Edgar Filing: MARKET VECTORS ETF TRUST

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has not approved or disapproved these securities or passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of this Prospectus. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offense.

Market Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (the “Fund”) seeks to replicate as closely as possible, before fees and expenses, the price and yield performance of the ChinaBond China High Quality Bond Index (the “Index”).

The following tables describe the fees and expenses that you may pay if you buy and hold shares of the Fund (“Shares”).

This example is intended to help you compare the cost of investing in the Fund with the cost of investing in other funds. This example does not take into account brokerage commissions that you pay when purchasing or selling Shares of the Fund.

The example assumes that you invest $10,000 in the Fund for the time periods indicated and then redeem all of your Shares at the end of those periods. The example also assumes that your investment has a 5% annual return and that the Fund’s operating expenses remain the same. Although your actual costs may be higher or lower, based on these assumptions, your costs would be:

The Fund will pay transaction costs, such as commissions, when it purchases and sells securities (or “turns over” its portfolio). A higher portfolio turnover will cause the Fund to incur additional transaction costs and may result in higher taxes when Fund Shares are held in a taxable account. These costs, which are not reflected in annual fund operating expenses or in the example, may affect the Fund’s performance. Because the Fund is newly organized, no portfolio turnover figures are available.

The Fund normally invests at least 80% of its total assets in securities that comprise the Fund’s benchmark index. The Index is comprised of fixed-rate, Renminbi (“RMB”)-denominated bonds issued in the People’s Republic of China (“China” or the “PRC”) by Chinese credit, governmental or quasi-governmental (e.g., policy banks) issuers (“RMB Bonds”). Chinese credit issuers are generally considered to be issuers of central enterprise bonds, local enterprise bonds, medium-term notes, corporate bonds and railway debt. Credit RMB Bonds must have at least one AAA rating by one of the Chinese local rating agencies recognized by the relevant authorities in the PRC to be included in the Index. China currently has three policy banks, which are state-owned banks responsible for financing economic and trade development and state-invested projects. As of September 30, 2014, the Index was comprised of 1,446 bonds of 244 issuers. The Fund’s 80% investment policy is non-fundamental and may be changed without shareholder approval upon 60 days’ prior written notice to shareholders.

The Fund, using a “passive” or indexing investment approach, attempts to approximate the investment performance of the Index. Because of the practical difficulties and expense of purchasing all of the securities in the Index, the Fund does not purchase all of the securities in the Index. Instead, the Adviser and/or Sub-Adviser (defined below) utilize a “sampling” methodology in seeking to achieve the Fund’s objective. As such, the Fund may purchase a subset of the bonds in the Index in an effort to hold a portfolio of bonds with generally the same risk and return characteristics of the Index.

RMB Bonds are traded on the inter-bank bond market or the exchange-traded bond market in the PRC. Currently, the inter-bank bond market is much larger with respect to trading volume and is generally considered more liquid than the exchange-traded bond market. The inter-bank bond market is a quote-driven over-the-counter (“OTC”) market for institutional investors, while the exchange-traded bond market is an electronic automatic matching system where securities are traded on the Shanghai Stock Exchange or the Shenzhen Stock Exchange. These RMB Bonds are made available to domestic PRC investors and certain foreign investors, including principally those that have been approved as a Renminbi Qualified Foreign Institutional Investor (“RQFII”) or a Qualified Foreign Institutional Investor (“QFII”). An RQFII or QFII license may be obtained by application to the China Securities Regulatory Commission (“CSRC”). After obtaining a RQFII or QFII license, the RQFII or QFII would also apply to China’s State Administration of Foreign Exchange (“SAFE”) for a specific aggregate dollar amount investment quota in which the RQFII or QFII can invest in RMB Bonds. Investment companies are not currently within the types of entities that are eligible for a RQFII or QFII license.

The Fund will seek to achieve its investment objective by primarily investing in RMB Bonds. Because the Fund does not satisfy the criteria to qualify as a RQFII or QFII itself, the Fund intends to invest directly in RMB Bonds via the quota of China Asset Management (Hong Kong) Limited (the “Sub-Adviser”), the Fund’s Sub-Adviser. The Sub-Adviser has obtained RQFII status and has been granted an RQFII quota, which the Sub-Adviser will use to invest the Fund’s assets in RMB Bonds. At such time that the Sub-Adviser has utilized its entire RQFII quota, the Sub-Adviser may, subject to applicable regulations, apply for an increase of the RQFII quota. The size of the Fund’s direct investment in RMB Bonds will be limited by the size of the RQFII quota of the Sub-Adviser unless the Fund is able to enter into another sub-advisory agreement with another sub-adviser who has an RQFII quota.

The Fund may concentrate its investments in a particular industry or group of industries to the extent that the Index concentrates in an industry or group of industries. As of September 30, 2014, the Index was concentrated in the financial services sector, and each of the industrials, energy and government sectors represented a significant portion of the Index.

Investors in the Fund should be willing to accept a high degree of volatility in the price of the Fund’s Shares and the possibility of significant losses. An investment in the Fund involves a substantial degree of risk. An investment in the Fund is not a deposit with a bank and is not insured or guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or any other government agency. Therefore, you should consider carefully the following risks before investing in the Fund, each of which could significantly and adversely affect the value of an investment in the Fund.

Risk of Investing in RMB Bonds. Investing in RMB Bonds involves additional risks, including, but not limited to, the economy of China differs, often unfavorably, from the U.S. economy, including, among other things, structure, general development, government involvement, wealth distribution, rate of inflation, growth rate, allocation of resources and capital reinvestment, among others; the central government has historically exercised substantial control over virtually every sector of the Chinese economy through administrative regulation and/or state ownership; actions of the Chinese central and local government authorities continue to have a substantial effect on economic conditions in China; the risk of nationalization or expropriation of assets; the risk that the Chinese government may decide not to continue to support economic reform programs; and the risk of increased trade tariffs, embargoes and other trade limitations. In addition, previously the Chinese government has from time to time taken actions that influence the prices at which certain goods may be sold, encourage companies to invest or concentrate in particular industries, induce mergers between companies in certain industries and induce private companies to publicly offer their securities to increase or continue the rate of economic growth, control the rate of inflation or otherwise regulate economic expansion. It may do so in the future as well, potentially having a significant adverse effect on economic conditions in China, the economic prospects for, and the market prices and liquidity of, RMB Bonds. Investment and trading restrictions may make it difficult for non-Chinese investors to directly access securities by Chinese issuers. These restrictions may impact the availability, liquidity, and pricing of certain RMB-denominated securities, including RMB Bonds. Additionally, the Chinese government maintains strict currency controls and regularly intervenes in the currency market. The Chinese government’s actions may not be transparent or predictable. As a result, the value of the RMB and the value of RMB Bonds may change quickly and arbitrarily.

The financial market of the PRC is at an early stage of development, and many of the RMB Bonds in which the Fund may invest are unrated by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. (“Moody’s), Standard & Poor’s Rating Services (“S&P”) and Fitch International Rating Agency (“Fitch”), which may expose the Fund to greater risks because of generally reduced liquidity, greater price volatility and greater credit risk. RMB Bonds are generally rated by local credit rating agencies. The rating industry in the PRC is still in its early development stage. The rating process may lack transparency and the rating standards may be significantly different from those adopted by internationally recognized credit rating agencies. The value of such RMB Bonds may be more difficult to ascertain and thus the Fund’s net asset value (“NAV”) may be more volatile. Additionally, the Chinese securities markets are emerging markets characterized by relatively low trading volume, resulting in substantially less liquidity and greater price volatility than developed markets generally. There is also less regulation and governmental monitoring of Chinese securities markets and the activities of investors, brokers and other participants than in developed markets generally. Accounting, auditing and financial reporting standards in China are different from U.S. standards and, therefore, disclosure of certain material information may not be made. In addition, less information may be available to the Fund and other investors than would be the case if the Fund’s investments were restricted to securities of U.S. issuers. There is also generally less governmental regulation of the securities industry in China, and less enforcement of regulatory provisions relating thereto, than in the United States.

The Fund may also encounter difficulties or delays in enforcing its rights against issuers of RMB Bonds that are organized in the PRC and therefore only subject to the laws of the PRC. Mainland China’s legal system is based on statutes enacted by various state bodies dealing with economic matters such as foreign investment, company organization and governance, taxation and trade. These laws are quite recent with published court opinions based on these being limited and non-binding. This makes the interpretation and enforcement of these laws and regulations uncertain. With respect to laws pertaining to bankruptcy proceedings, such laws in mainland China are generally less developed than and different from such laws in the United States. Therefore, bankruptcy proceedings can take more time to resolve than similar proceedings in the United States and results can be unpredictable. These and other factors could have a negative impact on the Fund’s performance and increase the volatility of an investment in the Fund.

Risk of the RQFII Regime and the Fund’s Principal Investment Strategy. The Index is comprised of RMB Bonds. In seeking to track the Index, the Fund intends to primarily invest in RMB Bonds through the Sub-Adviser’s RQFII quota. Because the Fund will not be able to invest in these RMB Bonds in excess of the Sub-Adviser’s RQFII quota, the size of the Fund’s investment in such RMB Bonds may be limited. In addition, the RQFII quota of the Sub-Adviser may be reduced or revoked by the Chinese regulators if, among other things, the Sub-Adviser fails to observe SAFE and other applicable Chinese regulations. There can be no assurance the Fund could retain a replacement sub-adviser with an RQFII quota if that became necessary or appropriate for any reason. The Fund cannot predict what would occur if the RQFII quota of the Sub-Adviser or RQFII or QFII quotas generally were reduced or eliminated, although such an occurrence would likely have a material adverse effect on the Fund, including the requirement that the Sub-Adviser on behalf of the Fund dispose of certain or all of its RMB Bonds. Therefore, any such reduction or elimination may have a material adverse effect on the ability of the Fund to achieve its investment objective. If the Fund is unable to obtain sufficient exposure to the performance of the Index due to the limited availability of the Sub-Adviser’s RQFII quota or for other reasons, the Fund, subject to any necessary regulatory relief, could, among other things, as a defensive measure limit or suspend creations until the Adviser and/or the Sub-Adviser determine that the requisite exposure to RMB Bonds is obtainable. If any of the above events were to occur, the Fund could trade at a significant premium or discount to its NAV and could experience substantial redemptions, and the Fund could, among other things, change its investment objective by, for example, seeking to track an alternative index focused on Chinese-related bonds or other appropriate investments, or decide to liquidate.

The regulations which regulate investments by RQFIIs in the PRC and the repatriation of capital from RQFII investments are relatively new. The application and interpretation of such investment regulations are therefore relatively untested and there is no certainty as to how they will be applied. The PRC authorities and regulators have been given wide discretion in applying and interpreting such investment regulations and there is no precedent or certainty as to how such discretion may be exercised now or in the future. The application and interpretation of such investment regulations may adversely affect the Fund.

In addition, there are custody risks associated with investing through a RQFII, where, due to requirements regarding establishing a custody account in the joint names of the Fund and the Sub-Adviser, the Fund’s assets may not be as well protected from the claims of the Sub-Adviser’s creditors than if the Fund had an account in its name only.

gains. However, it is unclear if this tax will be applied to investments by an RQFII such as the Sub-Adviser or what the methodology for calculating or collecting the tax will be. Withholding taxes on dividends, interest and capital gains may be taxed at a reduced rate under an applicable tax treaty, but the application of such treaties for an RQFII acting on behalf of a foreign investor (i.e., the Sub-Adviser acting on behalf of the Fund) is also uncertain and would depend upon the approval of PRC tax authorities. It is also unclear how China’s business tax may apply to activities of an RQFII such as the Sub-Adviser and how such application may be affected by tax treaty provisions. The current PRC tax laws and regulations and interpretations thereof may be revised or amended in the future, including with respect to the possible liability of the Fund for obligations of the Sub-Adviser, and may be applied retroactively. Any revision or amendment in tax laws and regulations may adversely affect the Fund. The Fund, as of the date of the Prospectus, reserves 10% of its realized and unrealized gains from its RMB Bond investments to apply towards withholding tax liability. The tax reserve will be reflected in the Fund’s daily NAV calculations as a deduction from the Fund’s NAV. This reserve may turn out to be excessive or inadequate in light of the Fund’s actual tax liabilities. Therefore, if the Fund’s tax reserve turns out to be excessive or inadequate and the Fund’s tax reserve and related deduction from NAV is modified accordingly, this will work to the benefit or detriment, respectively, of the Fund’s existing shareholders at the time the uncertainty surrounding the Fund’s tax liabilities is resolved. In the event that the Fund discontinues reserving against the potential tax liability from these realized and unrealized gains, the Fund would likely release its reserve related to the capital gains theretofore maintained back to the Fund, which would increase the Fund’s NAV and could increase a shareholder’s tax liability regardless of when the shareholder purchased his or her Shares. If the PRC were thereafter to begin applying tax rules regarding the taxation of capital gains from RMB Bond investment to RQFIIs, such as the Sub-Adviser, and/or begin collecting capital gains taxes on such investments, the Fund could be subject to withholding tax liability. The impact of any such tax liability on the Fund’s return could be substantial. The Fund may also be liable to the Sub-Adviser for any tax that is imposed on the Sub-Adviser by the PRC with respect to the Fund’s investments.

The Sub-Adviser, as a licensed RQFII, is currently permitted to repatriate RMB daily and is not subject to RMB repatriation restrictions or prior approval. However, there is no assurance that RQFIIs may not be subject to restrictions or prior approval requirements in the future. Any additional restrictions imposed on the Sub-Adviser or RQFIIs generally may have an adverse effect on the Fund’s ability to invest directly in RMB Bonds and its ability to meet redemption requests. If the Fund’s investments in RMB Bonds through the Sub-Adviser’s RQFII quota become subject to repatriation restrictions, the Fund may be unable to satisfy distribution requirements applicable to regulated investment companies (“RICs”) under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Internal Revenue Code”), and be subject to income and excise tax at the Fund level. In addition, the Fund could be required to recognize unrealized gains, pay taxes and make distributions before re-qualifying for taxation as a RIC. See the prospectus under “Shareholder Information—Tax Information—Taxes on Distributions” for more information. The Fund may elect, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, to treat Chinese taxes (including withholding taxes) paid by the Fund as paid by its shareholders. Even if the Fund is qualified to make that election and does so this treatment will not apply with respect to amounts the Fund reserves in anticipation of the imposition of withholding taxes not currently in effect (as discussed above). If these amounts are used to pay any tax liability of the Fund in a later year, they will be treated as paid by the shareholders in such later year, even if they are imposed with respect to income of an earlier year. See the prospectus under “Shareholder Information—Tax Information” for a further description of this risk.

Renminbi Currency Risk. Emerging markets such as China can experience high rates of inflation, deflation and currency devaluation. The value of the RMB may be subject to a high degree of fluctuation due to, among other things, changes in interest rates, the effects of monetary policies issued by the PRC, the United States, foreign governments, central banks or supranational entities, the imposition of currency controls or other national or global political or economic developments. The Fund invests a significant

portion of its assets in investments denominated in RMB and the income received by the Fund will principally be in RMB. The Fund’s exposure to the RMB and changes in value of the RMB versus the U.S. dollar may result in reduced returns for the Fund. Moreover, the Fund may incur costs in connection with conversions between U.S. dollars and RMB. The RMB is currently not a freely convertible currency. The Chinese government places strict regulation on the RMB and sets the value of the RMB to levels dependent on the value of the U.S. dollar, but the Chinese government has been under pressure to manage the currency in a less restrictive fashion so that it is less correlated to the U.S. dollar. The Chinese government’s imposition of restrictions on the repatriation of RMB out of mainland China may limit the depth of the offshore RMB market and reduce the liquidity of the Fund’s investments. There may not be sufficient amounts of RMB for the Fund to be fully invested because the Fund has to convert U.S. dollars received from the purchase of Creation Units (defined herein) into RMB to purchase RMB Bonds. As a result, these restrictions may adversely affect the Fund and its investments and may increase the risk of Index tracking error. The international community has requested that China ease its restrictions on currency exchange, but it is unclear whether the Chinese government will change its policy. These restrictions may adversely affect the Fund and its investments.

Chinese Banking Industry Risk. The Chinese banking industry is a highly regulated industry and is subject to laws and regulations touching all aspects of the banking business. The principal regulators include the China Banking Regulatory Commission (“CBRC”) and the People’s Bank of China (“PBOC”). These regulators are given wide discretion in exercising their authority. The banking regulatory regime in China is currently undergoing significant changes, including changes in laws and regulations, as it moves toward a more transparent regulatory process. Some of these changes may have an adverse impact on the performance of Chinese banks that issued RMB Bonds and thus may adversely affect their capacity to honor their commitments under the RMB Bonds to the holders of such bonds, which may include the Fund.

Risk of Investing in the Financial Services Sector. To the extent that the Index continues to be concentrated in the financial services sector, the Fund will be sensitive to changes in, and its performance will depend to a greater extent on, the overall condition of the financial services sector. Companies in the financial services sector may be subject to extensive government regulation that affects the scope of their activities, the prices they can charge and the amount of capital they must maintain. The profitability of companies in the financial services sector may be adversely affected by increases in interest rates, by loan losses, which usually increase in economic downturns, and by credit rating downgrades. In addition, the financial services sector is undergoing numerous changes, including continuing consolidations, development of new products and structures and changes to its regulatory framework. Furthermore, some companies in the financial services sector perceived as benefitting from government intervention in the past may be subject to future government-imposed restrictions on their businesses or face increased government involvement in their operations. Increased government involvement in the financial services sector, including measures such as taking ownership positions in financial institutions, could result in a dilution of the Fund’s investments in financial institutions. Recent developments in the credit markets may cause companies operating in the financial services sector to incur large losses, experience declines in the value of their assets and even cease operations.

Risk of Investing in the Industrials Sector. To the extent that the industrials sector continues to represent a significant portion of the Index, the Fund will be sensitive to changes in, and its performance may depend to a greater extent on, the overall condition of the industrials sector. Companies in the industrials sector may be adversely affected by changes in government regulation, world events and economic conditions. In addition, companies in the industrials sector may be adversely affected by environmental damages, product liability claims and exchange rates.

Risk of Investing in the Energy Sector. To the extent that the energy sector continues to represent a significant portion of the Index, the Fund will be sensitive to changes in, and its performance may depend to a greater extent on, the overall condition of the energy sector. Companies operating in the energy sector are subject to risks including, but not limited to, economic growth, worldwide demand, political instability in the regions that the companies operate, government regulation stipulating rates charged by utilities, interest rate sensitivity, oil price volatility, energy conservation, environmental policies, depletion of resources and the cost of providing the specific utility services. In addition, these companies are at risk of civil liability from accidents resulting in injury, loss of life or property, pollution or other environmental damage claims and risk of loss from terrorism and natural disasters.

Sovereign and Quasi-Sovereign Bond Risk. Investments in sovereign and quasi-sovereign bonds involve special risks not present in corporate bonds. The governmental authority that controls the repayment of the bonds may be unable or unwilling to make interest payments and/or repay the principal on its bonds or to otherwise honor its obligations. If an issuer of sovereign or quasi-sovereign bonds defaults on payments of principal and/or interest, the Fund may have limited recourse against the issuer. During periods of economic uncertainty, the market prices of sovereign and quasi-sovereign bonds, and the Fund’s NAV, may be more volatile than prices of corporate bonds, which has resulted in losses to the holders of such bonds. In the past, certain governments of emerging market countries have declared themselves unable to meet their financial obligations on a timely basis, which has resulted in losses for holders of such sovereign and quasi-sovereign bonds.

Credit Risk. Bonds are subject to credit risk. Credit risk refers to the possibility that the issuer of a security will be unable and/or unwilling to make timely interest payments and/or repay the principal on its debt or to otherwise honor its obligations. Bonds are subject to varying degrees of credit risk which may be reflected in credit ratings. There is a possibility that the credit rating of a bond may be downgraded after purchase or the perception an issuer’s credit worthiness may decline, which may adversely affect the value of the security.

Interest Rate Risk. Bonds are also subject to interest rate risk. Interest rate risk refers to fluctuations in the value of a bond resulting from changes in the general level of interest rates. When the general level of interest rates goes up, the prices of most bonds go down. When the general level of interest rates goes down, the prices of most bonds go up. The historically low interest rate environment in the United States increases the risk associated with rising interest rates, including the potential for periods of volatility and increased redemptions. The Fund may face a heightened level of interest rate risk, since the U.S. Federal Reserve Board has begun tapering its quantitative easing program, which may indirectly affect the value of RMB Bonds. In addition, bonds with longer durations tend to be more sensitive to interest rate changes, usually making them more volatile than bonds with shorter durations.

Risk of Subordinated Obligations. Payments under some RMB Bonds may be structurally subordinated to all existing and future liabilities and obligations of each of the respective subsidiaries and associated companies of an issuer of a RMB Bond. Claims of creditors of such subsidiaries and associated companies will have priority as to the assets of such subsidiaries and associated companies over the issuer and its creditors, including the Fund, who seek to enforce the RMB Bond. Certain RMB Bonds do not contain any restrictions on the ability of the subsidiaries of the issuers to incur additional unsecured indebtedness.

influence on the prices of securities that trade in such markets. The risks of investing in emerging market countries are greater than risks associated with investments in foreign developed countries.

Risk of Investing in Emerging Market Issuers. Investments in emerging markets issuers are exposed to a number of risks that may make these investments volatile in price or difficult to trade. Political risks may include unstable governments, nationalization, restrictions on foreign ownership, laws that prevent investors from getting their money out of a country and legal systems that do not protect property rights as well as the laws of the United States. Market risks may include economies that concentrate in only a few industries, securities issues that are held by only a few investors, liquidity issues and limited trading capacity in local exchanges and the possibility that markets or issues may be manipulated by foreign nationals who have inside information.

Market Risk. The prices of the securities in the Fund are subject to the risks associated with investing in bonds, including general economic conditions and sudden and unpredictable drops in value. An investment in the Fund may lose money.

Sampling Risk. The Fund’s use of a representative sampling approach will result in its holding a smaller number of securities than are in the Index. As a result, an adverse development respecting an issuer of securities held by the Fund could result in a greater decline in NAV than would be the case if the Fund held all of the securities in the Index. Conversely, a positive development relating to an issuer of securities in the Index that is not held by the Fund could cause the Fund to underperform the Index. To the extent the assets in the Fund are smaller, these risks will be greater.

Risk of Cash Transactions. Unlike most other exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”), the Fund expects to effect its creations and redemptions principally for cash, rather than in-kind securities. As such, investments in Shares may be less tax-efficient than an investment in a conventional ETF.

