |
$250 | $1,000 | ||
SPDR Nuveen Municipal Bond ETF |
$250 | $1,000 | ||
SPDR Nuveen Municipal Bond ESG ETF |
$250 | $1,000 | ||
SPDR SSGA Fixed Income Sector Rotation ETF |
$100 | $400 | ||
SPDR SSGA Global Allocation ETF |
$100 | $400 | ||
SPDR SSGA Income Allocation ETF |
$100 | $400 | ||
SPDR SSGA Multi-Asset Real Return ETF |
$100 | $400 | ||
SPDR SSGA Ultra Short Term Bond ETF |
$150 | $600 | ||
SPDR SSGA US Sector Rotation ETF |
$100 | $400 |
* | From time to time, any Fund may waive all or a portion of its applicable transaction fee(s). An additional charge of up to three (3) times the standard transaction fee may be charged to the extent a transaction is outside of the clearing process. |
** | In addition to the transaction fees listed above, the Funds may charge an additional variable fee for creations and redemptions in cash to offset brokerage and impact expenses associated with the cash transaction. The variable transaction fee will be calculated based on historical transaction cost data and the Adviser's view of current market conditions; however, the actual variable fee charged for a given transaction may be lower or higher than the trading expenses incurred by a Fund with respect to that transaction. |
1. | Proxy Voting Policy |
2. | Fiduciary Duty |
3. | Proxy Voting Procedures |
A. | At least annually, the Adviser shall present to the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) its policies, procedures and other guidelines for voting proxies (“Policy”) (See attached Schedule A) and the Policy of any Sub-adviser (defined below) to which proxy voting authority has been delegated (see Section 9 below). In addition, the Adviser shall notify the Board of material changes to its Policy or the Policy of any Sub-adviser promptly and no later than the next regular meeting of the Board after such amendment is implemented. |
B. | At least annually, the Adviser shall present to the Board its policy for managing the conflicts of interests that may arise through the Adviser's proxy voting activities. In addition, the Adviser shall report any Policy overrides involving portfolio securities held by the Trusts to the Trustees at the next regular meeting of the Board after such override(s) occur. |
C. | At least annually, the Adviser shall inform the Trustees that a record is available for each proxy voted with respect to portfolio securities of each Trust during the year. Also see Section 5 below. |
4. | Revocation of Authority to Vote |
5. | Annual Filing of Proxy Voting Record |
6. | Retention and Oversight of Proxy Advisory Firms |
A. | In considering whether to retain or continue retaining a particular proxy advisory firm, the Adviser will ascertain whether the proxy advisory firm has the capacity and competency to adequately analyze proxy issues, act as proxy voting agent as requested, and implement the Policy. In this regard, the Adviser will consider, at least annually, among other things, the adequacy and quality of the proxy advisory firm's staffing and personnel and the robustness of its policies and procedures regarding its ability to identify and address any conflicts of interest. The Adviser shall, at least annually, report to the Board regarding the results of this review. |
B. | The Adviser will request quarterly and annual reporting from any proxy advisory firm retained by the Adviser, and hold ad hoc meetings with such proxy advisory firm, in order to determine whether there has been any business changes that might impact the proxy advisory firm's capacity or competency to provide proxy voting advice or services or changes to the proxy advisory firm's conflicts policies or procedures. The Adviser will also take reasonable steps to investigate any material factual error, notified to the Adviser by the proxy advisory firm or identified by the Adviser, made by the proxy advisory firm in providing proxy voting services. |
7. | Periodic Sampling |
8. | Disclosures |
A. | A Trust shall include in its registration statement: |
1. | A description of this policy and of the policies and procedures used by the Adviser to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities; and |
2. | A statement disclosing that information regarding how the Trust voted proxies relating to portfolio securities during the most recent twelve-month period ended June 30 is available without charge, upon request, by calling the Trust's toll-free telephone number; or through a specified Internet address; or both; and on the Securities and Exchange Commission's (the “SEC”) website. |
B. | A Trust shall include in its annual and semi-annual reports to shareholders: |
1. | A statement disclosing that a description of the policies and procedures used by or on behalf of the Trust to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities of the Funds is available without charge, upon request, by calling the Trust's toll-free telephone number; through a specified Internet address, if applicable; and on the SEC's website; and |
2. | A statement disclosing that information regarding how the Trust voted proxies relating to portfolio securities during the most recent twelve-month period ended June 30 is available without charge, upon request, by calling the Trust's toll-free telephone number; or through a specified Internet address; or both; and on the SEC's website. |
9. | Sub-Advisers |
10. | Review of Policy |
Adopted (SPDR Series Trust/SPDR Index Shares Funds): | May 31, 2006 |
Updated: | August 1, 2007 |
Amended: | May 29, 2009 |
Amended: | November 19, 2010 |
Adopted (SSGA Active Trust)/Amended: | May 25, 2011 |
Amended: | February 25, 2016 |
March 2022 | |
Global Proxy Voting and Engagement Principles | |
State Street Global Advisors, one of the industry's largest institutional asset managers, is the investment management arm of State Street Corporation, a leading provider of financial services to institutional investors. As an investment manager, State Street Global Advisors has discretionary proxy voting authority over most of its client accounts, and State Street Global Advisors votes these proxies in the manner that we believe will most likely protect and promote the long-term economic value of client investments, as described in this document.i | |
i | These Global Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines are also applicable to SSGA Funds Management, Inc. SSGA Funds Management, Inc. is an SEC-registered investment adviser. SSGA Funds Management, Inc., State Street Global Advisors Trust Company, and other advisory affiliates of State Street make up State Street Global Advisors, the investment management arm of State Street Corporation. |
State Street Global Advisors maintains Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines for select markets, including: Australia, continental Europe, Japan, New Zealand, North America (Canada and the US), the UK and Ireland, and emerging markets. International markets not covered by our market-specific guidelines are reviewed and voted in a manner that is consistent with our Global Proxy Voting and Engagement Principles (the “Principles”); however, State Street Global Advisors also endeavors to show sensitivity to local market practices when voting in these various markets. In limited circumstances, certain pooled investment vehicles for which State Street Global Advisors acts as investment manager may, pursuant to their governing documents, utilize proxy voting guidelines developed by third-party advisors. | ||
State Street Global Advisors' Approach to Proxy Voting and Issuer Engagement | At State Street Global Advisors, we take our fiduciary duties as an asset manager very seriously. We have a dedicated team of corporate governance professionals who help us carry out our duties as a responsible investor. These duties include engaging with companies, developing and enhancing in-house corporate governance guidelines, analyzing corporate governance issues on a case-by-case basis at the company level, and exercising our voting rights. The underlying goal is to maximize shareholder value. | |
The Principles may take different perspectives on common governance issues that vary from one market to another. Similarly, engagement activity may take different forms in order to best achieve long-term engagement goals. We believe that proxy voting and engagement with portfolio companies is often the most direct and productive way for shareholders to exercise their ownership rights. This comprehensive toolkit is an integral part of the overall investment process. | ||
We believe engagement and voting activity have a direct relationship. As a result, the integration of our engagement activities, while leveraging the exercise of our voting rights, provides a meaningful shareholder tool that we believe protects and enhances the long-term economic value of the holdings in our client accounts. We maximize our voting power and engagement by maintaining a centralized proxy voting and active ownership process covering all holdings, regardless of strategy. Despite the vast investment strategies and objectives across State Street Global Advisors, the fiduciary responsibilities of share ownership and voting for which State Street Global Advisors has voting discretion are carried out with a single voice and objective. In those limited circumstances in which State Street Global Advisors acts as investment manager to a pooled investment vehicle that, pursuant to its governing documents, utilizes guidelines developed by a third-party advisor, the proxy votes implemented with respect to such a fund may differ from and be contrary to those votes implemented for other portfolios managed by State Street Global Advisors pursuant to its proprietary proxy voting guidelines. With respect to such funds utilizing third-party guidelines, the terms of the applicable third-party guidelines shall apply in place of the Principles described herein. |
The Principles support governance structures that we believe add to, or maximize, shareholder value for the companies held in our clients' portfolios. We conduct issuer specific engagements with companies to discuss our principles, including sustainability-related risks. In addition, we encourage issuers to find ways to increase the amount of direct communication board members have with shareholders. Direct communication with executive board members and independent non-executive directors is critical to helping companies understand shareholder concerns. Conversely, we conduct collaborative engagement activities with multiple shareholders and communicate with company representatives about common concerns where appropriate. | ||
In conducting our engagements, we also evaluate the various factors that influence the corporate governance framework of a country, including the macroeconomic conditions and broader political system, the quality of regulatory oversight, the enforcement of property and shareholder rights, and the independence of the judiciary. We understand that regulatory requirements and investor expectations relating to governance practices and engagement activities differ from country to country. As a result, we engage with issuers, regulators, or a combination of the two depending upon the market. We are also a member of various investor associations that seek to address broader corporate governance-related policy at the country level, as well as issuer-specific concerns at a company level. | ||
The State Street Global Advisors Asset Stewardship Team may collaborate with members of the Active Fundamental and various other investment teams to engage with companies on corporate governance issues and to address any specific concerns. This facilitates our comprehensive approach to information gathering as it relates to shareholder items that are to be voted upon at upcoming shareholder meetings. We also conduct issuer-specific engagements with companies, covering various corporate governance and sustainability-related topics outside of proxy season. | ||
The Asset Stewardship Team employs a blend of quantitative and qualitative research, analysis and data in order to support screens that identify issuers where active engagement may be necessary to protect and promote shareholder value. Issuer engagement may also be event driven, focusing on issuer-specific corporate governance, sustainability concerns, or more broad industry-related trends. We also consider the size of our total position of the issuer in question and/or the potential negative governance, performance profile, and circumstance at hand. As a result, we believe issuer engagement can take many forms and be triggered by numerous circumstances. The following approaches represent how we define engagement methods: | ||
Active | We use screening tools designed to capture a mix of company-specific data, including governance and sustainability profiles, to help us focus our voting and engagement activity. | |
We will actively seek direct dialogue with the board and management of companies that we have identified through our screening processes. Such engagements may lead to further monitoring to ensure that the company improves its governance or sustainability practices. In these cases, the engagement process represents the most meaningful opportunity for us to protect long-term shareholder value from excessive risk due to poor governance and sustainability practices. | ||
Reactive | Reactive engagement is initiated by the issuers. We routinely discuss specific voting issues and items with the issuer community. Reactive engagement is an opportunity to address not only voting items, but also a wide range of governance and sustainability issues. |
We have established an engagement protocol that further describes our approach to issuer engagement. | ||
Measurement | Assessing the effectiveness of our issuer engagement process is often difficult. In order to limit the subjectivity of effectiveness measurement, we actively seek issuer feedback and monitor the actions issuers take post-engagement in order to identify tangible changes. Thus, we are able to establish indicators to gauge how issuers respond to our concerns and to what degree these responses satisfy our requests. It is also important to note that successful engagement activity can be measured over differing time periods depending upon the relevant facts and circumstances. Engagements can last as briefly as a single meeting or span multiple years. | |
Depending upon the issue and whether the engagement activity is reactive, recurring, or active, engagement with issuers can take the form of written communication, conference calls, or in-person meetings. We believe active engagement is best conducted directly with company management or board members. Collaborative engagement, where multiple shareholders communicate with company representatives, can serve as a potential forum for issues that are not identified by us as requiring active engagement. An example of such a forum is a shareholder conference call. | ||
Proxy Voting Procedure | ||
Oversight | The Asset Stewardship Team is responsible for developing and implementing State Street Global Advisors' proprietary Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines (the “Guidelines”), the implementation of third-party proxy voting guidelines where applicable, case-by-case voting items, issuer engagement activities, and research and analysis of governance-related issues. The Stewardship Team's activities are overseen by the State Street Global Advisors ESG Committee. The ESG Committee is responsible for reviewing State Street Global Advisors' stewardship strategy, engagement priorities, and proxy voting guidelines and monitors the delivery of voting objectives. In addition, the ESG Committee provides oversight of the State Street Global Advisors Stewardship Team, reviews departures from State Street Global Advisors' proxy voting guidelines, and reviews conflicts of interest involving proxy voting. | |
Proxy Voting Process | In order to facilitate our proxy voting process, we retain Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (“ISS”), a firm with expertise in proxy voting and corporate governance. We utilize ISS to: (1) act as our proxy voting agent (providing State Street Global Advisors with vote execution and administration services), (2) assist in applying the Guidelines, (3) provide research and analysis relating to general corporate governance issues and specific proxy items, and (4) provide proxy voting guidelines in limited circumstances. |
The Asset Stewardship Team reviews with ISS its Guidelines and the services that ISS provides to State Street Global Advisors on an annual or case-by-case basis. As part of its role as proxy agent and prior to providing vote execution services, ISS pre-populates on an electronic platform certain preliminary proxy votes in accordance with the proxy voting guidelines identified by State Street Global Advisors. On most routine proxy voting items (e.g., ratification of auditors), ISS will shortly before applicable submission deadlines use an automated process to affect the pre-populated proxy votes. To the extent the Asset Stewardship Team becomes aware of material new information within a reasonable period of time before ISS affects such votes, the Asset Stewardship Team will assess whether the pre-populated votes should be updated. | ||
In other cases, the Asset Stewardship Team will evaluate the proxy solicitation to determine how to vote based upon the facts and circumstances, consist with our Principles and accompanying Guidelines. | ||
In some instances, the Asset Stewardship Team may refer significant issues to the ESG Committee for a determination of the proxy vote. In addition, in determining whether to refer a proxy vote to the ESG Committee, the Asset Stewardship Team will consider whether a material conflict of interest exists between the interests of our client and those of State Street Global Advisors or its affiliates (as explained in greater detail in our Conflict Mitigation Guidelines). | ||
We vote in all markets where it is feasible; however, we may refrain from voting meetings when power of attorney documentation is required, where voting will have a material impact on our ability to trade the security, where voting is not permissible due to sanctions affecting a company or an individual, where issuer-specific special documentation is required, or where various market or issuer certifications are required. We are unable to vote proxies when certain custodians, used by our clients, do not offer proxy voting in a jurisdiction or when they charge a meeting specific fee in excess of the typical custody service agreement. | ||
Conflict of Interest | See our standalone Conflict Mitigation Guidelines. | |
Proxy Voting and Engagement Principles | ||
Directors and Boards | The election of directors is one of the most important fiduciary duties we perform as a shareholder. We believe that well-governed companies can protect and pursue shareholder interests better and withstand the challenges of an uncertain economic environment. As such, we seek to vote director elections in a way that we believe will maximize the long-term value of each portfolio's holdings. |
Principally, a board acts on behalf of shareholders by protecting their interests and preserving their rights. This concept establishes the standard by which board and director performance is measured. In order to achieve this fundamental principle, the role of the board is to carry out its responsibilities in the best long-term interest of the company and its shareholders. An independent and effective board oversees management, provides guidance on strategic matters, selects the CEO and other senior executives, creates a succession plan for the board and management, provides risk oversight, and assesses the performance of the CEO and management. In contrast, management implements the business and capital allocation strategies and runs the company's day-to-day operations. As part of our engagement process, we routinely discuss the importance of these responsibilities with the boards of issuers. | ||
We believe the quality of a board is a measure of director independence, director succession planning, board diversity, evaluations and refreshment, and company governance practices. In voting to elect nominees, we consider many factors. We believe independent directors are crucial to good corporate governance; they help management establish sound corporate governance policies and practices. A sufficiently independent board will effectively monitor management, maintain appropriate governance practices, and perform oversight functions necessary to protect shareholder interests. We also believe the right mix of skills, independence, diversity, and qualifications among directors provides boards with the knowledge and direct experience to manage risks and operating structures that are often complex and industry-specific. | ||
Accounting and Audit-Related Issues | We believe audit committees are critical and necessary as part of the board's risk oversight role. The audit committee is responsible for setting out an internal audit function that provides robust audit and internal control systems designed to effectively manage potential and emerging risks to the company's operations and strategy. We believe audit committees should have independent directors as members, and we will hold the members of the audit committee responsible for overseeing the management of the audit function. | |
The disclosure and availability of reliable financial statements in a timely manner is imperative for the investment process. As a result, board oversight of the internal controls and the independence of the audit process are essential if investors are to rely upon financial statements. It is important for the audit committee to appoint external auditors who are independent from management; we expect auditors to provide assurance of a company's financial condition. | ||
Capital Structure, Reorganization and Mergers | The ability to raise capital is critical for companies to carry out strategy, to grow, and to achieve returns above their cost of capital. The approval of capital raising activities is fundamental to a shareholder's ability to monitor the amounts of proceeds and to ensure capital is deployed efficiently. Altering the capital structure of a company is a critical decision for boards. When making such a decision, we believe the company should disclose a comprehensive business rationale that is consistent with corporate strategy and not overly dilutive to its shareholders. | |
Mergers or reorganization of the structure of a company often involve proposals relating to reincorporation, restructurings, liquidations, and other major changes to the corporation. |
Proposals that are in the best interests of shareholders, demonstrated by enhancing share value or improving the effectiveness of the company's operations, will be supported. In evaluating mergers and acquisitions, we consider the adequacy of the consideration and the impact of the corporate governance provisions to shareholders. In all cases, we use our discretion in order to maximize shareholder value. | ||
Occasionally, companies add anti-takeover provisions that reduce the chances of a potential acquirer to make an offer, or to reduce the likelihood of a successful offer. We do not support proposals that reduce shareholders' rights, entrench management, or reduce the likelihood of shareholders' right to vote on reasonable offers. | ||
Compensation | We consider it the board's responsibility to identify the appropriate level of executive compensation. Despite the differences among the types of plans and the awards possible, there is a simple underlying philosophy that guides our analysis of executive compensation: we believe that there should be a direct relationship between executive compensation and company performance over the long term. | |
Shareholders should have the opportunity to assess whether pay structures and levels are aligned with business performance. When assessing remuneration reports, we consider factors such as adequate disclosure of various remuneration elements, absolute and relative pay levels, peer selection and benchmarking, the mix of long-term and short-term incentives, alignment of pay structures with shareholder interests, as well as with corporate strategy and performance. We may oppose remuneration reports where pay seems misaligned with shareholders' interests. We may also consider executive compensation practices when re-electing members of the remuneration committee. | ||
We recognize that compensation policies and practices are unique from market to market; often there are significant differences between the level of disclosures, the amount and forms of compensation paid, and the ability of shareholders to approve executive compensation practices. As a result, our ability to assess the appropriateness of executive compensation is often dependent on market practices and laws. | ||
Environmental and Social Issues | As a fiduciary, State Street Global Advisors takes a comprehensive approach to engaging with our portfolio companies about material environmental and social (sustainability) issues. We use our voice and our vote through engagement, proxy voting, and thought leadership in order to communicate with issuers and educate market participants about our perspective on important sustainability topics. Our Asset Stewardship program prioritization process allows us to proactively identify companies for engagement and voting in order to mitigate sustainability risks in our portfolio. Through engagement, we address a broad range of topics that align with our thematic priorities and build long-term relationships with issuers. When voting, we fundamentally consider whether the adoption of a shareholder proposal addressing a material sustainability issue would promote long-term shareholder value in the context of the company's existing practices and disclosures as well as existing market practice. | |
For more information on our approach to environmental and social issues, please see our Global Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines for Environmental and Social Issues and our Frameworks for Voting Environmental and Social Shareholder Proposals, both available at ssga.com/about-us/asset-stewardship.html. |
General/Routine | Although we do not seek involvement in the day-to-day operations of an organization, we recognize the need for conscientious oversight and input into management decisions that may affect a company's value. We support proposals that encourage economically advantageous corporate practices and governance, while leaving decisions that are deemed to be routine or constitute ordinary business to management and the board of directors. | |
Fixed Income Stewardship | The two elements of our fixed income stewardship program are: | |
Proxy Voting: | ||
While matters that arise for a vote at bondholder meetings vary by jurisdiction, examples of common proxy voting resolutions at bondholder meetings include: | ||
•Approving amendments to debt covenants and/or terms of issuance | ||
•Authorizing procedural matters, such as filing of required documents/other formalities | ||
•Approving debt restructuring plans | ||
•Abstaining from challenging the bankruptcy trustees | ||
•Authorizing repurchase of issued debt security | ||
•Approving the placement of unissued debt securities under the control of directors | ||
•Approving spin-off/absorption proposals | ||
Given the nature of the items that arise for vote at bondholder meetings, we take a case-by-case approach to voting bondholder resolutions. Where necessary, we will engage with issuers on voting matters prior to arriving at voting decisions. All voting decisions will be made in the best interest of our clients. | ||
Issuer Engagement: | ||
We recognize that debt holders have limited leverage with companies on a day-to-day basis. However, we believe that given the size of our holdings in corporate debt, we can meaningfully influence ESG practices of companies through issuer engagement. Our guidelines for engagement with fixed income issuers broadly follow the engagement guidelines for our equity holdings as described above. | ||
Securities on Loan | For funds in which we act as trustee, we may recall securities in instances where we believe that a particular vote will have a material impact on the fund(s). Several factors shape this process. First, we must receive notice of the vote in sufficient time to recall the shares on or before the record date. In many cases, we do not receive timely notice, and we are unable to recall the shares on or before the record date. Second, State Street Global Advisors may exercise its discretion and recall shares if it believes that the benefit of voting shares will outweigh the foregone lending income. This determination requires State Street Global Advisors, with the information available at the time, to form judgments about events or outcomes that are difficult to quantify. Given our expertise and vast experience, we believe that the recall of securities will rarely provide an economic benefit that outweighs the cost of the foregone lending income. |
Reporting | Any client who wishes to receive information on how its proxies were voted should contact its State Street Global Advisors relationship manager. | |
About State Street Global Advisors | For four decades, State Street Global Advisors has served the world's governments, institutions and financial advisors. With a rigorous, risk-aware approach built on research, analysis and market-tested experience, we build from a breadth of active and index strategies to create cost-effective solutions. As stewards, we help portfolio companies see that what is fair for people and sustainable for the planet can deliver long-term performance. And, as pioneers in index, ETF, and ESG investing, we are always inventing new ways to invest. As a result, we have become the world's fourth-largest asset manager* with US $4.14 trillion† under our care. | |
* | Pensions & Investments Research Center, as of December 31, 2020. |
† | This figure is presented as of December 31, 2021 and includes approximately $61.43 billion of assets with respect to SPDR products for which State Street Global Advisors Funds Distributors, LLC (SSGA FD) acts solely as the marketing agent. SSGA FD and State Street Global Advisors are affiliated. |
March 2022 | |
Managing Conflicts of Interest Arising From State Street Global Advisors' Proxy Voting and Engagement Activity | |
State Street Corporation has a comprehensive standalone Conflicts of Interest Policy and other policies that address a range of conflicts of interests identified. In addition, State Street Global Advisors, the asset management business of State Street Corporation, maintains a conflicts register that identifies key conflicts and describes systems in place to mitigate the conflicts. This guidancei is designed to act in conjunction with related policies and practices employed by other groups within the organization. Further, they complement those policies and practices by providing specific guidance on managing the conflicts of interests that may arise through State Street Global Advisors' proxy voting and engagement activities. | |
