Preliminary Statement of Additional
Information, dated December 13, 2024
The information in this Statement of
Additional Information is not complete and may be changed. The Fund may not sell these securities until the registration statement filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission is effective. This Statement of Additional Information is not an offer to sell these securities
and is not soliciting an offer to buy these securities in any state where the offer or sale is not permitted.
Invesco Municipal
Income Opportunities Trust
STATEMENT OF
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Invesco Municipal Income Opportunities Trust (the
“Fund”) is a diversified, closed-end management investment company. The Fund’s primary investment objective is to provide
a high level of current income which is exempt from federal income tax. There can be no assurance that the Fund will achieve its investment
objective, and you could lose some or all of your investment.
This Statement of Additional Information relates
to the offering, from time to time, of up to [___] common shares of beneficial interest, no par value (“Common Shares”) and/or
rights to purchase Common Shares (“Rights” and with the Common Shares, “Securities”) in one or more offerings.
This Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) is not a prospectus, but should be read in conjunction with the prospectus
for the Fund, dated [____] (the “Prospectus”), and any related supplement to the Prospectus (each a “Prospectus Supplement”).
Investors should obtain and read the Prospectus and any related Prospectus Supplement prior to purchasing Common Shares. A copy of the
Prospectus and any related Prospectus Supplement may be obtained without charge, by calling the Fund at 800-959-4246.
The Prospectus and this SAI omit certain of the
information contained in the registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). The registration
statement may be obtained from the SEC upon payment of the fee prescribed, or inspected at the SEC’s office or via its website (www.sec.gov)
at no charge. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the Prospectus.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE FUND
The Fund is a diversified,
closed-end management investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”)
and organized as a statutory trust under the laws of the State of Delaware. The Fund was originally organized as a Massachusetts business
trust on June 22, 1988. The Fund commenced operations on September 19, 1998. Effective as of August 27, 2012, the Fund
completed a redomestication to a Delaware statutory trust. Effective June 1, 2010, the Fund’s name was changed from Morgan
Stanley Municipal Income Opportunities Trust to Invesco Municipal Income Opportunities Trust. The Fund’s currently outstanding common
shares of beneficial interest, no par value (the “Common Shares”) are listed on the New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”)
under the symbol “OIA” and the Common Shares offered by this Prospectus, subject to notice of issuance, will also be listed
on the NYSE. The Fund’s principal office is located at 1331 Spring Street NW, Suite 2500, Atlanta, Georgia 30309 and its phone
number is (404) 892-0896.
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE AND POLICIES
Additional Investment Policies and Portfolio Contents
The following information
supplements the discussion of the Fund’s investment objective, policies and techniques that are described in the Prospectus. The
Fund may make the following investments, among others, some of which are part of its principal investment strategies and some of which
are not. The principal risks of the Fund’s principal investment strategies are discussed in the Prospectus.
Municipal Securities
Municipal Securities are typically
debt obligations of states, territories or possessions of the United States and the District of Columbia and their political subdivisions,
agencies and instrumentalities, the interest on which, in the opinion of bond counsel or other counsel to the issuers of such securities,
is, at the time of issuance, exempt from federal income tax. The issuers of municipal securities obtain funds for various public purposes,
including the construction of a wide range of public facilities such as airports, highways, bridges, schools, hospitals, housing, mass
transportation, streets and water and sewer works. Other public purposes for which municipal securities may be issued include refunding
outstanding obligations, obtaining funds for general operating expenses and obtaining funds to lend to other public institutions and facilities.
Certain types of municipal
securities are issued to obtain funding for privately operated facilities. The credit and quality of private activity debt securities
are dependent on the private facility or user, who is responsible for the interest payment and principal repayment.
The two major classifications
of Municipal Securities are bonds and notes. Municipal bonds are municipal debt obligations in which the issuer is obligated to repay
the original (or “principal”) payment amount on a certain maturity date along with interest. A municipal bond’s maturity
date (the date when the issuer of the bond repays the principal) may be years in the future. Short-term bonds mature in one to three years,
while long-term bonds usually do not mature for more than a decade. Notes are short-term instruments which usually mature in less than
two years. Most notes are general obligations of the issuing municipalities or agencies and are sold in anticipation of a bond sale, collection
of taxes or receipt of other revenues. Municipal notes also include tax, revenue notes and revenue and bond anticipation notes (discussed
more fully below) of short maturity, generally less than three years, which are issued to obtain temporary funds for various public purposes.
Municipal debt securities
may also be classified as general obligation or revenue obligations (or special delegation securities). General obligation securities
are secured by the issuer’s pledge of its faith, credit and taxing power for the payment of principal and interest.
Revenue debt obligations,
such as revenue bonds and revenue notes, are usually payable only from the revenues derived from a particular facility or class of facilities
or, in some cases, from the proceeds of a special excise tax or other specific revenue source but not from the general taxing power. The
principal and interest payments for industrial development bonds or pollution control bonds are often the sole responsibility of the industrial
user and therefore may not be backed by the taxing power of the issuing municipality. The interest paid on such bonds may be exempt from
federal income tax, although current federal tax laws place substantial limitations on the purposes and size of such issues. Such obligations
are considered to be Municipal Securities provided that the interest paid thereon, in the opinion of bond counsel, qualifies as exempt
from federal income tax. However, interest on municipal securities may give rise to a federal alternative minimum tax (AMT) liability
and may have other collateral federal income tax consequences. There is a risk that some or all of the interest received by the Fund from
tax-exempt municipal securities might become taxable as a result of tax law changes or determinations of the IRS.
Another type of revenue obligations
is pre-refunded bonds, which are typically issued to refinance debt. In other words, pre-refunded bonds result from the advance refunding
of bonds that are not currently redeemable. The proceeds from the issue of the lower yield and/or longer maturing pre-refunding bond will
usually be used to purchase U.S. government obligations, such as U.S. Treasury securities, which are held in an escrow account and used
to pay interest and principal payments until the scheduled call date of the original bond issue occurs. Like other fixed income securities,
pre-refunded bonds are subject to interest rate, market, credit, and reinvestment risks. However, because pre-refunded bonds are generally
collateralized with U.S. government obligations, such pre-refunded securities have essentially the same risks of default as a AAA-rated
security. The Fund will treat such pre-refunded securities as investment-grade securities, notwithstanding the fact that the issuer of
such securities may have a lower rating (such as a below-investment-grade rating) from one or more rating agencies.
Within these principal classifications
of municipal securities, there are a variety of types of municipal securities, including but not limited to, fixed and variable rate securities,
variable rate demand notes, municipal leases, custodial receipts, participation certificates, inverse floating rate securities, and derivative
municipal securities.
After purchase by the Fund,
an issue of Municipal Securities may cease to be rated by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. (Moody’s) or S&P Global
Ratings (S&P), or another nationally recognized statistical rating organization (NRSRO), or the rating of such a security may be reduced
below the minimum credit quality rating required for purchase by the Fund. Neither event would require the Fund to dispose of the security.
To the extent that the ratings applied by Moody’s, S&P or another NRSRO to Municipal Securities may change as a result of changes
in these rating systems, the Fund will attempt to use comparable credit quality ratings as standards for its investments in Municipal
Securities.
The yields on Municipal Securities
are dependent on a variety of factors, including general economic and monetary conditions, money market factors, conditions of the Municipal
Securities market, size of a particular offering, and maturity and rating of the obligation. Because many Municipal Securities are issued
to finance similar projects, especially those related to education, health care, transportation and various utilities, conditions in those
sectors and the financial condition of an individual municipal issuer can affect the overall municipal market. The market values of the
Municipal Securities held by the Fund will be affected by changes in the yields available on similar securities. If yields increase following
the purchase of a Municipal Security, the market value of such Municipal Security will generally decrease. Conversely, if yields decrease,
the market value of a Municipal Security will generally increase. The ratings of S&P and Moody’s represent their opinions of
the quality of the municipal securities they undertake to rate. It should be emphasized, however, that ratings are general and are not
absolute standards of quality. Consequently, municipal securities with the same maturity, coupon and rating may have different yields
while municipal securities of the same maturity and coupon with different ratings may have the same yield.
Certain of the municipal securities
in which the Fund may invest represent relatively recent innovations in the municipal securities markets and the markets for such securities
may be less developed than the market for conventional fixed rate municipal securities.
Under normal market conditions,
longer-term municipal securities generally provide a higher yield than shorter-term municipal securities. The Fund has no limitation as
to the maturity of municipal securities in which they may invest. The Adviser may adjust the average maturity of the Fund’s portfolio
from time to time depending on its assessment of the relative yields available on securities of different maturities and its expectations
of future changes in interest rates.
The net asset value of the
Fund will change with changes in the value of its portfolio securities. With fixed income municipal securities, the net asset value of
the Fund can be expected to change as general levels of interest rates fluctuate. When interest rates decline, the value of a portfolio
invested in fixed income securities generally can be expected to rise. Conversely, when interest rates rise, the value of a portfolio
invested in fixed income securities generally can be expected to decline. The prices of longer term municipal securities generally are
more volatile with respect to changes in interest rates than the prices of shorter term municipal securities. Volatility may be greater
during periods of general economic uncertainty.
Municipal Securities,
like other debt obligations, are subject to the credit risk of nonpayment. The ability of issuers of municipal securities to make
timely payments of interest and principal may be adversely impacted in general economic downturns and as relative governmental cost
burdens are allocated and reallocated among federal, state and local governmental units. Such nonpayment would result in a reduction
of income to the Fund, and could result in a reduction in the value of the municipal securities experiencing nonpayment and a
potential decrease in the net asset value of the Fund. In addition, the Fund may incur expenses to work out or restructure a
distressed or defaulted security.
The Fund may invest in Municipal
Securities with credit enhancements such as letters of credit and municipal bond insurance. The Fund may invest in Municipal Securities
that are insured by financial insurance companies. Since a limited number of entities provide such insurance, the Fund may invest more
than 25% of its assets in securities insured by the same insurance company. If the Fund invests in Municipal Securities backed by insurance
companies and other financial institutions, changes in the financial condition of these institutions could cause losses to the Fund and
affect share price. Letters of credit are issued by a third party, usually a bank, to enhance liquidity and ensure repayment of principal
and any accrued interest if the underlying Municipal Bond should default. These credit enhancements do not guarantee payments or repayments
on the Municipal Securities and a downgrade in the credit enhancer could affect the value of the Municipal Security.
If the IRS determines that
an issuer of a Municipal Security has not complied with applicable tax requirements, interest from the security could be treated as taxable,
which could result in a decline in the security’s value. In addition, there could be changes in applicable tax laws or tax treatments
that reduce or eliminate the current federal income tax exemption on Municipal Securities or otherwise adversely affect the current federal
or state tax status of Municipal Securities. For example, 2017 legislation commonly known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act repeals the exclusion
from gross income for interest on pre-refunded municipal securities effective for such bonds issued after December 31, 2017.
Taxable municipal securities
are debt securities issued by or on behalf of states and their political subdivisions, the District of Columbia, and possessions of the
United States, the interest on which is not exempt from federal income tax. Taxable investments include, for example, hedging instruments,
repurchase agreements, and many of the types of securities the Fund would buy for temporary defensive purposes.
At times, in connection with
the restructuring of a municipal bond issuer either outside of bankruptcy court in a negotiated workout or in the context of bankruptcy
proceedings, the Fund may determine or be required to accept equity or taxable debt securities, or the underlying collateral (which may
include real estate or loans) from the issuer in exchange for all or a portion of the Fund’s holdings in the municipal security.
Although the Adviser will attempt to sell those assets as soon as reasonably practicable in most cases, depending upon, among other things,
the Adviser’s valuation of the potential value of such assets in relation to the price that could be obtained by the Fund at any
given time upon sale thereof, the Fund may determine to hold such securities or assets in its portfolio for limited period of time in
order to liquidate the assets in a manner that maximizes their value to the Fund.
Municipal Securities also
include, but are not limited to, the following securities:
| ● | Bond Anticipation Notes usually are general obligations of state and local governmental issuers which
are sold to obtain interim financing for projects that will eventually be funded through the sale of long-term debt obligations or bonds. |
| ● | Revenue Anticipation Debt Securities, including bonds, notes, and certificates, are issued by
governments or governmental bodies with the expectation that future revenues from a designated source will be used to repay the securities.
In general, they also constitute general obligations of the issuer. |
| ● | Tax Anticipation Notes are issued by state and local governments to finance the current operations of
such governments. Repayment is generally to be derived from specific future tax revenues. |
| ● | Tax-Exempt Commercial Paper (Municipal Paper) is similar to taxable commercial paper, except that tax-exempt
commercial paper is issued by states, municipalities and their agencies. |
| ● | Tax-Exempt Mandatory Paydown Securities (TEMPS) are fixed rate term bonds carrying a short-term maturity,
usually three to four years beyond the expected redemption. TEMPS are structured as bullet repayments, with required optional redemptions
as entrance fees are collected. |
| ● | Zero Coupon and Pay-in-Kind Securities do not immediately produce cash income. These securities are issued
at an original issue discount, with the full value, including accrued interest, paid at maturity. Interest income may be reportable annually,
even though no annual payments are made. Market prices of zero coupon bonds tend to be more volatile than bonds that pay interest regularly.
Pay-in-kind securities are securities that have interest payable by delivery of additional securities. Upon maturity, the holder is entitled
to receive the aggregate par value of the securities. Zero coupon and pay-in-kind securities may be subject to greater fluctuation in
value and less liquidity in the event of adverse market conditions than comparably rated securities paying cash interest at regular interest
payment periods. Prices on non-cash-paying instruments may be more sensitive to changes in the issuer’s financial condition, fluctuation
in interest rates and market demand/supply imbalances than cash-paying securities with similar credit ratings, and thus may be more speculative.
Special tax considerations are associated with investing in certain lower-grade securities, such as zero coupon or pay-in-kind securities. |
| ● | Capital Appreciation Bonds are municipal securities in which the investment return on the initial principal
payment is reinvested at a compounded rate until the bond matures. The principal and interest are due on maturity. Thus, like zero coupon
securities, investors must wait until maturity to receive interest and principal, which increases the interest rate and credit risks. |
| ● | Payments in lieu of taxes (also known as PILOTs) are voluntary payments by, for instance the U.S. government
or nonprofits, to local governments that help offset losses in or otherwise serve as a substitute for property taxes. |
| ● | Converted Auction Rate Securities (CARS) are a structure that combines the debt service deferral feature
of Capital Appreciation Bonds (CABS) with Auction Rate Securities. The CARS pay no debt service until a specific date, then they incrementally
convert to conventional Auction Rate Securities. At each conversion date the issuer has the ability to call and pay down any amount of
the CARS. Some bonds may be “callable,” allowing the issuer to redeem them before their maturity date. To protect bondholders,
callable bonds may be issued with provisions that prevent them from being called for a period of time. Typically, that is 5 to 10 years
from the issuance date. When interest rates decline, if the call protection on a bond has expired, it is more likely that the issuer may
call the bond. If that occurs, the Fund might have to reinvest the proceeds of the called bond in investments that pay a lower rate of
return, which could reduce the Fund’s yield. |
Inverse Floating Rate Interests
Inverse floating rate interests
(Inverse Floaters) are issued in connection with municipal tender option bond (TOB) financing transactions to generate leverage for the
Fund. Such instruments are created by a special purpose trust (a TOB Trust) that holds long-term fixed rate bonds sold to it by the Fund
(the underlying security), and issues two classes of beneficial interests: short-term floating rate interests (Floaters), which are sold
to other investors, and Inverse Floaters, which are purchased by the Fund. The Floaters have first priority on the cash flow from the
underlying security held by the TOB Trust, have a tender option feature that allows holders to tender the Floaters back to the TOB Trust
for their par amount and accrued interest at specified intervals and bear interest at prevailing short-term interest rates. Tendered Floaters
are remarketed for sale to other investors for their par amount and accrued interest by a remarketing agent to the TOB Trust and are ultimately
supported by a liquidity facility provided by a bank, upon which the TOB Trust can draw funds to pay such amount to holders of Tendered
Floaters that cannot be remarketed. The Fund, as holder of the Inverse Floaters, is paid the residual cash flow from the underlying security.
Accordingly, the Inverse Floaters provide the Fund with leveraged exposure to the underlying security. When short-term interest rates
rise or fall, the interest payable on the Floaters issued by a TOB Trust will, respectively, rise or fall, leaving less or more, respectively,
residual interest cash flow from the underlying security available for payment on the Inverse Floaters. Thus, as short-term interest rates
rise, Inverse Floaters produce less income for the Fund, and as short-term interest rates decline, Inverse Floaters produce
more income for the Fund. The price of Inverse Floaters is expected to decline when interest rates rise and increase when interest rates
decline, in either case generally more so than the price of a bond with a similar maturity, because of the effect of leverage. As a result,
the price of Inverse Floaters is typically more volatile than the price of bonds with similar maturities, especially if the relevant TOB
Trust is structured to provide the holder of the Inverse Floaters relatively greater leveraged exposure to the underlying security (e.g.,
if the par amount of the Floaters, as a percentage of the par amount of the underlying security, is relatively greater). Upon the occurrence
of certain adverse events (including a credit ratings downgrade of the underlying security or a substantial decrease in the market value
of the underlying security), a TOB Trust may be collapsed by the remarketing agent or liquidity provider and the underlying security liquidated,
and the Fund could lose the entire amount of its investment in the Inverse Floater and may, in some cases, be contractually required to
pay the shortfall, if any, between the liquidation value of the underlying security and the principal amount of the Floaters. Consequently,
in a rising interest rate environment, the Fund’s investments in Inverse Floaters could negatively impact the Fund’s performance
and yield, especially when those Inverse Floaters provide the Fund with relatively greater leveraged exposure to the underlying securities
held by the relevant
TOB Trusts.
Final rules implementing
section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Volcker Rule) prohibit banking entities and their affiliates
from sponsoring and/or providing certain services to TOB Trusts, which constitute “covered funds” under the Volcker Rule.
As a result of the Volcker Rule, the Fund, as holder of Inverse Floaters, is required to perform certain duties in connection with TOB
financing transactions previously performed by banking entities. These duties may alternatively be performed by a non-bank third-party
service provider. The Fund’s expanded role in TOB financing transactions as a result of the Volcker Rule may increase its operational
and regulatory risk.
Further, the SEC and various
banking agencies have adopted rules implementing credit risk retention requirements for asset-backed securities (the Risk Retention
Rules), which apply to TOB financing transactions and TOB Trusts. The Risk Retention Rules require the sponsor of a TOB Trust, which
is deemed to be the Fund (as holder of the related Inverse Floaters), to retain at least 5% of the credit risk of the underlying security
held by the TOB Trust. As applicable, the Fund has adopted policies and procedures intended to comply with the Risk Retention Rules. The
Risk Retention Rules may adversely affect the Fund’s ability to engage in TOB financing transactions or increase the costs
of such transactions in certain circumstances.
There can be no assurances
that TOB financing transactions will continue to be a viable or cost-effective form of leverage. The unavailability of TOB financing transactions
or an increase in the cost of financing provided by TOB transactions may adversely affect the Fund’s net asset value, distribution
rate and ability to achieve its investment objective.
Municipal Lease Obligations
Municipal leases obligations
are issued by state and local governments or authorities to finance the acquisition of land, equipment and facilities, such as state and
municipal vehicles, telecommunications and computer equipment, and other capital assets. Municipal lease obligations, a type of Municipal
Security, may take the form of a lease, an installment purchase contract or a conditional sales contract. Interest payments on qualifying
municipal lease obligations are generally exempt from federal income taxes.
Municipal lease obligations
are generally subject to greater risks than general obligation or revenue bonds. State laws set forth requirements that states or municipalities
must meet in order to issue municipal obligations, and such obligations may contain a covenant by the issuer to budget for, appropriate,
and make payments due under the obligation. However, certain municipal lease obligations may contain non-appropriation clauses which provide
that the issuer is not obligated to make payments on the obligation in future years unless funds have been appropriated for this purpose
each year. If not enough money is appropriated to make the lease payments, the leased property may be repossessed as security for holders
of the municipal lease obligation. In such an event, there is no assurance that the property’s private sector or re-leasing value
will be enough to make all outstanding payments on the municipal lease obligation or that the payments will continue to be tax-free. Additionally,
it may be difficult to dispose of the underlying capital asset in the event of non-appropriation or other default. Direct investments
by the Fund in municipal lease obligations may be deemed illiquid and therefore subject to the Fund’s percentage limitations for
illiquid investments and the risks of holding illiquid investments.
Municipal Forward Contracts
A municipal forward contract
is an agreement by the Fund to purchase a Municipal Security on a when-issued basis with a longer-than-standard settlement period, in
some cases with the settlement date taking place up to five years from the date of purchase. Municipal forward contracts typically carry
a substantial yield premium to compensate the buyer for the risks associated with a long when-issued period, including shifts in market
interest rates that could materially impact the principal value of the bond, deterioration in the credit quality of the issuer, loss of
alternative investment options during the when-issued period and failure of the issuer to complete various steps required to issue the
bonds.
Tobacco Related Bonds
The Fund may invest in two
types of tobacco related bonds: (i) tobacco settlement revenue bonds, for which payments of interest and principal are made solely
from a state’s interest in the Master Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) and (ii) tobacco bonds subject to a state’s
appropriation pledge (“STA Tobacco Bonds”), for which payments may come from both the MSA revenue and the applicable state’s
appropriation pledge.
Tobacco
Settlement Revenue Bonds. Tobacco settlement revenue bonds are secured by an issuing state’s proportionate share of periodic
payments by tobacco companies made under the MSA, a litigation settlement agreement reached out of court in November 1998 between
46 states and six U.S. jurisdictions and tobacco manufacturers representing a majority of U.S. market share. The MSA provides for annual
payments by the manufacturers to the states and other jurisdictions in perpetuity in exchange for releasing all claims against the manufacturers
and a pledge of no further litigation. The MSA established a base payment schedule and a formula for adjusting payments each year. Tobacco
manufacturers pay into a master escrow trust based on their market share, and each state receives a fixed percentage of the payment as
set forth in the MSA. Within some states, certain localities may in turn be allocated a specific portion of the state’s MSA payment
pursuant to an arrangement with the state.
A number of states and local
governments have securitized the future flow of payments under the MSA by selling bonds, some through distinct governmental entities created
for such purpose. The bonds are backed by the future revenue flows from the tobacco manufacturers. Annual payments on the bonds, and thus
the risk to the Fund, are dependent on the receipt of future settlement payments by the state or its instrumentality. The actual amount
of future settlement payments depends on many factors including, but not limited to, annual domestic cigarette shipments, cigarette consumption,
inflation and the financial capability of participating tobacco companies. As a result, payments made by tobacco manufacturers could be
reduced if the decrease in tobacco consumption is significantly greater than the forecasted decline. Demand for cigarettes in the U.S.
could continue to decline based on many factors, including without limitation, further regulation, anti-smoking campaigns, tax-increases,
price increases implemented to recoup the cost of payments by tobacco companies under the MSA, reduced ability to advertise, enforcement
of laws prohibiting sales to minors, elimination of certain sales venues such as vending machines, the spread of local ordinances restricting
smoking in public areas, and increase in the use of other nicotine delivery devices (such as electronic cigarettes, smoking cessation
products, and smokeless tobacco).
Because tobacco settlement
bonds are backed by payments from the tobacco manufacturers, and generally not by the credit of the state or local government issuing
the bonds, their creditworthiness depends on the ability of tobacco manufacturers to meet their obligations. A market share loss by the
MSA companies to non-MSA participating tobacco manufacturers could also cause a downward adjustment in the payment amounts. A participating
manufacturer filing for bankruptcy also could cause delays or reductions in bond payments, which could affect the Fund’s net asset
value.
The MSA and tobacco manufacturers
have been and continue to be subject to various legal claims, including among others, claims that the MSA violates federal antitrust law.
In addition, the United States Department of Justice has alleged in a civil lawsuit that the major tobacco companies defrauded and misled
the American public about the health risks associated with smoking cigarettes. Since the MSA, individual and class action healthcare cost
recovery lawsuits have been brought against tobacco manufacturers by plaintiffs seeking various forms of relief, including compensatory
and punitive damages, as well as reimbursement for healthcare expenditures incurred in connection with the treatment of medical conditions
allegedly caused by smoking or secondhand smoke. The MSA does not release participating manufacturers from liability in such cases as
the MSA only settled claims of the participating states. An adverse outcome to these, or any litigation matters or regulatory actions
relating to the MSA or affecting tobacco manufacturers, could adversely affect the payment streams associated with the MSA or cause delays
or reductions in bond payments by tobacco manufacturers.
Tobacco
Subject to Appropriation (STA) Bonds. In addition to the tobacco settlement bonds discussed above, the Fund also may invest
in STA Tobacco Bonds that rely on both the revenue source from the MSA and a state appropriation pledge.
These STA Tobacco Bonds are
part of a larger category of municipal bonds that are subject to state appropriation. Although specific provisions may vary among states,
“government appropriation” or “subject to appropriation” bonds (also referred to as “appropriation debt”)
are typically payable from two distinct sources: (i) a dedicated revenue source such as a municipal enterprise, a special tax or,
in the case of tobacco bonds, the MSA funds, and (ii) the issuer’s general funds. Appropriation debt differs from a state’s
general obligation debt in that general obligation debt is backed by the state’s full faith, credit, and taxing power, while appropriation
debt requires the state to pass a specific periodic appropriation to pay interest and/or principal on the bonds. The appropriation is
usually made annually. While STA Tobacco Bonds offer an enhanced credit support feature, that feature is generally not an unconditional
guarantee of payment by a state and states generally do not pledge the full faith, credit, or taxing power of the state.
Derivative Transactions and Related Risk Factors
The Fund may invest in derivatives.
A derivative is a financial instrument whose value is dependent upon the value of other assets, rates or indices, referred to as “underlying
reference assets.” These underlying reference assets may include, among others, commodities, stocks, bonds, interest rates, currency
exchange rates or related indices. Derivatives include, among others, swaps, options, futures and forward foreign currency contracts.
Some derivatives, such as futures and certain options, are traded on U.S. commodity and securities exchanges, while other derivatives,
such as many types of swap agreements, are privately negotiated and entered into in the OTC market. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the Dodd-Frank Act) and implementing rules require certain types of swaps to be traded
on public execution facilities and centrally cleared.
Derivatives may be used for
“hedging,” which means that they may be used when the portfolio managers seek to protect the Fund’s investments from
a decline in value, which could result from changes in interest rates, market prices, currency fluctuations and other market factors.
Derivatives may also be used when the portfolio managers seek to increase liquidity, implement a tax or cash management strategy, invest
in a particular stock, bond or segment of the market in a more efficient or less expensive way, modify the characteristics of the Fund’s
portfolio investments, for example, duration, and/or to enhance return. However derivatives are used, their successful use is not assured
and will depend upon, among other factors, the portfolio managers’ ability to predict and understand relevant market movements.
Certain derivatives involve
leverage, that is, the amount invested may be smaller than the full economic exposure of the derivative instrument and the Fund could
lose more than it invested. The leverage involved in these derivative transactions may result in the Fund’s net asset value being
more sensitive to changes in the value of its investments.
Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) Regulation and
Exclusions:
With respect to the Fund, Invesco
has claimed an exclusion from the definition of “commodity pool operator” (CPO) under the CEA and the rules of the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and, therefore, is not subject to CFTC registration or regulation as a CPO. In addition, Invesco
is relying upon a related exclusion from the definition of “commodity trading advisor” (CTA) under the CEA and the rules of
the CFTC with respect to the Fund.
The terms of the CPO exclusion
require the Fund, among other things, to adhere to certain limits on its investments in “commodity interests.” Commodity interests
include commodity futures, commodity options and swaps, which in turn include non-deliverable forwards, as further described below. Because
Invesco and the Fund intend to comply with the terms of the CPO exclusion, the Fund may, in the future, need to adjust its investment
strategies, consistent with their investment objectives, to limit their investments in these types of instruments. The Fund is not intended
as a vehicle for trading in the commodity futures, commodity options or swaps markets. The CFTC has neither reviewed nor approved Invesco’s
reliance on these exclusions, or the Fund, its investment strategies, its prospectus or this SAI.
Generally, the exclusion from
CPO regulation on which Invesco relies requires the Fund to meet one of the following tests for its commodity interest positions, other
than positions entered into for bona fide hedging purposes (as defined in the rules of the CFTC): either (1) the aggregate initial
margin and premiums required to establish the Fund’s positions in commodity interests may not exceed 5% of the liquidation value
of the Fund’s portfolio (after taking into account unrealized profits and unrealized losses on any such positions); or (2) the
aggregate net notional value of the Fund’s commodity interest positions, determined at the time the most recent such position was
established, may not exceed 100% of the liquidation value of the Fund’s portfolio (after taking into account unrealized profits
and unrealized losses on any such positions). In addition to meeting one of these trading limitations, the Fund may not market itself
as a commodity pool or otherwise as a vehicle for trading in the commodity futures, commodity options or swaps markets. If, in the future,
the Fund can no longer satisfy these requirements, Invesco would withdraw its notice claiming an exclusion from the definition of
a CPO, and Invesco would be subject to registration and regulation as a CPO with respect to the Fund, in accordance with the CFTC rules that
allow for substituted compliance with CFTC disclosure and shareholder reporting requirements based on Invesco’s compliance with
comparable SEC requirements. However, as a result of CFTC regulation with respect to the Fund, the Fund may incur additional compliance
and other expenses.
General risks associated with derivatives:
The use by the Fund of derivatives
may involve certain risks, as described below.
Counterparty
Risk: The risk that a counterparty under a derivatives agreement will not live up to its obligations, including because of
the counterparty’s bankruptcy or insolvency. Certain agreements may not contemplate delivery of collateral to support fully a counterparty’s
contractual obligation; therefore, the Fund might need to rely solely on contractual remedies to satisfy the counterparty’s full
obligation. As with any contractual remedy, there is no guarantee that the Fund will be successful in pursuing such remedies, particularly
in the event of the counterparty’s bankruptcy or insolvency. Many derivative trading agreements, such as an ISDA Master Agreement
governing OTC swaps, provide for netting of derivatives transactions governed by the agreement in the event of a default by either counterparty,
pursuant to which the Fund’s and the counterparty’s obligations under the relevant transactions can be netted and set-off
against each other, in which case the Fund’s obligation or right will be the net amount owed to or by the counterparty. Netting
agreements are intended to function as a counterparty credit risk mitigant, but in the case of a bankruptcy or insolvency of the relevant
counterparty, are subject to the risk that the insolvency regime applicable to the counterparty might not recognize the enforceability
of the contractual netting provisions. The Fund will not enter into a derivative transaction with any counterparty that Invesco and/or
the Sub-Advisers believe does not have the financial resources to honor its obligations under the transaction. Invesco monitors the financial
stability of counterparties. Where the obligations of the counterparty are guaranteed, Invesco monitors the financial stability of
the guarantor and the counterparty. If a counterparty’s creditworthiness declines, the value of the derivative would also likely
decline, potentially resulting in losses to the Fund.
Leverage
Risk: Leverage exists when the Fund can lose more than it originally invests because it purchases or sells an instrument or
enters into a transaction without investing an amount equal to the full economic exposure of the instrument or transaction. Leverage may
cause the Fund to be more volatile because it may exaggerate the effect of any increase or decrease in the value of the Fund’s portfolio
securities. The use of some derivatives may result in economic leverage, which does not result in the possibility of the Fund incurring
obligations beyond its initial investment, but that nonetheless permits the Fund to gain exposure that is greater than would be the case
in an unlevered instrument.
Liquidity
Risk: The risk that a particular derivative is difficult to sell or liquidate. If a derivative transaction is particularly
large or if the relevant market is illiquid, it may not be possible to initiate a transaction or liquidate a position at an advantageous
time or price, which may result in significant losses to the Fund.
Pricing
Risk: The risk that the value of a particular derivative does not move in tandem or as otherwise expected relative to the
corresponding underlying instruments.
Special
Regulatory Risks of Derivatives: The regulation of derivatives is a rapidly changing area of law and is subject to modification
by government and judicial action. In addition, the SEC, CFTC and the exchanges are authorized to take extraordinary actions in the event
of a market emergency, including, for example, the implementation or reduction of speculative position limits, the implementation of higher
margin requirements, the establishment of daily price limits and the suspension of trading.
It is not possible to predict
fully the effects of current or future regulation. However, it is possible that developments in government regulation of various types
of derivative instruments, such as speculative position limits on certain types of derivatives, or limits or restrictions on the counterparties
with which the Fund engages in derivative transactions, may limit or prevent the Fund from using or limit the Fund’s use of these
instruments effectively as a part of its investment strategy, and could adversely affect the Fund’s ability to achieve its investment
objective. Invesco will continue to monitor developments in the area, particularly to the extent regulatory changes affect the Fund’s
ability to enter into desired swap agreements. New requirements, even if not directly applicable to the Fund, may increase the cost of
the Fund’s investments and cost of doing business.
Tax
Risks: For a discussion of the tax considerations relating to derivative transactions, see “Tax Matters.”
General risks of hedging strategies using derivatives:
The use by the Fund of hedging
strategies involves special considerations and risks, as described below. Successful use of hedging transactions depends upon Invesco’s
and the Sub-Advisers’ ability to predict correctly the direction of changes in the value of the applicable markets and securities,
contracts and/or currencies. While Invesco and the Sub-Advisers are experienced in the use of derivatives for hedging, there can be no
assurance that any particular hedging strategy will succeed.
In a hedging transaction,
there might be imperfect correlation, or even no correlation, between the price movements of an instrument used for hedging and the price
movements of the investments being hedged. Such a lack of correlation might occur due to factors unrelated to the value of the investments
being hedged, such as changing interest rates, market liquidity, and speculative or other pressures on the markets in which the hedging
instrument is traded.
Hedging strategies, if successful,
can reduce risk of loss by wholly or partially offsetting the negative effect of unfavorable price movements in the investments being
hedged. However, hedging strategies can also reduce opportunity for gain by offsetting the positive effect of favorable price movements
in the hedged investments. Investors should bear in mind that the Fund is not obligated to actively engage in hedging. For example, the
Fund may not have attempted to hedge its exposure to a particular foreign currency at a time when doing so might have avoided a loss.
Cybersecurity
Risk. With the increased use of technologies such as the Internet to conduct business, the Fund, like all companies, may be
susceptible to operational, information security and related risks. Cybersecurity incidents involving the Fund and its service providers
(including, without limitation, the Fund’s investment adviser, sub-adviser, fund accountant, custodian, transfer agent and financial
intermediaries) have the ability to cause disruptions and impact business operations, potentially resulting in financial losses, impediments
to trading, the inability of Fund shareholders to transact business, violations of applicable privacy and other laws, regulatory fines,
penalties, reputational damage, reimbursement or other compensation costs, and/or additional compliance costs.
Cybersecurity incidents can
result from deliberate cyberattacks or unintentional events and may arise from external or internal sources. Cyberattacks may include
infection by malicious software or gaining unauthorized access to digital systems, networks or devices that are used to service the Fund’s
operations (e.g., by “hacking” or “phishing”). Cyberattacks may also be carried out in a manner that does not
require gaining unauthorized access, such as causing denial-of-service attacks on websites (i.e., efforts to make network services unavailable
to intended users). These cyberattacks could cause the misappropriation of assets or personal information, corruption of data or operational
disruptions. Geopolitical tensions may, from time to time, increase the scale and sophistication of deliberate cyberattacks.
Similar adverse consequences
could result from cybersecurity incidents affecting issuers of securities in which the Fund invests, counterparties with which the Fund
engages, governmental and other regulatory authorities, exchange and other financial market operators, banks, brokers, dealers, insurance
companies, other financial institutions and other parties. In addition, substantial costs may be incurred in order to prevent any cybersecurity
incidents in the future. Although the Fund’s service providers may have established business continuity plans and risk management
systems to mitigate cybersecurity risks, there can be no guarantee or assurance that such plans or systems will be effective, or that
all risks that exist, or may develop in the future, have been completely anticipated and identified or can be protected against. The Fund
and its shareholders could be negatively impacted as a result.
The rapid development and
increasingly widespread use of AI Technologies (as discussed under “AI Technologies” herein) could increase the effectiveness
of cyberattacks and exacerbate the risks.
Risks
Relating to Fund’s RIC Status. Although the Fund intends to elect and qualify each year to be treated as a RIC under
Subchapter M of the Code, no assurance can be given that the Fund will be able to qualify for and maintain RIC status. If the Fund qualifies
as a RIC under the Code, the Fund generally will not be subject to corporate-level federal income taxes on its income and capital gains
that are timely distributed (or deemed distributed) as dividends for U.S. federal income tax purposes to its shareholders. To qualify
as a RIC under the Code and to be relieved of federal taxes on income and gains distributed as dividends for U.S. federal income tax purposes
to the Fund’s shareholders, the Fund must, among other things, meet certain source-of-income, asset diversification and distribution
requirements. The distribution requirement for a RIC is satisfied if the Fund distributes dividends each tax year for U.S. federal income
tax purposes of an amount generally at least equal to 90% of the sum of its net ordinary income and net short-term capital gains in excess
of net long-term capital losses, if any, to the Fund’s shareholders.
Receipt
of Issuer’s Nonpublic Information. The Adviser or Sub-Advisers (through their portfolio managers, analysts, or other
representatives) may receive material nonpublic information about an issuer that may restrict the ability of the Adviser or Sub-Advisers
to cause the Fund to buy or sell securities of the issuer on behalf of the Fund for substantial periods of time. This may impact the Fund’s
ability to realize profit or avoid loss with respect to the issuer and may adversely affect the Fund’s flexibility with respect
to buying or selling securities, potentially impacting Fund performance. For example, activist investors of certain issuers in which the
Adviser or Sub-Advisers hold large positions may contact representatives of the Adviser or Sub-Advisers and may disclose material nonpublic
information in such communication. The Adviser or Sub-Advisers would be restricted from trading on the basis of such material nonpublic
information, limiting their flexibility in managing the Fund and possibly impacting Fund performance.
Business
Continuity and Operational Risk. The Adviser, the Fund and the Fund’s service providers may experience disruptions or
operating errors, such as processing errors or human errors, inadequate or failed internal or external processes, systems or technology
failures, or other disruptive events, that could negatively impact and cause disruptions in normal business operations of the Adviser,
the Fund or the Fund’s service providers. The Adviser has developed a Business Continuity Program (the “Program”) designed
to minimize the disruption of normal business operations in the event of an adverse incident affecting the Fund, the Adviser and/or its
affiliates. The Program is also designed to enable the Adviser to reestablish normal business operations in a timely manner during such
an adverse incident; however, there are inherent limitations in such programs (including the possibility that contingencies have not been
anticipated and procedures do not work as intended) and, under some circumstances (e.g. natural disasters, terrorism, public health crises,
power or utility shortages and failures, system failures or malfunctions), the Adviser, its affiliates, and any service providers or vendors
used by the Adviser, its affiliates, or the Fund could be prevented or hindered from providing services to the Fund for extended periods
of time. These circumstances could cause disruptions and negatively impact the Fund’s service providers and the Fund’s business
operations, potentially including an inability to calculate the Fund’s net asset value and price the Fund’s investments, and
impediments to trading portfolio securities.
Artificial
Intelligence Risk. The rapid development and increasingly widespread use of certain artificial intelligence technologies, including
machine learning models and generative artificial intelligence (collectively “AI Technologies”), may adversely impact markets,
the overall performance of the Fund’s investments, or the services provided to the Fund by its service providers. For example, issuers
in which the Fund invests and/or service providers to the Fund (including, without limitation, the Fund’s investment adviser, sub-adviser,
fund accountant, custodian, or transfer agent) may use and/or expand the use of AI Technologies in their business operations, and the
challenges with properly managing its use could result in reputational harm, competitive harm, legal liability, and/or an adverse effect
on business operations. AI Technologies are highly reliant on the collection and analysis of large amounts of data and complex algorithms,
and it is possible that the information provided through use of AI Technologies could be insufficient, incomplete, inaccurate or biased
leading to adverse effects for the Fund, including, potentially, operational errors and investment losses. Additionally, the use of AI
Technologies could impact the market as a whole, including by way of use by malicious actors for market manipulation, fraud and cyberattacks,
and may face regulatory scrutiny in the future, which could limit the development of this technology and impede the growth of companies
that develop and use AI.
To the extent the Fund invests
in companies that are involved in various aspects of AI Technologies, it is particularly sensitive to the risks of those types of companies.
These risks include, but are not limited to, small or limited markets for such securities, changes in business cycles, world economic
growth, technological progress, rapid obsolescence, and government regulation. Such companies may have limited product lines, markets,
financial resources, or personnel. Securities of such companies, especially smaller, start-up companies, tend to be more volatile than
securities of companies that do not rely heavily on technology. Rapid change to technologies that affect a company’s products could
have a material adverse effect on such company’s operating results. Companies that are extensively involved in AI Technologies also
may rely heavily on a combination of patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secret laws to establish and protect their proprietary
rights in their products and technologies. There can be no assurance that the steps taken by these companies to protect their proprietary
rights will be adequate to prevent the misappropriation of their technology or that competitors will not independently develop technologies
that are substantially equivalent or superior to such companies’ technology. Such companies may engage in significant amounts of
spending on research and development, and there is no guarantee that the products or services produced by these companies will be successful.
Actual usage of AI Technologies
by the Fund’s service providers and issuers in which the Fund invests will vary. AI Technologies and their current and potential
future applications, and the regulatory frameworks within which they operate, continue to rapidly evolve, and it is impossible to predict
the full extent of future applications or regulations and the associated risks to the Fund.
Natural
Disaster/Epidemic Risk. Natural or environmental disasters such as earthquakes, wildfires, floods, hurricanes, tsunamis, other
severe weather-related phenomena, and widespread disease including pandemics and epidemics, can be highly disruptive to economies and
markets, sometimes severely so, and can adversely impact individual companies, sectors, industries, markets, currencies, interest and
inflation rates, credit ratings, investor sentiment, and other factors affecting the value of the Fund’s investments. Given the
increasing interdependence among global economies and markets, conditions in one country, market, or region are increasingly likely to
adversely affect markets, issuers, and/or foreign exchange rates in other countries, including the U.S. These disruptions could prevent
the Fund from executing advantageous investment decisions in a timely manner and negatively impact the Fund’s ability to achieve
its investment objective.