Index Tracking Risk. The Fund’s return may not match the return of the Index for a number of reasons. For example, the Fund incurs a number of operating expenses not applicable to the Index and incurs costs associated with buying and selling securities, especially when rebalancing the Fund’s securities holdings to reflect changes in the composition of the Index and raising cash to meet redemptions or deploying cash in connection with newly created Creation Units (defined herein). Because the Fund bears the costs and risks associated with buying and selling securities while such costs are not factored into the return of the Index, the Fund’s return may deviate significantly from the return of the Index. The Fund may not be fully invested at times either as a result of cash flows into the Fund or reserves of cash held by the Fund to meet redemptions or pay expenses. In addition, the Fund’s use of a representative sampling approach may cause the Fund to not be as well correlated with the return of the Index as would be the case if the Fund purchased all of the securities in the Index in the proportions represented in the Index. Moreover, the Fund does not currently have access to the inter-bank bond market and intends to invest primarily in exchange-traded bonds. To the extent that the Fund does not have access to the inter-bank bond market, it may adversely affect the Fund’s ability to track the Index. To the extent the Fund calculates its NAV based on fair value prices and the value of the Index is based on securities’ closing prices on local foreign markets (i.e., the value of the Index is not based on fair value prices), the Fund’s ability to track the Index may be adversely affected. The Fund will be required to remit RMB to settle the purchase of RMB Bonds and repatriate RMB to U.S. dollars to settle redemption orders. In the event such remittance is delayed or disrupted, the Fund will not be able to fully replicate the Index by investing in the relevant RMB Bonds, which may lead to increased tracking error, and may need to rely on borrowings to meet redemptions, which may lead to increased expenses. In light of the above factors and the maintenance of a tax reserve as a provision for potential Chinese taxes as discussed above, the Fund’s return may deviate significantly from the return of the Index.

Replication Management Risk. An investment in the Fund involves risks similar to those of investing in any bond fund, such as market fluctuations caused by such factors as economic and political developments, changes in interest rates and perceived trends in security prices. However, because the

Fund is not “actively” managed, unless a specific security is removed from the Index, the Fund generally would not sell a security because the security’s issuer was in financial trouble. Therefore, the Fund’s performance could be lower than funds that may actively shift their portfolio assets to take advantage of market opportunities or to lessen the impact of a market decline or a decline in the value of one or more issuers.

Premium/Discount Risk. Disruptions to creations and redemptions, the existence of extreme market volatility or potential lack of an active trading market for Shares may result in Shares trading at a significant premium or discount to NAV. If a shareholder purchases Shares at a time when the market price is at a premium to the NAV or sells Shares at a time when the market price is at a discount to the NAV, the shareholder may sustain losses.

Non-Diversified Risk. The Fund is classified as a “non-diversified” investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). Therefore, the Fund may invest a relatively high percentage of its assets in a smaller number of issuers or may invest a larger proportion of its assets in a single issuer. As a result, the gains and losses on a single investment may have a greater impact on the Fund’s NAV and may make the Fund more volatile than more diversified funds.

Concentration Risk. The Fund’s assets may be concentrated in a particular sector or sectors or industry or group of industries to the extent the Index concentrates in a particular sector or sectors or industry or group of industries. Based on the current composition of the Index, the Fund’s assets are concentrated in the financial services sector; therefore, the Fund will be subject to the risk that economic, political or other conditions that have a negative effect on that sector will negatively impact the Fund to a greater extent than if the Fund’s assets were invested in a wider variety of sectors or industries.

The Fund has not yet commenced operations and therefore does not have a performance history. Once available, the Fund’s performance information will be accessible on the Fund’s website at www.marketvectorsetfs.com.

Portfolio Managers. The following individuals are jointly and primarily responsible for the day-to-day management of the Fund’s portfolio:

The Fund issues and redeems Shares at NAV only in a large specified number of Shares each called a “Creation Unit,” or multiples thereof. A Creation Unit consists of 100,000 Shares.

Individual Shares of the Fund may only be purchased and sold in secondary market transactions through brokers. Shares of the Fund are expected to be approved for listing, subject to notice of issuance, on NYSE Arca Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) and because Shares will trade at market prices rather than NAV, Shares of the Fund may trade at a price greater than or less than NAV.

The Fund’s distributions are taxable and will generally be taxed as ordinary income or capital gains.

The Fund uses a sampling approach in seeking to achieve its investment objective. Sampling means that the Adviser or Sub-Adviser uses quantitative analysis to select a representative sample of securities that the Adviser or Sub-Adviser, respectively, believes collectively have an investment profile similar to the underlying Index. The Adviser or Sub-Adviser, as applicable, seeks to select securities that will have, in the aggregate, investment characteristics (such as return variability, duration, maturity or credit ratings and yield) and liquidity measures similar to those of the Index. The quantity of holdings in the Fund will be based on a number of factors, including asset size of the Fund.

The Adviser generally expects the Fund to hold less than the total number of securities in the Index, but reserves the right to hold as many securities as it believes necessary to achieve the Fund’s investment objective. In addition, from time to time, securities are added to or removed from the Index. The Fund may sell securities that are represented in the Index, or purchase securities that are not yet represented in its Index, in anticipation of their removal from or addition to such Index. Further, the Adviser and/or Sub-Adviser may choose to underweight or overweight securities, purchase or sell securities not in an Index, or utilize various combinations of other available investment techniques, in seeking to track the Index.

The Fund’s assets will be primarily invested in RMB Bonds. Because the Fund does not satisfy the criteria to qualify as a RQFII or QFII itself, the Fund intends to invest directly in RMB Bonds via the Sub-Adviser’s RQFII quota. In the event that the Sub-Adviser’s RQFII quota is or becomes inadequate or if the Sub-Adviser is unable to maintain its RQFII status or to seek to replicate the Index through the other means described in this Prospectus, the Fund may retain one or more additional sub-advisers that maintain RQFII licenses and/or the Adviser may obtain a QFII quota and the Adviser or additional sub-adviser(s), on behalf of the Fund, may invest in RMB Bonds up to the amount specified in the Adviser’s or additional sub-adviser(s)’s QFII or RQFII quota, respectively.

The Fund may also invest in securities not included in the Index, money market instruments, convertible securities, structured notes (notes on which the amount of principal repayment and interest payments are based on the movement of one or more specified factors, such as the movement of a particular stock or stock index and certain derivatives, which the Adviser or Sub-Adviser believes will help the Fund track the Index). Convertible securities and depositary receipts not included in the Index may be used by the Fund in seeking performance that corresponds to the Index, and in managing cash flows, and may count towards compliance with the Fund’s 80% policy. The Fund may also invest, to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act, in other affiliated and unaffiliated funds, such as open-end or closed-end management investment companies, including other ETFs. The Fund will not, however, invest in money market instruments as part of a temporary defensive strategy to protect against potential securities market declines.

An authorized participant (i.e., a person eligible to place orders with the Distributor (defined below) to create or redeem Creation Units of the Fund) that is not a “qualified institutional buyer,” as such term is defined under Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), will not be able to receive, as part of a redemption, restricted securities eligible for resale under Rule 144A.

The Fund may borrow money from a bank up to a limit of one-third of the market value of its assets. The Fund intends to enter into a credit facility to borrow money for temporary or emergency purposes, including the funding of shareholder redemption requests, trade settlements and as necessary to distribute

to shareholders any income required to maintain the Fund’s status as a RIC. To the extent that the Fund borrows money, it will be leveraged; at such times, the Fund will appreciate or depreciate in value more rapidly than the Index.

The Fund’s investment objective and each of its other investment policies are non-fundamental policies that may be changed by the Board of Trustees without shareholder approval, except as noted in this Prospectus or in the Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) under the section entitled “Investment Policies and Restrictions—Investment Restrictions.”

The Fund may lend its portfolio securities to brokers, dealers and other financial institutions desiring to borrow securities to complete transactions and for other purposes. In connection with such loans, the Fund receives liquid collateral equal to at least 102% of the value of the portfolio securities being loaned. This collateral is marked-to-market on a daily basis. Although the Fund will receive collateral in connection with all loans of its securities holdings, the Fund would be exposed to a risk of loss should a borrower fail to return the borrowed securities (e.g., the Fund would have to buy replacement securities and the loaned securities may have appreciated beyond the value of the collateral held by the Fund) or become insolvent. The Fund may pay fees to the party arranging the loan of securities. In addition, the Fund will bear the risk of loss of any cash collateral that it invests.

The following section provides additional information regarding the principal risks identified under “Principal Risks of Investing in the Fund” in the Fund’s “Summary Information” section followed by additional risk information.

Risk of Investing in RMB Bonds. Investments in RMB Bonds involve certain risks and special considerations, including the following:

Political and Economic Risk. The economy of China, which has been in a state of transition from a planned economy to a more market oriented economy, differs from the economies of most developed countries in many respects, including the level of government involvement, its state of development, its growth rate, control of foreign exchange, and allocation of resources. Although the majority of productive assets in China are still owned by the PRC government at various levels, in recent years, the PRC government has implemented economic reform measures emphasizing utilization of market forces in the development of the economy of China and a high level of management autonomy. The economy of China has experienced significant growth in the past 30 years, but growth has been uneven both geographically and among various sectors of the economy. Economic growth has also been accompanied by periods of high inflation. The PRC government has implemented various measures from time to time to control inflation and restrain the rate of economic growth. Delays in enterprise restructuring, slow development of well-functioning financial markets and widespread corruption have also hindered performance of the Chinese economy.

For more than 30 years, the PRC government has carried out economic reforms to achieve decentralization and utilization of market forces to develop the economy of the PRC. These reforms have resulted in significant economic growth and social progress. There can, however, be no assurance that the PRC government will continue to pursue such economic policies or, if it does, that those policies will continue to be successful. Any such adjustment and modification of those economic policies may have an adverse impact on the securities market in the PRC as well as the underlying securities of the Index in which the Fund may invest. Further, the PRC government may from time to time adopt corrective measures to control the growth of the PRC economy which may also have an adverse impact on the capital growth and performance of the Fund. The PRC has also begun a process of privatizing certain entities and industries. Privatized entities may lose money or be re-nationalized.

The Chinese government is authoritarian and has periodically used force to suppress civil dissent. Disparities of wealth and the pace of economic liberalization may lead to social turmoil, violence and labor unrest. In addition, China continues to experience disagreements related to integration with Hong Kong and religious and nationalist disputes in Tibet and Xinjiang. Political changes, social instability and adverse diplomatic developments in the PRC could result in the imposition of additional government restrictions including expropriation of assets, confiscatory taxes or nationalization of some or all of the property held by the issuers of the Fund’s RMB Bond investments or contained in the Index.

The laws, regulations, including the investment regulations governing RQFIIs (and QFIIs), government policies and the political and economic climate in China may change with little or no advance notice. Any such change could adversely affect market conditions and the performance of the Chinese economy and, thus, the value of the RMB Bonds or other securities in the Fund’s portfolio.

Since 1949, the PRC has been a socialist state controlled by the Communist party. China has only recently opened up to foreign investment and has only begun to permit private economic activity. There is no guarantee that the Chinese government will not revert from its current open-market economy to the economic policy of central planning that it implemented prior to 1978.

The Chinese government continues to be an active participant in many economic sectors through ownership positions and regulation. The allocation of resources in China is subject to a high level of government control. The Chinese government strictly regulates the payment of foreign currency denominated obligations and sets monetary policy. Through its policies, the government may provide preferential treatment to particular industries or companies. The policies set by the government could have a substantial adverse effect on the Chinese economy and the Fund’s investments.

The Chinese economy is export-driven and highly reliant on trade, and much of China’s growth in recent years has been the result of focused investments in economic sectors intended to produce goods and services for export purposes. The performance of the Chinese economy may differ favorably or unfavorably from the U.S. economy in such respects as general development, government involvement, wealth distribution, growth rate, interest rates, allocation of resources, gross domestic product, rate of inflation, currency depreciation, capital reinvestment, resource self-sufficiency and balance of payments position. Adverse changes to the economic conditions of its primary trading partners, such as the United States, Japan and South Korea, would adversely impact the Chinese economy and the Fund’s investments. International trade tensions involving China and its trading counterparties may arise from time to time which can result in trade tariffs, embargoes, trade limitations, trade wars and other negative consequences. Such

actions and consequences may ultimately result in a significant reduction in international trade, an oversupply of certain manufactured goods, devaluations of existing inventories and potentially the failure of individual companies and/or large segments of China’s export industry with a potentially severe negative impact to the Fund.

China has been transitioning to a market economy since the late seventies, reaffirming its economic policy reforms through five-year programs, the latest of which (for 2011 through 2015) was approved in March 2011. Under the economic reforms implemented by the Chinese government, the Chinese economy has experienced tremendous growth, developing into one of the largest economies in the world. There is no assurance, however, that such growth will be sustained in the future.

Moreover, the current slowdown or any future recessions in other significant economies of the world, such as the United States, the European Union and certain Asian countries, may adversely affect economic growth in China. An economic downturn in China would adversely impact the Fund’s investments.

The Fund may encounter difficulties or delays in enforcing its rights against issuers of RMB Bonds that are organized in the PRC and therefore only subject to the laws of the PRC. Mainland China’s legal system is based on statutes enacted by various state bodies dealing with economic matters such as foreign investment, company organization and governance, taxation and trade. These laws are quite recent with published court opinions based on these being limited and non-binding. This makes the interpretation and enforcement of these laws and regulations uncertain. With respect to laws pertaining to bankruptcy proceedings, such laws in mainland China are generally less developed than and different from such laws in the United States. Therefore, bankruptcy proceedings can take more time to resolve than similar proceedings in the United States and results can be unpredictable. These and other factors could have a negative impact on the Fund’s performance and increase the volatility of an investment in the Fund.

Inflation. Economic growth in China has also historically been accompanied by periods of high inflation. Beginning in 2004, the Chinese government commenced the implementation of various measures to control inflation, which included the tightening of the money supply, the raising of interest rates and more stringent control over certain industries. If these measures are not successful, and if inflation were to steadily increase, the performance of the Chinese economy and the Fund’s investments could be negatively impacted.

Tax Changes. The Chinese system of taxation is not as well settled as that of the United States. In addition, changes in the Chinese tax system may have retroactive effects.

Nationalization and Expropriation. After the formation of the Chinese socialist state in 1949, the Chinese government renounced various debt obligations and nationalized private assets without providing any form of compensation. There can be no assurance that the Chinese government will not take similar actions in the future. Accordingly, an investment in the Fund involves a risk of a total loss.

U.S. Sanctions. From time to time, certain of the companies in which the Fund expects to invest may operate in, or have dealings with, countries subject to sanctions or embargoes imposed by the U.S. Government and the United Nations and/or countries identified by the U.S. Government as state sponsors of terrorism. A company may suffer damage to its reputation if it is identified as a company which operates in, or has dealings with, countries subject to sanctions or embargoes imposed by the U.S. Government and the United Nations and/or countries identified by the U.S.

Government as state sponsors of terrorism. As an investor in such companies, the Fund will be indirectly subject to those risks.

Hong Kong Policy. As part of Hong Kong’s transition from British to Chinese sovereignty in 1997, China agreed to allow Hong Kong to maintain a high degree of autonomy with regard to its political, legal and economic systems for a period of at least 50 years. China controls matters that relate to defense and foreign affairs. Under the agreement, China does not tax Hong Kong, does not limit the exchange of the Hong Kong dollar for foreign currencies and does not place restrictions on free trade in Hong Kong. However, there is no guarantee that China will continue to honor the agreement, and China may change its policies regarding Hong Kong at any time. Any such change could adversely affect market conditions and the performance of the Chinese economy and, thus, the value of the securities in the Fund’s portfolio.

Chinese Bond Markets. The inter-bank bond market and exchange-traded bond markets in China have a limited operating history and are not as developed as those in the United States. These markets tend to be smaller in size, have less liquidity and historically have had greater volatility than markets in the United States and some other countries. The bid and offer spread on RMB Bonds, whether traded on the inter-bank or listed bond market, may be high and the Fund may therefore incur significant trading costs and may suffer losses when selling such investments. In the absence of a regular and active secondary market, the Fund may not be able to sell its bond holdings at prices or at times the Adviser and/or Sub-Adviser consider advantageous and may need to hold the bonds until their maturity date. In addition, there is less regulation and monitoring of Chinese bond markets and the activities of investors, brokers and other participants than in the United States. Accordingly, issuers of securities in China are not subject to the same degree of regulation as are U.S. issuers with respect to such matters as insider trading rules and the requirements mandating timely disclosure of information. Bond markets in China are in the process of change and further development. This may lead to trading volatility, unpredictable trading suspensions, difficulty in the settlement and recording of transactions and difficulty in interpreting and applying the relevant regulations.

Credit Rating Risk. RMB Bonds, whether they are traded on the inter-bank market or the exchange-traded market, are generally rated by local credit rating agencies. The major credit rating agencies in the PRC are as follows: Pengyuan Credit Rating Co., Ltd., Shanghai Brilliance Credit Rating & Investors Service Co., Ltd, China LianHe Credit Rating Co., Ltd., China Chengxin Security Rating Co., Ltd., Dagong Global Credit Rating Co., Ltd., Golden Credit Rating International Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Far East Credit Rating Co., Ltd. Local credit rating agencies must be approved by the relevant PRC authorities and are subject to industry self-regulation. The rating industry in the PRC is still in its early development stage and, due to lack of historical data and slow responses to certain credit events, the rating methodologies used by the local credit rating agencies may be driven by domestic factors rather than quantitative methods. In addition, the rating process may lack transparency and the rating standards may be significantly different from that adopted by internationally recognized credit rating agencies. The ratings of these local credit rating agencies reflect only the views of the respective rating agency and there is no assurance that any rating will continue for a given period of time or that it will not be revised or withdrawn entirely. Even if the letter designations (e.g., AA, B, CCC) used by local credit rating agencies to rate RMB Bonds are the same as those letters designations used by Moody’s, S&P, or Fitch to rate other bonds, the RMB Bonds may be substantially more risky and the Fund may be exposed to a higher degree of credit risk. A downward revision or withdrawal of any such rating may have an adverse effect on market prices, liquidity and marketability of these RMB Bonds and the Fund’s investments.

Available Disclosure About Chinese Companies. Disclosure and regulatory standards in emerging market countries, such as China, are in many respects less stringent than U.S. standards. There is substantially less publicly available information about Chinese issuers than there is about U.S. issuers. Therefore, disclosure of certain material information may not be made, and less information may be available to the Fund and other investors than would be the case if the Fund’s investments were restricted to securities of U.S. issuers. Chinese issuers are subject to accounting, auditing and financial standards and requirements that differ, in some cases significantly, from those applicable to U.S. issuers. In particular, the assets and profits appearing on the financial statements of a Chinese issuer may not reflect its financial position or results of operations in the way they would be reflected had such financial statements been prepared in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

Chinese Corporate and Securities Law. The regulations on investments and repatriation of capital by QFIIs and RQFIIs are relatively new. As a result, the application and interpretation of such investment regulations are relatively untested. In addition, PRC authorities have broad discretion in the application and interpretation of such regulations. The Fund’s rights with respect to its investments in RMB Bonds through the Sub-Adviser’s RQFII quota will not be governed by U.S. law, and instead will be governed by Chinese law. China operates under a civil law system, in which court precedent is not binding. Because there is no binding precedent to interpret existing statutes, there is uncertainty regarding the implementation of existing law.

It may therefore be difficult for the Fund to enforce its rights as an investor under Chinese corporate and securities laws, and it may be difficult or impossible for the Fund to obtain a judgment in court. Moreover, as Chinese corporate and securities laws continue to develop, these developments may adversely affect foreign investors, such as the Fund. See also “Risk of Change in Regulatory Regime Governing RMB Bonds” below.

Foreign Exchange Control. The RMB is currently not a freely convertible currency. The Chinese government maintains strict currency controls and regularly intervenes in the currency market. The Chinese government’s actions may not be transparent or predictable. As a result, the value of the RMB and the value of RMB Bonds may change quickly and arbitrarily. These and other factors could have a negative impact on the Fund’s performance and increase the volatility of an investment in the Fund. The Chinese government places strict regulation on the RMB and manages the RMB so that it has historically traded in a tight range relative to the U.S. dollar, but the Chinese government has been under pressure to manage the currency in a less restrictive fashion so that it is less correlated to the U.S. dollar. Further, the Chinese government’s imposition of restrictions on the repatriation of RMB out of mainland China may limit the depth of the offshore RMB market and reduce the liquidity of the Fund’s investments. These restrictions may adversely affect the Fund and its investments. The international community has requested that China ease its restrictions on currency exchange, but it is unclear whether the Chinese government will change its policy.

In addition, various PRC issuers in which the Fund may invest derive their revenues in RMB but have requirements for foreign currency, including for the import of materials, debt service on foreign currency denominated debt, purchases of imported equipment and payment of any cash dividends declared. The existing PRC foreign exchange regulations have significantly reduced government foreign exchange controls for certain transactions, including trade and service related foreign exchange transactions and payment of dividends. However, it is impossible to predict whether the PRC government will continue its existing foreign exchange policy and when the PRC government will allow free conversion of the RMB to foreign currency. Certain foreign exchange transactions, including principal payments in respect of foreign currency-denominated

obligations, currently continue to be subject to significant foreign exchange controls and require the approval of SAFE. Since 1994, the conversion of RMB into U.S. dollars has been based on rates set by the People’s Bank of China, which are set daily based on the previous day’s PRC interbank foreign exchange market rate. It is not possible to predict nor give any assurance of any future stability of the RMB to U.S. dollar exchange rate. Fluctuations in exchange rates may adversely affect the Fund’s NAV. Furthermore, because dividends are declared in U.S. dollars and underlying payments are made in RMB, fluctuations in exchange rates may adversely affect dividends paid by the Fund.

Foreign Currency Considerations. Emerging markets such as China can experience high rates of inflation, deflation and currency devaluation. The value of the RMB may be subject to a high degree of fluctuation due to, among other things, changes in interest rates, the effects of monetary policies issued by the PRC, the United States, foreign governments, central banks or supranational entities, the imposition of currency controls or other national or global political or economic developments. The Fund invests a significant portion of its assets in investments denominated in RMB and the income received by the Fund will principally be in RMB. The Fund’s exposure to the RMB and changes in value of the RMB versus the U.S. dollar may result in reduced returns for the Fund. Moreover, the Fund may incur costs in connection with conversions between U.S. dollars and RMB. The RMB is currently not a freely convertible currency. The value of the RMB is based on a managed floating exchange rate based on market supply and demand with reference to a basket of foreign currencies. The daily trading price of the RMB is allowed to float within a narrow band around the central parity rate (i.e., the trading spot rate for the RMB against a basket of foreign currencies) published by the People’s Bank of China. The Chinese government’s imposition of restrictions on the repatriation of RMB out of mainland China may limit the depth of the offshore RMB market and reduce the liquidity of the Fund’s investments. These restrictions as well as any accelerated appreciation or depreciation of RMB may adversely affect the Fund and its investments.

The Fund’s assets are expected to be primarily invested in RMB Bonds and the income received by the Fund will be principally in RMB. Meanwhile, the Fund will compute and expects to distribute its income in U.S. dollars, and the computation of income will be made on the date that the income is earned by the Fund at the foreign exchange rate in effect on that date. Therefore, if the value of the RMB falls relative to the U.S. dollar between the earning of the income and the time at which the Fund converts the RMB to U.S. dollars, the Fund may be required to liquidate certain positions in order to make distributions if the Fund has insufficient cash in U.S. dollars to meet distribution requirements under the Internal Revenue Code. The liquidation of investments, if required, may also have an adverse impact on the Fund’s performance.