i | These Managing Conflicts of Interest Arising From State Street Global Advisors' Proxy Voting and Engagement Activity Guidelines are also applicable to SSGA Funds Management, Inc. SSGA Funds Management, Inc. is an SEC-registered investment adviser. SSGA Funds Management, Inc., State Street Global Advisors Trust Company, and other advisory affiliates of State Street make up State Street Global Advisors, the investment management arm of State Street Corporation. |
Managing Conflicts of Interest Related to Proxy Voting | State Street Global Advisors has policies and procedures designed to prevent undue influence on State Street Global Advisors' voting activities that may arise from relationships between proxy issuers or companies and State Street Corporation, State Street Global Advisors, State Street Global Advisors affiliates, State Street Global Advisors Funds or State Street Global Advisors Fund affiliates. | |
Protocols designed to help mitigate potential conflicts of interest include: | ||
•Assigning sole responsibility for the implementation of proxy voting guidelines to members of State Street Global Advisors' Asset Stewardship Team. Members of the Asset Stewardship team may from time to time discuss views on proxy voting matters, company performance, strategy etc. with other State Street Corporation or State Street Global Advisors employees, including portfolio managers, senior executives and relationship managers. However, final voting decisions are made solely by the Asset Stewardship team, in a manner that is consistent with the best interests of all clients, taking into account various perspectives on risks and opportunities with a view of maximizing the value of client assets; | ||
•Generally exercising a singular vote decision for each ballot item regardless of our investment strategy;1 | ||
•Prohibiting members of State Street Global Advisors' Asset Stewardship team from disclosing State Street Global Advisors' voting decision to any individual not affiliated with the proxy voting process prior to the meeting or date of written consent, as the case may be; | ||
•Mandatory disclosure by members of the State Street Global Advisors' Asset Stewardship team, ESG Committee and Investment Committee (“IC”) of any personal conflict of interest (e.g., familial relationship with company management, serves as a director on the board of a listed company) to the Global Head of Asset Stewardship, Voting & Engagement. Members are required to recuse themselves from any engagement or proxy voting activities related to the conflict; | ||
•In certain instances, client accounts and/or State Street Global Advisors pooled funds, where State Street Global Advisors acts as trustee, may hold shares in State Street Corporation or other State Street Global Advisors affiliated entities, such as mutual funds affiliated with State Street Global Advisors Funds Management, Inc. In general, State Street Global Advisors will outsource any voting decision relating to a shareholder meeting of State Street Corporation or other State Street Global Advisors affiliated entities to independent outside third parties. Delegated third parties exercise vote decisions based upon State Street Global Advisors's Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines (“Guidelines”); and | ||
•Reporting of overrides of Guidelines, if any, to the ESG Committee on a quarterly basis. |
1 | State Street Global Advisors believes such an approach is generally in our clients' best interest as our proxy voting principles are focused on enhancing long-term shareholder value and a unified voting approach maximizes our clients' voice and promotes firm-wide integration and sharing of insights between teams to the benefit of clients. In limited circumstances, certain pooled investment vehicles for which State Street Global Advisors acts as investment manager may, pursuant to their governing documents, utilize proxy voting guidelines developed by third-party advisors. |
In general, we do not believe matters that fall within proxy voting guidelines utilized by State Street Global Advisors and that are voted consistently with such guidelines present any potential conflicts, since the vote on the matter has effectively been determined without reference to the soliciting entity. However, where matters do not fall within the applicable proxy voting guidelines or where we believe that voting in accordance with such guidelines is unwarranted, we conduct an additional review to determine whether there is a conflict of interest. In circumstances where a conflict has been identified and either: (i) the matter does not fall clearly within the applicable guidelines; or (ii) State Street Global Advisors determines that voting in accordance with such guidance is not in the best interests of its clients, the Head of the Asset Stewardship team will determine whether a material relationship exists. If so, the matter is referred to the ESG Committee. The ESG Committee then reviews the matter and determines whether a conflict of interest exists, and if so, how to best resolve such conflict. For example, the ESG Committee may (i) determine that the proxy vote does not give rise to a conflict due to the issues presented or (ii) retain an independent fiduciary to determine the appropriate vote. | ||
About State Street Global Advisors | For four decades, State Street Global Advisors has served the world's governments, institutions and financial advisors. With a rigorous, risk-aware approach built on research, analysis and market-tested experience, we build from a breadth of active and index strategies to create cost-effective solutions. As stewards, we help portfolio companies see that what is fair for people and sustainable for the planet can deliver long-term performance. And, as pioneers in index, ETF, and ESG investing, we are always inventing new ways to invest. As a result, we have become the world's fourth-largest asset manager* with US $4.14 trillion† under our care. | |
* | Pensions & Investments Research Center, as of December 31, 2020. |
† | This figure is presented as of December 31, 2021 and includes approximately $61.43 billion of assets with respect to SPDR products for which State Street Global Advisors Funds Distributors, LLC (SSGA FD) acts solely as the marketing agent. SSGA FD and State Street Global Advisors are affiliated. |
Overview | Our primary fiduciary obligation to our clients is to maximize the long-term returns of their investments. It is our view that material environmental and social (sustainability) issues can present risks and/or opportunities that impact long-term value creation. This philosophy provides the foundation for our value-based approach to Asset Stewardship. | |
We use our voice and our vote through engagement, proxy voting, and thought leadership in order to communicate with issuers and educate market participants about our perspective on important sustainability topics. | ||
Our stewardship efforts are rooted in the three pillars of ESG and their intersections. We regularly identify E, S, and G focus areas that guide our proxy voting and engagement efforts. Within these focus areas, we elevate outcome-oriented stewardship priorities each year based on factors including client demand, stakeholder interest, market trends, financial materiality, and portfolio impact. | ||
In limited circumstances, State Street Global Advisors may act as investment manager to pooled investment vehicles that, pursuant to their governing documents, utilize guidelines developed by a third-party advisor. With respect to such funds utilizing third-party guidelines, the voting practices described in the applicable third-party guidelines will apply in place of the voting practices described herein. | ||
Our Approach to Assessing Materiality and Relevance of Sustainability Issues | While we believe that sustainability-related factors can expose potential investment risks as well as drive long-term value creation, the materiality of specific sustainability issues varies from industry to industry and company by company. With this in mind, we leverage several distinct frameworks as well as additional resources to inform our views on the materiality of a sustainability issue at a given company, including: | |
•The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board's (SASB) Industry Standards | ||
•The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) Framework | ||
•Disclosure expectations in a company's given regulatory environment | ||
•Market expectations for the sector and industry | ||
•Other existing third party frameworks, such as the CDP (formally the Carbon Disclosure Project) or the Global Reporting Initiative | ||
•Our proprietary R-FactorTM1 score | ||
We expect companies to disclose information regarding their approach to identifying material sustainability-related risks and the management policies and practices in place to address such issues. We support efforts by companies to demonstrate the ways in which sustainability is incorporated into operations, business activities, and most importantly, long-term business strategy. |
1 | State Street Global Advisors' proprietary scoring model, which aligns with SASB's Sustainability Accounting Standards, and measures the performance of a company's business operations and governance as it relates to financially material ESG factors facing the company's industry. |
Our Approach to Sustainability Through Engagements | Our Asset Stewardship program prioritization process allows us to proactively identify companies for engagement and voting in order to mitigate sustainability risks in our portfolio. Our approach is driven by: | |
1.Proprietary Screens | ||
We have developed proprietary in-house sustainability screens to help identify companies for proactive engagement. These screens leverage our proprietary R-FactorTM score to identify sector and industry outliers for engagement and voting on sustainability issues. | ||
2.Thematic Prioritization | ||
As part of our annual stewardship planning process we identify thematic sustainability priorities that will be addressed during most engagement meetings. We develop our priorities based upon several factors, including client feedback, emerging sustainability trends, developing macroeconomic conditions, and evolving regulations. These engagements not only inform our voting decisions but also allow us to monitor improvement over time and to contribute to our evolving perspectives on priority areas. | ||
During the ‘voting season,' we prioritize conversations with companies that have triggered our E&S director voting policies or have received an E&S shareholder proposal on their proxy. In the ‘off-season,' we discuss our thematic focus areas and stewardship priorities with companies for which these topics are most material. | ||
Through engagement, we address a broad range of topics that align with our thematic priorities and seek to build long-term relationships with issuers. We view engagements as part of an ongoing dialogue, versus a series of one-off conversations. During conversations with issuers, we share expectations and perspectives on of key dimensions of E&S, and seek to understand how companies and their boards manage and oversee related risks. | ||
We also pursue proactive, targeted engagement campaigns with companies for which our focus areas are most material, and/or where improvement is most needed. Through these campaigns, we might make specific asks of companies and measure their progress against our expectations. If we feel a company is making insufficient progress on effective E&S risk management, we will consider taking voting action through relevant shareholder proposals or by targeting directors responsible for oversight. | ||
Analyzing Sustainability Proposals | We take a case-by-case approach to analyzing shareholder proposals related to sustainability topics and consider the following factors: | |
•The materiality of the sustainability topic in the proposal to the company's business and sector (see “Our Approach to Assessing Materiality and Relevance of Sustainability Issues” above) | ||
•The content and intent of the proposal | ||
•Whether the adoption of such a proposal would promote long-term shareholder value in the context of the company's disclosure and practices | ||
•The strength of board oversight of the company's relevant sustainability practices | ||
•Quality of public disclosures on the topic |
•Quality of engagement and responsiveness to our feedback | ||
•Binding nature of proposal or prescriptiveness of proposal | ||
We also leverage frameworks to analyze certain E&S shareholder proposals. These frameworks, which are not considered formal voting guidelines, can be found on our website. | ||
Vote Options for Sustainability Proposals | •For (support for proposal) if the issue is material and the company has poor disclosure and/or practices relative to our expectations | |
•Abstain (some reservations) if the issue is material and the company's disclosure and/or practices could be improved relative to our expectations. | ||
•Against (no support for proposal) if the issue is non-material and/or the company's disclosure and/or practices meet our expectations. | ||
About State Street Global Advisors | For four decades, State Street Global Advisors has served the world's governments, institutions and financial advisors. With a rigorous, risk-aware approach built on research, analysis and market-tested experience, we build from a breadth of active and index strategies to create cost-effective solutions. As stewards, we help portfolio companies see that what is fair for people and sustainable for the planet can deliver long-term performance. And, as pioneers in index, ETF, and ESG investing, we are always inventing new ways to invest. As a result, we have become the world's fourth-largest asset manager* with US $4.14 trillion† under our care. | |
* | Pensions & Investments Research Center, as of December 31, 2020. |
† | This figure is presented as of December 31, 2021 and includes approximately $61.43 billion of assets with respect to SPDR products for which State Street Global Advisors Funds Distributors, LLC (SSGA FD) acts solely as the marketing agent. SSGA FD and State Street Global Advisors are affiliated. |
March 2022 | |
Australia and New Zealand | |
Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines | |
State Street Global Advisors' Australia and New Zealand Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelinesi outline our expectations of companies listed on stock exchanges in Australia and New Zealand. These Guidelines complement and should be read in conjunction with State Street Global Advisors' Global Proxy Voting and Engagement Principles, which provide a detailed explanation of our approach to voting and engaging with companies, and State Street Global Advisors' Conflict Mitigation Guidelines. | |
i | These Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines are also applicable to SSGA Funds Management, Inc. SSGA Funds Management, Inc. is an SEC-registered investment adviser. SSGA Funds Management, Inc., State Street Global Advisors Trust Company, and other advisory affiliates of State Street make up State Street Global Advisors, the investment management arm of State Street Corporation. |
State Street Global Advisors' Australia and New Zealand Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines address areas including board structure, audit related issues, capital structure, remuneration, environmental, social, and other governance related issues. | ||
When voting and engaging with companies in global markets, we consider market specific nuances in the manner that we believe will best protect and promote the long-term economic value of client investments. We expect companies to observe the relevant laws and regulations of their respective markets as well as country specific best practice guidelines, and corporate governance codes. We may hold companies in such markets to our global standards when we feel that a country's regulatory requirements do not address some of the key philosophical principles that we believe are fundamental to our global voting guidelines. | ||
In our analysis and research into corporate governance issues in Australia and New Zealand, we expect all companies at a minimum to comply with the ASX Corporate Governance Principles and proactively monitor companies' adherence to the principles. Consistent with the ‘comply or explain' expectations established by the Principles, we encourage companies to proactively disclose their level of compliance with the Principles. In instances of non-compliance when companies cannot explain the nuances of their governance structure effectively, either publicly or through engagement, we may vote against the independent board leader. | ||
State Street Global Advisors' Proxy Voting and Engagement Philosophy | In our view, corporate governance and sustainability issues are an integral part of the investment process. The Asset Stewardship Team consists of investment professionals with expertise in corporate governance and company law, remuneration, accounting, and environmental and social issues. We have established robust corporate governance principles and practices that are backed with extensive analytical expertise in order to understand the complexities of the corporate governance landscape. We engage with companies to provide insight on the principles and practices that drive our voting decisions. We also conduct proactive engagement to address significant shareholder concerns and environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) issues in a manner consistent with maximizing shareholder value. | |
The team works alongside members of State Street Global Advisors' Active Fundamental and Asia-Pacific (“APAC”) investment teams, collaborating on issuer engagement and providing input on company specific fundamentals. We are also a member of various investor associations that seek to address broader corporate governance related policy issues in the region. | ||
State Street Global Advisors is a signatory to the United Nations Principles of Responsible Investment (“UNPRI”). We are committed to sustainable investing and are working to further integrate ESG principles into investment and corporate governance practices where applicable and consistent with our fiduciary duty. |
Directors and Boards | Principally we believe the primary responsibility of the board of directors is to preserve and enhance shareholder value and protect shareholder interests. In order to carry out their primary responsibilities, directors have to undertake activities that range from setting strategy and overseeing executive management to monitoring the risks that arise from a company's business, including risks related to sustainability issues. Further, good corporate governance necessitates the existence of effective internal controls and risk management systems, which should be governed by the board. | |
State Street Global Advisors believes that a well constituted board of directors with a good balance of skills, expertise, and independence provides the foundations for a well governed company. We view board quality as a measure of director independence, director succession planning, board diversity, evaluations and refreshment, and company governance practices. We vote for the (re-)election of directors on a case-by-case basis after considering various factors including board quality, general market practice, and availability of information on director skills and expertise. In our analysis of boards, we consider whether board members have adequate skills to provide effective oversight of corporate strategy, operations, and risks, including environmental and social issues. Boards should also have a regular evaluation process in place to assess the effectiveness of the board and the skills of board members to address issues, such as emerging risks, changes to corporate strategy, and diversification of operations and geographic footprint. We may also consider board performance and directors who appear to be remiss in the performance of their oversight responsibilities when analyzing their suitability for reappointment (e.g. fraud, criminal wrongdoing and breach of fiduciary responsibilities). | ||
Board Independence | ||
In principle, we believe independent directors are crucial to corporate governance and help management establish sound ESG policies and practices. A sufficiently independent board will most effectively monitor management and perform oversight functions necessary to protect shareholder interests. We expect boards of ASX 300 and New Zealand listed companies to be comprised of at least a majority of independent directors. At all other Australian listed companies, we expect boards to be comprised of at least one-third independent directors. | ||
Our broad criteria for director independence in Australia and New Zealand include factors such as: | ||
•Participation in related-party transactions and other business relations with the company | ||
•Employment history with company | ||
•Relations with controlling shareholders | ||
Family ties with any of the company's advisers, directors, or senior employees |
While we are generally supportive of having the roles of chairman and CEO separated in the Australian and New Zealand markets, we assess the division of responsibilities between chairman and CEO on a case-by-case basis, giving consideration to factors such as company-specific circumstances, overall level of independence on the board and general corporate governance standards in the company. Similarly, we will monitor for circumstances in which a combined chairman/CEO is appointed or where a former CEO becomes chairman. | |
Director Time Commitments | |
When voting on the election or re-election of a director, we also consider the number of outside board directorships that a non-executive and an executive may undertake. Thus, State Street Global Advisors may take voting action against a director who exceeds the number of board mandates listed below: | |
•Named Executive Officers (NEOs) of a public company who sit on more than two public company boards | |
•Non-executive board chairs or lead independent directors who sit on more than three public company boards | |
•Director nominees who sit on more than four public company boards | |
For non-executive board chairs/lead independent directors and director nominees who hold excessive commitments, as defined above, we may consider waiving our policy and vote in support of a director if a company discloses its director commitment policy in a publicly available manner (e.g., corporate governance guidelines, proxy statement, company website). This policy or associated disclosure must include: | |
•A numerical limit on public company board seats a director can serve on | |
• This limit cannot exceed our policy by more than one seat | |
•Consideration of public company board leadership positions (e.g., Committee Chair) | |
•Affirmation that all directors are currently compliant with the company policy | |
•Description of an annual policy review process undertaken by the Nominating Committee to evaluate outside director time commitments | |
If a director is imminently leaving a board and this departure is disclosed in a written, time-bound and publicly-available manner, we may consider waiving our withhold vote when evaluating the director for excessive time commitments. | |
Service on a mutual fund board, the board of a UK investment trust or a Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC) board is not considered when evaluating directors for excessive commitments. However, we do expect these roles to be considered by nominating committees when evaluating director time commitments. | |
Director Attendance at Board Meetings | |
We also consider attendance at board meetings and may withhold votes from directors who attend less than 75 percent of board meetings without appropriate explanation or providing reason for their failure to meet the attendance threshold. In addition, we monitor other factors that may influence the independence of a non-executive director, such as performance-related pay, cross-directorships, significant shareholdings, and tenure. We support the annual election of directors and encourage Australian and New Zealand companies to adopt this practice. |
Board Committees | |
We believe companies should have committees for audit, remuneration, and nomination oversight. The audit committee is responsible for monitoring the integrity of the financial statements of the company, appointing external auditors, monitoring their qualifications and independence, and their effectiveness and resource levels. ASX Corporate Governance Principles requires listed companies to have an audit committee of at least three members all of whom are non-executive directors and a majority of whom are independent directors. It also requires that the committee be chaired by an independent director who is not the chair of the board. We hold Australian and New Zealand companies to our global standards for developed financial markets by requiring that all members of the audit committee be independent directors. | |
The nomination committee is responsible for evaluating and reviewing the balance of skills, knowledge, and experience of the board. It also ensures that adequate succession plans are in place for directors and the CEO. We may vote against the re-election of members of the nomination committee if the board has failed to address concerns over board structure or succession. | |
Board Gender Diversity | |
We expect boards of all listed companies to have at least one female board member. If a company fails to meet this expectation, State Street Global Advisors may vote against the Chair of the board's nominating committee or the board leader in the absence of a nominating committee, if necessary. Additionally, if a company fails to meet this expectation for three consecutive years, State Street Global Advisors may vote against all incumbent members of the nominating committee. | |
Board Responsiveness to High Dissent against Pay | |
Proposals | |
Executive pay is another important aspect of corporate governance. We believe that executive pay should be determined by the board of directors. We expect companies to have in place remuneration committees to provide independent oversight over executive pay. ASX Corporate Governance Principles require listed companies to have a remuneration committee of at least three members all of whom are non-executive directors and a majority of whom are independent directors. Since Australia has a non-binding vote on pay with a two-strike rule requiring a board spill vote in the event of a second strike, we believe that the vote provides investors a mechanism to address concerns they may have on the quality of oversight provided by the board on remuneration issues. Accordingly, our voting guidelines accommodate local market practice. | |
Poorly structured executive compensation plans pose increasing reputational risk to companies. Ongoing high level of dissent against a company's compensation proposals may indicate that the company is not receptive to investor concerns. If the level of dissent against a company's remuneration report and/or remuneration policy is consistently high, and we have determined that a vote against a pay-related proposal is warranted in the third consecutive year, we will vote against the Chair of the remuneration committee. |
Incorporating R-Factor™ into Director Votes | ||
R-Factor™ is a scoring system created by State Street Global Advisors that measures the performance of a company's business operations and governance as it relates to financially material ESG factors facing the company's industry. R-Factor™ encourages companies to manage and disclose material, industry-specific ESG risks and opportunities, thereby reducing investment risk across our own portfolio and the broader market. State Street Global Advisors may take voting action against the independent board leader at companies on the ASX 100 that are R-Factor™ laggards1 and momentum underperformers2 and cannot articulate how they plan to improve their score. | ||
Climate-related Disclosure | ||
We believe climate change poses a systemic risk to all companies in our portfolio. | ||
State Street Global Advisors has publicly supported the global regulatory efforts to establish a mandatory baseline of climate risk disclosures for all companies. Until these consistent disclosure standards are established, we find that the recommendations of the Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) provide the most effective framework by which companies can develop strategies to plan for climate-related risks and make their businesses more resilient to the impacts of climate change. | ||
As such, we may vote against the independent board leader at companies in the ASX 100 that fail to provide sufficient disclosure in accordance with the TCFD framework, including: | ||
•Board oversight of climate-related risks and opportunities | ||
•Total Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions | ||
•Targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions | ||
Indemnification and Limitations on Liability | ||
Generally, State Street Global Advisors supports proposals to limit directors' liability and/or expand indemnification and liability protection up to the limit provided by law, if he or she has not acted in bad faith, gross negligence, or reckless disregard of the duties involved in the conduct of his or her office. | ||
Audit-Related Issues | Companies should have robust internal audit and internal control systems designed for effective management of any potential and emerging risks to company operations and strategy. The responsibility of setting out an internal audit function lies with the audit committee, which should have independent non-executive directors designated as members. |
1 | Bottom 10 percent of scores relative to industry peers. |
2 | Have consistently underperformed their peers over the last two years; bottom 30 percent of scores relative to industry peers. |
Appointment of External Auditors | ||
State Street Global Advisors believes that a company's auditor is an essential feature of an effective and transparent system of external supervision. Shareholders should be given the opportunity to vote on their appointment or to re-appoint at the annual meeting. When appointing external auditors and approving audit fees, we will take into consideration the level of detail in company disclosures. We will generally not support resolutions if adequate breakdown is not provided and if non-audit fees are more than 50 percent of audit fees. In addition, we may vote against members of the audit committee if we have concerns with audit-related issues or if the level of non-audit fees to audit fees is significant. In certain circumstances, we may consider auditor tenure when evaluating the audit process. | ||
Approval of Financial Statements | ||