Any such event(s) could
have a significant adverse impact on the value and risk profile of the Fund. The recent spread of the human coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
is an example. In the first quarter of 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) recognized COVID-19 as a global pandemic and both the
WHO and the U.S. declared the outbreak a public health emergency. The subsequent spread of COVID-19 resulted in, among other significant
adverse economic impacts, instances of market closures and dislocations, extreme volatility, liquidity constraints and increased trading
costs. Efforts to contain the spread of COVID-19 resulted in travel restrictions, closed international borders, disruptions of healthcare
systems, business operations (including business closures) and supply chains, employee layoffs and general lack of employee availability,
lower consumer demand, and defaults and credit downgrades, all of which contributed to disruption of global economic activity across many
industries and exacerbated other pre-existing political, social and economic risks domestically and globally. Although the WHO and the
U.S. ended their declarations of COVID-19 as a global health emergency in May 2023, the full economic impact at the macro-level and
on individual businesses, as well as the potential for a future reoccurrence of COVID or the occurrence of a similar epidemic or pandemic,
are unpredictable and could result in significant and prolonged adverse impact on economies and financial markets in specific countries
and worldwide and thereby negatively affect the Fund’s performance.
Litigation
Risk. From time to time, the Fund may pursue or be involved as a named party in litigation arising in connection with its role
or status as a shareholder, bondholder, lender or holder of portfolio investments, its own activities, or other circumstances. Litigation
that affects the Fund’s portfolio investments may result in the reduced value of such investments or higher portfolio turnover if
the Fund determines to sell such investments. Litigation could result in significant expenses, reputational damage, increased insurance
premiums, adverse judgment liabilities, settlement liabilities, injunctions, diversions of Fund resources, disruptions to Fund operations
and/or other similar adverse consequences, any of which may increase the expenses incurred by a Fund or adversely affect the value of
the Fund’s shares.
INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS
The following are fundamental investment restrictions
of the Fund and may not be changed without the approval of the holders of a majority of the Fund’s outstanding voting securities
(which for this purpose and under the 1940 Act means the lesser of (i) 67% or more of the Fund’s voting securities present
at a meeting at which more than 50% of the Fund’s outstanding voting securities are present or represented by proxy or (ii) more
than 50% of the Fund’s outstanding voting securities). Except as otherwise noted, all percentage limitations set forth below apply
immediately after a purchase and any subsequent change in any applicable percentage resulting from market fluctuations does not require
any action. With respect to the limitations on the issuance of senior securities and in the case of borrowings, the percentage limitations
apply at the time of issuance and on an ongoing basis. In accordance with the foregoing, the Fund may not:
| 1. | The Fund is a “diversified company” as defined in the 1940 Act. The Fund will not purchase
the securities of any issuer if, as a result, the Fund would fail to be a diversified company within the meaning of the 1940 Act, and
the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, as such statute, rules and regulations are amended from time to time or are
interpreted from time to time by the SEC staff (collectively, the “1940 Act Laws and Interpretations”) or except to the extent
that the Fund may be permitted to do so by exemptive order or similar relief (collectively, with the 1940 Act Laws and Interpretations,
the “1940 Act Laws, Interpretations and Exemptions”). In complying with this restriction, however, the Fund may purchase
securities of other investment companies to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act Laws, Interpretations and Exemptions. |
| 2. | The Fund will not make investments that will result in the concentration (as that term may be defined
or interpreted by the 1940 Act Laws, Interpretations and Exemptions) of its investments in the securities of issuers primarily engaged
in the same industry. This restriction does not limit the Fund’s investments in (i) obligations issued or guaranteed by the
U.S. government, its agencies or instrumentalities, or (ii) tax-exempt obligations issued by governments or political subdivisions
of governments. In complying with this restriction, the Fund will not consider a bank-issued guaranty or financial guaranty insurance
as a separate security. |
| 3. | The Fund may not borrow money or issue senior securities, except as permitted by the 1940 Act Laws, Interpretations
and Exemptions. |
| 4. | The Fund may not underwrite the securities of other issuers. This restriction does not prevent the Fund
from engaging in transactions involving the acquisition, disposition or resale of its portfolio securities, regardless of whether the
Fund may be considered to be an underwriter under the 1933 Act. |
| 5. | The Fund may not make personal loans or loans of its assets to persons who control or are under common
control with the Fund, except to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act Laws, Interpretations and Exemptions. This restriction does
not prevent the Fund from, among other things, purchasing debt obligations, entering into repurchase agreements, loaning its assets to
broker-dealers or institutional investors, or investing in loans, including assignments and participation interests. |
| 6. | The Fund may not purchase real estate or sell real estate unless acquired as a result of ownership of
securities or other instruments. This restriction does not prevent the Fund from investing in issuers that invest, deal, or otherwise
engage in transactions in real estate or interests therein, or investing in securities that are secured by real estate or interests therein. |
| 7. | The Fund may not purchase or sell physical commodities except to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act
and any other governing statute, and by the rules thereunder, and by the SEC or other regulatory agency with authority over the Fund. |
| 8. | The Trust will invest at least 80% of its net assets in Municipal Obligations, except during temporary
defensive periods. |
For purposes of the foregoing,
“assets” means net assets, plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes. Derivatives and other instruments
that have economic characteristics similar to the securities described above for the Fund may be counted toward that Fund’s 80%
policy. “Municipal Obligations” consist of Municipal Bonds, Municipal Notes and Municipal Commercial Paper (each described
below), including such obligations purchased on a when-issued or delayed delivery basis
The Fund’s investment
objective to provide a high level of current income which is exempt from federal income tax is also fundamental and may not be changed
without shareholder approval. The investment restrictions set forth above provide each of the Fund with the ability to operate under new
interpretations of the 1940 Act or pursuant to exemptive relief from the SEC without receiving prior shareholder approval of the change.
The Board may adopt non-fundamental restrictions for the Fund relating to certain of these restrictions which Invesco and, when applicable,
the Sub-Advisers must follow in managing the Fund. Any changes to these non-fundamental restrictions require the approval of the Board.
Explanatory Note
For purposes of the Fund’s
fundamental restriction related to industry concentration above, investments in tax-exempt municipal securities where the payment of principal
and interest for such securities is derived solely from a specific project associated with an issuer that is not a governmental entity
or a political subdivision of a government are subject to the Fund’s industry concentration policy.
For purposes of the Fund’s
fundamental restriction related to physical commodities above, the Fund is currently permitted to invest in futures, swaps and other instruments
on physical commodities to the extent permitted by the fundamental restriction and the 1940 Act does not prohibit a fund from owning commodities
or contracts related to commodities. The extent to which the Fund can invest in futures, swaps and other instruments on physical commodities,
and/or commodities or contracts related to commodities is set out in the investment strategies described in the Fund’s prospectus
and this SAI and permitted by the Fund’s fundamental restriction.
For purposes of the Fund’s
fundamental restriction related to real estate above, the 1940 Act does not prohibit a fund from owning real estate. The extent to which
the Fund can invest in real estate is set out in the investment strategies described in the Fund’s prospectus or this SAI.
For purposes of the Fund’s
fundamental restriction related to senior securities above, the 1940 Act prohibits a fund from issuing a “senior security,”
which is generally defined as any bond, debenture, note, or similar obligation or instrument constituting a security and evidencing indebtedness,
or any stock of a class having priority over any other class of the fund’s shares with respect to the payment of dividends or the
distribution of fund assets, except that the fund may borrow money as described above.
For purposes of the Fund’s
fundamental restriction related to loans above made by the Fund, current SEC staff interpretations under the 1940 Act prohibit a fund
from lending more than one-third of its total assets, except through the purchase of debt obligations or the use of repurchase agreements.
Non-Fundamental
Restrictions. Non-fundamental restrictions may be changed for any Fund without shareholder approval.
| 1. | In complying with the fundamental restriction regarding issuer diversification, the Fund will not, with
respect to 75% of its total assets, purchase the securities of any issuer (other than securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government
or any of its agencies or instrumentalities and securities issued by other investment companies), if, as a result, (i) more than
5% of the Fund’s total assets would be invested in the securities of that issuer, or (ii) the Fund would hold more than 10%
of the outstanding voting securities of that issuer. The Fund may purchase securities of other investment companies as permitted by the
1940 Act Laws, Interpretations and Exemptions. |
In complying with the fundamental restriction
regarding issuer diversification, the Fund will regard each state (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico), territory and
possession of the United States, each political subdivision, agency, instrumentality, and authority thereof, and each multi-state agency
of which a state is a member as a separate issuer. When the assets and revenues of an agency, authority, instrumentality or other political
subdivision are separate from the government creating the subdivision and the security is backed only by assets and revenues of the subdivision,
such subdivision would be deemed to be the sole issuer. Similarly, in the case of an Industrial Development Bond or Private Activity Bond,
if that bond is backed only by the assets and revenues of the non-governmental user, then that non-governmental user would be deemed to
be the sole issuer. However, if the creating government or another entity guarantees a security, then to the extent that the value of
all securities issued or guaranteed by that government or entity and owned by the Fund exceeds 10% of the Fund’s total assets, the
guarantee would be considered a separate security and would be treated as issued by that government or entity. Securities issued or guaranteed
by a bank or subject to financial guaranty insurance are not subject to the limitations set forth in the preceding sentence.
| 2. | In complying with the fundamental restriction regarding borrowing money and issuing senior securities,
the Fund may borrow money in an amount not exceeding 33 1/3% of its total assets (including the amount borrowed) less liabilities (other
than borrowings). |
| 3. | In complying with the fundamental restriction regarding industry concentration, the Fund may invest up
to 25% of its total assets in the securities of issuers whose principal business activities are in the same industry. |
| 4. | In complying with the fundamental restriction with regard to making loans, the Fund may lend up to 33
1/3% of its total assets and may lend money to an Invesco Fund, on such terms and conditions as the SEC may require in an exemptive order. |
It is the intention of the
Fund, unless otherwise indicated, that with respect to the Fund’s policies that are a result of application of law, the Fund will
take advantage of the flexibility provided by rules or interpretations of the SEC currently in existence or promulgated in the future,
or changes to such laws.
TRUSTEES AND OFFICERS
The business and affairs of
the Fund are managed under the direction of the Fund’s Board of Trustees (the “Board”) and the Fund’s officers
appointed by the Board. The tables below list the trustees and the executive officers of the Fund and their principal occupations, other
directorships held by the trustees and their affiliations, if any, with the Adviser or its affiliates. The “Fund Complex”
includes each of the investment companies advised by the Adviser as of November 30, 2024. Trustees serve until their successors are duly elected
and qualified. Officers are annually elected by the Board. The principal business address of each Trustee and Officer is c/o Invesco Municipal
Income Opportunities Trust, 1331 Spring Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30309.
Name, year of Birth
and Position(s) Held
with the Trust |
|
Trustee
and/or
Officer
Since |
|
Principal Occupation(s)
During Past 5 years |
|
Number of
Funds in
Fund
Complex
Overseen
by Trustee |
|
Other
Trusteeship(s)/
Directorship
Held by
Trustee/Director
During Past
5 Years |
Interested Trustees: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeffery H. Kupor1 – 1969
Trustee |
|
2024 |
|
Senior Managing Director and General Counsel, Invesco Ltd.; Trustee, Invesco
Foundation, Inc.; Director, Invesco Advisers, Inc.; Executive Vice President, Invesco Asset Management (Bermuda), Ltd., Invesco
Investments (Bermuda) Ltd.; and Vice President, Invesco Group Services, Inc.
Formerly: Head of Legal of the
Americas, Invesco Ltd.; Senior Vice President and Secretary, Invesco Advisers, Inc. (formerly known as Invesco
Institutional (N.A.), Inc.) (registered investment adviser); Secretary, Invesco Distributors, Inc. (formerly known as
Invesco AIM Distributors, Inc.); Vice President and Secretary, Invesco Investment Services, Inc. (formerly known as
Invesco AIM Investment Services, Inc.); Senior Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, The Invesco Funds; Secretary
and General Counsel, Invesco Investment Advisers LLC (formerly known as Van Kampen Asset Management); Secretary and General
Counsel, Invesco Capital Markets, Inc. (formerly known as Van Kampen Funds Inc.) and Chief Legal Officer, Invesco
Exchange-Traded Fund Trust, Invesco Exchange-Traded Fund Trust II, Invesco India Exchange-Traded Fund Trust, Invesco
Actively Managed Exchange-Traded Fund Trust, Invesco Actively Managed Exchange-Traded Commodity Fund Trust and Invesco
Exchange-Traded Self-Indexed Fund Trust; Secretary and Vice President, Harbourview Asset Management Corporation; Secretary and Vice
President, OppenheimerFunds, Inc. and Invesco Managed Accounts, LLC; Secretary and Senior Vice President, OFI Global
Institutional, Inc.; Secretary and Vice President, OFI SteelPath, Inc.; Secretary and Vice President, Oppenheimer
Acquisition Corp.; Secretary and Vice President, Shareholder Services, Inc.; Secretary and Vice President, Trinity Investment
Management Corporation, Senior Vice President, Invesco Distributors, Inc.; Secretary and Vice President,
Jemstep, Inc.; Head of Legal, Worldwide Institutional, Invesco Ltd.; Secretary and General Counsel, INVESCO Private
Capital Investments, Inc.; Senior Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel, Invesco Management Group, Inc.
(formerly known as Invesco AIM Management Group, Inc.); Assistant Secretary, INVESCO Asset Management (Bermuda) Ltd.;
Secretary and General Counsel, Invesco Private Capital, Inc.; Assistant Secretary and General Counsel, INVESCO
Realty, Inc.; Secretary and General Counsel, Invesco Senior Secured Management, Inc.; Secretary, Sovereign G./P.
Holdings Inc.; Secretary, Invesco Indexing LLC; and Secretary, W.L. Ross & Co., LLC.
|
|
164 |
|
None |
Douglas Sharpe 2 – 1974
Trustee |
|
2024 |
|
Senior Managing Director and Head of Americas &
EMEA, Invesco Ltd.
Formerly: Director and Chairman Invesco UK Limited;
Director, Chairman and Chief Executive, Invesco Fund Managers Limited |
|
164 |
|
None |
Name, year of Birth
and Position(s) Held
with the Trust |
|
Trustee
and/or
Officer
Since |
|
Principal Occupation(s)
During Past 5 years |
|
Number of
Funds in
Fund
Complex
Overseen
by Trustee |
|
Other
Trusteeship(s)/
Directorship
Held by
Trustee/Director
During Past
5 Years |
Independent Trustees |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beth Ann Brown – 1968
Trustee (2019) and Chair (2022) |
|
2019 |
|
Independent Consultant
Formerly: Head of Intermediary Distribution,
Managing Director, Strategic Relations, Managing Director, Head of National Accounts, Senior Vice President, National Account Manager
and Senior Vice President, Key Account Manager, Columbia Management Investment Advisers LLC; Vice President, Key Account Manager, Liberty
Funds Distributor, Inc; and Trustee of certain Oppenheimer Funds |
|
164 |
|
Director, Board of
Directors of Caron Engineering Inc.; Formerly: Advisor, Board of Advisors of Caron Engineering Inc.; President and Director, Acton
Shapleigh Youth Conservation Corps (non-profit) President and Director Director of Grahamtastic Connection
(non-profit) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carol Deckbar – 1962
Trustee |
|
2024 |
|
Formerly: Executive Vice President and Chief
Product Officer, TIAA Financial Services; Executive Vice President and Principal, College Retirement Equities Fund at TIAA; Executive
Vice President and Head of Institutional Investments and Endowment Services, TIAA |
|
164 |
|
Formerly: Board Member, TIAA Asset Management, Inc.; and Board Member, TH Real Estate Group Holdings Company |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cynthia Hostetler – 1962
Trustee |
|
2017 |
|
Non-Executive Director and Trustee of a number of public and private
business corporations
Formerly: Director, Aberdeen Investment Funds (4 portfolios); Director,
Artio Global Investment LLC (mutual fund complex); Director, Edgen Group, Inc. (specialized energy and infrastructure products distributor);
Director, Genesee & Wyoming, Inc. (railroads); Head of Investment Funds and Private Equity, Overseas Private Investment
Corporation; President, First Manhattan Bancorporation, Inc.; and Attorney, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP |
|
164 |
|
Resideo
Technologies, Inc. (smart home technology); Vulcan Materials Company (construction materials company); Trilinc Global Impact
Fund; Textainer Group Holdings, (shipping container leasing company); Investment Company Institute (professional organization); and
Independent Directors Council (professional organization) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eli Jones– 1961
Trustee |
|
2016 |
|
Professor and Dean Emeritus, Mays Business School - Texas A&M University
Formerly: Dean of Mays Business School-Texas
A&M University; Professor and Dean, Walton College of Business, University of Arkansas and E.J. Ourso College of Business, Louisiana
State University; and Director, Arvest Bank |
|
164 |
|
Insperity, Inc. (formerly known as Administaff) (human resources provider); Board Member of the regional board, First Financial Bank Texas; and Boad Member, First Financial Bankshares, Inc. Texas |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elizabeth Krentzman– 1959
Trustee
|
|
2019 |
|
Formerly: Principal and Chief Regulatory Advisor
for Asset Management Services and U.S. Mutual Fund Leader of Deloitte & Touche LLP; General Counsel of the Investment Company
Institute (trade association); National Director of the Investment Management Regulatory Consulting Practice, Principal, Director and
Senior Manager of Deloitte & Touche LLP; Assistant Director of the Division of Investment Management - Office of Disclosure
and Investment Adviser Regulation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and various positions with the Division of Investment
Management – Office of Regulatory Policy of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; Associate at Ropes & Gray LLP;
and Trustee of certain Oppenheimer Funds |
|
164 |
|
Formerly: Member of the Cartica Funds Board of Directors (private investment fund); Trustee of the University of Florida NationalBoard Foundation; and Member of the University of Florida Law Center Association, Inc.Board of Trustees, Audit Committee and Membership Committee |
Name, year of Birth
and Position(s) Held
with the Trust |
|
Trustee
and/or
Officer
Since |
|
Principal Occupation(s)
During Past 5 years |
|
Number of
Funds in
Fund
Complex
Overseen
by Trustee |
|
Other
Trusteeship(s)/
Directorship
Held by
Trustee/Director
During Past
5 Years |
Anthony J. LaCava, Jr. – 1956
Trustee |
|
2019 |
|
Formerly: Director and Member of the Audit Committee, Blue Hills Bank
(publicly traded financial institution) and Managing Partner, KPMG LLP
|
|
164 |
|
Member and Chairman, of the Bentley University, Business School Advisory
Council; and Board Member and Chair of the Audit and Finance Committee and Nominating Committee, KPMG LLP
|
Prema Mathai-Davis – 1950
Trustee
|
|
2014 |
|
Formerly: Co-Founder & Partner of Quantalytics Research, LLC,
(a FinTech Investment Research Platform for the Self-Directed Investor); Trustee of YWCA Retirement Fund; CEO of YWCA of the USA; Board
member of the NY Metropolitan Transportation Authority; Commissioner of the NYC Department of Aging; and Board member of Johns Hopkins
Bioethics Institute
|
|
164 |
|
Member of Board of Positiv
Planet US (non-profit) and HealthCare Chaplaincy Network (non-profit) |
James “Jim” Liddy – 1959
Trustee |
|
2024 |
|
Formerly: Chairman, Global Financial Services, Americas and Retired Partner, KPMG LLP |
|
164 |
|
Director and Treasurer, Gulfside Place Condominium Association, Inc.
and Non-Executive Director, Kellenberg Memorial High School
|
Joel W. Motley – 1952
Trustee
|
|
2019 |
|
Director of Office of Finance, Federal Home Loan Bank System; Managing
Director of Carmona Motley Inc. (privately held financial advisor); Member of the Council on Foreign Relations and its Finance and Budget
Committee; Chairman Emeritus of Board of Human Rights Watch and Member of its Investment Committee; and Member of Investment Committee
Board of Historic Hudson Valley (non-profit cultural organization); Member of the Board, Blue Ocean Acquisition Corp.; and Member of the
Vestry and the Investment Committee of Trinity Church Wall Street.
Formerly: Managing Director of Public Capital
Advisors, LLC (privately held financial advisor); Managing Director of Carmona Motley Hoffman, Inc. (privately held financial advisor);
Trustee of certain Oppenheimer Funds; and Director of Columbia Equity Financial Corp. (privately held financial advisor) |
|
164 |
|
Member of Board of Trust for Mutual Understanding (non-profit promoting the arts and environment); Member of Board of Greenwall Foundation (bioethics research foundation) and its Investment Committee; Member of Board of Friends of the LRC (non- profit legal advocacy); and Board Member and Investment Committee Member of Pulitzer Center for Crisis Reporting (non-profit journalism) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teresa M. Ressel – 1962
Trustee
|
|
2017 |
|
Non-executive director and trustee of a number of public and private
business corporations
Formerly: Chief Executive Officer, UBS Securities LLC (investment banking);
Group Chief Operating Officer, UBS AG Americas (investment banking); Sr. Management Team Olayan America, The Olayan Group (international
investor/commercial/industrial); and Assistant Secretary for Management & Budget and Designated Chief Financial Officer, U.S.
Department of Treasury
|
|
164 |
|
None
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert C. Troccolli – 1949
Trustee |
|
2017 |
|
Formerly: Adjunct Professor, University of Denver – Daniels College of Business; and Managing Partner, KPMG LLP |
|
164 |
|
None |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel S. Vandivort – 1954
Trustee
|
|
2019 |
|
President, Flyway Advisory Services LLC (consulting
and property management) and Member, Investment Committee of Historic Charleston Foundation
Formerly: President and Chief Investment
Officer, previously Head of Fixed Income, Weiss Peck and Greer/Robeco Investment Management; Trustee and Chair, Weiss Peck and Greer
Funds Board; and various capacities at CS First Boston including Head of Fixed Income at First Boston Asset Management. |
|
164
|
|
Formerly: Trustee and Governance Chair, Oppenheimer Funds; Treasurer,
Chairman of the Audit and Finance Committee, Huntington Disease Foundation of America T-3 Invesco Senior Income Trust |
Name, year of Birth
and Position(s) Held
with the Trust |
|
Trustee
and/or
Officer
Since |
|
Principal Occupation(s)
During Past 5 years |
|
Number of
Funds in
Fund
Complex
Overseen
by Trustee |
|
Other
Trusteeship(s)/
Directorship
Held by
Trustee/Director
During Past
5 Years |
Officers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glenn Brightman – 1972
President and Principal Executive Officer
|
|
2023 |
|
Chief Operating Officer, Americas, Invesco Ltd.; Senior Vice President, Invesco
Advisers, Inc.; President and Principal Executive Officer, The Invesco Funds; Manager, Invesco Investment Advisers LLC.
Formerly: Global Head of Finance, Invesco Ltd; Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer, Nuveen
|
|
N/A |
|
N/A |
Melanie Ringold– 1975
Senior Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary
|
|
2023 |
|
Head of Legal of the Americas, Invesco Ltd.; Senior Vice President
and Secretary, Invesco Advisers, Inc. (formerly known as Invesco Institutional (N.A.), Inc.) (registered investment adviser);
Secretary, Invesco Distributors, Inc. (formerly known as Invesco AIM Distributors, Inc.); Secretary, Invesco Investment
Services, Inc. (formerly known as Invesco AIM Investment Services, Inc.); Senior Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary,
The Invesco Funds; Secretary, Invesco Investment Advisers LLC, Invesco Capital Markets, Inc.; Chief Legal Officer, Invesco
Exchange-Traded Fund Trust, Invesco Exchange-Traded Fund Trust II, Invesco India Exchange-Traded Fund Trust, Invesco Actively
Managed Exchange-Traded Fund Trust, Invesco Actively Secretary and Vice President, Harbourview Asset Management Corporation; Secretary
and Senior Vice President, OppenheimerFunds, Inc. and Invesco Managed Accounts, LLC; Secretary and Senior Vice President, Oppenheimer
Acquisition Corp.; Secretary, SteelPath Funds Remediation LLC; and Secretary and Senior Vice President, Trinity Investment Management
Corporation
Formerly: Secretary and Senior Vice President,
OFI SteelPath, Inc., Assistant Secretary, Invesco Distributors, Inc., Invesco Advisers, Inc., Invesco Investment
Services, Inc., Invesco Capital Markets, Inc., Invesco Capital Management LLC and Invesco Investment Advisers LLC;
and Assistant Secretary and Investment Vice President, Invesco Funds |
|
N/A |
|
N/A |
Name, year of Birth
and Position(s) Held
with the Trust |
|
Trustee
and/or
Officer
Since |
|
Principal Occupation(s)
During Past 5 years |
|
Number of
Funds in
Fund
Complex
Overseen
by Trustee |
|
Other
Trusteeship(s)/
Directorship
Held by
Trustee/Director
During Past
5 Years |
Crissie M. Wisdom – 1969
Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Officer |
|
2013 |
|
Anti-Money Laundering and OFAC Compliance Officer for Invesco U.S.
entities including: Invesco Advisers, Inc. and its affiliates, Invesco Capital Markets, Inc., Invesco Distributors, Inc., Invesco
Investment Services, Inc., The Invesco Funds, Invesco Capital Management, LLC, Invesco Trust Company; and Fraud Prevention
Manager for Invesco Investment Services, Inc
|
|
N/A |
|
N/A |
Tony Wong – 1973
Senior Vice President
|
|
2023
|
|
Senior Managing Director, Invesco Ltd.; Director, Chairman, Chief
Executive Officer and President, Invesco Advisers, Inc.; Director and Chairman, Invesco Private Capital, Inc., INVESCO
Private Capital Investments, Inc. and INVESCO Realty, Inc.; Director, Invesco Senior Secured Management, Inc.; President, Invesco
Managed Accounts, LLC and SNW Asset Management Corporation; and Senior Vice President, The Invesco Funds
Formerly: Assistant Vice President, The Invesco Funds; and Vice President, Invesco
Advisers, Inc.
|
|
N/A
|
|
N/A
|
Stephan C. Butcher – 1971
Senior Vice President |
|
2023 |
|
Senior Managing Director, Invesco Ltd.; Senior Vice President, The Invesco Funds; Director and Chief Executive Officer, Invesco Asset Management Limited |
|
N/A |
|
N/A |
Name, year of Birth
and Position(s) Held
with the Trust |
|
Trustee
and/or
Officer
Since |
|
Principal Occupation(s)
During Past 5 years |
|
Number of
Funds in
Fund
Complex
Overseen
by Trustee |
|
Other
Trusteeship(s)/
Directorship
Held by
Trustee/Director
During Past
5 Years |
Adrien Deberghes – 1967
Principal Financial Officer, Treasurer and Senior Vice President
|
|
2020
|
|
Head of the Fund Office of the CFO and Fund
Administration; Vice President, Invesco Advisers, Inc.; Director, Invesco Trust Company; Principal Financial Officer,
Treasurer and Senior Vice President, The Invesco Funds; Vice President, Invesco Exchange-Traded Fund Trust, Invesco Exchange-Traded
Fund Trust II, Invesco India Exchange-Traded Fund Trust, Invesco Actively Managed Exchange-Traded Fund Trust, Invesco
Actively Managed Exchange-Traded Commodity Fund Trust and Invesco Exchange-Traded Self-Indexed Fund Trust
|
|
N/A
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Todd F. Kuehl – 1969
Chief Compliance Officer and Senior Vice President
|
|
2020 |
|
Formerly: Vice President, The Invesco Funds;
Senior Vice President and Treasurer, Fidelity Investments
Chief Compliance Officer, Invesco Advisers, Inc. (registered
investment adviser); and Chief Compliance Officer and Senior Vice President, The Invesco Funds
Formerly: Managing Director and Chief Compliance Officer, Legg Mason
(Mutual Funds); Chief Compliance Officer, Legg Mason Private Portfolio Group (registered investment adviser)
|
|
N/A
|
|
N/A
|
James Bordewick, Jr. – 1959
Senior Vice President and Senior
Officer |
|
2022 |
|
Formerly: Chief Legal Officer, KingsCrowd, Inc.
(research and analytical platform for investment in private capital markets); Chief Operating Officer and Head of Legal and Regulatory,
Netcapital (private capital investment platform); Managing Director, General Counsel of asset management and Chief Compliance Officer
for asset management and private banking, Bank of America Corporation; Chief Legal Officer, Columbia Funds and BofA Funds; Senior Vice
President and Associate General Counsel, MFS Investment Management; Chief Legal Officer, MFS Funds; Associate, Ropes & Gray;
and Associate, Gaston Snow & Ely Bartlett |
|
N/A
|
|
N/A
|
| 1 | Mr. Kupor is considered an interested person (within the meaning of Section 2(a)(19) of the 1940 Act) of the Fund because
he is an officer of the Adviser to the Trust, and an officer of Invesco Ltd., ultimate parent of the Adviser. |
| 2 | Mr. Sharp is considered an interested person (within the meaning of Section 2(a)(19) of the 1940 Act) of the Fund because
he is an officer of the Adviser to the Trust, and an officer of Invesco Ltd., ultimate parent of the Adviser. |
Additional Information about the Trustees
Interested Trustees
Jeffrey H. Kupor, Trustee
Jeffrey Kupor has been a member
of the Board of Trustees of the Invesco Funds since 2024. Mr. Kupor is Senior Managing Director and General Counsel at Invesco Ltd.
Mr. Kupor joined Invesco
Ltd. in 2002 and has held a number of legal roles, including, most recently, Head of Legal, Americas, in which role he was responsible
for legal support for Invesco's Americas business. Prior to joining the firm, he practiced law at Fulbright & Jaworski LLP (now
known as Norton Rose Fulbright), specializing in complex commercial and securities litigation. He also served as the general counsel of
a publicly traded communication services company.
Mr. Kupor earned a BS
degree in economics from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and a JD from the Boalt Hall School of Law (now known as
Berkeley Law) at the University of California at Berkeley.
The Board believes that Mr. Kupor’s
current and past positions with the Invesco complex along with his legal background and experience as an executive in the investment management
area benefits the Fund.
Douglas Sharp, Trustee
Douglas Sharp has been a member
of the Board of Trustees of the Invesco Funds since 2024. Mr. Sharp is Senior Managing Director, Head of Americas & EMEA
(Europe, the Middle East, and Africa) at Invesco Ltd. He also served as Director and Chairman of the Board of Invesco UK Limited (Invesco’s
European subsidiary board) and as Director, Chairman and Chief Executive of Invesco Fund Managers Limited.
Mr. Sharp joined Invesco
Ltd. in 2008 and has served in multiple leadership roles across the company, including his previous role as Head of EMEA. Prior to that,
he ran Invesco Ltd.’s EMEA retail business and served as head of strategy and business planning and as chief administrative officer
for Invesco Ltd.’s US institutional business. Before joining the firm, he was with the strategy consulting firm McKinsey &
Co., where he served clients in the financial services, energy, and logistics sectors.
The Board believes that Mr. Sharp’s
current and past positions within the Invesco complex along with his experience in the investment management business benefits the Fund.
Independent Trustees
Beth Ann Brown, Trustee and Chair
Beth Ann Brown has been a
member of the Board of Trustees of the Invesco Funds since 2019 and Chair since 2022. From 2016 to 2019, Ms. Brown served on the
boards of certain investment companies in the Oppenheimer Funds complex.
Ms. Brown has served
as Director of Caron Engineering, Inc. since 2018 and as an Independent Consultant since 2012.
Previously, Ms. Brown
served in various capacities at Columbia Management Investment Advisers LLC, including Head of Intermediary Distribution, Managing Director,
Strategic Relations and Managing Director, Head of National Accounts. She also served as Senior Vice President, National Account Manager
from 2002-2004 and Senior Vice President, Key Account Manager from 1999 to 2002 of Liberty Funds Distributor, Inc. From 2013 through
2022, she served as Director, Vice President (through 2019) and President (2019-2022) of Grahamtastic Connection, a non-profit organization.
From 2014 to 2017, Ms. Brown
served on the Board of Advisors of Caron Engineering Inc. and also served as President and Director of Acton Shapleigh Youth Conservation
Corps, a non–profit organization, from 2012 to 2015.
The Board believes that Ms. Brown’s
experience in financial services and investment management and as a director of other investment companies benefits the Fund.
Carol Deckbar, Trustee
Carol Deckbar has been a member
of the Board of Trustees of the Invesco Funds since 2024. Ms. Deckbar previously served as Executive Vice President and Chief Product
Officer at Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association (TIAA) Financial Services from 2019 to 2021. She also served as Executive Vice President
and Principal of College Retirement Equities Fund at TIAA from 2014 to 2021. Ms. Deckbar served in various other capacities at TIAA
since joining in 2007, including Executive Vice President and Head of Institutional Investments and Endowment Services from 2016 to 2019.
Prior to joining TIAA, Ms. Deckbar
was a Senior Vice President of AMSOUTH Bank from 2002 to 2006, and before that she served as Senior Vice President, Managing Director,
for Bank of America Capital Management from 1999 to 2002. She began her asset management career with the Evergreen Funds where she served
as Senior Vice President, Managing Director from 1991 to 1998.
From 2019 to 2020, Ms. Deckbar
served as Chairman of the TIAA Retirement Plan Investments Committee and as an Executive Sponsor at Advance, a council for the advancement
of women. She has also held various memberships, including at Investment Company Institute, from 2017 to 2019, Fortune 400 Most Powerful
Women Network, from 2012 to 2015, and Mutual Fund Education Alliance, from 2010 to 2015.
The Board believes that Ms. Deckbar’s
experience in financial services and investment management benefits the Fund.
Cynthia Hostetler, Trustee
Cynthia Hostetler has been a member of the Board
of Trustees of the Invesco Funds since 2017.
Ms. Hostetler is currently
a member of the board of directors of the Vulcan Materials Company, a public company engaged in the production and distribution of construction
materials, Trilinc Global Impact Fund LLC, a publicly registered non-traded limited liability company that invests in a diversified portfolio
of private debt instruments, and Resideo Technologies, Inc., a public company that manufactures and distributes smart home security
products and solutions worldwide. Ms. Hostetler also serves on the board of governors of the Investment Company Institute and is
a member of the governing council of the Independent Directors Council, both of which are professional organizations in the investment
management industry.
Previously, Ms. Hostetler
served as a member of the board of directors/trustees of Aberdeen Investment Funds, a mutual fund complex, Edgen Group Inc., a public
company that provides products and services to energy and construction companies, from 2012 to 2013, prior to its sale to Sumitomo, Genesee &
Wyoming, Inc., a public company that owns and operates railroads worldwide, from 2018 to 2019, prior to its sale to Brookfield Asset
Management, and Textainer Group Holdings Ltd., a public company that is the world’s second largest shipping container leasing company,
prior to its sale to Stonepeak in March 2024. Ms. Hostetler was also a member of the board of directors of the Eisenhower Foundation,
a non- profit organization.
From 2001 to 2009, Ms. Hostetler
served as Head of Investment Funds and Private Equity at Overseas Private Investment Corporation (“OPIC”), a government agency
that supports US investment in the emerging markets. Ms. Hostetler oversaw a multi-billion dollar investment portfolio in private
equity funds. Prior to joining OPIC, Ms. Hostetler served as President and member of the board of directors of First Manhattan Bancorporation,
a bank holding company, from 1991 to 2007, and its largest subsidiary, First Savings Bank, from 1991 to 2006 (Board Member) and from 1996
to 2001 (President).
The Board believes that Ms. Hostetler’s
knowledge of financial services and investment management, her experience as a director of other companies, including a mutual fund complex,
her legal background, and other professional experience gained through her prior employment benefit the Fund.
Dr. Eli Jones, Trustee
Dr. Eli Jones has been a member of the Board
of Trustees of the Invesco Funds since 2016.
Dr. Jones has served
as Board Member of the regional board, First Financial Bank Texas since 2021 and Board Member, First Financial Bankshares, Inc. Texas
since 2022. Since 2020, Dr. Jones has served as a director on the board of directors of Insperity, Inc. (“Insperity”).
From 2004 to 2016, Dr. Jones was chair of the Compensation Committee, a member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
and a director on the board of directors of Insperity.
Dr. Jones is a Professor
of Marketing, Lowry and Peggy Mays Eminent Scholar, and Dean Emeritus of Mays Business School at Texas A&M University. From 2015 to
2021, Dr. Jones served as Dean of Mays Business School at Texas A&M University. From 2012 to 2015, Dr. Jones was the dean
of the Sam M. Walton College of Business at the University of Arkansas and holder of the Sam M. Walton Leadership Chair in Business. Prior
to joining the faculty at the University of Arkansas, he was dean of the E. J. Ourso College of Business and Ourso Distinguished Professor
of Business at Louisiana State University from 2008 to 2012; professor of marketing and associate dean at the C.T. Bauer College of Business
at the University of Houston from 2007 to 2008; an associate professor of marketing from 2002 to 2007; and an assistant professor from
1997 until 2002. He taught at Texas A&M University for several years before joining the faculty of the University of Houston.
Dr. Jones served as the
executive director of the Program for Excellence in Selling and the Sales Excellence Institute at the University of Houston from 1997
to 2007. Before becoming a professor, he worked in sales and sales management for three Fortune 100 companies: Quaker Oats, Nabisco, and
Frito- Lay. Dr. Jones is a past director of Arvest Bank. He received his Bachelor of Science degree in journalism in 1982, his MBA
in 1986 and his Ph.D. in 1997, all from Texas A&M University.
The Board believes that Dr. Jones’
experience in academia and his experience in marketing benefits the Fund.
Elizabeth Krentzman, Trustee
Elizabeth Krentzman has been
a member of the Board of Trustees of the Invesco Funds since 2019. From 2014 to 2019, Ms. Krentzman served on the boards of certain
investment companies in the Oppenheimer Funds complex.
Ms. Krentzman served
from 2017 to 2022, as a member of the Cartica Funds Board of Directors (private investment funds). Ms. Krentzman previously served
as a member of the Board of Trustees of the University of Florida National Board Foundation from 2016 to 2021. She also served as a member
of the Board of Trustees of the University of Florida Law Center Association, Inc. from 2016 to 2021, as a member of its Audit Committee
from 2016 to 2020, and as a member of its Membership Committee from 2020 to 2021.
Ms. Krentzman served
from 1997 to 2004 and from 2007 and 2014 in various capacities at Deloitte & Touche LLP, including Principal and Chief Regulatory
Advisor for Asset Management Services, U.S. Mutual Fund Leader and National Director of the Investment Management Regulatory Consulting
Practice. She served as General Counsel of the Investment Company Institute from 2004 to 2007.
From 1996 to 1997, Ms. Krentzman
served as an Assistant Director of the Division of Investment Management - Office of Disclosure and Investment Adviser Regulation of the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. She also served from 1991 to 1996 in various positions with the Division of Investment Management
– Office of Regulatory Policy of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and from 1987 to 1991 as an Associate at Ropes &
Gray LLP.
The Board believes that Ms. Krentzman’s
legal background, experience in financial services and accounting and as a director of other investment companies benefits the Fund.
Anthony J. LaCava, Jr., Trustee
Anthony J. LaCava, Jr.
has been a member of the Board of Trustees of the Invesco Funds since 2019.
Previously, Mr. LaCava served as a member
of the board of directors and as a member of the audit committee of Blue Hills Bank, a publicly traded financial institution.
Mr. LaCava retired after
a 37-year career with KPMG LLP (“KPMG”) where he served as senior partner for a wide range of firm clients across the retail,
financial services, consumer markets, real estate, manufacturing, health care and technology industries. From 2005 to 2013, Mr. LaCava
served as a member of the board of directors of KPMG and chair of the board’s audit and finance committee and nominating committee.
He also previously served as Regional Managing Partner from 2009 through 2012 and Managing Partner of KPMG’s New England practice.
Mr. LaCava currently
serves as Member and Chairman of the Business School Advisory Council of Bentley University and as a member of American College of Corporate
Directors and Board Leaders, Inc.
The Board believes that Mr. LaCava’s
experience in audit and financial services benefits the Fund.
James “Jim” Liddy, Trustee
James “Jim” Liddy
has been a member of the Board of Trustees of the Invesco Funds since 2024. Mr. Liddy is a Retired Partner of KPMG LLP (KPMG) and
previously served as Chairman of KPMG’s Global Financial Services, Americas practice from 2017 through 2021. He also led KPMG’s
U.S. Financial Services practice from 2015 through 2021.
Prior to assuming his most
recent role in 2017, Mr. Liddy served as Vice Chair of Audit and on various other committees at KPMG. He also previously served as
National Managing Partner of Audit and was a member of the firm’s Global Audit Steering Group.
The Board believes that Mr. Liddy’s
audit experience and knowledge of financial services and investment management benefits the Fund.
Dr. Prema Mathai-Davis, Trustee
Dr. Prema Mathai-Davis has been a member of
the Board of Trustees of the Invesco Funds since 1998.
Since 2021, Dr. Mathai-Davis has served as
a member of the Board of Positive Planet US, a non-profit organization and Healthcare Chaplaincy Network, a non-profit organization.
Previously, Dr. Mathai-Davis
served as co-founder and partner of Quantalytics Research, LLC, (a FinTech Investment Research Platform) from 2017 to 2019, when the firm
was acquired by Forbes Media Holdings, LLC.
Dr. Mathai-Davis previously
served as Chief Executive Officer of the YWCA of the USA from 1994 until her retirement in 2000. Prior to joining the YWCA, Dr. Mathai-Davis
served as the Commissioner of the New York City Department for the Aging. She was a Commissioner and Board Member of the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority of New York, the largest regional transportation network in the U.S. Dr. Mathai-Davis also served as a Trustee
of the YWCA Retirement Fund, the first and oldest pension fund for women, and on the advisory board of the Johns Hopkins Bioethics Institute.
She was a member of the Board of Visitors of the University of Maryland School of Public Policy, and on the visiting Committee of The
Harvard University Graduate School of Education.
Dr. Mathai-Davis was
the president and chief executive officer of the Community Agency for Senior Citizens, a non-profit social service agency that she established
in 1981. She also directed the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine-Hunter College Long-Term Care Gerontology Center, one of the first of its
kind.
The Board believes that Dr. Mathai-Davis’
extensive experience in running public and charitable institutions benefits the Fund.
Joel W. Motley, Trustee
Joel W. Motley has been a
member of the Board of Trustees of the Invesco Funds since 2019. From 2002 to 2019, Mr. Motley served on the boards of certain investment
companies in the Oppenheimer Funds complex.
In May 2022, Mr. Motley
rejoined the Vestry and the Investment Committee of Trinity Church Wall Street. Since 2021, Mr. Motley has served as a Board member
of the Trust for Mutual Understanding, which makes grants to arts and environmental organizations in Eastern Europe. Since 2021, Mr. Motley
has served as a member of the board of Blue Ocean Acquisition Corp. Since 2016, Mr. Motley has served as an independent director
of the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Bank System. He has served as Managing Director of Carmona Motley, Inc., a privately-held
financial advisory firm, since 2002.
Mr. Motley also serves
as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and its Finance and Budget Committee. He is a member of the Investment Committee and is
Chairman Emeritus of the Board of Human Rights Watch and a member of the Investment Committee and the Board of Historic Hudson Valley,
a non-profit cultural organization.
Since 2011, he has served
as a Board Member and Investment Committee Member of the Pulitzer Center for Crisis Reporting, a non-profit journalism organization. Mr. Motley
also serves as Director and member of the Board and Investment Committee of The Greenwall Foundation, a bioethics research foundation,
and as a Director of Friends of the LRC, a South Africa legal services foundation.