Furthermore, the Fund may incur costs in connection with conversions between U.S. dollars and RMB. Foreign exchange dealers realize a profit based on the difference between the prices at which they are buying and selling various currencies. Thus, a dealer normally will offer to sell a foreign currency to the Fund at one rate, while offering a lesser rate of exchange should the Fund desire immediately to resell that currency to the dealer. The Fund will conduct its foreign currency exchange transactions either on a spot (i.e., cash) basis at the spot rate prevailing in the foreign currency exchange market, or through entering into forward, futures or options contracts to purchase or sell foreign currencies.

RMB can be further categorized into onshore RMB (“CNY”), which can be traded only in the PRC, and offshore RMB (“CNH”), which can be traded outside the PRC. CNY and CNH are traded at different exchange rates and their exchange rates may not move in the same direction. Although there has been a growing amount of RMB held offshore, CNH cannot be freely remitted

into the PRC and is subject to certain restrictions. The Fund may also be adversely affected by the exchange rates between CNY and CNH. In addition, there may not be sufficient amounts of RMB for the Fund to be fully invested because the Fund has to convert U.S. dollars received from the purchase of Creation Units into RMB to purchase RMB Bonds, and this may result in settlement delays. The Fund may be required to remit CNH to settle the purchase of RMB Bonds by the Fund from time to time. Moreover, the trading and settlement of RMB-denominated securities are recent developments in Hong Kong and there is no assurance that problems will not be encountered with the systems or that other logistical problems will not arise that could adversely impact the Fund.

The RMB Bond market is volatile with a risk of suspension of trading in a particular security or government intervention. Securities on the RMB Bond market, including securities in the Index, may be suspended from trading without an indication of how long the suspension will last, which may impair the liquidity of such securities. The regulations which regulate investments by RQFIIs in the PRC and the repatriation of capital from RQFII investments are relatively new. The application and interpretation of such investment regulations are therefore relatively untested and there is no certainty as to how they will be applied. The PRC authorities and regulators have been given wide discretion in applying and interpreting such investment regulations and there is no precedent or certainty as to how such discretion may be exercised now or in the future. The application and interpretation of such investment regulations may adversely affect the Fund.

Investment and Repatriation Restrictions. Investments by the Fund in RMB Bonds through the Sub-Adviser’s RQFII quota, other Chinese financial instruments regulated by the CSRC, including warrants and open- and closed-end investment companies, are subject to governmental pre-approval limitations on the quantity that the Fund may purchase or limits on the classes of securities in which the Fund may invest.

the future. Any additional restrictions imposed on the Sub-Adviser or RQFIIs generally may have an adverse effect on the Fund’s ability to invest directly in RMB Bonds and its ability to meet redemptions requests.

If the Fund’s direct investments in RMB Bonds through the Sub-Adviser’s RQFII quota become subject to repatriation restrictions, the Fund may be unable to satisfy distribution requirements applicable to RICs under the Internal Revenue Code and be subject to income and excise tax at the Fund level. In addition, the Fund could be required to recognize unrealized gains, pay taxes and make distributions before re-qualifying for taxation as a RIC. See the prospectus under “Shareholder Information—Tax Information—Taxes on Distributions” for more information.

The Fund may elect, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, to treat Chinese taxes (including withholding taxes) paid by the Fund as paid by its shareholders. Even if the Fund is qualified to make that election and does so this treatment will not apply with respect to amounts the Fund reserves in anticipation of the imposition of withholding taxes not currently in effect (as discussed above). If these amounts are used to pay any tax liability of the Fund in a later year, they will be treated as paid by the shareholders in such later year, even if they are imposed with respect to income of an earlier year. See the prospectus under “Shareholder Information—Tax Information” for a further description of this risk.

The Chinese government limits foreign investment in the securities of certain Chinese issuers entirely if foreign investment is banned in respect of the industry in which the relevant Chinese issuers are conducting their business. These restrictions or limitations may have adverse effects on the liquidity and performance of the Fund holdings as compared to the performance of the Index. This may increase the risk of tracking error and may adversely affect the Fund’s ability to achieve its investment objective.

Tax Risk. Specific rules governing taxes on capital gains derived by RQFIIs and QFIIs from the trading of PRC securities have yet to be announced. In the absence of specific rules, the tax treatment of the Fund’s investments in RMB Bonds through the Sub-Adviser’s RQFII quota should be governed by the general PRC tax provisions and provisions applicable to RQFIIs. Under these provisions, the Fund is generally subject to a tax of 10% on any dividends, distributions and interest it receives from its investment in PRC securities. In addition, a nonresident enterprise is subject to withholding tax at a rate of 10% on its capital gains. However, it is unclear if this tax will be applied to investments by an RQFII such as the Sub-Adviser or what the methodology for calculating or collecting the tax will be. Withholding taxes on dividends, interest and capital gains may be taxed at a reduced rate under an applicable tax treaty, but the application of such treaties for an RQFII acting on behalf of a foreign investor (i.e., the Sub-Adviser acting on behalf of the Fund) is also uncertain and would depend on the approval of PRC tax authorities. It is also unclear how China’s business tax may apply to activities of an RQFII such as the Sub-Adviser and how such application may be affected by tax treaty provisions. The current PRC tax laws and regulations and interpretations thereof may be revised or amended in the future, and may be applied retroactively. Any revision or amendment in tax laws and regulations and interpretations thereof may adversely affect the Fund. The Fund, as of the date of the Prospectus, reserves 10% of its realized and unrealized gains from its RMB Bond investments to apply towards withholding tax liability. The tax reserve will be reflected in the Fund’s daily NAV calculations as a deduction from the Fund’s NAV. This reserve may turn out to be excessive or inadequate in light of the Fund’s actual tax liabilities. Therefore, if the Fund’s tax reserve turns out to be excessive or inadequate and the Fund’s tax reserve and related deduction from NAV is modified accordingly, this will work to the benefit or detriment, respectively, of the Fund’s existing shareholders at the time the uncertainty surrounding the

Fund’s tax liabilities is resolved. In the event that the Fund discontinues reserving against the potential tax liability from these realized and unrealized gains, the Fund would likely release its reserve related to the capital gains theretofore maintained back to the Fund, which would increase the Fund’s NAV and could increase a shareholder’s tax liability regardless of when the shareholder purchased his or her Shares. If the PRC were thereafter to begin applying tax rules regarding the taxation of capital gains from RMB Bond investments to RQFIIs, such as the Sub-Adviser, and/or begin collecting capital gains taxes on such investments, the Fund could be subject to withholding tax liability. The impact of any such tax liability on the Fund’s return could be substantial. The Fund may also be liable to the Sub- Adviser for any tax that is imposed on the Sub-Adviser by the PRC with respect to the Fund’s investments.

In the absence of specific guidance, RQFIIs such as the Sub-Adviser may be potentially subject to PRC business tax at a rate of 5% with respect to the capital gains derived from the trading of RMB Bonds. Existing guidance provides a business tax exemption for QFIIs with respect to their gains derived from the trading of PRC securities, but this business tax exemption does not explicitly apply to RQFIIs. However, in practice, the Chinese tax authorities have not actively enforced the collection of business tax on such gains. A Fund’s shareholder’s ability to claim a credit for certain Chinese taxes may be limited under general U.S. tax principles.

Risk of Loss of Favorable U.S. Tax Treatment. The Fund intends to distribute annually all or substantially all of its investment company taxable income and net capital gain. However, if the Fund does not repatriate funds associated with direct investment in RMB Bonds on a timely basis, it may be unable to satisfy the distribution requirements required to qualify for the favorable tax treatment otherwise generally afforded to RICs under the Internal Revenue Code. If the Fund fails to qualify for any taxable year as a RIC, the Fund would be treated as a corporation subject to U.S. federal income tax, thereby subjecting any income earned by the Fund to tax at the corporate level currently at a 35% U.S. federal tax rate and, when such income is distributed, to a further tax at the shareholder level to the extent of the Fund’s current or accumulated earnings and profits. In addition, the Fund would not be eligible for a deduction for dividends paid to shareholders. In addition, the Fund could be required to recognize unrealized gains, pay taxes and make distributions (any of which could be subject to interest charges) before re-qualifying for taxation as a RIC. See below under “Shareholder Information—Tax Information—Taxes on Distributions” for more information.

Tax on Retained Income and Gains. To the extent the Fund does not distribute to shareholders all of its investment company taxable income and net capital gain in a given year, it will be required to pay U.S. federal income and excise tax on the retained income and gains, thereby reducing the Fund’s return. The Fund may elect to treat its net capital gain as having been distributed to shareholders. In that case, shareholders of record on the last day of the Fund’s taxable year will be required to include their attributable share of the retained gain in income for the year as a long-term capital gain despite not actually receiving the dividend, and will be entitled to a tax credit or refund for the tax deemed paid on their behalf by the Fund as well as an increase in the basis of their shares to reflect the difference between their attributable share of the gain and the related credit or refund.

Foreign Exchange Control. The Chinese government heavily regulates the domestic exchange of foreign currencies within China. Chinese law requires that all domestic transactions must be settled in RMB, places significant restrictions on the remittance of foreign currency and strictly regulates currency exchange from RMB. Under SAFE regulations, Chinese corporations may only purchase foreign currencies through government approved banks. In general, Chinese companies must receive approval from or register with the Chinese government before investing

in certain capital account items, including direct investments and loans, and must thereafter maintain separate foreign exchange accounts for the capital items. Foreign investors may only exchange foreign currencies at specially authorized banks after complying with documentation requirements. These restrictions may adversely affect the Fund and its investments. There may not be sufficient amounts of RMB for the Fund to be fully invested because the Fund has to convert U.S. dollars received from the purchase of Creation Units into RMB to purchase RMB-denominated investments. It should also be noted that that the PRC government’s policies on exchange control and repatriation restrictions are subject to change, and any such change may adversely impact the Fund. There can be no assurance that the RMB exchange rate will not fluctuate widely against the U.S. dollar or any other foreign currency in the future.

Custody Risks of Investing in RMB Bonds. Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Limited (“ICBC”), China Central Depository & Clearing Co., Ltd. (“CCDC”) and Shanghai Clearing House (“SCH”) (each, a “PRC sub-custodian,” and together, the “PRC sub-custodians”), which are approved by CSRC and SAFE as qualified RQFII custodians, have been appointed to provide custody services to the Fund’s assets invested in RMB Bonds and other investments in the PRC. ICBC serves as a PRC sub-custodian to the Fund’s assets invested in inter-bank bonds, and the CCDC and SCH serve as PRC sub-custodian’s to the Fund’s assets invested in exchange-traded bonds. Each PRC sub-custodian maintains the Fund’s RMB deposit accounts and oversees the Fund’s investments in RMB Bonds to ensure compliance with the rules and regulations of the CSRC and the People’s Bank of China. The securities purchased by the Sub-Adviser, in its capacity as a RQFII, on behalf of the Fund, will be credited to a securities trading account maintained by a PRC sub-custodian in the joint names of the Fund and the Sub-Adviser, and the Fund will pay the cost of the account. The Sub-Adviser may not use the account for any other purpose than for maintaining the Fund’s assets invested in RMB Bonds. However, given that the securities trading account will be maintained in the joint names of the Sub-Adviser and the Fund, the Fund’s assets may not be as well protected as they would be if it were possible for them to be registered and held solely in the name of the Fund. In particular, there is a risk that creditors of the Sub-Adviser may assert that the securities are owned by the Sub-Adviser and not the Fund, and that a court would uphold such an assertion, in which case creditors of the Sub-Adviser could seize assets of the Fund.

Investors should also note that cash deposits in the Fund’s account with each PRC sub-custodian will not be segregated from the proprietary assets of the PRC sub-custodian or the assets of its other clients. Therefore, to the extent the Fund’s assets are commingled, the cash deposits will be vulnerable in the event of a liquidation or bankruptcy by a PRC sub-custodian. Under such circumstances, the Fund will not have any proprietary rights to the cash deposited in the account, and the Fund will become an unsecured creditor, and would have no priority over the claims of any other unsecured creditors to the assets of a PRC sub-custodian. The Fund may encounter difficulties or delays in recovering such debt, or may not be able to recover it in full or at all, in which case the Fund will suffer losses.

Chinese Banking Industry Risk. The Chinese banking industry is a highly regulated industry and is subject to laws and regulations touching all aspects of the banking business. The principal regulators include the CBRC and the PBOC. These regulators are given wide discretion in exercising their authority. The banking regulatory regime in China is currently undergoing significant changes, including changes in laws and regulations, as it moves toward a more transparent regulatory process. Some of these changes may have an adverse impact on the performance of Chinese banks that issued RMB Bonds and thus may adversely affect their capacity to honor their commitments under the RMB Bonds to the holders of such bonds, which may include the Fund.

Risk of Investing in the Financial Services Sector. To the extent that the Index continues to be concentrated in the financial services sector, the Fund will be sensitive to changes in, and its performance may depend to a greater extent on, the overall condition of the financial services sector. Companies in the financial services sector may be subject to extensive government regulation that affects the scope of their activities, the prices they can charge and the amount of capital they must maintain. The profitability of companies in the financial services sector may be adversely affected by increases in interest rates, by loan losses, which usually increase in economic downturns, and by credit rating downgrades. In addition, the financial services sector is undergoing numerous changes, including continuing consolidations, development of new products and structures and changes to its regulatory framework. Furthermore, some companies in the financial services sector perceived as benefitting from government intervention in the past may be subject to future government-imposed restrictions on their businesses or face increased government involvement in their operations. Increased government involvement in the financial services sector, including measures such as taking ownership positions in financial institutions, could result in a dilution of the Fund’s investments in financial institutions. Recent developments in the credit markets may cause companies operating in the financial services sector to incur large losses, experience declines in the value of their assets and even cease operations.

Risk of Investing in the Industrials Sector. To the extent that the industrials sector continues to represent at least a significant portion of the Index, the Fund will be sensitive to changes in, and its performance may depend to a greater extent on, the overall condition of the industrials sector. Companies in the industrials sector may be adversely affected by changes in government regulation, world events and economic conditions. In addition, companies in the industrials sector may be adversely affected by environmental damages, product liability claims and exchange rates. The stock prices of companies in the industrials sector are affected by supply and demand both for their specific product or service and for industrial sector products in general. The products of manufacturing companies may face product obsolescence due to rapid technological developments and frequent introduction of new products. In addition, the industrials sector may also be adversely affected by changes or trends in commodity prices, which may be influenced or characterized by unpredictable factors.

Sovereign and Quasi-Sovereign Bond Risk. Investments in sovereign and quasi-sovereign bonds involve special risks. The governmental authority that controls the repayment of the bonds may be unwilling or unable to repay the principal and/or interest when due or to otherwise honor its obligations in accordance with the terms of such securities due to such factors as: its cash flow situation; the extent of its foreign reserves; the availability of sufficient foreign exchange on the date a payment is due; the relative size of the debt service burden to the economy as a whole; the sovereign or quasi-sovereign debtor’s policy toward principal international lenders; or political constraints to which a government debtor may be subject. Sovereign or quasi-sovereign debtors may also be dependent on expected disbursements from foreign governments, multilateral agencies and other entities to reduce principal and interest arrears on their debt. The failure of a sovereign or quasi-sovereign debtor to implement economic reforms, achieve specified levels of economic performance or repay principal or interest when due may result in the cancellation of third-party commitments to lend funds to the sovereign or quasi-sovereign debtor, which

may further impair such debtor’s ability or willingness to service its debts. If an issuer of sovereign or quasi-sovereign bonds defaults on payments of principal and/or interest, the Fund may have limited legal recourse against the issuer and/or guarantor. In certain cases, remedies must be pursued in the courts of the defaulting party itself, and the Fund’s ability to obtain recourse may be limited. During periods of economic uncertainty, the market prices of sovereign or quasi-sovereign bonds, and the Fund’s NAV, may be more volatile than prices of corporate bond obligations.

Credit Risk. Debt securities, such as bonds, are subject to credit risk. Credit risk refers to the possibility that the issuer of a security will be unable and/or unwilling to make timely interest payments and/or repay the principal on its debt or to otherwise honor its obligations. Debt securities are subject to varying degrees of credit risk which may be reflected in credit ratings. There is a possibility that the credit rating of a debt security may be downgraded after purchase or the perception of an issuer’s credit worthiness may decline, which may adversely affect the value of the security.

Interest Rate Risk. Debt securities, such as bonds, are also subject to interest rate risk. Interest rate risk refers to fluctuations in the value of a security resulting from changes in the general level of interest rates. When the general level of interest rates goes up, the prices of most debt securities go down. When the general level of interest rates goes down, the prices of most debt securities go up. The historically low interest rate environment in the United States increases the risk associated with rising interest rates, including the potential for periods of volatility and increased redemptions. The Fund may face a heightened level of interest rate risk, since the U.S. Federal Reserve Board has begun tapering its quantitative easing program, which may indirectly affect the value of RMB Bonds. In addition, bonds with longer durations tend to be more sensitive to interest rate changes, usually making them more volatile than bonds with shorter durations.

Risk of Subordinated Obligations. Payments under some RMB Bonds may be structurally subordinated to all existing and future liabilities and obligations of each of the respective subsidiaries and associated companies of an issuer of a RMB Bond. Claims of creditors of such subsidiaries and associated companies will have priority as to the assets of such subsidiaries and associated companies over the issuer and its creditors, including the Fund, who seek to enforce RMB Bond. Certain RMB Bonds do not contain any restrictions on the ability of the subsidiaries of the issuers to incur additional unsecured indebtedness.

Risk of Investing in Foreign Securities. Investments in the securities of foreign issuers involve risks beyond those associated with investments in U.S. securities. These additional risks include greater market volatility, the availability of less reliable financial information, higher transactional and custody costs, taxation by foreign governments, decreased market liquidity, political instability and closure of primary markets on which the foreign securities are traded. Because certain foreign securities markets may be limited in size, the prices of securities that trade in such markets may be influenced by large traders. Certain foreign markets that have historically been considered relatively stable may become volatile in response to changed conditions or new developments. Increased interconnectivity of world economies and financial markets increases the possibility that adverse developments and conditions in one country or region will affect the stability of economies and financial markets in other countries or regions. Foreign issuers are often subject to less stringent requirements regarding accounting, auditing, financial reporting and record keeping than are U.S. issuers, and therefore, not all material information may be available or reliable. Securities exchanges or foreign governments may adopt rules or regulations that may negatively impact the Fund’s ability to invest in foreign securities or may prevent the Fund from repatriating its investments. The risks of investing in emerging market countries are greater than risks associated with investments in foreign developed countries.

Risk of Investing in Emerging Market Issuers. Investments in emerging markets securities are exposed to a number of risks that may make these investments volatile in price or difficult to trade. Political risks may include unstable governments, nationalization, restrictions on foreign ownership, laws that prevent investors from getting their money out of a country and legal systems that do not protect property rights as well as the laws of the United States. Market risks may include economies that concentrate in only a few industries, securities issues that are held by only a few investors, liquidity issues and limited trading capacity in local exchanges and the possibility that markets or issues may be manipulated by foreign nationals who have inside information.

Risk of Cash Transactions. Unlike most other ETFs, the Fund expects to effect its creations and redemptions principally for cash, rather than in-kind securities. As a result, an investment in the Fund may be less tax-efficient than an investment in a more conventional ETF. Other ETFs generally are able to make in-kind redemptions and avoid being taxed on gain on the distributed portfolio securities at the Fund level. Because the Fund currently intends to effect redemptions principally for cash, rather than in-kind distributions, it may be required to sell portfolio securities in order to obtain the cash needed to distribute redemption proceeds, which involves transaction costs. If the Fund recognizes gain on these sales, this generally will cause the Fund to recognize gain it might not otherwise have recognized if it were to distribute portfolio securities in-kind or to recognize such gain sooner than would otherwise be required. The Fund generally intends to distribute these gains to shareholders to avoid being taxed on this gain at the Fund level and otherwise comply with the special tax rules that apply to it. This strategy may cause shareholders to be subject to tax on gains they would not otherwise be subject to, or at an earlier date than, if they had made an investment in a different ETF.

on borrowings to meet redemptions, which may lead to increased expenses. These and any other issues the Fund encounters with regard to investment restrictions, trade settlements, currency convertibility (including the cost of borrowing funds, if any), repatriation and the maintenance of a tax reserve as a provision for potential Chinese taxes as discussed above, may cause the Fund’s return to deviate significantly from the return of the Index.

Replication Management Risk. Unlike many investment companies, the Fund is not “actively” managed. Therefore, unless a specific security is removed from the Index, the Fund generally would not sell a security because the security’s issuer is in financial trouble. If a specific security is removed from the Index, the Fund may be forced to sell such security at an inopportune time or for prices other than at current market values. An investment in the Fund involves risks similar to those of investing in any bond fund, such as market fluctuations caused by such factors as economic and political developments, changes in interest rates and perceived trends in security prices. The Fund’s Index may not contain the appropriate or a diversified mix of securities for any particular economic cycle. The timing of changes in the securities of the Fund’s portfolio in seeking to sample the Index could have a negative effect on the Fund. Unlike with an actively managed fund, the Adviser and/or the Sub-Adviser do not use techniques or defensive strategies designed to lessen the effects of market volatility or to reduce the impact of periods of market decline. This means that, based on market and economic conditions, the Fund’s performance could be lower than funds that may actively shift their portfolio assets to take advantage of market opportunities or to lessen the impact of a market decline or a decline in the value of one or more issuers.

Premium/Discount Risk. Disruptions to creations and redemptions, the existence of extreme market volatility or potential lack of an active trading market for Shares may result in Shares trading at a significant premium or discount to NAV. The NAV of the Shares will fluctuate with changes in the market value of the Fund’s securities holdings. The market prices of Shares will fluctuate in accordance with changes in NAV and supply and demand on NYSE Arca. The Adviser cannot predict whether Shares will trade below, at or above their NAV. Price differences may be due, in large part, to the fact that supply and demand forces at work in the secondary trading market for Shares will be closely related to, but not identical to, the same forces influencing the prices of the securities of the Fund’s portfolio trading individually or in the aggregate at any point in time. If a shareholder purchases Shares at a time when the market price is at a premium to the NAV or sells Shares at a time when the market price is at a discount to the NAV, the shareholder may sustain losses.

Non-Diversified Risk. The Fund is a separate investment portfolio of Market Vectors ETF Trust (the “Trust”), which is an open-end investment company registered under the 1940 Act. The Fund is classified as a “non-diversified” investment company under the 1940 Act. As a result, the Fund is subject to the risk that it will be more volatile than a diversified fund because the Fund may invest its assets in a smaller number of issuers or may invest a larger proportion of its assets in a single issuer. As a result, the gains and losses on a single investment may have a greater impact on the Fund’s NAV and may make the Fund more volatile than more diversified funds.

Concentration Risk. The Fund’s assets may be concentrated in a particular sector or sectors or industry or group of industries to the extent that the Index concentrates in a particular sector or sectors or industry or group of industries. The securities of many or all of the companies in the same sector or industry may decline in value due to developments adversely affecting such sector or industry. By concentrating its assets in a particular sector or sectors or industry or group of industries, the Fund is subject to the risk that economic, political or other conditions that have a negative effect on that sector or industry will negatively impact the Fund to a greater extent than if the Fund’s assets were invested in a wider variety of sectors or industries.