The disclosure and availability of reliable financial statements in a timely manner is imperative for the investment process. We expect external auditors to provide assurance of a company's financial condition. Hence, we will vote against the approval of financial statements if i) they have not been disclosed or audited; ii) the auditor opinion is qualified/ adverse, or the auditor has issued a disclaimer of opinion; or iii) the auditor opinion is not disclosed. | ||
Shareholder Rights and Capital-Related Issues | Share Issuances | |
The ability to raise capital is critical for companies to carry out strategy, to grow, and to achieve returns above their cost of capital. The approval of capital raising activities is fundamental to shareholders' ability to monitor the returns and to ensure capital is deployed efficiently. State Street Global Advisors supports capital increases that have sound business reasons and are not excessive relative to a company's existing capital base. | ||
Pre-emption rights are a fundamental right for shareholders to protect their investment in a company. Where companies seek to issue new shares without pre-emption rights, we may vote against if such authorities are greater than 20 percent of the issued share capital. We may also vote against resolutions seeking authority to issue capital with pre-emption rights if the aggregate amount allowed seems excessive and is not justified by the board. Generally, we are against capital issuance proposals greater than 100 percent of the issued share capital when the proceeds are not intended for specific purpose. | ||
Share Repurchase Programs | ||
We generally support proposals to repurchase shares, unless the issuer does not clearly state the business purpose for the program, a definitive number of shares to be repurchased, and the timeframe for the repurchase. We may vote against share repurchase requests that allow share repurchases during a takeover period. | ||
Dividends | ||
We generally support dividend payouts that constitute 30 percent or more of net income. We may vote against the dividend payouts if the dividend payout ratio has been consistently below 30 percent without adequate explanation. We may also vote against if the payout is excessive given the company's financial position. Particular attention will be warranted when the payment may damage the company's long-term financial health. |
Mergers and Acquisitions | ||
Mergers or reorganization of the company structure often involve proposals relating to reincorporation, restructurings, liquidations, and other major changes to the corporation. Proposals that are in the best interests of shareholders, demonstrated by enhancing share value or improving the effectiveness of the company's operations, will be supported. In general, provisions that are not viewed as financially sound or are thought to be destructive to shareholders' rights are not supported. We will generally support transactions that maximize shareholder value. Some of the considerations include: | ||
•Offer premium | ||
•Strategic rationale | ||
•Board oversight of the process for the recommended transaction, including, director and/ or management conflicts of interest | ||
•Offers made at a premium and where there are no other higher bidders | ||
•Offers in which the secondary market price is substantially lower than the net asset value | ||
We may vote against a transaction considering the following: | ||
•Offers with potentially damaging consequences for minority shareholders because of illiquid stock | ||
•Offers where we believe there is a reasonable prospect for an enhanced bid or other bidders | ||
•The current market price of the security exceeds the bid price at the time of voting | ||
Anti-Takeover Measures | ||
We oppose anti-takeover defenses, such as authorities for the board to issue warrants convertible into shares to existing shareholders during a hostile takeover. | ||
Remuneration | Executive Pay | |
There is a simple underlying philosophy that guides State Street Global Advisors' analysis of executive pay; there should be a direct relationship between remuneration and company performance over the long term. Shareholders should have the opportunity to assess whether pay structures and levels are aligned with business performance. When assessing remuneration reports, we consider various factors, such as adequate disclosure of different remuneration elements, absolute and relative pay levels, peer selection and benchmarking, the mix of long-term and short-term incentives, alignment of pay structures with shareholder interests as well as with corporate strategy and performance. SSGA may oppose remuneration reports in which there seems to be a misalignment between pay and shareholders' interests and where incentive policies and schemes have a re-test option or feature. We may also vote against the re-election of members of the remuneration committee if we have serious concerns about remuneration practices and if the company has not been responsive to shareholder pressure to review its approach. |
Equity Incentive Plans | ||
We may not support proposals on equity-based incentive plans where insufficient information is provided on matters, such as grant limits, performance metrics, performance, and vesting periods and overall dilution. Generally, we do not support options under such plans being issued at a discount to market price nor plans that allow for re-testing of performance metrics. | ||
Non-Executive Director Pay | ||
Authorities that seek shareholder approval for non-executive directors' fees generally are not controversial. We generally support resolutions regarding directors' fees unless disclosure is poor and we are unable to determine whether the fees are excessive relative to fees paid by other comparable companies. We will evaluate any non-cash or performance-related pay to non-executive directors on a company-by-company basis. | ||
Risk Management | State Street Global Advisors believes that risk management is a key function of the board, which is responsible for setting the overall risk appetite of a company and for providing oversight on the risk management process established by senior executives at a company. We allow boards to have discretion over the ways in which they provide oversight in this area. However, we expect companies to disclose ways in which the board provides oversight on its risk management system and to identify key risks facing the company. Boards should also review existing and emerging risks that evolve in tandem with the political and economic landscape or as companies diversify or expand their operations into new areas. | |
Environmental and Social Issues | ||
As a fiduciary, State Street Global Advisors takes a comprehensive approach to engaging with our portfolio companies about material environmental and social (sustainability) issues. We use our voice and our vote through engagement, proxy voting, and thought leadership in order to communicate with issuers and educate market participants about our perspective on important sustainability topics. Our Asset Stewardship program prioritization process allows us to proactively identify companies for engagement and voting in order to mitigate sustainability risks in our portfolio. Through engagement, we address a broad range of topics that align with our stewardship priorities and build long-term relationships with issuers. When voting, we fundamentally consider whether the adoption of a shareholder proposal addressing a material sustainability issue would promote long-term shareholder value in the context of the company's existing practices and disclosures as well as existing market practice. | ||
For more information on our approach to environmental and social issues, please see our Global Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines for Environmental and Social Issues and our Frameworks for Voting Environmental and Social Shareholder Proposals available at ssga.com/about-us/asset-stewardship.html. | ||
More Information | Any client who wishes to receive information on how its proxies were voted should contact its State Street Global Advisors relationship manager. |
About State Street Global Advisors | For four decades, State Street Global Advisors has served the world's governments, institutions and financial advisors. With a rigorous, risk-aware approach built on research, analysis and market-tested experience, we build from a breadth of active and index strategies to create cost-effective solutions. As stewards, we help portfolio companies see that what is fair for people and sustainable for the planet can deliver long-term performance. And, as pioneers in index, ETF, and ESG investing, we are always inventing new ways to invest. As a result, we have become the world's fourth-largest asset manager* with US $4.14 trillion† under our care. | |
* | Pensions & Investments Research Center, as of December 31, 2020. |
† | This figure is presented as of December 31, 2021 and includes approximately $61.43 billion of assets with respect to SPDR products for which State Street Global Advisors Funds Distributors, LLC (SSGA FD) acts solely as the marketing agent. SSGA FD and State Street Global Advisors are affiliated. |
March 2022 | |
Europe | |
Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines | |
State Street Global Advisors' European Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelinesi cover different corporate governance frameworks and practices in European markets, excluding the United Kingdom and Ireland. These guidelines complement and should be read in conjunction with State Street Global Advisors' Global Proxy Voting and Engagement Principles, which provide a detailed explanation of our approach to voting and engaging with companies, and State Street Global Advisors' Conflict Mitigation Guidelines. | |
i | These Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines are also applicable to SSGA Funds Management, Inc. SSGA Funds Management, Inc. is an SEC-registered investment adviser. SSGA Funds Management, Inc., State Street Global Advisors Trust Company, and other advisory affiliates of State Street make up State Street Global Advisors, the investment management arm of State Street Corporation. |
State Street Global Advisors' Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines in European markets address areas such as board structure, audit-related issues, capital structure, remuneration, as well as environmental, social and other governance-related issues. | ||
When voting and engaging with companies in European markets, we consider market-specific nuances in the manner that we believe will most likely protect and promote the long-term financial value of client investments. We expect companies to observe the relevant laws and regulations of their respective markets, as well as country-specific best practice guidelines and corporate governance codes. We may hold companies in some markets to our global standards when we feel that a country's regulatory requirements do not address some of the key philosophical principles that we believe are fundamental to our global voting guidelines. | ||
In our analysis and research into corporate governance issues in European companies, we also consider guidance issued by the European Commission and country-specific governance codes. We proactively monitor companies' adherence to applicable guidance and requirements. Consistent with the diverse “comply-or-explain” expectations established by guidance and codes, we encourage companies to proactively disclose their level of compliance with applicable provisions and requirements. In cases of non-compliance, when companies cannot explain the nuances of their governance structures effectively, either publicly or through engagement, we may vote against the independent board leader. | ||
State Street Global Advisors' Proxy Voting and Engagement Philosophy | Corporate governance and sustainability issues are an integral part of the investment process. The Asset Stewardship Team consists of investment professionals with expertise in corporate governance and company law, remuneration, accounting, and environmental and social issues. We have established robust corporate governance principles and practices that are backed with extensive analytical expertise in order to understand the complexities of the corporate governance landscape. We engage with companies to provide insight on the principles and practices that drive our voting decisions. We also conduct proactive engagements to address significant shareholder concerns and environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) issues in a manner consistent with maximizing shareholder value. | |
The team works alongside members of State Street Global Advisors' Active Fundamental and Europe, Middle East and Africa (“EMEA”) investment teams, collaborating on issuer engagements and providing input on company-specific fundamentals. | ||
State Street Global Advisors is a signatory to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment (“UNPRI”). We are committed to sustainable investing, and are working to further integrate ESG principles into investment and corporate governance practices where applicable and consistent with our fiduciary duty. |
Directors and Boards | Principally, we believe the primary responsibility of the board of directors is to preserve and enhance shareholder value, and to protect shareholder interests. In order to carry out their primary responsibilities, directors have to undertake activities that range from setting strategy and overseeing executive management, to monitoring the risks that arise from a company's business, including risks related to sustainability issues. Further, good corporate governance necessitates the existence of effective internal controls and risk management systems, which should be governed by the board. | |
We believe that a well-constituted board of directors with a balance of skills, expertise and independence, provides the foundations for a well governed company. We view board quality as a measure of director independence, director succession planning, board diversity, evaluations and refreshment, and company governance practices. We vote for the (re-)election of directors on a case-by-case basis after considering various factors, including board quality, general market practice, and availability of information on director skills and expertise. | ||
In our analysis of boards, we consider whether board members have adequate skills to provide effective oversight of corporate strategy, operations, and risks, including environmental and social issues. Boards should also have a regular evaluation process in place to assess the effectiveness of the board and the skills of board members to address issues such as emerging risks, changes to corporate strategy, and diversification of operations and geographic footprint. | ||
We may also consider factors such as board performance and directors who appear to be remiss in the performance of their oversight responsibilities (e.g. fraud, criminal wrongdoing and/or breach of fiduciary responsibilities). | ||
Board Independence | In principle, we believe independent directors are crucial to good corporate governance and help management establish sound corporate governance policies and practices. A sufficiently independent board will most effectively monitor management and perform oversight functions necessary to protect shareholder interests. | |
Our broad criteria for director independence in European companies include factors such as: | ||
•Participation in related–party transactions and other business relations with the company | ||
•Employment history with the company | ||
•Relations with controlling shareholders | ||
•Family ties with any of the company's advisers, directors or senior employees | ||
•Serving as an employee or government representative | ||
•Overall average board tenure and individual director tenure at issuers with classified and de-classified boards, respectively, and | ||
•Company classification of a director as non-independent |
While overall board independence requirements and board structures differ from market to market, we consider voting against directors we deem non-independent if overall board independence is below 33 percent or if overall independence level is below 50 percent after excluding employee representatives and/or directors elected in accordance with local laws who are not elected by shareholders. We may withhold support for a proposal to discharge the board if a company fails to meet adequate governance standards or board level independence. | ||
We also assess the division of responsibilities between chair and CEO on a case-by-case basis, giving consideration to factors such as overall level of independence on the board and general corporate governance standards in the company. However, we may take voting action against the chair or members of the nominating committee at the STOXX Europe 600 companies that have combined the roles of chair and CEO and have not appointed an independent deputy chair or a lead independent director. | ||
Director Time Commitments | When voting on the election or re-election of a director, we also consider the number of outside board directorships a non-executive and an executive may undertake. Thus, State Street Global Advisors may take voting action against a director who exceeds the number of board mandates listed below: | |
•Named Executive Officers (NEOs) of a public company who sit on more than two public company boards | ||
•Non-executive board chairs or lead independent directors who sit on more than three public company boards | ||
•Director nominees who sit on more than four public company boards | ||
For non-executive board chairs/lead independent directors and director nominees who hold excessive commitments, as defined above, we may consider waiving our policy and vote in support of a director if a company discloses its director commitment policy in a publicly available manner (e.g., corporate governance guidelines, proxy statement, company website). This policy or associated disclosure must include: | ||
•A numerical limit on public company board seats a director can serve on | ||
• This limit cannot exceed our policy by more than one seat | ||
•Consideration of public company board leadership positions (e.g., Committee Chair) | ||
•Affirmation that all directors are currently compliant with the company policy | ||
•Description of an annual policy review process undertaken by the Nominating Committee to evaluate outside director time commitments | ||
If a director is imminently leaving a board and this departure is disclosed in a written, time-bound and publicly-available manner, we may consider waiving our withhold vote when evaluating the director for excessive time commitments. | ||
Service on a mutual fund board, the board of a UK investment trust or a Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC) board is not considered when evaluating directors for excessive commitments. However, we do expect these roles to be considered by nominating committees when evaluating director time commitments. |
Director Attendance at Board Meetings | We also consider attendance at board meetings and may withhold votes from directors who attend less than 75 percent of board meetings without appropriate explanation or providing reason for their failure to meet the attendance threshold. In addition, we monitor other factors that may influence the independence of a non-executive director, such as performance-related pay, cross-directorships and significant shareholdings. Moreover, we may vote against the election of a director whose biographical disclosures are insufficient to assess his or her role on the board and/or independence. | |
Board Gender Diversity | We expect boards of all listed companies to have at least one female board member. If a company fails to meet this expectation, State Street Global Advisors may vote against the Chair of the board's nominating committee or the board leader in the absence of a nominating committee, if necessary. Additionally, if a company fails to meet this expectation for three consecutive years, State Street Global Advisors may vote against all incumbent members of the nominating committee. | |
Length of Board Terms | Although we generally are in favour of the annual election of directors, we recognise that director terms vary considerably in different European markets. We may vote against article/bylaw changes that seek to extend director terms. In addition, we may vote against directors in certain markets if their terms extend beyond four years. | |
Board Committees | We believe companies should have relevant board level committees for audit, remuneration and nomination oversight. The audit committee is responsible for monitoring the integrity of the financial statements of the company, appointing external auditors, monitoring their qualifications and independence, and assessing effectiveness and resource levels. Similarly, executive pay is an important aspect of corporate governance, and it should be determined by the board of directors. We expect companies to have remuneration committees to provide independent oversight of executive pay. We may vote against nominees who are executive members of audit or remuneration committees. | |
In certain European markets, it is not uncommon for the election of directors to be presented in a single slate. In these cases, where executives serve on the audit or the remuneration committees, we may vote against the entire slate. | ||
Board Responsiveness to High Dissent Against Pay Proposals | Poorly-structured executive remuneration plans pose increasing reputational risk to companies. Ongoing high levels of dissent against a company's remuneration proposals may indicate that the company is not receptive to investor concerns. If the level of dissent against a company's remuneration report and/or remuneration policy is consistently high, and we have determined that a vote against a remuneration-related proposal is warranted in the third consecutive year, we will vote against the Chair of the remuneration committee. |
Incorporating R-FactorTM into Director Votes | R-FactorTM is a scoring system created by State Street Global Advisors that measures the performance of a company's business operations and governance as it relates to financially material ESG factors facing the company's industry. R-FactorTM encourages companies to manage and disclose material, industry-specific ESG risks and opportunities, thereby reducing investment risk across our own portfolio and the broader market. State Street Global Advisors may take voting action against the independent board leader at companies on the STOXX 600 that are R-FactorTM laggards1 and momentum underperformers2 and cannot articulate how they plan to improve their score. | |
Climate-related Disclosure | We believe climate change poses a systemic risk to all companies in our portfolio. | |
State Street Global Advisors has publicly supported the global regulatory efforts to establish a mandatory baseline of climate risk disclosures for all companies. Until these consistent disclosure standards are established, we find that the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) provide the most effective framework (with?) which companies can develop strategies to plan for climate-related risks and make their businesses more resilient to the impacts of climate change. | ||
As such, we may vote against the independent board leader at companies in the STOXX 600 that fail to provide sufficient disclosure in accordance with the TCFD framework, including: | ||
•Board oversight of climate-related risks and opportunities | ||
•Total Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions | ||
•Targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions | ||
Indemnification and Limitations on Liability | Generally, we support proposals to limit directors' liability and/or expand indemnification and liability protection up to the limit provided by law if a director has not acted in bad faith, with gross negligence, or with reckless disregard of the duties involved in the conduct of his or her office. | |
Audit-Related Issues | Companies should have robust internal audit and internal control systems designed for effective management of any potential and emerging risks to company operations and strategy. The responsibility of setting up an internal audit function lies with the audit committee, which should have as members independent non-executive directors. |
1 | Bottom 10 percent of scores relative to industry peers. |
2 | Have consistently underperformed their peers over the last two years; bottom 30 percent of scores relative to industry peers. |
Appointment of External Auditors | We believe that a company's auditor is an essential feature of an effective and transparent system of external supervision. Shareholders should be given the opportunity to vote on their appointment or re-appoint them at the annual meeting. When appointing external auditors and approving audit fees, we consider the level of detail in company disclosures; we will generally not support such resolutions if adequate breakdown is not provided and if non-audit fees are more than 50 percent of audit fees. In addition, we may vote against members of the audit committee if we have concerns with audit-related issues or if the level of non-audit fees to audit fees is significant. We may consider auditor tenure when evaluating the audit process in certain circumstances. | |
Limit Legal Liability of External Auditors | We generally oppose limiting the legal liability of audit firms as we believe this could create a negative impact on the quality of the audit function. | |
Approval of Financial Statements | ||
The disclosure and availability of reliable financial statements in a timely manner is imperative for the investment process. We expect external auditors to provide assurance of a company's financial condition. Hence, we will vote against the approval of financial statements if i) they have not been disclosed or audited; ii) the auditor opinion is qualified/ adverse, or the auditor has issued a disclaimer of opinion; or iii) the auditor opinion is not disclosed. | ||
Shareholder Rights and Capital-Related Issues | In some European markets, differential voting rights continue to exist. State Street Global Advisors supports the one-share, one-vote policy and favors a share structure where all shares have equal voting rights. We believe pre-emption rights should be introduced for shareholders in order to provide adequate protection from excessive dilution from the issuance of new shares or convertible securities to third parties or a small number of select shareholders. | |
Unequal Voting Rights | We generally oppose proposals authorizing the creation of new classes of common stock with superior voting rights. We will generally oppose the creation of new classes of preferred stock with unspecified voting, conversion, dividend distribution and other rights. In addition, we will not support capitalization changes that add classes of stock with undefined voting rights or classes that may dilute the voting interests of existing shareholders. We support proposals to abolish voting caps and capitalization changes that eliminate other classes of stock and/or unequal voting rights. | |
Increase in Authorized Capital | The ability to raise capital is critical for companies to carry out strategy, to grow, and to achieve returns above their cost of capital. The approval of capital raising activities is fundamental to shareholders' ability to monitor returns and to ensure capital is deployed efficiently. We support capital increases that have sound business reasons and are not excessive relative to a company's existing capital base. |
Pre-emption rights are a fundamental right for shareholders to protect their investment in a company. Where companies seek to issue new shares whilst disapplying pre-emption rights, we may vote against if such authorities are greater than 20 percent of the issued share capital. We may also vote against resolutions that seek authority to issue capital with pre-emption rights if the aggregate amount allowed seems excessive and is not justified by the board. Generally, we oppose capital issuance proposals greater than 100 percent of the issued share capital when the proceeds are not intended for a specific purpose. | ||
Share Repurchase Programs | We typically support proposals to repurchase shares; however, there are exceptions in some cases. We do not support repurchases if the issuer does not clearly state the business purpose for the program, a definitive number of shares to be repurchased, the range of premium/discount to market price at which the company can repurchase shares, and the timeframe for the repurchase. We may vote against share repurchase requests that allow share repurchases during a takeover period. | |
Dividends | We generally support dividend payouts that constitute 30 percent or more of net income. We may vote against the dividend payouts if the dividend payout ratio has been consistently below 30 percent without adequate explanation or the payout is excessive given the company's financial position. Particular attention will be paid to cases in which the payment may damage the company's long-term financial health. | |
Related-Party Transactions | Some companies in European markets have a controlled ownership structure and complex cross-shareholdings between subsidiaries and parent companies (“related companies”). Such structures may result in the prevalence of related-party transactions between the company and its various stakeholders, such as directors and management, subsidiaries and shareholders. In markets where shareholders are required to approve such transactions, we expect companies to provide details of the transaction, such as the nature, the value and the purpose of such a transaction. We also encourage independent directors to ratify such transactions. Further, we encourage companies to describe the level of independent board oversight and the approval process, including details of any independent valuations provided by financial advisors on related-party transactions. | |
Mergers and Acquisitions | Mergers or restructurings often involve proposals relating to reincorporation, restructurings, mergers, liquidation and other major changes to the corporation. Proposals will be supported if they are in the best interest of the shareholders, which is demonstrated by enhancing share value or improving the effectiveness of the company's operations. In general, provisions that are not viewed as financially sound or are thought to be destructive to shareholders' rights are not supported. | |
We will generally support transactions that maximize shareholder value. Some of the considerations include: | ||
•Offer premium | ||
•Strategic rationale | ||
•Board oversight of the process for the recommended transaction, including director and/ or management conflicts of interest | ||
•Offers made at a premium and where there are no other higher bidders |
•Offers in which the secondary market price is substantially lower than the net asset value | ||
We may vote against a transaction considering the following: | ||
•Offers with potentially damaging consequences for minority shareholders because of illiquid stock | ||