Previously, Mr. Motley
served as Managing Director of Public Capital Advisors, LLC, a privately held financial advisory firm, from 2006 to 2017. He also served
as Managing Director of Carmona Motley Hoffman Inc. a privately-held financial advisor, and served as a Director of Columbia Equity Financial
Corp., a privately-held financial advisor, from 2002 to 2007.
The Board believes that Mr. Motley’s
experience in financial services and as a director of other investment companies benefits the Fund.
Teresa
M. Ressel, Trustee
Teresa Ressel has been a member of the Board of
Trustees of the Invesco Funds since 2017.
Ms. Ressel has previously
served within the private sector and the U.S. government as well as consulting. Formerly, Ms. Ressel served at UBS AG in various
capacities, including as Chief Executive Officer of UBS Securities LLC, a broker-dealer division of UBS Investment Bank, and as Group
Chief Operating Officer of the Americas.
Between 2001 and 2004, Ms. Ressel
served at the U.S. Treasury, initially as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management & Budget and then as Assistant Secretary
for Management and Chief Financial Officer. Ms. Ressel was confirmed by the U.S. Senate and anchored financial duties at the Department,
including finance, accounting, risk, audit and performance measurement.
Ms. Ressel also volunteers
within her community across a number of functions and serves on the board of GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance (non-profit) supporting
children’s health.
The Board believes that Ms. Ressel’s
risk management and financial experience in both the private and public sectors benefits the Fund.
Robert C. Troccoli, Trustee
Robert C. Troccoli has been a member of the Board
of Trustees of the Invesco Funds since 2016.
Mr. Troccoli retired
after a 39-year career with KPMG LLP (“KPMG”), where he served as a senior Partner. From 2013 to 2017, he was an adjunct professor
at the University of Denver’s Daniels College of Business.
Mr. Troccoli’s
leadership roles during his career with KPMG included managing partner and partner in charge of the Denver office’s Financial Services
Practice. He served regulated investment companies, investment advisors, private partnerships, private equity funds, sovereign wealth
funds, and financial services companies. Toward the end of his career, Mr. Troccoli was a founding member of KPMG’s Private
Equity Group in New York City, where he served private equity firms and sovereign wealth funds. Mr. Troccoli also served mutual fund
clients along with several large private equity firms as Global Lead Partner of KPMG’s Private Equity Group.
The Board believes that Mr. Troccoli’s
experience as a partner in a large accounting firm and his knowledge of investment companies, investment advisors, and private equity
firms benefits the Fund.
Daniel S. Vandivort, Trustee
Daniel S. Vandivort has been
a member of the Board of Trustees of the Invesco Funds since 2019. From 2014 to 2019, Mr. Vandivort served on the boards of certain
investment companies in the Oppenheimer Funds complex, as a Trustee and as the Governance Committee Chair.
Mr. Vandivort also served
as Chairman, Lead Independent Director, and Chairman of the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of the Value Line Funds from 2008
through 2014.
Previously, Mr. Vandivort
also served as a Trustee and Chairman of the Weiss Peck and Greer Mutual Funds Board from 2004 to 2005.
Previously, Mr. Vandivort
served at Weiss Peck and Greer/Robeco Investment Management from 1994 to 2007, as President and Chief Investment Officer and prior to
that as Managing Director and Head of Fixed Income. Mr. Vandivort also served in various capacities at CS First Boston from 1984
to 1994, including as Head of Fixed Income at CS First Boston Investment Management.
Mr. Vandivort was also
a Trustee on the Board of Huntington Disease Foundation of America from 2007 to 2013 and from 2015 to 2019. He also served as Treasurer
and Chairman of the Audit and Finance Committee of Huntington Disease Foundation of America from 2016 to 2019.
Mr. Vandivort currently
serves as President of Flyway Advisory Services LLC, a consulting and property management company. He is also a Member of the Investment
Committee for the Historic Charleston Foundation.
The Board believes that Mr. Vandivort’s
experience in financial services and investment management and as a director of other investment companies benefits the Fund.
Management Information
The Trustees have the authority
to take all actions that they consider necessary or appropriate in connection with oversight of the Fund, including, among other things,
approving the investment objectives, investment policies and fundamental investment restrictions for the Fund. The Fund has entered into
agreements with various service providers, including the Fund’s investment advisers, administrator, transfer agent, distributor
and custodians, to conduct the day-to-day operations of the Fund. The Trustees are responsible for selecting these service providers,
approving the terms of their contracts with the Fund, and exercising general oversight of these arrangements on an ongoing basis.
Certain Trustees and officers
of the Fund are affiliated with Invesco and Invesco Ltd., the parent corporation of Invesco. All of the Trust’s executive officers
hold similar offices with some or all of the other Trusts.
Leadership
Structure and the Board of Trustees.
The Board is currently composed
of fourteen Trustees, including twelve Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Fund, as that term is defined in the
1940 Act (collectively, the Independent Trustees and each, an Independent Trustee). In addition to eight regularly scheduled meetings
per year, the Board holds special meetings or informal conference calls to discuss specific matters that may require action prior to the
next regular meeting. As discussed below, the Board has established four standing committees – the Audit Committee, the Compliance
Committee, the Governance Committee and the Investments Committee (the Committees), to assist the Board in performing its oversight responsibilities.
The Board has appointed an
Independent Trustee to serve in the role of Chair. The Chair’s primary role is to preside at meetings of the Board and act as a
liaison with the Adviser and other service providers, officers, attorneys, and other Trustees between meetings. The Chair also participates
in the preparation of the agenda for the meetings of the Board, is active with mutual fund industry organizations, and may perform such
other functions as may be requested by the Board from time to time. Except for any duties specified pursuant to the Trust’s Declaration
of Trust or By-laws, the designation of Chair does not impose on such Independent Trustee any duties, obligations or liability that is
greater than the duties, obligations or liability imposed on such person as a member of the Board generally.
The Board believes that its
leadership structure, including having an Independent Trustee as Chair, allows for effective communication between the Trustees and management,
among the Trustees and among the Independent Trustees. The existing Board structure, including its Committee structure, provides the Independent
Trustees with effective control over Board governance while also allowing them to receive and benefit from insight from the interested
Trustee who is an active officer of the Fund’s investment adviser. The Board’s leadership structure promotes dialogue and
debate, which the Board believes allows for the proper consideration of matters deemed important to the Fund and its shareholders and
results in effective decision-making.
Risk
Oversight. The Board considers risk management issues as part of its general oversight responsibilities throughout the year
at its regular meetings and at regular meetings of its Committees. Invesco prepares regular reports that address certain investment, valuation
and compliance matters, and the Board as a whole or the Committees also receive special written reports or presentations on a variety
of risk issues at the request of the Board, a Committee or the Senior Officer.
The Board also oversees risks
related to the Fund’s use of derivatives as part of its general oversight responsibilities. The Board has approved a derivatives
risk manager, which is responsible for administering the derivatives risk management program (“DRM Program”) for the funds
that are required to implement a DRM Program. The Board meets with the derivatives risk manager on a periodic basis, including receiving
quarterly and annual reports from the derivatives risk manager, to review the implementation of the DRM Program.
The Audit Committee assists
the Board with its oversight of the Fund’s accounting and auditing process. The Audit Committee is responsible for selecting the
Fund’s independent registered public accounting firm (auditors), including evaluating their independence and meeting with such auditors
to consider and review matters relating to the Fund’s financial reports and internal controls. In addition, the Audit Committee
meets regularly with representatives of Invesco Ltd.’s internal audit group to review reports on their examinations of functions
and processes within Invesco that affect the Fund. The Audit Committee also oversees the Adviser’s process for valuing the Fund’s
portfolio investments and receives reports from management regarding its process and the valuation of the Fund’s portfolio investments
as consistent with the valuation policy approved by the Board and related procedures.
The Compliance Committee receives
regular compliance reports prepared by Invesco’s compliance group and meets regularly with the Fund’s Chief Compliance Officer
(CCO) to discuss compliance issues, including compliance risks. The Compliance Committee has recommended and the Board has adopted compliance
policies and procedures for the Fund and for the Fund’s service providers. The compliance policies and procedures are designed to
detect, prevent and correct violations of the federal securities laws.
The Governance Committee monitors
the composition of the Board and each of its Committees and monitors the qualifications of the Trustees to ensure adherence to certain
governance undertakings applicable to the Fund. In addition, the Governance Committee oversees an annual self-assessment of the Board
and its committees and addresses governance risks, including insurance and fidelity bond matters, for the Fund.
The Investments Committee
and its sub-committees receive regular written reports describing and analyzing the investment performance of the Invesco Funds. In addition, Invesco’s
Chief Investment Officers and the portfolio managers of the Fund meet regularly with the Investments Committee or its sub-committees to
discuss portfolio performance, including investment risk, such as the impact on the Fund of investments in particular types of securities
or instruments, such as derivatives. To the extent that the Fund changes a particular investment strategy that could have a material impact
on the Fund’s risk profile, the Board generally is consulted in advance with respect to such change.
Committee Structure
The members of the Audit Committee
are Messrs. LaCava (Chair), Liddy and Troccoli, Dr. Jones, and Mss. Hostetler and Ressel. The Audit Committee performs a number
of functions with respect to the oversight of the Fund’s accounting and financial reporting, including: (i) assisting the Board
with its oversight of the qualifications, independence and performance of the independent registered public accountants; (ii) selecting
independent registered public accountants for the Fund; (iii) to the extent required, pre-approving certain audit and permissible
non-audit services; (iv) overseeing the financial reporting process for the Fund; (v) assisting the Board with its oversight
of the integrity of the Fund’s financial statements and compliance with legal and regulatory requirements that relate to the Fund’s
accounting and financial reporting, internal control over financial reporting and independent audits; (vi) pre-approving engagements
for non-audit services to be provided by the Fund’s independent auditors to the Fund’s investment adviser or to any of its
affiliates; and (vii) overseeing the performance of the fair valuation determinations by the Adviser. During the fiscal year ended
February 29, 2024, the Audit Committee held six meetings.
The members of the Compliance
Committee are Messrs. Motley and Vandivort, and Mss. Brown, Deckbar and Krentzman (Chair) and Dr. Mathai-Davis. The Compliance
Committee performs a number of functions with respect to compliance matters, including: (i) reviewing and making recommendations
concerning the qualifications, performance and compensation of the Fund’s Chief Compliance Officer; (ii) reviewing recommendations
and reports made by the Chief Compliance Officer of the Fund regarding compliance matters; (iii) overseeing compliance policies and
procedures of the Fund and their service providers; (iv) overseeing potential conflicts of interest that are reported to the Compliance
Committee by Invesco, the Chief Compliance Officer or other independent advisors; (v) reviewing reports prepared by a third party’s
compliance review of Invesco; (vi) if requested by the Board, overseeing risk management with respect to the Fund (other than risks
overseen by the other Committees), including receiving and overseeing risk management reports from Invesco that are applicable to the
Fund and their service providers; and (vii) reviewing reports by Invesco on correspondence with regulators or governmental agencies
with respect to the Fund and recommending to the Board what action, if any, should be taken by the Fund in light of such reports. During
the fiscal year ended February 29, 2024, the Compliance Committee held four meetings.
The members of the Governance
Committee are Messrs. Motley and Vandivort (Chair) and Mss. Brown and Hostetler and Dr. Mathai-Davis. The Governance Committee
performs a number of functions with respect to governance, including: (i) nominating persons to serve as Independent Trustees and
as members of each Committee, and nominating the Chair of the Board and the Chair of each committee, except that the members and Chair
of each Sub-Committee of the Investments Committee shall be appointed by the Chair of the Investments Committee in consultation with the
Chair of the Governance Committee; (ii) reviewing and making recommendations to the full Board regarding the size and composition
of the Board and the compensation payable to the Independent Trustees; (iii) overseeing the annual evaluation of the performance
of the Board and its Committees; (iv) considering and overseeing the selection of independent legal counsel to the Independent Trustees;
(v) considering and overseeing the selection and engagement of a Senior Officer if and as they deem appropriate, including compensation
and scope of services, and recommending all such matters to the Board or the independent trustees as appropriate; (vi) reviewing
administrative and/or logistical matters pertaining to the operations of the Board; and (vii) reviewing annually recommendations
from Invesco regarding amounts and coverage of primary and excess directors and officers/errors and omissions liability insurance and
allocation of premiums. During the fiscal year ended February 29, 2024, the Governance Committee held nine meetings.
The Governance Committee will
consider nominees recommended by a shareholder in accordance with the Fund’s governing instruments to serve as trustees, provided:
(i) that such submitting shareholder provides the information required by, and otherwise complies with the applicable provisions
of, the Fund’s governing instruments, (ii) that such submitting shareholder is a shareholder of record, with proof of such
ownership or holding reasonably satisfactory to the Fund to be provided by such record owner or nominee holder, at the time he or she
submits such names and is entitled to vote at the meeting of shareholders at which trustees will be elected; and (iii) that the Governance
Committee or the Board, as applicable, shall make the final determination of persons to be nominated. While the Governance Committee believes
that there are no specific minimum qualifications for a nominee to possess or any specific qualities or skills that are necessary, in
considering a candidate’s qualifications, the Governance Committee may consider, among other things: (1) whether or not the
person is an “interested person,” as defined in the 1940 Act, and is otherwise qualified under applicable laws and regulations
to serve as a trustee of the Fund; (2) whether or not the person is willing to serve as, and willing and able to commit the time
necessary for the performance of the duties of, a trustee; (3) whether the person can make a positive contribution to the Board and
the Fund, with consideration being given to the person’s specific experience, education, qualifications and other skills; and (4) whether
the person is of good character and high integrity, and whether the person has other desirable personality traits, including independence,
leadership and the ability to work with other Board members..
Under the Fund’s governing
instruments, nominees must meet certain additional qualifications to qualify for nomination and service as a Trustee. Nominees may be
disqualified if they engaged in disabling conduct outlined in the Fund’s Declarations of Trust. Nominees that are associated with
other investment vehicles and investment advisers may not be eligible for nomination and service as a Trustee if the Board finds that
such associations have conflicts of interest with the long-term best interests of the Fund, impede the ability of the nominee to perform,
or impede the free-flow of information from management. Nominees that are acting in concert with control persons of other investment companies
that are in violation of Section 12(d)(1) of the 1940 Act shall be disqualified from nomination and service as a Trustee.
Notice procedures set forth
in the Fund’s Bylaws require that any shareholder of the Fund desiring to nominate a trustee for election at an annual shareholder
meeting must deliver to the Fund’s Secretary notice of the shareholder’s intent to nominate in writing not less than ninety
(90) nor more than one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the first anniversary date of the annual meeting for the preceding
year.
The members of the Investments
Committee are Messrs. LaCava, Liddy, Motley (Sub-Committee Chair), Troccoli (Sub-Committee Chair) and Vandivort, Mss. Brown, Deckbar,
Hostetler (Chair), Krentzman and Ressel and Drs. Jones and Mathai-Davis (Sub-Committee Chair). The Investments Committee’s
primary purposes are to assist the Board in its oversight of the investment management services provided by Invesco and the Sub-Advisers
and to periodically review Fund performance information, and information regarding the investment personnel and other resources devoted
to the management of the Fund and make recommendations to the Board, when applicable. During the fiscal year ended February 29, 2024,
the Investments Committee held four meetings.
The Investments Committee
has established three Sub-Committees and delegated to the Sub-Committees responsibility for, among other matters: (i) reviewing the
performance of the Invesco Funds that have been assigned to a particular Sub-Committee (for each Sub-Committee, the Designated Funds),
except to the extent the Investments Committee takes such action directly; (ii) reviewing with the applicable portfolio managers
from time to time the investment objective(s), policies, strategies, performance and risks and other investment-related matters of the
Designated Funds; and (iii) being generally familiar with the investment objectives and principal investment strategies of the Designated
Funds.
Compensation
Each Trustee who is not affiliated
with Invesco is compensated for his or her services according to a fee schedule that recognizes the fact that such Trustee also serves
as a Trustee of other Invesco Funds. Each such Trustee receives a fee, allocated among the Invesco Funds for which he or she serves as
a Trustee that consists of an annual retainer component and a meeting fee component. The Chair of the Board and of each Committee and
Sub-Committee receive additional compensation for their services
Information regarding compensation paid or accrued
for each trustee of the Fund who was not affiliated with Invesco during the year ended December 31, 2024, unless otherwise noted,
are as follows:
Name | |
Aggregate
Compensation from
the Fund(1) | |
Retirement Benefits
Accrued by All
Invesco Funds | |
Estimated Annual
Benefits Upon
Retirement(2) | |
Total Compensation from
the Invesco Fund
Complex(3) | |
Independent Trustees(4)(5) | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
Beth Ann Brown | |
$ | [ ] | |
| [ ] | |
| [ ] | |
| [ ] | |
Carol Deckbar | |
| [ ] | |
| [ ] | |
| [ ] | |
| [ ] | |
Cynthia Hostetler | |
| [ ] | |
| [ ] | |
| [ ] | |
| [ ] | |
Eli Jones | |
| [ ] | |
| [ ] | |
| [ ] | |
| [ ] | |
Elizabeth Krentzman | |
| [ ] | |
| [ ] | |
| [ ] | |
| [ ] | |
Anthony J. LaCava, Jr. | |
| [ ] | |
| [ ] | |
| [ ] | |
| [ ] | |
James “Jim” Liddy | |
| [ ] | |
| [__] | |
| [__] | |
| [__] | |
Prema Mathai-Davis | |
| [ ] | |
| [ ] | |
| [ ] | |
| [ ] | |
Joel W. Motley | |
| [ ] | |
| [ ] | |
| [ ] | |
| [ ] | |
Theresa M. Ressel | |
| [ ] | |
| [ ] | |
| [ ] | |
| [ ] | |
Robert C. Troccoli | |
| [ ] | |
| [ ] | |
| [ ] | |
| [ ] | |
Daniel S. Vandivort | |
| [ ] | |
| [__] | |
| [__] | |
| [__] | |
| (1) | Amounts shown are based on the fiscal year ended February 29, 2024. The total amount of compensation
deferred by all trustees of the Fund during the fiscal year ended February 29, 2024, including earnings, was $ [ ]. On November 10,
2021, Russell Burk resigned from his role as Senior Vice President and Senior Officer of the Invesco Funds. During the fiscal year ended
February 29, 2024, aggregate compensation from the Fund for Mr. Burk was $[____]. |
| (2) | These amounts represent the estimated annual benefits payable by the Invesco Funds upon the trustees’
retirement and assumes each trustee serves until his or her normal retirement date. These amounts are not adjusted to reflect deemed investment
appreciation or depreciation. |
| (3) | These amounts represent the compensation paid from all Invesco
Funds to the individuals who serve as trustees. All trustees currently serve as trustee of 32 registered investment companies advised
by Invesco, unless otherwise noted. |
| (4) | On August 28, 2022, Christopher Wilson retired. During
the fiscal year ended February 29, 2024, compensation from the Fund for Mr. Wilson for consultant services provided to the
Fund subsequent to his retirement was $[___]. Pursuant to a consulting agreement with the Trust, Mr. Wilson may receive payments
for consulting services provided to the Fund for up to three years following his retirement. |
| (5) | Effective January 16, 2024, Carol Deckbar and James Liddy
have been onboarded as two new Trustees. |
Trustee Beneficial Ownership of Securities
The dollar range of equity
securities beneficially owned by each trustee (i) in the Fund and (ii) on an aggregate basis, in all registered investment companies
overseen by the trustee within the Invesco Funds complex, as of December 31, 2024, are as follows:
Name | |
Fund | |
Aggregate dollar range of equity securities in all registered investment companies overseen by trustee in the Invesco Fund Complex(1) |
Independent Trustees | |
| |
|
Beth Ann Brown | |
[__] | |
[__] |
Carol Deckbar | |
[__] | |
[__] |
Cynthia Hostetler | |
[__] | |
[__] |
Eli Jones | |
[__] | |
[__] |
Elizabeth Krentzman | |
[__] | |
[__] |
Anthony J. LaCava, Jr. | |
[__] | |
[__] |
James “Jim” Liddy | |
[__] | |
[__] |
Prema Mathai-Davis | |
[__] | |
[__] |
Joel W. Motley | |
[__] | |
[__] |
Theresa M. Ressel | |
[__] | |
[__] |
Robert C. Troccoli | |
[__] | |
[__] |
Daniel S. Vandivort | |
[__] | |
[__] |
Beth Ann Brown | |
[__] | |
[__] |
| |
[__] | |
[__] |
Interested Trustees | |
| |
|
Jeffrey H. Kupor | |
[__] | |
[__] |
Douglas Sharp | |
[__] | |
[__] |
| (1) | Includes total amount of compensation deferred by the trustee at his or her election pursuant to a deferred compensation plan. Such
deferred compensation is placed in a deferral account and deemed to be invested in one or more of the Invesco Funds. |
Retirement Policy
The Trustees have adopted
a retirement policy that permits each Trustee to serve until December 31 of the year in which the Trustee turns 75.
Pre-Amendment Retirement Plan For Trustees
The Trustees have adopted
a Retirement Plan for the Trustees who are not affiliated with the Adviser. A description of the pre-amendment Retirement Plan follows.
Annual retirement benefits are available from the Fund and/or the other Invesco Funds for which a Trustee serves (each, a Covered Fund),
for each Trustee who is not an employee or officer of the Adviser, who either (a) became a Trustee prior to December 1, 2008,
and who has at least five years of credited service as a Trustee (including service to a predecessor fund) of a Covered Fund, or (b) was
a member of the Board of Trustees of a Van Kampen Fund immediately prior to June 1, 2010 (Former Van Kampen Trustee), and has at
least one year of credited service as a Trustee of a Covered Fund after June 1, 2010.
For Trustees other than Former
Van Kampen Trustees, effective January 1, 2006, for retirements after December 31, 2005, the retirement benefits will equal
75% of the Trustee’s annual retainer paid to or accrued by any Covered Fund with respect to such Trustee during the twelve-month
period prior to retirement, including the amount of any retainer deferred under a separate deferred compensation agreement between the
Covered Fund and the Trustee. The amount of the annual retirement benefit does not include additional compensation paid for Board meeting
fees or compensation paid to the Chair of the Board and the Chairs and Vice Chairs of certain Board committees, whether such amounts are
paid directly to the Trustee or deferred. The annual retirement benefit is payable in quarterly installments for a number of years equal
to the lesser of (i) sixteen years or (ii) the number of such Trustee’s credited years of service. If a Trustee dies prior
to receiving the full amount of retirement benefits, the remaining payments will be made to the deceased Trustee’s designated beneficiary
for the same length of time that the Trustee would have received the payments based on his or her service or, if the Trustee has elected,
in a discounted lump sum payment. A Trustee must have attained the age of 65 (60 in the event of disability) to receive any retirement
benefit. A Trustee may make an irrevocable election to commence payment of retirement benefits upon retirement from the Board before age
72; in such a case, the annual retirement benefit is subject to a reduction for early payment.
If the Former Van Kampen Trustee
completes at least 10 years of credited service after June 1, 2010, the retirement benefit will equal 75% of the Former Van Kampen
Trustee’s annual retainer paid to or accrued by any Covered Fund with respect to such Trustee during the twelve-month period prior
to retirement, including the amount of any retainer deferred under a separate deferred compensation agreement between the Covered Fund
and such Trustee. The amount of the annual retirement benefit does not include additional compensation paid for Board meeting fees or
compensation paid to the Chair of the Board and the Chairs and Vice Chairs of certain Board committees, whether such amounts are paid
directly to the Trustee or deferred. The annual retirement benefit is payable in quarterly installments for 10 years beginning after the
later of the Former Van Kampen Trustee’s termination of service or attainment of age 72 (or age 60 in the event of disability or
immediately in the event of death). If a Former Van Kampen Trustee dies prior to receiving the full amount of retirement benefits, the
remaining payments will be made to the deceased Trustee’s designated beneficiary or, if the Trustee has elected, in a discounted
lump sum payment.
If the Former Van Kampen Trustee
completes less than 10 years of credited service after June 1, 2010, the retirement benefit will be payable at the applicable time
described in the preceding paragraph, but will be paid in two components successively. For the period of time equal to the Former Van
Kampen Trustee’s years of credited service after June 1, 2010, the first component of the annual retirement benefit will equal
75% of the compensation amount described in the preceding paragraph. Thereafter, for the period of time equal to the Former Van Kampen
Trustee’s years of credited service after June 1, 2010, the second component of the annual retirement benefit will equal the
excess of (x) 75% of the compensation amount described in the preceding paragraph, over (y) $68,041 plus an interest factor
of 4% per year compounded annually measured from June 1, 2010 through the first day of each year for which payments under this second
component are to be made. In no event, however, will the retirement benefits under the two components be made for a period of time greater
than 10 years. For example, if the Former Van Kampen Trustee completes 7 years of credited service after June 1, 2010, he or she
will receive 7 years of payments under the first component and thereafter 3 years of payments under the second component, and if the Former
Van Kampen Trustee completes 4 years of credited service after June 1, 2010, he or she will receive 4 years of payments under the
first component and thereafter 4 years of payments under the second component.
Amendment of Retirement Plan and Conversion
to Defined Contribution Plan
The Trustees approved an amendment
to the Retirement Plan to convert it to a defined contribution plan for active Trustees (the Amended Plan). Under the Amended Plan, the
benefit amount was amended for each active Trustee to the present value of the Trustee’s existing retirement plan benefit as of
December 31, 2013 (the Existing Plan Benefit) plus the present value of retirement benefits expected to be earned under the Retirement
Plan through the end of the calendar year in which the Trustee attained age 75 (the Expected Future Benefit and, together with the Existing
Plan Benefit, the Accrued Benefit). On the conversion date, the Covered Funds established bookkeeping accounts in the amount of their
pro rata share of the Accrued Benefit, which is deemed to be invested in one or more Invesco Funds selected by the participating Trustees.
Such accounts will be adjusted from time to time to reflect deemed investment earnings and losses. Each Trustee’s Accrued Benefit
is not funded and, with respect to the payments of amounts held in the accounts, the participating Trustees have the status of unsecured
creditors of the Covered Funds. Trustees will be paid the adjusted account balance under the Amended Plan in quarterly installments for
the same period as described above.
Deferred Compensation Agreements
Certain former Trustees and
current Independent Trustees (for purposes of this paragraph only, the Deferring Trustees) have executed a Deferred Compensation Agreement
(collectively, the Compensation Agreements). Pursuant to the Compensation Agreements, the Deferring Trustees have the option to elect
to defer receipt of up to 100% of their compensation payable by the Fund, and such amounts are placed into a deferral account and deemed
to be invested in one or more Invesco Funds selected by the Deferring Trustees. Amounts deferred by Deferring Trustees pursuant to a Compensation
Agreement during the most recent fiscal year are shown above.
Distributions from these deferral
accounts will be paid in cash, generally in equal quarterly installments over a period of up to ten (10) years (depending on the
Compensation Agreement) beginning on the date selected under the Compensation Agreement. If a Deferring Trustee dies prior to the distribution
of amounts in his or her deferral account, the balance of the deferral account will be distributed to his or her designated beneficiary.
The Compensation Agreements are not funded and, with respect to the payments of amounts held in the deferral accounts, the Deferring Trustees
have the status of unsecured creditors of the Fund and of each other Invesco Fund from which they are deferring compensation.
INVESTMENT ADVISORY AND OTHER SERVICES
Investment Adviser
Invesco serves as the Fund’s
investment adviser. The Adviser manages the investment operations of the Fund as well as other investment portfolios that encompass a
broad range of investment objectives, and has agreed to perform or arrange for the performance of the Fund’s day-to-day management.
The Adviser, as successor in interest to multiple investment advisers, has been an investment adviser since 1976. Invesco is an indirect,
wholly owned subsidiary of Invesco Ltd. Invesco Ltd. and its subsidiaries are an independent global investment management group. Certain
of the directors and officers of Invesco are also executive officers of the Fund and their affiliations are shown in this Statement of
Additional Information
As investment adviser, Invesco
supervises all aspects of the Fund’s operations and provides investment advisory services to the Fund. Invesco obtains and evaluates
economic, statistical and financial information to formulate and implement investment programs for the Fund. The Fund’s Investment
Advisory Agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) provides that, in fulfilling its responsibilities, Invesco may engage the
services of other investment managers with respect to the Fund. The investment advisory services of Invesco are not exclusive and Invesco
is free to render investment advisory services to others, including other investment companies.
Pursuant to an administrative
services agreement with the Fund, the Adviser is also responsible for furnishing to the Fund at the Adviser’s expense, the services
of persons believed to be competent to perform all supervisory and administrative services required by the Fund and that, in the judgment
of the Trustees, are necessary to conduct the business of the Fund effectively, as well as the offices, equipment and other facilities
necessary for their operations. Such functions include the maintenance of the Fund’s accounts and records, and the preparation of
all requisite corporate documents such as tax returns and reports to the SEC and shareholders.
The Advisory Agreement provides
that the Fund will pay or cause to be paid all expenses of such Fund not assumed by Invesco, including, without limitation: brokerage
commissions, taxes, legal, auditing, or governmental fees, custodian, transfer and shareholder service agent costs, expenses of issue,
sale, redemption and repurchase of shares, expenses of registering and qualifying shares for sale, expenses relating to trustees and shareholder
meetings, the cost of preparing and distributing reports and notices to shareholders, the fees and other expenses incurred by the Fund
in connection with membership in investment company organizations and the cost of printing copies of prospectuses and statements of additional
information distributed to the Fund’s shareholders.
Invesco, at its own expense, furnishes to the Fund
office space and facilities. Invesco furnishes to the Fund all personnel for managing the affairs of the Fund.
Advisory fees paid for the last three fiscal years
of the Fund are as follows:
Fiscal Year Ended | |
Advisory Fees Paid | |
February 29, 2024 | |
$ | 2,279,476 | |
February 28, 2023 | |
$ | 2,251,841 | |
February 28, 2022 | |
$ | 2,630,301 | |
Invesco may from time to time
waive or reduce its fee. Voluntary fee waivers or reductions may be rescinded at any time without further notice to investors. During
periods of voluntary fee waivers or reductions, Invesco will retain its ability to be reimbursed for such fee prior to the end of
their respective fiscal year in which the voluntary fee waiver or reduction was made.
Invesco has contractually
agreed through at least June 30, 2026, to waive advisory fees payable by the Fund in an amount equal to 100% of the net advisory
fee Invesco receives from the affiliated money market funds as a result of the Fund’s investment of uninvested cash in the affiliated
money market funds. Unless Invesco continues the fee waiver agreement, it will terminate as indicated above. During its term, the fee
waiver agreements cannot be terminated or amended to reduce the advisory fee waivers without approval of the Board.
Investment Sub-Advisers
Invesco has entered into a
Sub-Advisory Agreement with certain affiliates to serve as sub-advisers to the Fund pursuant to which these affiliated sub-advisers may
be appointed by Invesco from time to time to provide discretionary investment management services, investment advice, and/or order execution
services to the Fund.
These affiliated sub-advisers, each of which is
a registered investment adviser under the Advisers Act are:
Invesco Asset Management Deutschland GmbH (Invesco Deutschland)
Invesco Asset Management Limited (Invesco Asset Management)
Invesco Asset Management (Japan) Limited (Invesco Japan)
Invesco Hong Kong Limited (Invesco Hong Kong)
Invesco
Senior Secured Management, Inc. (Invesco Senior Secured)
Invesco
Canada Ltd. (Invesco Canada); (each a “Sub-Adviser” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”).
Invesco and each Sub-Adviser is an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of Invesco Ltd.
The only fees payable to the
Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreement are for providing discretionary investment management services. For such services, Invesco
(and not the Fund) pays each Sub-Adviser a fee, computed daily and paid monthly, equal to (i) 40% of the monthly compensation that
Invesco receives from the Fund, multiplied by (ii) the fraction equal to the net assets of such Fund as to which such Sub-Adviser
shall have provided discretionary investment management services for that month divided by the net assets of such Fund for that month.
Pursuant to the Sub-Advisory Agreement, this fee is reduced to reflect contractual or voluntary fee waivers or expense limitations by
Invesco, if any, in effect from time to time. In no event shall the aggregate monthly fees paid to the Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory
Agreement exceed 40% of the monthly compensation that Invesco receives from the Fund pursuant to its advisory agreement with the Fund,
as reduced to reflect contractual or voluntary fees waivers or expense limitations by Invesco, if any.
Securities Lending Arrangements
The Fund may lend its portfolio
securities to generate additional income. The Fund may participate in a securities lending program pursuant to a securities lending agreement
that establishes the terms of the loan, including collateral requirements. The Fund may lend securities to securities brokers and other
borrowers.
Under the securities lending
program, Bank of New York Mellon (BNY Mellon) served as a securities lending agent for certain of the Fund’s most recently completed
fiscal year. The Board also appointed Invesco to serve as an affiliated securities lending agent for the Fund under the securities lending
program. Invesco served as an affiliated securities lending agent for the Fund’s most recently completed fiscal year, as listed
in the table below (as applicable).
To the extent the Fund utilizes
Invesco as an affiliated securities lending agent, the Fund conducts its securities lending in accordance with and in reliance upon no-action
letters issued by the SEC staff that provide guidance on how an affiliate may act as a direct agent lender and receive compensation for
those services without obtaining exemptive relief. The Board has approved policies and procedures that govern the Fund’s securities
lending activities when utilizing an affiliated securities lending agent, such as Invesco, consistent with the guidance set forth in the
no-action letters.
Invesco serves as a securities
lending agent to other clients in addition to the Fund. There are potential conflicts of interests involved in the Fund’s use of
Invesco as an affiliated securities lending agent, including but not limited to: (i) Invesco as securities lending agent may have
an incentive to increase or decrease the amount of securities on loan, lend particular securities, delay or forgo calling securities on
loans, or lend securities to less creditworthy borrowers, in order to generate additional fees for Invesco and its affiliates; and (ii) Invesco
as securities lending agent may have an incentive to allocate loans to clients that would provide more fees to Invesco. Invesco seeks
to mitigate these potential conflicts of interest by utilizing a methodology designed to provide its securities lending clients with equal
lending opportunities over time.
Service Agreements
Administrative
Services Agreement. Invesco and the Fund have entered into a Master Administrative Services Agreement (the “Administrative
Services Agreement”) pursuant to which Invesco may perform or arrange for the provision of certain accounting and other administrative
services to the Fund which are not required to be performed by Invesco under the Advisory Agreement. The Administrative Services Agreement
provides that it will remain in effect and continue from year to year only if such continuance is specifically approved at least annually
by the Board, including the independent trustees, by votes cast in person at a meeting called for such purpose. Under the Administrative
Services Agreement, Invesco is entitled to receive from the Fund reimbursement of its costs or such reasonable compensation as may
be approved by the Board. Currently, Invesco is reimbursed for the services of the Fund’s principal financial officer and her
staff and any expenses related to fund accounting services.
Administrative services fees paid for the last
three fiscal years of the Fund are as follows:
Fiscal Year Ended | |
Administrative Fees Paid | |
February 29, 2024 | |
$ | 41,583 | |
February 28, 2023 | |
$ | 44,766 | |
February 28, 2022 | |
$ | 52,689 | |
OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS
Transfer Agent
Computershare Trust Company,
N.A. (“Computershare”), 250 Royall Street, Canton, MA 02021 is the transfer agent for the Fund.
The Transfer Agency and Service
Agreement (the “TA Agreement”) between the Fund and Computershare provides that Computershare will perform certain services
related to the servicing of shareholders of the Fund. Other such services may be delegated or subcontracted to third party intermediaries.
Custodian
State Street Bank and Trust
Company (the “Custodian”), 225 Franklin Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, is custodian of all securities and cash of the
Fund. The Bank of New York Mellon, 2 Hanson Place, Brooklyn, New York 11217-1431, also serves as sub-custodian to facilitate cash management.
The Custodian’s responsibilities
include safeguarding and controlling the Fund’s portfolio securities and
handling the delivery of such securities to and from the Fund. These services do not include any supervisory function over management
or provide any protection against any possible depreciation of assets.
The Custodian and sub-custodian
are authorized to establish separate accounts in foreign countries and to cause foreign securities owned by the Fund to be held outside
the United States in branches of U.S. banks and, to the extent permitted by applicable regulations, in certain foreign banks and securities
depositories. Invesco is responsible for selecting eligible foreign securities depositories and for assessing the risks associated with
investing in foreign countries, including the risk of using eligible foreign securities’ depositories in a country. The Custodian
is responsible for monitoring eligible foreign securities depositories.
Under its contract with the
Fund, the Custodian maintains the portfolio securities of the Fund, administers the purchases and sales of portfolio securities, collects
interest and dividends and other distributions made on the securities held in the portfolio of the Fund and performs other ministerial
duties. These services do not include any supervisory function over management or provide any protection against any possible depreciation
of assets.
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
The Fund’s independent
registered public accounting firm is responsible for auditing the financial statements of the Fund. The Audit Committee of the Fund’s
Board has selected, and the Board has ratified and approved, [___], as the independent registered public accounting firm to audit the
financial statements of the Fund. In connection with the audit of the Fund’s financial statements, the Fund entered into an engagement
letter with [___]. The terms of the engagement letter required by [___], and agreed to by the Fund’s Audit Committee, include a
provision mandating the use of mediation and arbitration to resolve any controversy or claim between the parties arising out of or relating
to the engagement letter or the services provided thereunder. The Fund’s audited financial statements incorporated by reference
in this SAI and the report of [___] thereon, have been incorporated by reference in this SAI in reliance upon the report of such firm
given upon their authority as experts in accounting and auditing.
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS
Portfolio Manager Fund Holdings and Information on Other Managed
Accounts
Invesco’s portfolio
managers develop investment models which are used in connection with the management of certain Invesco funds as well as other mutual funds
for which Invesco or an affiliate acts as sub-adviser, other pooled investment vehicles that are not registered mutual funds, and other
accounts managed for organizations and individuals. The ‘Investments’ chart reflects the portfolio managers’ investments
in the Fund and includes investments in the Fund’s shares beneficially owned by a portfolio manager, as determined in accordance
with Rule 16a-1(a)(2) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (beneficial ownership includes ownership by a portfolio
manager’s immediate family members sharing the same household). The ‘Assets Managed’ chart reflects information regarding
accounts other than the Fund for which each portfolio manager has day-to-day management responsibilities. Accounts are grouped into three
categories: (i) other registered investment companies; (ii) other pooled investment vehicles; and (iii) other accounts.
To the extent that any of these accounts pay advisory fees that are based on account performance (performance-based fees), information
on those accounts is specifically noted. In addition, any assets denominated in foreign currencies have been converted into U.S. dollars
using the exchange rates as of the applicable date.
Investments
The following information is as of February 29,
2024:
Portfolio Manager | |
Dollar Range of Investments in the Fund |
Mark Paris | |
None |
Julius Williams | |
None |
John Schorle | |
None |
Jack Connelly | |
None |
Tim O’Reilly | |
None |
Assets Managed
The following information is as of February 29,
2024:
| |
Other Registered Investment Companies Managed (assets in millions) | | |
Other Pooled Investment Vehicles Managed (assets in millions) | | |
Other Accounts Managed (assets in millions) | |
Portfolio Manager | |
Number of Accounts | | |
Assets | | |
Number of Accounts | | |
Assets | | |
Number of Accounts | | |
Assets | |
Mark Paris | |
| 27 | | |
$ | 47,756.6 | | |
| None | | |
| None | | |
| 1 | 1 | |
$ | 901.02 | 1 |
Julius Williams | |
| 26 | | |
$ | 47,746.5 | | |
| None | | |
| None | | |
| 1 | 1 | |
$ | 901.02 | 1 |
John Schorle | |
| 16 | | |
$ | 23,861.0 | | |
| None | | |
| None | | |
| 1 | 1 | |
$ | 901.02 | 1 |
Jack Connelly | |
| 15 | | |
$ | 23,850.8 | | |
| None | | |
| None | | |
| 1 | 1 | |
$ | 901.02 | 1 |
Tim O’Reilly | |
| 26 | | |
$ | 47,831.0 | | |
| None | | |
| None | | |
| 1 | 1 | |
$ | 901.02 | 1 |
Potential Conflicts of Interest
Actual or apparent conflicts
of interest may arise when a portfolio manager has day-to-day management responsibilities with respect to more than one Fund or other
account. More specifically, portfolio managers who manage multiple funds and/or other accounts may be presented with one or more of the
following potential conflicts:
| ● | The management of multiple funds and/or other accounts may result in a portfolio manager devoting unequal
time and attention to the management of the Fund and/or other account. The Adviser and each Sub-Adviser seek to manage such competing
interests for the time and attention of portfolio managers by having portfolio managers focus on a particular investment discipline. Most
other accounts managed by a portfolio manager are managed using the same investment models that are used in connection with the management
of the funds. |
| ● | If a portfolio manager identifies a limited investment opportunity which may be suitable for more than
one Fund or other account, the Fund may not be able to take full advantage of that opportunity due to an allocation of filled purchase
or sale orders across all eligible funds and other accounts. To deal with these situations, the Adviser, each Sub-Adviser and the funds
have adopted procedures for allocating portfolio transactions across multiple accounts. |
| ● | The Adviser and each Sub-Adviser determine which broker to use to execute each order for securities transactions
for the funds, consistent with its duty to seek best execution of the transaction. However, for certain other accounts (such as mutual
funds for which Invesco or an affiliate acts as sub-adviser, other pooled investment vehicles that are not registered mutual funds, and
other accounts managed for organizations and individuals), the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser may be limited by the client with respect
to the selection of brokers or may be instructed to direct trades through a particular broker. In these cases, trades for the Fund in
a particular security may be placed separately from, rather than aggregated with, such other accounts. Having separate transactions with
respect to a security may temporarily affect the market price of the security or the execution of the transaction, or both, to the possible
detriment of the Fund or other account(s) involved. |
| ● | The appearance of a conflict of interest may arise where the Adviser or Sub-Adviser has an incentive,
such as a performance-based management fee, which relates to the management of one Fund or account but not all funds and accounts for
which a portfolio manager has day-to-day management responsibilities. |
The Adviser, each Sub-Adviser,
and the Fund have adopted certain compliance procedures which are designed to address these types of conflicts. However, there is no guarantee
that such procedures will detect each and every situation in which a conflict arises.
Description of Compensation Structure
The Adviser and each Sub-Adviser
seek to maintain a compensation program that is competitively positioned to attract and retain high-caliber investment professionals.
Portfolio managers receive a base salary, an incentive cash bonus opportunity and a deferred compensation opportunity. Portfolio manager
compensation is reviewed and may be modified each year as appropriate to reflect changes in the market, as well as to adjust the factors
used to determine bonuses to promote competitive Fund performance. The Adviser and each Sub-Adviser evaluate competitive market compensation
by reviewing compensation survey results conducted by an independent third party of investment industry compensation. Each portfolio manager’s
compensation consists of the following three elements:
Base
Salary. Each portfolio manager is paid a base salary. In setting the base salary, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser’s
intention is to be competitive in light of the particular portfolio manager’s experience and responsibilities.