Risk of Investing in Derivatives. Derivatives are financial instruments whose values are based on the value of one or more indicators, such as a security, asset, currency, interest rate, or index. The Fund’s use of derivatives involves risks different from, and possibly greater than, the risks associated with investing directly in securities and other more traditional investments. Moreover, although the value of a derivative is based on an underlying indicator, a derivative does not carry the same rights as would be the case if the Fund invested directly in the underlying securities.

Derivatives are subject to a number of risks, such as potential changes in value in response to market developments or, in the case of OTC derivatives, as a result of the counterparty’s credit quality and the risk that a derivative transaction may not have the effect the Adviser anticipated. Derivatives also involve the risk of mispricing or improper valuation and the risk that changes in the value of a derivative may not correlate perfectly with the underlying indicator. Derivative transactions can create investment leverage, may be highly volatile, and the Fund could lose more than the amount it invests. The use of derivatives may increase the amount and affect the timing and character of taxes payable by shareholders of the Fund.

Many derivative transactions are entered into OTC (not on an exchange or contract market); as a result, the value of such a derivative transaction will depend in part on the ability and the willingness of the Fund’s counterparty to perform its obligations under the transaction. If a counterparty were to default on its obligations, the Fund’s contractual remedies against such counterparty may be subject to bankruptcy and insolvency laws, which could affect the Fund’s rights as a creditor (e.g., the Fund may not receive the net amount of payments that it is contractually entitled to receive). A liquid secondary market may not always exist for the Fund’s derivative positions at any time.

Leverage Risk. To the extent that the Fund borrows money or utilizes certain derivatives, it may be leveraged. Leveraging generally exaggerates the effect on NAV of any increase or decrease in the market value of the Fund’s portfolio securities.

Absence of Prior Active Market. The Fund is a newly organized series of an investment company and thus has no operating history. While the Fund’s Shares are expected to be listed on NYSE Arca, there can be no assurance that active trading markets for the Shares will develop or be maintained. Van Eck Securities Corporation, the distributor of the Shares (the “Distributor”), does not maintain a secondary market in the Shares.

Trading Issues. Trading in Shares on NYSE Arca may be halted due to market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of NYSE Arca, make trading in Shares inadvisable. In addition, trading in Shares on NYSE Arca is subject to trading halts caused by extraordinary market volatility pursuant to NYSE Arca’s “circuit breaker” rules. There can be no assurance that the requirements of NYSE Arca necessary to maintain the listing of the Fund will continue to be met or will remain unchanged.

A description of the Fund’s policies and procedures with respect to the disclosure of the Fund’s portfolio securities is available in the Fund’s SAI.

Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees of the Trust has responsibility for the general oversight of the management of the Fund, including general supervision of the Adviser and other service providers, but is not involved in the day-to-day management of the Trust. A list of the Trustees and the Trust’s officers, and their present positions and principal occupations, is provided in the Fund’s SAI.

Investment Adviser and Sub-Adviser. Under the terms of an investment management agreement between the Trust and Van Eck Associates Corporation with respect to the Fund (the “Investment Management Agreement”), Van Eck Associates Corporation serves as the adviser to the Fund and, subject to the supervision of the Board of Trustees, will be responsible for overseeing the day-to-day investment management of the Fund. China Asset Management (Hong Kong) Limited acts as investment sub-adviser to the Fund and, subject to the oversight of the Adviser, will be responsible for the day-to-day investment management of the Fund’s assets. China Asset Management (Hong Kong) Limited serves as investment sub-adviser to the Fund pursuant to an investment sub-advisory agreement between the Adviser and the Sub-Adviser (the “Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement”).

As of June 30, 2014, the Adviser managed approximately $34.45 billion in assets. The Adviser has been an investment adviser since 1955 and also acts as adviser or sub-adviser to other mutual funds, ETFs, other pooled investment vehicles and separate accounts. The Adviser’s principal business address is 335 Madison Avenue, 19th Floor, New York, New York 10017.

The Sub-Adviser was established in September 2008 as a wholly owned subsidiary of China Asset Management Co., Ltd. (“ChinaAMC”). The Sub-Adviser has been licensed by Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission to engage in asset management activities, dealing in securities and advising on securities. As of June 30, 2014, assets under management were approximately $70.38 billion for ChinaAMC and $3.08 billion for the Sub-Adviser. The Sub-Adviser currently provides both asset management and advisory services to Hong Kong and overseas clients, including institutional mandates from Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Australia and Germany. The Sub-Adviser’s principal place of business is 37F, Bank of China Tower, 1 Garden Road, Central, Hong Kong.

A discussion regarding the Board of Trustees’ approval of the Investment Management Agreement and the Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement will be available in the Trust’s annual report for the year ended December 31, 2014.

For the services provided to the Fund under the Investment Management Agreement, the Fund will pay the Adviser monthly fees based on a percentage of the Fund’s average daily net assets at the annual rate of 0.40%. From time to time, the Adviser may waive all or a portion of its fee.

Until at least September 1, 2016, the Adviser has agreed to waive fees and/or pay Fund expenses to the extent necessary to prevent the operating expenses of the Fund (excluding acquired fund fees and expenses, interest expense, offering costs, trading expenses, taxes and extraordinary expenses) from exceeding 0.50% of its average daily net assets per year. Offering costs excluded from the expense cap are: (a) legal fees pertaining to the Fund’s Shares offered for sale; (b) SEC and state registration fees; and (c) initial fees paid for Shares of the Fund to be listed on an exchange.

The Fund is responsible for all of its expenses, including the investment advisory fees, costs of transfer agency, custody, legal, audit and other services, interest, taxes, any distribution fees or expenses, offering fees or expenses and extraordinary expenses. For the services provided and the expenses assumed by the Sub-Adviser pursuant to the Sub-Advisory Agreement, the Adviser (not the Fund) will pay a monthly fee to the Sub-Adviser based on a percentage of the Fund’s average daily net assets managed by the Sub-Adviser.

Manager of Managers Structure. The Adviser and the Trust may rely on an exemptive order (the “Order”) from the SEC that permits the Adviser to enter into investment sub-advisory agreements with unaffiliated sub-advisers without obtaining shareholder approval. The Adviser, subject to the review and approval of the Board of Trustees, may select sub-advisers for the Fund and supervise, monitor and evaluate the performance of each sub-adviser.

The Order also permits the Adviser, subject to the approval of the Board of Trustees, to replace sub-advisers and amend investment sub-advisory agreements, including fees, without shareholder approval whenever the Adviser and the Board of Trustees believe such action will benefit the Fund and its shareholders. The Adviser thus would have the responsibility (subject to the oversight of the Board of Trustees) to recommend the hiring and replacement of sub-advisers as well as the discretion to terminate any sub-adviser and reallocate the Fund’s assets for management among any other sub-adviser(s) and itself. This means that the Adviser would be able to reduce the sub-advisory fees and retain a larger portion of the management fee, or increase the sub-advisory fees and retain a smaller portion of the management fee. The Adviser would compensate each sub-adviser out of its management fee.

Administrator, Custodian and Transfer Agent. Van Eck Associates Corporation is the administrator for the Fund (the “Administrator”), and The Bank of New York Mellon is the custodian of the Fund’s assets and provides transfer agency and fund accounting services to the Fund. The Administrator is responsible for certain clerical, recordkeeping and/or bookkeeping services which are provided pursuant to the Investment Management Agreement.

All of the Fund’s RMB Bonds (including onshore PRC cash deposits and its onshore RMB Bond portfolio) will be held by the PRC sub-custodians. A securities account shall be opened with CSDCC in the joint names of the Sub-Adviser (as the RQFII holder) and the Fund. An RMB cash account shall also be established and maintained with each PRC sub-custodian in the joint names of the Sub-Adviser (as the RQFII holder) and the Fund. Each PRC sub-custodian shall, in turn, have a cash clearing account with CSDCC for trade settlement according to applicable regulations.

Distributor. Van Eck Securities Corporation is the distributor of the Shares. The Distributor will not distribute Shares in less than Creation Units, and does not maintain a secondary market in the Shares. As noted in the section entitled “Shareholder Information—Buying and Selling Exchange-Traded Shares,” the Shares are traded in the secondary market.

Mr. Lai joined the Sub-Adviser in 2011 as a Director and a portfolio manager. Prior to joining the Sub-Adviser, he had been a portfolio manager of Chinese equities in several China domestic and offshore financial institutions since 2002. Mr. Lai received his Master’s degree and Bachelor’s degree from Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.

Mr. Wu joined ChinaAMC, parent company of the Sub-Advisor, in August 2007 as equity analyst, sector portfolio manager, assistant portfolio manager and portfolio manager. He was relocated to the Sub-Advisor in 2013 through internal transfer. Prior to joining ChinaAMC, he worked with BlackRock and Bloomberg. Mr. Wu received his Master’s degree from Columbia University and his Bachelor’s degree from Xiamen University.

Mr. Mazier has been employed by the Adviser since August 2007 as a senior fixed income strategist and portfolio manager. Prior to joining the Adviser, Mr. Mazier served as a bond analyst in the Fixed Income Research Department of Morgan Stanley. He was also Vice President at Merrill Lynch Global Research Department, where he covered closed-end funds. Mr. Mazier graduated from Syracuse University in 1983 with a Bachelor of Science majoring in Electrical Engineering; graduated from Villanova University in 1986 with a Master of Science in Computer Engineering; and graduated from Columbia Business School in 1990 with a Master of Business Administration.

Mr. Rodilosso has been employed by the Adviser as a portfolio manager since March 2012. Mr. Rodilosso graduated from Princeton University in 1990 with a Bachelor of Arts and from the Wharton

School of Business in 1993 with a Masters of Business Administration. Prior to joining the Adviser, Mr. Rodilosso was Managing Director, Global Emerging Markets at The Seaport Group (January 2010 to March 2012), Founding Partner of Soundbrook Capital, LLC (June 2008 to December 2009) and Managing Director, Portfolio Manager and Head of Risk Management at Greylock Capital Management (2001 to 2008). Each of Messrs. Mazier and Rodilosso serve as a portfolio manager of other funds of the Trust. Mr. Mazier also serves as a portfolio manager for certain other investment companies advised by the Adviser.

See the Fund’s SAI for additional information about the portfolio managers’ compensation, other accounts managed by the portfolio managers and their respective ownership of Shares.

The NAV per Share for the Fund is computed by dividing the value of the net assets of the Fund (i.e., the value of its total assets less total liabilities) by the total number of Shares outstanding. Expenses and fees, including the management fee, are accrued daily and taken into account for purposes of determining NAV. The NAV of the Fund is determined each business day as of the close of trading (ordinarily 4:00 p.m. Eastern time) on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”). Any assets or liabilities denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar are converted into U.S. dollars at the current market rates on the date of valuation as quoted by one or more sources.

The values of the Fund’s portfolio securities are based on the securities’ closing prices on their local principal markets, where available. Due to the time difference between the United States and certain countries in which the Fund invests, securities on these exchanges may not trade at times when Shares of the Fund will trade. In the absence of a last reported sales price, or if no sales were reported, and for other assets for which market quotes are not readily available, values may be based on quotes obtained from a quotation reporting system, established market makers or by an outside independent pricing service. Fixed income securities are normally valued on the basis of quotes from brokers or dealers, established market makers or an outside independent pricing service using data reflecting the earlier closing of the principal markets for those securities. Prices obtained by an outside independent pricing service may use information provided by market makers or estimates of market values obtained from yield data related to investments or securities with similar characteristics and may use a computerized grid matrix of securities and its evaluations in determining what it believes is the fair value of the portfolio securities. Short-term investments having a maturity of 60 days or less are valued at amortized cost. If a market quotation for a security is not readily available or the Adviser believes it does not otherwise accurately reflect the market value of the security at the time the Fund calculates its NAV, the security will be fair valued by the Adviser in accordance with the Trust’s valuation policies and procedures approved by the Board of Trustees. The Fund may also use fair value pricing in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to, situations where the value of a security in the Fund’s portfolio has been materially affected by events occurring after the close of the market on which the security is principally traded (such as a corporate action or other news that may materially affect the price of a security) or trading in a security has been suspended or halted. In addition, the Fund currently expects that it will fair value most or all of the foreign securities held by the Fund each day the Fund calculates its NAV. Accordingly, the Fund’s NAV is expected to reflect certain portfolio securities’ fair values rather than their market prices. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and it is possible that a fair value determination for a security is materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of the security. In addition, fair value pricing could result in a difference between the prices used to calculate the Fund’s NAV and the prices used by the Index. This may adversely affect the Fund’s ability to track the Index. With respect to securities traded in foreign markets, the value of the Fund’s portfolio securities may change on days when you will not be able to purchase or sell your Shares.

The Shares of the Fund are expected to be approved for listing on NYSE Arca, subject to notice of issuance. If you buy or sell Shares in the secondary market, you will incur customary brokerage commissions and charges and may pay some or all of the spread between the bid and the offered price in the secondary market on each leg of a round trip (purchase and sale) transaction. In times of severe market disruption or low trading volume in the Fund’s Shares, this spread can increase significantly. It is anticipated that the Shares will trade in the secondary market at prices that may differ to varying degrees from the NAV of the Shares. During periods of disruptions to creations and redemptions or the existence

of extreme market volatility, the market prices of Shares are more likely to differ significantly from the Shares’ NAV.

The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) serves as securities depository for the Shares. (The Shares may be held only in book-entry form; stock certificates will not be issued.) DTC, or its nominee, is the record or registered owner of all outstanding Shares. Beneficial ownership of Shares will be shown on the records of DTC or its participants (described below). Beneficial owners of Shares are not entitled to have Shares registered in their names, will not receive or be entitled to receive physical delivery of certificates in definitive form and are not considered the registered holder thereof. Accordingly, to exercise any rights of a holder of Shares, each beneficial owner must rely on the procedures of: (i) DTC; (ii) “DTC Participants,” i.e., securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, clearing corporations and certain other organizations, some of whom (and/or their representatives) own DTC; and (iii) “Indirect Participants,” i.e., brokers, dealers, banks and trust companies that clear through or maintain a custodial relationship with a DTC Participant, either directly or indirectly, through which such beneficial owner holds its interests. The Trust understands that under existing industry practice, in the event the Trust requests any action of holders of Shares, or a beneficial owner desires to take any action that DTC, as the record owner of all outstanding Shares, is entitled to take, DTC would authorize the DTC Participants to take such action and that the DTC Participants would authorize the Indirect Participants and beneficial owners acting through such DTC Participants to take such action and would otherwise act upon the instructions of beneficial owners owning through them. As described above, the Trust recognizes DTC or its nominee as the owner of all Shares for all purposes. For more information, see the section entitled “Book Entry Only System” in the Fund’s SAI.

The NYSE Arca is open for trading Monday through Friday and is closed on weekends and the following holidays: New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Presidents’ Day, Good Friday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Because non-U.S. exchanges may be open on days when the Fund does not price its Shares, the value of the securities in the Fund’s portfolio may change on days when shareholders will not be able to purchase or sell the Fund’s Shares.

Market Timing and Related Matters. The Fund imposes no restrictions on the frequency of purchases and redemptions. The Board of Trustees considered the nature of the Fund (i.e., a fund whose shares are expected to trade intra-day), that the Adviser monitors the trading activity of authorized participants for patterns of abusive trading, that the Fund reserves the right to reject orders that may be disruptive to the management of or otherwise not in the Fund’s best interests and that the Fund fair values certain of its securities. Given this structure, the Board of Trustees determined that it is not necessary to impose restrictions on the frequency of purchases and redemptions for the Fund at the present time.

Net Investment Income and Capital Gains. As a shareholder of the Fund, you are entitled to your share of the Fund’s distributions of net investment income and net realized capital gains on its investments. The Fund pays out substantially all of its net earnings to its shareholders as “distributions.”

The Fund typically earns income dividends from stocks and interest from debt securities. These amounts, net of expenses, are typically passed along to Fund shareholders as dividends from net investment income. The Fund realizes capital gains or losses whenever it sells securities. Net capital gains are distributed to shareholders as “capital gain distributions.”

Net investment income, if any, is typically distributed to shareholders monthly while capital gains, if any, are typically distributed to shareholders at least annually. Dividends may be declared and paid more frequently to improve index tracking error or to comply with the distribution requirements of the Internal Revenue Code. In addition, the Fund may determine to distribute at least annually amounts representing

the full dividend yield net of expenses on the underlying investment securities, as if the Fund owned the underlying investment securities for the entire dividend period, in which case some portion of each distribution may result in a return of capital, which, for tax purposes, is treated as a return of your investment in Shares. Record shareholders will be notified regarding the portion of the distribution which represents a return of capital.

Distributions in cash may be reinvested automatically in additional Shares of the Fund only if the broker through which you purchased Shares makes such option available.

As with any investment, you should consider how your Fund investment will be taxed. The tax information in this Prospectus is provided as general information. You should consult your own tax professional about the tax consequences of an investment in the Fund, including the possible application of foreign, state and local taxes. Unless your investment in the Fund is through a tax-exempt entity or tax-deferred retirement account, such as a 401(k) plan, you need to be aware of the possible tax consequences when: (i) the Fund makes distributions, (ii) you sell Shares in the secondary market or (iii) you create or redeem Creation Units.

Taxes on Distributions. As noted above, the Fund expects to distribute net investment income, if any, at least monthly, and any net realized long-term or short-term capital gains, if any, annually. The Fund may also pay a special distribution at any time to comply with U.S. federal tax requirements.

If the Fund fails to distribute on a timely basis with respect to each taxable year at least 90% of its “investment company taxable income” and its net tax-exempt interest income, the Fund would fail to qualify for the special tax treatment applicable to RICs. In such a case, the Fund would be subject to U.S. federal income tax at regular corporate rates on its taxable income, including its net capital gain, even if such income were distributed to its shareholders, and all distributions out of earnings and profits would be taxed to shareholders as ordinary dividend income. Such distributions generally would be eligible for the dividends-received deduction in the case of corporate shareholders and may be eligible to be qualified dividend income for non-corporate shareholders. In addition, the Fund could be required to recognize unrealized gains, pay taxes and make distributions (any of which could be subject to interest charges) before re-qualifying for taxation as a RIC. Additionally, to the extent the Fund does not distribute to shareholders all of its investment company taxable income and net capital gain in a given year, it will be required to pay U.S. federal income tax on the retained income and gains, thereby reducing the Fund’s return.

The Fund will be subject to a 4% excise tax on certain undistributed income if it does not distribute to its shareholders in each calendar year an amount at least equal to the sum of 98% of its ordinary income (taking into account certain deferrals and elections) for the calendar year, 98.2% of its capital gain net income for the twelve months ended October 31 of such year and 100% of any undistributed amounts from the prior years. Although the Fund generally intends to declare and distribute dividends and distributions in the amounts and at the times necessary to avoid the application of this 4% excise tax, the Fund may elect to retain a portion of its income and gains, and in such a case, the Fund may be subject to excise tax.

In general, your distributions are subject to U.S. federal income tax when they are paid, whether you take them in cash or reinvest them in the Fund. Distributions of net investment income, including any net short-term gains, if any, are generally taxable as ordinary income. Whether distributions of capital gains represent long-term or short-term capital gains is determined by how long the Fund owned the investments that generated them, rather than how long you have owned your Shares. Distributions of net short-term capital gains in excess of net long-term capital losses, if any, are generally taxable as ordinary

income. Distributions of net long-term capital gains in excess of net short-term capital losses, if any, that are reported as capital gain dividends are generally taxable as long-term capital gains. Long-term capital gains of non-corporate shareholders are generally taxable at a maximum rate of 15% or 20%, depending on whether the shareholder’s income exceeds certain threshold amounts.

The Fund may receive dividends, the distribution of which the Fund may designate as qualified dividends. In the event that the Fund receives such a dividend and designates the distribution of such dividend as a qualified dividend, the dividend may be taxed at the maximum capital gains rates, provided holding period and other requirements are met at both the shareholder and the Fund level. The Fund does not expect that any of its distributions will be qualified dividends eligible for lower tax rates.

Distributions in excess of the Fund’s current and accumulated earnings and profits are treated as a tax-free return of your investment to the extent of your basis in the Shares, and generally as capital gain thereafter. A return of capital, which for tax purposes is treated as a return of your investment, reduces your basis in Shares, thus reducing any loss or increasing any gain on a subsequent taxable disposition of Shares. A distribution will reduce the Fund’s NAV per Share and may be taxable to you as ordinary income or capital gain even though, from an economic standpoint, the distribution may constitute a return of capital.

Special tax rules may change the normal treatment of gains and losses recognized by the Fund if the Fund makes certain investments such as investments in structured notes, swaps, options and futures transactions. Those special tax rules can negatively affect the character, timing and amount of income earned by the Fund (e.g., by causing amounts that would be capital gain to be taxed as ordinary income or to be taken into income earlier than would otherwise be necessary). The Fund may invest in swaps and other derivative instruments that are linked to the performance of RMB Bonds. The U.S. tax treatment of such investments may generally be less efficient than a direct investment in RMB Bonds. Furthermore, the Fund may be required to periodically adjust its positions in these swaps or derivatives to comply with certain regulatory requirements which may further cause these investments to be less efficient than a direct investment in RMB Bonds. In addition, because the application of these special rules may be uncertain, it is possible that the manner in which they are applied by the Fund may be determined to be incorrect. In that event, the Fund may be found to have failed to maintain its qualification as a RIC or to be subject to additional U.S. tax liability.

Dividends, interest and gains from non-U.S. investments of the Fund may give rise to withholding and other taxes imposed by foreign countries. Tax conventions between certain countries and the United States may, in some cases, reduce or eliminate such taxes.

If more than 50% of the Fund’s total assets at the end of its taxable year consist of foreign securities, the Fund may elect to “pass through” to its investors certain foreign income taxes paid by the Fund, with the result that each investor will (i) include in gross income, as an additional dividend, even though not actually received, the investor’s pro rata share of the Fund’s foreign income taxes, and (ii) either deduct (in calculating U.S. taxable income) or credit (in calculating U.S. federal income), subject to certain holding period and other limitations, the investor’s pro rata share of the Fund’s foreign income taxes. This treatment will not apply with respect to amounts the Fund reserves in anticipation of the imposition of Chinese withholding taxes not currently in effect (as discussed above). If these amounts are used to pay any tax liability of the Fund in a later year, they will be treated as paid by the shareholders in such later year, even if they are imposed with respect to income of an earlier year. It is expected that more than 50% of the Fund’s assets will consist of foreign securities.

Backup Withholding. The Fund may be required to withhold a percentage of your distributions and proceeds if you have not provided a taxpayer identification number or social security number or otherwise established a basis for exemption from backup withholding. The backup withholding rate for individuals

is currently 28%. This is not an additional tax and may be refunded, or credited against your U.S. federal income tax liability, provided certain required information is furnished to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”).