•Offers where we believe there is a reasonable prospect for an enhanced bid or other bidders | ||
•The current market price of the security exceeds the bid price at the time of voting | ||
Anti–Takeover Measures | European markets have diverse regulations concerning the use of share issuances as takeover defenses, with legal restrictions lacking in some markets. We support the one-share, one-vote policy. For example, dual-class capital structures entrench certain shareholders and management, insulating them from possible takeovers. We oppose unlimited share issuance authorizations because they can be used as anti-takeover devices. They have the potential for substantial voting and earnings dilution. We also monitor the duration of time for authorities to issue shares, as well as whether there are restrictions and caps on multiple issuance authorities during the specified time periods. We oppose antitakeover defenses, such as authorities for the board when subject to a hostile takeover to issue warrants convertible into shares to existing shareholders. | |
Remuneration | ||
Executive Pay | Despite the differences among the various types of plans and awards, there is a simple underlying philosophy that guides our analysis of executive pay: there should be a direct relationship between remuneration and company performance over the long term. | |
Shareholders should have the opportunity to assess whether pay structures and levels are aligned with business performance. When assessing remuneration reports, we consider factors such as adequate disclosure of remuneration elements, absolute and relative pay levels, peer selection and benchmarking, the mix of long-term and short-term incentives, alignment of pay structures with shareholder interests, corporate strategy and performance. We may oppose remuneration reports where pay seems misaligned with shareholders' interests. We may also vote against the re-election of members of the remuneration committee if we have serious concerns about remuneration practices and if the company has not been responsive to shareholder pressure to review its approach. | ||
Equity Incentives Plans | We may not support proposals regarding equity-based incentive plans where insufficient information is provided on matters, including grant limits, performance metrics, performance and vesting periods, and overall dilution. Generally, we do not support options under such plans being issued at a discount to market price or plans that allow for retesting of performance metrics. |
Non–Executive Director Pay | In European markets, proposals seeking shareholder approval for non-executive directors' fees are generally not controversial. We typically support resolutions regarding directors' fees unless disclosure is poor and we are unable to determine whether the fees are excessive relative to fees paid by comparable companies. We will evaluate any non-cash or performance-related pay to non-executive directors on a company-by-company basis. | |
Risk Management | We believe that risk management is a key function of the board, which is responsible for setting the overall risk appetite of a company and for providing oversight on the risk management process established by senior executives at a company. We allow boards to have discretion regarding the ways in which they provide oversight in this area. However, we expect companies to disclose how the board provides oversight on its risk management system and risk identification. Boards should also review existing and emerging risks, as they can change with a changing political and economic landscape or as companies diversify or expand their operations into new areas. | |
Environmental and Social Issues | As a fiduciary, State Street Global Advisors takes a comprehensive approach to engaging with our portfolio companies about material environmental and social (sustainability) issues. We use our voice and our vote through engagement, proxy voting and thought leadership in order to communicate with issuers and educate market participants about our perspective on important sustainability topics. Our Asset Stewardship program prioritization process allows us to proactively identify companies for engagement and voting in order to mitigate sustainability risks in our portfolio. Through engagement, we address a broad range of topics that align with our stewardship priorities and build long-term relationships with issuers. When voting, we fundamentally consider whether the adoption of a shareholder proposal addressing a material sustainability issue would promote long-term shareholder value in the context of the company's existing practices and disclosures as well as existing market practice. | |
For more information on our approach to environmental and social issues, please see our Global Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines for Environmental and Social Issues and our Frameworks for Voting Environmental and Social Shareholder Proposals, both available at ssga.com/about-us/asset-stewardship.html. | ||
More Information | Any client who wishes to receive information on how its proxies were voted should contact its State Street Global Advisors relationship manager. |
About State Street Global Advisors | For four decades, State Street Global Advisors has served the world's governments, institutions and financial advisors. With a rigorous, risk-aware approach built on research, analysis and market-tested experience, we build from a breadth of active and index strategies to create cost-effective solutions. As stewards, we help portfolio companies see that what is fair for people and sustainable for the planet can deliver long-term performance. And, as pioneers in index, ETF, and ESG investing, we are always inventing new ways to invest. As a result, we have become the world's fourth-largest asset manager* with US $4.14 trillion† under our care. | |
* | Pensions & Investments Research Center, as of December 31, 2020. |
† | This figure is presented as of December 31, 2021 and includes approximately $61.43 billion of assets with respect to SPDR products for which State Street Global Advisors Funds Distributors, LLC (SSGA FD) acts solely as the marketing agent. SSGA FD and State Street Global Advisors are affiliated. |
March 2022 | |
Japan | |
Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines | |
State Street Global Advisors' Japan Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelinesi outline our expectations of companies listed on stock exchanges in Japan. These Guidelines complement and should be read in conjunction with State Street Global Advisors' overarching Global Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines, which provide a detailed explanation of our approach to voting and engaging with companies, and State Street Global Advisors' Conflict Mitigation Guidelines. | |
i | These Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines are also applicable to SSGA Funds Management, Inc. SSGA Funds Management, Inc. is an SEC-registered investment adviser. SSGA Funds Management, Inc., State Street Global Advisors Trust Company, and other advisory affiliates of State Street make up State Street Global Advisors, the investment management arm of State Street Corporation. |
State Street Global Advisors' Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines in Japan address areas including: board structure, audit related issues, capital structure, remuneration, environmental, social, and other governance-related issues. | ||
When voting and engaging with companies in Japan, State Street Global Advisors takes into consideration the unique aspects of Japanese corporate governance structures. We recognize that under Japanese corporate law, companies may choose between two structures of corporate governance: the statutory auditor system or the committee structure. Most Japanese boards predominantly consist of executives and non-independent outsiders affiliated through commercial relationships or cross-shareholdings. Nonetheless, when evaluating companies, State Street Global Advisors expects Japanese companies to address conflicts of interest and risk management and to demonstrate an effective process for monitoring management. In our analysis and research regarding corporate governance issues in Japan, we expect all companies at a minimum to comply with Japan's Corporate Governance Principles and proactively monitor companies' adherence to the principles. Consistent with the ‘comply or explain' expectations established by the Principles, we encourage companies to proactively disclose their level of compliance with the Principles. In instances of non-compliance when companies cannot explain the nuances of their governance structure effectively, either publicly or through engagement, we may vote against the board leader. | ||
State Street Global Advisors' Proxy Voting and Engagement Philosophy | In our view, corporate governance and sustainability issues are an integral part of the investment process. The Asset Stewardship Team consists of investment professionals with expertise in corporate governance and company law, remuneration, accounting, and environmental and social issues. We have established robust corporate governance principles and practices that are backed with extensive analytical expertise to understand the complexities of the corporate governance landscape. We engage with companies to provide insight on the principles and practices that drive our voting decisions. We also conduct proactive engagement to address significant shareholder concerns and environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) issues in a manner consistent with maximizing shareholder value. | |
The team works alongside members of State Street Global Advisors' Active Fundamental and Asia-Pacific (“APAC”) Investment Teams; the teams collaborate on issuer engagement and provide input on company specific fundamentals. We are also a member of various investor associations that seek to address broader corporate governance related policy issues in Japan. | ||
State Street Global Advisors is a signatory to the United Nations Principles of Responsible Investment (“UNPRI”) and is compliant with Japan's Stewardship Code and Corporate Governance Code. We are committed to sustainable investing and are working to further integrate ESG principles into investment and corporate governance practices where applicable and consistent with our fiduciary duty. |
Directors and Boards | Principally, we believe the primary responsibility of the board of directors is to preserve and enhance shareholder value and protect shareholder interests. In order to carry out their primary responsibilities, directors have to undertake activities that range from setting strategy and overseeing executive management to monitoring the risks that arise from a company's business, including risks related to sustainability issues. Further, good corporate governance necessitates the existence of effective internal controls and risk management systems, which should be governed by the board. | |
State Street Global Advisors believes that a well constituted board of directors with a balance of skills, expertise, and independence, provides the foundation for a well governed company. We view board quality as a measure of director independence, director succession planning, board diversity, evaluations and refreshment, and company governance practices. We vote for the (re-)election of directors on a case-by-case basis after considering various factors, including board quality, general market practice, and availability of information on director skills and expertise. In principle, we believe independent directors are crucial to robust corporate governance and help management establish sound corporate governance policies and practices. A sufficiently independent board will most effectively monitor management and perform oversight functions that are necessary to protect shareholder interests. | ||
Japanese companies have the option of having a traditional board of directors with statutory auditors, a board with a committee structure, or a hybrid board with a board level audit committee. We will generally support companies that seek shareholder approval to adopt a committee or hybrid board structure. | ||
Most Japanese issuers prefer the traditional statutory auditor structure. Statutory auditors act in a quasi-compliance role, as they are not involved in strategic decision-making nor are they part of the formal management decision process. Statutory auditors attend board meetings but do not have voting rights at the board; however, they have the right to seek an injunction and conduct broad investigations of unlawful behavior in the company's operations. | ||
State Street Global Advisors will support the election of statutory auditors, unless the outside statutory auditor nominee is regarded as non-independent based on our criteria, the outside statutory auditor has attended less than 75 percent of meetings of the board of directors or board of statutory auditors during the year under review, or the statutory auditor has been remiss in the performance of their oversight responsibilities (fraud, criminal wrong doing, and breach of fiduciary responsibilities). | ||
For companies with a statutory auditor structure there is no legal requirement that boards have outside directors; however, we believe there should be a transparent process of independent and external monitoring of management on behalf of shareholders. | ||
•We believe that boards of TOPIX 500 companies should have at least three independent directors or be at least one-third independent, whichever requires fewer independent directors. Otherwise, we may oppose the board leader who is responsible for the director nomination process. | ||
•For controlled, non-TOPIX 500 companies with a statutory auditor structure or hybrid structure, we may oppose the board leader if the board does not have at least two independent directors. |
•For non-controlled, non-TOPIX 500 companies with a statutory auditor structure or hybrid structure, State Street Global Advisors may oppose the board leader if the board does not have at least two independent directors. | |
For companies with a committee structure or a hybrid board structure, we also take into consideration the overall independence level of the committees. In determining director independence, we consider the following factors: | |
•Participation in related-party transactions and other business relations with the company | |
•Past employment with the company | |
•Professional services provided to the company | |
•Family ties with the company | |
Regardless of board structure, we may oppose the election of a director for the following reasons: | |
•Failure to attend board meetings | |
•In instances of egregious actions related to a director's service on the board | |
Board Gender Diversity | |
We expect boards of all listed companies to have at least one female board member. If a company fails to meet this expectation, State Street Global Advisors may vote against the Chair of the board's nominating committee or the board leader in the absence of a nominating committee, if necessary. Additionally, if a company fails to meet this expectation for three consecutive years, State Street Global Advisors may vote against all incumbent members of the nominating committee or those persons deemed responsible for the nomination process. | |
Incorporating R-Factor™ into Director Votes | |
R-Factor™ is a scoring system created by State Street Global Advisors that measures the performance of a company's business operations and governance as it relates to financially material ESG factors facing the company's industry. R-Factor™ encourages companies to manage and disclose material, industry-specific ESG risks and opportunities, thereby reducing investment risk across our own portfolio and the broader market. State Street Global Advisors may take voting action against board members at companies on the TOPIX 100 that are R-Factor™ laggards1 and momentum underperformers2 and cannot articulate how they plan to improve their score. | |
Indemnification and Limitations on Liability | |
Generally, State Street Global Advisors supports proposals to limit directors' and statutory auditors' liability and/or expand indemnification and liability protection up to the limit provided by law, if he or she has not acted in bad faith, gross negligence, or reckless disregard of the duties involved in the conduct of his or her office. We believe limitations and indemnification are necessary to attract and retain qualified directors. |
1 | Bottom 10 percent of scores relative to industry peers. |
2 | Have consistently underperformed their peers over the last two years; bottom 30 percent of scores relative to industry peers. |
Audit-Related Items | State Street Global Advisors believes that a company's auditor is an essential feature of an effective and transparent system of external supervision. Shareholders should have the opportunity to vote on the appointment of the auditor at the annual meeting. | |
Ratifying External Auditors | ||
We generally support the appointment of external auditors unless the external auditor is perceived as being non-independent and there are concerns about the accounts presented and the audit procedures followed. | ||
Approval of Financial Statements | ||
The disclosure and availability of reliable financial statements in a timely manner is imperative for the investment process. We expect external auditors to provide assurance of a company's financial condition. Hence, we will vote against the approval of financial statements if i) they have not been disclosed or audited; ii) the auditor opinion is qualified/adverse, or the auditor has issued a disclaimer of opinion; or iii) the auditor opinion is not disclosed. | ||
Limiting Legal Liability of External Auditors | ||
We generally oppose limiting the legal liability of audit firms as we believe this could create a negative impact on the quality of the audit function. | ||
Capital Structure, Reorganization, and Mergers | State Street Global Advisors supports the “one share one vote” policy and favors a share structure where all shares have equal voting rights. We support proposals to abolish voting caps or multiple voting rights and will oppose measures to introduce these types of restrictions on shareholder rights. | |
We believe pre-emption rights should be introduced for shareholders. This can provide adequate protection from excessive dilution due to the issuance of new shares or convertible securities to third parties or a small number of select shareholders. | ||
Unequal Voting Rights | ||
We generally oppose proposals authorizing the creation of new classes of common stock with superior voting rights. We will generally oppose new classes of preferred stock with unspecified voting, conversion, dividend distribution, and other rights. In addition, we will not support capitalization changes that add classes of stock with undefined voting rights or classes that may dilute the voting interests of existing shareholders. | ||
However, we will support capitalization changes that eliminate other classes of stock and/ or unequal voting rights. | ||
Increase in Authorized Capital | ||
We generally support increases in authorized capital where the company provides an adequate explanation for the use of shares. In the absence of an adequate explanation, we may oppose the request if the increase in authorized capital exceeds 100 percent of the currently authorized capital. Where share issuance requests exceed our standard threshold, we will consider the nature of the specific need, such as mergers, acquisitions and stock splits. |
Dividends | |
We generally support dividend payouts that constitute 30 percent or more of net income. We may vote against the dividend payouts if the dividend payout ratio has been consistently below 30 percent without adequate explanation; or, the payout is excessive given the company's financial position. Particular attention will be paid where the payment may damage the company's long-term financial health. | |
Share Repurchase Programs | |
Companies are allowed under Japan Corporate Law to amend their articles to authorize the repurchase of shares at the board's discretion. We will oppose an amendment to articles allowing the repurchase of shares at the board's discretion. We believe the company should seek shareholder approval for a share repurchase program at each year's AGM, providing shareholders the right to evaluate the purpose of the repurchase. | |
We generally support proposals to repurchase shares, unless the issuer does not clearly state the business purpose for the program, a definitive number of shares to be repurchased, and the timeframe for the repurchase. We may vote against share repurchase requests that allow share repurchases during a takeover period. | |
Mergers and Acquisitions | |
Mergers or reorganizing the structure of a company often involve proposals relating to reincorporation, restructurings, mergers, liquidations, and other major changes to the corporation. We will support proposals that are in the best interests of the shareholders, demonstrated by enhancing share value or improving the effectiveness of the company's operations. In general, provisions that are deemed to be destructive to shareholders' rights or financially detrimental are not supported. | |
We evaluate mergers and structural reorganizations on a case-by-case basis. We will generally support transactions that maximize shareholder value. Some of the considerations include, but are not limited to the following: | |
•Offer premium | |
•Strategic rationale | |
•Board oversight of the process for the recommended transaction, including director and/or management conflicts of interest | |
•Offers made at a premium and where there are no other higher bidders | |
•Offers in which the secondary market price is substantially lower than the net asset value | |
We may vote against a transaction considering the following: | |
•Offers with potentially damaging consequences for minority shareholders because of illiquid stock | |
•Offers where we believe there is a reasonable prospect for an enhanced bid or other bidders | |
•Offers in which the current market price of the security exceeds the bid price at the time of voting |
Anti-Takeover Measures | ||
In general, State Street Global Advisors believes that adoption of poison pills that have been structured to protect management and to prevent takeover bids from succeeding is not in shareholders' interest. A shareholder rights plan may lead to management entrenchment. It may also discourage legitimate tender offers and acquisitions. Even if the premium paid to companies with a shareholder rights plan is higher than that offered to unprotected firms, a company's chances of receiving a takeover offer in the first place may be reduced by the presence of a shareholder rights plan. | ||
Proposals that reduce shareholders' rights or have the effect of entrenching incumbent management will not be supported. | ||
Proposals that enhance the right of shareholders to make their own choices as to the desirability of a merger or other proposal are supported. | ||
Shareholder Rights Plans | ||
In evaluating the adoption or renewal of a Japanese issuer's shareholder rights plans (“poison pill”), we consider the following conditions: (i) release of proxy circular with details of the proposal with adequate notice in advance of meeting, (ii) minimum trigger of over 20 percent, (iii) maximum term of three years, (iv) sufficient number of independent directors, (v) presence of an independent committee, (vi) annual election of directors, and (vii) lack of protective or entrenchment features. Additionally, we consider the length of time that a shareholder rights plan has been in effect. | ||
In evaluating an amendment to a shareholder rights plan (“poison pill”), in addition to the conditions above, we will also evaluate and consider supporting proposals where the terms of the new plans are more favorable to shareholders' ability to accept unsolicited offers. | ||
Compensation | In Japan, excessive compensation is rarely an issue. Rather, the problem is the lack of connection between pay and performance. Fixed salaries and cash retirement bonuses tend to comprise a significant portion of the compensation structure while performance-based pay is generally a small portion of the total pay. State Street Global Advisors, where possible, seeks to encourage the use of performance-based compensation in Japan as an incentive for executives and as a way to align interests with shareholders. | |
Adjustments to Aggregate Compensation Ceiling for Directors | ||
Remuneration for directors is generally reasonable. Typically, each company sets the director compensation parameters as an aggregate thereby limiting the total pay to all directors. When requesting a change, a company must disclose the last time the ceiling was adjusted, and management provides the rationale for the ceiling increase. We will generally support proposed increases to the ceiling if the company discloses the rationale for the increase. We may oppose proposals to increase the ceiling if there has been corporate malfeasance or sustained poor performance. | ||
Annual Bonuses for Directors/Statutory Auditors | ||
In Japan, since there are no legal requirements that mandate companies to seek shareholder approval before awarding a bonus, we believe that existing shareholder approval of the bonus should be considered best practice. As a result, we support management proposals on executive compensation where there is a strong relationship between executive pay and performance over a five-year period. |
Retirement Bonuses for Directors/Statutory Auditors | ||
Retirement bonuses make up a sizeable portion of directors' and auditors' lifetime compensation and are based upon board tenure. While many companies in Japan have abolished this practice, there remain many proposals seeking shareholder approval for the total amounts paid to directors and statutory auditors as a whole. In general, we support these payments unless the recipient is an outsider or in instances where the amount is not disclosed. | ||
Stock Plans | ||
Most option plans in Japan are conservative, particularly at large companies. Japanese corporate law requires companies to disclose the monetary value of the stock options for directors and/or statutory auditors. Some companies do not disclose the maximum number of options that can be issued per year and shareholders are unable to evaluate the dilution impact. In this case, we cannot calculate the dilution level and, therefore, we may oppose such plans for poor disclosure. We also oppose plans that allow for the repricing of the exercise price. | ||
Deep Discount Options | ||
As Japanese companies move away from the retirement bonus system, deep discount options plans have become more popular. Typically, the exercise price is set at JPY 1 per share. We evaluate deep discount options using the same criteria used to evaluate stock options as well as considering the vesting period. | ||
Environmental and Social Issues | As a fiduciary, State Street Global Advisors takes a comprehensive approach to engaging with our portfolio companies about material environmental and social (sustainability) issues. We use our voice and our vote through engagement, proxy voting, and thought leadership in order to communicate with issuers and educate market participants about our perspective on important sustainability topics. Our Asset Stewardship program prioritization process allows us to proactively identify companies for engagement and voting in order to mitigate sustainability risks in our portfolio. Through engagement, we address a broad range of topics that align with our stewardship priorities and build long-term relationships with issuers. When voting, we fundamentally consider whether the adoption of a shareholder proposal addressing a material sustainability issue would promote long-term shareholder value in the context of the company's existing practices and disclosures as well as existing market practice. | |
For more information on our approach to environmental and social issues, please see our Global Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines for Environmental and Social Issues and our Frameworks for Voting Environmental and Social Shareholder Proposals, both available at ssga.com/about-us/asset-stewardship.html. | ||
Miscellaneous/ Routine Items | Expansion of Business Activities | |
Japanese companies' articles of incorporation strictly define the types of businesses in which a company is permitted to engage. In general, State Street Global Advisors views proposals that expand and diversify the company's business activities as routine and non-contentious. We will monitor instances in which there has been an inappropriate acquisition and diversification away from the company's main area of competence that resulted in a decrease of shareholder value. |
More Information | Any client who wishes to receive information on how its proxies were voted should contact its State Street Global Advisors relationship manager. | |
About State Street Global Advisors | For four decades, State Street Global Advisors has served the world's governments, institutions and financial advisors. With a rigorous, risk-aware approach built on research, analysis and market-tested experience, we build from a breadth of active and index strategies to create cost-effective solutions. As stewards, we help portfolio companies see that what is fair for people and sustainable for the planet can deliver long-term performance. And, as pioneers in index, ETF, and ESG investing, we are always inventing new ways to invest. As a result, we have become the world's fourth-largest asset manager* with US $4.14 trillion† under our care. | |
* | Pensions & Investments Research Center, as of December 31, 2020. |
† | This figure is presented as of December 31, 2021 and includes approximately $61.43 billion of assets with respect to SPDR products for which State Street Global Advisors Funds Distributors, LLC (SSGA FD) acts solely as the marketing agent. SSGA FD and State Street Global Advisors are affiliated. |
March 2022 | |
North America (United States & Canada) | |
Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines | |
State Street Global Advisors' North America Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelinesi outline our expectations of companies listed on stock exchanges in the US and Canada. These Guidelines complement and should be read in conjunction with State Street Global Advisors' Global Proxy Voting and Engagement Principles, which provide a detailed explanation of our approach to voting and engaging with companies, and State Street Global Advisors' Conflict Mitigation Guidance. | |
i | These Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines are also applicable to SSGA Funds Management, Inc. SSGA Funds Management, Inc. is an SEC-registered investment adviser. SSGA Funds Management, Inc., State Street Global Advisors Trust Company, and other advisory affiliates of State Street make up State Street Global Advisors, the investment management arm of State Street Corporation. |