Annual
Bonus. The portfolio managers are eligible, along with other employees of the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, to participate
in a discretionary year-end bonus pool. The Compensation Committee of Invesco Ltd. reviews and approves the firm-wide bonus pool available
based upon progress against strategic objectives and annual operating plan, including investment performance and financial results. In
addition, while having no direct impact on individual bonuses, assets under management are considered when determining the starting bonus
funding levels. Each portfolio manager is eligible to receive an annual cash bonus which is based on quantitative (i.e., investment performance)
and non-quantitative factors (which may include, but are not limited to, individual performance, risk management and teamwork).
Each portfolio manager’s
compensation is linked to the pre-tax investment performance of the Fund/accounts managed by the portfolio manager as described in the
table below.
Sub-Adviser |
|
Performance time period(5) |
|
|
Invesco(1)
Invesco Canada(1)
Invesco Deutschland(1)
Invesco Hong
Kong(1)
Invesco Asset Management(1)
Invesco Listed Real Assets Division(1) |
|
One-, Three- and Five-year performance against Fund peer group. |
|
|
|
|
|
Invesco Senior Secured(1),(2) |
|
Not applicable |
|
|
|
|
|
Invesco Japan |
|
One-, Three- and Five-year performance |
|
|
|
(1) |
Portfolio Managers may be granted an annual deferral award that vests on a pro-rata basis over a four year period. |
(2) |
Invesco Senior Secured’s bonus is based on annual measures of equity return and standard tests of collateralization performance. |
High investment performance
(against applicable peer group and/or benchmarks) would deliver compensation generally associated with top pay in the industry (determined
by reference to the third-party provided compensation survey information) and poor investment performance (versus applicable peer group)
would result in low bonus compared to the applicable peer group or no bonus at all. These decisions are reviewed and approved collectively
by senior leadership which has responsibility for executing the compensation approach across the organization.
Deferred/Long-Term
Compensation. Portfolio managers may be granted a deferred compensation award based on a firm-wide bonus pool approved by the
Compensation Committee of Invesco Ltd. Deferred compensation awards may take the form of annual fund deferral awards or long-term equity
awards. Annual fund deferral awards are notionally invested in certain Invesco funds selected by the Portfolio Manager and are settled
in cash. Long-term equity awards are settled in Invesco Ltd. common shares. Both fund deferral awards and long-term equity awards have
a four-year ratable vesting schedule. The vesting period aligns the interests of the Portfolio Managers with the long-term interests of
clients and shareholders and encourages retention.
Retirement
and health and welfare arrangements. Portfolio managers are eligible to participate in retirement and health and welfare plans
and programs that are available generally to all employees.
PORTFOLIO TRANSACTIONS AND BROKERAGE ALLOCATION
Invesco and the Sub-Advisers
have adopted compliance procedures that cover, among other items, brokerage allocation and other trading practices. If all or a portion
of the Fund’s assets are managed by one or more Sub-Advisers, the decision to buy and sell securities and broker-dealer selection
will be made by the Sub-Adviser for the assets it manages. Unless specifically noted, the Sub-Advisers brokerage allocation procedures
do not materially differ from the Advisers’s procedures.
As discussed below, Invesco
and the Sub-Advisers, unless prohibited by applicable law, may cause the Fund to pay a broker-dealer a commission for effecting a transaction
that exceeds the amount another broker-dealer would have charged for effecting the same transaction in recognition of the value of brokerage
and research services provided by that broker-dealer.
Brokerage Transactions
Placing trades generally involves
acting on portfolio manager instructions to buy or sell a specified amount of portfolio securities, including selecting one or more broker-dealers,
including affiliated and third-party broker-dealers, to execute the trades, and negotiating commissions and spreads. Various Invesco Ltd.
subsidiaries have created a global equity trading desk. The global equity trading desk has assigned local traders in primary trading centers
around the world to place equity securities trades in their regions. Invesco’s Americas desk, with locations in the United States
and Canada (the Americas Desk), generally places trades of equity securities trading in North America, Canada and Latin America; the Asia
Pacific desk, with locations in Hong Kong, Japan, Australia and China (the Asia Pacific Desk), generally places trades of equity securities
trading in the Asia-Pacific markets; and the EMEA trading desk, with locations in the United Kingdom (the EMEA Desk), generally places
trades of equity securities trading in European, Middle Eastern and African countries. Additionally, various Invesco Ltd. subsidiaries
have created an alternatives trading desk that generally places trades in derivatives, options and foreign currency.
Invesco, Invesco Canada, Invesco
Japan, Invesco Deutschland, Invesco Hong Kong, Invesco Capital and Invesco Asset Management use the global equity trading
desk and the alternatives desk to place trades. Other Sub-Advisers may use the global equity trading desk and the alternatives desk in
the future. The trading procedures for the global trading desks are similar in all material respects. References in the language below
to actions by Invesco or a Sub-Adviser making determinations or taking actions related to equity trading include these entities’
delegation of these determinations/actions to the Americas Desk, the Asia Pacific Desk, and the EMEA Desk. Even when trading is delegated
by Invesco or the Sub-Advisers to the various arms of the global equity trading desk or to the alternatives desk, Invesco or the
Sub-Adviser that delegates trading is responsible for oversight of this trading activity.
Commissions
Substantially all of the Fund’s
trades are effected on a principal basis. Brokerage commissions during the Fund’s last three fiscal years are as follows:
Fiscal Year Ended | |
Brokerage Commissions | |
February 29, 2024 | |
$ | 0 | |
February 28, 2023 | |
$ | 0 | |
February 28, 2022 | |
$ | 0 | |
The Fund does not and
will not pay brokerage commissions to Brokers affiliated with the Fund, the Adviser, the Sub-Advisers or any affiliates of such
entities.
The Fund may purchase or sell a security from or
to certain other Invesco funds or other accounts (and may invest in affiliated money market funds) provided the Fund follows procedures
adopted by the Boards of the various Invesco funds, including the Fund. These inter-fund transactions do not generate brokerage commissions
but may result in custodial fees or taxes or other related expenses.
Broker Selection
The Adviser’s or the
Sub-Advisers’ primary consideration in selecting Brokers to execute portfolio transactions for an Invesco fund is to obtain best
execution. In selecting a Broker to execute a portfolio transaction in equity or fixed income securities for the Fund, the Adviser or
the Sub-Advisers consider the full range and quality of a Broker’s services, including, but not limited to, the value of research
and/or brokerage services provided (if permitted by applicable law and regulation), execution capability, commission rate, spread or mark-up
or mark-down (as applicable), and willingness to commit capital, anonymity and responsiveness. In each case, the determinative factor
is not the lowest commission, spread or mark-up or mark-down available but whether the transaction represents the best qualitative execution
for the Fund under the circumstances. The Adviser and the Sub-Advisers will not select Brokers based upon their promotion or sale of shares
of funds advised by the Adviser and/or the Sub-Advisers.
Unless prohibited by applicable
law, such as MiFID II (described herein), in choosing brokers to execute portfolio transactions for the Fund, the Adviser or the Sub-Advisers
may select Brokers that provide brokerage and/or research services (“Soft Dollar Products”) to the Fund and/or the other accounts
over which the Adviser and its affiliates have investment discretion. For the avoidance of doubt, European Union and United Kingdom investment
advisers, including Invesco Deutschland and Invesco Asset Management, which may act as sub-adviser to certain Invesco Funds as described
in such Fund’s prospectuses, must pay for research from Brokers directly out of their own resources, rather than through client
commissions. Therefore, the use of the defined term “Sub-Advisers” throughout this section shall not be deemed to apply to
those Sub-Advisers subject to the MiFID II prohibitions. Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, provides
that the Adviser or the Sub-Advisers, under certain circumstances, lawfully may cause a client account to pay a higher commission than
the lowest available. Under Section 28(e)(1), the Adviser or the Sub-Advisers must make a good faith determination that the commissions
paid are “reasonable in relation to the value of the brokerage and research services provided viewed in terms of either that particular
transaction or the Adviser’s or the Sub-Advisers’ overall responsibilities with respect to the accounts as to which it exercises
investment discretion.” The Soft Dollar Products provided by the Broker also must lawfully and appropriately assist the Adviser
or the Sub-Advisers in the performance of their investment decision-making responsibilities. Accordingly, the Fund may pay a Broker commissions
that are higher than those charged by another Broker in recognition of the Broker’s provision of Soft Dollar Products to the Adviser
or the Sub-Advisers.
The Adviser and the Sub-Advisers
face a potential conflict of interest when they use client trades to obtain Soft Dollar Products. This conflict exists because the Adviser
and the Sub-Advisers are able to use the Soft Dollar Products to manage client accounts without paying cash for the Soft Dollar Products,
which reduces the Adviser’s or the Sub-Advisers’ expenses to the extent that the Adviser or the Sub-Advisers would have purchased
such products had they not been provided by Brokers. Section 28(e) permits the Adviser or the Sub-Advisers to use Soft Dollar
Products for the benefit of any account it manages. Certain Invesco-managed client accounts (or accounts managed by the Sub-Advisers)
may generate soft dollars used to purchase Soft Dollar Products that ultimately benefit other Adviser- managed accounts (or Sub-Adviser-managed
accounts), effectively cross subsidizing the other Adviser-managed accounts (or the other Sub-Adviser-managed accounts) that benefit directly
from the product. The Adviser or the Sub-Advisers may not use all of the Soft Dollar Products provided by Brokers through which the Fund
effects securities transactions in connection with managing the Fund whose trades generated the soft dollar commissions used to purchase
such products. Fixed income trading normally does not generate soft dollar commissions to pay for Soft Dollar Products. Therefore, soft
dollar commissions used to pay for Soft Dollar Products which are used to manage certain fixed income Invesco funds or other fixed-income
client accounts are generated entirely by equity-focused Invesco funds and other equity-focused client accounts managed by the Adviser.
In other words, certain fixed income Invesco funds are cross-subsidized by the equity Invesco Funds in that the fixed income Invesco funds
receive the benefit of Soft Dollar Products for which they do not pay.
Similarly, other client accounts
managed by the Adviser or certain of its affiliates may benefit from Soft Dollar Products for which they do not pay. The Adviser and the
Sub-Advisers attempt to reduce or eliminate the potential conflicts of interest concerning the use of Soft Dollar Products by directing
client trades for Soft Dollar Products only if the Adviser or the Sub-Advisers conclude that the Broker supplying the product is capable
of providing best execution.
Certain Soft Dollar Products
may be available directly from a vendor on a hard dollar basis; other Soft Dollar Products are available only through Brokers in exchange
for soft dollars. The Adviser and the Sub-Advisers use soft dollar commissions to purchase two types of Soft Dollar Products:
| ● | proprietary research created by the Broker executing the trade, and |
| ● | other research and brokerage products and services created by third party vendors that are supplied to
the Adviser or the Sub-Adviser through the Broker executing the trade. |
Proprietary research consists
primarily of traditional research reports, recommendations and similar materials produced by the in-house research staffs of broker-dealer
firms. This research includes evaluations and recommendations of specific companies or industry groups, as well as analyses of general
economic and market conditions and trends, market data, contacts and other related information and assistance. The Adviser periodically
rates the quality of proprietary research produced by various Brokers. Based on the evaluation of the quality of information that the
Adviser receives from each Broker, the Adviser develops an estimate of each Broker’s share of Invesco clients’ commission
dollars and attempts to direct trades to these firms to meet these estimates.
Soft Dollar Products are paid
for by the Adviser and Sub-Advisers using soft dollar commissions through one of two methods: full-service trading or commission sharing
agreements (“CSAs”). In a full-service trading arrangement, the Broker itself provides proprietary research products and brokerage
services to Invesco or the Sub-Adviser, and commissions paid to the Broker are retained by it to pay for both trade execution and the
proprietary research products and brokerage services provided by it. In a CSA arrangement with a Broker, a portion of the commission paid
to the Broker is made available by the Broker to Invesco or the Sub-Adviser to pay a third party for third party research and brokerage
products and services.
The Adviser and the Sub-Advisers
also use soft dollars to acquire products from third parties that are supplied to the Adviser or the Sub-Advisers through Brokers executing
the trades or other Brokers who “step in” to a transaction and receive a portion of the brokerage commission for the trade.
The Adviser or the Sub-Advisers may from time to time instruct the executing Broker to allocate or “step out” a portion of
a transaction to another Broker. The Broker to which the Adviser or the Sub-Advisers have “stepped out” would then settle
and complete the designated portion of the transaction, and the executing Broker would settle and complete the remaining portion of the
transaction that has not been “stepped out.” Each Broker may receive a commission or brokerage fee with respect to that portion
of the transaction that it settles and completes.
Soft Dollar Products received from Brokers supplement
the Adviser’s and or the Sub-Advisers’ own research (and the research of certain of its affiliates), and may include the following
types of products and services:
| ● | Database Services — comprehensive databases containing current and/or historical information on
companies and industries and indices. Examples include historical securities prices, earnings estimates and financial data. These services
may include software tools that allow the user to search the database or to prepare value-added analyses related to the investment process
(such as forecasts and models used in the portfolio management process). |
| ● | Quotation/Trading/News Systems — products that provide real time market data information, such as
pricing of individual securities and information on current trading, as well as a variety of news services. |
| ● | Economic Data/Forecasting Tools — various macro-economic forecasting tools, such as economic data
or currency and political forecasts for various countries or regions. |
| ● | Quantitative/Technical Analysis — software tools that assist in quantitative and technical analysis
of investment data. |
| ● | Fundamental Company/Industry Analysis — company or industry specific fundamental investment research. |
| ● | Fixed Income Security Analysis – data and analytical tools that pertain specifically to fixed income
securities. These tools assist in creating financial models, such as cash flow projections and interest rate sensitivity analyses, which
are relevant to fixed income securities. |
| ● | Other Specialized Tools — other specialized products, such as consulting analyses, access to industry
experts, and distinct investment expertise or custom-built investment-analysis software. Occasionally, the Adviser or a Sub-Adviser will
receive certain “mixed-use” research and brokerage services, a portion of the cost of which is eligible under Section 28(e) for
payment with soft dollar commissions and a portion of which is not. In these instances, the Adviser or the Sub-Adviser will make a reasonable
allocation of the cost of the product or service according to its use and pay for only that portion of the cost that is eligible under
Section 28(e) with soft dollar commission (and will pay for the remaining portion with its own resources). |
Outside research assistance
is useful to the Adviser or the Sub-Advisers because the Brokers used by the Adviser or the Sub-Advisers and the providers of other Soft
Dollar Products tend to provide more in-depth analysis of a broader universe of securities and other matters than the Adviser’s
or the Sub-Advisers’ staff follows. In addition, such services provide the Adviser or the Sub-Advisers with a diverse perspective
on financial markets. In some cases, Soft Dollar Products are available only from the Broker providing them. In other cases, Soft Dollar
Products may be obtainable from alternative sources in return for cash payments. The Adviser and the Sub-Advisers believe that because
Broker research supplements rather than replaces the Adviser’s or the Sub-Advisers’ research, the receipt of such research
tends to improve the quality of the Adviser’s or the Sub-Advisers’ investment advice. The advisory fee paid by the Fund is
not reduced because the Adviser or the Sub-Advisers receives such services. To the extent the Fund’s portfolio transactions are
used to obtain Soft Dollar Products, the brokerage commissions charged to the Fund might exceed those that might otherwise have been paid.
Portfolio transactions may
be effected through Brokers that recommend the Fund to their clients, or that act as agent in the purchase of the Fund’s shares
for their clients, provided that the Adviser or the Sub-Advisers believes such Brokers provide best execution and such transactions are
executed in compliance with the Adviser’s policy against using directed brokerage to compensate Brokers for promoting or selling
Invesco fund shares. The Adviser and the Sub-Advisers will not enter into a binding commitment with Brokers to place trades with such
Brokers involving brokerage commissions in precise amounts. As noted above, under MiFID II, European Union and United Kingdom investment
advisers, including Invesco Deutschland and Invesco Asset Management, are not permitted to use soft dollar commissions to pay for research
from brokers but rather must pay for research out of their own profit and loss or have research costs paid by clients through research
payment accounts that are funded by a specific client research charge or the research component of trade orders. Such payments for research
must be unbundled from the payments for execution. As a result, Invesco Deutschland and Invesco Asset Management are restricted from
using Soft Dollar Products in managing the Invesco funds that they sub-advise.
Directed Brokerage (Research Services)
The Fund did not pay any directed brokerage (research
services) during its most recently completed fiscal year.
Affiliated Transactions
The Adviser or a Sub-Adviser
may place trades for equity securities with Invesco Capital Markets, Inc. (ICMI), a broker-dealer with whom it is affiliated, provided
that the Adviser or the Sub-Adviser determines that ICMI’s trade execution costs are at least comparable to those of non-affiliated
brokerage firms with which the Adviser or the Sub-Adviser could otherwise place similar trades for similar securities. ICMI receives brokerage
commissions in connection with effecting trades for the Fund and, therefore, use of ICMI presents a conflict of interest for the Adviser
or a Sub-Adviser. Trades placed through ICMI, including the brokerage commissions paid to ICMI, are subject to procedures adopted by the
Board that are designed to mitigate this conflict of interest. The Fund did not pay brokerage commissions on affiliated transactions for
the last three fiscal years or periods, as applicable.
Regular Brokers
During its last fiscal year, the Fund did not acquire
any securities of regular brokers or dealers, as defined in Rule 10b-1 under the 1940 Act.
Allocation of Portfolio Transactions
The Adviser and the Sub-Advisers
manage numerous Invesco funds, and other client accounts. Some of these client accounts may have investment objectives similar to the
Fund. Frequently, identical securities will be appropriate for investment by one the Fund and by another fund or one or more other client
accounts. However, the position of each client account in the same security and the length of time that each client account may hold its
investment in the same security may vary. The Adviser and the Sub-Advisers will also determine the timing and amount of purchases for
a client account based on its cash position. If the purchase or sale of securities is consistent with the investment policies of the Fund
and one or more other client accounts, and is considered at or about the same time, the Adviser or the Sub-Advisers will allocate transactions
in such securities among the Fund and these client accounts on a pro rata basis based on order size or in such other manner believed
by the Adviser to be fair and equitable. In determining what is fair and equitable, the Adviser or the Sub-Adviser can consider various
factors, including how closely the investment opportunity matches the investment objective and strategy of the Fund or client account,
the capital available to the Fund or client account, and which portfolio management team sourced the opportunity. The Adviser or the Sub-Adviser
may combine orders for the purchase or sale of securities and other investments for multiple client accounts, including the Fund in accordance
with applicable laws and regulations to obtain the most favorable execution. Aggregated transactions could, however, adversely affect
the Fund’s ability to obtain or dispose of the full amount of a security which it seeks to purchase or sell.
TAX MATTERS
The following discussion is
a brief summary of certain U.S. federal income tax considerations affecting the Fund and the purchase, ownership and disposition of the
Fund’s Common Shares. Except as otherwise noted, this discussion assumes you are a taxable U.S. person (as defined for U.S. federal
income tax purposes) and that you hold your Common Shares as capital assets for U.S. federal income tax purposes (generally, assets held
for investment). This discussion is based upon current provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”),
the regulations promulgated thereunder and judicial and administrative authorities, all of which are subject to change or differing interpretations
by the courts or the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”), possibly with retroactive effect. No attempt is made to present
a detailed explanation of all U.S. federal concerns affecting the Fund and its Common Shareholders (including Common Shareholders subject
to special treatment under U.S. federal income tax law). No assurance can be given that the IRS would not assert, or that a court would
not sustain, a position contrary to those set forth below. This summary does not discuss any aspects of foreign, state or local tax. The
discussions set forth herein and in the Prospectus do not constitute tax advice and potential investors are urged to consult their own
tax advisers to determine the specific U.S. federal, state, local and foreign tax consequences to them of investing in the Fund.
Taxation of the Fund
The Fund intends to elect
to be treated and to qualify each year as a regulated investment company (“RIC”) under Subchapter M of the Code. Accordingly,
the Fund must, among other things, (i) derive in each taxable year at least 90% of its gross income from (a) dividends, interest
(including tax-exempt interest), payments with respect to certain securities loans, and gains from the sale or other disposition of stock,
securities or foreign currencies, or other income (including gain from options, futures and forward contracts) derived with respect to
its business of investing in such stock, securities or foreign currencies and (b) net income derived from interests in “qualified
publicly traded partnerships” (as defined in the Code); and (ii) diversify its holdings so that, at the end of each quarter
of each taxable year (a) at least 50% of the market value of the Fund’s total assets is represented by cash and cash items,
U.S. Government securities, the securities of other RICs and other securities, with such other securities limited, in respect of any one
issuer, to an amount not greater than 5% of the value of the Fund’s total assets and not more than 10% of the outstanding voting
securities of such issuer and (b) not more than 25% of the market value of the Fund’s total assets is invested in the securities
(other than U.S. Government securities and the securities of other RICs) of (I) any one issuer, (II) any two or more issuers
that the Fund controls and that are determined to be engaged in the same business or similar or related trades or businesses or (III) any
one or more “qualified publicly traded partnerships.” Generally, a qualified publicly traded partnership includes a partnership
the interests of which are traded on an established securities market or readily tradable on a secondary market (or the substantial equivalent
thereof) and that derives less than 90% of its gross income from the items described in (i)(a) above.
As long as the Fund qualifies
as a RIC, the Fund generally will not be subject to U.S. federal income tax on income and gains that the Fund distributes to its Common
Shareholders, provided that it distributes each taxable year at least 90% of the sum of (i) the Fund’s investment company taxable
income (which includes, among other items, dividends, interest, the excess of any net short-term capital gain over net long-term capital
loss, and other taxable income, other than any net capital gain (defined below), reduced by deductible expenses) determined without regard
to the deduction for dividends paid and (ii) the Fund’s net tax-exempt interest (the excess of its gross tax-exempt interest
over certain disallowed deductions). The Fund intends to distribute substantially all of such income each year. The Fund will be subject
to income tax at regular corporate rates on any taxable income or gains that it does not distribute to its Common Shareholders.
The Code imposes a 4% nondeductible
excise tax on the Fund to the extent the Fund does not distribute by the end of any calendar year at least the sum of (i) 98% of
its ordinary income (not taking into account any capital gain or loss) for the calendar year and (ii) 98.2% of its capital gain in
excess of its capital loss (adjusted for certain ordinary losses) for a one-year period generally ending on October 31 of the calendar
year (unless an election is made to use the Fund’s taxable year). In addition, the minimum amounts that must be distributed in any
year to avoid the excise tax will be increased or decreased to reflect any under-distribution or over-distribution, as the case may be,
from the previous year. For purposes of the excise tax, the Fund will be deemed to have distributed any income on which it paid U.S. federal
income tax. While the Fund intends to distribute any income and capital gain in the manner necessary to minimize imposition of the 4%
nondeductible excise tax, there can be no assurance that sufficient amounts of the Fund’s taxable income and capital gain will be
distributed to avoid entirely the imposition of the excise tax. In that event, the Fund will be liable for the excise tax only on the
amount by which it does not meet the foregoing distribution requirement.
If for any taxable year the
Fund were to fail to qualify as a RIC, all of its taxable income (including its net capital gain, which consists of the excess of its
net long-term capital gain over its net short-term capital loss) would be subject to tax at regular corporate rates without any deduction
for distributions to Common Shareholders. To qualify again to be taxed as a RIC in a subsequent year, the Fund would generally be required
to distribute to its Common Shareholders its earnings and profits attributable to non-RIC years. In addition, if the Fund failed to qualify
as a RIC for a period greater than two taxable years, the Fund would be required to recognize and pay tax on any net built-in gains with
respect to certain of its assets (i.e., the excess of the aggregate gains, including items of income, over aggregate losses that would
have been realized with respect to such assets if the Fund had been liquidated) or, alternatively, to elect to be subject to taxation
on such built-in gain recognized for a period of ten years, in order to qualify as a RIC in a subsequent year.
The remainder of this discussion
assumes that the Fund qualifies for taxation as a RIC.
The Fund’s Investments
Certain of the Fund’s
investment practices are subject to special and complex U.S. federal income tax provisions (including mark-to-market, constructive sale,
straddle, wash sale, short sale and other rules) that may, among other things, (i) disallow, suspend or otherwise limit the allowance
of certain losses or deductions, including the dividends received deduction, (ii) convert lower taxed long-term capital gains or
“qualified dividend income” into higher taxed short-term capital gains or ordinary income, (iii) convert ordinary loss
or a deduction into capital loss (the deductibility of which is more limited), (iv) cause the Fund to recognize income or gain without
a corresponding receipt of cash, (v) adversely affect the time as to when a purchase or sale of stock or securities is deemed to
occur, (vi) adversely alter the characterization of certain complex financial transactions and (vii) produce income that will
not be “qualified” income for purposes of the 90% annual gross income requirement described above. These U.S. federal income
tax provisions could therefore affect the amount, timing and character of distributions to Common Shareholders. The Fund intends to monitor
its transactions and may make certain tax elections and may be required to dispose of securities to mitigate the effect of these provisions
and prevent disqualification of the Fund as a RIC. Additionally, the Fund may be required to limit its activities in derivative instruments
in order to enable it to maintain its RIC status.
Gain or loss on the sale of
securities by the Fund will generally be long-term capital gain or loss if the securities have been held by the Fund for more than one
year. Gain or loss on the sale of securities held for one year or less will be short-term capital gain or loss.
Taxation of Common Shareholders
Distributions from the Fund
will constitute exempt-interest dividends to the extent of the Fund’s tax-exempt interest income (net of allocable expenses and
amortized bond premium). Exempt-interest dividends distributed to Common Shareholders of the Fund are excluded from gross income for federal
income tax purposes. However, Common Shareholders required to file a federal income tax return will be required to report the receipt
of exempt-interest dividends on their returns. Moreover, while exempt-interest dividends are excluded from gross income for federal income
tax purposes, they may be subject to alternative minimum tax (AMT) in certain circumstances for noncorporate taxpayers and may have other
collateral tax consequences as discussed below.
Any gain or loss from the
sale or other disposition of a tax-exempt security generally is treated as either long-term or short-term capital gain or loss, depending
upon its holding period, and is fully taxable.
Alternative minimum tax (AMT)
is imposed in addition to, but only to the extent it exceeds, the regular tax and is computed at a maximum rate of 28% for non-corporate
taxpayers on the excess of the taxpayer’s alternative minimum taxable income (AMTI) over an exemption amount. Exempt- interest dividends
derived from certain “private activity” Municipal Securities issued after August 7, 1986, generally will constitute an
item of tax preference includable in AMTI for non-corporate taxpayers. However, tax-exempt interest on private activity bonds issued in
2009 and 2010 is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the AMT.
Exempt-interest dividends
must be taken into account in computing the portion, if any, of social security or railroad retirement benefits that must be included
in an individual Common Shareholder’s gross income subject to federal income tax. Further, a Common Shareholder of the Fund is denied
a deduction for interest on indebtedness incurred or continued to purchase or carry Common Shares of the Fund. Moreover, a Common Shareholder
who is (or is related to) a “substantial user” of a facility financed by industrial development bonds held by the Fund likely
will be subject to tax on dividends paid by the Fund that are derived from interest on such bonds. Receipt of exempt-interest dividends
may result in other collateral federal income tax consequences to certain taxpayers, including financial institutions, property and casualty
insurance companies and foreign corporations engaged in a trade or business in the United States.
To the extent that exempt-interest
dividends are derived from interest on obligations of a state or its political subdivisions or from interest on qualifying U.S. territorial
obligations (including qualifying obligations of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam), they also may be exempt from that state’s
personal income taxes. Most states, however, do not grant tax-free treatment to interest on state and municipal securities of other states.
Failure of the issuer of a
tax-exempt security to comply with certain legal or contractual requirements relating to a Municipal Security could cause interest on
the Municipal Security, as well as Fund distributions derived from this interest, to become taxable, perhaps retroactively to the date
the Municipal Security was issued. In such a case, the Fund may be required to report to the IRS and send to Common Shareholders amended
Forms 1099 for a prior taxable year in order to report additional taxable income. This in turn could require Common Shareholders to file
amended federal and state income tax returns for such prior year to report and pay tax and interest on their pro rata share of the additional
amount of taxable income. Moreover, if a sufficient number of Municipal Securities were determined not to be tax-exempt bonds, the Fund
could fail to satisfy the requirement that the Fund hold at least 50% of the Fund’s total assets consists of Municipal Securities,
which are exempt from federal income tax. This would prevent the Fund from making any distributions of exempt-interest dividends.
The Fund may invest a portion
of its assets in securities that pay taxable interest. The Fund also may distribute to you any market discount and net short-term capital
gains from the sale of its portfolio securities. If you are a taxable investor, Fund distributions from this income are taxable to you
as ordinary income to the extent of the Fund’s earnings and profits. None of the dividends paid by the Fund will qualify for the
dividends-received deduction in the case of corporate shareholders or as qualified dividend income subject to reduced rates of taxation
in the case of noncorporate shareholders. Provided the Fund otherwise satisfies the Distribution Requirement, the Fund reserves the right
to retain, and not distribute to Common Shareholders, income and gains taxable as ordinary income, in which case the Fund would be subject
to tax at the corporate income tax rate.
The sale or other disposition
of Common Shares will generally result in capital gain or loss to you and will be long-term capital gain or loss if you have held such
Common Shares for more than one year at the time of sale. Any loss upon the sale or other disposition of Common Shares held for six months
or less will be treated as long-term capital loss to the extent of any capital gain dividends received (including amounts credited as
an undistributed capital gain dividend) by you with respect to such Common Shares. Any loss you recognize on a sale or other disposition
of Common Shares will be disallowed if you acquire other Common Shares (whether through the automatic reinvestment of dividends or otherwise)
within a 61-day period beginning 30 days before and ending 30 days after your sale or exchange of the Common Shares. In such case, your
tax basis in the Common Shares acquired will be adjusted to reflect the disallowed loss.
Current U.S. federal income
tax law taxes both long-term and short-term capital gain of corporations at the rates applicable to ordinary income. For non-corporate
taxpayers, short-term capital gain is currently taxed at rates applicable to ordinary income while long-term capital gain generally is
taxed at reduced maximum rates. The deductibility of capital losses is subject to limitations under the Code.
Certain U.S. shareholders
who are individuals, estates or trusts and whose income exceeds certain thresholds will be required to pay a 3.8% Medicare tax on all
or a portion of their “net investment income,” which includes dividends received from the Fund and capital gains from the
sale or other disposition of the Fund’s shares.
A Common Shareholder that
is a nonresident alien individual or a foreign corporation (a “foreign investor”) generally will be subject to U.S. federal
withholding tax at the rate of 30% (or possibly a lower rate provided by an applicable tax treaty) on ordinary income dividends (except
as discussed below). In general, U.S. federal withholding tax and U.S. federal income tax will not apply to any gain or income realized
by a foreign investor in respect of any distribution of net capital gain (including amounts credited as an undistributed capital gain
dividend) or upon the sale or other disposition of Common Shares of the Fund. Different tax consequences may result if the foreign investor
is engaged in a trade or business in the United States or, in the case of an individual, is present in the United States for 183 days
or more during a taxable year and certain other conditions are met.
Foreign investors should consult
their tax advisers regarding the tax consequences of investing in the Fund’s Common Shares.
Ordinary income dividends
properly reported by the RIC are generally exempt from U.S. federal withholding tax where they (i) are paid in respect of the RIC’s
“qualified net interest income” (generally, its U.S.-source interest income, other than certain contingent interest and interest
from obligations of a corporation or partnership in which the RIC is at least a 10% shareholder, reduced by expenses that are allocable
to such income) or (ii) are paid in respect of the RIC’s “qualified short-term capital gains” (generally, the excess
of the RIC’s net short-term capital gain over its long-term capital loss for such taxable year). The Fund may report all, some or
none of its potentially eligible dividends as such qualified net interest income or as qualified short-term capital gains, and/or treat
such dividends, in whole or in part, as ineligible for this exemption from withholding. In order to qualify for this exemption from withholding,
a foreign investor needs to comply with applicable certification requirements relating to its non-U.S. status (including, in general,
furnishing an IRS Form W-8BEN, W-8BEN-E or substitute Form or other applicable W-8 Form). In the case of shares held through
an intermediary, the intermediary may withhold even if the Fund reports the payment as qualified net interest income or qualified short-term
capital gain. Foreign investors should contact their intermediaries with respect to the application of these rules to their accounts.
There can be no assurance as to what portion of the Fund’s distributions will qualify for favorable treatment as qualified net interest
income or qualified short-term capital gains if this provision is extended.
Under the Foreign Account
Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), the Fund will be required to withhold a 30% tax on income dividends made by the Fund to certain foreign entities,
referred to as foreign financial institutions (FFI) or non-financial foreign entities (NFFE). After December 31, 2018, FATCA withholding
also would have applied to certain capital gain distributions, return of capital distributions and the proceeds arising from the sale
of Fund shares; however, based on proposed regulations issued by the IRS, which can be relied upon currently, such withholding is no longer
required unless final regulations provide otherwise (which is not expected). The FATCA withholding tax generally can be avoided: (a) by
an FFI, if it reports certain direct and indirect ownership of foreign financial accounts held by U.S. persons with the FFI and (b) by
an NFFE, if it: (i) certifies that it has no substantial U.S. persons as owners or (ii) if it does have such owners, reporting
information relating to them. The U.S. Treasury has negotiated intergovernmental agreements (IGA) with certain countries and is in various
stages of negotiations with a number of other foreign countries with respect to one or more alternative approaches to implement FATCA.
An FFI can avoid FATCA withholding
if it is deemed compliant or by becoming a “participating FFI,” which requires the FFI to enter into a U.S. tax compliance
agreement with the IRS under section 1471(b) of the Code (FFI agreement) under which it agrees to verify, report and disclose certain
of its U.S. accountholders and meet certain other specified requirements. The FFI will either report the specified information about the
U.S. accounts to the IRS, or, to the government of the FFI’s country of residence (pursuant to the terms and conditions of applicable
law and an applicable IGA entered into between the U.S. and the FFI’s country of residence), which will, in turn, report the specified
information to the IRS. An FFI that is resident in a country that has entered into an IGA with the U.S. to implement FATCA will be exempt
from FATCA withholding provided that the FFI shareholder and the applicable foreign government comply with the terms of such agreement.
An NFFE that is the beneficial
owner of a payment from the Fund can avoid the FATCA withholding tax generally by certifying that it does not have any substantial U.S.
owners or by providing the name, address and taxpayer identification number of each substantial U.S. owner. The NFFE will report the information
to the Fund or other applicable withholding agent, which will, in turn, report the information to the IRS.
Such foreign shareholders
also may fall into certain exempt, excepted or deemed compliant categories as established by U.S. Treasury regulations, IGAs, and
other guidance regarding FATCA. An FFI or NFFE that invests in the Fund will need to provide the Fund with documentation properly certifying
the entity’s status under FATCA in order to avoid FATCA withholding. Non-U.S. investors should consult their own tax advisors regarding
the impact of these requirements on their investment in the Fund. The requirements imposed by FATCA are different from, and in addition
to, the U.S. tax certification rules to avoid backup withholding described above. Shareholders are urged to consult their tax advisors
regarding the application of these requirements to their own situation.
The Fund may be required to
withhold (currently at a rate of 24%), for U.S. federal backup withholding tax purposes, a portion of the dividends, distributions and
redemption proceeds payable to certain non-exempt Common Shareholders who fail to provide the Fund (or its agent) with their correct taxpayer
identification number (in the case of individuals, generally, their social security number) or to make required certifications, or who
are otherwise subject to backup withholding. Backup withholding is not an additional tax and any amount withheld may be refunded or credited
against your U.S. federal income tax liability, if any, provided that you timely furnish the required information to the IRS.
Ordinary income dividends,
capital gain dividends, and gain from the sale or other disposition of Common Shares of the Fund also may be subject to state, local,
and/or foreign taxes. Common Shareholders are urged to consult their own tax advisers regarding specific questions about U.S. federal,
state, local or foreign tax consequences to them of investing in the Fund.
***
The foregoing is a general
and abbreviated summary of certain provisions of the Code and the Treasury Regulations presently in effect as they directly govern the
taxation of the Fund and its shareholders. For complete provisions, reference should be made to the pertinent Code sections and Treasury
Regulations. The Code and the Treasury Regulations are subject to change by legislative or administrative action, and any such change
may be retroactive with respect to Fund transactions. Prospective shareholders are advised to consult their own tax advisers for more
detailed information concerning the tax consequences of an investment in the Fund.
OTHER INFORMATION
Principal Shareholders
As of the date of this Statement
of Additional Information, to the knowledge of the Fund, no person beneficially owned more than 5% of the voting securities of any class
of equity securities of the Fund, except as provided below.
Title of Class | |
Name and Address of Beneficial Owner | |
Amount and Nature of Beneficial Ownership | |
Percent of Class |
Common Shares | |
| |
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
|
As of [____], the trustees
and officers as a group owned less than 1% of the outstanding shares of each class of the Fund.
Proxy Voting Policy and Proxy Voting Record
The Board believes that the
voting of proxies on securities held by the Fund is an important element of the overall investment process. The Board has delegated the
day-to-day responsibility to the Adviser to vote such proxies pursuant to the Board approved Proxy Voting Policy. A description of the
policies and procedures that the Fund uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available without charge,
upon request, from our Client Services department at (800) 341-2929 or at invesco.com/corporate/about-us/esg. The information is also
available on the SEC website, sec.gov.
Information regarding how
the Fund voted proxies related to its portfolio securities during the most recent 12-month period ended June 30 is available at invesco.com/proxysearch.
The information is also available on the SEC website, sec.gov.
Code of Ethics
Invesco, the Fund, Invesco
Distributors and certain of the Sub-Advisers each have adopted a Code of Ethics that applies to all Invesco Fund trustees and officers,
and employees of Invesco, the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates, and governs, among other things, the personal trading activities of
all such persons. Certain Sub-Advisers have adopted their own Code of Ethics. Each Code of Ethics is designed to detect and prevent improper
personal trading by portfolio managers and certain other employees that could compete with or take advantage of the Fund’s portfolio
transactions. Unless specifically noted, to the extent a Sub-Adviser has adopted its own Code of Ethics, each Sub-Adviser’s Code
of Ethics does not materially differ from Invesco’s Code of Ethics discussed below. The Code of Ethics is intended to address conflicts
of interest with the Fund that may arise from personal trading in the Invesco Funds. Personal trading, including personal trading involving
securities that may be purchased or held by an Invesco Fund, is permitted under the Code of Ethics subject to certain restrictions; however,
employees are required to pre-clear security transactions with the Compliance Officer or a designee and to report transactions on a regular
basis. The Code of Ethics can be viewed online or downloaded from the EDGAR Database on the SEC’s internet website at www.sec.gov.
In addition, a copy of the Code of Ethics may be obtained, after paying the appropriate duplicating fee, by e-mail request
at publicinfo@sec.gov.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The
audited financial statements for the Fund’s most recent fiscal year ended February 29, 2024, including the notes thereto and
the reports of [__] thereon, are incorporated by reference to the Fund’s Form N-CSR
filed on May 2, 2024.
The portions of such Form N-CSR that are
not specifically listed above are not incorporated by reference into this SAI and are not a part of this SAI.
Appendix A
APPENDIX
[var:Appendix Ratings of Debt Securities,0000vr] - RATINGS OF DEBT SECURITIES
The following is a description of the factors
underlying the debt ratings of Moody's, S&P, and Fitch.
Moody's Long-Term Debt Ratings
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.
Note: Moody's appends numerical modifiers 1, 2, and 3 to each generic
rating classification from Aa through Caa. The modifier 1 indicates that the obligation ranks in the higher end of its generic rating
category; the modifier 2 indicates a mid-range ranking; and the modifier 3 indicates a ranking in the lower end of that generic rating
category. Additionally, a “(hyb)” indicator is appended to all ratings of hybrid securities issued by banks, insurers, finance
companies, and securities firms*.
* 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.
Moody's Short-Term Prime Rating System
P-1: Ratings
of Prime-1 reflect a superior ability to repay short-term obligations.
P-2: Ratings
of Prime-2 reflect a strong ability to repay short-term obligations.
P-3: Ratings
of Prime-3 reflect an acceptable ability to repay short-term obligations.
NP (Not Prime):
Issuers (or supporting institutions) rated Not Prime do not fall within any of the Prime rating categories.
Moody's MIG/VMIG US Short-Term Ratings
Short-Term Obligation Ratings
We use the global short-term Prime rating scale
for commercial paper issued by US municipalities and nonprofits. These commercial paper programs may be backed by external letters of
credit or liquidity facilities, or by an issuer’s self-liquidity.
For other short-term municipal obligations, we
use one of two other short-term rating scales, the Municipal Investment Grade (MIG) and Variable Municipal Investment Grade (VMIG) scales
discussed below.
We use the MIG scale for US municipal cash flow
notes, bond anticipation notes and certain other short-term obligations, which typically mature in three years or less. Under certain
circumstances, we use the MIG scale for bond anticipation notes with maturities of up to five years.
MIG 1: This
designation denotes superior credit quality. Excellent protection is afforded by established cash flows, highly reliable liquidity support,
or demonstrated broad-based access to the market for refinancing.
MIG 2: This
designation denotes strong credit quality. Margins of protection are ample, although not as large as in the preceding group.
MIG 3: This
designation denotes acceptable credit quality. Liquidity and cash-flow protection may be narrow, and market access for refinancing is
likely to be less well-established.
SG: This designation
denotes speculative-grade credit quality. Debt instruments in this category may lack sufficient margins of protection.
VMIG Ratings
For variable rate demand obligations (VRDOs),
Moody’s assigns both a long-term rating and a short-term payment obligation rating. The long-term rating addresses the issuer’s
ability to meet scheduled principal and interest payments. The short-term payment obligation rating addresses the ability of the issuer
or the liquidity provider to meet any purchase price payment obligation resulting from optional tenders (“on demand”) and/or
mandatory tenders of the VRDO. The short-term payment obligation rating uses the VMIG scale. Transitions of VMIG ratings with conditional
liquidity support differ from transitions of Prime ratings reflecting the risk that external liquidity support will terminate if the issuer’s
long-term rating drops below investment grade. Please see our methodology that discusses obligations with conditional liquidity support.
For VRDOs, we typically assign a VMIG rating if
the frequency of the payment obligation is less than every three years. If the frequency of the payment obligation is less than three
years, but the obligation is payable only with remarketing proceeds, the VMIG short-term rating is not assigned and it is denoted as “NR”.
Industrial development bonds in the US where the
obligor is a corporate may carry a VMIG rating that reflects Moody’s view of the relative likelihood of default and loss. In these
cases, liquidity assessment is based on the liquidity of the corporate obligor.
VMIG Scale
VMIG 1: This
designation denotes superior credit quality. Excellent protection is afforded by the superior short-term credit strength of the liquidity
provider and structural and legal protections.