Taxes on the Sale or Cash Redemption of Exchange Listed Shares. Currently, any capital gain or loss realized upon a sale of Shares is generally treated as long-term capital gain or loss if the Shares have been held for more than one year and as a short term capital gain or loss if held for one year or less. However, any capital loss on a sale of Shares held for six months or less is treated as long -term capital loss to the extent that capital gain dividends were paid with respect to such Shares. The ability to deduct capital losses may be limited. A redemption of a shareholder’s Fund Shares for cash is normally treated as a sale for tax purposes.

Taxes on In-Kind Creations and In-Kind Redemptions of Creation Units. To the extent a person exchanges securities or securities and cash for Creation Units, such person generally will recognize a gain or loss. The gain or loss will be equal to the difference between the market value of the Creation Units at the time of exchange and the sum of the exchanger’s aggregate basis in the securities surrendered and the amount of any cash paid for such Creation Units. A person who exchanges Creation Units for securities or securities and cash will generally recognize a gain or loss equal to the difference between the exchanger’s basis in the Creation Units and the sum of the aggregate market value of the securities received and the amount of any cash received for such Creation Units. The IRS, however, may assert that a loss realized upon an exchange of primarily securities for Creation Units cannot be deducted currently under the rules governing “wash sales,” or on the basis that there has been no significant change in economic position. Persons exchanging primarily securities for Creation Units or redeeming Creation Units should consult their own tax adviser with respect to whether wash sale rules apply and when a loss might be deductible and the tax treatment of any creation or redemption transaction.

Under current U.S. federal income tax laws, any capital gain or loss realized upon a redemption (or creation) of Creation Units is generally treated as long-term capital gain or loss if the Shares (or securities surrendered) have been held for more than one year and as a short-term capital gain or loss if the Shares (or securities surrendered) have been held for one year or less.

If you create or redeem Creation Units, you will be sent a confirmation statement showing how many Shares you created or sold and at what price.

Medicare Tax. An additional 3.8% Medicare tax is imposed on certain net investment income (including ordinary dividends and capital gain distributions received from the Fund and net gains from redemptions or other taxable dispositions of Fund Shares) of U.S. individuals, estates and trusts to the extent that such person’s “modified adjusted gross income” (in the case of an individual) or “adjusted gross income” (in the case of an estate or trust) exceeds certain threshold amounts.

Non-U.S. Shareholders. If you are not a citizen or resident alien of the United States, the Fund’s ordinary income dividends (which include distributions of net short-term capital gains) will generally be subject to a 30% U.S. withholding tax, unless a lower treaty rate applies or unless such income is effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business.

entities (“NFFE’s”), unless they certify certain information regarding their direct and indirect U.S. owners. To avoid possible withholding, FFI’s will need to enter into agreements with the IRS which state that they will provide the IRS information, including the names, account numbers and balances, addresses and taxpayer identification numbers of U.S. account holders and comply with due diligence procedures with respect to the identification of U.S. accounts as well as agree to withhold tax on certain types of withholdable payments made to non-compliant foreign financial institutions or to applicable foreign account holders who fail to provide the required information to the IRS, or similar account information and required documentation to a local revenue authority, should an applicable intergovernmental agreement be implemented. NFFE’s will need to provide certain information regarding each substantial U.S. owner or certifications of no substantial U.S. ownership, unless certain exceptions apply, or agree to provide certain information to the IRS.

While final FATCA rules have not been finalized, the Fund may be subject to the FATCA withholding obligation, and also will be required to perform due diligence reviews to classify foreign entity investors for FATCA purposes. Investors are required to agree to provide information necessary to allow the Fund to comply with the FATCA rules. If the Fund is required to withhold amounts from payments pursuant to FATCA, investors will receive distributions that are reduced by such withholding amounts.

Non-U.S. shareholders are advised to consult their tax advisors with respect to the particular tax consequences to them of an investment in the Fund, including the possible applicability of the U.S. estate tax.

The foregoing discussion summarizes some of the consequences under current U.S. federal income tax law of an investment in the Fund. It is not a substitute for personal tax advice. Consult your own tax advisor about the potential tax consequences of an investment in the Fund under all applicable tax laws.

The Index is compiled and calculated by China Central Depository & Clearing Co., Ltd. (the “Index Provider”). All copyright in the Index values and constituent list vests in the Index Provider. The Index Provider does not sponsor, endorse, or promote the Fund and bears no liability with respect to the Fund or any security.

The Index is comprised of fixed-rate, RMB-denominated bonds issued in the PRC by Chinese credit, governmental and quasi-governmental (e.g., policy banks) issuers. Chinese credit issuers are generally considered to be issuers of central enterprise bonds, local enterprise bonds, medium-term notes, corporate bonds and railway debt. Credit RMB Bonds must have an issuer rating of AAA or equivalent by one or more of the Chinese local rating agencies recognized by the relevant authorities in the PRC to be included in the Index. China currently has three policy banks, which are state-owned banks responsible for financing economic and trade development and state-invested projects. As of September 30, 2014, the Index was comprised of 1,446 bonds of 244 issuers.

Qualifying bonds must have an amount outstanding of over RMB 15 billion for government bonds (including government debt and central bank bills), over RMB 4 billion for policy bank bonds, and over RMB 1 billion for credit bonds (including enterprise bonds and medium-term notes; but excluding commercial papers and convertible bonds). Qualifying bonds must have a term to maturity of over one year, and be traded on the Chinese inter-bank bond market, the Shanghai Stock Exchange and/or the Shenzhen Stock Exchange.

The Index uses a modified market cap weighting methodology. Weightings are subject to the following criteria: (a) 20% government bonds; (b) 30% policy bank bonds; and (c) 50% credit bonds (with an issuer cap of 4.75%). The weightings of the constituent issuers in the Index within the sectors described in the previous sentence are based on each issuer’s relative market capitalization to the total market capitalization of its sector on each rebalancing date.

The Index is calculated and maintained by the Index Provider. Bonds in general are traded over-the-counter and therefore have no single market price. The Index Provider computes and publishes the price of all PRC bonds in the Index daily.

The Index is rebalanced monthly as of the close of business on the final trading day of the month. The review will be based on closing data from the last business day of the month.

The Adviser has entered into a licensing agreement with the Index Provider to use the Index. The Fund is entitled to use the Index pursuant to a sub-licensing arrangement with the Adviser.

The Index is compiled and calculated constructed and maintained by the Index Provider. All copyright in the Index values and constituent list vests in the Index Provider, to which all index indicator data and all index constituent data shall belong.

The Fund has not yet commenced operations as of the date of this Prospectus and therefore it does not have a financial history.

The Fund has not yet commenced operations and, therefore, does not have information about the differences between the Fund’s daily market price on NYSE Arca and its NAV. Information regarding how often the Shares of the Fund traded on NYSE Arca at a price above (i.e., at a premium) or below (i.e., at a discount) the NAV of the Fund during the past four calendar quarters, as applicable, can be found (when available) at www.marketvectorsetfs.com.

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

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

Broker dealers who are not “underwriters” but are participating in a distribution (as contrasted to ordinary secondary trading transactions), and thus dealing with Shares that are part of an “unsold allotment” within the meaning of Section 4(3)(C) of the Securities Act, would be unable to take advantage of the prospectus delivery exemption provided by Section 4(3) of the Securities Act. This is because the prospectus delivery exemption in Section 4(3) of the Securities Act is not available in respect of such transactions as a result of Section 24(d) of the 1940 Act. As a result, broker dealer firms should note that dealers who are not underwriters but are participating in a distribution (as contrasted with ordinary secondary market transactions) and thus dealing with the Shares that are part of an overallotment within the meaning of Section 4(3)(A) of the Securities Act would be unable to take advantage of the prospectus delivery exemption provided by Section 4(3) of the Securities Act. Firms that incur a prospectus delivery obligation with respect to Shares are reminded that, under Rule 153 of the Securities Act, a prospectus delivery obligation under Section 5(b)(2) of the Securities Act owed to an exchange member in connection with a sale on NYSE Arca is satisfied by the fact that the prospectus is available at NYSE Arca upon request. The prospectus delivery mechanism provided in Rule 153 is only available with respect to transactions on an exchange.

In addition, certain affiliates of the Fund and the Adviser may purchase and resell Fund shares pursuant to this Prospectus.

The Trust was organized as a Delaware statutory trust on March 15, 2001. Its Declaration of Trust currently permits the Trust to issue an unlimited number of Shares of beneficial interest. If shareholders are required to vote on any matters, each Share outstanding would be entitled to one vote. Annual meetings of shareholders will not be held except as required by the 1940 Act and other applicable law. See the Fund’s SAI for more information concerning the Trust’s form of organization. Section 12(d)(1) of the 1940 Act restricts investments by investment companies in the securities of other investment companies, including Shares of the Fund. Registered investment companies are permitted to invest in the Fund beyond the limits set forth in Section 12(d)(1) subject to certain terms and conditions set forth in an SEC exemptive order issued to the Trust, including that such investment companies enter into an agreement with the Fund.

Dechert LLP serves as counsel to the Trust, including the Fund. Ernst & Young LLP serves as the Trust’s independent registered public accounting firm and will audit the Fund’s financial statements annually.

This Prospectus does not contain all the information included in the Registration Statement filed with the SEC with respect to the Fund’s Shares. Information about the Fund can be reviewed and copied at the SEC’s Public Reference Room and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling the SEC at 1.202.551.8090. The Fund’s Registration Statement, including this Prospectus, the Fund’s SAI and the exhibits may be examined at the offices of the SEC (100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549) or on the EDGAR database at the SEC’s website (http://www.sec.gov), and copies may be obtained, after paying a duplicating fee, by electronic request at the following email address: publicinfo@sec.gov, or by writing the SEC’s Public Reference Section, Washington, DC 20549-1520. These documents and other information concerning the Trust also may be inspected at the offices of NYSE Arca (20 Broad Street, New York, New York 10005).

The SAI for the Fund, which has been filed with the SEC, provides more information about the Fund. The SAI for the Fund is incorporated herein by reference and is legally part of this Prospectus. Additional information about the Fund’s investments will be available in the Fund’s annual and semi-annual reports to shareholders. In the Fund’s annual report, when available, you will find a discussion of the market conditions and investment strategies that significantly affected the Fund’s performance during its last fiscal year. The SAI and the Fund’s annual and semi-annual reports may be obtained without charge by writing to the Fund at Van Eck Securities Corporation, the Fund’s distributor, at 335 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10017 or by calling the distributor at the following number: Investor Information: 1.888.MKT.VCTR (658-8287).

Shareholder inquiries may be directed to the Fund in writing to 335 Madison Avenue, 19th Floor, New York, New York 10017 or by calling 1.888.MKT.VCTR (658-8287).

For more detailed information about the Fund, see the SAI dated November 10, 2014, which is incorporated by reference into this Prospectus. Additional information about the Fund’s investments will be available in the Fund’s annual and semi-annual reports to shareholders. In the Fund’s annual report, when available, you will find a discussion of the market conditions and investment strategies that significantly affected the Fund’s performance during its last fiscal year.

Call Van Eck at 888.MKT.VCTR to request, free of charge, the annual or semi-annual reports, when available, the SAI, or other information about the Fund or to make shareholder inquiries. You may also obtain the SAI or the Fund’s annual or semi-annual reports, when available, by visiting the Van Eck website at www.marketvectorsetfs.com.

Information about the Fund (including the SAI) can also be reviewed and copied at the SEC Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. Information about the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 202.551.8090.

Reports and other information about the Fund are available on the EDGAR Database on the SEC’s internet site at http://www.sec.gov. In addition, copies of this information may be obtained, after paying a duplicating fee, by electronic request at the following email address: publicinfo@sec.gov, or by writing the SEC’s Public Reference Section, Washington, DC 20549-0102.

Transfer Agent: The Bank of New York Mellon
SEC Registration Number: 333-123257
1940 Act Registration Number: 811-10325

CBONPRO

This Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) is not a prospectus. It should be read in conjunction with the Prospectus dated November 10, 2014 (the “Prospectus”) for the Market Vectors ETF Trust (the “Trust”), relating to the series of the Trust listed below, as it may be revised from time to time.

A copy of the Prospectus may be obtained without charge by writing to the Trust or the Distributor. The Trust’s address is 335 Madison Avenue, 19th Floor, New York, New York 10017. Capitalized terms used herein that are not defined have the same meaning as in the Prospectus, unless otherwise noted.

The Trust is an open-end management investment company. The Trust currently consists of 60 investment portfolios. This SAI relates to one investment portfolio, Market Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (the “Fund”). The Fund is classified as a non-diversified management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (“1940 Act”) and, as a result, is not required to meet certain diversification requirements under the 1940 Act. The Trust was organized as a Delaware statutory trust on March 15, 2001. The shares of the Fund are referred to herein as “Shares.”

The Fund will offer and issue Shares at their net asset value (“NAV”) only in aggregations of a specified number of Shares (each, a “Creation Unit”) principally for cash. Similarly, Shares are redeemable by the Fund only in Creation Units principally for cash. The Shares of the Fund are expected to be approved for listing, subject to notice of issuance, on NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or the “Exchange”), and will trade in the secondary market at market prices that may differ from the Shares’ NAV. A Creation Unit consists of 100,000 Shares of the Fund.

The Trust reserves the right to permit or require a “cash” option for creations and redemptions of Shares of the Fund (subject to applicable legal requirements) to the extent such Shares are not created and redeemed in cash.

The Fund may invest in repurchase agreements with commercial banks, brokers or dealers to generate income from its excess cash balances and to invest securities lending cash collateral. A repurchase agreement is an agreement under which the Fund acquires a money market instrument (generally a security issued by the U.S. Government or an agency thereof, a banker’s acceptance or a certificate of deposit) from a seller, subject to resale to the seller at an agreed upon price and date (normally, the next business day). A repurchase agreement may be considered a loan collateralized by securities. The resale price reflects an agreed upon interest rate effective for the period the instrument is held by the Fund and is unrelated to the interest rate on the underlying instrument.

In these repurchase agreement transactions, the securities acquired by the Fund (including accrued interest earned thereon) must have a total value at least equal to the value of the repurchase agreement and are held by the Trust’s custodian bank until repurchased. In addition, the Trust’s Board of Trustees (“Board” or “Trustees”) has established guidelines and standards for review of the creditworthiness of any bank, broker or dealer counterparty to a repurchase agreement with the Fund. No more than an aggregate of 15% of the Fund’s net assets will be invested in repurchase agreements having maturities longer than seven days.

The use of repurchase agreements involves certain risks. For example, if the other party to the agreement defaults on its obligation to repurchase the underlying security at a time when the value of the security has declined, the Fund may incur a loss upon disposition of the security. If the other party to the agreement becomes insolvent and subject to liquidation or reorganization under the Bankruptcy Code or other laws, a court may determine that the underlying security is collateral not within the control of the Fund and, therefore, the Fund may incur delays in disposing of the security and/or may not be able to substantiate its interest in the underlying security and may be deemed an unsecured creditor of the other party to the agreement.

Futures contracts generally provide for the future sale by one party and purchase by another party of a specified instrument, index or commodity at a specified future time and at a specified price. Bond index futures contracts are settled daily with a payment by one party to the other of a cash amount based on the difference between the level of the bond index specified in the contract from one day to the next. Futures contracts are standardized as to maturity date and underlying instrument and are traded on futures exchanges. The Fund may use futures contracts and options on futures contracts based on the Fund’s benchmark index (the “Index”), other indexes or combinations of indexes that Van Eck Associates Corporation (the “Adviser”) believes to be representative of the Index.

An option is a contract that provides the holder the right to buy or sell shares at a fixed price, within a specified period of time. An American call option gives the option holder the right to buy the underlying security from the option writer at the option exercise price at any time prior to the expiration of the option. A European call option gives the option holder the right to buy the underlying security from the option writer only on the option expiration date. An American put option gives the option holder the right to sell the underlying security to the option writer at the option exercise price at any time prior to the expiration of the option. A European put option gives the option holder the right to sell the underlying security to the option writer at the option exercise price only on the option expiration date.

Although futures contracts (other than cash settled futures contracts including most bond index futures contracts) by their terms call for actual delivery or acceptance of the underlying instrument or commodity, in most cases the contracts are closed out before the maturity date without the making or taking of delivery. Closing out an open futures position is done by taking an opposite position (“buying” a contract which has previously been “sold” or “selling” a contract previously “purchased”) in an identical contract to terminate the position. Brokerage commissions are incurred when a futures contract position is opened or closed.

Futures traders are required to make a good faith margin deposit in cash or government securities with a broker or custodian to initiate and maintain open positions in futures contracts. A margin deposit is intended to assure completion of the contract (delivery or acceptance of the underlying instrument or commodity or payment of the cash settlement amount) if it is not terminated prior to the specified delivery date. Brokers may establish deposit requirements which are higher than the exchange minimums. Futures contracts are customarily purchased and sold on margin deposits which may range upward from less than 5% of the value of the contract being traded.

After a futures contract position is opened, the value of the contract is marked-to-market daily. If the futures contract price changes to the extent that the margin on deposit does not satisfy margin requirements, payment of additional “variation” margin will be required.

Conversely, a change in the contract value may reduce the required margin, resulting in a repayment of excess margin to the contract holder. Variation margin payments are made to and from the futures broker for as long as the contract remains open. The Fund expects to earn interest income on its margin deposits.

The Fund may use futures contracts and options thereon, together with positions in cash and money market instruments, to simulate full investment in the Index. Under such circumstances, the Adviser may seek to utilize other instruments that it believes to be correlated to the Index components or a subset of the components. Liquid futures contracts may not be currently available for the Index.

Positions in futures contracts and options may be closed out only on an exchange that provides a secondary market therefor. However, there can be no assurance that a liquid secondary market will exist for any particular futures contract or option at any specific time. Thus, it may not be possible to close a futures or options position. In the event of adverse price movements, the Fund would continue to be required to make daily cash payments to maintain its required margin. In such situations, if the Fund has insufficient cash, it may have to sell portfolio securities to meet daily margin requirements at a time when it may be disadvantageous to do so. In addition, the Fund may be required to make delivery of the instruments underlying futures contracts it has sold.

The Fund will seek to minimize the risk that it will be unable to close out a futures or options contract by only entering into futures and options for which there appears to be a liquid secondary market.

The risk of loss in trading futures contracts or uncovered call options in some strategies (e.g., selling uncovered bond index futures contracts) is potentially unlimited. The Fund does not plan to use futures and options contracts in this way. The risk of a futures position may still be large as traditionally measured due to the low margin deposits required. In many cases, a relatively small price movement in a futures contract may result in immediate and substantial loss or gain to the investor relative to the size of a required margin deposit.

Utilization of futures transactions by the Fund involves the risk of imperfect or even negative correlation to the Index if the index underlying the futures contracts differs from the Index. There is also

the risk of loss by the Fund of margin deposits in the event of bankruptcy of a broker with whom the Fund has an open position in the futures contract or option.

Certain financial futures exchanges limit the amount of fluctuation permitted in futures contract prices during a single trading day. The daily limit establishes the maximum amount that the price of a futures contract may vary either up or down from the previous day’s settlement price at the end of a trading session. Once the daily limit has been reached in a particular type of contract, no trades may be made on that day at a price beyond that limit. The daily limit governs only price movement during a particular trading day and therefore does not limit potential losses, because the limit may prevent the liquidation of unfavorable positions. Futures contract prices have occasionally moved to the daily limit for several consecutive trading days with little or no trading, thereby preventing prompt liquidation of future positions and subjecting some futures traders to substantial losses.

Except as otherwise specified in the Fund’s Prospectus or this SAI, there are no limitations on the extent to which the Fund may engage in transactions involving futures and options thereon. The Fund will take steps to prevent its futures positions from “leveraging” its securities holdings. When the Fund has a long futures position, it will maintain with its custodian bank, cash or liquid securities having a value equal to the notional value of the contract (less any margin deposited in connection with the position). When the Fund has a short futures position, the Fund will maintain with its custodian bank assets substantially identical to those underlying the contract or cash and liquid securities (or a combination of the foregoing) having a value equal to the net obligation of the Fund under the contract (less the value of any margin deposits in connection with the position).

Over-the-counter (“OTC”) swap agreements are contracts between parties in which one party agrees to make payments to the other party based on the change in market value or level of a specified index or asset. In return, the other party agrees to make payments to the first party based on the return of a different specified index or asset. Although OTC swap agreements entail the risk that a party will default on its payment obligations thereunder, the Fund seeks to reduce this risk by entering into agreements that involve payments no less frequently than quarterly. The net amount of the excess, if any, of the Fund’s obligations over its entitlements with respect to each swap is accrued on a daily basis and an amount of cash or highly liquid securities having an aggregate value at least equal to the accrued excess is maintained in an account at the Trust’s custodian bank.

The use of such swap agreements involves certain risks. For example, if the counterparty, under a swap agreement, defaults on its obligation to make payments due from it as a result of its bankruptcy or otherwise, the Fund may lose such payments altogether or collect only a portion thereof, which collection could involve costs or delays.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) and related regulatory developments require the eventual clearing and exchange-trading of many standardized OTC derivative instruments that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) recently defined as “swaps” and “security-based swaps,” respectively. Mandatory exchange-trading and clearing is occurring on a phased-in basis based on the type of market participant and CFTC approval of contracts for central clearing and exchange trading. In a cleared swap, the Fund’s ultimate counterparty is a central clearinghouse rather than a brokerage firm, bank or other financial institution. The Fund initially will enter into cleared swaps through an executing broker. Such transactions will then be submitted for clearing and, if cleared, will be held at regulated futures commission merchants (“FCMs”) that are members of the clearinghouse that serves as the central counterparty. When the Fund enters into a cleared swap, it must deliver to the central counterparty (via

an FCM) an amount referred to as “initial margin.” Initial margin requirements are determined by the central counterparty, but an FCM may require additional initial margin above the amount required by the central counterparty. During the term of the swap agreement, a “variation margin” amount may also be required to be paid by the Fund or may be received by the Fund in accordance with margin controls set for such accounts, depending upon changes in the price of the underlying reference asset subject to the swap agreement. At the conclusion of the term of the swap agreement, if the Fund has a loss equal to or greater than the margin amount, the margin amount is paid to the FCM along with any loss in excess of the margin amount. If the Fund has a loss of less than the margin amount, the excess margin is returned to the Fund. If the Fund has a gain, the full margin amount and the amount of the gain is paid to the Fund.

Central clearing is designed to reduce counterparty credit risk compared to uncleared swaps because central clearing interposes the central clearinghouse as the counterparty to each participant’s swap, but it does not eliminate those risks completely. There is also a risk of loss by the Fund of the initial and variation margin deposits in the event of bankruptcy of the FCM with which the Fund has an open position in a swap contract. The assets of the Fund may not be fully protected in the event of the bankruptcy of the FCM or central counterparty because the Fund might be limited to recovering only a pro rata share of all available funds and margin segregated on behalf of an FCM’s customers or central counterparty’s clearing members. If the FCM does not provide accurate reporting, the Fund is also subject to the risk that the FCM could use the Fund’s assets, which are held in an omnibus account with assets belonging to the FCM’s other customers, to satisfy its own financial obligations or the payment obligations of another customer to the central counterparty. Certain swaps have begun trading on exchanges called swap execution facilities. Exchange-trading is expected to increase liquidity of swaps trading.