State Street Global Advisors' North America Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines address areas, including board structure, director tenure, audit related issues, capital structure, executive compensation, as well as environmental, social, and other governance-related issues of companies listed on stock exchanges in the US and Canada (“North America”). | ||
When voting and engaging with companies in global markets, we consider market specific nuances in the manner that we believe will most likely protect and promote the long-term economic value of client investments. We expect companies to observe the relevant laws and regulations of their respective markets, as well as country specific best practice guidelines and corporate governance codes. When we feel that a country's regulatory requirements do not address some of the key philosophical principles that we believe are fundamental to its global voting guidelines, we may hold companies in such markets to our global standards. | ||
In its analysis and research about corporate governance issues in North America, we expect all companies to act in a transparent manner and to provide detailed disclosure on board profiles, related-party transactions, executive compensation, and other governance issues that impact shareholders' long-term interests. Further, as a founding member of the Investor Stewardship Group (“ISG”), we proactively monitor companies' adherence to the Corporate Governance Principles for US listed companies. Consistent with the “comply-or-explain” expectations established by the principles, we encourage companies to proactively disclose their level of compliance with the principles. In instances of non-compliance when companies cannot explain the nuances of their governance structure effectively, either publicly or through engagement, we may vote against the independent board leader. | ||
State Street Global Advisors' Proxy Voting and Engagement Philosophy | Corporate governance and sustainability issues are an integral part of the investment process. The Asset Stewardship Team consists of investment professionals with expertise in corporate governance and company law, remuneration, accounting, and environmental and social issues. We have established robust corporate governance principles and practices that are backed with extensive analytical expertise to understand the complexities of the corporate governance landscape. We engage with companies to provide insight on the principles and practices that drive our voting decisions. We also conduct proactive engagements to address significant shareholder concerns and environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) issues in a manner consistent with maximizing shareholder value. | |
The team works alongside members of State Street Global Advisors' Active Fundamental and various other investment teams, collaborating on issuer engagements and providing input on company specific fundamentals. We are also a member of various investor associations that seek to address broader corporate governance related policy issues in North America. | ||
State Street Global Advisors is a signatory to the United Nations Principles of Responsible Investment (“UNPRI”) and is compliant with the US Investor Stewardship Group Principles. We are committed to sustainable investing and are working to further integrate ESG principles into investment and corporate governance practices, where applicable and consistent with our fiduciary duty. |
Directors and Boards | Principally, we believe the primary responsibility of the board of directors is to preserve and enhance shareholder value and protect shareholder interests. In order to carry out their primary responsibilities, directors have to undertake activities that range from setting strategy and overseeing executive management to monitoring the risks that arise from a company's business, including risks related to sustainability issues. Further, good corporate governance necessitates the existence of effective internal controls and risk management systems, which should be governed by the board. | |
State Street Global Advisors believes that a well constituted board of directors, with a balance of skills, expertise, and independence, provides the foundations for a well governed company. We view board quality as a measure of director independence, director succession planning, board diversity, evaluations and refreshment, and company governance practices. We vote for the election/re-election of directors on a case-by-case basis after considering various factors, including board quality, general market practice, and availability of information on director skills and expertise. In principle, we believe independent directors are crucial to robust corporate governance and help management establish sound corporate governance policies and practices. A sufficiently independent board will most effectively monitor management and perform oversight functions necessary to protect shareholder interests. | ||
Director-related proposals include issues submitted to shareholders that deal with the composition of the board or with members of a corporation's board of directors. In deciding the director nominee to support, we consider numerous factors. | ||
Director Elections | ||
Our director election guideline focuses on companies' governance profile to identify if a company demonstrates appropriate governance practices or if it exhibits negative governance practices. Factors we consider when evaluating governance practices include, but are not limited to the following: | ||
•Shareholder rights | ||
•Board independence | ||
•Board structure | ||
If a company demonstrates appropriate governance practices, we believe a director should be classified as independent based upon the relevant listing standards or local market practice standards. In such cases, the composition of the key oversight committees of a board should meet the minimum standards of independence. Accordingly, we will vote against a nominee at a company with appropriate governance practices if the director is classified as non-independent under relevant listing standards or local market practice and serves on a key committee of the board (compensation, audit, nominating, or committees required to be fully independent by local market standards). | ||
Conversely, if a company demonstrates negative governance practices, State Street Global Advisors believes the classification standards for director independence should be elevated. In such circumstances, we will evaluate all director nominees based upon the following classification standards: | ||
•Is the nominee an employee of or related to an employee of the issuer or its auditor? | ||
•Does the nominee provide professional services to the issuer |
•Has the nominee attended an appropriate number of board meetings? | |
•Has the nominee received non-board related compensation from the issuer? | |
In the US market where companies demonstrate negative governance practices, these stricter standards will apply not only to directors who are a member of a key committee but to all directors on the board as market practice permits. Accordingly, we will vote against a nominee (with the exception of the CEO) where the board has inappropriate governance practices and is considered not independent based on the above independence criteria. | |
Additionally, we may withhold votes from directors based on the following: | |
•Overall average board tenure is excessive. In assessing excessive tenure, we consider factors such as the preponderance of long tenured directors, board refreshment practices, and classified board structures | |
•Directors attend less than 75 percent of board meetings without appropriate explanation or providing reason for their failure to meet the attendance threshold | |
•Directors of companies that have not been responsive to a shareholder proposal that received a majority shareholder support at the last annual or special meeting | |
•Consideration can be warranted if management submits the proposal(s) on the ballot as a binding management proposal, recommending shareholders vote for the particular proposal(s) | |
•Directors of companies have unilaterally adopted/ amended company bylaws that negatively impact our shareholder rights (such as fee-shifting, forum selection, and exclusion service bylaws) without putting such amendments to a shareholder vote | |
•Compensation committee members where there is a weak relationship between executive pay and performance over a five-year period | |
•Audit committee members if non-audit fees exceed 50 percent of total fees paid to the auditors | |
•Directors who appear to have been remiss in their duties | |
Board Gender Diversity | |
We expect boards of all listed companies to have at least one female board member. If a company fails to meet this expectation, State Street Global Advisors may vote against the Chair of the board's nominating committee or the board leader in the absence of a nominating committee, if necessary. Additionally, if a company fails to meet this expectation for three consecutive years, State Street Global Advisors may vote against all incumbent members of the nominating committee. | |
Board Racial/Ethnic Diversity | |
We believe that companies have a responsibility to effectively manage and disclose risks and opportunities related to racial and ethnic diversity. If a company in the S&P 500 does not disclose, at minimum, the gender, racial and ethnic composition of its board, we may vote against the Chair of the nominating committee. We may withhold support from the Chair of the nominating committee also when a company in the S&P 500 does not have at least one director from an underrepresented community on its board. |
Workforce Diversity | |
We may vote against the Chair of the compensation committee at companies in the S&P 500 that do not disclose their EEO-1 reports. Acceptable disclosures include: | |
•The original EEO-1 report response | |
•The exact content of the report translated into custom graphics | |
Director Time Commitments | |
When voting on the election or re-election of a director, we also consider the number of outside board directorships a non-executive and an executive may undertake. Thus, State Street Global Advisors may take voting action against a director who exceeds the number of board mandates listed below: | |
•Named Executive Officers (NEOs) of a public company who sit on more than two public company boards | |
•Non-executive board chairs or lead independent directors who sit on more than three public company boards | |
•Director nominees who sit on more than four public company boards | |
For non-executive board chairs/lead independent directors and director nominees who hold excessive commitments, as defined above, we may consider waiving our policy and vote in support of a director if a company discloses its director commitment policy in a publicly available manner (e.g., corporate governance guidelines, proxy statement, company website). This policy or associated disclosure must include: | |
•A numerical limit on public company board seats a director can serve on | |
• This limit cannot exceed our policy by more than one seat | |
•Consideration of public company board leadership positions (e.g., Committee Chair) | |
•Affirmation that all directors are currently compliant with the company policy | |
•Description of an annual policy review process undertaken by the Nominating Committee to evaluate outside director time commitments | |
If a director is imminently leaving a board and this departure is disclosed in a written, time-bound and publicly-available manner, we may consider waiving our withhold vote when evaluating the director for excessive time commitments. | |
Service on a mutual fund board, the board of a UK investment trust or a Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC) board is not considered when evaluating directors for excessive commitments. However, we do expect these roles to be considered by nominating committees when evaluating director time commitments. | |
Incorporating R-Factor™ into Director Votes | |
R-Factor™ is a scoring system created by State Street Global Advisors that measures the performance of a company's business operations and governance as it relates to financially material ESG factors facing the company's industry. R-Factor™ encourages companies to manage and disclose material, industry-specific ESG risks and opportunities, thereby reducing investment risk across our own portfolio and the broader market. State Street Global Advisors may take voting action against the senior independent board leader at companies on the S&P 500 that are R-Factor™ laggards1 and momentum underperformers2 and cannot articulate how they plan to improve their score. |
Climate-related Disclosure | |
We believe climate change poses a systemic risk to all companies in our portfolio. | |
State Street Global Advisors has publicly supported the global regulatory efforts to establish a mandatory baseline of climate risk disclosures for all companies. Until these consistent disclosure standards are established, we find that the recommendations of the Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) provide the most effective framework by which companies can develop strategies to plan for climate-related risks and make their businesses more resilient to the impacts of climate change. | |
As such, we may vote against the independent board leader at companies in the S&P 500 and S&P/TSX Composite that fail to provide sufficient disclosure in accordance with the TCFD framework, including: | |
•Board oversight of climate-related risks and opportunities | |
•Total Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions | |
•Targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions | |
Director-Related Proposals | |
We generally vote for the following director-related proposals: | |
•Discharge of board members' duties, in the absence of pending litigation, regulatory investigation, charges of fraud, or other indications of significant concern | |
•Proposals to restore shareholders' ability in order to remove directors with or without cause | |
•Proposals that permit shareholders to elect directors to fill board vacancies | |
•Shareholder proposals seeking disclosure regarding the company, board, or compensation committee's use of compensation consultants, such as company name, business relationship(s), and fees paid | |
We generally vote against the following director-related proposals: | |
•Requirements that candidates for directorships own large amounts of stock before being eligible to be elected | |
•Proposals that relate to the “transaction of other business as properly comes before the meeting,” which extend “blank check” powers to those acting as proxy | |
•Proposals requiring two candidates per board seat | |
Majority Voting | |
We will generally support a majority vote standard based on votes cast for the election of directors. | |
We will generally vote to support amendments to bylaws that would require simple majority of voting shares (i.e. shares cast) to pass or to repeal certain provisions. |
1 | Bottom 10 percent of scores relative to industry peers. |
2 | Have consistently underperformed their peers over the last two years; bottom 30 percent of scores relative to industry peers. |
Annual Elections | |
We generally support the establishment of annual elections of the board of directors. Consideration is given to the overall level of board independence and the independence of the key committees, as well as the existence of a shareholder rights plan. | |
Cumulative Voting | |
We do not support cumulative voting structures for the election of directors. | |
Separation Chair/CEO | |
We analyze proposals for the separation of Chair/CEO on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration numerous factors, including the appointment of and role played by a lead director, a company's performance, and the overall governance structure of the company. | |
However, we may take voting action against the chair or members of the nominating committee at S&P 500 companies that have combined the roles of chair and CEO and have not appointed a lead independent director. | |
Proxy Access | |
In general, we believe that proxy access is a fundamental right and an accountability mechanism for all long-term shareholders. We will consider proposals relating to proxy access on a case-by-case basis. We will support shareholder proposals that set parameters to empower long-term shareholders while providing management the flexibility to design a process that is appropriate for the company's circumstances. | |
We will review the terms of all other proposals and will support those proposals that have been introduced in the spirit of enhancing shareholder rights. | |
Considerations include the following: | |
•The ownership thresholds and holding duration proposed in the resolution | |
•The binding nature of the proposal | |
•The number of directors that shareholders may be able to nominate each year | |
•Company governance structure | |
•Shareholder rights | |
•Board performance | |
Age/Term Limits | |
Generally, we will vote against age and term limits unless the company is found to have poor board refreshment and director succession practices, and has a preponderance of non-executive directors with excessively long tenures serving on the board. | |
Approve Remuneration of Directors | |
Generally, we will support directors' compensation, provided the amounts are not excessive relative to other issuers in the market or industry. In making our determination, we review whether the compensation is overly dilutive to existing shareholders. |
Indemnification | ||
Generally, we support proposals to limit directors' liability and/or expand indemnification and liability protection if he or she has not acted in bad faith, gross negligence, or reckless disregard of the duties involved in the conduct of his or her office. | ||
Classified Boards | ||
We generally support annual elections for the board of directors. | ||
Confidential Voting | ||
We will support confidential voting. | ||
Board Size | ||
We will support proposals seeking to fix the board size or designate a range for the board size and will vote against proposals that give management the ability to alter the size of the board outside of a specified range without shareholder approval. | ||
Board Responsiveness | ||
We may vote against the re-election of members of the compensation committee if we have serious concerns about remuneration practices and if the company has not been responsive to shareholder pressure to review its approach. In addition, if the level of dissent against a management proposal on executive pay is consistently high, and we have determined that a vote against a pay-related proposal is warranted in the third consecutive year, we may vote against the Chair of the compensation committee. | ||
Audit-Related Issues | Ratifying Auditors and Approving Auditor Compensation | |
We support the approval of auditors and auditor compensation provided that the issuer has properly disclosed audit and non-audit fees relative to market practice and the audit fees are not deemed excessive. We deem audit fees to be excessive if the non-audit fees for the prior year constituted 50 percent or more of the total fees paid to the auditor. We will also support the disclosure of auditor and consulting relationships when the same or related entities are conducting both activities and will support the establishment of a selection committee responsible for the final approval of significant management consultant contract awards where existing firms are already acting in an auditing function. | ||
In circumstances where “other” fees include fees related to initial public offerings, bankruptcy emergence, and spin-offs, and the company makes public disclosure of the amount and nature of those fees which are determined to be an exception to the standard “non-audit fee” category, then such fees may be excluded from the non-audit fees considered in determining the ratio of non-audit to audit/audit-related fees/tax compliance and preparation for purposes of determining whether non-audit fees are excessive. | ||
We will support the discharge of auditors and requirements that auditors attend the annual meeting of shareholders.3 | ||
3 | Common for non-US issuers; request from the issuer to discharge from liability the directors or auditors with respect to actions taken by them during the previous year. |
Approval of Financial Statements | ||
The disclosure and availability of reliable financial statements in a timely manner is imperative for the investment process. We expect external auditors to provide assurance of a company's financial condition. Hence, we will vote against the approval of financial statements if i) they have not been disclosed or audited; ii) the auditor opinion is qualified/ adverse, or the auditor has issued a disclaimer of opinion; or iii) the auditor opinion is not disclosed. | ||
Capital-Related Issues | Capital structure proposals include requests by management for approval of amendments to the certificate of incorporation that will alter the capital structure of the company. | |
The most common request is for an increase in the number of authorized shares of common stock, usually in conjunction with a stock split or dividend. Typically, we support requests that are not unreasonably dilutive or enhance the rights of common shareholders. In considering authorized share proposals, the typical threshold for approval is 100 percent over current authorized shares. However, the threshold may be increased if the company offers a specific need or purpose (merger, stock splits, growth purposes, etc.). All proposals are evaluated on a case-by-case basis taking into account the company's specific financial situation. | ||
Increase in Authorized Common Shares | ||
In general, we support share increases for general corporate purposes up to 100 percent of current authorized stock. | ||
We support increases for specific corporate purposes up to 100 percent of the specific need plus 50 percent of current authorized common stock for US and Canadian firms. | ||
When applying the thresholds, we will also consider the nature of the specific need, such as mergers and acquisitions and stock splits. | ||
Increase in Authorized Preferred Shares | ||
We vote on a case-by-case basis on proposals to increase the number of preferred shares. | ||
Generally, we will vote for the authorization of preferred stock in cases where the company specifies the voting, dividend, conversion, and other rights of such stock and the terms of the preferred stock appear reasonable. | ||
We will support proposals to create “declawed” blank check preferred stock (stock that cannot be used as a takeover defense). However, we will vote against proposals to increase the number of blank check preferred stock authorized for issuance when no shares have been issued or reserved for a specific purpose. | ||
Unequal Voting Rights | ||
We will not support proposals authorizing the creation of new classes of common stock with superior voting rights and will vote against new classes of preferred stock with unspecified voting, conversion, dividend distribution, and other rights. In addition, we will not support capitalization changes that add “blank check” classes of stock (i.e. classes of stock with undefined voting rights) or classes that dilute the voting interests of existing shareholders. | ||
However, we will support capitalization changes that eliminate other classes of stock and/ or unequal voting rights. |
Mergers and Acquisitions | Mergers or the reorganization of the structure of a company often involve proposals relating to reincorporation, restructurings, liquidations, and other major changes to the corporation. | |
Proposals that are in the best interests of the shareholders, demonstrated by enhancing share value or improving the effectiveness of the company's operations, will be supported. | ||
In general, provisions that are not viewed as economically sound or are thought to be destructive to shareholders' rights are not supported. | ||
We will generally support transactions that maximize shareholder value. Some of the considerations include the following: | ||
•Offer premium | ||
•Strategic rationale | ||
•Board oversight of the process for the recommended transaction, including, director and/or management conflicts of interest | ||
•Offers made at a premium and where there are no other higher bidders | ||
•Offers in which the secondary market price is substantially lower than the net asset value | ||
We may vote against a transaction considering the following: | ||
•Offers with potentially damaging consequences for minority shareholders because of illiquid stock, especially in some non-US markets | ||
•Offers where we believe there is a reasonable prospect for an enhanced bid or other bidders | ||
•The current market price of the security exceeds the bid price at the time of voting | ||
Anti–Takeover Issues | Typically, these are proposals relating to requests by management to amend the certificate of incorporation or bylaws to add or to delete a provision that is deemed to have an anti-takeover effect. The majority of these proposals deal with management's attempt to add some provision that makes a hostile takeover more difficult or will protect incumbent management in the event of a change in control of the company. | |
Proposals that reduce shareholders' rights or have the effect of entrenching incumbent management will not be supported. | ||
Proposals that enhance the right of shareholders to make their own choices as to the desirability of a merger or other proposal are supported. | ||
Shareholder Rights Plans | ||
US We will support mandates requiring shareholder approval of a shareholder rights plans (“poison pill”) and repeals of various anti-takeover related provisions. | ||
In general, we will vote against the adoption or renewal of a US issuer's shareholder rights plan (“poison pill”). |
We will vote for an amendment to a shareholder rights plan (“poison pill”) where the terms of the new plans are more favorable to shareholders' ability to accept unsolicited offers (i.e. if one of the following conditions are met: (i) minimum trigger, flip-in or flip-over of 20 percent, (ii) maximum term of three years, (iii) no “dead hand,” “slow hand,” “no hand” nor similar feature that limits the ability of a future board to redeem the pill, and (iv) inclusion of a shareholder redemption feature (qualifying offer clause), permitting ten percent of the shares to call a special meeting or seek a written consent to vote on rescinding the pill if the board refuses to redeem the pill 90 days after a qualifying offer is announced). | |
Canada We analyze proposals for shareholder approval of a shareholder rights plan (“poison pill”) on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration numerous factors, including but not limited to, whether it conforms to ‘new generation' rights plans and the scope of the plan. | |
Special Meetings | |
We will vote for shareholder proposals related to special meetings at companies that do not provide shareholders the right to call for a special meeting in their bylaws if: | |
•The company also does not allow shareholders to act by written consent | |
•The company allows shareholders to act by written consent but the ownership threshold for acting by written consent is set above 25 percent of outstanding shares | |
We will vote for shareholder proposals related to special meetings at companies that give shareholders (with a minimum 10 percent ownership threshold) the right to call for a special meeting in their bylaws if: | |
•The current ownership threshold to call for a special meeting is above 25 percent of outstanding shares | |
We will vote for management proposals related to special meetings. | |
Written Consent | |
We will vote for shareholder proposals on written consent at companies if: | |
•The company does not have provisions in their bylaws giving shareholders the right to call for a special meeting | |
•The company allows shareholders the right to call for a special meeting, but the current ownership threshold to call for a special meeting is above 25 percent of outstanding shares | |
•The company has a poor governance profile | |
We will vote management proposals on written consent on a case-by-case basis. | |
Super–Majority | |
We will generally vote against amendments to bylaws requiring super-majority shareholder votes to pass or repeal certain provisions. We will vote for the reduction or elimination of super-majority vote requirements, unless management of the issuer was concurrently seeking to or had previously made such a reduction or elimination. |
Remuneration Issues | Despite the differences among the types of plans and the awards possible there is a simple underlying philosophy that guides the analysis of all compensation plans; namely, the terms of the plan should be designed to provide an incentive for executives and/or employees to align their interests with those of the shareholders and thus work toward enhancing shareholder value. Plans that benefit participants only when the shareholders also benefit are those most likely to be supported. | |
Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation and Frequency | ||
State Street Global Advisors believes executive compensation plays a critical role in aligning executives' interest with shareholders', attracting, retaining and incentivizing key talent, and ensuring positive correlation between the performance achieved by management and the benefits derived by shareholders. We support management proposals on executive compensation where there is a strong relationship between executive pay and performance over a five-year period. We seek adequate disclosure of various compensation elements, absolute and relative pay levels, peer selection and benchmarking, the mix of long-term and short-term incentives, alignment of pay structures with shareholder interests as well as with corporate strategy, and performance. Further shareholders should have the opportunity to assess whether pay structures and levels are aligned with business performance on an annual basis. | ||
In Canada, where advisory votes on executive compensation are not commonplace, we will rely primarily upon engagement to evaluate compensation plans. | ||
Employee Equity Award Plans | ||
We consider numerous criteria when examining equity award proposals. Generally we do not vote against plans for lack of performance or vesting criteria. Rather the main criteria that will result in a vote against an equity award plan are: | ||
Excessive voting power dilution To assess the dilutive effect, we divide the number of shares required to fully fund the proposed plan, the number of authorized but unissued shares and the issued but unexercised shares by the fully diluted share count. We review that number in light of certain factors, such as the industry of the issuer. | ||
Historical option grants Excessive historical option grants over the past three years. Plans that provide for historical grant patterns of greater than five to eight percent are generally not supported. | ||