VMIG 2: This
designation denotes strong credit quality. Good protection is afforded by the strong short-term credit strength of the liquidity provider
and structural and legal protections.
VMIG 3: This
designation denotes acceptable credit quality. Adequate protection is afforded by the satisfactory short-term credit strength of the liquidity
provider and structural and legal protections.
SG: This designation
denotes speculative-grade credit quality. Demand features rated in this category may be supported by a liquidity provider that does not
have a sufficiently strong short-term rating or may lack the structural or legal protections.
Standard & Poor's Long-Term Issue
Credit Ratings
Issue credit ratings are based, in varying degrees,
on S&P Global Ratings’ analysis of the following considerations:
| ● | The likelihood of payment--the capacity and willingness of the obligor to
meet its financial commitment on an obligation in accordance with the terms of the obligation; |
| ● | The nature and provisions of the financial obligation, and the promise we
impute; and |
| ● | The protection afforded by, and relative position of, the financial obligation
in the event of bankruptcy, reorganization, or other arrangement under the laws of bankruptcy and other laws affecting creditors' rights. |
An issue rating is an assessment of default risk
but may incorporate an assessment of relative seniority or ultimate recovery in the event of default. Junior obligations are typically
rated lower than senior obligations, to reflect the lower priority in bankruptcy, as noted above. (Such differentiation may apply when
an entity has both senior and subordinated obligations, secured and unsecured obligations, or operating company and holding company obligations.)
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 which 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. An obligation's rating is lowered to 'D' if it is subject to a distressed exchange
offer.
Plus (+) or minus (-):
The ratings from 'AA' to 'CCC' may be modified by the addition of a plus (+) or minus (-) sign to show relative standing within the major
rating categories.
NR: This indicates
that no rating has been requested, or that there is insufficient information on which to base a rating, or that S&P Global Ratings
does not rate a particular obligation as a matter of policy.
Standard & Poor's Short-Term Issue
Credit Ratings
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 debt restructuring.
Standard & Poor's Municipal Short-Term
Note Ratings Definitions
An S&P Global Ratings U.S. municipal note
rating reflects S&P Global Ratings’ opinion about the liquidity factors and market access risks unique to the notes. Notes due
in three years or less will likely receive a note rating. Notes with an original maturity of more than three years will most likely receive
a long-term debt rating. In determining which type of rating, if any, to assign, S&P Global Ratings’ analysis will review the
following considerations:
| ● | Amortization schedule -- the larger final maturity relative to other maturities,
the more likely it will be treated as a note; and |
| ● | Source of payment -- the more dependent the issue is on the market for its
refinancing, the more likely it will be treated as a note. |
Note rating symbols are as follows:
SP-1: Strong
capacity to pay principal and interest. An issue determined to possess a very strong capacity to pay debt service is given a plus (+)
designation.
SP-2: Satisfactory
capacity to pay principal and interest, with some vulnerability to adverse financial and economic changes over the term of the notes.
SP-3: Speculative
capacity to pay principal and interest.
D: ‘D’
is assigned upon failure to pay the note when due, completion of a distressed exchange offer, or 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.
Standard & Poor's Dual Ratings
Dual ratings may be assigned to debt issues that
have a put option or demand feature. The first component of the rating addresses the likelihood of repayment of principal and interest
as due, and the second component of the rating addresses only the demand feature. The first component of the rating can relate to either
a short-term or long-term transaction and accordingly use either short-term or long-term rating symbols. The second component of the rating
relates to the put option and is assigned a short-term rating symbol (for example, 'AAA/A-1+' or 'A-1+/A-1'). With U.S. municipal short-term
demand debt, the U.S. municipal short-term note rating symbols are used for the first component of the rating (for example, 'SP-1+/A-1+').
Fitch Credit Rating Scales
Fitch Ratings publishes credit ratings that are
forward-looking opinions on the relative ability of an entity or obligation to meet financial commitments. Issuer default ratings (IDRs)
are assigned to corporations, sovereign entities, financial institutions such as banks, leasing companies and insurers, and public finance
entities (local and regional governments). Issue level ratings are also assigned, often include an expectation of recovery and may be
notched above or below the issuer level rating. Issue ratings are assigned to secured and unsecured debt securities, loans, preferred
stock and other instruments, Structured finance ratings are issue ratings to securities backed by receivables or other financial assets
that consider the obligations’ relative vulnerability to default. Credit ratings are indications of the likelihood of repayment
in accordance with the terms of the issuance. In limited cases, Fitch may include additional considerations (i.e., rate to a higher or
lower standard than that implied in the obligation’s documentation). Please see the section Specific Limitations Relating to Credit
Rating Scales for details. Fitch Ratings also publishes other ratings, scores and opinions. For example, Fitch provides specialized ratings
of servicers of residential and commercial mortgages, asset managers and funds. In each case, users should refer to the definitions of
each individual scale for guidance on the dimensions of risk covered in each assessment.
Fitch’s credit rating scale for issuers
and issues is expressed using the categories ‘AAA’ to ‘BBB’ (investment grade) and ‘BB’ to ‘D’
(speculative grade) with an additional +/-for AA through CCC levels indicating relative differences of probability of default or recovery
for issues.
The terms “investment grade” and “speculative
grade” are market conventions and do not imply any recommendation or endorsement of a specific security for investment purposes.
Investment grade categories indicate relatively low to moderate credit risk, while ratings in the speculative categories signal either
a higher level of credit risk or that a default has already occurred.
Fitch may also disclose issues relating to a rated
issuer that are not and have not been rated. Such issues are also denoted as ‘NR’ on its web page.
Credit ratings express risk in relative rank order,
which is to say they are ordinal measures of credit risk and are not predictive of a specific frequency of default or loss. For information
about the historical performance of ratings, please refer to Fitch’s Ratings Transition and Default studies, which detail the historical
default rates. The European Securities and Markets Authority also maintains a central repository of historical default rates.
Fitch’s credit ratings do not directly address
any risk other than credit risk. Credit ratings do not deal with the risk of market value loss due to changes in interest rates, liquidity
and/or other market considerations. However, market risk may be considered to the extent that it influences the ability of an issuer to
pay or refinance a financial commitment. Ratings nonetheless do not reflect market risk to the extent that they influence the size or
other conditionality of the obligation to pay upon a commitment (for example, in the case of payments linked to performance of an equity
index).
Fitch will use credit rating scales to provide
ratings to privately issued obligations or certain note issuance programs, or for private ratings using the same public scale and criteria.
Private ratings are not published, and are only provided to the issuer or its agents in the form of a rating letter. The primary credit
rating scales may also be used to provide ratings for a narrower scope, including interest strips and return of principal or in other
forms of opinions such as Credit Opinions or Rating Assessment Services.
Credit Opinions are either a notch- or category-specific
view using the primary rating scale and omit one or more characteristics of a full rating or meet them to a different standard. Credit
Opinions will be indicated using a lower-case letter symbol combined with either an ‘*’ (e.g. ‘bbb+*’) or (cat)
suffix to denote the opinion status. Credit Opinions will be typically point-in-time but may be monitored if the analytical group believes
information will be sufficiently available.
Rating Assessment Services are a notch-specific
view using the primary rating scale of how an existing or potential rating may be changed by a given set of hypothetical circumstances.
While Credit Opinions and Rating Assessment Services are point-in-time and are not monitored, they may have a directional Watch or Outlook
assigned, which can signify the trajectory of the credit profile.
Ratings assigned by Fitch are opinions based on
established, approved and published criteria. A variation to criteria may be applied but will be explicitly cited in our rating action
commentaries (RACs), which are used to publish credit ratings when established and upon annual or periodic reviews.
Ratings are the collective work product of Fitch,
and no individual, or group of individuals, is solely responsible for a rating. Ratings are not facts and, therefore, cannot be described
as being "accurate" or "inaccurate." Users should refer to the definition of each individual rating for guidance on
the dimensions of risk covered by the rating.
Fitch Long-Term Rating Scales
Issuer Default Ratings
Rated entities in a number of sectors, including
financial and non-financial corporations, sovereigns, insurance companies and certain sectors within public finance, are generally assigned
Issuer Default Ratings (IDRs). IDRs are also assigned to certain entities in global infrastructure and project finance. IDRs opine on
an entity's relative vulnerability to default on financial obligations. The threshold default risk addressed by the IDR is generally that
of the financial obligations whose non-payment would best reflect the uncured failure of that entity. As such, IDRs also address
relative vulnerability to bankruptcy, administrative receivership or similar concepts.
In aggregate, IDRs provide an ordinal ranking
of issuers based on the agency's view of their relative vulnerability to default, rather than a prediction of a specific percentage likelihood
of default.
AAA: Highest credit quality.
'AAA' ratings denote the lowest expectation of
default risk. They are assigned only in cases of exceptionally strong capacity for payment of financial commitments. This capacity is
highly unlikely to be adversely affected by foreseeable events.
AA: Very high credit quality.
'AA' ratings denote expectations of very low default
risk. They indicate very strong capacity for payment of financial commitments. This capacity is not significantly vulnerable to foreseeable
events.
A: High credit quality.
'A' ratings denote expectations of low default
risk. The capacity for payment of financial commitments is considered strong. This capacity may, nevertheless, be more vulnerable to adverse
business or economic conditions than is the case for higher ratings.
BBB: Good credit quality.
'BBB' ratings indicate that expectations of default
risk are currently low. The capacity for payment of financial commitments is considered adequate, but adverse business or economic conditions
are more likely to impair this capacity.
BB: Speculative.
'BB' ratings indicate an elevated vulnerability
to default risk, particularly in the event of adverse changes in business or economic conditions over time; however, business or financial
flexibility exists that supports the servicing of financial commitments.
B: Highly speculative.
'B' ratings indicate that material default risk
is present, but a limited margin of safety remains. Financial commitments are currently being met; however, capacity for continued payment
is vulnerable to deterioration in the business and economic environment.
CCC: Substantial credit risk.
Very low margin of safety. Default is a real possibility.
CC: Very high levels of credit risk.
Default of some kind appears probable.
C: Near default
A default or default-like process has begun, or
the issuer is in standstill, or for a closed funding vehicle, payment capacity is irrevocably impaired. Conditions that are indicative
of a 'C' category rating for an issuer include:
a. the issuer has entered into a grace or cure period following
non-payment of a material financial obligation;
b. the issuer has entered into a temporary negotiated waiver
or standstill agreement following a payment default on a material financial obligation; or
c. the formal announcement by the issuer or their agent
of a distressed debt exchange;
d. a closed financing vehicle where payment capacity is
irrevocably impaired such that it is not expected to pay interest and/or principal in full during the life of the transaction, but where
no payment default is imminent
RD: Restricted default.
‘RD’ ratings indicate an issuer that
in Fitch’s opinion has experienced:
a. an uncured payment default or distressed debt exchange
on a bond, loan or other material financial obligation, but
b. has not entered into bankruptcy filings, administration,
receivership, liquidation, or other formal winding-up procedure, and
c. has not otherwise ceased operating.
This would include:
i. the selective payment default on a specific class or
currency of debt;
ii. the uncured expiry of any applicable grace period, cure
period or default forbearance period following a payment default on a bank loan, capital markets security or other material financial
obligation;
iii. the extension of multiple waivers or forbearance periods
upon a payment default on one or more material financial obligations, either in series or in parallel; ordinary execution of a distressed
debt exchange on one or more material financial obligations.
D: Default.
'D' ratings indicate an issuer that in Fitch Ratings'
opinion has entered into bankruptcy filings, administration, receivership, liquidation or other formal winding-up procedure or which has
otherwise ceased business.
Default ratings are not assigned prospectively
to entities or their obligations; within this context, non-payment on an instrument that contains a deferral feature or grace period will
generally not be considered a default until after the expiration of the deferral or grace period, unless a default is otherwise driven
by bankruptcy or other similar circumstance, or by a distressed debt exchange.
In all cases, the assignment of a default rating
reflects the agency's opinion as to the most appropriate rating category consistent with the rest of its universe of ratings and may differ
from the definition of default under the terms of an issuer's financial obligations or local commercial practice.
Notes
The modifiers + or - may be appended to a rating
to denote relative status within major rating categories. Such suffixes are not added to the 'AAA' Long-Term IDR category, or to Long-Term
IDR categories below 'B'.
Fitch Short-Term Ratings Assigned to Issuers
and Obligations
A short-term issuer or obligation rating is based
in all cases on the short-term vulnerability to default of the rated entity and relates to the capacity to meet financial obligations
in accordance with the documentation governing the relevant obligation. Short-term deposit ratings may be adjusted for loss severity.
Short-Term Ratings are assigned to obligations whose initial maturity is viewed as "short term" based on market convention.
Typically, this means up to 13 months for corporate, sovereign, and structured obligations and up to 36 months for obligations in U.S.
public finance markets.
F1: Highest Short-Term
Credit Quality. Indicates the strongest capacity for timely payment of financial commitments relative to other issuers or obligations
in the same country. Under the agency’s National Rating scale, this rating is assigned to the lowest default risk relative to other
in the same country or monetary union. Where the liquidity profile is particularly strong, a “+” is added to the assigned
rating.
F2: Good Short-Term Credit
Quality. Indicates a good capacity for timely payment of financial commitments relative to other issuers or obligations in
the same country or monetary union. However, the margin of safety is not as great as in the case of the higher ratings.
F3: Fair Short-Term Credit
Quality. Indicates an uncertain capacity for timely payment of financial commitments relative to other issuers or obligations
in the same country or monetary union.
B: Speculative Short-Term
Credit Quality. Indicates an uncertain capacity for timely payment of financial commitments relative to other issuers or obligations
in the same country or monetary union.
C: High Short-Term Default
Risk. Indicates a highly uncertain capacity for timely payment of financial commitments relative to other issuers or obligations
in the same country or monetary union.
RD: Restricted Default.
Indicates an entity that has defaulted on one or more of its financial commitments, although it continues to meet other financial obligations.
Applicable to entity ratings only.
D: Default.
Indicates a broad-based default event for an entity, or the default of a short-term obligation.
Appendix B
APPENDIX B - PROXY POLICY AND PROCEDURES
The Adviser and each sub-adviser rely on this policy. In addition, Invesco Asset Management
(Japan) Limited has also adopted operating guidelines and procedures for proxy voting
particular to each regional investment center. Such guidelines and procedures are attached hereto.
Invesco’s Policy Statement on Global
Corporate Governance
and Proxy Voting
Table of Contents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Our Approach to Proxy Voting
|
|
|
B. Applicability of Policy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global Proxy Voting Operational Procedures
|
|
|
A. Oversight and Governance
|
|
|
B. The Proxy Voting Process
|
|
|
C. Retention and Oversight of Proxy Service Providers
|
|
|
D. Disclosures and Recordkeeping
|
|
|
E. Market and Operational Limitations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our Good Governance Principles
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Board Composition and Effectiveness
|
|
|
D. Long-Term Stewardship of Capital
|
|
|
E. Environmental, Social and Governance Risk Oversight
|
|
|
F. Executive Compensation and Alignment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Invesco Ltd. and its wholly owned investment adviser subsidiaries (collectively, “Invesco”, the “Company”, “our” or “we”) have adopted and implemented this Policy Statement on Global Corporate Governance and Proxy Voting (“Global Proxy Voting Policy” or “Policy”), which we believe describe policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure proxy voting matters are conducted in the best interests
of our clients.
A.
Our Approach to Proxy Voting
Invesco understands proxy voting is an integral aspect of the investment management
services it provides to clients. As an investment adviser, Invesco has a fiduciary duty to act
in the best interests of our clients. Where Invesco has been delegated the authority to vote proxies with respect
to securities held in client portfolios, we exercise such authority in the manner we believe best
serves the interests of our clients and their investment objectives. We recognize that proxy voting is an
important tool that enables us to drive shareholder value.
A summary of our global operational procedures and governance structure is included
in Part II of this Policy. Invesco’s good governance principles, which are included in Part III of this Policy, and our internal proxy voting guidelines are both principles and rules-based and cover topics
that typically appear on voting ballots. Invesco’s portfolio management teams retain ultimate authority to vote proxies. Given the complexity of proxy issues across our clients’ holdings globally, our investment teams consider many factors when determining how to cast votes. We seek to evaluate and
make voting decisions that favor proxy proposals and governance practices that, in our view, promote
long-term shareholder value.
B.
Applicability of Policy
Invesco’s portfolio management teams vote proxies on behalf of Invesco-sponsored funds and both fund and non-fund advisory clients that have explicitly granted Invesco authority in writing
to vote proxies on their behalf. In the case of institutional or sub-advised clients, Invesco will vote
the proxies in accordance with this Policy unless the client agreement specifies that the client
retains the right to vote or has designated a named fiduciary to direct voting.
This Policy is implemented by all entities listed in Exhibit A, except as noted below.
Due to regional or asset class-specific considerations, certain entities may have local proxy voting
guidelines or policies and procedures that differ from this Policy. In the event local policies and this
Policy differ, the local policy will apply. These entities subject to local policies are listed in Exhibit
A and include: Invesco Asset Management (Japan) Limited, Invesco Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd, Invesco Taiwan
Ltd, Invesco Real Estate Management S.a.r.l and Invesco Capital Markets, Inc. for Invesco Unit
Investment Trusts.
Where our passively managed strategies and certain other client accounts managed in
accordance with fixed income, money market and index strategies (including exchange-traded funds)
(referred to as “passively managed accounts”) hold the same investments as our actively managed equity funds, voting decisions with respect to those accounts generally follow the voting decisions made
by the largest active holder of the equity shares. Invesco refers to this approach as “Majority Voting.” This process of Majority Voting seeks to ensure that our passively managed accounts benefit from the engagement
and deep dialogue of our active investment teams, which Invesco believes benefits shareholders
in passively managed accounts. Invesco will generally apply the majority holder’s vote instruction to these passively managed accounts. Where securities are held only in passively managed accounts and
not owned in our actively managed accounts, the proxy will be generally voted in line with this
Policy and internal proxy voting guidelines. Notwithstanding the above, portfolio management teams of
our passively managed accounts retain full discretion over proxy voting decisions and may determine
it appropriate to individually evaluate a specific proxy proposal or override Majority Voting and vote
the shares as they determine to be in the best interest of those accounts, absent certain types of conflicts
of interest, which are discussed elsewhere in the Policy. To the extent our portfolio management teams
believe a specific proxy proposal requires enhanced analysis or if it is not covered by the Policy or
internal guidelines, our portfolio management teams will evaluate such proposal and execute the voting decision.
II.
Global Proxy Voting Operational Procedures
Invesco’s global proxy voting operational procedures (the “Procedures”) are in place to implement the provisions of this Policy. Invesco aims to vote all proxies where we have been granted
voting authority in accordance with this Policy, as implemented by the Procedures outlined in this Section
II. It is the responsibility of Invesco’s Proxy Voting and Governance team to maintain and facilitate the review of the Procedures annually.
A.
Oversight and Governance
Oversight of the proxy voting process is provided by the Proxy Voting and Governance
team and the Global Invesco Proxy Advisory Committee (“Global IPAC”). For some clients, third parties (e.g., U.S. fund boards) and internal sub-committees also provide oversight of the proxy voting
process.
Guided by its philosophy that investment teams should manage proxy voting, Invesco
has created the Global IPAC. The Global IPAC is an investments-driven committee comprised of representatives
from various investment management teams globally and Invesco’s Global Head of ESG and is chaired by its Director of Proxy Voting and Governance. Representatives from Invesco’s Legal and Compliance, Risk and Government Affairs departments may also participate in Global IPAC meetings. The
Global IPAC provides a forum for investment teams, in accordance with this Policy, to:
●
monitor, understand and discuss key proxy issues and voting trends within the Invesco
complex;
●
assist Invesco in meeting regulatory obligations;
●
review votes not aligned with our good governance principles; and
●
consider conflicts of interest in the proxy voting process.
In fulfilling its responsibilities, the Global IPAC meets as necessary, but no less
than semi-annually, and has the following responsibilities and functions: (i) acts as a key liaison between
the Proxy Voting and Governance team and portfolio management teams to ensure compliance with this Policy;
(ii) provides insight on market trends as it relates to stewardship practices; (iii) monitors proxy
votes that present potential conflicts of interest; and (iv) reviews and provides input, at least annually,
on this Policy and related internal procedures and recommends any changes to the Policy based on, but
not limited to, Invesco’s experience, evolving industry practices, or developments in applicable laws or regulations. In addition, when necessary, the Global IPAC Conflict of Interest Sub-committee makes
voting decisions on proxies that require an override of the Policy due to an actual or perceived conflict
of interest; the Global IPAC reviews any such voting decisions.
B.
The Proxy Voting Process
At Invesco, investment teams execute voting decisions through our proprietary voting
platform and are supported by the Proxy Voting and Governance team and a dedicated technology team. Invesco’s proprietary voting platform streamlines the proxy voting process by providing our
global investment teams with direct access to proxy meeting materials including ballots, Invesco’s internal proxy voting guidelines and recommendations, as well as proxy research and vote recommendations
issued by Proxy Service Providers (as such term is defined below). Votes executed on Invesco’s proprietary voting platform are transmitted to our proxy voting agent electronically and are then delivered
to the respective designee for tabulation.
Invesco’s Proxy Voting and Governance team monitors whether we have received proxy ballots for shareholder meetings in which we are entitled to vote. This involves coordination
among various parties in the proxy voting ecosystem, such as our proxy voting agent, custodians and ballot
distributors. If necessary, we may choose to escalate a matter to facilitate our ability to exercise
our right to vote.
Our proprietary systems facilitate internal control and oversight of the voting process.
To facilitate the casting of votes in an efficient manner, Invesco may choose to pre-populate and leverage
the capabilities of these proprietary systems to automatically submit votes based on its
internal proxy voting
guidelines and in circumstances where Majority Voting, share blocking (as defined
below) or proportional voting applies. If necessary, votes may be cast by Invesco or via the Proxy Service
Providers Web platform at our direction.
C.
Retention and Oversight of Proxy Service Providers
Invesco has retained two independent third party proxy voting service providers to
provide proxy support globally: Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (“ISS”) and Glass Lewis (“GL”). In addition to ISS and GL, Invesco may retain certain local proxy service providers to access regionally
specific research (collectively with ISS and GL, “Proxy Service Providers”). The services may include one or more of the following: providing a comprehensive analysis of each voting item and interpretations
of each based on Invesco’s internally developed proxy voting guidelines; and providing assistance with the administration of the proxy process and certain proxy voting-related functions, including, but not
limited to, operational, reporting and recordkeeping services.
While Invesco may take into consideration the information and recommendations provided
by the Proxy Service Providers, including based upon Invesco’s internal proxy voting guidelines and recommendations provided to such Proxy Service Providers, Invesco’s portfolio management teams retain full and independent discretion with respect to proxy voting decisions.
Updates to previously issued proxy research reports and recommendations may be provided
to incorporate newly available information or additional disclosure provided by the issuer
regarding a matter to be voted on, or to correct factual errors that may result in the issuance
of revised proxy vote recommendations. Invesco’s Proxy Voting and Governance team periodically monitors for these research alerts issued by Proxy Service Providers that are shared with our portfolio
management teams.
Invesco performs extensive initial and ongoing due diligence on the Proxy Service
Providers it engages globally. Invesco conducts annual due diligence meetings as part of its ongoing oversight
of Proxy Service Providers. The topics included in these annual due diligence reviews include
material changes in service levels, leadership and control, conflicts of interest, methodologies for
formulating vote recommendations, operations, and research personnel, among other things. In addition,
Invesco monitors and communicates with these firms throughout the year and monitors their
compliance with Invesco’s performance and policy standards.
As part of our annual policy development process, Invesco may engage with other external
proxy and governance experts to understand market trends and developments. These meetings provide
Invesco with an opportunity to assess the Proxy Service Providers’ capabilities, conflicts of interest and service levels, as well as provide investment professionals with direct insight into the Proxy Service Providers’ stances on key corporate governance and proxy topics and their policy framework/methodologies.
Invesco completes a review of the System and Organizational Controls (“SOC”) Reports for Proxy Service Providers to confirm the related controls operated effectively to provide
reasonable assurance.
D.
Disclosures and Recordkeeping
Unless otherwise required by local or regional requirements, Invesco maintains voting
records for at least seven (7) years. Invesco makes its proxy voting records publicly available in
compliance with regulatory requirements and industry best practices in the regions below:
●
In accordance with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regulations, Invesco
will file a record of all proxy voting activity for the prior 12 months ending June 30th for each
U.S. registered fund. In addition, Invesco, as an institutional manager that is required
to file Form 13F, will file a record of its votes on certain executive compensation (“say on pay”) matters. These fund proxy voting filings and institutional manager say on pay voting filings will
generally be made on or before August 31st of each year. Each year, the proxy voting records for
each U.S. registered fund are made available on Invesco’s website here. Moreover, and to the extent applicable, the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), including Department of Labor regulations and guidance thereunder, provide that the
named
fiduciary generally should be able to review not only the investment adviser’s voting procedure with respect to plan-owned stock, but also to review the actions taken in individual
proxy voting situations. In the case of institutional and sub-advised clients, clients may contact
their client service representative to request information about how Invesco voted proxies on their
behalf. Absent specific contractual guidelines, such requests may be made on a semi-annual
basis.
●
In the UK and Europe, Invesco publicly discloses our proxy votes monthly in compliance
with the UK Stewardship Code and for the European Shareholder Rights Directive annually here.
●
In Canada, Invesco publicly discloses our annual proxy votes each year here by August 31st, covering the 12-month period ending June 30th in compliance with the National Instrument
81-106 Investment Fund Continuous Disclosure.
●
In Japan, Invesco publicly discloses our proxy votes annually in compliance with the
Japan Stewardship Code here.
●
In India, Invesco publicly discloses our proxy votes quarterly here in compliance with The Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) Circular on stewardship code for all Mutual Funds and all categories of Alternative Investment Funds in relation to their investment
in listed equities. SEBI has implemented principles on voting for Mutual Funds through circulars
dated March 15, 2010, March 24, 2014 and March 5, 2021, which prescribed detailed mandatory
requirements for Mutual Funds in India to disclose their voting policies and actual
voting by Mutual Funds on different resolutions of investee companies.
●
In Hong Kong, Invesco Hong Kong Limited will provide proxy voting records upon request
in compliance with the Securities and Futures Commission (“SFC”) Principles of Responsible Ownership.
●
In Taiwan, Invesco publicly discloses our proxy voting policy and proxy votes annually
in compliance with Taiwan’s Stewardship Principles for Institutional Investors here.
●
In Australia, Invesco publicly discloses a summary of its proxy voting record annually
here.
●
In Singapore, Invesco Asset Management Singapore Ltd. will provide proxy voting records
upon request in compliance with the Singapore Stewardship Principles for Responsible Investors.
Invesco may engage Proxy Service Providers to make available or maintain certain required
proxy voting records in accordance with the above stated applicable regulations. Separately
managed account clients that have authorized Invesco to vote proxies on their behalf will receive
proxy voting information with respect to those accounts upon request. Certain other clients may obtain information
about how we voted proxies on their behalf by contacting their client service representative or
advisor. Invesco does not publicly pre-disclose voting intentions in advance of shareholder meetings.
E.
Market and Operational Limitations
In the great majority of instances, Invesco will vote proxies. However, in certain
circumstances, Invesco may refrain from voting where the economic or other opportunity costs of voting exceed
any benefit to clients. Moreover, ERISA fiduciaries, in voting proxies or exercising other shareholder
rights, must not subordinate the economic interests of plan participants and beneficiaries to unrelated
objectives. These matters are left to the discretion of the relevant portfolio manager. Such circumstances
could include, for example:
●
Certain countries impose temporary trading restrictions, a practice known as “share blocking.” This means that once the shares have been voted, the shareholder does not have the
ability to sell the shares for a certain period of time, usually until the day after the conclusion
of the shareholder meeting. Invesco generally refrains from voting proxies at companies where
share blocking applies. In some instances, Invesco may determine that the benefit to the
client(s) of voting a specific proxy outweighs the client’s temporary inability to sell the shares.
●
Some companies require a representative to attend meetings in person to vote a proxy,
or submit additional documentation or the disclosure of beneficial owner details to vote.
Invesco may determine that the costs of sending a representative or submitting additional
documentation or disclosures outweigh the benefit of voting a particular proxy.
●
Invesco may not receive proxy materials from the relevant fund or client custodian
with sufficient time and information to make an informed independent voting decision.
●
Invesco held shares on the record date but has sold them prior to the meeting date.
In some non-U.S. jurisdictions, although Invesco uses reasonable efforts to vote a
proxy, proxies may not be accepted or may be rejected due to changes in the agenda for a shareholder
meeting for which Invesco does not have sufficient notice, due to a proxy voting service not being offered
by the custodian in the local market or due to operational issues experienced by third parties involved
in the process or by the issuer or sub-custodian. In addition, despite the best efforts of Invesco and
its proxy voting agent, there may be instances where our votes may not be received or properly tabulated by
an issuer or the issuer’s agent. Invesco will generally endeavor to vote and maintain any paper ballots received provided they are delivered in a timely manner ahead of the vote deadline.
Invesco’s funds may participate in a securities lending program. In circumstances where funds’ shares are on loan, the voting rights of those shares are transferred to the borrower. If
the security in question is on loan as part of a securities lending program, Invesco may determine that the
vote is material to the investment and therefore, the benefit to the client of voting a particular proxy outweighs
the economic benefits of securities lending. In those instances, Invesco may determine to recall
securities that are on loan prior to the meeting record date, so that we will be entitled to vote those shares.
For example, for certain actively managed funds, the lending agent has standing instructions to systematically
recall all securities on loan for Invesco to vote the proxies on those previously loaned shares.
There may be instances where Invesco may be unable to recall shares or may choose not to recall
shares. Such circumstances may include instances when Invesco does not receive timely notice of
the meeting, or when Invesco deems the opportunity for a fund to generate securities lending revenue
to outweigh the benefits of voting at a specific meeting. The relevant portfolio manager will make
these determinations.
There may be occasions where voting proxies may present a perceived or actual conflict
of interest between Invesco, as investment adviser, and one or more of Invesco’s clients or vendors.
Firm-Level Conflicts of Interest
A conflict of interest may exist if Invesco has a material business relationship with
either the company soliciting a proxy or a third party that has a material interest in the outcome of
a proxy vote or that is actively lobbying for a particular outcome of a proxy vote. Such relationships may
include, among others, a client relationship, serving as a vendor whose products / services are material
or significant to Invesco, serving as a distributor of Invesco’s products, or serving as a significant research provider or broker to Invesco.
Invesco identifies potential conflicts of interest based on a variety of factors,
including but not limited to the materiality of the relationship between the issuer or its affiliates to Invesco.
Material firm-level conflicts of interests are identified by individuals and groups
within Invesco globally based on criteria established by the Proxy Voting and Governance team. These criteria
are monitored and updated periodically by the Proxy Voting and Governance team so up-to-date information
is available when conducting conflicts checks. Operating procedures and associated governance
are designed to seek to ensure conflicts of interest are appropriately considered ahead
of voting proxies. The Global IPAC Conflict of Interest Sub-committee maintains oversight of the process.
Companies identified as conflicted will be voted in line with the principles below as implemented by Invesco’s
internal proxy voting guidelines. To the extent a portfolio manager disagrees with
the Policy, our processes and procedures seek to ensure that justifications and rationales are fully
documented and presented to the Global IPAC Conflict of Interest Sub-committee for approval by a
majority vote.
As an additional safeguard, persons from Invesco’s marketing, distribution and other customer-facing functions may not serve on the Global IPAC. For the avoidance of doubt, Invesco may
not consider Invesco Ltd.’s pecuniary interest when voting proxies on behalf of clients. To avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest, Invesco will not vote proxies issued by Invesco Ltd. that are
held in client accounts.
Personal Conflicts of Interest
A conflict also may exist where an Invesco employee has a known personal or business
relationship with other proponents of proxy proposals, participants in proxy contests, corporate
directors, or candidates for directorships. Under Invesco’s Global Code of Conduct, Invesco entities and individuals must act in the best interests of clients and must avoid any situation that gives
rise to an actual or perceived conflict of interest.
All Invesco personnel with proxy voting responsibilities are required to report any
known personal or business conflicts of interest regarding proxy issues with which they are involved.
In such instances, the individual(s) with the conflict will be excluded from the decision-making process
relating to such issues.
There may be conflicts that arise from Invesco voting on matters when shares of Invesco-sponsored
funds are held by other Invesco funds or entities. The scenarios below set out examples
of how Invesco votes in these instances:
●
When required by law or regulation, shares of an Invesco fund held by other Invesco
funds will be voted in the same proportion as the votes of external shareholders of the underlying
fund. If such proportional voting is not operationally possible, Invesco will not vote the
shares.
●
When required by law or regulation, shares of an unaffiliated registered fund held
by one or more Invesco funds will be voted in the same proportion as the votes of external shareholders
of the underlying fund. If such proportional voting is not operationally possible, Invesco
will not vote the shares.
●
For U.S. funds of funds where proportional voting is not required by law or regulation,
shares of Invesco funds will be voted in the same proportion as the votes of external shareholders
of the underlying fund. If such proportional voting is not operationally possible, Invesco
will vote in line with our internally developed voting guidelines.
●
Non-U.S. funds of funds will not be voted proportionally. The applicable Invesco entity
will vote in line with its local policies, as indicated in Exhibit A. If no local policies exist,
Invesco will vote non-U.S. funds of funds in line with the firm level conflicts of interest process
described above.
●
Where client accounts are invested directly in shares issued by Invesco affiliates
and Invesco has proxy voting authority, shares will be voted proportionally in line with non-affiliated
holders. If proportional voting is not possible, the shares will be voted in line with a Proxy
Service Provider’s recommendation.
It is the responsibility of the Global IPAC to review this Policy and the internal
proxy voting guidelines annually to consider whether any changes are warranted. This annual review seeks to
ensure this Policy and the internal proxy voting guidelines remain consistent with clients’ best interests, regulatory requirements, local market standards and best practices. Further, this Policy and
our internal proxy voting guidelines are reviewed at least annually by various departments within Invesco
to seek to ensure that they remain consistent with Invesco’s views on best practice in corporate governance and long-term investment stewardship.
III.
Our Good Governance Principles
Invesco’s good governance principles outline our views on best practice in corporate governance and long-term investment stewardship. These principles have been developed by our global investment
teams in collaboration with the Proxy Voting and Governance team and various departments internally.
The broad philosophy and guiding principles in this section inform our approach to long-term
investment stewardship and proxy voting. The principles and positions reflected in this Policy are designed to guide Invesco’s investment professionals in voting proxies; they are not intended to be exhaustive
or prescriptive.
Our portfolio management teams retain full discretion on vote execution in the context
of our good governance principles and internal proxy voting guidelines, except where otherwise
specified in this Policy. The final voting decisions may consider the unique circumstances affecting companies,
regional best practices and any dialogue we have had with company management. As a result, different
portfolio management teams may vote differently on particular proxy votes for the same company.
To the extent portfolio management teams choose to vote a proxy in a way that is not aligned with
the principles below, such manager’s rationales are fully documented.
When evaluating proxy issues and determining how to cast our votes, Invesco’s portfolio management teams may engage with companies in advance of shareholder meetings, and throughout
the year. These meetings can be joint efforts between our global investment professionals.
The following guiding principles apply to proxy voting with respect to operating companies.
We apply a separate approach to open-end and closed-end investment companies and unit investment
trusts. Where appropriate, these guidelines may be supplemented by additional internal guidance
that considers regional variations in best practices, company disclosure and region-specific voting items.
Invesco may vote on proposals not specifically addressed by these principles based on an evaluation of a proposal’s likelihood to enhance long-term shareholder value.
Our good governance principles are divided into six key themes that Invesco endorses:
We expect companies to provide accurate, timely and complete information that enables
investors to make informed investment decisions and effectively carry out their stewardship activities.
Invesco supports the highest standards in corporate transparency and believes that these disclosures
should be made available ahead of the voting deadlines for the Annual General Meeting or Extraordinary
General Meeting to allow for timely review and decision-making.
Financial reporting: Company accounts and reporting must accurately reflect the underlying economic position of a company. Arrangements that may constitute an actual or perceived conflict
with this objective should be avoided.
●
We will generally support proposals to accept the annual financial statements, statutory
accounts and similar proposals unless these reports are not presented in a timely manner or
significant issues are identified regarding the integrity of these disclosures.
●
We will generally vote against the incumbent audit committee chair, or nearest equivalent,
where the non-audit fees paid to the independent auditor exceed audit fees for two consecutive
years or other problematic accounting practices are identified such as fraud, misapplication
of audit standards or persistent material weaknesses/deficiencies in internal controls over
financial reporting.
●
We will generally not support the ratification of the independent auditor and/or ratification
of their fees payable if non-audit fees exceed audit and audit related fees or if there are
significant auditing controversies or questions regarding the independence of the external auditor.
We will consider an auditor’s length of service as a company’s independent auditor in applying this policy.
Robust shareholder rights and strong board oversight help ensure that management adhere
to the highest standards of ethical conduct, are held to account for poor performance and
responsibly deliver value creation for stakeholders over the long-term. We therefore encourage companies
to adopt governance features that ensure board and management accountability. In particular,
we consider the following as key mechanisms for enhancing accountability to investors:
One share one vote: Voting rights are an important tool for investors to hold boards and management teams accountable. Unequal voting rights may limit the ability of investors to exercise
their stewardship obligations.
●
We generally do not support proposals that establish or perpetuate dual classes of
voting shares, double voting rights or other means of differentiated voting or disproportionate
board nomination rights.
●
We generally support proposals to decommission differentiated voting rights.
●
Where unequal voting rights are established, we expect these to be accompanied by
reasonable safeguards to protect minority shareholders’ interests.
Anti-takeover devices: Mechanisms designed to prevent or unduly delay takeover attempts may unduly limit the accountability of boards and management teams to shareholders.
●
We generally will not support proposals to adopt antitakeover devices such as poison
pills. Exceptions may be warranted at entities without significant operations and to preserve
the value of net operating losses carried forward or where the applicability of the pill is
limited in scope and duration.
●
In addition, we will generally not support capital authorizations or amendments to
corporate articles or bylaws at operating companies that may be utilized for antitakeover purposes,
for example, the authorization of classes of shares of preferred stock with unspecified
voting, dividend, conversion or other rights (“blank check” authorizations).
Shareholder rights: We support the rights of shareholders to hold boards and management teams accountable for company performance. We generally support best practice aligned proposals
to enhance shareholder rights, including but not limited to the following:
●
Adoption of proxy access rights
●
Rights to call special meetings
●
Rights to act by written consent
●
Reduce supermajority vote requirements
●
Remove antitakeover provisions
●
Requirement that directors are elected by a majority vote
In addition, we oppose practices that limit shareholders’ ability to express their views at a general meeting such as bundling unrelated proposals or several significant article or bylaw
amendments into a single voting item. We will generally vote against these proposals unless we are satisfied
that all the underlying components are aligned with our views on best practice. We may make exceptions
to this policy for non-operating companies (e.g., open-end and closed-end investment companies).
Director Indemnification: Invesco recognizes that individuals may be reluctant to serve as corporate directors if they are personally liable for all related lawsuits and legal costs.
As a result, reasonable limitations on directors’ liability can benefit a company and its shareholders by helping to attract and retain qualified directors while preserving recourse for shareholders in the event
of misconduct by directors. Accordingly, unless there is insufficient information to make a decision
about the nature of the
proposal, Invesco will generally support proposals to limit directors’ liability and provide indemnification and/or exculpation, provided that the arrangements are reasonably limited in scope
to directors acting in good faith and, in relation to criminal matters, limited in scope to directors having
reasonable grounds for believing the conduct was lawful.
Responsiveness: Boards should respond to investor concerns in a timely fashion, including reasonable
requests to engage with company representatives regarding such concerns, and address
matters that receive significant voting dissent at general meetings of shareholders.
●
We will generally vote against the incumbent chair of the governance committee, or
nearest equivalent, in cases where the board has not adequately responded to items receiving
significant voting opposition from shareholders at an annual or extraordinary general meeting.
●
We will generally vote against the incumbent chair of the governance committee, or
nearest equivalent, where the board has not adequately responded to a shareholder proposal
which has received significant support from shareholders.
●
We will generally vote against the incumbent chair of the compensation committee,
or nearest equivalent, if there are significant ongoing concerns with a company’s compensation practices that have not been addressed by the committee or egregious concerns with the company’s compensation practices for two years consecutively.
●
We will generally vote against the incumbent compensation committee chair, or nearest
equivalent, where there are ongoing concerns with a company’s compensation practices and there is no opportunity to express dissatisfaction by voting against an advisory vote
on executive compensation, remuneration report (or policy) or nearest equivalent.
●
Where a company has not adequately responded to engagement requests from Invesco or
satisfactorily addressed issues of concern, we may oppose director nominations, including,
but not limited to, nominations for the lead independent director and/or committee chairs.
Virtual shareholder meetings: Companies should hold their annual or special shareholder meetings in a manner that best serves the needs of its shareholders and the company. Shareholders
should have an opportunity to participate in such meetings. Shareholder meetings provide an important
mechanism by which shareholders provide feedback or raise concerns without undue censorship
and hear from the board and management.
●
We will generally support management proposals seeking to allow for the convening
of hybrid shareholder meetings (allowing shareholders the option to attend and participate either
in person or through a virtual platform).
●
Management or shareholder proposals that seek to authorize the company to hold virtual-only
meetings (held entirely through virtual platform with no corresponding in-person physical
meeting) will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Companies have a responsibility
to provide strong justification and establish safeguards to preserve comparable rights and opportunities
for shareholders to participate virtually as they would have during an in-person meeting.
Invesco will consider, among other things, a company’s practices, jurisdiction and disclosure, including the items set forth below:
i.
meeting procedures and requirements are disclosed in advance of a meeting detailing
the rationale for eliminating the in-person meeting;
ii.
clear and comprehensive description of which shareholders are qualified to participate,
how shareholders can join the virtual-only meeting, how and when shareholders submit and
ask questions either in advance of or during the meeting;
iii.
disclosure regarding procedures for questions received during the meeting, but not
answered due to time or other restrictions; and
iv.
description of how shareholder rights will be protected in a virtual-only meeting
format including the ability to vote shares during the time the polls are open.
C.
Board Composition and Effectiveness
Director election process: Board members should generally stand for election annually and individually.
●
We will generally support proposals requesting that directors stand for election annually.
●
We will generally vote against the incumbent governance committee chair or nearest
equivalent, if a company has a classified board structure that is not being phased out. We may
make exceptions to this policy for non-operating companies (e.g., open-end and closed-end
investment companies) or in regions where market practice is for directors to stand for election
on a staggered basis.
●
When a board is presented for election as a slate (e.g., shareholders are unable to
vote against individual nominees and must vote for or against the entire nominated slate of directors)
and this approach is not aligned with local market practice, we will generally vote against
the slate in cases where we otherwise would vote against an individual nominee.