In addition, with respect to cleared swaps, the Fund may not be able to obtain as favorable terms as it would be able to negotiate for an uncleared swap. In addition, an FCM may unilaterally impose position limits or additional margin requirements for certain types of swaps in which the Fund may invest. Central counterparties and FCMs generally can require termination of existing cleared swap transactions at any time, and can also require increases in margin above the margin that is required at the initiation of the swap agreement. Margin requirements for cleared swaps vary on a number of factors, and the margin required under the rules of the clearinghouse and FCM may be in excess of the collateral required to be posted by the Fund to support its obligations under a similar uncleared swap. However, regulators are expected to adopt rules imposing certain margin requirements, including minimums, on uncleared swaps in the near future, which could change this comparison.

The Fund is also subject to the risk that, after entering into a cleared swap with an executing broker, no FCM or central counterparty is willing or able to clear the transaction. In such an event, the central counterparty would void the trade. Before the Fund can enter into a new trade, market conditions may become less favorable to the Fund.

The Adviser will continue to monitor developments regarding trading and execution of cleared swaps on exchanges, particularly to the extent regulatory changes affect the Fund’s ability to enter into swap agreements and the costs and risks associated with such investments.

Warrants are equity securities in the form of options issued by a corporation which give the holder the right, but not the obligation to purchase stock, usually at a price that is higher than the market price at the time the warrant is issued. A purchaser takes the risk that the warrant may expire worthless because the market price of the common stock fails to rise above the price set by the warrant.

A currency forward transaction is a contract to buy or sell a specified quantity of currency at a specified date in the future at a specified price which may be any fixed number of days from the date of the contract agreed upon by the parties, at a price set at the time of the contract. Currency forward contracts may be used to increase or reduce exposure to currency price movements.

The use of currency forward transactions involves certain risks. For example, if the counterparty under the contract defaults on its obligation to make payments due from it as a result of its bankruptcy or otherwise, the Fund may lose such payments altogether or collect only a portion thereof, which collection could involve costs or delays.

A convertible security is a bond, debenture, note, preferred stock, right, warrant or other security that may be converted into or exchanged for a prescribed amount of common stock or other security of the same or a different issuer or into cash within a particular period of time at a specified price or formula. A convertible security generally entitles the holder to receive interest paid or accrued on debt securities or the dividend paid on preferred stock until the convertible security matures or is redeemed, converted or exchanged. Before conversion, convertible securities generally have characteristics similar to both debt and equity securities. The value of convertible securities tends to decline as interest rates rise and, because of the conversion feature, tends to vary with fluctuations in the market value of the underlying securities. Convertible securities ordinarily provide a stream of income with generally higher yields than those of common stock of the same or similar issuers. Convertible securities generally rank senior to common stock in a corporation’s capital structure but are usually subordinated to comparable nonconvertible securities. Convertible securities generally do not participate directly in any dividend increases or decreases of the underlying securities although the market prices of convertible securities may be affected by any dividend changes or other changes in the underlying securities.

A structured note is a derivative security for which the amount of principal repayment and/or interest payments is based on the movement of one or more “factors.” These factors include, but are not limited to, currency exchange rates, interest rates (such as the prime lending rate or LIBOR), referenced bonds and stock indices. Some of these factors may or may not correlate to the total rate of return on one or more underlying instruments referenced in such notes. Investments in structured notes involve risks including interest rate risk, credit risk and market risk. Depending on the factor(s) used and the use of multipliers or deflators, changes in interest rates and movement of such factor(s) may cause significant price fluctuations. Structured notes may be less liquid than other types of securities and more volatile than the reference factor underlying the note.

Participation notes (“P-Notes”) are issued by banks or broker-dealers and are designed to offer a return linked to the performance of a particular underlying equity security or market. P-Notes can have the characteristics or take the form of various instruments, including, but not limited to, certificates or warrants. The holder of a P-Note that is linked to a particular underlying security is entitled to receive any dividends paid in connection with the underlying security. However, the holder of a P-Note generally does not receive voting rights as it would if it directly owned the underlying security. P-Notes constitute direct, general and unsecured contractual obligations of the banks or broker-dealers that issue them, which therefore subject the Fund to counterparty risk, as discussed below. Investments in P-Notes involve

certain risks in addition to those associated with a direct investment in the underlying foreign securities or foreign securities markets whose return they seek to replicate. For instance, there can be no assurance that the trading price of a P-Note will equal the value of the underlying foreign security or foreign securities market that it seeks to replicate. As the purchaser of a P-Note, the Fund is relying on the creditworthiness of the counterparty issuing the P-Note and has no rights under a P-Note against the issuer of the underlying security. Therefore, if such counterparty were to become insolvent, the Fund would lose its investment. The risk that the Fund may lose its investments due to the insolvency of a single counterparty may be amplified to the extent the Fund purchases P-Notes issued by one issuer or a small number of issuers. P-Notes also include transaction costs in addition to those applicable to a direct investment in securities. In addition, the Fund’s use of P-Notes may cause the Fund’s performance to deviate from the performance of the portion of the Index to which the Fund is gaining exposure through the use of P-Notes.

Due to liquidity and transfer restrictions, the secondary markets on which P-Notes are traded may be less liquid than the markets for other securities, which may lead to the absence of readily available market quotations for securities in the Fund’s portfolio and may cause the value of the P-Notes to decline. The ability of the Fund to value its securities becomes more difficult and the Adviser’s judgment in the application of fair value procedures may play a greater role in the valuation of the Fund’s securities due to reduced availability of reliable objective pricing data. Consequently, while such determinations will be made in good faith, it may nevertheless be more difficult for the Fund to accurately assign a daily value to such securities.

The Fund may take advantage of opportunities in the area of options, futures contracts, options on futures contracts, warrants, swaps and any other investments which are not presently contemplated for use or which are not currently available, but which may be developed, to the extent such investments are considered suitable for the Fund by the Adviser or the Sub-Adviser (defined below).

The Trust has adopted the following investment restrictions as fundamental policies with respect to the Fund. These restrictions cannot be changed without the approval of the holders of a majority of the Fund’s outstanding voting securities. For purposes of the 1940 Act, a majority of the outstanding voting securities of the Fund means the vote, at an annual or a special meeting of the security holders of the Trust, of the lesser of (1) 67% or more of the voting securities of the Fund present at such meeting, if the holders of more than 50% of the outstanding voting securities of the Fund are present or represented by proxy, or (2) more than 50% of the outstanding voting securities of the Fund. Under these restrictions:

In addition to the investment restrictions adopted as fundamental policies as set forth above, the Fund observes the following restrictions, which may be changed by the Board without a shareholder vote. The Fund will not:

If a percentage limitation is adhered to at the time of investment or contract, a later increase or decrease in percentage resulting from any change in value or total or net assets will not result in a violation of such restriction, except that the percentage limitations with respect to the borrowing of money and illiquid securities above in fundamental restriction 2 and non-fundamental restriction 1, respectively, will be continuously complied with.

The Fund may invest its remaining assets in securities not included in the Index, which may include, but not be limited to money market instruments or funds which reinvest exclusively in money market instruments, in bonds that are in the relevant market but not in the Fund’s Index, and/or in combinations of certain bond index futures contracts, options on such futures contracts, bond options, bond index options, and bond index swaps and swaptions, each with a view towards providing the Fund with exposure to the securities in the Index.

A discussion of the risks associated with an investment in the Fund is contained in the Fund’s Prospectus under the headings “Summary Information—Principal Risks of Investing in the Fund” and “Additional Information About the Fund’s Investment Strategies and Risks—Risks of Investing in the Fund.” The discussion below supplements, and should be read in conjunction with, such sections of the Fund’s Prospectus.

Investment in the Fund should be made with an understanding that the value of the Fund’s portfolio securities may fluctuate in accordance with changes in the financial condition of the issuers of the portfolio securities, the value of securities generally and other factors.

An investment in the Fund should also be made with an understanding of the risks inherent in an investment in fixed income securities. An issuer may have the right to redeem or “call” a bond before maturity, in which case the investor may have to reinvest the proceeds at lower market rates. Most bonds bear interest income at a “coupon” rate that is fixed for the life of the bond. The value of a fixed rate bond usually rises when market interest rates fall, and falls when market interest rates rise. Accordingly, a fixed rate bond’s yield (income as a percent of the bond’s current value) may differ from its coupon rate as its value rises or falls. Other types of bonds bear income at an interest rate that is adjusted periodically. Because of their adjustable interest rates, the values of “floating-rate” or “variable-rate” bonds generally fluctuate less in response to market interest rate movements than the value of similar fixed rate bonds. The Fund may treat some of these bonds as having a shorter maturity for purposes of calculating the weighted average maturity of its investment portfolio. Generally, prices of higher quality issues tend to fluctuate more with changes in market interest rates than prices of lower quality issues and prices of longer maturity issues tend to fluctuate more than prices of shorter maturity issues. Bonds may be senior or subordinated obligations. Senior obligations generally have the first claim on a corporation’s earnings and assets and, in the event of liquidation, are paid before subordinated obligations. Bonds may be unsecured (backed only by the issuer’s general creditworthiness) or secured (also backed by specified collateral).

The Fund is not actively managed by traditional methods, and therefore the adverse financial condition of any one issuer will not result in the elimination of its securities from the securities held by the Fund unless the securities of such issuer are removed from the Index.

An investment in the Fund should also be made with an understanding that the Fund will not be able to replicate exactly the performance of the Index because the total return generated by the securities will be reduced by transaction costs incurred in adjusting the actual balance of the securities and other Fund expenses, whereas such transaction costs and expenses are not included in the calculation of the Index. In addition, the Fund’s use of a representative sampling approach may cause the Fund to not be as well correlated with the return of the Index as would be the case if the Fund purchased all of the securities in the Index in the proportions represented in the Index. The risk of non correlation may be higher than other exchange traded funds which utilize a sampling approach to the extent that the Fund invests a portion of its assets in securities that have economic characteristics that are substantially identical to the securities comprising the Index, but which are not included in the Index. It is also possible that for periods of time, the Fund may not fully replicate the performance of the Index due to the temporary unavailability of certain Index securities in the secondary market or due to other extraordinary circumstances. It is also possible that the composition of the Fund may not exactly replicate the composition of the Index if the Fund has to adjust its portfolio holdings in order to continue to qualify as

a “regulated investment company” under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Internal Revenue Code”).

Regulatory developments affecting the exchange-traded and OTC derivatives markets may impair the Fund’s ability to manage or hedge its investment portfolio through the use of derivatives. The Dodd-Frank Act and the rules promulgated thereunder may limit the ability of the Fund to enter into one or more exchange-traded or OTC derivatives transactions.

The Trust, on behalf of the Fund, has filed a notice of eligibility with the National Futures Association claiming an exclusion from the definition of the term “commodity pool operator” (“CPO”) pursuant to CFTC Regulation 4.5, as promulgated under the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”), with respect to the Fund’s operations. Therefore, neither the Fund nor the Adviser (with respect to the Fund) is subject to registration or regulation as a commodity pool or CPO under the CEA. If the Fund becomes subject to these requirements, the Fund may incur additional compliance and other expenses.

The Fund’s use of derivatives may also be limited by the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code, for qualification as a regulated investment company for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

With respect to investments in swap transactions, commodity futures, commodity options or certain other derivatives used for purposes other than bona fide hedging purposes, an investment company must meet one of the following tests under the amended regulations in order to claim an exemption from being considered a “commodity pool” or CPO. First, the aggregate initial margin and premiums required to establish an investment company’s positions in such investments may not exceed five percent (5%) of the liquidation value of the investment company’s portfolio (after accounting for unrealized profits and unrealized losses on any such investments). Alternatively, the aggregate net notional value of such instruments, determined at the time of the most recent position established, may not exceed one hundred percent (100%) of the liquidation value of the investment company’s portfolio (after accounting for unrealized profits and unrealized losses on any such positions). In addition to meeting one of the foregoing trading limitations, the investment company may not market itself as a commodity pool or otherwise as a vehicle for trading in the commodity futures, commodity options or swaps and derivatives markets. In the event that the Adviser is required to register as a CPO, the disclosure and operations of the Fund would need to comply with all applicable CFTC regulations. Compliance with these additional registration and regulatory requirements would increase operational expenses. Other potentially adverse regulatory initiatives could also develop.

Shares are subject to the risks of an investment in a portfolio of bond securities in an economic sector or industry in which the Index is concentrated. In addition, because it is the policy of the Fund to generally invest in the securities that comprise the Index, the portfolio of securities held by the Fund (“Fund Securities”) also will be concentrated in that economic sector or industry.

The Adviser allocates the Fund’s assets to an unaffiliated sub-adviser with an RQFII license (each, a “sub-adviser”) for purposes of investing in Renminbi (“RMB”)-denominated debt obligations issued within the People’s Republic of China (“PRC” or “China”) (“RMB Bonds”). China Asset Management (Hong Kong) Limited currently acts as the Fund’s Sub-Adviser for this purpose. The RQFII regulations provide that the size of a RQFII’s quota may be reduced or cancelled by SAFE if the RQFII is unable to use its all or a portion of its RQFII quota after the quota is granted. Pursuant to PRC and RQFII regulations, SAFE is vested with the power to impose regulatory sanctions if the Sub-Adviser, in its capacity as RQFII, or the PRC sub-custodian violates any provision of the RQFII regulations. Any such

violations could result in the revocation of the Sub-Adviser’s quota or other regulatory sanctions and may adversely impact the portion of the Sub-Adviser’s quota granted with respect to the Fund.

If SAFE reduces the Sub-Adviser’s quota, it may affect the Fund’s ability to effectively pursue its investment strategy. In addition, the Sub-Adviser’s RQFII status could be suspended or revoked. There can be no assurance that the Sub-Adviser will continue to maintain its RQFII status or be able to acquire additional RQFII quota. In the event the Sub-Adviser is unable to maintain its RQFII status or its RQFII quota becomes inadequate, and the Adviser is not able to retain an additional sub-adviser with an RQFII quota, the Fund may be unable to gain exposure to RMB Bonds through other means described in the Prospectus. In such event it is possible that the trading price of the Fund’s Shares on the Exchange will be at a significant premium or discount to the NAV (which may also increase the tracking error of the Fund) and could experience significant redemptions.

The current RQFII regulations include rules on investment restrictions applicable to the Fund. Transaction sizes for RQFIIs are relatively large (with the corresponding heightened risk of exposure to decreased market liquidity and significant price volatility leading to possible adverse effects on the timing and pricing of acquisition or disposal of securities).

The regulations which regulate investments by RQFIIs in the PRC and the repatriation of capital from RQFII investments are relatively new. The application and interpretation of such investment regulations are therefore relatively untested and there is no certainty as to how they will be applied as the PRC authorities and regulators have been given wide discretion in such investment regulations and there is no precedent or certainty as to how such discretion may be exercised now or in the future. The future application and/or interpretation of such regulations may create difficulties with respect to the manner in which the Fund seeks to invest in RMB Bonds in furtherance of its investment objective.

The Fund may be required for federal income tax purposes to mark-to-market and recognize as income for each taxable year its net unrealized gains and losses on certain futures contracts as of the end of the year as well as those actually realized during the year. Gain or loss from futures contracts required to be marked-to-market will be 60% long-term and 40% short-term capital gain or loss. Application of this rule may alter the timing and character of distributions to shareholders. The Fund may be required to defer the recognition of losses on futures contracts to the extent of any unrecognized gains on related positions held by the Fund.

In order for the Fund to continue to qualify for U.S. federal income tax treatment as a regulated investment company, at least 90% of its gross income for a taxable year must be derived from qualifying income, i.e., dividends, interest, income derived from loans of securities, gains from the sale of securities or of foreign currencies or other income derived with respect to the Fund’s business of investing in securities. It is anticipated that any net gain realized from the closing out of futures contracts will be considered gain from the sale of securities and therefore will be qualifying income for purposes of the 90% requirement.

The Fund distributes to shareholders annually any net capital gains which have been recognized for U.S. federal income tax purposes (including unrealized gains at the end of the Fund’s fiscal year) on futures transactions. Such distributions are combined with distributions of capital gains realized on the Fund’s other investments and shareholders are advised on the nature of the distributions.

A discussion of exchange listing and trading matters associated with an investment in the Fund is contained in the Fund’s Prospectus under the headings “Summary Information—Principal Risks of Investing in the Fund,” “Additional Information About the Fund’s Investment Strategies and Risks—Risks of Investing in the Fund,” “Shareholder Information—Determination of NAV” and “Shareholder Information—Buying and Selling Exchange-Traded Shares.” The discussion below supplements, and should be read in conjunction with, such sections of the Fund’s Prospectus.

The Shares of the Fund are expected to be approved for listing on NYSE Arca, subject to notice of issuance, and will trade in the secondary market at prices that may differ to some degree from their NAV.

The Exchange may but is not required to remove the Shares of the Fund from listing if: (1) following the initial twelve-month period beginning upon the commencement of trading of the Fund, there are fewer than 50 beneficial holders of the Shares for 30 or more consecutive trading days, (2) the value of the Index or portfolio of securities on which the Fund is based is no longer calculated or available or (3) such other event shall occur or condition exists that, in the opinion of the Exchange, makes further dealings on the Exchange inadvisable. In addition, the Exchange will remove the Shares from listing and trading upon termination of the Trust. There can be no assurance that the requirements of the Exchange necessary to maintain the listing of Shares of the Fund will continue to be met.

As in the case of other securities traded on the Exchange, brokers’ commissions on transactions will be based on negotiated commission rates at customary levels.

In order to provide investors with a basis to gauge whether the market price of the Shares of the Fund on the Exchange is approximately consistent with the current value of the assets of the Fund on a per Share basis, an updated Intra-Day Optimized Portfolio Value is disseminated intra-day through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association’s Network B Intra-Day Optimized Portfolio Values are disseminated every 15 seconds during regular Exchange trading hours based on the most recently reported prices of Fund Securities.

The Fund is not involved in or responsible for the calculation or dissemination of the Indicative Per Share Portfolio Value or Intra-Day Optimized Portfolio Value and makes no warranty as to the accuracy of the Indicative Per Share Portfolio Value or Intra-Day Optimized Portfolio Value.

The Board of the Trust consists of five Trustees, four of whom are not “interested persons” (as defined in the 1940 Act), of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”). Mr. David H. Chow, an Independent Trustee, serves as Chairman of the Board. The Board is responsible for overseeing the management and operations of the Trust, including general supervision of the duties performed by the Adviser and other service providers to the Trust. The Adviser is responsible for the day-to-day administration and business affairs of the Trust.

The Board believes that each Trustee’s experience, qualifications, attributes or skills on an individual basis and in combination with those of the other Trustees lead to the conclusion that the Board possesses the requisite skills and attributes to carry out its oversight responsibilities with respect to the Trust. The Board believes that the Trustees’ ability to review, critically evaluate, question and discuss information provided to them, to interact effectively with the Adviser, other service providers, counsel and independent auditors, and to exercise effective business judgment in the performance of their duties, support this conclusion. The Board also has considered the following experience, qualifications, attributes and/or skills, among others, of its members in reaching its conclusion: such person’s character and integrity; length of service as a board member of the Trust; such person’s willingness to serve and willingness and ability to commit the time necessary to perform the duties of a Trustee; and as to each Trustee other than Mr. van Eck, his status as not being an “interested person” (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the Trust. In addition, the following specific experience, qualifications, attributes and/or skills apply as to each Trustee: Mr. Chow, significant business and financial experience, particularly in the investment management industry, experience with trading and markets through his involvement with the Pacific Stock Exchange, and service as a chief executive officer, board member, partner or executive officer of various businesses and non-profit organizations; Mr. Short, business and financial experience, particularly in the investment management industry, and service as a president, board member or executive officer of various businesses; Mr. Sidebottom, business and financial experience, particularly in the investment management industry, and service as partner and/or executive officer of various businesses; Mr. Stamberger, business and financial experience and service as the president and chief executive officer of SmartBrief Inc., a media company; and Mr. van Eck, business and financial experience, particularly in the investment management industry, and service as a president, executive officer and/or board member of various businesses, including the Adviser, Van Eck Securities Corporation, and Van Eck Absolute Return Advisers Corporation. References to the experience, qualifications, attributes and skills of Trustees are pursuant to requirements of the SEC, do not constitute holding out of the Board or any Trustee as having any special expertise or experience, and shall not impose any greater responsibility or liability on any such person or on the Board by reason thereof.

The Trustees of the Trust, their addresses, positions with the Trust, ages, term of office and length of time served, principal occupations during the past five years, the number of portfolios in the Fund Complex overseen by each Trustee and other directorships, if any, held by the Trustees, are set forth below.

The Officers of the Trust, their addresses, positions with the Trust, ages and principal occupations during the past five years are set forth below.

The Board has an Audit Committee consisting of four Trustees who are Independent Trustees. Messrs. Chow, Short, Sidebottom and Stamberger currently serve as members of the Audit Committee and each of Messrs. Chow, Short and Stamberger has been designated as an “audit committee financial expert” as defined under Item 407 of Regulation S-K of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Mr. Short is the Chairman of the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee has the responsibility, among other things, to: (i) oversee the accounting and financial reporting processes of the Trust and its internal control over financial reporting; (ii) oversee the quality and integrity of the Trust’s financial statements and the independent audit thereof; (iii) oversee or, as appropriate, assist the Board’s oversight of the Trust’s compliance with legal and regulatory requirements that relate to the Trust’s accounting and financial reporting, internal control over financial reporting and independent audit; (iv) approve prior to appointment the engagement of the Trust’s independent registered public accounting firm and, in connection therewith, to review and evaluate the qualifications, independence and performance of the Trust’s independent registered public accounting firm; and (v) act as a liaison between the Trust’s independent registered public accounting firm and the full Board.

The Board also has a Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee consisting of four Independent Trustees. Messrs. Chow, Short, Sidebottom and Stamberger currently serve as members of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. Mr. Stamberger is the Chairman of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee has the responsibility, among other things, to: (i) evaluate, as necessary, the composition of the Board, its committees and sub-committees and make such recommendations to the Board as deemed appropriate by the Committee; (ii) review and define Independent Trustee qualifications; (iii) review the qualifications of individuals serving as Trustees on the Board and its committees; (iv) evaluate, recommend and nominate qualified individuals for election or appointment as members of the Board and recommend the appointment of members and chairs of each Board committee and subcommittee; and (v) review and assess, from time to time, the performance of the committees and subcommittees of the Board and report the results to the Board.

The Board has determined that its leadership structure is appropriate given the business and nature of the Trust. In connection with its determination, the Board considered that the Chairman of the Board is an Independent Trustee. The Chairman of the Board can play an important role in setting the agenda of the Board and also serves as a key point person for dealings between management and the other Independent Trustees. The Independent Trustees believe that the Chairman’s independence facilitates meaningful dialogue between the Adviser and the Independent Trustees. The Board also considered that the Chairman of each Board committee is an Independent Trustee, which yields similar benefits with respect to the functions and activities of the various Board committees. The Independent Trustees also

regularly meet outside the presence of management and are advised by independent legal counsel. The Board has determined that its committees help ensure that the Trust has effective and independent governance and oversight. The Board also believes that its leadership structure facilitates the orderly and efficient flow of information to the Independent Trustees from management of the Trust, including the Adviser. The Board reviews its structure on an annual basis.