Repricing We will vote against any plan where repricing is expressly permitted. If a company has a history of repricing underwater options, the plan will not be supported. | ||
Other criteria include the following: | ||
•Number of participants or eligible employees | ||
•The variety of awards possible | ||
•The period of time covered by the plan | ||
There are numerous factors that we view as negative. If combined they may result in a vote against a proposal. Factors include: | ||
•Grants to individuals or very small groups of participants | ||
•“Gun-jumping” grants which anticipate shareholder approval of a plan or amendment |
•The power of the board to exchange “underwater” options without shareholder approval. This pertains to the ability of a company to reprice options, not the actual act of repricing described above | ||
•Below market rate loans to officers to exercise their options | ||
•The ability to grant options at less than fair market value; | ||
•Acceleration of vesting automatically upon a change in control | ||
•Excessive compensation (i.e. compensation plans which we deem to be overly dilutive) | ||
Share Repurchases If a company makes a clear connection between a share repurchase program and its intent to offset dilution created from option plans and the company fully discloses the amount of shares being repurchased, the voting dilution calculation may be adjusted to account for the impact of the buy back. | ||
Companies will not have any such repurchase plan factored into the dilution calculation if they do not (i) clearly state the intentions of any proposed share buy-back plan, (ii) disclose a definitive number of the shares to be bought back, (iii) specify the range of premium/discount to market price at which a company can repurchase shares, and (iv) disclose the time frame during which the shares will be bought back. | ||
162(m) Plan Amendments If a plan would not normally meet our criteria described above, but was primarily amended to add specific performance criteria to be used with awards that were designed to qualify for performance-based exception from the tax deductibility limitations of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, then we will support the proposal to amend the plan. | ||
Employee Stock Option Plans | ||
We generally vote for stock purchase plans with an exercise price of not less than 85 percent of fair market value. However, we take market practice into consideration. | ||
Compensation-Related Items | ||
We generally support the following proposals: | ||
•Expansions to reporting of financial or compensation-related information within reason | ||
•Proposals requiring the disclosure of executive retirement benefits if the issuer does not have an independent compensation committee | ||
We generally vote against the following proposal: | ||
•Retirement bonuses for non-executive directors and auditors | ||
Miscellaneous/Routine Items | We generally support the following miscellaneous/routine governance items: | |
•Reimbursement of all appropriate proxy solicitation expenses associated with the election when voting in conjunction with support of a dissident slate | ||
•Opting-out of business combination provision | ||
•Proposals that remove restrictions on the right of shareholders to act independently of management |
•Liquidation of the company if the company will file for bankruptcy if the proposal is not approved | ||
•Shareholder proposals to put option repricings to a shareholder vote | ||
•General updating of, or corrective amendments to, charter and bylaws not otherwise specifically addressed herein, unless such amendments would reasonably be expected to diminish shareholder rights (e.g. extension of directors' term limits, amending shareholder vote requirement to amend the charter documents, insufficient information provided as to the reason behind the amendment) | ||
•Change in corporation name | ||
•Mandates that amendments to bylaws or charters have shareholder approval | ||
•Management proposals to change the date, time, and/or location of the annual meeting unless the proposed change is unreasonable | ||
•Repeals, prohibitions or adoption of anti-greenmail provisions | ||
•Management proposals to implement a reverse stock split when the number of authorized shares will be proportionately reduced and proposals to implement a reverse stock split to avoid delisting | ||
•Exclusive forum provisions | ||
State Street Global Advisors generally does not support the following miscellaneous/ routine governance items: | ||
•Proposals requesting companies to adopt full tenure holding periods for their executives | ||
•Reincorporation to a location that we believe has more negative attributes than its current location of incorporation | ||
•Shareholder proposals to change the date, time, and/or location of the annual meeting unless the current scheduling or location is unreasonable | ||
•Proposals to approve other business when it appears as a voting item | ||
•Proposals giving the board exclusive authority to amend the bylaws | ||
•Proposals to reduce quorum requirements for shareholder meetings below a majority of the shares outstanding unless there are compelling reasons to support the proposal | ||
Environmental and Social Issues | As a fiduciary, State Street Global Advisors takes a comprehensive approach to engaging with our portfolio companies about material environmental and social (sustainability) issues. We use our voice and our vote through engagement, proxy voting, and thought leadership in order to communicate with issuers and educate market participants about our perspective on important sustainability topics. Our Asset Stewardship program prioritization process allows us to proactively identify companies for engagement and voting in order to mitigate sustainability risks in our portfolio. Through engagement, we address a broad range of topics that align with our stewardship priorities and build long-term relationships with issuers. When voting, we fundamentally consider whether the adoption of a shareholder proposal addressing a material sustainability issue would promote long-term shareholder value in the context of the company's existing practices and disclosures as well as existing market practice. |
For more information on our approach to environmental and social issues, please see our Global Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines for Environmental and Social Issues and our Frameworks for Voting Environmental and Social Shareholder Proposals, both available at ssga.com/about-us/asset-stewardship.html. | ||
More Information | Any client who wishes to receive information on how its proxies were voted should contact its State Street Global Advisors relationship manager. | |
About State Street Global Advisors | For four decades, State Street Global Advisors has served the world's governments, institutions and financial advisors. With a rigorous, risk-aware approach built on research, analysis and market-tested experience, we build from a breadth of active and index strategies to create cost-effective solutions. As stewards, we help portfolio companies see that what is fair for people and sustainable for the planet can deliver long-term performance. And, as pioneers in index, ETF, and ESG investing, we are always inventing new ways to invest. As a result, we have become the world's fourth-largest asset manager* with US $4.14 trillion† under our care. | |
* | Pensions & Investments Research Center, as of December 31, 2020. |
† | This figure is presented as of December 31, 2021 and includes approximately $61.43 billion of assets with respect to SPDR products for which State Street Global Advisors Funds Distributors, LLC (SSGA FD) acts solely as the marketing agent. SSGA FD and State Street Global Advisors are affiliated. |
March 2022 | |
United Kingdom and Ireland | |
Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines | |
State Street Global Advisors' United Kingdom and Ireland Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelinesi outline our expectations of companies listed on stock exchanges in the United Kingdom and Ireland. These Guidelines complement and should be read in conjunction with State Street Global Advisors' Global Proxy Voting and Engagement Principles, which provide a detailed explanation of our approach to voting and engaging with companies, and State Street Global Advisors' Conflict Mitigation Guidelines. | |
i | These Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines are also applicable to SSGA Funds Management, Inc. SSGA Funds Management, Inc. is an SEC-registered investment adviser. SSGA Funds Management, Inc., State Street Global Advisors Trust Company, and other advisory affiliates of State Street make up State Street Global Advisors, the investment management arm of State Street Corporation. |
State Street Global Advisors' United Kingdom (“UK”) and Ireland Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines address areas including board structure, audit-related issues, capital structure, remuneration, environmental, social and other governance-related issues. | ||
When voting and engaging with companies in global markets, we consider market specific nuances in the manner that we believe will most likely protect and promote the long-term economic value of client investments. We expect companies to observe the relevant laws and regulations of their respective markets, as well as country-specific best practice guidelines and corporate governance codes. When we identify that a country's regulatory requirements do not address some of the key philosophical principles that we believe are fundamental to our global voting guidelines, we may hold companies in such markets to our global standards. | ||
In our analysis and research into corporate governance issues in the UK and Ireland, we expect all companies that obtain a primary listing on the London Stock Exchange or the Irish Stock Exchange, regardless of domicile, to comply with the UK Corporate Governance Code, and proactively monitor companies' adherence to the Code. Consistent with the ‘comply or explain' expectations established by the Code, we encourage companies to proactively disclose their level of compliance with the Code. In instances of non-compliance in which companies cannot explain the nuances of their governance structure effectively, either publicly or through engagement, we may vote against the independent board leader. | ||
State Street Global Advisors' Proxy Voting and Engagement Philosophy | In our view, corporate governance and sustainability issues are an integral part of the investment process. The Asset Stewardship Team consists of investment professionals with expertise in corporate governance and company law, remuneration, accounting, and environmental and social issues. We have established robust corporate governance principles and practices that are backed with extensive analytical expertise to understand the complexities of the corporate governance landscape. We engage with companies to provide insight on the principles and practices that drive our voting decisions. We also conduct proactive engagement to address significant shareholder concerns and environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) issues in a manner consistent with maximizing shareholder value. | |
The team works alongside members of State Street Global Advisors' Active Fundamental and Europe, Middle East and Africa (“EMEA”) Investment teams. We collaborate on issuer engagements and provide input on company specific fundamentals. We are also a member of various investor associations that seek to address broader corporate governance related policy issues in the UK and European markets. | ||
State Street Global Advisors is a signatory to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment (“UNPRI”) and is compliant with the UK Stewardship Code. We are committed to sustainable investing, and are working to further integrate ESG principles into investment and corporate governance practice where applicable and consistent with our fiduciary duty. |
Directors and Boards | Principally, we believe the primary responsibility of a board of directors is to preserve and enhance shareholder value and to protect shareholder interests. In order to carry out their primary responsibilities, directors have to undertake activities that range from setting strategy, overseeing executive management, and monitoring the risks that arise from a company's business, including risks related to sustainability issues. Further, good corporate governance necessitates the existence of effective internal controls and risk management systems, which should be governed by the board. | |
We believe that a well constituted board of directors, with a balance of skills, expertise and independence, provides the foundations for a well governed company. We view board quality as a measure of director independence, director succession planning, board diversity, evaluations and refreshment, and company governance practices. We vote for the (re-)election of directors on a case-by-case basis after considering various factors, including board quality, general market practice, and availability of information on director skills and expertise. In principle, we believe independent directors are crucial to robust corporate governance and help management establish sound corporate governance policies and practices. A sufficiently independent board will most effectively monitor management and perform oversight functions necessary to protect shareholder interests. | ||
Our broad criteria for director independence for UK companies include factors such as: | ||
•Participation in related-party transactions and other business relations with the company | ||
•Employment history with company | ||
•Excessive tenure and a preponderance of long-tenured directors | ||
•Relations with controlling shareholders | ||
•Family ties with any of the company's advisers, directors or senior employees | ||
•Company classification of a director as non-independent | ||
When voting on the election or re-election of a director, we also consider the number of outside board directorships a non-executive and an executive may undertake. Thus, we may withhold votes from board chairs and lead independent directors who sit on more than three public company boards, and from non-executive directors who hold more than four public company board mandates. We may also take voting action against Named Executive Officers who undertake more than two public board memberships. Service on a mutual fund board or a UK investment trust is not considered when evaluating directors for excessive commitments. | ||
We also consider attendance at board meetings and may withhold votes from directors who attend less than 75 percent of board meetings in a given year without appropriate explanation or providing reason for their failure to meet the attendance threshold. In addition, we monitor other factors that may influence the independence of a non-executive director, such as performance-related pay, cross-directorships and significant shareholdings. | ||
We support the annual election of directors. |
While we are generally supportive of having the roles of chair and CEO separated in the UK market, we assess the division of responsibilities between chair and CEO on a case-by-case basis, giving consideration to factors such as the company's specific circumstances, overall level of independence on the board and general corporate governance standards in the company. Similarly, we monitor for circumstances in which a combined chair/CEO is appointed or a former CEO becomes chair. | |
We may also consider factors such as board performance and directors who appear to be remiss in the performance of their oversight responsibilities when considering their suitability for reappointment (e.g. fraud, criminal wrongdoing and breach of fiduciary responsibilities). | |
We believe companies should have committees for audit, remuneration and nomination oversight. The audit committee is responsible for monitoring the integrity of the financial statements of the company, the appointment of external auditors, auditor qualifications and independence, and effectiveness and resource levels. Similarly, executive pay is an important aspect of corporate governance, and it should be determined by the board of directors. We expect companies to have remuneration committees to provide independent oversight over executive pay. We will vote against nominees who are executive members of audit or remuneration committees. | |
We consider whether board members have adequate skills to provide effective oversight of corporate strategy, operations and risks, including environmental and social issues. Boards should also have a regular evaluation process in place to assess the effectiveness of the board and the skills of board members to address issues such as emerging risks, changes to corporate strategy, and diversification of operations and geographic footprint. The nomination committee is responsible for evaluating and reviewing the balance of skills, knowledge, and experience of the board. It also ensures that adequate succession plans are in place for directors and the CEO. We may vote against the re-election of members of the nomination committee if, over time, the board has failed to address concerns over board structure or succession. | |
Poorly structured executive compensation plans pose increasing reputational risk to companies. Ongoing high level of dissent against a company's compensation proposals may indicate that the company is not receptive to investor concerns. If the level of dissent against a company's remuneration report and/or remuneration policy is consistently high, and we have determined that a vote against a pay-related proposal is warranted in the third consecutive year, we will vote against the Chair of the remuneration committee. | |
Board Gender Diversity | |
We expect boards of all listed companies to have at least one female board member. If a company fails to meet this expectation, State Street Global Advisors may vote against the chair of the board's nominating committee or the board leader in the absence of a nominating committee, if necessary. Additionally, if a company fails to meet this expectation for three consecutive years, State Street Global Advisors may vote against all incumbent members of the nominating committee. |
Board Racial/Ethnic Diversity | |
We believe that companies have a responsibility to effectively manage and disclose risks and opportunities related to racial and ethnic diversity. If a company in the FTSE 100 does not disclose, at minimum, the gender, racial and ethnic composition of its board, we will vote against the Chair of the nominating committee. We may withhold support from the Chair of the nominating committee also when a company in the FTSE 100 does not have at least one director from an underrepresented community on its board. | |
Director Time Commitments | |
When voting on the election or re-election of a director, we also consider the number of outside board directorships a non-executive and an executive may undertake. Thus, State Street Global Advisors may take voting action against a director who exceeds the number of board mandates listed below: | |
•Named Executive Officers (NEOs) of a public company who sit on more than two public company boards | |
•Non-executive board chairs or lead independent directors who sit on more than three public company boards | |
•Director nominees who sit on more than four public company boards | |
For non-executive board chairs/lead independent directors and director nominees who hold excessive commitments, as defined above, we may consider waiving our policy and vote in support of a director if a company discloses its director commitment policy in a publicly available manner (e.g., corporate governance guidelines, proxy statement, company website). This policy or associated disclosure must include: | |
•A numerical limit on public company board seats a director can serve on | |
• This limit cannot exceed our policy by more than one seat | |
•Consideration of public company board leadership positions (e.g., Committee Chair) | |
•Affirmation that all directors are currently compliant with the company policy | |
•Description of an annual policy review process undertaken by the Nominating Committee to evaluate outside director time commitments | |
If a director is imminently leaving a board and this departure is disclosed in a written, time-bound and publicly-available manner, we may consider waiving our withhold vote when evaluating the director for excessive time commitments. | |
Service on a mutual fund board, the board of a UK investment trust or a Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC) board is not considered when evaluating directors for excessive commitments. However, we do expect these roles to be considered by nominating committees when evaluating director time commitments. | |
Incorporating R-FactorTM into Director Votes |
R-FactorTM is a scoring system created by State Street Global Advisors that measures the performance of a company's business operations and governance as it relates to financially material ESG factors facing the company's industry. R-FactorTM encourages companies to manage and disclose material, industry-specific ESG risks and opportunities, thereby reducing investment risk across our own portfolio and the broader market. State Street Global Advisors may take voting action against the independent board leader at companies listed on the FTSE 350 that are R-FactorTM laggards1 and momentum underperformers2 and cannot articulate how they plan to improve their score. | ||
Climate-related Disclosure | ||
We believe climate change poses a systemic risk to all companies in our portfolio. | ||
State Street Global Advisors has publicly supported the global regulatory efforts to establish a mandatory baseline of climate risk disclosures for all companies. Until these consistent disclosure standards are established, we find that the recommendations of the Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) provide the most effective framework by which companies can develop strategies to plan for climate-related risks and make their businesses more resilient to the impacts of climate change. | ||
As such, we may vote against the independent board leader at companies in the FTSE 350 that fail to provide sufficient disclosure in accordance with the TCFD framework, including: | ||
•Board oversight of climate-related risks and opportunities | ||
•Total Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions | ||
•Targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions | ||
Indemnification and Limitations on Liability | ||
Generally, we support proposals to limit directors' liability and/or expand indemnification and liability protection up to the limit provided by law. This holds if a director has not acted in bad faith, gross negligence, nor reckless disregard of the duties involved in the conduct of his or her office. | ||
Audit-Related Issues | Companies should have robust internal audit and internal control systems designed for effective management of any potential and emerging risks to company operations and strategy. The responsibility of setting out an internal audit function lies with the audit committee, which should have as members independent non-executive directors. |
1 | Bottom 10 percent of scores relative to industry peers. |
2 | Have consistently underperformed their peers over the last two years; bottom 30 percent of scores relative to industry peers. |
Appointment of External Auditors | ||
State Street Global Advisors believes that a company's auditor is an essential feature of an effective and transparent system of external supervision. Shareholders should be given the opportunity to vote on their appointment or re-appoint at the annual meeting. When appointing external auditors and approving audit fees, we take into consideration the level of detail in company disclosures and will generally not support such resolutions if an adequate breakdown is not provided and if non-audit fees are more than 50% of audit fees. In addition, we may vote against members of the audit committee if we have concerns with audit-related issues or if the level of non-audit fees to audit fees is significant. In certain circumstances, we may consider auditor tenure when evaluating the audit process. | ||
Limit Legal Liability of External Auditors | ||
We generally oppose limiting the legal liability of audit firms because we believe this could create a negative impact on the quality of the audit function. | ||
Approval of Financial Statements | ||
The disclosure and availability of reliable financial statements in a timely manner is imperative for the investment process. We expect external auditors to provide assurance of a company's financial condition. Hence, we will vote against the approval of financial statements if i) they have not been disclosed or audited; ii) the auditor opinion is qualified/ adverse, or the auditor has issued a disclaimer of opinion; or iii) the auditor opinion is not disclosed. | ||
Shareholder Rights and Capital-Related Issues | Share Issuances | |
The ability to raise capital is critical for companies to carry out strategy, to grow, and to achieve returns above their cost of capital. The approval of capital raising activities is essential to shareholders' ability to monitor returns and to ensure capital is deployed efficiently. We support capital increases that have sound business reasons and are not excessive relative to a company's existing capital base. | ||
Pre-emption rights are a fundamental right for shareholders to protect their investment in a company. Where companies seek to issue new shares without pre-emption rights, we may vote against if such authorities are greater than 20% of the issued share capital. We may also vote against resolutions that seek authority to issue capital with pre-emption rights if the aggregate amount allowed seems excessive and is not justified by the board. Generally, we are against capital issuance proposals greater than 100% of the issued share capital when the proceeds are not intended for a specific purpose. | ||
Share Repurchase Programs | ||
We generally support a proposal to repurchase shares. However, this is not the case if the issuer does not clearly state the business purpose for the program, a definitive number of shares to be repurchased, the range of premium/discount to market price at which a company can repurchase shares, and the timeframe for the repurchase. We may vote against share repurchase requests that allow share repurchases during a takeover period. |
Dividends | ||
We generally support dividend payouts that constitute 30% or more of net income. We may vote against the dividend payouts if the dividend payout ratio has been consistently below 30% without adequate explanation or the payout is excessive given the company's financial position. Particular attention will be paid where the payment may damage the company's long term financial health. | ||
Mergers and Acquisitions | ||
Mergers or reorganizing the structure of a company often involve proposals relating to reincorporation, restructurings, mergers, liquidations, and other major changes to the corporation. Proposals that are in the best interests of the shareholders, demonstrated by enhancing share value or improving the effectiveness of the company's operations, will be supported. In general, provisions that are not viewed as financially sound or are thought to be destructive to shareholders' rights and are not supported. | ||
We will generally support transactions that maximize shareholder value. Some of the considerations include the following: | ||
•Offer premium | ||
•Strategic rationale | ||
•Board oversight of the process for the recommended transaction, including, director and/ or management conflicts of interest | ||
•Offers made at a premium and where there are no other higher bidders | ||
•Offers in which the secondary market price is substantially lower than the net asset value | ||
We may vote against a transaction considering the following: | ||
•Offers with potentially damaging consequences for minority shareholders because of illiquid stock | ||
•Offers in which we believe there is a reasonable prospect for an enhanced bid or other bidders | ||
•The current market price of the security exceeds the bid price at the time of voting | ||
Anti-Takeover Measures | ||
We oppose anti-takeover defenses such as authorities for the board when subject to a hostile takeover to issue warrants convertible into shares to existing shareholders. | ||
Notice Period to Convene a General Meeting | ||
We expect companies to give as much notice as is practicable when calling a general meeting. Generally, we are not supportive of authorizations seeking to reduce the notice period to 14 days. | ||
Remuneration | Executive Pay | |
Despite the differences among the types of plans and awards possible, there is a simple underlying philosophy that guides our analysis of executive pay: there should be a direct relationship between remuneration and company performance over the long term. |
Shareholders should have the opportunity to assess whether pay structures and levels are aligned with business performance. When assessing remuneration policies and reports, we consider adequate disclosure of various remuneration elements, absolute and relative pay levels, peer selection and benchmarking, the mix of long-term and short- term incentives, alignment of pay structures with shareholder interests as well as with corporate strategy and performance. We may oppose remuneration reports where pay seems misaligned with shareholders' interests. We may also vote against the re-election of members of the remuneration committee if we have serious concerns about remuneration practices or if the company has not been responsive to shareholder concerns. | ||
Equity Incentive Plans | ||
We may not support proposals on equity-based incentive plans where insufficient information is provided on matters such as grant limits, performance metrics, performance, vesting periods, and overall dilution. Generally we do not support options under such plans being issued at a discount to market price or plans that allow for re-testing of performance metrics. | ||
Non-Executive Director Pay | ||
Authorities that seek shareholder approval for non-executive directors' fees are generally not controversial. We typically support resolutions regarding directors' fees unless disclosure is poor and we are unable to determine whether they are excessive relative to fees paid by comparable companies. We will evaluate any non-cash or performance related pay to non-executive directors on a company- by-company basis. | ||
Risk Management | State Street Global Advisors believes that risk management is a key function of the board, which is responsible for setting the overall risk appetite of a company and for providing oversight of the risk management process established by senior executives at a company. We allow boards to have discretion over how they provide oversight in this area. We expect companies to disclose how the board provides oversight on its risk management system and risk identification. Boards should also review existing and emerging risks as they can evolve with a changing political and economic landscape or as companies diversify their operations into new areas. | |