●
Where market practice is to elect directors as a slate we will generally support the
nominated slate unless there are governance concerns with several of the individuals included
on the slate or we have broad concerns with the composition of the board such as a lack independence.
Board size: We will generally defer to the board with respect to determining the optimal number
of board members given the size of the company and complexity of the business, provided
that the proposed board size is sufficiently large to represent shareholder interests and sufficiently
limited to remain effective.
Board assessment and succession planning: When evaluating board effectiveness, Invesco considers whether periodic performance reviews and skills assessments are conducted
to ensure the board represents the interests of shareholders. In addition, boards should have a
robust succession plan in place for key management and board personnel.
Definition of independence: Invesco considers local market definitions of director independence but applies a proprietary standard for assessing director independence considering a director’s status as a current or former employee of the business, any commercial or consulting relationships
with the company, the level of shares beneficially owned or represented and familial relationships,
among others.
Board and committee independence: The board of directors, board committees and regional equivalents should be sufficiently independent from management, substantial shareholders
and conflicts of interest. We consider local market practices in this regard and in general we look
for a balance across the board of directors. Above all, we like to see signs of robust challenge
and discussion in the boardroom.
●
We will generally vote against one or more non-independent directors when a board
is less than majority independent, but we will take into account local market practice with regards
to board independence in limited circumstances where this standard is not appropriate.
●
We will generally vote against non-independent directors serving on the audit committee.
●
We will generally vote against non-independent directors serving on the compensation
committee.
●
We will generally vote against non-independent directors serving on the nominating
committee.
●
In relation to the board, compensation committee and nominating committee we will
consider the appropriateness of significant shareholder representation in applying this policy.
This exception will generally not apply to the audit committee.
Separation of Chair and CEO roles: We believe that independent board leadership generally enhances management accountability to investors. Companies deviating from this best
practice should provide a strong justification and establish safeguards to ensure that there is independent
oversight of a board’s activities (e.g., by appointing a lead or senior independent director with clearly defined powers and responsibilities).
●
We will generally vote against the incumbent nominating committee chair, or nearest
equivalent, where the board chair is not independent unless a lead independent or senior director
is appointed.
●
We will generally support shareholder proposals requesting that the board chair be
an independent director.
●
We will generally not vote against a CEO or executive serving as board chair solely
on the basis of this issue, however, we may do so in instances where we have significant concerns
regarding a company’s corporate governance, capital allocation decisions and/or compensation practices.
Attendance and over boarding: Director attendance at board and committee meetings is a fundamental part of their responsibilities and provides efficient oversight for the
company and its investors. In addition, directors should not have excessive external board or managerial
commitments that may interfere with their ability to execute the duties of a director.
●
We will generally vote against or withhold votes from directors who attend less than
75% of board and committee meetings for two consecutive years. We expect companies to disclose
any extenuating circumstances, such as health matters or family emergencies, that would
justify a director’s low attendance, in line with good practices.
●
We will generally vote against directors who have more than four total mandates at
public operating companies. We apply a lower threshold for directors with significant commitments
such as executive positions and chairmanships.
Diversity: We believe an effective board should be comprised of directors with a mix of skills,
experience, tenure, and industry expertise together with a diverse profile of individuals
of different genders, ethnicities, race, culture, age, perspectives and backgrounds. The board
should reflect the diversity of the workforce, customers, and the communities in which the business operates.
In our view, greater diversity in the boardroom contributes to robust challenge and debate, avoids
groupthink, fosters innovation, and provides competitive advantage to companies. We consider diversity
at the board level, within the executive management team and in the succession pipeline.
●
In markets where there are regulatory expectations, listing standards or minimum quotas
for board diversity, Invesco will generally apply the same expectations. In all other
markets, we will generally vote against the incumbent nominating committee chair of a board, or nearest
equivalent, where a company failed to demonstrate improvements are being made to diversity
practices for three or more consecutive years, recognizing that building a qualified
and diverse board takes time. We may make exceptions to this policy for non-operating companies
(e.g., open-end and closed-end investment companies).
●
We generally believe that an individual board’s nominating committee is best positioned to determine whether director term limits would be an appropriate measure to help achieve
these goals and, if so, the nature of such limits. Invesco generally opposes proposals to
limit the tenure of outside directors through mandatory retirement ages.
D.
Long-Term Stewardship of Capital
Capital allocation: Invesco expects companies to responsibly raise and deploy capital toward the long-term, sustainable success of the business. In addition, we expect capital allocation authorizations
and decisions to be made with due regard to shareholder dilution, rights of shareholders
to ratify significant corporate actions and pre-emptive rights, where applicable.
Share issuance and repurchase authorizations: We generally support authorizations to issue shares up to 20% of a company’s issued share capital for general corporate purposes. Shares should not be issued at a substantial discount to the market price or be repurchased at a substantial
premium to the market price.
Stock splits: We generally support management proposals to implement a forward or reverse stock
split, provided that a reverse stock split is not being used to take a company private.
In addition, we will generally support requests to increase a company’s common stock authorization if requested to facilitate a stock split.
Increases in authorized share capital: We will generally support proposals to increase a company’s number of authorized common and/or preferred shares, provided we have not identified
concerns regarding a company’s historical share issuance activity or the potential to use these authorizations for antitakeover purposes. We will consider the amount of the request in relation to the company’s current authorized share capital, any proposed corporate transactions contingent on approval
of these requests and the cumulative impact on a company’s authorized share capital, for example, if a reverse stock split is concurrently submitted for shareholder consideration.
Mergers, acquisitions, proxy contests, disposals and other corporate transactions: Invesco’s investment teams will review proposed corporate transactions including mergers, acquisitions,
reorganizations, proxy contests, private placements, dissolutions and divestitures based on a proposal’s individual investment merits. In addition, we broadly approach voting on other corporate
transactions as follows:
●
We will generally support proposals to approve different types of restructurings that
provide the necessary financing to save the company from involuntary bankruptcy.
●
We will generally support proposals to enact corporate name changes and other proposals
related to corporate transactions that we believe are in shareholders’ best interests.
●
We will generally support reincorporation proposals, provided that management have
provided a compelling rationale for the change in legal jurisdiction and provided further that
the proposal will not significantly adversely impact shareholders’ rights.
●
With respect to contested director elections, we consider the following factors, among
others, when evaluating the merits of each list of nominees: the long-term performance of
the company relative to its industry, management’s track record, any relevant background information related to the contest, the qualifications of the respective lists of director nominees, the
strategic merits of the approaches proposed by both sides, including the likelihood that the proposed
goals can be met, and positions of stock ownership in the company.
E.
Environmental, Social and Governance Risk Oversight
Director responsibility for risk oversight: The board of directors are ultimately responsible for overseeing management and ensuring that proper governance, oversight and control mechanisms
are in place at the companies they oversee. Invesco may take voting action against director
nominees in response to material governance or risk oversight failures that adversely affect shareholder
value.
Invesco considers the adequacy of a company's response to material oversight failures
when determining whether any voting action is warranted. In addition, Invesco will consider
the responsibilities delegated to board sub-committees when determining if it is appropriate to hold the
incumbent chair of the relevant committee, or nearest equivalent, accountable for these material failures.
Material governance or risk oversight failures at a company may include, without limitation:
i.
significant bribery, corruption or ethics violations;
ii.
events causing significant climate-related risks;
iii.
significant health and safety incidents; or
iv.
failure to ensure the protection of human rights.
Reporting of financially material ESG information: Companies should report on their environmental, social and governance opportunities and risks where material to their business operations.
●
Climate risk management: We encourage companies to report on material climate-related
risks and opportunities and how these are considered within the company’s strategy, financial planning, governance structures and risk management frameworks aligned with applicable
regional regulatory requirements. For companies in industries that materially contribute
to climate change, we encourage comprehensive disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions and Paris-aligned emissions reduction targets, where appropriate. Invesco may take voting action
at companies that fail to adequately address climate-related risks, including opposing
director nominations in cases where we view the lack of effective climate transition risk management
as potentially detrimental to long-term shareholder value.
Shareholder proposals addressing environmental and social issues: We recognize environmental and social (E&S) shareholder proposals are nuanced and therefore, Invesco will analyze
such proposals on a case-by-case basis.
Invesco may support shareholder resolutions requesting that specific actions be taken
to address E&S issues or mitigate exposure to material E&S risks, including reputational risk, related
to these issues. When considering such proposals, we will consider the following but not limited to:
a company's track record on E&S issues, the efficacy of the proposal's request, whether the requested
action is unduly burdensome, and whether we consider the adoption of such a proposal would promote
long-term shareholder value. We will also consider company responsiveness to the proposal and
any engagement on the issue when casting votes.
We generally do not support resolutions where insufficient information has been provided
in advance of the vote or a lack of disclosure inhibits our ability to make fully informed voting
decisions.
Ratification of board and/or management acts: We will generally support proposals to ratify the actions of the board of directors, supervisory board and/or executive decision-making
bodies, provided there are no material oversight failures as described above. When such oversight concerns
are identified, we will consider a company’s response to any issues raised and may vote against ratification proposals instead of, or in addition to, director nominees.
F.
Executive Compensation and Alignment
Invesco supports compensation polices and equity incentive plans that promote alignment
between management incentives and shareholders’ long-term interests. We pay close attention to local market practice and may apply stricter or modified criteria where appropriate.
Advisory votes on executive compensation, remuneration policy and remuneration reports: We will generally not support compensation-related proposals where more than one of the
following is present:
i.
there is an unmitigated misalignment between executive pay and company performance
for at least two consecutive years;
ii.
there are problematic compensation practices which may include, among others, incentivizing
excessive risk taking or circumventing alignment between management and shareholders’ interests via repricing of underwater options;
iii.
vesting periods for long-term incentive awards are less than three years;
iv.
the company “front loads” equity awards;
v.
there are inadequate risk mitigating features in the program such as clawback provisions;
vi.
excessive, discretionary one-time equity grants are awarded to executives;
vii.
less than half of variable pay is linked to performance targets, except where prohibited
by law.
Invesco will consider company reporting on pay ratios as part of our evaluation of
compensation proposals, where relevant.
Equity plans: Invesco generally supports equity compensation plans that promote the proper alignment
of incentives with shareholders’ long-term interests, and generally votes against plans that are overly dilutive to existing shareholders, plans that contain objectionable structural features
which may include provisions to reprice options without shareholder approval, plans that include evergreen
provisions or plans that provide for automatic accelerated vesting upon a change in control.
Employee stock purchase plans: We generally support employee stock purchase plans that are reasonably designed to provide proper incentives to a broad base of employees, provided
that the price at which employees may acquire stock represents a reasonable discount from the market
price.
Severance Arrangements: Invesco considers proposed severance arrangements (sometimes known as “golden parachute” arrangements) on a case-by-case basis due to the wide variety among their terms. Invesco acknowledges that in some cases such arrangements, if reasonable, may be in shareholders’ best interests as a method of attracting and retaining high-quality executive talent.
We generally vote in favor of proposals requiring shareholder ratification of senior executives’ severance agreements where the proposed terms and disclosure align with good market practice.
Exhibit A
Harbourview Asset Management Corporation
Invesco Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd*1
Invesco Asset Management (Japan) Limited*1
Invesco Asset Management (Schweiz) AG
Invesco Asset Management Deutschland GmbH
Invesco Asset Management Limited1
Invesco Asset Management Singapore Ltd
Invesco Capital Management LLC
Invesco Capital Markets, Inc.*1
Invesco Fund Managers Limited
Invesco Hong Kong Limited
Invesco Investment Advisers LLC
Invesco Investment Management (Shanghai) Limited
Invesco Investment Management Limited
Invesco Loan Manager, LLC
Invesco Managed Accounts, LLC
Invesco Overseas Investment Fund Management (Shanghai) Limited
Invesco Private Capital, Inc.
Invesco Real Estate Management S.a.r.l1
Invesco Senior Secured Management, Inc.
* Invesco entities with specific proxy voting guidelines
1 Invesco entities with specific conflicts of interest policies
Proxy Voting Guidelines
Invesco Asset Management (Japan) Limited
Invesco Japan Proxy Voting Guideline
Invesco Japan (hereinafter “we” or “our) votes proxies to maximize the interests of our clients (investors) and beneficiaries in the long term, acknowledging the importance of corporate governance
based on fiduciary duties to our clients (investors) and beneficiaries. We do not vote proxies
for the interests of ourselves and any third party other than clients (investors) and beneficiaries. The
interests of clients (investors) and beneficiaries are to expand the corporate value or the shareholders’ economic interests or prevent damage thereto. Proxy voting is an integral part of our stewardship activities,
and we make voting decisions considering whether the proposal would contribute to corporate value expansion
and sustainable growth.
To vote proxies adequately, we have established the Responsible Investment Committee
and developed the Proxy Voting Guideline to govern the decision-making process of proxy voting. While
we may seek advice from an external service provider based on our own guidelines, our investment professionals
make voting decisions in principle, based on the proxy voting guideline, taking into account whether
they contribute to increasing the subject company’s shareholder value.
Responsible proxy voting and constructive dialogue with investee companies are important
components of stewardship activities. While the Proxy Voting Guideline are principles for our voting
decisions, depending on the proposals, we may make an exception if we conclude that such a decision is
in the best interests of clients (investors) and beneficiaries after having constructive dialogue with the
investee companies. In such a case, approval of the Responsible Investment Committee shall be obtained.
The Responsible Investment Committee consists of members including Chief Investment
Officer, as the chair, Head of Compliance, Head of ESG, investment professionals nominated by the
chair and the other members, including persons in charge at the Client Reporting department.
We have established the Conflict of Interest Management Policy. In the situation that
may give rise to a conflict of interest, we aim to control it in the best interests of clients (investors)
and beneficiaries. The Compliance department is responsible for governing company-wide control of a conflict
of interest. The Compliance department is independent of Investment and Sales departments and shall
not receive any command or order for the matters compliant with the laws and regulations, including
a conflict of interest, from them.
1. Appropriations of Retained Earnings and Dividends
We decide how to vote on proposals seeking approval for appropriations of retained
earnings and dividends, taking into account the subject company’s financial conditions and business performance, shareholders’ economic interests and so on.
●
Taking into account the company’s capital adequacy, business strategies, and so on if the total payout ratio, including dividends and share repurchases, is significantly low, we
consider voting against the proposals unless reasonable explanations are given by the company.
●
With respect to the company where the Board of Directors determines appropriations
of retained earnings, taking into account the subject company’s capital adequacy, business strategies, and so on if the total payout ratio, including dividends and share repurchases, is significantly
low, we consider voting against the reappointment of board directors unless reasonable explanations
are given by the company.
●
Taking into account the subject company’s capital adequacy, business strategies, and so on if the total payout ratio, including dividends and share repurchases, is significantly low,
we consider voting for shareholder proposals increasing shareholder returns.
2. Appointment of Board Directors
We decide how to vote on proposals concerning the appointment of board directors,
taking into account their independence, competence, anti-social activity records (if any), and so on.
Furthermore, we decide how to vote on the reappointment of board directors, taking into account their corporate
governance practices, accountability during their tenures, the company’s business performance and anti-social records (if any), and so on in addition to the above factors.
Board directors should make best efforts to continuously gain knowledge and skills
to fulfill the critical role and responsibilities in the company’s governance. A company should also provide sufficient training opportunities.
Independent outside directors are expected to play a significant role, such as safeguarding
minority shareholders’ interests through action based on their insights to increase the company’s corporate value. It is desirable to enhance the board’s governance function with independent outside directors accounting for the board majority. However, given the challenge to secure competent candidates, we
also recognize that it is difficult for all the companies, irrespective of their size, to deploy the independent outside directors’ majority on the Board.
Sufficient disclosure is a prerequisite for reflecting the assessment of independence
and suitability of director candidates and board composition in voting decisions. Currently, there are
cases where sufficient information cannot be obtained due to insufficient disclosure on a board chair, each committee’s function and committee chairs in Notice of Annual General Meeting (AGM) and a corporate governance
report, as well as untimeliness of these issuances. We generally make decisions based on Notice
of AGM, a corporate governance report and an annual securities report disclosed by the time of voting.
However, this shall not apply if we obtain such information from direct engagement with the company or find
relevant disclosure elsewhere.
We generally vote for the appointment of outside directors. However, we generally
vote against if a candidate is not regarded as independent of the subject company. It is desirable that
the company discloses information, such as numerical data, which supports our decision on board independence.
●
We view the following outside director candidates are not independent enough.
●
Candidates who have been working for the following companies for the last ten years
or are those people’s relatives.
●
Candidates who have been working for the following companies for the last five years
or are those people’s relatives.
●
Shareholders who own more than 10% of the subject company
●
Principal securities brokers
●
Major business partners
●
Audit companies, consulting companies or any related service providers which have
any consulting contracts with the subject company
●
Any other counterparts which have any interests in the subject company
In cases other than above, we separately scrutinize the independence of candidates
who are regarded as not independent enough.
●
We take extra care when we assess the independence of candidates from a company which
is regarded as a policy shareholder under cross shareholding, mutually sends outside directors
to each other, and so on, as such cases potentially raise doubts about their independence. The company should
give reasonable explanations. It is also desirable that the company contrives the timing
and method of disclosure to allow investors to understand those relationships enough.
●
We judge board independence according to the stock exchange’s independence criteria with emphasizing independence ensured practically. We consider each company’s business environment and make the best effort to engage with the subject company to determine the independence
of the candidates.
●
We regard an outside director with a significantly long tenure as non-independent
and consider voting against the reappointment of such an outside director. We generally consider voting
against the reappointment of outside directors whose tenures are longer than ten years.
●
If the subject company is a company with Audit Committee, we judge the independence
of outside director candidates who become audit committee board members using the same independence
criteria for the appointment of statutory auditors in principle.
●
We generally consider voting against the appointment of top executives and a nominating
committee chair at a company with three Committees if independent outside directors of the subject
company account for less than 1/3 of the Board after the AGM. However, this shall not apply
if we confirm sufficient planning or special circumstances on increasing the number of independent
outside directors in engagements.
●
In case the subject company has a parent company, we generally consider voting against
the appointment of top executives and a nominating committee chair at a company with three
Committees if independent outside directors account for less than half of the Board after the AGM.
However, this shall not apply if we confirm sufficient planning or special circumstances on increasing
the number of independent outside directors in engagements.
(2)
Attendance rate and concurrent duties
●
All members are expected to attend board and respective committee meetings in principle.
A Company is generally obligated to facilitate all members to attend these meetings. We generally
vote against the reappointment of board directors who attended less than 75% of board or respective
committee meetings.
●
We take into account not only the number of attendance but nomination reasons and candidates’ real contributions if disclosed.
●
We take extra care when we assess the capability of board directors who have many
concurrent duties as an outside director or outside statutory auditor of listed companies, as
such cases potentially arise doubts about their capacity given the importance of outside directors’ role and responsibilities. Accordingly, we consider voting against the appointment of board
directors who perform five or more duties as a director or statutory auditor of a listed company
or equivalent company.
●
If a company nominates a board director with many concurrent duties, it should provide
reasonable explanations. It is also desirable that the company contrives disclosure timing and
methods to allow investors to understand the situation enough.
(3)
Company’s business performance
●
We consider voting against the reappointment of board directors if the subject company
made a loss for the three consecutive years during their tenures.
●
We consider voting against the reappointment of board directors if we judge that the subject company’s business performance significantly lags the peers in the same industry during their
tenures.
●
We consider voting against top executives if, concerning capital efficiency including
return on capital, business strategies achieving corporate value expansion and sustainable growth are
not demonstrated, and constructive dialogues are not conducted.
(4)
Company’s anti-social activities
●
If we judge that a corporate scandal damages or is likely to damage shareholder value
with having a significant effect on society during a board tenure, we conduct adequate dialogues
with the subject company on the background and subsequent resolutions of the scandal. Based on the
dialogues, we decide how to vote on the reappointment of top executives, board directors in charge
of those cases and audit committee board members at a company with Audit Committee or three Committees,
considering the impact on shareholder value.
●
With respect to domestic corporate scandals, at the time a company receives administrative
dispositions to cartel, bid-rigging, and so on from authorities, such as the Fair
Trade Commission, we consider voting against the reappointment of top executives, directors in charge and
audit committee board members at a company with Audit Committee or three Committees. However, in case
final dispositions are subsequently determined based on appeal or complaints resolutions,
we do not vote against the reappointment again at that time. We vote on a case-by-case basis concerning
compensation orders in a civil case, dispositions from the Consumer Affairs Agency
or administrative dispositions from overseas authorities.
●
With respect to administrative dispositions to an unlisted subsidiary or affiliate,
we consider voting against the reappointment of top executives, directors in charge and audit committee
board members at a company with Audit Committee or three Committees of the holding or parent company.
If a subsidiary or affiliate is listed, we consider voting against the reappointment of
top executives, directors in charge and audit committee board members at a company with Audit Committee
or three Committees of both the subsidiary or affiliate and the holding or parent company.
However, we may vote on a case-by-case basis, depending on the importance of the disposition to the
subsidiary or affiliate, its impact on the holding or parent company’s financial performance, and so on.
●
With respect to employees’ scandals, if the scandal damages or is likely to damage shareholder value, and we judge that the subject company owes management responsibility, we consider
voting against the reappointment of top executives, directors in charge and audit committee
board members at a company with Audit Committee or three Committees.
●
We consider voting against the reappointment of board directors if the subject company
engages in window dressing or inadequate accounting practices during their tenures.
(5)
Activities against shareholder interest
●
If a company raises capital through an excessively dilutive third-party allotment without a shareholders’ meeting’s approval, we consider voting against the reappointment of board directors, particularly top executives.
●
If a company raises capital through a large-scale public offering without reasonable
explanations, we consider voting against the reappointment of board directors, particularly top executives.
●
If a company does not execute a shareholder proposal regarded as favorable for minority
shareholders receiving the majority support from shareholders or does not make a similar company
proposal at an AGM in the following year, we consider voting against the appointment of top executives.
●
If a company insufficiently discloses board director candidates’ information, we generally vote against such candidates.
3. Composition of Board of Directors
While each company’s board structure would differ depending on its size and so on, we believe that a company with three Committees (Nomination, Audit and Remuneration) is desirable to
achieve better governance as a listed company. For a company with Board of Statutory Auditors (Kansayaku)
or Audit Committee, it is also desirable to voluntarily deploy a Nomination Committee, a Remuneration
Committee and other necessary committees. Besides, it is desirable that Board Chair is an independent
outside director. We believe that a highly transparent board composition ensures management
accountability and contributes to sustained enterprise value expansion. Finally, the disclosure of the
third-party assessment on the Board of Directors is desirable.
To strengthen the Board of Directors’ monitoring function and increase its transparency and effectiveness, we believe it is important to ensure gender, nationality, career, and age diversity
in principle. It is desirable that each company adopts a skills matrix that defines the diversity and expertise
required to fulfill the Board’s responsibilities reflecting its situation and selects director candidates accordingly.
We are concerned about retired directors assuming consulting, advisory or other similar
positions which could negatively impact transparency and decision making of the Board. If such positions
exist, and retired directors assume them, it is desirable that the company discloses their existence,
their expected roles and contributions and compensations for such posts.
(1)
Number of board members and change in board composition
●
We decide how to vote on proposals concerning the number of board members and change
in board composition, taking into account the impacts on the subject company and shareholders’ economic interests compared to the current situations.
●
The number of board members should be optimized to make the right management decision
at the right time. We may consider each company’s business situation and scale. However, we generally consider voting against the appointment of top executives and a nominating committee
chair at a company three Committees if the number of board members is expected to exceed 20 without
decreasing from the previous AGM, and reasonable explanations are not given.
●
We generally vote against the appointment of top executives and a nomination committee
chair at a company three Committees if a decrease in outside directors or an increase in internal
directors reduces the percentage of outside directors to less than half of the board members.
●
If there are no females on the Board, we consider voting against the appointment of
top executives and a nomination committee chair at a company three Committees. However, this shall
not apply if we confirm sufficient planning or special circumstances on increasing the number of
female directors in engagements.
●
We believe that board diversity is important and may set a higher target for a female
board member ratio in the future. Similarly, we may set a racial and nationality diversity
target, especially for companies with global business operations.
(2)
Procedures of board director appointment, scope of their responsibilities and so on
●
We decide how to vote on proposals concerning change in board director appointment
procedures, taking into account the rationales, and so on, compared to the current procedures.
●
We generally vote against proposals reducing board directors’ responsibilities for financial damages on fiduciary duty breach.
●
Board directors’ responsibilities include effective monitoring of top executives succession planning. The Nomination Committee at a company with three Committees or the arbitrary Nomination
Committee created at a company with the other governance structures should provide effective
monitoring of successor development and appointment with transparency. It is desirable that an independent
outside
director serves as Nomination Committee Chair. If we judge that the succession procedure
significantly lacks transparency and rationality, we consider voting against the appointment of
top executives.
4. Appointment of Statutory Auditors (Kansayaku)
We decide how to vote on proposals concerning the appointment of statutory auditors,
taking into account their independence, competence and anti-social activities records (if any), and so
on. We decide how to vote on the reappointment of statutory auditors, taking into account their corporate
governance practices and accountability during their tenures, the company’s anti-social activity records, and so on in addition to the above factors.
Statutory auditors and audit committee board directors at a company with Audit committee
or three Committees should have deep knowledge specialized in accounting, laws and regulations
and should make best efforts to continuously gain knowledge and skills to fulfill the critical role
and responsibilities in the company’s governance. A company should also provide sufficient training opportunities.
●
We generally vote against the appointment of outside statutory auditors without independency.
●
In general, a person who has no relationship with the subject company other than a
statutory auditor appointment is regarded as independent.
●
We regard that an outside statutory auditor with a significantly long tenure is not
independent and generally vote against the reappointment of such an outside statutory auditor. We
generally consider voting against the candidate whose tenure is longer than ten years.
(2)
Attendance rate and concurrent duties
●
All statutory auditors are expected to attend board or board of statutory auditors
meetings in principle. A companies is generally obligated to facilitate all statutory auditors to attend these
meetings. We generally vote against the reappointment of statutory auditors who attended less than 75% of
board or board of statutory auditors meetings.
●
We take into account not only the number of attendance but nomination reasons and candidates’ real contributions if disclosed.
●
We take extra care when we assess the capability of statutory auditors who have many
concurrent duties as an outside director or outside statutory auditor of listed companies, as
such cases potentially arise doubts about their capacity given the importance of outside statutory auditors’ role and responsibilities. Accordingly, we consider voting against the appointment of statutory
auditors who perform five or more duties as a board director or statutory auditor of a listed
company or equivalent company. If a company nominates a statutory auditor with many concurrent
duties, it should give reasonable explanations. It is also desirable that the company contrives
disclosure timing and methods to allow investors to understand the situation enough.
●
If there are material concerns about a published audit report or audit procedures,
or insufficiencies of required disclosures, we vote against the reappointment of statutory auditors.
(4)
Company’s anti-social activities
●
If we judge that a corporate scandal damages or is likely to damage shareholder value
with having a significant impact on society during a statutory auditor’s tenure, we conduct adequate dialogues with the subject company on the background and subsequent resolutions of the scandal. Based
on the dialogues, we decide how to vote on the reappointment of statutory auditors, considering the
impact on shareholder value.
●
With respect to domestic corporate scandals, at the time a company receives administrative
dispositions to cartel, bid-rigging, and so on from authorities, such as the Fair
Trade Commission, we consider voting against the reappointment of statutory auditors. However, in case
the final dispositions are subsequently determined based on appeal or complaints resolutions,
we do not vote against the reappointment again at that time. We vote on a case-by-case basis concerning
compensation orders in a civil case, dispositions from the Consumer Affairs Agency
or administrative dispositions from overseas authorities.
●
With respect to administrative dispositions to an unlisted subsidiary or affiliate,
we consider voting against the reappointment of statutory auditors of the holding or parent company.
If a subsidiary or affiliate is listed, we consider voting against the reappointment of statutory auditors
of both the subsidiary or affiliate and the holding or parent company. However, we may decide
on a case-by-case basis, depending on the importance of the dispositions to the subsidiary or affiliate,
its impact on the holding or parent company’s financial performance, and so on.
●
With respect to employees’ scandals, if the scandal damages or is likely to damage shareholder value, and we judge that the subject company owes management responsibility, we consider
voting against the reappointment of statutory auditors.
●
We consider voting against the reappointment of statutory auditors if the subject
company engages in window-dressing or inadequate accounting practices during their tenures.
5. Composition of Board of Statutory Auditors (Kansayaku)
We decide how to vote on proposals concerning the number of members or change in composition
of the board of statutory auditors, taking into account the impact on the subject company and shareholders’ economic interests compared to the current situations.
●
We consider an increase in statutory auditors favorably. However, in case of a decrease,
we consider voting against the reappointment of top executives unless clear and reasonable explanations
are given.
6. Appointment of Accounting Auditors
We decide how to vote on proposals concerning the appointment and replacement of accounting
auditors, taking into account their competence, audit fee levels, and so on.
●
We generally vote against the reappointment of statutory auditors (Kansayaku) or audit
committee board members at a company with Audit Committee or three Committees if we judge that a company
reappoints an accounting auditor without replacing it despite the following accounting
audit problems.
●
It is determined that an accounting auditor provides an unfair opinion on the company’s financial conditions.
●
In case there are concerns on financial statements, required disclosures are insufficient.
●
In case an accounting auditor has a service contract other than accounting audit services
with the subject company, it is regarded that such a contract creates a conflict of interest
between them.
●
Excessive audit fees are paid.
●
It is regarded that an accounting auditor makes fraud or negligence.
●
If it is regarded that an accounting auditor has issues in other company’s audits, in case a company appoints or reappoints the accounting auditor without replacing it, we take the impact on the company’s corporate value full consideration into voting decisions.
●
We generally vote against proposals concerning accounting auditor replacement if it
is regarded that a company changes an incumbent accounting auditor due to a dispute about accounting
principles.
7. Compensation for Board Directors, Statutory Auditors (Kansayaku) and Employees
(1)
Board directors’ salaries and bonuses
●
It is desirable to increase the proportion of stock incentive plans in board directors’ salaries and bonuses, on condition that a performance-based compensation structure is established, transparency,
such as disclosures of a benchmark or formula laying the foundations for calculation, ensures
accountability, and the impact on shareholders, such as dilution, are taken into considerations. The Remuneration
Committee at a company with three Committees (Nomination, Audit and Remuneration)
or the arbitrary Remuneration Committee preferably deployed at a company with the other governance
structures should ensure the accountability of compensation schemes. It is desirable that an independent
outside director serves as Remuneration Committee Chair.
●
We consider voting against proposals seeking approval for salaries and bonuses in
the following cases.
●
Negative correlation between company’s financial performance and directors’ salaries and bonuses are observed.
●
Inappropriate systems and practices are in place.
●
The total amount of salaries and bonuses is not disclosed.
●
Management failures, such as a significant share price decline or serious earnings
deterioration, are apparent.
●
The remuneration proposal includes people determined to be responsible for activities
against shareholder interest.
●
We generally vote for shareholder proposals requesting disclosure of individual directors’ salaries and bonuses.
●
If a company implements any measures ensuring transparency other than disclosure,
we take it into consideration.
●
If there is no proposal seeking approval for directors’ salaries and bonuses, and the compensation structure lacks transparency, we consider voting against the appointment of top executives.
●
We generally vote against bonuses for statutory auditors at a company with Board of
Statutory Auditors and audit committee board members at a company with Audit Committee.
●
We separately consider voting to audit committee board members at a company with three
Committees.
(2)
Stock incentive plans
●
We decide how to vote on proposals concerning stock incentive plans, including stock
options and restricted stock units, taking into account the impact on shareholder value and rights,
compensation levels, the scope, the rationales, and so on.
●
We generally vote against proposals seeking to lower the strike price of stock options.
●
We generally vote for proposals seeking to change the strike price on condition that shareholders’ approval is required every time.
●
We generally vote against stock incentive plans if the terms and conditions for exercising
options, including equity dilution, lack transparency. We generally consider voting against
proposals potentially causing 10% or more equity dilution.
●
It is desirable that stock incentive plans is a long-term incentive aligned with sustainable
growth and corporate value expansion. As such, we generally vote against stock incentive plans
allowing recipients to exercise all the rights within two years after vested for the subject
fiscal year. However,
this shall not apply to recipients who retire during the subject fiscal year. We assess
the validity if a vesting period is regarded as too long.
●
We generally vote against stock incentive plans granted to statutory auditors and
audit committee board members at a company with Audit Committee.
●
We separately consider stock incentive plans granted to audit committee board members,
including both inside and outside directors, at a company with three Committees.
●
We generally vote against stock incentive plans granted to any third parties other
than employees.
●
We generally vote against stock incentive plans in case a company is likely to adopt
the plans as takeover defense.
(3)
Employee stock purchase plan
●
We decide how to vote on proposals concerning employee stock purchase plans, taking
into account the impact on shareholder value and rights, the scope and the rationales, and so on.
(4)
Retirement benefits for board directors
●
We decide how to vote on proposals concerning grant of retirement benefits, taking
into account the scope and scandals (if any) of recipients and business performance and scandals (if
any) of the subject company, and so on.
●
We generally vote for proposals granting retirement benefits if all the following
criteria are satisfied.
●
The granted amount is disclosed.
●
Outside directors, statutory auditors and audit committee board members at a company
with Audit Committees are excluded.
●
Recipients do not cause any significant scandals during their tenures.
●
The subject company does not make a loss for the three consecutive years, or its business
performance is not determined to significantly lag behind the peers in the same industry.
●
The company does not cause scandals that significantly impact society and damage,
or are unlikely to damage, shareholder value during their tenures.
●
The company does not engage in window-dressing or inadequate accounting practices
during their tenures.
If a company holds shares for the sake of business relations (cross shareholdings),
the company should explain the medium- to long-term business and financial strategies, including capital
costs, and disclose proxy voting guidelines, voting results, and so on. If the company does not give reasonable
explanations and engage in constructive dialogues, we consider voting against the appointment of
top executives. It is important that the company does not hinder the sales/reduction of cross shareholdings
when a policy shareholder intends.
●
If a company's cross shareholdings account for 20% or more of its net assets, we generally
consider voting against the appointment of top executives. However, this shall not apply if
we confirm that the company makes a reduction, does sufficient planning or has industry- specific circumstances
that should be taken into consideration in engagement.
As a listed companies’ capital policy is likely to significantly impact shareholder value and interests, a company should implement a rational capital policy and explain capital policy guidelines
to shareholders. We consider voting against proposals concerning capital policies that we judge damage
shareholder value. If a
company has a capital policy that is not part of proposals at an AGM but regarded
to damage shareholder value, we consider voting against the reappointment of board directors.
●
It is undesirable that a company intends to maintain or increase so-called “friendly” stable shareholders and infringes minority shareholders’ rights by the third-party allotment, treasury stocks transfer or company management holdings’ transfer to foundations affiliated with the company.
(1)
Change in authorized shares
●
We decide how to vote on proposals seeking to increase authorized shares, taking into
account the impact on shareholder value and rights, the rationales, the impact on the sustainability
of stock market listing and a going concern, and so on.
●
We generally vote for proposals seeking to increase authorized shares if we judge
that not increasing authorized shares is likely to lead to delisting or have a significant impact on a
going concern.
●
We generally vote against proposals seeking to increase authorized shares after an
acquirer emerges.
●
We decide how to vote on new share issues, taking into account the rationales, the
terms and conditions of issues, the impact of dilution on shareholder value and rights and the impact on
the sustainability of stock market listing or a going concern, and so on.
(3)
Share repurchase and reissue
●
We decide how to vote on proposals concerning share repurchase or reissue, taking
into account the rationales, and so on.
●
We generally vote for proposals seeking a stock split.
(5)
Consolidation of shares (reverse stock split)
●
We decide how to vote on proposals seeking consolidation of shares, taking into account
the rationale, and so on.
●
We generally vote against proposals seeking to issue blank-cheque preferred shares
or increase authorized shares without specifying voting rights, dividends, conversion and other
rights.
●
We generally vote for proposals seeking to issue preferred shares or increase authorized
shares if voting rights, dividends, conversion and other rights are specified, and those rights are
regarded as reasonable.
●
We generally vote for proposals requiring approvals for preferred shares issues from
shareholders.
●
We decide how to vote on proposals seeking to issue convertible bonds, taking into
account the number of new shares, the time to maturity, and so on.
(8) Corporate bonds and credit facilities
●
We decide how to vote on proposals concerning a corporate bond issue or a credit facility
expansion, taking into account the subject company’s financial conditions, and so on.
●
We decide how to vote on proposals seeking to change the number of authorized shares
or issue shares for debt restructuring, taking into account the terms and conditions of the change
or the issue, the impact
on shareholder value and rights, the rationales, the impact on the sustainability
of stock market listing and a going concern, and so on.
●
We decide how to vote on proposals concerning capital reduction, taking into account
the impact on shareholder value and rights, the rationales and the impact on the sustainability
of stock market listing and a going concern, and so on.
●
We generally vote for proposals seeking capital reduction following standard accounting
procedures.
●
We decide how to vote on proposals concerning a financing plan, taking into account
the impact on shareholder value and rights, the rationales and the impact on the sustainability
of stock market listing and a going concern, and so on.
(12) Capitalization of reserves
●
We decide how to vote on proposals seeking capitalization of reserves, taking into
account the rationales, and so on.
10. Amendment to Articles of Incorporation and Other Legal Documents
(1) Change in an accounting period
●
We generally vote for proposals seeking to change an accounting period unless it is
regarded as an aim to delay an AGM.
(2) Amendment to articles of incorporation
●
We decide how to vote on proposals to amend an article of incorporation, taking into
account the impact on shareholder value and rights, the necessity, the rationales, and so on.
●
We generally vote for proposals seeking to amend an article of incorporation if it
is required by law.
●
We generally vote against proposals seeking to amend an article of incorporation if
we judge that it is likely to infringe shareholder rights or damage shareholder value.
●
We generally vote for transition to a company with three Committees.
●
We decide how to vote on proposals seeking to relax or eliminate special resolution
requirements, taking into account the rationale.
●
We are concerned about retired directors assuming advisory, consulting, or other similar
positions which could negatively impact on transparency and decision making of the Board of
Directors. We generally vote against proposals seeking to create such a position.
●
We generally vote for proposals seeking to authorize a company to hold virtual-only
meetings, taking into account the impact on shareholder value and rights.
●
We will consider, among other things, a company’s practices, jurisdiction and disclosure, including the items set forth below:
●
meeting procedures and requirements are disclosed in advance of a meeting detailing
the rationale for eliminating the in-person meeting,
●
safeguard and clear and comprehensive description as to how and when shareholders
submit and ask questions either in advance of or during the meeting,
●
disclosure regarding procedures for questions received during the meeting, but not
answered due to time or other restrictions, and
●
description of how shareholder rights will be protected in a virtual-only meeting
format including the ability to vote on proposals during the time the polls are open.
(3) Change in a quorum for an annual general meeting (AGM)
●
We decide how to vote on proposals concerning change in quorum for an AGM, taking
into account the impact on shareholder value and rights, and so on.
11. Company Organization Change
(1) Change in a registered company name and address
●
We decide how to vote on proposals seeking to change a registered company name, taking
into account the impact on shareholder value, and so on.
●
We generally vote for proposals seeking to change a registered address.
(2) Company reorganization
●
We decide how to vote on proposals concerning the following company reorganization,
taking into account their respective impacts on shareholder value and rights, the subject company’s financial conditions and business performance, and the sustainability of stock market listing
or a going concern, and so on.
●
We decide how to vote on proposals concerning the appointment of directors with opposition
candidates, taking into account their independence, competence, anti-social activity records (if
any), corporate governance practices and accountability of the candidates and business performance
and anti-social activity records (if any) of the subject company, the proxy fight background, and
so on.
(2)
Proxy context defense
●
We generally vote against proposals seeking to introduce a classified board.
●
We generally vote for proposals seeking to set a director's term of one year.
●
Shareholder rights to remove a director
●
We generally vote against proposals seeking to tighten requirements for shareholders
to remove a director.
●
We decide how to vote on proposals seeking to introduce cumulative voting for director
appointments, taking into account the background, and so on.
●
We decide how to vote on proposals seeking to terminate cumulative voting for director
appointment, taking into account the background, and so on.
We believe that management and shareholder interest is not always aligned. As such,
we generally vote against the creation, amendment and renewal of takeover defense measures that we judge
decrease shareholder value or infringes shareholder rights. We generally vote against the reappointment
of directors if takeover defense measures are not part of proposals at an AGM but are regarded to
decrease shareholder value or infringes shareholder rights.
●
Relaxing requirements to amend articles of incorporation and company policies
●
We decide how to vote on proposals seeking to relax requirements to amend articles
of incorporation or company policies, taking into account the impact on shareholder value and rights,
and so on.
●
Relaxing of requirements for merger approval
●
We decide how to vote on proposals seeking to relaxing requirements for merger approval,
taking into account the impact on shareholder value and rights, and so on.
14. Environment, Social and Governance (ESG)
We support the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment (UN PRI) and acknowledge
that company’s ESG practices are an important factor in investment decision making. Thus, we consider voting against the reappointment of top executives and directors in charge if we judge that
there is an issue that could significantly damage corporate value. We consider voting for proposals related
to ESG materiality, including climate change or diversity, if we judge that such proposals contribute
to preventing from damaging or expanding corporate value. If not, we consider voting against such proposals.
Disclosure and constructive dialogues based thereon are important in proxy voting
and investment decision making. Furthermore, proactive disclosure and effective engagement are desirable as
demand for ESG disclosure, including climate change, has been increasing, and the disclosure frameworks
have been rapidly progressing.
●
We generally vote against proposals that lack sufficient disclosure to make proxy
voting decisions.
●
We generally vote for proposals seeking to enhance disclosures if such information
is beneficial to shareholders.
●
If a company’s financial and non-financial disclosures is significantly poor, and if the level of investor relations activities by management or people in charge is significantly low, we consider
voting against the reappointment of top executives and directors in charge.
We abstain from voting proxies of the following companies that are likely to have
a conflict of interest. We also abstain from voting proxies with respect to the following investment trusts that
are managed by us or Invesco group companies, as a conflict of interest may rise.
●
Companies and investment trusts that we abstain from voting proxies:
We have established the Conflict of Interest Management Policy. In the situation that
may give rise to a conflict of interest, we aim to control it in the best interests of clients (investors)
and beneficiaries. The Compliance department is responsible for governing company-wide control of a conflict
of interest. The Compliance department is independent of the Investment and Sales departments and shall
not receive any
command or order for the matters compliant with the laws and regulations, including
a conflict of interest, from the Investment and Sales departments.