As an integral part of its responsibility for oversight of the Trust in the interests of shareholders, the Board, as a general matter, oversees risk management of the Trust’s investment programs and business affairs. The function of the Board with respect to risk management is one of oversight and not active involvement in, or coordination of, day-to-day risk management activities for the Trust. The Board recognizes that not all risks that may affect the Trust can be identified, that it may not be practical or cost-effective to eliminate or mitigate certain risks, that it may be necessary to bear certain risks (such as investment-related risks) to achieve the Trust’s goals, and that the processes, procedures and controls employed to address certain risks may be limited in their effectiveness. Moreover, reports received by the Trustees that may relate to risk management matters are typically summaries of the relevant information.

The Board exercises oversight of the risk management process primarily through the Audit Committee, and through oversight by the Board itself. The Trust faces a number of risks, such as investment-related and compliance risks. The Adviser’s personnel seek to identify and address risks, i.e., events or circumstances that could have material adverse effects on the business, operations, shareholder services, investment performance or reputation of the Trust. Under the overall supervision of the Board or the applicable Committee of the Board, the Trust, the Adviser, and the affiliates of the Adviser employ a variety of processes, procedures and controls to identify such possible events or circumstances, to lessen the probability of their occurrence and/or to mitigate the effects of such events or circumstances if they do occur. Different processes, procedures and controls are employed with respect to different types of risks. Various personnel, including the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer, as well as various personnel of the Adviser and other service providers such as the Trust’s independent accountants, may report to the Audit Committee and/or to the Board with respect to various aspects of risk management, as well as events and circumstances that have arisen and responses thereto.

The officers and Trustees of the Trust, in the aggregate, own less than 1% of the Shares of the Fund as of November 7, 2014.

For each Trustee, the dollar range of equity securities beneficially owned (including ownership through the Trust’s Deferred Compensation Plan) by the Trustee in the Trust and in all registered investment companies advised by the Adviser (“Family of Investment Companies”) that are overseen by the Trustee is shown below.

As to each Independent Trustee and his immediate family members, no person owned beneficially or of record securities in an investment manager or principal underwriter of the Fund, or a person (other than a registered investment company) directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by or under common control with the investment manager or principal underwriter of the Fund.

The Trust pays each Independent Trustee an annual retainer of $80,000, a per meeting fee of $15,000 for scheduled quarterly meetings of the Board and each special meeting of the Board and a per meeting fee of $7,500 for telephonic meetings. The Trust pays the Chairman of the Board an annual retainer of $45,500, the Chairman of the Audit Committee an annual retainer of $19,500 and the Chairman of the Governance Committee an annual retainer of $13,000. The Trust also reimburses each Trustee for travel and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending such meetings. No pension or retirement benefits are accrued as part of Trustee compensation.

The table below shows the estimated compensation to be paid to the Trustees by the Trust for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. Annual Trustee fees may be reviewed periodically and changed by the Trust’s Board.

The Fund’s portfolio holdings are publicly disseminated each day the Fund is open for business through financial reporting and news services, including publicly accessible Internet web sites. In addition, a basket composition file, which includes the security names and share quantities to deliver in exchange for Creation Units, together with estimates and actual cash components is publicly disseminated daily prior to the opening of the Exchange via the National Securities Clearing Corporation (the “NSCC”), a clearing agency that is registered with the SEC. The basket represents one Creation Unit of the Fund. The Trust, Adviser, Custodian and Distributor will not disseminate non-public information concerning the Trust.

The Trust is required to disclose, after its first and third fiscal quarters, the complete schedule of the Fund’s portfolio holdings with the SEC on Form N-Q. Form N-Q for the Fund will be available on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Fund’s Form N-Q may also be reviewed and copied at the SEC’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. and information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 202.551.8090. The Fund’s Form N-Q will be available through the Fund’s website, at www.vaneck.com or by writing to 335 Madison Avenue, 19th Floor, New York, New York 10017.

The Fund, the Adviser, the Sub-Adviser and the Distributor have each adopted a Code of Ethics pursuant to Rule 17j-1 under the 1940 Act, designed to monitor personal securities transactions by their personnel (the “Personnel”). The Code of Ethics requires that all trading in securities that are being purchased or sold, or are being considered for purchase or sale, by the Fund must be approved in advance by the Head of Trading, the Director of Research and the Chief Compliance Officer of the Adviser and persons performing similar functions of the Sub-Adviser. Approval will be granted if the security has not been purchased or sold or recommended for purchase or sale for the Fund on the day that the Personnel of the Adviser or the Sub-Adviser requests pre-clearance, or otherwise if it is determined that the personal trading activity will not have a negative or appreciable impact on the price or market of the security, or is of such a nature that it does not present the dangers or potential for abuses that are likely to result in harm or detriment to the Fund. At the end of each calendar quarter, all Personnel must file a report of all transactions entered into during the quarter. These reports are reviewed by a senior officer of the Adviser or the Sub-Adviser, as applicable.

Generally, all Personnel must obtain approval prior to conducting any transaction in securities. Independent Trustees, however, are not required to obtain prior approval of personal securities transactions. Personnel may purchase securities in an initial public offering or private placement, provided that he or she obtains preclearance of the purchase and makes certain representations.

The Fund’s proxy voting record will be available upon request and on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov. Proxies for the Fund’s portfolio securities are voted in accordance with the Adviser’s proxy voting policies and procedures, which are set forth in Appendix A to this SAI.

The Trust is required to disclose annually the Fund’s complete proxy voting record on Form N-PX covering the period July 1 through June 30 and file it with the SEC no later than August 31. Form N-PX for the Fund will be available through the Fund’s website, at www.vaneck.com, or by writing

to 335 Madison Avenue, 19th Floor, New York, New York 10017. The Fund’s Form N-PX will also be available on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.

The following information supplements and should be read in conjunction with the section in the Fund’s Prospectus entitled “Management of the Fund.”

Van Eck Associates Corporation acts as investment adviser to the Trust and, subject to the general supervision of the Board, is responsible for overseeing the activities of the Sub-Adviser. China Asset Management (Hong Kong) Limited acts as investment sub-adviser to the Trust and, subject to the oversight of the Adviser, is responsible for the day-to-day investment management of the Fund’s assets. The Adviser is a private company with headquarters in New York and manages other mutual funds and separate accounts.

The Adviser serves as investment adviser to the Fund pursuant to an investment management agreement between the Trust and the Adviser (the “Investment Management Agreement”). Under the Investment Management Agreement, the Adviser, subject to the supervision of the Board and in conformity with the stated investment policies of the Fund, manages and administers the Trust and oversees the Sub-Adviser with respect to the duties it has delegated to the Sub-Adviser regarding the investment and reinvestment of the Fund’s assets. The Sub-Adviser serves as investment subadviser to the Fund pursuant to an investment subadvisory agreement between the Adviser and the Sub-Adviser (the “Investment Subadvisory Agreement”). The Sub-Adviser is responsible for placing purchase and sale orders and providing continuous supervision of the Fund’s assets.

Indemnification. Pursuant to the Investment Management Agreement, the Trust has agreed to indemnify the Adviser for certain liabilities, including certain liabilities arising under the federal securities laws, unless such loss or liability results from willful misfeasance, bad faith or gross negligence in the performance of its duties or the reckless disregard of its obligations and duties. Pursuant to the Investment Subadvisory Agreement, the Adviser has agreed to indemnify the Sub-Adviser for certain liabilities, including certain liabilities arising under the federal securities laws, unless such loss or liability results from willful misfeasance or gross negligence in the performance of its duties or the reckless disregard of its obligations and duties.

Compensation. As compensation for its services under the Investment Management Agreement, the Adviser is paid a monthly fee based on a percentage of the Fund’s average daily net assets at the annual rate of 0.40%. From time to time, the Adviser may waive all or a portion of its fees. Until at least September 1, 2016, the Adviser has agreed to waive fees and/or pay Fund expenses to the extent necessary to prevent the operating expenses of the Fund (excluding acquired fund fees and expenses, interest expense, offering costs, trading expenses, taxes and extraordinary expenses) from exceeding 0.50% of its average daily net assets per year. From time to time, the Adviser may waive all or a portion of its fees. Offering costs excluded from the expense cap are: (a) legal fees pertaining to the Fund’s Shares offered for sale; (b) SEC and state registration fees; and (c) initial fees paid for Shares of the Fund to be listed on an exchange. For the services provided and the expenses assumed by the Sub-Adviser pursuant to the Sub-Advisory Agreement, the Adviser (not the Fund) will pay a monthly fee to the Sub-Adviser based on a percentage of the Fund’s average daily net assets managed by the Sub-Adviser.

Term. The Investment Management Agreement is subject to annual approval by (1) the Board or (2) a vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the Fund, provided that in either event such continuance also is approved by a majority of the Board who are not interested persons (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the Trust by a vote cast in person at a meeting called for the purpose of voting on such approval. The Investment Management Agreement is terminable without

penalty, on 60 days’ notice, by the Board or by a vote of the holders of a majority (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the Fund’s outstanding voting securities. The Investment Management Agreement is also terminable upon 60 days’ notice by the Adviser and will terminate automatically in the event of its assignment (as defined in the 1940 Act). The Investment Subadvisory Agreement terminates automatically upon assignment and is terminable at any time without penalty as to the Fund by the Board, or by vote of the holders of a majority of the Fund’s outstanding voting securities on 60 days’ written notice to the Sub-Adviser, by the Adviser on six (6) months written notice to the Sub-Adviser or by the Sub-Adviser on six (6) months written notice to the Adviser and the Trust.

Van Eck Associates Corporation also serves as administrator for the Trust pursuant to the Investment Management Agreement. Under the Investment Management Agreement, the Adviser is obligated on a continuous basis to provide such administrative services as the Board of the Trust reasonably deems necessary for the proper administration of the Trust and the Fund. The Adviser will generally assist in all aspects of the Trust’s and the Fund’s operations; supply and maintain office facilities, statistical and research data, data processing services, clerical, bookkeeping and record keeping services (including without limitation the maintenance of such books and records as are required under the 1940 Act and the rules thereunder, except as maintained by other agents), internal auditing, executive and administrative services, and stationery and office supplies; prepare reports to shareholders or investors; prepare and file tax returns; supply financial information and supporting data for reports to and filings with the SEC and various state Blue Sky authorities; supply supporting documentation for meetings of the Board; provide monitoring reports and assistance regarding compliance with the Declaration of Trust, by-laws, investment objectives and policies and with federal and state securities laws; arrange for appropriate insurance coverage; calculate NAVs, net income and realized capital gains or losses; and negotiate arrangements with, and supervise and coordinate the activities of, agents and others to supply services.

The Bank of New York Mellon (“The Bank of New York”), located at 101 Barclay Street, New York, New York 10286, serves as custodian for the Fund pursuant to a Custodian Agreement. As Custodian, The Bank of New York holds the Fund’s assets. The Bank of New York serves as the Fund’s transfer agent pursuant to a Transfer Agency Agreement. The Bank of New York may be reimbursed by the Fund for its out-of-pocket expenses. In addition, The Bank of New York provides various accounting services to the Fund pursuant to a fund accounting agreement.

Van Eck Securities Corporation (the “Distributor”) is the principal underwriter and distributor of Shares. Its principal address is 335 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10017 and investor information can be obtained by calling 1-888-MKT-VCTR. The Distributor has entered into an agreement with the Trust which will continue from its effective date unless terminated by either party upon 60 days’ prior written notice to the other party by the Trust and the Adviser, or by the Distributor, or until termination of the Trust or the Fund offering its Shares, and which is renewable annually thereafter (the “Distribution Agreement”), pursuant to which it distributes Shares. Shares will be continuously offered for sale by the Trust through the Distributor only in Creation Units, as described below under “Creation and Redemption of Creation Units—Procedures for Creation of Creation Units.” Shares in less than Creation Units are not distributed by the Distributor. The Distributor will deliver a prospectus to persons purchasing Shares in Creation Units and will maintain records of both orders placed with it and confirmations of acceptance furnished by it. The Distributor is a broker-dealer registered under the

Exchange Act and a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”). The Distributor has no role in determining the investment policies of the Trust or which securities are to be purchased or sold by the Trust.

The Distributor may also enter into sales and investor services agreements with broker-dealers or other persons that are Participating Parties and DTC Participants (as defined below) to provide distribution assistance, including broker-dealer and shareholder support and educational and promotional services but must pay such broker-dealers or other persons, out of its own assets.

The Distribution Agreement provides that it may be terminated at any time, without the payment of any penalty: (i) by vote of a majority of the Independent Trustees or (ii) by vote of a majority (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the outstanding voting securities of the Fund, on at least 60 days written notice to the Distributor. The Distribution Agreement is also terminable upon 60 days notice by the Distributor and will terminate automatically in the event of its assignment (as defined in the 1940 Act).

As of the date indicated below, Messrs. Mazier, Rodilosso, Lai and Wu managed the following other accounts:

Although the funds in the Trust that are managed by Messrs. Mazier and Rodilosso may have different investment strategies, each has an investment objective of seeking to replicate, before fees and expenses, its respective underlying index. The Adviser does not believe that management of the various accounts presents a material conflict of interest for Messrs. Mazier and Rodilosso or the Adviser.

Messrs. Lai and Wu manage other funds and mandates, including certain ETFs that have similar investment strategies to the Fund, which may create conflicts of interest with respect to portfolio management decisions and execution. Messrs. Lai and Wu expect to manage the Fund and the ETFs that have similar investment strategies to the Fund in accordance with their duties with respect to portfolio management decisions and execution.

The portfolio managers of the Adviser are paid a fixed base salary and a bonus. The bonus is based upon the quality of investment analysis and the management of the funds. The quality of management of the funds includes issues of replication, rebalancing, portfolio monitoring and efficient operation, among other factors. Portfolio managers who oversee accounts with significantly different fee structures are generally compensated by discretionary bonus rather than a set formula to help reduce potential conflicts of interest. At times, the Adviser and its affiliates manage accounts with incentive fees.

The portfolio manager employed by the Sub-Adviser is paid a base salary and performance-based compensation. The portfolio manager is evaluated from an investment performance perspective, typically over a three year period, and from a peer evaluation that is completed by the Sub-Adviser’s whole investment team (including other fund managers and analysts).

As of the date of this SAI, Messrs. Mazier, Rodilosso, Lai and Wu did not beneficially own any Shares of the Fund.

When selecting brokers and dealers to handle the purchase and sale of portfolio securities, the Adviser and the Sub-Adviser look for prompt execution of the order at a favorable price. Generally, the Adviser and the Sub-Adviser work with recognized dealers in these securities, except when a better price and execution of the order can be obtained elsewhere. The Fund will not deal with affiliates in principal transactions unless permitted by exemptive order or applicable rule or regulation. The Adviser and the Sub-Adviser owe a duty to each of their clients to seek best execution on trades effected. Since the investment objective of the Fund is investment performance that corresponds to that of the Index, the Adviser and the Sub-Adviser do not intend to select brokers and dealers for the purpose of receiving research services in addition to a favorable price and prompt execution either from that broker or an unaffiliated third party.

The Adviser assumes general supervision over placing orders on behalf of the Fund’s assets for the purchase or sale of portfolio securities. If purchases or sales of portfolio securities of the Fund’s assets allocated to itself and one or more other investment companies or clients supervised by the Adviser are considered at or about the same time, transactions in such securities are allocated among the several investment companies and clients in a manner deemed equitable to all by the Adviser. In some cases, this procedure could have a detrimental effect on the price or volume of the security so far as the Fund is concerned. However, in other cases, it is possible that the ability to participate in volume transactions and to negotiate lower brokerage commissions will be beneficial to the Fund. The primary consideration is best execution.

The Sub-Adviser places orders on behalf of the Fund’s assets allocated to it for the purchase or sale of portfolio securities. If purchases or sales of portfolio securities of the Fund’s assets allocated to it and one or more other investment companies or clients supervised by the Sub-Adviser are considered at or about the same time, transactions in such securities will be made among the several investment companies and clients in a manner deemed appropriate by the Sub-Adviser consistent with its duty to seek best execution.

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

The following information supplements and should be read in conjunction with the section in the Fund’s Prospectus entitled “Shareholder Information—Buying and Selling Exchange-Traded Shares.”

The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) acts as securities depositary for the Shares. Shares of the Fund are represented by securities registered in the name of DTC or its nominee and deposited with, or on behalf of, DTC. Certificates will not be issued for Shares.

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

Beneficial ownership of Shares is limited to DTC Participants, Indirect Participants and persons holding interests through DTC Participants and Indirect Participants. Ownership of beneficial interests in Shares (owners of such beneficial interests are referred to herein as “Beneficial Owners”) is shown on, and the transfer of ownership is effected only through, records maintained by DTC (with respect to DTC Participants) and on the records of DTC Participants (with respect to Indirect Participants and Beneficial Owners that are not DTC Participants). Beneficial Owners will receive from or through the DTC Participant a written confirmation relating to their purchase of Shares.

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

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

The Trust has no responsibility or liability for any aspects of the records relating to or notices to Beneficial Owners, or payments made on account of beneficial ownership interests in such Shares, or for

maintaining, supervising or reviewing any records relating to such beneficial ownership interests or for any other aspect of the relationship between DTC and the DTC Participants or the relationship between such DTC Participants and the Indirect Participants and Beneficial Owners owning through such DTC Participants.

DTC may determine to discontinue providing its service with respect to the Shares at any time by giving reasonable notice to the Trust and discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. Under such circumstances, the Trust shall take action either to find a replacement for DTC to perform its functions at a comparable cost or, if such a replacement is unavailable, to issue and deliver printed certificates representing ownership of Shares, unless the Trust makes other arrangements with respect thereto satisfactory to the Exchange.

The Fund will issue and sell Shares only in Creation Units on a continuous basis through the Distributor, without an initial sales load, at their NAV next determined after receipt, on any Business Day (as defined herein), of an order in proper form. An Authorized Participant (defined below) that is not a “qualified institutional buyer,” as such term is defined under Rule 144A of the Securities Act, will not be able to receive, as part of a redemption, restricted securities eligible for resale under Rule 144A.

A “Business Day” with respect to the Fund is any day on which the NYSE is open for business. As of the date of the Prospectus, the NYSE observes the following holidays: New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, President’s Day (Washington’s Birthday), Good Friday, Memorial Day (observed), Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day.

The consideration for a purchase of Creation Units is principally cash. To the extent in-kind creations are effected for the Fund, Creation Units of the Fund will consist of the in-kind deposit of a designated portfolio of fixed income securities (the “Deposit Securities”) that comprise the Index and an amount of cash computed as described below (the “Cash Component”). The Cash Component together with the Deposit Securities, as applicable, are referred to as the “Fund Deposit,” which represents the minimum initial and subsequent investment amount for Shares. The specified Deposit Securities generally will correspond, pro rata, to the extent practicable, to the portfolio securities of the Fund. The Cash Component represents the difference between the NAV of a Creation Unit and the market value of Deposit Securities and may include a Dividend Equivalent Payment. The “Dividend Equivalent Payment” enables the Fund to make a complete distribution of dividends on the next dividend payment date, and is an amount equal, on a per Creation Unit basis, to the dividends on all the securities held by the Fund (“Fund Securities”) with ex-dividend dates within the accumulation period for such distribution (the “Accumulation Period”), net of expenses and liabilities for such period, as if all of the Fund Securities had been held by the Trust for the entire Accumulation Period. The Accumulation Period begins on the ex-dividend date for the Fund and ends on the next ex-dividend date.

The Administrator, through the NSCC, makes available on each Business Day, immediately prior to the opening of business on the Exchange (currently 9:30 a.m. Eastern time), the list of the names and the required number of shares of each Deposit Security to be included in the current Fund Deposit (based on information at the end of the previous Business Day) as well as the Cash Component for the Fund. Such Fund Deposit is applicable, subject to any adjustments as described below, in order to effect creations of Creation Units of the Fund until such time as the next-announced Fund Deposit composition is made available.

The identity and number of shares of the Deposit Securities required for the Fund Deposit for the Fund changes as rebalancing adjustments and corporate action events are reflected from time to time by the Adviser with a view to the investment objective of the Fund. The composition of the Deposit Securities may also change in response to adjustments to the weighting or composition of the securities constituting the Index. In addition, the Trust reserves the right to accept a basket of securities or cash that differs from Deposit Securities or to permit or require the substitution of an amount of cash (i.e., a “cash in lieu” amount) to be added to the Cash Component to replace any Deposit Security which may, among other reasons, not be available in sufficient quantity for delivery, not be permitted to be re-registered in the name of the Trust as a result of an in-kind creation order pursuant to local law or market convention or which may not be eligible for transfer through the Clearing Process (described below), or which may not

be eligible for trading by a Participating Party (defined below). In light of the foregoing, in order to seek to replicate the in-kind creation order process, the Trust expects to purchase the Deposit Securities represented by the cash in lieu amount in the secondary market (“Market Purchases”). In such cases where the Trust makes Market Purchases because a Deposit Security may not be permitted to be re-registered in the name of the Trust as a result of an in-kind creation order pursuant to local law or market convention, or for other reasons, the Authorized Participant will reimburse the Trust for, among other things, any difference between the market value at which the securities were purchased by the Trust and the cash in lieu amount (which amount, at the Adviser’s discretion, may be capped), applicable registration fees and taxes. Brokerage commissions incurred in connection with the Trust’s acquisition of Deposit Securities will be at the expense of the Fund and will affect the value of all Shares of the Fund, but the Adviser may adjust the transaction fee to the extent the composition of the Deposit Securities changes or cash in lieu is added to the Cash Component to protect ongoing shareholders. The adjustments described above will reflect changes, known to the Adviser on the date of announcement to be in effect by the time of delivery of the Fund Deposit, in the composition of the Index or resulting from stock splits and other corporate actions.

Pursuant to a patent pending process, and subject to the receipt of appropriate regulatory relief, the Fund may in the future divide the daily list of Deposit Securities into different “categories,” based on various risk and return characteristics that may include (but not be limited to): (1) credit rating; (2) sector (e.g., revenue, pre-refunded or insured bonds); (3) issuer (or state of issuer); (4) call date; (5) maturity; and (6) coupon yield. With respect to each category, an Authorized Participant (as defined below) would be required, pursuant to rules established by the Fund, to contribute one bond from each category in-kind as a Deposit Security in the Fund Deposit. There is no assurance that such relief will be granted.

In addition to the list of names and numbers of securities constituting the current Deposit Securities of a Fund Deposit, the Administrator, through the NSCC, also makes available (i) on each Business Day, the Dividend Equivalent Payment, if any, and the estimated Cash Component effective through and including the previous Business Day, per outstanding Shares of the Fund, and (ii) on a continuous basis throughout the day, the Indicative Per Share Portfolio Value.