Environmental and Social Issues | As a fiduciary, State Street Global Advisors takes a comprehensive approach to engaging with our portfolio companies about material environmental and social (sustainability) issues. We use our voice and our vote through engagement, proxy voting, and thought leadership in order to communicate with issuers and educate market participants about our perspective on important sustainability topics. Our Asset Stewardship program prioritization process allows us to proactively identify companies for engagement and voting in order to mitigate sustainability risks in our portfolio. Through engagement, we address a broad range of topics that align with our stewardship priorities and build long-term relationships with issuers. When voting, we fundamentally consider whether the adoption of a shareholder proposal addressing a material sustainability issue would promote long-term shareholder value in the context of the company's existing practices and disclosures as well as existing market practice. | |
For more information on our approach to environmental and social issues, please see our Global Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines for Environmental and Social Issues and Frameworks for Voting Environmental and Social Shareholder Proposals, both available at ssga.com/about-us/asset-stewardship.html. |
More Information | Any client who wishes to receive information on how its proxies were voted should contact its State Street Global Advisors relationship manager. | |
About State Street Global Advisors | For four decades, State Street Global Advisors has served the world's governments, institutions and financial advisors. With a rigorous, risk-aware approach built on research, analysis and market-tested experience, we build from a breadth of active and index strategies to create cost-effective solutions. As stewards, we help portfolio companies see that what is fair for people and sustainable for the planet can deliver long-term performance. And, as pioneers in index, ETF, and ESG investing, we are always inventing new ways to invest. As a result, we have become the world's fourth-largest asset manager* with US $4.14 trillion† under our care. | |
* | Pensions & Investments Research Center, as of December 31, 2020. |
† | This figure is presented as of December 31, 2021 and includes approximately $61.43 billion of assets with respect to SPDR products for which State Street Global Advisors Funds Distributors, LLC (SSGA FD) acts solely as the marketing agent. SSGA FD and State Street Global Advisors are affiliated. |
March 2022 | |
Rest of the World | |
Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines | |
State Street Global Advisors' Rest of the World Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelinesi cover different corporate governance frameworks and practices in international markets not covered under specific country/regional guidelines. These Guidelines complement and should be read in conjunction with State Street Global Advisors' overarching Global Proxy Voting and Engagement Principles, which provide a detailed explanation of our approach to voting and engaging with companies, and State Street Global Advisors' Conflict Mitigation Guidelines. | |
i | These Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines are also applicable to SSGA Funds Management, Inc. SSGA Funds Management, Inc. is an SEC-registered investment adviser. SSGA Funds Management, Inc., State Street Global Advisors Trust Company, and other advisory affiliates of State Street make up State Street Global Advisors, the investment management arm of State Street Corporation. |
At State Street Global Advisors, we recognize that markets not covered under specific country/regional guidelines, specifically emerging markets, are disparate in their corporate governance frameworks and practices. While they tend to pose broad common governance issues across all markets, such as concentrated ownership, poor disclosure of financial and related-party transactions, and weak enforcement of rules and regulation, our proxy voting Guidelines are designed to identify and to address specific governance concerns in each market. We also evaluate the various factors that contribute to the corporate governance framework of a country. These factors include, but are not limited to: (i) the macroeconomic conditions and broader political system in a country; (ii) quality of regulatory oversight, enforcement of property and shareholder rights; and (iii) the independence of judiciary. | ||
State Street Global Advisors' Proxy Voting and Engagement Philosophy in Emerging Markets | State Street Global Advisors' approach to proxy voting and issuer engagement in emerging markets is designed to increase the value of our investments through the mitigation of governance risks. The overall quality of the corporate governance framework in an emerging market country drives the level of governance risks investors assign to a country. Thus, improving the macro governance framework in a country may help to reduce governance risks and to increase the overall value of our holdings over time. In order to improve the overall governance framework and practices in a country, members of our Asset Stewardship Team endeavor to engage with representatives from regulatory agencies and stock markets to highlight potential concerns with the macro governance framework of a country. We are also a member of various investor associations that seek to address broader corporate governance-related policy issues in emerging markets. To help mitigate company-specific risk, the State Street Global Advisors Asset Stewardship Team works alongside members of the Active Fundamental and emerging market specialists to engage with emerging market companies on governance issues and address any specific concerns, or to get more information regarding shareholder items that are to be voted on at upcoming shareholder meetings. This integrated approach to engagement drives our proxy voting and engagement philosophy in emerging markets. | |
Our proxy voting Guidelines in emerging markets address six broad areas: | ||
•Directors and Boards | ||
•Accounting and Audit-Related Issues | ||
•Shareholder Rights and Capital-Related Issues | ||
•Remuneration | ||
•Environmental and Social Issues | ||
•General/Routine Issues |
Directors and Boards | We believe that a well constituted board of directors, with a balance of skills, expertise and independence, provides the foundation for a well governed company. However, several factors, such as low overall independence level requirements by market regulators, poor biographical disclosure of director profiles, prevalence of related-party transactions, and the general resistance from controlling shareholders to increase board independence, render the election of directors as one of the most important fiduciary duties we perform in emerging market companies. | |
We vote for the election/re-election of directors on a case-by-case basis after considering various factors, including general market practice and availability of information on director skills and expertise. We expect companies to meet minimum overall board independence standards, as defined in a local corporate governance code or market practice. Therefore, in several countries, we will vote against certain non-independent directors if overall board independence levels do not meet market standards. | ||
Our broad criteria for director independence in emerging market companies include factors such as: | ||
•Participation in related-party transactions | ||
•Employment history with company | ||
•Relations with controlling shareholders and employees | ||
•Company classification of a director as non-independent | ||
In some countries, market practice calls for the establishment of a board level audit committee. We believe an audit committee should be responsible for monitoring the integrity of the financial statements of a company and appointing external auditors. It should also monitor their qualifications, independence, effectiveness and resource levels. Based upon our desire to enhance the quality of financial and accounting oversight provided by independent directors, we expect that listed companies have an audit committee constituted of a majority of independent directors. | ||
Further, we expect boards of listed companies in all markets and indices to have at least one female board member. If a company fails to meet this expectation, State Street Global Advisors may vote against the Chair of the board's nominating committee or the board leader in the absence of a nominating committee, if necessary. Additionally, if a company fails to meet this expectation for three consecutive years, State Street Global Advisors may vote against all incumbent members of the nominating committee or those persons deemed responsible for the nomination process. We may waive the policy if a company engages with State Street Global Advisors and provides a specific, timebound plan for adding at least one woman to its board. | ||
Poorly structured executive compensation plans pose increasing reputational risk to companies. Ongoing high level of dissent against a company's compensation proposals may indicate that the company is not receptive to investor concerns. If the level of dissent against a company's remuneration report and/or remuneration policy is consistently high, and we have determined that a vote against a pay-related proposal is warranted in the third consecutive year, we will vote against the Chair of the remuneration committee. |
Audit-Related Issues | The disclosure and availability of reliable financial statements in a timely manner is imperative for the investment process. As a result, board oversight of internal controls and the independence of the audit process are essential if investors are to rely upon financial statements. We believe that audit committees provide the necessary oversight for the selection and appointment of auditors, the company's internal controls and the accounting policies, and the overall audit process. | |
Appointment of External Auditors | ||
We believe that a company's auditor is an essential feature of an effective and transparent system of external supervision. Shareholders should be given the opportunity to vote on their appointment or re-appointment at the annual meeting. We believe that it is imperative for audit committees to select outside auditors who are independent from management. | ||
Approval of Financial Statements | The disclosure and availability of reliable financial statements in a timely manner is imperative for the investment process. We expect external auditors to provide assurance of a company's financial condition. Hence, we will vote against the approval of financial statements if i) they have not been disclosed or audited; ii) the auditor opinion is qualified/adverse, or the auditor has issued a disclaimer of opinion; or iii) the auditor opinion is not disclosed. | |
Shareholder Rights and Capital-Related Issues | State Street Global Advisors believes that changes to a company's capital structure, such as changes in authorized share capital, share repurchase and debt issuances, are critical decisions made by the board. We believe the company should have a business rationale that is consistent with corporate strategy and should not overly dilute its shareholders. | |
Related-Party Transactions | ||
Most companies in emerging markets have a controlled ownership structure that often includes complex cross-shareholdings between subsidiaries and parent companies (“related companies”). As a result, there is a high prevalence of related-party transactions between the company and its various stakeholders, such as directors and management. In addition, inter-group loan and loan guarantees provided to related companies are some of the other related-party transactions that increase the risk profile of companies. In markets where shareholders are required to approve such transactions, we expect companies to provide details about the transaction, such as its nature, value and purpose. This also encourages independent directors to ratify such transactions. Further, we encourage companies to describe the level of independent board oversight and the approval process, including details of any independent valuations provided by financial advisors on related-party transactions. | ||
Share Repurchase Programs | ||
With regard to share repurchase programs, we expect companies to clearly state the business purpose for the program and a definitive number of shares to be repurchased. |
Mergers and Acquisitions | ||
Mergers or reorganization of the structure of a company often involve proposals relating to reincorporation, restructurings, liquidations and other major changes to the corporation. Proposals that are in the best interest of the shareholders, demonstrated by enhancing share value or improving the effectiveness of the company's operations, will be supported. In general, provisions that are not viewed as financially sound or are thought to be destructive to shareholders' rights are not supported. | ||
We evaluate mergers and structural reorganizations on a case-by-case basis. We generally support transactions that maximize shareholder value. Some of the considerations include, but are not limited to, the following: | ||
•Offer premium | ||
•Strategic rationale | ||
•Board oversight of the process for the recommended transaction, including director and/ or management conflicts of interest | ||
•Offers made at a premium and where there are no other higher bidders | ||
•Offers in which the secondary market price is substantially lower than the net asset value | ||
We may vote against a transaction considering the following: | ||
•Offers with potentially damaging consequences for minority shareholders because of illiquid stock | ||
•Offers where we believe there is a reasonable prospect for an enhanced bid or other bidders | ||
•The current market price of the security exceeds the bid price at the time of voting | ||
We will actively seek direct dialogue with the board and management of companies that we have identified through our screening processes. Such engagements may lead to further monitoring to ensure the company improves its governance or sustainability practices. In these cases, the engagement process represents the most meaningful opportunity for State Street Global Advisors to protect long-term shareholder value from excessive risk due to poor governance and sustainability practices. | ||
Remuneration | We consider it to be the board's responsibility to set appropriate levels of executive remuneration. Despite the differences among the types of plans and the potential awards, there is a simple underlying philosophy that guides our analysis of executive remuneration: there should be a direct relationship between executive compensation and company performance over the long term. In emerging markets, we encourage companies to disclose information on senior executive remuneration. |
Shareholders should have the opportunity to assess whether pay structures and levels are aligned with business performance. When assessing remuneration reports, we consider factors such as adequate disclosure of remuneration elements, absolute and relative pay levels, peer selection and benchmarking, the mix of long-term and short-term incentives, alignment of pay structures with shareholder interests, corporate strategy and performance. We may oppose remuneration reports where pay seems misaligned with shareholders' interests. We may also vote against the re-election of members of the remuneration committee if we have serious concerns about remuneration practices and if the company has not been responsive to shareholder pressure to review its approach. With regard to director remuneration, we support director pay provided the amounts are not excessive relative to other issuers in the market or industry, and are not overly dilutive to existing shareholders. | ||
Environmental and Social Issues | As a fiduciary, State Street Global Advisors takes a comprehensive approach to engaging with our portfolio companies about material environmental and social (sustainability) issues. We use our voice and our vote through engagement, proxy voting and thought leadership in order to communicate with issuers and educate market participants about our perspective on important sustainability topics. Our Asset Stewardship program prioritization process allows us to proactively identify companies for engagement and voting in order to mitigate sustainability risks in our portfolio. Through engagement, we address a broad range of topics that align with our stewardship priorities and build long-term relationships with issuers. When voting, we fundamentally consider whether the adoption of a shareholder proposal addressing a material sustainability issue would promote long-term shareholder value in the context of the company's existing practices and disclosures as well as existing market practice. | |
For more information on our approach to environmental and social issues, please see our Global Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines for Environmental and Social Issues and our Frameworks for Voting Environmental and Social Shareholder Proposals, both available at ssga.com/about-us/asset-stewardship.html. | ||
General/Routine Issues | Some of the other issues that are routinely voted on in emerging markets include approving the allocation of income and accepting financial statements and statutory reports. For these voting items, our guidelines consider several factors, such as historical dividend payouts, pending litigation, governmental investigations, charges of fraud, or other indication of significant concerns. | |
More Information | Any client who wishes to receive information on how its proxies were voted should contact its State Street Global Advisors relationship manager. |
About State Street Global Advisors | For four decades, State Street Global Advisors has served the world's governments, institutions and financial advisors. With a rigorous, risk-aware approach built on research, analysis and market-tested experience, we build from a breadth of active and index strategies to create cost-effective solutions. As stewards, we help portfolio companies see that what is fair for people and sustainable for the planet can deliver long-term performance. And, as pioneers in index, ETF, and ESG investing, we are always inventing new ways to invest. As a result, we have become the world's fourth-largest asset manager* with US $4.14 trillion† under our care. | |
* | Pensions & Investments Research Center, as of December 31, 2020. |
† | This figure is presented as of December 31, 2021 and includes approximately $61.43 billion of assets with respect to SPDR products for which State Street Global Advisors Funds Distributors, LLC (SSGA FD) acts solely as the marketing agent. SSGA FD and State Street Global Advisors are affiliated. |
• | The personnel responsible for monitoring corporate actions, deciding how to vote proxies and confirming that proxies are submitted in a timely manner; |
• | The basis on which decisions are made regarding whether and how to vote proxies depending on the nature of the matter at issue; |
• | The approach to addressing material conflicts of interest that may arise between BXC and the Clients when voting proxies and how the Firm resolves those conflicts in the best interest of the Clients; |
• | The means by which the Clients and their investors may obtain information about proxy voting; and |
• | The books and records that BXC retains in connection with proxy voting. |
• | A copy of these proxy voting policies and procedures (maintained by the LCD); |
• | A copy of each proxy statement received by BXC regarding Client securities; |
• | A record of each vote cast by BXC on behalf of a Client; |
• | A copy of all memoranda or similar documents created by BXC that were material to making a decision on the voting of Client securities or that memorialize the basis for that decision (maintained by relevant deal team members); and |
• | A copy of each written request by an investor for information on how BXC voted proxies on behalf of a Client, and a copy of any written response by BXC to any request (written or oral) by an investor for information on how BXC voted proxies on behalf of the Client (maintained by ICS). |
1 | In determining whether the cost of voting a proxy outweighs its expected benefit to Clients, the relevant Portfolio Manager may consider factors such as (1) the subject matter of the vote; (2) the additional length of time that BXC anticipates holding the investment; (3) logistical issues associated with voting proxies for foreign companies; and (4) whether the Client is subject to ERISA. |
I. | Background |
II. | Issue |
III. | Policy – Proxies and Corporate Actions; Role of Third-Party Proxy Agent |
1 | The Commission clarified an investment adviser's proxy voting responsibilities in an August 2019 release (IA-5325). The Commission further published supplementary guidance, effective September 3, 2020, regarding the proxy voting responsibilities of investment advisers (IA-5547). |
IV. | Proofs of Claim |
V. | Class Actions Policy |
VI. | Procedures for Lent Securities and Issuers in Share-blocking Countries |
VII. | Proxy Voting Committee; Oversight |
VIII. | Procedures for Material Conflicts of Interest |
IX. | Procedures for Proxy Solicitation |
X. | Additional Procedures for the Funds |
XI. | Recordkeeping |
A. | DoubleLine must maintain the documentation described in this Policy for a period of not less than five (5) years from the end of the fiscal year during which the last entry was made on such record, the first two (2) years at its principal place of business. DoubleLine will be responsible for the following procedures and for ensuring that the required documentation is retained, including with respect to class action claims or corporate actions other than proxy voting. DoubleLine has engaged Glass Lewis to retain the aforementioned proxy voting records on behalf of DoubleLine (and its Clients). |
B. | Client request to review proxy votes: |
C. | Examples of proxy voting records: |
- | Documents prepared or created by DoubleLine in connection with DoubleLine's reasonable investigation (or more detailed analysis) of a matter, or that were material to making a decision on how to vote, or that memorialized the basis for the decision. Documentation or notes or any communications received from third parties, other industry analysts, third party service providers, company's management discussions, etc. that were material in the basis for the decision. |
XII. | Disclosure |
• | For trustee nominees in uncontested elections |
• | For management nominees in contested elections |
• | For ratifying auditors, except against if the previous auditor was dismissed because of a disagreement with the company or if the fees for non-audit services exceed 51% of total fees |
• | For changing the company name |
• | For approving other business |
• | For adjourning the meeting |
• | For technical amendments to the charter and/or bylaws |
• | For approving financial statements |
• | For increasing authorized common stock |
• | For decreasing authorized common stock |
• | For amending authorized common stock |
• | For the issuance of common stock, except against if the issued common stock has superior voting rights |
• | For approving the issuance or exercise of stock warrants |
• | For authorizing preferred stock, except against if the board has unlimited rights to set the terms and conditions of the shares |
• | For increasing authorized preferred stock, except against if the board has unlimited rights to set the terms and conditions of the shares |
• | For decreasing authorized preferred stock |
• | For canceling a class or series of preferred stock |
• | For amending preferred stock |
• | For issuing or converting preferred stock, except against if the shares have voting rights superior to those of other shareholders |
• | For eliminating preemptive rights |
• | For creating or restoring preemptive rights |
• | Against authorizing dual or multiple classes of common stock |
• | For eliminating authorized dual or multiple classes of common stock |
• | For amending authorized dual or multiple classes of common stock |
• | For increasing authorized shares of one or more classes of dual or multiple classes of common stock, except against if it will allow the company to issue additional shares with superior voting rights |
• | For a stock repurchase program |
• | For a stock split |
• | For a reverse stock split, except against if the company does not intend to proportionally reduce the number of authorized shares |
• | For merging with or acquiring another company |
• | For recapitalization |
• | For restructuring the company |
• | For bankruptcy restructurings |
• | For liquidations |
• | For reincorporating in a different state |
• | For spinning off certain company operations or divisions |
• | For the sale of assets |
• | Against eliminating cumulative voting |
• | For adopting cumulative voting |
• | For limiting the liability of trustees |
• | For setting the board size |
• | For allowing the trustees to fill vacancies on the board without shareholder approval |
• | Against giving the board the authority to set the size of the board as needed without shareholder approval |
• | For a proposal regarding the removal of trustees, except against if the proposal limits the removal of trustees to cases where there is legal cause |
• | For non-technical amendments to the company's certificate of incorporation, except against if an amendment would have the effect of reducing shareholders' rights |
• | For non-technical amendments to the company's bylaws, except against if an amendment would have the effect of reducing shareholder's rights |
• | Against a classified board |
• | Against amending a classified board |
• | For repealing a classified board |
• | Against ratifying or adopting a shareholder rights plan (poison pill) |
• | Against redeeming a shareholder rights plan (poison pill) |
• | Against eliminating shareholders' right to call a special meeting |
• | Against limiting shareholders' right to call a special meeting |
• | For restoring shareholders' right to call a special meeting |
• | Against eliminating shareholders' right to act by written consent |
• | Against limiting shareholders' right to act by written consent |
• | For restoring shareholders' right to act by written consent |
• | Against establishing a supermajority vote provision to approve a merger or other business combination |
• | For amending a supermajority vote provision to approve a merger or other business combination, except against if the amendment would increase the vote required to approve the transaction |
• | For eliminating a supermajority vote provision to approve a merger or other business combination |
• | Against adopting supermajority vote requirements (lock-ins) to change certain bylaw or charter provisions |
• | Against amending supermajority vote requirements (lock-ins) to change certain bylaw or charter provisions |
• | For eliminating supermajority vote requirements (lock-ins) to change certain bylaw or charter provisions |
• | Against expanding or clarifying the authority of the board of trustees to consider factors other than the interests of shareholders in assessing a takeover bid |
• | Against establishing a fair price provision |
• | Against amending a fair price provision |
• | For repealing a fair price provision |
• | For limiting the payment of greenmail |
• | Against adopting advance notice requirements |
• | For opting out of a state takeover statutory provision |
• | Against opt into a state takeover statutory provision |
• | For adopting a stock incentive plan for employees, except decide on a case-by-case basis if the plan dilution is more than 5% of outstanding common stock or if the potential dilution from all company plans, including the one proposed, is more than 10% of outstanding common stock |
• | For amending a stock incentive plan for employees, except decide on a case-by-case basis if the minimum potential dilution from all company plans, including the one proposed, is more than 10% of outstanding common stock |
• | For adding shares to a stock incentive plan for employees, except decide on a case-by-case basis if the plan dilution is more than 5% of outstanding common stock or if the potential dilution from all company plans, including the one proposed, is more than 10% of outstanding common stock |
• | For limiting per-employee option awards |
• | For extending the term of a stock incentive plan for employees |
• | Case-by-case on assuming stock incentive plans |
• | For adopting a stock incentive plan for non-employee trustees, except decide on a case-by-case basis if the plan dilution is more than 5% of outstanding common equity or if the minimum potential dilution from all plans, including the one proposed, is more than 10% of outstanding common equity |
• | For amending a stock incentive plan for non-employee trustees, except decide on a case-by-case basis if the minimum potential dilution from all plans, including the one proposed, is more than 10% of outstanding common equity |
• | For adding shares to a stock incentive plan for non-employee trustees, except decide on a case-by-case basis if the plan dilution is more than 5% of outstanding common equity or if the minimum potential dilution from all plans, including the one proposed, is more than 10% of the outstanding common equity |
• | For adopting an employee stock purchase plan, except against if the proposed plan allows employees to purchase stock at prices of less than 85% of the stock's fair market value |
• | For amending an employee stock purchase plan, except against if the proposal allows employees to purchase stock at prices of less than 85% of the stock's fair market value |
• | For adding shares to an employee stock purchase plan, except against if the proposed plan allows employees to purchase stock at prices of less than 85% of the stock's fair market value |
• | For adopting a stock award plan, except decide on a case-by-case basis if the plan dilution is more than 5% of the outstanding common equity or if the minimum potential dilution from all plans, including the one proposed, is more than 10% of the outstanding common equity |
• | For amending a stock award plan, except against if the amendment shortens the vesting requirements or lessens the performance requirements |
• | For adding shares to a stock award plan, except decide on a case-by-case basis if the plan dilution is more than 5% of the outstanding common equity or if the minimum potential dilution from all plans, including the one proposed, is more than 10% of the outstanding common equity |