Proxy voting and stewardship activities are reported to the Responsible Investment
Committee. The Responsible Investment Committee approves them. Besides, the Compliance department
reviews whether conflicts of interest are properly managed in proxy voting and then reports the results
to the Conflict of Interest Oversight Committee. Furthermore, the results are reported to the Executive
Committee in Tokyo and the Invesco Proxy Advisory Committee.
17. Shareholder Proposals
We vote on a case-by-case basis on shareholder proposals while we follow the Proxy
Voting Guidelines in principle.
DISCLAIMER: The English version is a translation of the original in Japanese for information
purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the Japanese original will prevail. You can
download the Japanese version from our website: http://www.invesco.co.jp/footer/proxy.html.
Appendix C
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE JURISDICTIONS
IN WHICH THE FUND INVESTS
As explained in the Fund’s
prospectus, the Fund’s investments are highly sensitive to the fiscal stability of the jurisdictions in which the Fund principally
invests, including the subdivisions, agencies, instrumentalities or authorities of those jurisdictions that issue municipal securities
contained in the Fund’s portfolio. You should consider carefully the special risks inherent in the Fund’s investments in municipal
securities.
The Fund may invest in municipal
securities issued by certain territories, commonwealths and possessions of the United States that pay interest that is exempt (in the
opinion of the issuer’s legal counsel when the security is issued) from federal income tax. Therefore, the Fund’s investments
could be affected by the fiscal stability of, for example, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or the Northern Mariana Islands.
Additionally, the Fund’s investments could be affected by economic, legislative, regulatory or political developments affecting
issuers in those territories, commonwealths or possessions.
The following information
represents a summary of the risks associated with the concentration of the Fund’s investments in the municipal securities of these
jurisdictions. This information is intended to supplement the information contained in the Fund’s prospectus, and does not purport
to be a complete analysis of every risk factor that may affect the obligations of the issuers of these municipal securities.
The following information
is based on publicly available reports prepared by officials of each jurisdiction’s government or their designees. The information
may also be based on official statements and other offering documents relating to securities issued by or on behalf of these jurisdictions,
their agencies, instrumentalities and political subdivisions, as available on of the date of this Statement of Additional Information.
Although this information is generally compiled from government resources, the Fund does not make any representation as to the accuracy
of the information contained herein. Municipal bond issuers may not be subject to the same disclosure obligations as other bond issuers,
which may impact the reliability of the information provided by municipal issuers that is used to determine fund investments and can potentially
make investments in municipal securities riskier than other investments. The Fund has not independently verified this information and
the Fund does not have any obligation to update this information throughout the year.
In addition, this information
is subject to change rapidly, substantially and without notice. Such changes may negatively impact the fiscal condition of the jurisdictions
in which the Fund invests, which could harm the performance of the Fund. Accordingly, inclusion of the information herein shall not create
an implication that there has not been any change in the affairs of the relevant jurisdictions since the date of this Statement of Additional
Information. More information about the specific risks facing each jurisdiction may be available from official resources published by
those jurisdictions.
The bond ratings provided below are current as
of the date specified. Unless otherwise stated, the ratings indicated are for obligations of the jurisdiction referenced below. The political
subdivisions of a given jurisdiction may have different ratings that are unrelated to the ratings assigned to the obligations of the state,
commonwealth or territory. Investors should note that the creditworthiness of obligations issued by a jurisdiction’s local municipal
issuers may be unrelated to the creditworthiness of obligations issued by the jurisdiction itself, and that there may be no obligation
on the part of the jurisdiction to make payment on such local obligations in the event of default.
To the extent that any statements
made below involve matters of forecasts, projections, opinions, assumptions or estimates, whether or not expressly stated to be such,
they are made as such and not as representations of fact or certainty, and no representation is made that any of these statements have
been or will be realized. All forecasts, projections, assumptions, opinions or estimates are “forward looking statements,”
which must be read with an abundance of caution because they may not be realized or may not occur in the future.
In addition, investors should
note that municipal securities may be more susceptible to being downgraded, and issuers of municipal securities may be more susceptible
to default, insolvency or bankruptcy, during recessions or similar periods of economic stress. Factors contributing to the economic stress
on municipalities may include lower property tax collections, lower sales tax revenue and lower income tax revenue, among others. In
addition, as certain municipal obligations may be secured or guaranteed by banks and other institutions, the risk to the Fund could increase
if the banking or financial sector suffers an economic downturn or if the credit ratings of the institutions issuing the guarantee are
downgraded or at risk of being downgraded by a national rating organization. Such a downward revision or risk of being downgraded may
have an adverse effect on the market prices of the municipal securities and thus the value of the Fund’s investments in those securities.
Recent downgrades of certain
municipal securities insurers have negatively impacted the price of certain insured municipal securities. Given the large number of potential
claims against municipal securities insurers, there is a risk that they will be unable to meet all future claims. Certain municipal issuers
either have been unable to issue securities or access the market to sell their issues. For some issuers that have been able to access
the market, they have had to issue securities at much higher rates, which may reduce revenues available for the municipal issuers to pay
existing obligations.
Should a jurisdiction, or
its applicable municipalities or subdivisions, fail to sell their securities when and at the rates projected, the jurisdiction or its
subdivisions could experience a weakened overall cash position in the current fiscal year.
An insolvent municipality
may take steps to reorganize its debt, which might include extending debt maturities, reducing the amount of principal or interest, refinancing
the debt or taking other measures that may significantly affect the rights of creditors and the value of the securities issued by the
municipality and the value of the Fund’s investments in those securities. Pursuant to Chapter 9 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, certain
municipalities that meet specific conditions may be provided protection from creditors while they develop and negotiate plans for reorganizing
their debts. The U.S. Bankruptcy Code provides that individual U.S. states are not permitted to pass their own laws purporting to bind
non-consenting creditors to a restructuring of a municipality’s indebtedness, and thus all such restructurings must be pursuant
to Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code. The jurisdictions discussed below all face challenges to achieving sustained economic growth, which
is critical to debt sustainability. Challenges include, for example, (i) the location of the islands that leads to the high cost
of importing goods and energy; (ii) vulnerability to increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events; (iii) concentrated
economies relying on limited industries; and (iv) outmigration and population loss.
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Introduction. The Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico (the “Commonwealth”) Government and the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (the Oversight
Board) together have made significant progress in achieving fiscal responsibility, stabilizing Puerto Rico’s finances, substantially
reducing its debt burden, and making significant strides to reform its civil service.
When the U.S. Congress passed
the bipartisan Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act of 2016 (PROMESA) that created the Oversight Board, the Governor
of Puerto Rico had declared the debt unpayable, and the Puerto Rico Government was in default. Decades of economic decline and chronic
financial mismanagement left Puerto Rico in crisis, soon exacerbated by natural disasters, including Hurricanes Irma and María
in 2017, earthquakes, and the global COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.
According to a U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report from 2018, the causes of the crisis were: (i) inadequate financial management and oversight practices,
such as the overestimation of potential revenues and persistent spending in excess of appropriated amounts; (ii) prolonged economic
contraction, impacted by outmigration and resulting diminished labor force, the high cost of energy and importing goods, regulatory challenges
to doing business, the phaseout of the possessions tax credit, and banking and housing struggles; and (iii) policy decisions, such
as allowing the use of debt proceeds to balance budgets, insufficiently addressing public pension funding shortfalls, and inadequately
managing the financial condition of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA).
Prior to PROMESA and for each
of the first 16 consecutive years of this century, from fiscal years 2000 to 2016, Government spending exceeded recurring Government revenues.
Controls and guardrails, to the extent they existed, were insufficient to prevent overestimation of revenues, excessive borrowing, overspending,
and the deficits that eroded Puerto Rico’s economic stability. Before PROMESA, Government pensions were not sufficiently funded,
putting pension payments for current and future retirees at risk.
As result of these practices,
the consolidated Commonwealth’s outstanding debt and pension liabilities had grown to over $120 billion – with more than $70
billion in financial debt and more than $50 billion in pension liabilities – an amount almost twice the size of Puerto Rico’s
economy.
The Oversight Board was established
oversee the Commonwealth’s financial operations and allows the Commonwealth and its instrumentalities, with approval of the Oversight
Board, to file cases to restructure debt and other obligations in a “Title III” proceeding. U.S. territories do not have the
ability to file for bankruptcy under the federal Bankruptcy Code. Title III incorporates many provisions of the federal Bankruptcy Code,
and incorporates legal mechanisms for a litigation stay and restructuring of pension and debt obligations, among other provisions. Title
III petitions were filed for, among others, the Commonwealth, the Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation (COFINA), and PREPA, three
of the largest issuers of Commonwealth debt. It is possible that petitions under Title III or other provisions of PROMESA, including Title
VI, for additional Commonwealth instrumentalities will be filed in the future. These restructuring proceedings create uncertainty as to
the treatment of claims of varying degrees of seniority in the levels and priorities of payment from the affected entities.
There can be no assurances
that the Commonwealth will not continue to face severe fiscal stress or that such circumstances will not become even more difficult in
the future. Furthermore, there can be no guarantee that future developments will not have a materially adverse impact on the Commonwealth’s
finances. Any deterioration in the Commonwealth’s financial condition may have a negative effect on the payment of principal and
interest, the marketability, liquidity or value of the securities issued by the Commonwealth, which could reduce the performance of a
fund.
Current
Economic Climate. Puerto Rico’s civilian labor force consists of approximately 1.2 million individuals. As of August 2024,
Puerto Rico had an unemployment rate of 5.7%, which was down from 5.8% in August 2023. Puerto Rico’s unemployment rate was
higher than the national average of 4.2% in August 2024.
Puerto Rico’s economy
has major components in Trade, Transportation and Utilities; Professional and Business Services; Education and Health Services; and Leisure
and Hospitality. In addition, government agencies at the local and federal levels employ a significant number of the Commonwealth’s
residents. Based on September 2024 data, these sectors employed almost 80% of the Commonwealth’s workers. Because these sectors
represent the largest share of employment in the Commonwealth, economic problems or factors that adversely impact these sectors may have
a negative effect on the value of the Commonwealth’s municipal securities, which may reduce the performance of a fund.
On April 10, 2024, the
Commonwealth filed its audited financial statements for fiscal year 2022 with the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s Electronic
Municipal Market Access system. Total assets plus deferred outflows of resources and total liabilities plus deferred inflows of resources
of the primary government as of June 30, 2022, amounted to approximately $34.4 billion and $85.5 billion, respectively, for a net
deficit of approximately $51.1 billion as of June 30, 2022, compared to a net deficit of approximately $59.2 billion as of June 30,
2021 (as restated). The 2022 audited financial statements noted that notwithstanding the circumstances existing on June 30, 2022,
based on subsequent events that remediated the Commonwealth’s financial condition and addressed its liabilities, management does
not believe there is substantial doubt about the Commonwealth’s ability to continue as a going concern as of the date of the basic
financial statements. The 2022 audited financial statements noted that various component units, including PREPA, have been identified
as having substantial doubt about their ability to continue as a going concern.
Puerto Rico’s economy
is closely linked to the economy of the United States, as most of the external factors that affect the Commonwealth’s economy (other
than oil prices) are determined by the policies and performance of the mainland economy. In recent years, however, the performance of
Puerto Rico’s economy has significantly diverged from the performance of the United States economy. In May 2018, the Oversight
Board projected that the Commonwealth’s real gross national product declined by 13.3% on a year-over-year basis, due, in part, to
adverse effects from hurricanes that impacted the Commonwealth in 2017 (as discussed below). In addition, in December 2017, Congress
enacted the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which subjects companies located in the Commonwealth to a tax on income generated from certain intellectual
property. Previously, companies located in the Commonwealth had been exempt from paying federal income taxes on such income. It is not
presently possible to predict the extent of the impact that the tax will have on the Commonwealth’s economy.
In recent years, Puerto Rico
has received an unprecedented influx of federal funds in the form of Disaster Relief Funding, COVID-19 stimulus, and funds from the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law which have strengthened Puerto Rico’s economy but may mask underlying weaknesses. Prior to 2017, Puerto Rico
gross national product was trending downwards, a trend which was compounded by subsequent natural disasters, including Hurricanes Irma
and María in 2017, earthquakes in 2020, and a global pandemic. Through successive federal stimulus packages, Puerto Rico received
approximately $120 billion in federal funds, equivalent to approximately 145% of its 2023 gross national product. Puerto Rico’s
economic growth is highly dependent on its ability to efficiently deploy those federal funds. The 2024 Fiscal Plan assumes full deployment
of this stimulus by the end of FY2035, after which their stimulative effect on the economy will end.
Puerto Rico’s Government
significantly expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) starting in tax year 2021 after receiving permanent additional funds from the
federal government under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA). Since then, $3.6 billion has been paid to more than 640,000 taxpayers
with approximately $1.3 billion estimated for FY2023 alone. While not solely attributable to the EITC, given other concurring federal
stimulus funding, since the adoption of the expanded credit, Puerto Rico’s non-farm employment level increased by over 106,000 from
about 851,100 in January 2021 to 957,600 in February 2023. Puerto Rico’s labor force also increased by about 89,000 over
this same period, and as of December 2023, the labor participation rate (the size of the labor force relative to the size of the
working age population) increased from around 40.6% in 2020 (1.1 million workers) to 43.6% in 2023 (1.2 million workers).
Fiscal
Plan and Budget. The Commonwealth has faced a number of significant fiscal challenges, including a structural imbalance between
its General Fund revenues and expenditures. Such challenges contributed to the passage of PROMESA, which established the Oversight Board
and empowered it to approve Puerto Rico’s fiscal plans and budgets. The Oversight Board is comprised of seven members appointed
by the President who are nominated by a bipartisan selection process. The budget process requires the Oversight Board, the Governor, and
the Commonwealth’s Legislative Assembly to develop a budget that complies with the fiscal plan developed by the Oversight Board
and the Governor.
Most of Puerto Rico’s
unaffordable debt has been dramatically reduced. The restructuring of the central government debt saved Puerto Rico more than $50 billion
in debt payments to creditors. The restructurings of COFINA saved about $17.5 billion, the Highways and Transportation Authority (HTA)
about $3 billion, and the Puerto Rico Aqueducts and Sewers Authority (PRASA) about $400 million. The savings of more than $70 billion
reduced the debt burden on the people of the Island by approximately $24,000 per person in Puerto Rico.
The debt restructuring of
PREPA is pending. Restructuring the debt, however, was only half of PROMESA’s mandate. In order to fulfill the mandate of PROMESA,
fiscal responsibility still needs to be secured over the long term. Necessary improvements to systems and procedures are underway. However,
appropriate spending discipline to preserve and institutionalize the recent success and prevent Puerto Rico from falling back into old
habits of overpromising and overspending that resulted in bankruptcy has not been achieved. Strong financial management is critical to
long-term fiscal stability and will be required to restore access to the capital markets at reasonable rates.
As the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico leaves bankruptcy behind, the Government and Oversight Board’s focus will shift toward growing the economy. The 2023 Fiscal
Plan is a roadmap that prioritizes growth and opportunity. The 2023 Fiscal Plan also includes critical initiatives to support economic
development, including actions to improve the ease of doing business, upgrade infrastructure, prepare the workforce to compete for the
jobs of the future, and a roadmap for tax reform. These economic development initiatives are designed to maximize the impact of an unprecedented
influx of federal funds. In response to multiple natural disasters and the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government has committed over
$120 billion in funding to Puerto Rico, equivalent to 150% of the Commonwealth’s gross national product.
On June 5, 2024, the
Oversight Board certified the 2024 Fiscal Plan for Puerto Rico. The 2024 Fiscal Plan reports that Puerto Rico is stable, and the Commonwealth
government is solvent. The massive debt is almost completely restructured, a critical element of fiscal responsibility and access to market
access. Under the Fiscal Plans and PROMESA certified budgets, Puerto Rico has moved from structural deficits to fiscal stability. The
Oversight Board developed a comprehensive process to evaluate budget changes throughout the year to ensure sufficient funding sources
are available to support operating needs. However, the government must still undertake significant work to put in place the practices
needed to ensure that this progress is sustained beyond the longevity of the Oversight Board. In particular, the government must establish
robust financial management and oversight practices, while also making targeted investments to promote sustainable and inclusive economic
development. The 2024 Fiscal Plan highlights a set of initiatives that aim to ensure the successful pursuit of these objectives.
Separate 2024 Fiscal Plans
were certified for COFINA on June 5, 2024 and PRASA on June 11, 2024. A separate Fiscal Plan for PREPA’s was certified
on June 23, 2023.
There is no certainty that
any certified fiscal plan will be fully implemented, or if implemented will ultimately provide the intended results.
Investors should be aware
that Puerto Rico relies heavily on transfers from the federal government related to specific programs and activities in the Commonwealth.
These transfers include, among others, entitlements for previously performed services, or those resulting from contributions to programs
such as Social Security, Veterans’ Benefits, Medicare and U.S. Civil Service retirement pensions, as well as grants such as Nutritional
Assistance Program grants and Pell Grant scholarships for higher education. There is considerable uncertainty about which federal policy
changes may be enacted in the coming years and the economic impact of those changes. Due to the Commonwealth’s dependence on federal
transfers, any actions that reduce or alter these transfers may cause increased fiscal stress in Puerto Rico, which may have a negative
effect on the value of the Commonwealth’s municipal securities.
Retirement
Systems. The Commonwealth’s retirement systems include the Employees Retirement System (“ERS”), the Teachers
Retirement System (“TRS”) and the Judiciary Retirement System (“JRS” and together with the ERS and TRS, the “Pension
Systems”). As of July 1, 2017, the total actuarial liabilities for the ERS, the TRS and the JRS were approximately $31.0 billion,
$17.0 billion and $700 million, respectively. The total annual benefits due from the ERS, TRS and JRS for FY2018 totaled approximately
$1.5 billion, $700 million, and $25 million, respectively. In 2017, the Legislative Assembly enacted laws to reform the operation and
funding of the Pension Systems. Those laws required the ERS to sell its assets and transfer the proceeds to the General Fund. In addition,
employer contributions to the Pension Systems, which had been operating on a “pay-as-you-go” basis, were eliminated, and the
General Fund assumed any payments that the Pension Systems could not make.
The Oversight Board reported
in its 2022 Fiscal Plan that, over many decades, successive Commonwealth governments have failed to adequately fund these retirement plans,
and that the ERS, TRS and JRS were insolvent. The Oversight Board reported in its 2023 Fiscal Plan that, historically, government pensions
were not sufficiently funded, putting the ability to make pension payments for current and future retirees at risk. The Plan of Adjustment
(see “Debt” section below) and 2023 Fiscal Plan, together, minimize this risk through a series of pension initiatives. Most
importantly, the budget now funds estimated pay-as-you-go (PayGo) payments and the Plan of Adjustment authorizes the establishment of
a new Pension Reserve Trust, which allocates surplus funds to support future payments to retirees. Pension Reserve Trust and PayGo accounts
for about 10% and 20% of General Fund expenditures in FY 2023, respectively.
The Commonwealth may have
to make additional contributions to the Pension Systems, which could result in reduced funding for other priorities, including payments
on its outstanding debt obligations. Alternatively, the Commonwealth may be forced to raise revenue or issue additional debt. Either outcome
could increase the pressure on the Commonwealth’s budget, which could have an adverse impact on a fund’s investments in Puerto
Rico.
Debt.
Certain of the Commonwealth’s component units defaulted on debt service payments during fiscal year 2016. As a result,
the Governor issued several executive orders declaring emergency periods and suspending certain transfers and payments with respect to
the Commonwealth and several of its component units. It is expected that the Commonwealth and its component units will need to seek further
relief under existing or potential future laws regarding receivership, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium, and/or similar laws affecting
creditors’ rights, to the extent available.
On July 1, 2016, the
Commonwealth and various additional component units were unable to comply with their scheduled debt service obligations, and defaulted
on $911 million of their scheduled debt obligations, including $779 million in general obligation debt service. Since 2016, the Commonwealth
has continued to default on debt service payments for multiple bonds, including general obligation bonds and those issued by various component
units, including PREPA, the Puerto Rico Public Finance Corporation, and the Puerto Rico Public Building Authority, among others.
In 2017, the Oversight Board
filed petitions pursuant to Title III of PROMESA in federal court on behalf the Commonwealth and certain of its instrumentalities, including
the PREPA to begin proceedings to restructure their outstanding debt. As a result of these petitions, the ability of the creditors of
the Commonwealth and its instrumentalities that have filed for Title III to take action with respect to outstanding obligations were temporarily
stayed. The judge assigned to oversee the Title III proceedings initiated a confidential mediation process administered by five federal
judges.
In February 2019, the
U.S. District Court approved the Plan of Adjustment for COFINA, the first debt restructuring completed under PROMESA’s Title III.
It reduced COFINA debt by $6 billion, from $18 billion to $12 billion.
In August 2019, the PRASA
and the Government of Puerto Rico reached an agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Department of Agriculture
to a consensual modification of about $1 billion of outstanding loans under PROMESA’s Section 2017. This agreement lowers PRASA’s
debt service payments on the U.S. Government program loans by about $380 million over the next 10 years and eliminates approximately $1
billion in guaranty claims against the Puerto Rico Government. Additionally, it provides PRASA with access to $400 million in new federal
funding through various clean water programs over the next five years to support PRASA’s ongoing effort to improve water quality
and safety for the people of Puerto Rico.
On January 18, 2022,
Judge Laura Taylor Swain confirmed the Commonwealth Plan of Adjustment restructuring approximately $35 billion of debt and other claims
against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Public Buildings Authority (PBA), and ERS, as well as more than $50 billion of unfunded pension
liabilities. The Plan of Adjustment saves Puerto Rico more than $50 billion in debt service and reduces outstanding obligations to just
over $7 billion. On January 18, 2022, the Title III Court entered its Findings of Fact and Confirmation Order with respect to the
Eighth Amended Plan. Between January 28, 2022, and February 17, 2022, six appeals of the Confirmation Order were filed in the
First Circuit. By March 11, 2022, the First Circuit denied all parties’ motions for stay pending appeal. On March 15,
2022, the conditions precedent to the Effective Date of the Eighth Amended Plan were satisfied and/or waived by the Oversight Board, and
the plan became effective.
On the Effective Date, the
principal elements of the Eighth Amended Plan were executed reducing the Commonwealth’s total funded debt obligations from approximately
$34.3 billion of prepetition debt to approximately $7.4 billion, representing a total debt reduction of 78%. This debt reduction will
also reduce the Commonwealth’s maximum annual debt service (inclusive of COFINA) from approximately $4.2 billion to $1.15 billion,
representing a total debt service reduction of 73%. Also as of the Effective Date, all of the legacy Commonwealth general obligation bonds,
ERS bonds, and PBA bonds were discharged, and all of the Commonwealth, ERS, and PBA obligations and guarantees related thereto were discharged.
In addition, all Commonwealth laws that required the transfer of funds from the Commonwealth to other entities have been deemed preempted,
and the Commonwealth has no obligation to transfer additional amounts pursuant to those laws. Importantly, effectuating the Eighth Amended
Plan provides a path for Puerto Rico to access the credit markets and develop balanced annual budgets.
A critical component of the
Eighth Amended Plan is the post-effective date issuance of new general obligation bonds (the “New GO Bonds”) and contingent
value instruments (CVIs) that will be used to provide recoveries to general obligation and PBA bondholders, and to HTA and Puerto Rico
Infrastructure Financing Authority bondholders under separate restructurings.
With respect to PREPA’s
Title III proceeding, the Oversight Board announced on August 25, 2023 that it had filed the Third Amended Plan of Adjustment for
PREPA (the “PREPA Plan”) with the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (“District Court”). Multiple
modifications and objections to the PREPA Plan have subsequently been filed with the District Court. There is no certainty that the District
Court will confirm the PREPA Plan, or that, if confirmed, the PREPA Plan will be fully implemented.
As of the date of this SAI,
this process is ongoing. Any future negative developments could adversely affect Fund performance. It is not presently possible to predict
the results of all of the restructurings and related planned issuance of the New GO Bonds and CVIs and other debt securities, but such
outcomes will have significant impact on bondholders. If the Commonwealth or its instrumentalities are unable to obtain favorable results,
there would be negative impacts on Fund performance.
Other
Considerations. On September 6, 2017 and September 20, 2017, respectively, Hurricanes Irma and Maria struck Puerto
Rico, causing unprecedented humanitarian, economic, and infrastructure-related damages and upending the daily lives of Puerto Rico’s
over three million residents. Thousands of residents were left homeless, basic utilities were completely shut down, and schools, hospitals,
and businesses were destroyed. Tens of thousands of local residents fled the Island. The Federal Government’s response has become
one of the largest and most complex disaster relief efforts in U.S. history. In addition, the southwestern part of Puerto Rico has been
struck by a swarm of earthquakes that began on December 28, 2019, and continued into 2021. On September 18, 2022 Hurricane Fiona
made landfall, again causing significant infrastructure damages and loss of basic utilities.
With the onset of the pandemic,
the economy of Puerto Rico virtually ground to a halt as the public health imperative for people to stay at home left all but the most
essential workers unable to travel to their places of business. The economy responded to the vast amount of local and federal stimulus
funding, and an economic recovery is now underway, though there is still significant uncertainty about the future of the Puerto Rican
economy.
The long-term effects of the
COVID-19 pandemic are currently unpredictable. The long-term behavioral changes associated with the pandemic (i.e., reduced travel, increased
work from home, reduced activity in large gathering places, etc.) are also unknown.
Outstanding issues relating
to the potential for a transition to statehood may also have broad implications for Puerto Rico and its financial and credit positions.
The power to grant statehood resides with the U.S. Congress.
Litigation.
In addition to the litigation described above, the Commonwealth, its officials and employees are named as defendants in legal
proceedings that occur in the normal course of governmental operations. Some of these proceedings involve claims for substantial amounts,
which if decided against the Commonwealth might require the Commonwealth to make significant future expenditures or substantially impair
future revenue sources. Because of the prospective nature of these proceedings, it is not presently possible to predict the ultimate outcome
of such proceedings, estimate the potential impact on the ability of the Commonwealth to pay debt service costs on its obligations, or
determine what impact, if any, such proceedings may have on a fund’s investments.
Credit
Rating. In February 2014, Puerto Rico’s then outstanding general obligation bonds were downgraded to non-investment
grade or “junk” status by Moody’s and S&P. Following multiple further downgrades S&P discontinued its ratings
for the Commonwealth’s general obligation bonds in 2018 and Moody’s withdrew its ratings for the Commonwealth’s general
obligation bonds in 2021. On May 12, 2022, following the Effective Date of the Plan of Adjustment, Fitch withdrew its D rating and
announced that it will no longer provide ratings for the Commonwealth. S&P, Fitch and Moody’s do not currently maintain
a rating for the New GO Bonds or an issuer rating for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (confirmed as of November 12, 2024).
GUAM
Introduction.
Guam’s economy is heavily dependent upon revenues from tourism and U.S. federal and military spending. As a result, economic
problems or factors that adversely impact these sources of revenue may have a negative effect on the value of Guam’s municipal securities,
which may reduce the performance of a fund.
Guam faces significant fiscal
challenges including a high unemployment rate, uncertainty in the tourism industry and a reliance on a foreign workforce affecting key
industry segments. Furthermore, the economic outlook in the rest of the United States remains uncertain, especially in light of the COVID-19
pandemic. An economic downturn in the United States or countries such as Japan, China, or Korea, which provide large sources of tourism
to the island, could significantly impact the finances of Guam and, therefore, its municipal securities. Moreover, the level of public
debt in Guam may affect long-term growth prospects and could cause Guam to experience financial hardship. As a result of these and other
factors, Guam has faced fiscal stress in recent years.
From year-to-year, Guam may
experience a number of political, social, economic and environmental circumstances that influence Guam’s economic and fiscal condition.
Such circumstances include, but are not limited to: (i) persistent structural imbalances; (ii) rising debt levels; (iii) significant
pension underfunding; (iv) revenue volatility; (v) developments with respect to the U.S. and world economies; (vi) environmental
considerations, natural disasters and widespread diseases, including pandemics and epidemics; and (vii) U.S. federal economic and
fiscal policies, including the amount of federal aid provided to Guam. There can be no guarantee that future developments, including events
affecting Guam’s economic and fiscal condition, will not have a materially adverse impact on Guam’s finances. Any deterioration
in Guam’s financial condition may have a negative effect on the marketability, liquidity or value of the securities issued by Guam,
which could reduce the performance of a fund.
Current
Economic Climate. As of September 2023, Guam’s civilian labor force consisted of approximately 71, 990 individuals.
This figure includes citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of Marshall Islands, who are authorized by compact
to accept employment in the United States, and also citizens of the Republic of Palau, who are authorized by covenant to accept employment
in the United States.
The unemployment rate in Guam
for September 2023 was 4.1%, an increase of 0.1 percentage points from the June 2023 figure of 4.0%, and a reduction of 0.3
percentage points from September 2022. Guam’s unemployment rate was above the national average of 3.8% in September 2023.
Approximately 76% of Guam’s workforce is employed in the private sector, with the remainder employed by the federal and local governments.
Based upon preliminary reports for June 2024, Guam’s private sector employment increased 4.9%, federal government employment
decreased 2.9% and local government employment increased 3.1%.
Guam’s 2022 gross domestic
product is estimated at $6.91 billion. The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates indicate that after declining in calendar year 2020 due
to COVID-19, Guam’s GDP continued to grow from $6.234 billion in 2021 to $6.910 billion in 2022, an increase of 10.8%. The 2022
gross domestic product figure primarily consists of approximately $4.140 billion in personal consumption expenditures, $4.633 billion
in government consumption expenditures and gross investment and 2.013 billion in private fixed investments less $3.876 billion in net
export of goods and services increase in real gross domestic product for Guam increased 5.1% in 2022 after increasing 2.1% in 2021. The
increase in real domestic product reflected increases in exports, private fixed investment, government spending and personal consumption
expenditures. Imports, a subtraction item in the calculation of GDP, increased.
The Guam Government, residents
and businesses received and estimated $3.8 billion through various federal stimulus programs enacted following the start of the COVID-19
pandemic. Guam received 1.8 billion under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act of 2020; the Guam government
received its full share of the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021 ($553.6 million); and Guam received
$1.5 billion from ARPA.
Guam's economy is expected
to continue expanding and recovering from the pandemic downturn throughout Fiscal Years 2024 and 2025. This economic expansion and partial
recovery began in 2021 and 2022, restoring Guam's growth trend. Further, increased Economic activity is anticipated due to simultaneous
increases in construction including the progression of the Camp Blaz Marine Corps base construction activity nearing its planned peak,
missile defense construction, private and Government construction projects, and continued recovery in the tourism sector from Korea and
Japan.
The three primary sources
of inflows of funds to Guam are from tourism, federal expenditures, and construction capital investment. Tourism has begun a partial rebound
from the pandemic virtual shutdown in March 2020, continuing into 2022. Calendar year 2023 visitor arrivals rose by approximately
101% over 2022, although they were still less than half of pre-pandemic levels.
Federal government expenditures
now represent the largest single source of funds flowing to Guam. Federal government expenditures in recent years were the second-largest
source of funds, well behind tourism expenditures in recent years. The pandemic induced reduction in tourism, and an increase in federal
expenditures changed that.
Economic, social and political
conditions in Japan, South Korea and throughout the Pacific Rim, and the resulting effect on overseas travel from these countries, are
a major determinant of tourism on Guam. Tourism, particularly from South Korea and Japan, where approximately 85% of visitors originated
over the past several fiscal years (including FY 2021), represents a significant share of the economic activity on Guam. In response to
the current COVID-19 pandemic, many countries, including South Korea and Japan, issued shelter-in-place orders and travel restrictions
and warnings. As a result of the COVID 19 pandemic, calendar year 2020 visitor arrivals to Guam fell by approximately 80%.
The United States’ military
presence on Guam also contributes significantly to the island’s economy. Its strategic location close to Asia has increased its
importance in the overall military strategy of the United States, but also has exposed Guam to certain geopolitical risks, including threats
of military confrontation. In the years following 2010, Guam began to experience a decrease in U.S. military personnel as the plan to
relocate certain forces from Japan to Guam was delayed. There can be no guarantee that the relocation will occur or to what extent Guam’s
local economy will benefit from any relocation.
However, current plans anticipate
that approximately 5,000 Marines and 1,500 dependents from Okinawa and other locations will be relocated to Guam by Fiscal Year 2028,
with the first 2,500 Marines moving to a new Marine Corps Base Camp Blaz by Fiscal Year 2026. The 2024 National Defense Authorization
Act, passed in December 2023, includes over $4.2 billion of appropriations as part of the military buildup on Guam.
Budget.
On February 5, 2024, the Governor of Guam submitted the Executive Budget Proposal request for FY 2025 (the “Proposed Budget”).
The Proposed Budget totaled $1.13 billion and projected $961.7 million in General Fund Revenues, $214.5 million in Special Fund Revenues
and $552.9 million in federal matching grants-in-aid revenue. The Governor of Guam signed the budget bill into law on September 11,
2024. The enacted budget totaled $1.31 billion and projects $906.5 million in General Fund Revenues, $212.3 million in Special Fund Revenues
and $190.1 million in federal matching grants-in-aid revenue.
Debt.
Guam is prohibited from authorizing or allowing the issuance of public debt in excess of 10% of the assessed tax valuation
of the property in Guam, which amounts to $1.352 billion as of October 2022. Public debt does not include bonds or other obligations
payable solely from revenues derived from any public improvement or undertaking. Total debt outstanding as of September 30, 2022,
subject to the debt ceiling limitation is $940.8 million. The legal debt margin as of September 30, 2022 was $411.1 million.
Litigation.
Guam, its officials and employees are named as defendants in legal proceedings that occur in the normal course of governmental
operations. Some of these proceedings involve claims for substantial amounts, which if decided against Guam might require Guam to make
significant future expenditures or substantially impair future revenue sources. Because of the prospective nature of these proceedings,
it is not presently possible to predict the ultimate outcome of such proceedings, estimate the potential impact on the ability of Guam
to pay debt service costs on its obligations, or determine what impact, if any, such proceedings may have on a fund’s investments.
Natural
Disasters. Like other Pacific islands, Guam is periodically subject to typhoons and tropical storms. From 1962 to date, ten
typhoons caused damage great enough to result in federal disaster relief. Super Typhoon Karen in 1962, Typhoon Pamela in 1976, Typhoon
Russ in 1990,
Super Typhoon Omar in 1992,
Super Typhoon Paka in 1997, Typhoon Chata’an and Super Typhoon Pongsona in 2002, Typhoon Dolphin in 2015, Typhoon Wutip in 2019
and Super Typhoon Mawar in 2023. Super Typhoon Mawar made landfall on Guam on May 24, 2023, with the territory sustaining substantial
damage from high winds, storm surge, and heavy rainfall. President Joe Biden declared Guam a major disaster area on May 27, 2023,
enabling the distribution of federal funds.
Although the United States
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes disaster relief assistance available after significant typhoon or earthquake damage,
there can be no assurance that future typhoons and/or earthquakes will not cause significant damage to business in Guam, or that FEMA
will provide disaster relief assistance if significant damage is experienced. There can also be no assurance that, even with FEMA assistance,
damage that results from future typhoons or earthquakes will not adversely affect business activity on Guam.
Potential impacts of climate
change, including rising sea levels, excessive rainfall, stronger tropical storms, drought, ocean acidification, coral bleaching, saltwater
intrusion, storm surges, rising temperatures and increased migration, may threaten Guam’s security and resources. The impact of
climate change and climate variability may also have detrimental socioeconomic impacts to Guam.
Credit
rating. On December 16, 2021, S&P affirmed its BB- rating on Guam’s general obligation debt and revised its
outlook to stable from negative. On January 25, 2024, Moody’s upgraded its rating of Guam’s outstanding general obligation
debt to Baa3 (with a stable outlook). These ratings reflect only the views of the respective rating agency, an explanation of which may
be obtained from each such rating agency. As of November 12, 2024, the above ratings had not been revised or withdrawn. There is
no assurance that these ratings will continue for any given period of time or that it will not be revised or withdrawn entirely by the
rating agencies if, in the judgment of such rating agencies, circumstances so warrant. A downward revision or withdrawal of any such rating
may have an adverse effect on the market prices of the securities issued by Guam or its political subdivisions, instrumentalities and
authorities.
U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
Introduction.
The United States Virgin Islands (the “Virgin Islands” or “USVI”) is an unincorporated territory of
the United States with separate executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. The economy of the Virgin Islands is heavily
dependent upon revenues from tourism, but other major sectors of the Virgin Islands’ economy include the trade, transportation and
utilities sector; the professional and business services sector; the leisure and hospitality sector; and the government sector. As these
sectors represent the largest share of employment in the Virgin Islands, economic problems or factors that adversely impact these sectors
may have a negative effect on the value of the Virgin Islands’ municipal securities, which may reduce the performance of a fund.
The economy of the Virgin
Islands has faced substantial fiscal challenges in recent years, including damage to infrastructure caused by natural disasters and widespread
diseases, a high unemployment rate, a structural deficit, declining government revenues, and considerable unfunded pension and healthcare
liabilities. The level of public debt in the Virgin Islands may affect long-term growth prospects and may make it difficult for the Virgin
Islands to make full repayment on its obligations. Furthermore, the economic outlook in the rest of the United States remains uncertain.
A future economic downturn in the United States could significantly impact the finances of the Virgin Islands and, therefore, its municipal
securities.
There can be no guarantee
that economic and fiscal conditions in the Virgin Islands will improve or that future developments will not have a materially adverse
impact on the finances of the Virgin Islands. Any deterioration in the Virgin Islands’ financial condition may have a negative effect
on the value of the securities issued by the Virgin Islands, which could reduce the performance of a fund.
Current
Economic Climate. The impact of the pandemic on employment in the U.S. Virgin Islands was substantial. From February to
May 2020, the Territory’s unemployment rate grew from 4.5% to 13.6% but has since fallen to 5.6% as of August 2022. Exports
declined partially due to the unprecedented losses in travel and tourism. Tourism is the Territory’s primary export and the sector
most impacted by the pandemic. The industry experienced a near halt to air leisure and business travel in 2020 and the cancellation of
all cruise ship calls throughout most of 2020 and early 2021. Consequently, air visitors fell 35.1% in 2020 to 442,027 from 640,887 in
2019 before rebounding 96.7% to a high of 824,460 in 2021. Cruise passenger visitors plunged 69.3% to 442,027 in 2020 but began to recover
in the second half of 2021 and by year’s end, reached 245,695— still about 82.9% below the 1.4 million cruise passengers in
2019.
Businesses also spent less
money on construction and equipment, triggering a 27.7% decline in private fixed investment. In addition, declining government spending
from fading disaster response and hurricane recovery activities weighed on gross domestic product growth, decreasing that component by
4%. Imports fell 10.6%, reflecting declines in imports of goods, including consumer goods and equipment, and other services. The U.S.
Census Bureau released the 2020 decennial census counts in 2021. Between 2010 and 2020, the Virgin Islands’ population fell 18.1%.
According to the Virgin Islands Bureau of Economic Research, residents of the Virgin Islands received approximately $2.9 billion in estimated
personal income in 2021. As a result, residents of the Virgin Islands had a per capita personal income of $27,049 in 2021.
In 2022, the Virgin Islands’
real gross domestic product (GDP) decreased by 1.3% following a 3.7% increase in 2021. The increase in real GDP reflected increases in
exports and personal consumption expenditures. This was due to reductions in exports, private investment, government spending, and personal
consumption, partially offset by an increase in inventory investment. Imports, a subtraction item in the calculation of GDP, also decreased.
In 2022 the export of goods and services decreased by 18.9%. Goods exports declined due to lower crude oil and petroleum products exports,
while services exports increased due to higher visitor spending. Total visitor arrivals were 69.7% higher in 2022 than in 2021.
Visitor arrivals reached roughly
2.4 million in 2023, marking a rise of around 582,385 visitors over 2022—or a 32.1% increase. Furthermore, visitor arrivals surpassed
pre-pandemic levels by 15.5%. Air arrivals totaled 782,022. A total of 1.6 million cruise guests visited the territory in 2023, accounting
for 67.4% of visitor arrivals in 2023.
As of July 2024, the
Virgin Islands’ had an unemployment of approximately 3.8% which was down from 3.7% in July 2023. The Virgin Islands’
unemployment rate was lower than the national average which was 4.3% for the same periods.
The Virgin Islands’
economy has faced setbacks in recent years largely as a result of the lingering effects of the economic recession in the United States,
the impact of natural disasters, the closure of the HOVENSA petroleum refinery and the COVID-19 pandemic. These factors have placed financial
stress on key segments of the Virgin Islands’ economy.
The tourism sector constitutes
a significant portion of the Virgin Islands’ economy. However, because of its geographical location, the Virgin Islands is subject
to natural disasters, including hurricanes, that can cause considerable damage to the territory and disrupt the tourism industry. Any
additional natural disasters that impact tourism could adversely affect the Virgin Islands’ economy. Furthermore, the Virgin Islands
was closed to tourists from March to May 2020 and from August to September 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As of
September 19, 2020, the Virgin Islands has reopened to tourism. However, the current and long-term impact of the pandemic remains
unknown.
The United States continues
to be the primary source of visitors to the Virgin Islands. Therefore, any gains in the tourism industry are closely related to economic
growth in the United States. In order to expand its tourism industry and insulate the islands from potential economic declines in the
United States, the Virgin Islands has begun, in recent years, increasing its tourism marketing to other countries and regions and is evaluating
ways to reposition itself as a leading tourism destination through a private-sector driven approach.
Important private sector activities
in the Virgin Islands include wholesale and retail trade, leisure and hospitality, financial activities, and construction and mining activities.
The agricultural sector remains small, which requires most of the territory’s food to be imported. International business and financial
services are a small but growing component of the economy.
In 2012, the operators of
the HOVENSA oil refinery, one of the largest employers in the Virgin Islands at the time, announced that they would close the refinery,
laying off approximately 1,200 employees and 950 subcontractors. However, in January 2016, Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC and its affiliates
(Limetree) finalized its purchase of the HOVENSA oil refinery, including HOVENSA’s storage and docking facilities. Limetree re-opened
the refinery in February 2021. Following multiple major flaring incidents resulting in significant air pollutant and oil releases,
the EPA issued notices of violations of the Clean Air Act, and ordered Limetree to pause all operations at the refinery for at least 60
days. In June 2021, Limetree announced the indefinite closing of its oil refining facility on the island of St. Croix and the layoff
of 271 plant employees. In December 2021 Limetree sold the refinery through a Chapter 11 asset auction to joint bidders, West Indies
Petroleum and Port Hamilton Refining and Transportation. Because of these and subsequent other events, including West Indies Petroleum’s
announcement in June 2022 disavowing ownership of the refinery, ongoing litigation, an August 2022 fire at the refinery, and
the September 2022, October 2022, and August 2024 announcements of additional EPA action and reopening requirements, it
is not possible to predict the extent of the impact of the sale of the refinery on the Virgin Islands’ economy.
In fiscal year 2020, the Virgin
Islands reported a net pension liability for the primary government and component units of $4.2 billion. Additionally, the Virgin Islands
reported an other post-employment benefits liability of $786.8 million in fiscal year 2020. In fiscal year 2021, the pension liability
totaled approximately $4.53 billion. Additionally, the Virgin Islands reported an other post-employment benefits liability of $992.3 million
in fiscal year 2020. Virgin Islands officials were continuing to project that the public pension system would reach insolvency by 2024
absent a reduction in member benefits or infusion of cash into the system.
The U.S. Virgin Islands’
Government Employees’ Retirement System (GERS) remains one of the lowest funded public pension plans in the United States, according
to GAO’s analysis of national data. In 2021, GERS actuaries projected that the plan would be insolvent by March 2025. The USVI
government has made changes to the plan over the years to maintain its solvency. In April 2022, USVI finalized a debt refinancing
plan to provide dedicated funding to GERS with revenue from an excise tax on rum sales. However, GERS continues to face the risk of insolvency.
According to GAO’s analysis, GERS may face insolvency within the next 10 years if the excise tax rate is lower than expected or
if rum sales decline, among other risks. For example, the GERS’ revenue projections for the excise tax used a $13.25 per proof gallon
tax rate that expired in 2021 and reverted to a lower statutorily defined rate in 2022 ($10.50). While the USVI government has paid the
resulting shortfall in 2023, it is not required and may not be sustainable.
Overall, the underlying fundamentals
of the Virgin Islands economy are volatile. Increasing unemployment, decreasing revenues and the loss of many high-paying jobs have combined
to place significant fiscal pressure on the local government. It is possible that fiscal challenges facing the Virgin Islands could impact
the ability of the territory to satisfy the obligations on its outstanding debt. Any such outcome would likely reduce the value of the
municipal securities issued by the Virgin Islands and its political subdivisions, instrumentalities, and authorities, which may reduce
the performance of a fund.
Budget.
In recent fiscal years, the government has experienced substantial fluctuations in revenues and expenditures, as well as recurring
deficits. The Virgin Islands has taken a series of actions in recent years to reduce the size of its operating budget and address its
recurring operating deficit. However, these actions have not addressed the structural imbalances that have led to recurring deficits.
Rather, annual shortfalls have been addressed by an ad hoc combination of inter-fund transfers and debt financing.
The Proposed Executive Biennial
Budget includes $969.1 million in General Funds for FY 2024 and $968.0 million in General Funds for FY 2025. The total operating budget
including appropriated and nonappropriated funds and federal funds is $1.42 billion and $1.42 billion in Fiscal Years 2024 and 2025, respectively.
Total assets and deferred
outflows of resources of the Government of the Virgin Islands as of September 30, 2021 and 2020, were approximately $4.3 billion
and $3.7 billion, respectively. Total liabilities and deferred inflows were approximately $9.7 and $8.8 billion, respectively, over the
same period. Liabilities exceed assets mainly due to unfunded pension and postemployment benefits such as health insurance due to retired
Government employees amounting to $5.5 billion and $5.0 billion at September 30, 2021 and 2020.
As discussed in the financial
statements, the Virgin Islands Government reported an unrestricted net deficit in Governmental Activities and in the General Fund that
raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. On September 30, 2021, the Government’s net deficit
of $5.3 billion consisted of a $584.2 million net investment in capital assets; $300.5 million restricted by statute or other legal requirements
that were not available to finance day-to-day operations; and an unrestricted net deficit of $6.2 billion. On September 30, 2020,
the Government’s net deficit of $5.2 billion consisted of a $529.0 million net investment in capital assets; $307.4 million restricted
by statute or other legal requirements that were not available to finance day-to-day operations; and an unrestricted net deficit of $6.0
billion.
The Proposed Executive Biennial
Budget reflects a 100% reduction in transfers from the Internal Revenue Matching Fund (IMRF). The great majority of revenues collected
through the IRMF have now been pledged towards the reduction of the unfunded liability of the Government Employees Retirement System.
There is no guarantee that the Government’s efforts to reverse the pending insolvency of the Government Employees Retirement System
through a matching fund special purpose securitization bond offering will be entirely successful.
Debt.
Current law prohibits the Virgin Islands from authorizing or issuing general obligation bonds in excess of 10% of the aggregate assessed
valuation of taxable real property in the territory. As of September 30, 2020, the net amount of bonds outstanding, including both
general obligation and revenue bonds, was estimated at $2.0 billion. The large fiscal risks faced by the Virgin Islands, coupled with
its exclusion from capital markets, may hamper the Virgin Islands ability to repay its public debts. Natural Disasters. In September 2017,
two successive hurricanes – Irma and Maria – caused severe damage to the Virgin Islands. The infrastructure of the Virgin
Islands was severely damaged by high winds and substantial flooding, leaving much of the Virgin Islands without power. According to officials,
Hurricanes Irma and Maria caused an estimated $10.76 billion in damage to the public infrastructure and economy of the Virgin Islands.
In February 2018, Congress appropriated $89.3 billion for disaster recovery efforts for areas affected by hurricanes in 2017. Approximately
$11 billion of these funds were made available to the Virgin Islands and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and $2 billion was designated
to help repair and reconstruct the electrical system of the islands. Before the storms made landfall, the Virgin Islands was already facing
a severe economic crisis due to mounting debt obligations and declining revenues. There can be no assurances that the Virgin Islands will
receive sufficient aid to rebuild from the damage caused by Hurricanes Irma and Maria, and it is not currently possible to predict the
long-term impact that Hurricanes Irma and Maria will have on the Virgin Island’s economy. All these developments have a material
adverse effect on the Virgin Island’s finances and negatively impact the marketability, liquidity and value of securities issued
by the Virgin Islands that are held by the Fund.
Litigation.
The Virgin Islands, its officials and employees are named as defendants in legal proceedings that occur in the normal course of governmental
operations. Some of these proceedings involve claims for substantial amounts, which if decided against the Virgin Islands might require
the Virgin Islands to make significant future expenditures or substantially impair future revenue sources. Because of the prospective
nature of these proceedings, it is not presently possible to predict the ultimate outcome of such proceedings, estimate the potential
impact on the ability of the Virgin Islands to pay debt service costs on its obligations, or determine what impact, if any, such proceedings
may have on a fund’s investments.
Credit
rating. On September 28, 2017, Fitch withdrew its ratings due to the Virgin Islands’ communication that it intended
to stop participating in the ratings process, and Fitch indicated that it no longer had sufficient information to maintain the ratings.
On March 23, 2023, Moody’s announced that it had withdrawn the U.S. Virgin Islands issuer rating. S&P, Fitch and Moody’s
do not currently maintain an issuer rating for U.S. Virgin Islands (confirmed as of November 12, 2024).
NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
Introduction.
The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (the “Commonwealth” or “CNMI”) is a commonwealth of the United
States with a political status similar to that of Puerto Rico. The economy of the Commonwealth is heavily dependent upon revenues from
tourism and transfers from the federal government. As these sources represent a significant share of the Commonwealth’s revenue,
economic problems or factors that adversely impact these sources may have a negative effect on the value of the Commonwealth’s municipal
securities, which may reduce the performance of a fund. Although the Commonwealth has faced significant setbacks, the economy has shown
signs of modest growth in recent years. Such growth in may be slow as the Commonwealth continues to face substantial fiscal challenges
including high unemployment, severe reductions in key industry segments and large government deficits. Furthermore, the economic outlook
in the rest of the United States remains uncertain, especially in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. An economic downturn in the United States
or countries such as Japan, China or Korea, which provide large sources of tourism to the islands, could significantly impact the finances
of the Commonwealth and, therefore, its municipal securities. Moreover, the level of public debt in the Commonwealth may affect long-term
growth prospects and could cause the Commonwealth to experience continued financial hardship.
From year-to-year, the Commonwealth
may experience a number of political, social, economic and environmental circumstances that influence the Commonwealth’s economic
and fiscal condition. Such circumstances include, but are not limited to: (i) persistent structural imbalances; (ii) rising
debt levels; (iii) significant pension underfunding; (iv) revenue volatility; (v) developments with respect to the U.S.
and world economies; (vi) environmental considerations, natural disasters and widespread diseases, including pandemics and epidemics;
and (vii) U.S. federal economic and fiscal policies, including the amount of federal aid provided to the Commonwealth. There can
be no guarantee that future developments, including events affecting the Commonwealth’s economic and fiscal condition, will not
have a materially adverse impact on the Commonwealth’s finances. Any further deterioration in the Commonwealth’s financial
condition may have a negative effect on the marketability, liquidity or value of the securities issued by the Commonwealth and may jeopardize
the ability of the Commonwealth to satisfy its obligations on its outstanding debt, which could reduce the performance of a fund.
Current
Economic Climate. After joining the United States in 1978, the federal government agreed to exempt the Commonwealth from federal
minimum wage and immigration laws in an effort to help stimulate the Commonwealth’s economy. As a result of these exemptions, the
Commonwealth was able to build a large garment industry, which at one time accounted for nearly 40% of the Commonwealth’s economy.
A significant portion of the Commonwealth’s residents and a large number of temporary workers from throughout the region worked
in the textile industry. Critical to this growth was duty-free access to U.S. markets and local authority over immigration and the minimum
wage.
Over the last two decades,
however, the Commonwealth’s economy underwent an involuntary transformation resulting from federal policy actions that led to the
dissolution of the Commonwealth’s garment industry. Following the collapse of the garment industry, tourism emerged as the major
driver of the Commonwealth’s economy. The majority of the Commonwealth’s visitors are from Japan, Korea, China, and the United
States, and federal immigration policy has also greatly impacted tourism in the Commonwealth. Any future developments that make international
travel to the islands more difficult may have a negative impact on the Commonwealth’s economy. In addition, the relaxation of laws
restricting gambling helped to attract outside private investment and spur economic growth.
The CNMI economy faced challenges
prior to the pandemic. It was still recovering from the effects of Super Typhoon Yutu, which devastated the CNMI in October 2018,
causing extensive damage to homes, businesses, and infrastructure, including to the Saipan International Airport.
The CNMI government’s
strategy to encourage tourism and economic activity by building casinos and hotels on Saipan and Tinian has not been successful, leaving
the territory without a viable plan to recover its economy through other means. CNMI’s inflation adjusted gross domestic product
fell by 11.3% in 2019 and another 29.7% in 2020 with sharp declines in tourist spending, casino gambling revenue, and private fixed investment.
With the tourism industry struggling to recover, federal assistance slowing, and weak financial management practices persisting, CNMI
is at risk of a severe fiscal crisis.
Tourism is CNMI’s primary
source of economic activity. However, the number of visitors to CNMI has been declining since 2018 when Super Typhoon Yutu caused extensive
damage to homes, businesses, and infrastructure, including to the Saipan International Airport. The COVID-19 pandemic caused a much sharper
decline in tourism revenue and economic activity, exacerbated by the subsequent closure of the CNMI’s largest casino in 2020 after
just three years of operating. Visitors in 2022 increased to 96,521—indicating a slight recovery—though still well below pre-pandemic
levels.
The COVID-19 pandemic also
had a significant negative impact on tourism, the Commonwealth’s primary industry. Tourism from Asia declined significantly beginning
in January 2020 at the onset of the pandemic, leading to a sharp reduction in anticipated general revenue. To prevent the spread
of the COVID-19 virus, the Commonwealth suspended commercial air travel in April 2020 and again in December 2021.
The Commonwealth’s real
gross domestic product decreased by 29.7% in 2020, after decreasing by 11.3% in 2019. The decrease primarily reflects decreases in exports
of services, private fixed investment, personal consumption expenditures and government spending. Exports of goods and services decreased
74.4% in 2020. The decrease in exports was largely accounted for by exports of services, which consists primarily of visitor spending,
including on casino gambling. Revenues from casino gambling dropped over 95%. The number of visitors to the Commonwealth decreased 81.7%,
reflecting the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Commonwealth also faces
certain unique risks, including its reliance on a foreign workforce that has the potential to result in a labor shortage. In addition,
because of its geographical location, the Commonwealth is subject to natural disasters. The Commonwealth has previously experienced severe
weather events that significantly impacted its economy, and any future storms, or other natural disasters, that have an adverse effect
on the Commonwealth’s finances could negatively impact the marketability, liquidity or value of securities issued by the Commonwealth.
Budget.
The Commonwealth has run a budget deficit for many years, which means spending has consistently outpaced revenue collection. The Commonwealth’s
governmental activities deficit net position increased from $480 million to a deficit net position of $580.1 million, an increase of 20.9%
between fiscal years 2020 and 2021.
On September 30, 2024,
the Governor signed into law the Commonwealth’s budget for FY2025 (Enacted Budget). The Enacted Budget identifies total budgetary
resources of approximately $158.6 million, which, after adjustments and transfers, including debt service, would leave $111.5 million
for appropriations during the fiscal year.
Unfunded liabilities of the
Northern Mariana Islands Retirement Fund and minimum annual payments required to the Northern Mariana Islands Settlement Fund (“NMISF”)
as part of a 2013 pension-related settlement present a significant risk to the fiscal condition of the Commonwealth. Pursuant to law,
the Commonwealth is required to make contributions to the retirement fund each year on an actuarially funded basis toward the annuities
related to retirement and other benefits. Due to recurring budget deficits, the Commonwealth has often delayed or suspended payments to
the retirement fund.
For the years ended September 30,
2021, 2020 and 2019, the Commonwealth recorded payments to NMISF of $40 million and $13.57 million, $42 million and $13.98 million, and
$44 million and $14.15 million, respectively. However, the enacted Fiscal Year 2025 budget makes no provision for payments to NMISF in
Fiscal Year 2025.
Debt.
As of September 30, 2021, the Commonwealth had $80.6 million in long-term debt outstanding, which represents a net decrease of $4.8
million or 5.6% from the prior year. The expected annual debt service requirements on the Commonwealth’s general obligation bonds
are $9.77 million for the fiscal year 2024 and $9.65 million for fiscal year 2025.
As of September 30, 2020,
CNMI’s total public debt outstanding was about $114.1 million, or about 12 percent of GDP ($938.8 million). This reflects CNMI’s
inability to borrow through capital markets in recent years. CNMI has struggled to finance its pension plan. Moreover, its economy continues
to decline with limited prospects for recovery as its tourism industry struggles and its largest casino is closed and unlikely to reopen
soon. CNMI’s financial management and reporting has also worsened. With CNMI’s limited financial prospects and weak financial
management practices persisting, CNMI is at risk of a severe fiscal crisis.
Natural
Disasters. The Commonwealth underwent two typhoons during the months of September and October 2018. Typhoon Mangkhut
destroyed much of the resources for the island of Rota, and Super Typhoon Utu devastated the islands of Tinian and Saipan. The disasters
had detrimental effects on the Commonwealth’s economic activity, leaving two main sectors of the economy (tourism and gaming) at
a standstill for the first quarter of the 2019 fiscal year. These events had a material adverse effect on the Commonwealth’s finances
and may negatively impact the payment of principal and interest, marketability, liquidity, and value of securities issued by the Commonwealth
that are held by the Fund.
Litigation.
The Commonwealth, its officials and employees are named as defendants in legal proceedings that occur in the normal course of governmental
operations. Some of these proceedings involve claims for substantial amounts, which if decided against the Commonwealth might require
the Commonwealth to make significant future expenditures or substantially impair future revenue sources. Because of the prospective nature
of these proceedings, it is not presently possible to predict the ultimate outcome of such proceedings, estimate the potential impact
on the ability of the Commonwealth to pay debt service costs on its obligations, or determine what impact, if any, such proceedings may
have on a fund’s investments.
Credit
rating. On April 1, 2020, Moody’s withdrew its issuer rating for the Commonwealth of Ba3 with a negative outlook.
S&P, Fitch and Moody’s do not currently maintain a credit rating for CNMI general obligation debt (confirmed as of November 12,
2024).
THIS AMENDED AND
RESTATED MASTER INVESTMENT ADVISORY AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made this 1st
day of July, 2020, by and between INVESCO MUNICIPAL INCOME OPPORTUNITIES TRUST, a Delaware business trust (the “Trust”), and
Invesco Advisers, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Adviser”), amends and restates the prior Agreement between the Trust
and the Adviser dated August 27, 2012, as amended to date.
WHEREAS, the Trust
is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as a closed-end management investment
company;
WHEREAS, the Adviser
is registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”), as an investment adviser and engages
in the business of acting as an investment adviser;
WHEREAS, the Trust
and the Adviser desire to enter into an agreement to provide for investment advisory services to the Trust upon the terms and conditions
hereinafter set forth; and
NOW THEREFORE,
in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
the parties agree as follows:
(b) obtain
and evaluate pertinent information about significant developments and economic, statistical and financial data, domestic, foreign or otherwise,
whether affecting the economy generally or the Trust, and whether concerning the individual issuers whose securities are included in the
assets of the Trust or the activities in which such issuers engage, or with respect to securities which the Adviser considers desirable
for inclusion in the Trust’s assets;
(c) determine
which issuers and securities shall be represented in the Trust’s investment portfolios and regularly report thereon to the Board
of Trustees;
(d) formulate
and implement continuing programs for the purchases and sales of the securities of such issuers and regularly report thereon to the Board
of Trustees; and
(e) take,
on behalf of the Trust, all actions which appear to the Trust necessary to carry into effect such purchase and sale programs and supervisory
functions as aforesaid, including but not limited to the placing of orders for the purchase and sale of securities for the Trust.
As compensation
for such services provided by the Adviser in connection with securities lending activities, the Trust shall pay the Adviser a fee equal
to 25% of the net monthly interest or fee income retained or paid to the Trust from such activities.
(a) all
applicable provisions of the 1940 Act and the Advisers Act and any rules and regulations adopted thereunder;
(b) the
provisions of the registration statement of the Trust, as the same may be amended from time to time under the Securities Act of 1933 and
the 1940 Act;
(c) the
provisions of the Trust’s Declaration of Trust, as the same may be amended from time to time;
(d) the
provisions of the by-laws of the Trust, as the same may be amended from time to time; and
(e) any other applicable provisions of state, federal or foreign law.
(a) The
Adviser’s primary consideration in effecting a security transaction will be to obtain the best execution.
(b) In
selecting a broker-dealer to execute each particular transaction, the Adviser will take the following into consideration: the best
net price available; the reliability, integrity and financial condition of the broker-dealer; the size of and the difficulty in
executing the order; and the value of the expected contribution of the broker-dealer to the investment performance of the Trust on a
continuing basis. Accordingly, the price to the Trust in any transaction may be less favorable than that available from another
broker-dealer if the difference is reasonably justified by other aspects of the fund execution services offered.
(c) Subject
to such policies as the Board of Trustees may from time to time determine, the Adviser shall not be deemed to have acted unlawfully or
to have breached any duty created by this Agreement or otherwise solely by reason of its having caused the Trust to pay a broker or dealer
that provides brokerage and research services to the Adviser an amount of commission for effecting a fund investment transaction in excess
of the amount of commission another broker or dealer would have charged for effecting that transaction, if the Adviser determines in good
faith that such amount of commission was reasonable in relation to the value of the brokerage and research services provided by such broker
or dealer, viewed in terms of either that particular transaction or the Adviser’s overall responsibilities with respect to the Trust,
and to other clients of the Adviser as to which the Adviser exercises investment discretion. The Adviser is further authorized to allocate
the orders placed by it on behalf of the Trust to such brokers and dealers who also provide research or statistical material, or other
services to the Trust, to the Adviser, or to any sub-adviser. Such allocation shall be in such amounts and proportions as the Adviser
shall determine and the Adviser will report on said allocations regularly to the Board of Trustees indicating the brokers to whom such
allocations have been made and the basis therefor.
(d) With
respect to the Trust, to the extent the Adviser does not delegate trading responsibility to one or more sub-advisers, in making decisions
regarding broker-dealer relationships, the Adviser may take into consideration the recommendations of any sub-adviser appointed to provide
investment research or advisory services in connection with the Trust, and may take into consideration any research services provided
to such sub-adviser by broker-dealers.
(e) Subject
to the other provisions of this Section 8, the 1940 Act, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and rules and regulations thereunder,
as such statutes, rules and regulations are amended from time to time or are interpreted from time to time by the staff of the SEC,
any exemptive orders issued by the SEC, and any other applicable provisions of law, the Adviser may select brokers or dealers with which
it or the Trust are affiliated.
(a) (i) by
the Board of Trustees or (ii) by the vote of “a majority of the outstanding voting securities” of the Trust (as defined
in Section 2(a)(42) of the 1940 Act); and
(b) by
the affirmative vote of a majority of the trustees who are not parties to this Agreement or “interested persons” (as defined
in the 1940 Act) of a party to this Agreement (other than as trustees of the Trust), by votes cast in person at a meeting specifically
called for such purpose.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed in duplicate by their respective officers on the day and year first written
above.
The Trust shall pay the Adviser, out
of its assets, as full compensation for all services rendered, an advisory fee for the Trust set forth below.
“Managed assets” for this
purpose means the Trust’s net assets, plus assets attributable to outstanding preferred shares and the amount of any borrowings
incurred for the purpose of leverage (whether or not such borrowed amounts are reflected in the Trust’s financial statements for
purposes of generally accepted accounting principles).
This AMENDED AND
RESTATED MASTER INTERGROUP SUB-ADVISORY CONTRACT (“Contract”) is made as of the 1st
day of July, 2020, by and among Invesco Advisers, Inc. (the “Adviser”) and each of Invesco Canada Ltd., Invesco
Asset Management Deutschland GmbH, Invesco Asset Management Limited, Invesco Asset Management (Japan) Ltd., Invesco Hong
Kong Limited, and Invesco Senior Secured Management, Inc. (each a “Sub-Adviser” and, collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”),
and amends and restates the prior Contract between the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers dated August 27, 2012, as amended to date.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the
promises and the mutual covenants herein contained, it is agreed between the parties hereto as follows:
5. Further Duties.
(a) In
all matters relating to the performance of this Contract, each Sub-Adviser will act in conformity with the Agreement and Declaration of
Trust, By-Laws and Registration Statement of the Trust and with the instructions and directions of the Adviser and the Board and will
comply with the requirements of the 1940 Act, the rules, regulations, exemptive orders and no-action positions thereunder, and all other
applicable laws and regulations.
(b) Each
Sub-Adviser shall maintain compliance procedures for the Trust that it and the Adviser reasonably believe are adequate to ensure
compliance with the federal securities laws (as defined in Rule 38a-1 of the 1940 Act) and the investment objective(s) and
policies as stated in the Trust’s prospectuses and statement of additional information. Each Sub-Adviser at its expense will
provide the Adviser or the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer with such compliance reports relating to its duties under this
Contract as may be requested from time to time. Notwithstanding the foregoing, each Sub-Adviser will promptly report to the Adviser
any material violations of the federal securities laws (as defined in Rule 38a-1 of the 1940 Act) that it is or should be aware
of or of any material violation of the Sub-Adviser’s compliance policies and procedures that pertain to the Trust.
(c) Each
Sub-Adviser at its expense will make available to the Board and the Adviser at reasonable times its portfolio managers and other appropriate
personnel, either in person or, at the mutual convenience of the Adviser and the Sub-Adviser, by telephone, in order to review the investment
policies, performance and other investment related information regarding the Trust and to consult with the Board and the Adviser regarding
the Trust’s investment affairs, including economic, statistical and investment matters related to the Sub-Adviser’s duties
hereunder, and will provide periodic reports to the Adviser relating to the investment strategies it employs. Each Sub-Adviser and its
personnel shall also cooperate fully with counsel and auditors for, and the Chief Compliance Officer of, the Adviser and the Trust.
(d) Each
Sub-Adviser will assist in the fair valuation of portfolio securities held by the Trust. The Sub-Adviser will use its reasonable efforts
to provide, based upon its own expertise, and to arrange with parties independent of the Sub-Adviser such as broker-dealers for the provision
of, valuation information or prices for securities for which prices are deemed by the Adviser or the Trust’s administrator not to
be readily available in the ordinary course of business from an automated pricing service. In addition, each Sub-Adviser will assist the
Trust and its agents in determining whether prices obtained for valuation purposes accurately reflect market price information relating
to the assets of the Trust at such times as the Adviser shall reasonably request, including but not limited to, the hours after the close
of a securities market and prior to the daily determination of the Trust’s net asset value per share.
(e) Each
Sub-Adviser represents and warrants that it has adopted a code of ethics meeting the requirements of Rule 17j-1 under the 1940 Act
and the requirements of Rule 204A-1 under the Advisers Act and has provided the Adviser and the Board a copy of such code of ethics,
together with evidence of its adoption, and will promptly provide copies of any changes thereto, together with evidence of their adoption.
Upon request of the Adviser, but in any event no less frequently than annually, each Sub-Adviser will supply the Adviser a written report
that (A) describes any issues arising under the code of ethics or procedures since the Sub-Adviser’s last report, including
but not limited to material violations of the code of ethics or procedures and sanctions imposed in response to the material violations;
and (B) certifies that the procedures contained in the Sub-Adviser’s code of ethics are reasonably designed to prevent “access
persons” from violating the code of ethics.
(f) Upon
request of the Adviser, each Sub-Adviser will review draft reports to shareholders and other documents provided or available to it and
provide comments on a timely basis. In addition, each Sub-Adviser and each officer and portfolio manager thereof designated by the Adviser
will provide on a timely basis such certifications or sub-certifications as the Adviser may reasonably request in order to support and
facilitate certifications required to be provided by the Trust’s Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer and
will adopt such disclosure controls and procedures in support of the disclosure controls and procedures adopted by the Trust as the Adviser,
on behalf of the Trust, deems are reasonably necessary.
(g) Unless
otherwise directed by the Adviser or the Board, each Sub-Adviser will vote all proxies received in accordance with the Adviser’s
proxy voting policy or, if the Sub-Adviser has a proxy voting policy approved by the Board, the Sub-Adviser’s proxy voting policy.
Each Sub-Adviser shall maintain and shall forward to the Trust or its designated agent such proxy voting information as is necessary for
the Trust to timely file proxy voting results in accordance with Rule 30b1-4 of the 1940 Act.
(h) Each
Sub-Adviser shall provide the Trust’s custodian on each business day with information relating to all transactions concerning the
assets of the Trust and shall provide the Adviser with such information upon request of the Adviser.
6. Services Not Exclusive.
The services furnished by each Sub-Adviser hereunder are not to be deemed exclusive and such Sub-Adviser shall be free to furnish
similar services to others so long as its services under this Contract are not impaired thereby. Nothing in this Contract shall
limit or restrict the right of any director, officer or employee of a Sub-Adviser, who may also be a Trustee, officer or employee of
the Trust, to engage in any other business or to devote his or her time and attention in part to the management or other aspects of
any other business, whether of a similar nature or a dissimilar nature.
(a) The
only fees payable to the Sub-Advisers under this Contract are for providing discretionary investment management services pursuant to paragraph
2(c) above. For such services, the Adviser will pay each Sub-Adviser a fee, computed daily and paid monthly, equal to (i) 40%
of the monthly compensation that the Adviser receives from the Trust pursuant to its advisory agreement with the Trust, multiplied by
(ii) the fraction equal to the net assets of the Trust as to which the Sub-Adviser shall have provided discretionary investment management
services pursuant to paragraph 2(c) above for that month divided by the net assets of the Trust for that month. This fee shall be
payable on or before the last business day of the next succeeding calendar month. This fee shall be reduced to reflect contractual or
voluntary fee waivers or expense limitations by the Adviser, if any, in effect from time to time as set forth in paragraph 9 below. In
no event shall the aggregate monthly fees paid to the Sub-Advisers under this Contract exceed 40% of the monthly compensation that the
Adviser receives from the Trust pursuant to its advisory agreement with the Trust, as reduced to reflect contractual or voluntary fee
waivers or expense limitations by the Adviser, if any.
(b) If
this Contract becomes effective or terminates before the end of any month, the fees for the period from the effective date to the end
of the month or from the beginning of such month to the date of termination, as the case may be, shall be prorated according to the proportion
which such period bears to the full month in which such effectiveness or termination occurs.
(c) If
a Sub-Adviser provides the services under paragraph 2(c) above to a Trust for a period that is less than a full month, the fees for
such period shall be prorated according to the proportion which such period bears to the applicable full month.
11.
Duration and Termination.
(a) This
Contract shall become effective with respect to each Sub-Adviser upon the later of the date hereabove written and the date that such Sub-Adviser
is registered with the SEC as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act, if a Sub-Adviser is not so registered as of the date hereabove
written; provided, however, that this Contract shall not take effect with respect to the Trust unless it has first been approved (i) by
a vote of a majority of the Independent Trustees, cast in person at a meeting called for the purpose of voting on such approval, and (ii) by
vote of a majority of the Trust’s outstanding voting securities, when required by the 1940 Act.
(b) Unless
sooner terminated as provided herein, this Contract shall continue in force and effect until June 30, 2021. Thereafter, if not terminated,
with respect to the Trust, this Contract shall continue automatically for successive periods not to exceed twelve months each, provided
that such continuance is specifically approved at least annually (i) by a vote of a majority of the Independent Trustees, cast in
person at a meeting called for the purpose of voting on such approval, and (ii) by the Board or by vote of a majority of the outstanding
voting securities of the Trust.
(c) Notwithstanding
the foregoing, with respect to the Trust or any Sub-Adviser(s), this Contract may be terminated at any time, without the payment of any
penalty, (i) by vote of the Board or by a vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of the Trust on sixty days’
written notice to such Sub-Adviser(s); or (ii) by the Adviser on sixty days’ written notice to such Sub-Adviser(s); or (iii) by
a Sub-Adviser on sixty days’ written notice to the Trust. Should this Contract be terminated with respect to a Sub-Adviser, the
Adviser shall assume the duties and responsibilities of such Sub-Adviser unless and until the Adviser appoints another Sub-Adviser to
perform such duties and responsibilities. Termination of this Contract with respect to one or more Sub-Adviser(s) shall not affect
the continued effectiveness of this Contract with respect to any remaining Sub-Adviser(s). This Contract will automatically terminate
in the event of its assignment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto
have caused this Contract to be executed by their officers designated as of the day and year first above written.
Invesco Senior Secured Management, Inc.
Invesco Canada Ltd.
Invesco Income
Advantage U.S. Fund
Invesco Short Duration High Yield Municipal
Fund Invesco Short Term Municipal Fund
Invesco Oppenheimer V.I. International Growth
Fund
Invesco® V.I. NASDAQ 100 Buffer Fund - December
Invesco®
V.I. Nasdaq 100 Buffer Fund - June
Invesco® V.I. Nasdaq 100 Buffer Fund - March
Invesco® V.I. Nasdaq 100 Buffer Fund
- September
Invesco® V.I. S&P 500 Buffer Fund - December
Invesco® V.I. S&P 500 Buffer Fund -
June
Invesco® V.I. S&P 500 Buffer Fund - March
Invesco®
V.I. S&P 500 Buffer Fund - September
Invesco V.I. American Franchise Fund
Invesco V.I. American Value Fund
Invesco V.I. Balanced-Risk Allocation Fund
Invesco V.I. Capital Appreciation
Fund
Invesco V.I. Conservative Balanced Fund
Invesco V.I. Comstock Fund
Invesco V.I. Core Equity Fund
Invesco V.I. Core Plus Bond Fund
Invesco V.I. Discovery Mid Cap Growth Fund
Invesco V.I. Diversified
Dividend Fund
Invesco V.I. Equally-Weighted S&P 500 Fund
Invesco V.I. Equity and Income Fund
Invesco V.I. EQV International Equity
Fund
Invesco V.I. Global Core Equity Fund
Invesco V.I. Global Fund
Invesco V.I. Global Real Estate Fund
Invesco V.I. Global Strategic
Income Fund
Invesco V.I. Government Securities Fund
Invesco V.I. Growth and Income Fund
Invesco V.I. Health Care Fund
Invesco V.I. High Yield Fund
Invesco V.I. Main Street Fund ®
Invesco V.I. Main Street Mid Cap Fund®
Invesco V.I. Main Street Small Cap Fund®
Invesco V.I. Small Cap
Equity Fund
Invesco V.I. Technology Fund
(a) In
the event the Custodian becomes subject to a proceeding under a U.S. Special Resolution Regime, the transfer or assignment of this Agreement
(and any interest and obligation in or under, and any property securing, this Agreement) by the Custodian will be effective to the same
extent as the transfer would be effective under the U.S. Special Resolution Regime if this Agreement (and any interest and obligation
in or under, and any property securing, this Agreement) were governed by the laws of the United States or a state of the United States;
and
(b) In
the event the Custodian or an Affiliate of the Custodian becomes subject to a proceeding under a U.S. Special Resolution Regime, Default
Rights with respect to this Agreement that may be exercised against the Custodian are permitted to be exercised to no greater extent than
the Default Rights could be exercised under the U.S. Special Resolution Regime if this Agreement (and any interest and obligation in or
under, and any property securing, this Agreement) were governed by the laws of the United States or a state of the United States.
“Affiliate” has the meaning
given in section 2(k) of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. §1841(k)) and section 225.2(a) of the Federal Reserve
Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR § 225.2(a)).
(i) right of a party, whether
contractual or otherwise (including, without limitation, rights incorporated by reference to any other contract, agreement, or document,
and rights afforded by statute, civil code, regulation, and common law), to liquidate, terminate, cancel, rescind, or accelerate such
agreement or transactions thereunder, set off or net amounts owing in respect thereto (except rights related to same-day payment netting),
exercise remedies in respect of collateral or other credit support or property related thereto (including the purchase and sale of property),
demand payment or delivery thereunder or in respect thereof (other than a right or operation of a contractual provision arising solely
from a change in the value of collateral or margin or a change in the amount of an economic exposure), suspend, delay, or defer payment
or performance thereunder, or modify the obligations of a party thereunder, or any similar rights; and
(ii) right
or contractual provision that alters the amount of collateral or margin that must be provided with respect to an exposure
thereunder, including by altering any initial amount, threshold amount, variation margin, minimum transfer amount, the margin value
of collateral, or any similar amount, that entitles a party to demand the return of any collateral or margin transferred by it to the other party or a custodian or that modifies
a transferee's right to reuse collateral or margin (if such right previously existed), or any similar rights, in each case, other than
a right or operation of a contractual provision arising solely from a change in the value of collateral or margin or a change in the amount
of an economic exposure.
“ISDA” refers to the International Swaps and
Derivatives Association, Inc.
“ISDA Protocol” means the
ISDA 2018 U.S. Resolution Stay Protocol as published by ISDA as of July 31, 2018.
“U.S. Special Resolution Regime”
means the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. §1811–1835a) and regulations promulgated thereunder and Title II of the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. § 5381–5394) and regulations promulgated thereunder.
This Memorandum of Agreement
is entered into as of the effective date on the attached Exhibit A (the “Exhibit”), between AIM Counselor Series Trust
(Invesco Counselor Series Trust), AIM Equity Funds (Invesco Equity Funds), AIM Funds Group (Invesco Funds Group), AIM Growth Series (Invesco
Growth Series), AIM International Mutual Funds (Invesco International Mutual Funds), AIM Investment Funds (Invesco Investment Funds),
AIM Investment Securities Funds (Invesco Investment Securities Funds), AIM Sector Funds (Invesco Sector Funds), AIM Tax-Exempt Funds (Invesco
Tax-Exempt Funds), AIM Treasurer's Series Trust (Invesco Treasurer’s Series Trust), AIM Variable Insurance Funds (Invesco
Variable Insurance Funds), Invesco Advantage Municipal Income Trust II, Invesco Bond Fund, Invesco California Value Municipal
Income Trust, Invesco Dynamic Credit Opportunity Fund, Invesco Exchange Fund, Invesco High Income Trust II, Invesco Management
Trust, Invesco Municipal Income Opportunities Trust, Invesco Municipal Opportunity Trust, Invesco Municipal Trust, Invesco
Pennsylvania Value Municipal Income Trust, Invesco Quality Municipal Income Trust, Invesco Senior Income Trust, Invesco
Trust for Investment Grade Municipals, Invesco Trust for Investment Grade New York Municipals and Invesco Value Municipal Income
Trust (each a “Trust” or, collectively, the “Trusts”), on behalf of the funds listed on the Exhibit to this
Memorandum of Agreement (the “Funds”), and Invesco Advisers, Inc. (“Invesco”). Invesco shall and hereby agrees
to waive fees of the Funds, on behalf of their respective classes as applicable, severally and not jointly, as indicated in the Exhibit.
For and in consideration of
the mutual terms and agreements set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Trusts and Invesco agree that until at least the expiration date set forth on the Exhibit (the “Expiration
Date”) and with respect to those Funds listed on the Exhibit, Invesco will waive its advisory fees at the rate set forth on
the Exhibit.
Neither a Trust nor Invesco
may remove or amend the waivers set forth on the Exhibit to a Fund’s detriment prior to the Expiration Date without requesting
and receiving the approval of the Board of Trustees of the applicable Fund’s Trust to remove or amend such waiver. Invesco will
not have any right to reimbursement of any amount so waived.
Subject to the foregoing paragraphs, Invesco
agrees to review the then-current waivers for each class of the Funds listed on the Exhibit on a date prior to the Expiration Date
to determine whether such waivers should be amended, continued or terminated. The waivers will expire upon the Expiration Date unless
Invesco has agreed to continue them. The Exhibit will be amended to reflect any such agreement.
It is expressly agreed that
the obligations of the Trusts hereunder shall not be binding upon any of the trustees, shareholders, nominees, officers, agents or employees
of the Trusts personally, but shall only bind the assets and property of the Funds, as provided in each Trust’s Agreement and Declaration
of Trust. The execution and delivery of this Memorandum of Agreement have been authorized by the trustees of each Trust, and this Memorandum
of Agreement has been executed and delivered by an authorized officer of each Trust acting as such; neither such authorization by such
trustees nor such execution and delivery by such officer shall be deemed to have been made by any of them individually or to impose any
liability on any of them personally, but shall bind only the assets and property of the Funds, as provided in each Trust’s Agreement
and Declaration of Trust.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of
the Trusts, on behalf of itself and its Funds listed on Exhibit A to this Memorandum of Agreement, and Invesco have entered into
this Memorandum of Agreement as of the Effective Date on the attached Exhibit.
This Amendment No. 2
(“Amendment”), dated October 1, 2019, hereby amends that certain Transfer Agency and Service Agreement by and among each
of the Invesco Closed-End Investment Companies, severally and not jointly set forth in Schedule A thereto (each such investment
company, a “Fund’’), and Computershare Inc., and its fully owned subsidiary Computershare Trust Company, N.A.
(collectively, “Agent”, and individually, “Computershare” and the “Trust Company”, respectively,
dated October 1, 2016 (the “Agreement’’).
WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement as parties
to the Agreement; and
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration
of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein and in compliance with the Agreement, the parties hereby agree as follows;
Rev. 8/27/2019
This AMENDED AND
RESTATED MASTER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made this 1st
day of July, 2020, by and between Invesco Advisers, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Administrator") and INVESCO MUNICIPAL
INCOME OPPORTUNITIES TRUST, a Delaware statutory trust (the "Trust"), amends and restates the prior Agreement between the Administrator
and the Trust, dated June 1, 2010, as amended to date.
WHEREAS, the Trust
is a closed--end investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the "1940 Act"); and
WHEREAS, the Trust,
has retained the Administrator to perform (or arrange for the performance of) accounting, shareholder servicing and other administrative
services as well as investment advisory services to the Trust, and that the Administrator may receive reasonable compensation or may be
reimbursed for its costs in providing such additional services, upon the request of the Board of Trustees and upon a finding by the Board
of Trustees that the provision of such services is in the best interest of the Trust and itsshareholders; and
WHEREAS, the Board
of Trustees has found that the provision of such administrative services is in the best interest of the Trust and its shareholders, and
has requested that the Administrator perform such services;
1. The Administrator
hereby agrees to provide, or arrange for the provision of, any or all of the following services by the Administrator or its affiliates:
(a) the
services of a principal financial officer of the Trust (including related office space, facilities and equipment) whose normal duties
consist of maintaining the financial accounts and books and records of the Trust, including the review of daily net asset value calculations
and the preparation of tax returns; and the services (including related office space, facilities and equipment) of any of the personnel
operating under the direction of such principal financial officer;
(b) to
the extent not otherwise required under the Administrator's investment advisory agreement with the Trust, supervising the operations of
the custodian(s), transfer agent(s) or dividend paying agent(s) for the Trust, auction agent(s) for the Trust 's preferred
shares, if issued, and other agents as agreed upon by the Trust; or otherwise providing services to shareholders of the Trust; and the
Administrator from time to time;
(c) supervising
the Trust's relationship with any stock exchange on which the Trust's common shares are listed; and
2. The services provided hereunder shall
at all times be subject to the direction and supervision of the Trust's Board of Trustees.
4. The
Administrator shall not be liable for any error of judgment or for any loss suffered by the Trust in connection with any matter to which
this Agreement relates, except a loss resulting from the Administrator's willful misfeasance, bad faith or gross negligence in the performance
of its duties or from reckless disregard of its obligations and duties under this Agreement.
5. The
Trust and the Administrator each hereby represent and warrant, but only as to themselves, that each has all requisite authority to enter
into, execute, deliver and perform its obligations under this Agreement and that this Agreement is legal, valid and binding, and enforceable
in accordance with its terms.
7. This
Agreement shall become effective with respect to the Trust on the Effective Date for the Trust, as set forth in Appendix A attached hereto.
This Agreement shall continue in effect until June 30, 2021, and may be continued from year to year thereafter, provided that the
continuation of the Agreement is specifically approved at least annually:
(a) (i) by
the Trust's Board of Trustees or (ii) by the vote of "a majority of the outstanding voting securities" of the Trust (as
defined in Section 2(a)(42) of the 1940 Act); and
This Agreement
shall terminate automatically in the event of its assignment (as defined in the 1940 Act and the rules thereunder), except that the
Trust may assign this Agreement, without approval of the Administrator, 1) to a successor in connection with a redomestication of the
Trust and 2) to another fund within the Invesco family of funds in connection with a merger or reorganization of the Trust and such other
Invesco fund
8. This
Agreement may be amended or modified with respect to the Trust, but only by a written instrument signed by both the Trust and the Administrator.
10. Any notice or other
communication required to be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be deemed duly given if delivered or mailed by registered mail,
postage prepaid, (a) to the Administrator at 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1000, Houston, Texas 77046, Attention: President,
with a copy to the General Counsel, or (b) to the Trust at 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1000, Houston, Texas 77046, Attention:
President, with a copy to the General Counsel.
12. This
Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws (without reference to conflicts of law provisions) of the State
of Texas.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto
have caused this instrument to be executed by their officers designated below as of the day and year first above written.
The Administrator may receive from the
Trust reimbursement for costs or reasonable compensation for such services as follows:
** Invesco Fund Complex Net Assets means
the aggregate monthly net assets of each mutual fund and closed-end fund in the Invesco Fund complex overseen by the Invesco Funds Board.