• | For adopting a stock award plan for non-employee trustees, except decide on a case-by-case basis if the plan dilution is more than 5% of the outstanding common equity or if the minimum potential dilution from all plans, including the one proposed, is more than 10% of the outstanding common equity |
• | For amending a stock award plan for non-employee trustees, except decide on a case-by-case basis if the minimum potential dilution from all plans is more than 10% of the outstanding common equity. |
• | For adding shares to a stock award plan for non-employee trustees, except decide on a case-by-case basis if the plan dilution is more than 5% of the outstanding common equity or if the minimum potential dilution from all plans, including the one proposed, is more than 10% of the outstanding common equity |
• | For approving an annual bonus plan |
• | For adopting a savings plan |
• | For granting a one-time stock option or stock award, except decide on a case-by-case basis if the plan dilution is more than 5% of the outstanding common equity |
• | For adopting a deferred compensation plan |
• | For approving a long-term bonus plan |
• | For approving an employment agreement or contract |
• | For amending a deferred compensation plan |
• | For amending an annual bonus plan |
• | For reapproving a stock option plan or bonus plan for purposes of OBRA |
• | For amending a long-term bonus plan |
• | For requiring shareholder ratification of auditors |
• | Against requiring the auditors to attend the annual meeting |
• | Against limiting consulting by auditors |
• | Against requiring the rotation of auditors |
• | Against restoring preemptive rights |
• | For asking the company to study sales, spin-offs, or other strategic alternatives |
• | For asking the board to adopt confidential voting and independent tabulation of the proxy ballots |
• | Against asking the company to refrain from counting abstentions and broker non-votes in vote tabulations |
• | Against eliminating the company's discretion to vote unmarked proxy ballots. |
• | For providing equal access to the proxy materials for shareholders |
• | Against requiring a majority vote to elect trustees |
• | Against requiring the improvement of annual meeting reports |
• | Against changing the annual meeting location |
• | Against changing the annual meeting date |
• | Against asking the board to include more women and minorities as trustees. |
• | Against seeking to increase board independence |
• | Against limiting the period of time a trustee can serve by establishing a retirement or tenure policy |
• | Against requiring minimum stock ownership by trustees |
• | Against providing for union or employee representatives on the board of trustees |
• | For increasing disclosure regarding the board's role in the development and monitoring of the company's long-term strategic plan |
• | For creating a nominating committee of the board |
• | Against urging the creation of a shareholder committee |
• | Against asking that the chairman of the board of trustees be chosen from among the ranks of the non-employee trustees |
• | Against asking that a lead trustee be chosen from among the ranks of the non-employee trustees |
• | For adopting cumulative voting |
• | Against requiring trustees to place a statement of candidacy in the proxy statement |
• | Against requiring the nomination of two trustee candidates for each open board seat |
• | Against making trustees liable for acts or omissions that constitute a breach of fiduciary care resulting from a trustee's gross negligence and/or reckless or willful neglect |
• | For repealing a classified board |
• | Against asking the board to redeem or to allow shareholders to vote on a poison pill shareholder rights plan |
• | Against repealing fair price provisions |
• | For restoring shareholders' right to call a special meeting |
• | For restoring shareholders' right to act by written consent |
• | For limiting the board's discretion to issue targeted share placements or requiring shareholder approval before such block placements can be made |
• | For seeking to force the company to opt out of a state takeover statutory provision |
• | Against reincorporating the company in another state |
• | For limiting greenmail payments |
• | Against advisory vote on compensation |
• | Against restricting executive compensation |
• | For enhancing the disclosure of executive compensation |
• | Against restricting trustee compensation |
• | Against capping executive pay |
• | Against calling for trustees to be paid with company stock |
• | Against calling for shareholder votes on executive pay |
• | Against calling for the termination of trustee retirement plans |
• | Against asking management to review, report on, and/or link executive compensation to non-financial criteria, particularly social criteria |
• | Against seeking shareholder approval to reprice or replace underwater stock options |
• | For banning or calling for a shareholder vote on future golden parachutes |
• | Against seeking to award performance-based stock options |
• | Against establishing a policy of expensing the costs of all future stock options issued by the company in the company's annual income statement |
• | Against requesting that future executive compensation be determined without regard to any pension fund income |
• | Against approving extra benefits under Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans (SERPs) |
• | Against requiring option shares to be held |
• | For creating a compensation committee |
• | Against requiring that the compensation committee hire its own independent compensation consultants-separate from the compensation consultants working with corporate management-to assist with executive compensation issues |
• | For increasing the independence of the compensation committee |
• | For increasing the independence of the audit committee |
• | For increasing the independence of key committees |
• | Against asking the company to develop or report on human rights policies |
• | Against asking the company to limit or end operations in Burma |
• | For asking management to review operations in Burma |
• | For asking management to certify that company operations are free of forced labor |
• | Against asking management to implement and/or increase activity on each of the principles of the U.S. Business Principles for Human Rights of Workers in China. |
• | Against asking management to develop social, economic, and ethical criteria that the company could use to determine the acceptability of military contracts and to govern the execution of the contracts |
• | Against asking management to create a plan of converting the company's facilities that are dependent on defense contracts toward production for commercial markets |
• | Against asking management to report on the company's government contracts for the development of ballistic missile defense technologies and related space systems |
• | Against asking management to report on the company's foreign military sales or foreign offset activities |
• | Against asking management to limit or end nuclear weapons production |
• | Against asking management to review nuclear weapons production |
• | Against asking the company to establish shareholder-designated contribution programs |
• | Against asking the company to limit or end charitable giving |
• | For asking the company to increase disclosure of political spending and activities |
• | Against asking the company to limit or end political spending |
• | For requesting disclosure of company executives' prior government service |
• | Against requesting affirmation of political nonpartisanship |
• | For asking management to report on or change tobacco product marketing practices, except against if the proposal calls for action beyond reporting |
• | Against severing links with the tobacco industry |
• | Against asking the company to review or reduce tobacco harm to health |
• | For asking management to review or promote animal welfare, except against if the proposal calls for action beyond reporting |
• | For asking the company to report or take action on pharmaceutical drug pricing or distribution, except against if the proposal asks for more than a report |
• | Against asking the company to take action on embryo or fetal destruction |
• | For asking the company to review or report on nuclear facilities or nuclear waste, except against if the proposal asks for cessation of nuclear-related activities or other action beyond reporting |
• | For asking the company to review its reliance on nuclear and fossil fuels, its development or use of solar and wind power, or its energy efficiency, except vote against if the proposal asks for more than a report. |
• | Against asking management to endorse the Ceres principles |
• | For asking the company to control generation of pollutants, except against if the proposal asks for action beyond reporting or if the company reports its omissions and plans to limit their future growth or if the company reports its omissions and plans to reduce them from established levels |
• | For asking the company to report on its environmental impact or plans, except against if management has issued a written statement beyond the legal minimum |
• | For asking management to report or take action on climate change, except against if management acknowledges a global warming threat and has issued company policy or if management has issued a statement and committed to targets and timetables or if the company is not a major emitter of greenhouse gases |
• | For asking management to report on, label, or restrict sales of bioengineered products, except against if the proposal asks for action beyond reporting or calls for a moratorium on sales of bioengineered products |
• | Against asking the company to preserve natural habitat |
• | Against asking the company to review its developing country debt and lending criteria and to report to shareholders on its findings |
• | Against requesting the company to assess the environmental, public health, human rights, labor rights, or other socioeconomic impacts of its credit decisions |
• | For requesting reports and/or reviews of plans and/or policies on fair lending practices, except against if the proposal calls for action beyond reporting |
• | Against asking the company to establish committees to consider issues related to facilities closure and relocation of work |
• | For asking management to report on the company's affirmative action policies and programs, including releasing its EEO-1 forms and providing statistical data on specific positions within the company, except against if the company releases its EEO-1 reports |
• | Against asking management to drop sexual orientation from EEO policy |
• | Against asking management to adopt a sexual orientation non-discrimination policy |
• | For asking management to report on or review Mexican operations |
• | Against asking management to adopt standards for Mexican operations |
• | Against asking management to review or implement the MacBride principles |
• | Against asking the company to encourage its contractors and franchisees to implement the MacBride principles |
• | For asking management to report on or review its global labor practices or those of its contractors, except against if the company already reports publicly using a recognized standard or if the resolution asks for more than a report |
• | Against asking management to adopt, implement, or enforce a global workplace code of conduct based on the International Labor Organization's core labor conventions |
• | For requesting reports on sustainability, except against if the company has already issued a report in GRI format |
• | The Proxy Committee has concluded that voting would have no meaningful, identifiable economic benefit to the client as a shareholder, such as when the security is no longer held in the client's portfolio or when the value of the portfolio holding is insignificant. |
• | The Proxy Committee has concluded that the costs of or disadvantages resulting from voting outweigh the economic benefits of voting. For example, in some non-US jurisdictions, the sale of securities voted may be legally or practically prohibited or subject to some restrictions for some period of time, usually between the record and meeting dates (“share blocking”). Loomis Sayles believes that the loss of investment flexibility resulting from share blocking generally outweighs the benefit to be gained by voting. Information about share blocking is often incomplete or contradictory. Loomis Sayles relies on the client's custodian and on its Proxy Voting Service to identify share blocking jurisdictions. To the extent such information is wrong, Loomis Sayles could fail to vote shares that could have been voted without loss of investment flexibility, or could vote shares and then be prevented from engaging in a potentially beneficial portfolio transaction. |
• | Administrative requirements for voting proxies in certain foreign jurisdictions (which may be imposed a single time or may be periodic), such as providing a power of attorney to the client's local sub-custodian, cannot be fulfilled due to timing of the requirement, or the costs required to fulfill the administrative requirements appear to outweigh the benefits to the client of voting the proxy. |
• | The client, as of the record date, has loaned the securities to which the proxy relates and Loomis Sayles has concluded that it is not in the best interest of the client to recall the loan or is unable to recall the loan in order to vote the securities1. |
• | The client so directs Loomis Sayles. |
1 | Loomis Sayles does not engage in securities lending. However, some clients do opt to lend securities, availing themselves of their custodians' services. |
(a) | the adequacy and quality of the Proxy Voting Service's staffing, personnel and technology, |
(b) | whether the Proxy Voting Service has adequately disclosed its methodologies in formulating voting recommendations, such that Loomis Sayles can understand the factors underlying the Proxy Voting Service's voting recommendations, |
(c) | the robustness of the Proxy Voting Service's policies and procedures regarding its ability to ensure that its recommendations are based on current, materially complete and accurate information, and |
(d) | the Proxy Voting Service's policies and procedures regarding how it identifies and addresses conflicts of interest, including whether the Proxy Voting Service's policies and procedures provide for adequate disclosure of its actual and potential conflicts of interest with respect to the services it provides to Loomis Sayles. |
1. | Advisory Personnel maintain the ultimate decision-making authority with respect to how proxies will be voted, unless otherwise instructed by a client, and may determine to vote contrary to the Guidelines and/or a vote recommendation of the RI Team if such Advisory Personnel determines it is in the best interest of the Adviser's clients to do so. The rationale for all such contrary vote determinations will be documented and maintained. |
2. | When voting proxies for different groups of client accounts, Advisory Personnel may vote proxies held by the respective client accounts differently depending on the facts and circumstances specific to such client accounts. The rationale for all such vote determinations will be documented and maintained. |
3. | Advisory Personnel must comply with the Nuveen Proxy Voting Conflicts of Interest Policy with respect to potential material conflicts of interest. |
1. | Performs day-to-day administration of the Advisers' proxy voting processes. |
2. | Seeks to vote proxies in adherence to the Guidelines, which have been constructed in a manner intended to align with the best interests of clients. In applying the Guidelines, the RI Team, on behalf of the Advisers, takes into account several factors, including, but not limited to: |
• | Input from Advisory Personnel |
• | Third-party research |
• | Specific Portfolio Company context, including environmental, social and governance practices, and financial performance. |
3. | Delivers copies of the Advisers' Policy to clients and prospective clients upon request in a timely manner, as appropriate. |
4. | Assists with the disclosure of proxy votes as applicable on corporate website and elsewhere as required by applicable regulations. |
5. | Prepares reports of proxies voted on behalf of the Advisers' investment company clients to their Boards or committees thereof, as applicable. |
6. | Performs an annual vote reconciliation for review by the Committee. |
7. | Arranges the annual service provider due diligence, including a review of the service provider's potential conflicts of interests, and presents the results to the Committee. |
8. | Facilitates quarterly Committee meetings, including agenda and meeting minute preparation. |
9. | Complies with the Nuveen Proxy Voting Conflicts of Interest Policy with respect to potential material conflicts of interest. |
10. | Creates and retains certain records in accordance with Nuveen's Record Management program. |
11. | Oversees the proxy voting service provider in making and retaining certain records as required under applicable regulation. |
12. | Assesses, in cooperation with Advisory Personnel, whether securities on loan should be recalled in order to vote their proxies. |
1. | Ensures proper disclosure of Advisers' Policy to clients as required by regulation or otherwise. |
2. | Ensures proper disclosure to clients of how they may obtain information on how the Advisers voted their proxies. |
3. | Assists the RI Team with arranging the annual service provider due diligence and presenting the results to the Committee. |
4. | Monitors for compliance with this Policy and retains records relating to its monitoring activities pursuant to Nuveen's Records Management program. |
1. | The positions and relationships of the following categories of individuals are evaluated to assist in identifying a potential Material Conflict with a Portfolio Company: |
i. | The TIAA CEO |
ii. | Nuveen Executive Leadership Team |
iii. | RI Team members who provide proxy voting recommendations on behalf of the Advisers, |
iv. | Advisory Personnel, and |
v. | Household Members of the parties listed above in Nos. 1(i) – 1(iv) |
• | Any individual identified above in 1(i) – 1(v) who serves on a Portfolio Company's board of directors; and/or |
• | Any individual identified above in 1(v) who serves as a senior executive of a Portfolio Company. |
2. | In addition, the following circumstances have been determined to constitute a potential Material Conflict: |
i. | Voting proxies for Funds sponsored by a Nuveen Affiliated Entity (i.e., registered investment funds and other funds that require proxy voting) held in client accounts, |
ii. | Voting proxies for Portfolio Companies that are direct advisory clients of the Advisers and/or the Nuveen Affiliated Entities, |
iii. | Voting proxies for Portfolio Companies that have a material distribution relationship1 with regard to the products or strategies of the Advisers and/or the Nuveen Affiliated Entities, |
iv. | Voting proxies for Portfolio Companies that are institutional investment consultants with which the Advisers and/or the Nuveen Affiliated Entities have engaged for any material business opportunity1 and |
v. | Any other circumstance where the RI Team, the Nuveen Proxy Voting Committee (the “Committee”), the Advisers, Nuveen Legal or Nuveen Compliance are aware of in which the Adviser's duty to serve its clients' interests could be materially compromised. |
1. | Annually, review and approve the criteria constituting a Material Conflict involving the individuals and entities named on the Watch List. |
2. | Review and approve the Policy annually, or more frequently as required. |
3. | Review Escalation Forms as described above to determine whether the rationale of the recommendation is clearly articulated and reasonable relative to the potential Material Conflict. |
4. | Review RI Team Material Conflicts reporting. |
5. | Review and consider any other matters involving the Advisers' proxy voting activities that are brought to the Committee. |
1. | Promptly disclose RI Team members' Material Conflicts to Nuveen Compliance. |
2. | RI Team members must recuse themselves from all decisions related to proxy voting for the Portfolio Company seeking the proxy for which they personally have disclosed, or are required to disclose, a Material Conflict. |
3. | Compile, administer and update the Watch List promptly based on the Watch List criteria described herein as necessary. |
4. | Evaluate vote recommendations for Portfolio Companies on the Watch List, based on established criteria to determine whether a vote shall default to the third-party Proxy Service Provider, or whether an Escalation Form is required. |
5. | In instances where an Escalation Form is required as described above, the RI Team member responsible for the recommendation completes and submits the form to an RI Team manager and the Committee. The RI Team will specify a response due date from the Committee typically no earlier than two business days from when the request was delivered. While the RI Team will make reasonable efforts to provide a two business day notification period, in certain instances the required response date may be shortened. The Committee reviews the Escalation Form to determine whether a Material Conflict exists and whether the rationale of the recommendation is clearly articulated and reasonable relative to the existing conflict. The Committee will then provide its response in writing to the RI Team member who submitted the Escalation Form. |
6. | Provide Nuveen Compliance with established reporting. |
7. | Prepare Material Conflicts reporting to the Committee and other parties, as applicable. |
8. | Retain Escalation Forms and responses thereto and all other relevant documentation in conformance with Nuveen's Record Management program. |
1. | Promptly disclose Material Conflicts to Nuveen Compliance. |
2. | Provide input and/or vote recommendations to the RI Team upon request. Advisory Personnel are prohibited from providing the RI Team with input and/or recommendations for any Portfolio Company for which they have disclosed, or are required to disclose, a Material Conflict. |
3. | From time to time as part of the Adviser's normal course of business, Advisory Personnel may initiate an action to override the Guidelines for a particular proposal. For a proxy vote issued by a Portfolio Company on the Watch List, if Advisory Personnel request a vote against the Guidelines and in favor of Portfolio Company management, then the request will be evaluated by the RI Team in accordance with their established criteria and processes described above. To the extent an Escalation Form is required, the Committee reviews the Escalation Form to determine whether the rationale of the recommendation is clearly articulated and reasonable relative to the potential Material Conflict. |
1. | Determine criteria constituting a Material Conflict involving the individuals and entities named on the Watch List. |
2. | Determine parties responsible for collection of, and providing identified Material Conflicts to, the RI Team for inclusion on the Watch List. |
3. | Perform periodic reviews of votes where Material Conflicts have been identified to determine whether the votes were cast in accordance with this Policy. |
4. | Develop and maintain, in consultation with the RI Team, standard operating procedures to support the Policy. |
5. | Perform periodic monitoring to determine adherence to the Policy. |
6. | Administer training to the Advisers and the RI Team, as applicable, to ensure applicable personnel understand Material Conflicts and disclosure responsibilities. |
7. | Assist the Committee with the annual review of this Policy. |
1. | Provide legal guidance as requested. |
AAA | An obligation rated ‘AAA' has the highest rating assigned by S&P Global Ratings. The obligor's capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation is extremely strong. |
AA | An obligation rated ‘AA' differs from the highest-rated obligations only to a small degree. The obligor's capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation is very strong. |
A | An obligation rated ‘A' is somewhat more susceptible to the adverse effects of changes in circumstances and economic conditions than obligations in higher-rated categories. However, the obligor's capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation is still strong. |
BBB | An obligation rated ‘BBB' exhibits adequate protection parameters. However, adverse economic conditions or changing circumstances are more likely to weaken the obligor's capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation. |
BB, B, CCC, CC, and C | Obligations rated ‘BB', ‘B', ‘CCC', ‘CC', and ‘C' are regarded as having significant speculative characteristics. ‘BB' indicates the least degree of speculation and ‘C' the highest. While such obligations will likely have some quality and protective characteristics, these may be outweighed by large uncertainties or major exposure to adverse conditions. |
BB | An obligation rated ‘BB' is less vulnerable to nonpayment than other speculative issues. However, it faces major ongoing uncertainties or exposure to adverse business, financial, or economic conditions that could lead to the obligor's inadequate capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation. |
B | An obligation rated ‘B' is more vulnerable to nonpayment than obligations rated ‘BB', but the obligor currently has the capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation. Adverse business, financial, or economic conditions will likely impair the obligor's capacity or willingness to meet its financial commitments on the obligation. |
CCC | An obligation rated ‘CCC' is currently vulnerable to nonpayment and is dependent upon favorable business, financial, and economic conditions for the obligor to meet its financial commitments on the obligation. In the event of adverse business, financial, or economic conditions, the obligor is not likely to have the capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation. |
CC | An obligation rated ‘CC' is currently highly vulnerable to nonpayment. The ‘CC' rating is used when a default has not yet occurred but S&P Global Ratings expects default to be a virtual certainty, regardless of the anticipated time to default. |
C | An obligation rated ‘C' is currently highly vulnerable to nonpayment, and the obligation is expected to have lower relative seniority or lower ultimate recovery compared with obligations that are rated higher. |
D | An obligation rated ‘D' is in default or in breach of an imputed promise. For non-hybrid capital instruments, the ‘D' rating category is used when payments on an obligation are not made on the date due, unless S&P Global Ratings believes that such payments will be made within five business days in the absence of a stated grace period or within the earlier of the stated grace period or 30 calendar days. The ‘D' rating also will be used upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition or the taking of similar action and where default on an obligation is a virtual certainty, for example due to automatic stay provisions. A rating on an obligation is lowered to ‘D' if it is subject to a distressed exchange offer. |
* | Ratings from ‘AA' to ‘CCC' may be modified by the addition of a plus (+) or minus (-) sign to show relative standing within the rating categories. |
Aaa | Obligations rated Aaa are judged to be of the highest quality, subject to the lowest level of credit risk. |
Aa | Obligations rated Aa are judged to be of high quality and are subject to very low credit risk. |
A | Obligations rated A are judged to be upper-medium grade and are subject to low credit risk. |
Baa | Obligations rated Baa are judged to be medium-grade and subject to moderate credit risk and as such may possess certain speculative characteristics. |
Ba | Obligations rated Ba are judged to be speculative and are subject to substantial credit risk. |
B | Obligations rated B are considered speculative and are subject to high credit risk. |
Caa | Obligations rated Caa are judged to be speculative of poor standing and are subject to very high credit risk. |
Ca | Obligations rated Ca are highly speculative and are likely in, or very near, default, with some prospect of recovery of principal and interest. |
C | Obligations rated C are the lowest rated and are typically in default, with little prospect for recovery of principal or interest. |
* | By their terms, hybrid securities allow for the omission of scheduled dividends, interest, or principal payments, which can potentially result in impairment if such an omission occurs. Hybrid securities may also be subject to contractually allowable write-downs of principal that could result in impairment. Together with the hybrid indicator, the long-term obligation rating assigned to a hybrid security is an expression of the relative credit risk associated with that security. |
A-1 | A short-term obligation rated ‘A-1' is rated in the highest category by S&P Global Ratings. The obligor's capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation is strong. Within this category, certain obligations are designated with a plus sign (+). This indicates that the obligor's capacity to meet its financial commitments on these obligations is extremely strong. |
A-2 | A short-term obligation rated ‘A-2' is somewhat more susceptible to the adverse effects of changes in circumstances and economic conditions than obligations in higher rating categories. However, the obligor's capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation is satisfactory. |
A-3 | A short-term obligation rated ‘A-3' exhibits adequate protection parameters. However, adverse economic conditions or changing circumstances are more likely to weaken an obligor's capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation. |
B | A short-term obligation rated ‘B' is regarded as vulnerable and has significant speculative characteristics. The obligor currently has the capacity to meet its financial commitments; however, it faces major ongoing uncertainties that could lead to the obligor's inadequate capacity to meet its financial commitments. |
C | A short-term obligation rated ‘C' is currently vulnerable to nonpayment and is dependent upon favorable business, financial, and economic conditions for the obligor to meet its financial commitments on the obligation. |
D | A short-term obligation rated ‘D' is in default or in breach of an imputed promise. For non-hybrid capital instruments, the ‘D' rating category is used when payments on an obligation are not made on the date due, unless S&P Global Ratings believes that such payments will be made within any stated grace period. However, any stated grace period longer than five business days will be treated as five business days. The ‘D' rating also will be used upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition or the taking of a similar action and where default on an obligation is a virtual certainty, for example due to automatic stay provisions. A rating on an obligation is lowered to ‘D' if it is subject to a distressed exchange offer. |