To be eligible to place orders with the Distributor to create Creation Units of the Fund, an entity or person either must be (1) a “Participating Party,” i.e., a broker-dealer or other participant in the Clearing Process through the Continuous Net Settlement System of the NSCC; or (2) a DTC Participant (see “Book Entry Only System”); and, in either case, must have executed an agreement with the Distributor and the Transfer Agent with respect to creations and redemptions of Creation Units (as it may be amended from time to time in accordance with its terms) (“Participant Agreement”) (discussed below). A Participating Party and DTC Participant are collectively referred to as an “Authorized Participant.” All Creation Units of the Fund, however created, will be entered on the records of the Depository in the name of Cede & Co. for the account of a DTC Participant.

All orders to create Creation Units must be placed in multiples of 100,000 Shares (i.e., a Creation Unit). All orders to create Creation Units, whether through the Clearing Process or outside the Clearing Process, must be received by the Distributor no later than the closing time of the regular trading session on NYSE Arca (“Closing Time”) (ordinarily 4:00 p.m. Eastern time) on the date such order is placed in order for creation of Creation Units to be effected based on the NAV of the Fund as determined on such date. A “Custom Order” may be placed by an Authorized Participant in the event that the Trust permits or requires the substitution of an amount of cash to be added to the Cash Component to replace any Deposit Security which may not be available in sufficient quantity for delivery or which may not be eligible for trading by such Authorized Participant or the investor for which it is acting, or other relevant

reason. The Business Day on which a creation order (or order to redeem as discussed below) is placed is herein referred to as the “Transmittal Date.” Orders must be transmitted by telephone or other transmission method acceptable to the Distributor pursuant to procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement, as described below (see “—Placement of Creation Orders Using Clearing Process”). Severe economic or market disruptions or changes, or telephone or other communication failure, may impede the ability to reach the Distributor, a Participating Party or a DTC Participant.

In connection with all orders to create Creation Units, the Authorized Participant will be required to post collateral with the Trust consisting of cash in an amount up to 5% of the net asset value of the Fund’s shares included in the order. The cash collateral will be used to cover creation transaction fees and as collateral for securities which were not available for purchase. The Trust will return any unused portion of the collateral to the Authorized Participant.

Creation Units also may be created in advance of the receipt by the Trust of all or a portion of the Fund Deposit. In such cases, the Authorized Participant will remain liable for the full deposit of the missing portion(s) of the Fund Deposit and will be required to post collateral with the Trust consisting of cash at least equal to a percentage of the marked-to-market value of such missing portion(s) that is specified in the Participant Agreement. The Trust may use such collateral to buy the missing portion(s) of the Fund Deposit at any time and will subject such Authorized Participant to liability for any shortfall between the cost to the Trust of purchasing such securities and the value of such collateral. The Trust will have no liability for any such shortfall. The Trust will return any unused portion of the collateral to the Authorized Participant once the entire Fund Deposit has been properly received by the Distributor and deposited into the Trust.

Orders to create Creation Units of the Fund shall be placed with a Participating Party or DTC Participant, as applicable, in the form required by such Participating Party or DTC Participant. Investors should be aware that their particular broker may not have executed a Participant Agreement, and that, therefore, orders to create Creation Units of the Fund may have to be placed by the investor’s broker through a Participating Party or a DTC Participant who has executed a Participant Agreement. At any given time there may be only a limited number of broker-dealers that have executed a Participant Agreement. Those placing orders to create Creation Units of the Fund through the Clearing Process should afford sufficient time to permit proper submission of the order to the Distributor prior to the Closing Time on the Transmittal Date.

Orders for creation that are effected outside the Clearing Process are likely to require transmittal by the DTC Participant earlier on the Transmittal Date than orders effected using the Clearing Process. Those persons placing orders outside the Clearing Process should ascertain the deadlines applicable to DTC and the Federal Reserve Bank wire system by contacting the operations department of the broker or depository institution effectuating such transfer of Deposit Securities and Cash Component.

Orders to create Creation Units of the Fund may be placed through the Clearing Process utilizing procedures applicable to domestic Funds for domestic securities (“Domestic Funds”) (see “—Placement of Creation Orders Using Clearing Process”) or outside the Clearing Process utilizing the procedures applicable to either Domestic Funds or foreign Funds for foreign securities (“Foreign Funds”) (see “—Placement of Creation Orders Outside Clearing Process—Domestic Funds” and “—Placement of Creation Orders Outside Clearing Process—Foreign Funds”). In the event that the Fund includes both domestic and foreign securities, the time for submitting orders is as stated in the “Placement of Creation Orders Outside Clearing Process—Foreign Funds” and “Placement of Redemption Orders Outside Clearing Process—Foreign Funds” sections below shall operate.

Fund Deposits must be delivered through a DTC Participant that has executed a Participant Agreement. A DTC Participant who wishes to place an order creating Creation Units of the Fund need not be a Participating Party, but such orders must state that the creation of Creation Units will be effected through a transfer of securities and cash. The Fund Deposit transfer must be ordered by the DTC Participant in a timely fashion so as to ensure the delivery of the requisite number of Deposit Securities through DTC to the account of the Trust by no later than 4:00 p.m. Eastern time, on the Settlement Date. The “Settlement Date” for the Fund is generally the third Business Day following the Transmittal Date. All questions as to the number of Deposit Securities to be delivered, and the validity, form and eligibility (including time of receipt) for the deposit of any tendered securities, will be determined by the Trust, whose determination shall be final and binding. The cash equal to the Cash Component must be transferred directly to the Distributor through the Federal Reserve wire system in a timely manner so as to be received by the Distributor no later than 4:00 p.m. Eastern time, on the next Business Day immediately following the Transmittal Date. An order to create Creation Units of the Fund is deemed received by the Distributor on the Transmittal Date if (i) such order is received by the Distributor not later than the Closing Time on such Transmittal Date; and (ii) all other procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement are properly followed. Upon written notice to the Distributor, such cancelled order may be resubmitted the following Business Day using a Fund Deposit as newly constituted to reflect the current NAV of the Fund. The delivery of Creation Units so created will occur no later than the third (3rd) Business Day following the day on which the creation order is deemed received by the Distributor.

Fund Deposits created outside the Clearing Process must be delivered through a DTC Participant that has executed a Participant Agreement with the Distributor and with the Trust. A DTC Participant who wishes to place an order creating Creation Units of the Fund to be effected outside the Clearing Process need not be a Participating Party, but such orders must state that the DTC Participant is not using the Clearing Process and that the creation of Creation Units will instead be effected through a transfer of securities and cash. The Fund Deposit transfer must be ordered by the DTC Participant in a timely fashion so as to ensure the delivery of the requisite number of Deposit Securities through DTC to the account of the Trust by no later than 11:00 a.m. Eastern time, of the next Business Day immediately following the Transmittal Date. All questions as to the number of Deposit Securities to be delivered, and the validity, form and eligibility (including time of receipt) for the deposit of any tendered securities, will be determined by the Trust, whose determination shall be final and binding. The cash equal to the Cash Component must be transferred directly to the Distributor through the Federal Reserve wire system in a timely manner so as to be received by the Distributor no later than 2:00 p.m. Eastern time, on the next Business Day immediately following the Transmittal Date. An order to create Creation Units of the Fund outside the Clearing Process is deemed received by the Distributor on the Transmittal Date if (i) such order is received by the Distributor not later than the Closing Time on such Transmittal Date; and (ii) all other procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement are properly followed. However, if the Distributor does not receive both the requisite Deposit Securities and the Cash Component in a timely fashion on the next Business Day immediately following the Transmittal Date, such order will be cancelled. Upon written notice to the Distributor, such cancelled order may be resubmitted the following Business Day using a Fund Deposit as newly constituted to reflect the current NAV of the Fund. The delivery of Creation Units so created will occur no later than the third (3rd) Business Day following the day on which the creation order is deemed received by the Distributor.

Additional transaction fees may be imposed with respect to transactions effected outside the Clearing Process (through a DTC participant) and in circumstances in which any cash can be used in lieu of Deposit Securities to create Creation Units. (See “Creation Transaction Fee” section below.)

The Distributor will inform the Transfer Agent, the Adviser and the Custodian upon receipt of a Creation Order. The Custodian will then provide such information to the appropriate subcustodian. The Custodian will cause the subcustodian of the Fund to maintain an account into which the Deposit Securities (or the cash value of all or part of such securities, in the case of a permitted or required cash purchase or “cash in lieu” amount) will be delivered. Deposit Securities must be delivered to an account maintained at the applicable local custodian. The Trust must also receive, on or before the contractual settlement date, immediately available or same day funds estimated by the Custodian to be sufficient to pay the Cash Component next determined after receipt in proper form of the purchase order, together with the creation transaction fee described below.

Once the Transfer Agent has accepted a creation order, the Transfer Agent will confirm the issuance of a Creation Unit of the Fund against receipt of payment, at such NAV as will have been calculated after receipt in proper form of such order. The Transfer Agent will then transmit a confirmation of acceptance of such order.

Creation Units will not be issued until the transfer of good title to the Trust of the Deposit Securities and the payment of the Cash Component have been completed. When the subcustodian has confirmed to the Custodian that the required Deposit Securities (or the cash value thereof) have been delivered to the account of the relevant subcustodian, the Distributor and the Adviser will be notified of such delivery and the Transfer Agent will issue and cause the delivery of the Creation Units.

The Trust reserves the absolute right to reject a creation order transmitted to it by the Distributor if, for any reason, (a) the order is not in proper form; (b) the creator or creators, upon obtaining the Shares, would own 80% or more of the currently outstanding Shares of the Fund; (c) the Deposit Securities delivered are not as specified by the Administrator, as described above; (d) the acceptance of the Deposit Securities would have certain adverse tax consequences to the Fund; (e) the acceptance of the Fund Deposit would, in the opinion of counsel, be unlawful; (f) the acceptance of the Fund Deposit would otherwise, in the discretion of the Trust or the Adviser, have an adverse effect on the Trust or the rights of beneficial owners; or (g) in the event that circumstances outside the control of the Trust, the Distributor and the Adviser make it for all practical purposes impossible to process creation orders. Examples of such circumstances include, without limitation, acts of God or public service or utility problems such as earthquakes, fires, floods, extreme weather conditions and power outages resulting in telephone, telecopy and computer failures; wars; civil or military disturbances, including acts of civil or military authority or governmental actions; terrorism; sabotage; epidemics; riots; labor disputes; market conditions or activities causing trading halts; systems failures involving computer or other information systems affecting the Trust, the Adviser, the Distributor, DTC, the NSCC or any other participant in the creation process, and similar extraordinary events. The Transfer Agent will notify a prospective creator of its rejection of the order of such person. The Trust, the Custodian, any subcustodian and the Distributor are under no duty, however, to give notification of any defects or irregularities in the delivery of Fund Deposits to Authorized Participants nor shall either of them incur any liability to Authorized Participants for the failure to give any such notification.

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

A fixed creation transaction fee of $1,500 payable to the Custodian is imposed on each creation transaction regardless of the number of Creation Units purchased in the transaction. In addition, a variable charge for cash creations or for creations outside the Clearing Process currently of up to four times the basic creation transaction fee may be imposed. In the case of cash creations or where the Trust permits or requires a creator to substitute cash in lieu of depositing a portion of the Deposit Securities, the creator may be assessed an additional variable charge to compensate the Fund for the costs associated with purchasing the applicable securities. (See “Fund Deposit” section above.) As a result, in order to seek to replicate the in-kind creation order process, the Trust expects to purchase, in the secondary market or otherwise gain exposure to, the portfolio securities that could have been delivered as a result of an in-kind creation order pursuant to local law or market convention, or for other reasons (“Market Purchases”). In such cases where the Trust makes Market Purchases, the Authorized Participant will reimburse the Trust for, among other things, any difference between the market value at which the securities and/or financial instruments were purchased by the Trust and the cash in lieu amount (which amount, at the Adviser’s discretion, may be capped), applicable registration fees, brokerage commissions and certain taxes. The Adviser may adjust the transaction fee to the extent the composition of the creation securities changes or cash in lieu is added to the Cash Component to protect ongoing shareholders. Creators of Creation Units are responsible for the costs of transferring the securities constituting the Deposit Securities to the account of the Trust.

Shares may be redeemed only in Creation Units at their NAV next determined after receipt of a redemption request in proper form by the Distributor, only on a Business Day and only through a Participating Party or DTC Participant who has executed a Participant Agreement. The Trust will not redeem Shares in amounts less than Creation Units. Beneficial Owners also may sell Shares in the secondary market, but must accumulate enough Shares to constitute a Creation Unit in order to have such Shares redeemed by the Trust. There can be no assurance, however, that there will be sufficient liquidity in the public trading market at any time to permit assembly of a Creation Unit. Investors should expect to incur brokerage and other costs in connection with assembling a sufficient number of Shares to constitute a redeemable Creation Unit. See the section entitled “Summary Information—Principal Risks of Investing in the Fund” and “Additional Information About the Fund’s Investment Strategies and Risks—Risks of Investing in the Fund” in the Fund’s Prospectus.

Redemptions are effected principally for cash. To the extent redemptions are effected in-kind, the Administrator, through NSCC, makes available immediately prior to the opening of business on the Exchange (currently 9:30 a.m. Eastern time) on each day that the Exchange is open for business, the Fund Securities that will be applicable (subject to possible amendment or correction) to redemption requests received in proper form (as defined below) on that day. If the Trust determines, based on information available to the Trust when a redemption request is submitted by an Authorized Participant, that (i) the short interest of the Fund in the marketplace is greater than or equal to 100% and (ii) the orders in the aggregate from all Authorized Participants redeeming Fund Shares on a Business Day represent 25% or more of the outstanding Shares of the Fund, such Authorized Participant will be required to verify to the Trust the accuracy of its representations that are deemed to have been made by submitting a request for redemption. If, after receiving notice of the verification requirement, the Authorized Participant does not verify the accuracy of its representations that are deemed to have been made by submitting a request for redemption in accordance with this requirement, its redemption request will be considered not to have been received in proper form.

As with respect to the purchase of Creation Units, pursuant to a patent pending process, the Fund may, in the future, subject to the receipt of appropriate regulatory relief, divide the daily list of Fund Securities into different “categories,” based on similar criteria set forth above regarding the division of the Fund’s Deposit Securities into categories. In determining the Fund Securities and the order in which they are listed within each category, the Adviser would seek to construct a redemption basket that will reflect the general characteristics of the Fund’s portfolio. Upon each request for a redemption of Creation Units, the Custodian, acting on behalf of the Adviser, would allocate the first bond on the list from each category (as of the time such redemption request is received by the Transfer Agent) to such redeemer to receive in-kind. There is no assurance that such relief will be granted.

To the extent redemptions are effected in-kind, the redemption proceeds for a Creation Unit generally consist of Fund Securities as announced by the Administrator on the Business Day of the request for redemption, plus cash in an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares being redeemed, as next determined after a receipt of a request in proper form, and the value of the Fund Securities, less the redemption transaction fee and variable fees described below. Should the Fund Securities have a value greater than the NAV of the Shares being redeemed, a compensating cash payment to the Trust equal to the differential plus the applicable redemption transaction fee will be required to be arranged for by or on behalf of the redeeming shareholder. The Fund reserves the right to honor a redemption request by delivering a basket of securities or cash that differs from the Fund Securities.

The basic redemption transaction fee of $1,500 is the same no matter how many Creation Units are being redeemed pursuant to any one redemption request. An additional charge up to four times the redemption transaction fee will be charged with respect to cash redemptions or redemptions outside of the Clearing Process. An additional variable charge for cash redemptions or partial cash redemptions (when cash redemptions are permitted or required for the Fund) may also be imposed to compensate the Fund for the costs associated with selling the applicable securities. As a result, in order to seek to replicate the in-kind redemption order process, the Trust expects to sell, in the secondary market, the portfolio securities or settle any financial instruments that may not be permitted to be re-registered in the name of the Participating Party as a result of an in-kind redemption order pursuant to local law or market convention, or for other reasons (“Market Sales”). In such cases where the Trust makes Market Sales, the Authorized Participant will reimburse the Trust for, among other things, any difference between the market value at which the securities and/or financial instruments were sold or settled by the Trust and the cash in lieu amount (which amount, at the Adviser’s discretion, may be capped), applicable registration fees, brokerage commissions and certain taxes (“Transaction Costs”). The Adviser may adjust the transaction fee to the extent the composition of the redemption securities changes or cash in lieu is added to the Cash Component to protect ongoing shareholders. In no event will fees charged by the Fund in connection with a redemption exceed 2% of the value of each Creation Unit. Investors who use the services of a broker or other such intermediary may be charged a fee for such services. To the extent the Fund cannot recoup the amount of Transaction Costs incurred in connection with a redemption from the redeeming shareholder because of the 2% cap or otherwise, those Transaction Costs will be borne by the Fund’s remaining shareholders and negatively affect the Fund’s performance.

Orders to redeem Creation Units of the Fund must be delivered through a DTC Participant that has executed the Participant Agreement with the Distributor and with the Trust. A DTC Participant who wishes to place an order for redemption of Creation Units of the Fund to be effected need not be a Participating Party, but such orders must state that redemption of Creation Units of the Fund will instead

be effected through transfer of Creation Units of the Fund directly through DTC. An order to redeem Creation Units of the Fund is deemed received by the Administrator on the Transmittal Date if (i) such order is received by the Administrator not later than 4:00 p.m. Eastern time on such Transmittal Date; (ii) such order is preceded or accompanied by the requisite number of Shares of Creation Units specified in such order, which delivery must be made through DTC to the Administrator no later than 11:00 a.m. Eastern time, on such Transmittal Date (the “DTC Cut-Off-Time”); and (iii) all other procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement are properly followed.

After the Administrator has deemed an order for redemption received, the Administrator will initiate procedures to transfer the requisite Fund Securities (or contracts to purchase such Fund Securities) which are expected to be delivered within three Business Days and the cash redemption payment to the redeeming Beneficial Owner by the third Business Day following the Transmittal Date on which such redemption order is deemed received by the Administrator.

Orders to redeem Creation Units of the Fund outside the Clearing Process must be delivered through a DTC Participant that has executed the Participant Agreement. A DTC Participant who wishes to place an order for redemption of Creation Units of the Fund to be effected outside the Clearing Process need not be a Participating Party, but such orders must state that the DTC Participant is not using the Clearing Process and that redemption of Creation Units of the Fund will instead be effected through transfer of Creation Units of the Fund directly through DTC. An order to redeem Creation Units of the Fund outside the Clearing Process is deemed received by the Administrator on the Transmittal Date if (i) such order is received by the Administrator not later than 4:00 p.m. Eastern time on such Transmittal Date; (ii) such order is preceded or accompanied by the requisite number of Shares of Creation Units specified in such order, which delivery must be made through DTC to the Administrator no later than 11:00 a.m. Eastern time, on such Transmittal Date (the “DTC Cut-Off-Time”); and (iii) all other procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement are properly followed.

After the Administrator has deemed an order for redemption outside the Clearing Process received, the Administrator will initiate procedures to transfer the requisite Fund Securities (or contracts to purchase such Fund Securities) which are expected to be delivered within three Business Days and the cash redemption payment to the redeeming Beneficial Owner by the third Business Day following the Transmittal Date on which such redemption order is deemed received by the Administrator. An additional variable redemption transaction fee of up to four times the basic transaction fee is applicable to redemptions outside the Clearing Process.

Arrangements satisfactory to the Trust must be in place for the Participating Party to transfer the Creation Units through DTC on or before the settlement date. Redemptions of Shares for Fund Securities will be subject to compliance with applicable U.S. federal and state securities laws and the Fund (whether or not it otherwise permits or requires cash redemptions) reserves the right to redeem Creation Units for cash to the extent that the Fund could not lawfully deliver specific Fund Securities upon redemptions or could not do so without first registering the Deposit Securities under such laws.

In connection with taking delivery of Shares for Fund Securities upon redemption of Creation Units, a redeeming shareholder or entity acting on behalf of a redeeming shareholder must maintain appropriate custody arrangements with a qualified broker-dealer, bank or other custody providers in each jurisdiction in which any of the Fund Securities are customarily traded, to which account such Fund Securities will be delivered. If neither the redeeming shareholder nor the entity acting on behalf of a

redeeming shareholder has appropriate arrangements to take delivery of the Fund Securities in the applicable foreign jurisdiction and it is not possible to make other such arrangements, or if it is not possible to effect deliveries of the Fund Securities in such jurisdictions, the Trust may, in its discretion, exercise its option to redeem such Shares in cash, and the redeeming shareholder will be required to receive its redemption proceeds in cash.

The Fund generally intends to effect creation transactions of Creation Units on the Business Day after the trade date (“T+1”) and settle redemption transactions of cash on the fourth Business Day following the trade date (“T+4”). The Fund may effect deliveries of Creation Units and redemption cash on a basis other than T+1 or T+4, as the case may be, in order to accommodate local holiday schedules, to account for different treatment among foreign and U.S. markets of dividend record dates and ex-dividend dates or under certain other circumstances. If in-kind creations are permitted or required by the Fund, the ability of the Trust to effect in-kind creations and redemptions within T+1 and T+4, respectively, of receipt of an order in good form is subject to, among other things, the condition that, within the time period from the date of the order to the date of delivery of the securities, there are no days that are holidays in the applicable foreign market. For every occurrence of one or more intervening holidays in the applicable foreign market that are not holidays observed in the U.S. equity market, the redemption settlement cycle will be extended by the number of such intervening holidays. In addition to holidays, other unforeseeable closings in a foreign market due to emergencies may also prevent the Trust from delivering securities within normal settlement period.

The holidays applicable to Foreign Funds are listed below. The proclamation of new holidays, the treatment by market participants of certain days as “informal holidays” (e.g., days on which no or limited securities transactions occur, as a result of substantially shortened trading hours), the elimination of existing holidays or changes in local securities delivery practices, could affect the information set forth herein at some time in the future. The dates in calendar years 2014 and 2015 in which the regular holidays affect the Chinese securities markets are as follows (the following holiday schedule is subject to potential changes in the securities market):

The longest redemption cycle for Foreign Funds is a function of the longest redemption cycle in countries whose securities comprise the Fund. In the calendar years 2014 and 2015, the dates of regular

holidays affecting the Chinese securities markets present the worst-case (longest) redemption cycle* for the Foreign Funds as follows:

The right of redemption may be suspended or the date of payment postponed (1) for any period during which the NYSE is closed (other than customary weekend and holiday closings); (2) for any period during which trading on the NYSE is suspended or restricted; (3) for any period during which an emergency exists as a result of which disposal of the Shares of the Fund or determination of its NAV is not reasonably practicable; or (4) in such other circumstance as is permitted by the SEC.

The following information supplements and should be read in conjunction with the section in the Fund’s Prospectus entitled “Shareholder Information—Determination of NAV.”

The NAV per Share for the Fund is computed by dividing the value of the net assets of the Fund (i.e., the value of its total assets less total liabilities) by the total number of Shares outstanding. Expenses and fees, including the management fee, are accrued daily and taken into account for purposes of determining NAV. The NAV of the Fund is determined each business day as of the close of trading (ordinarily 4:00 p.m. Eastern time) on the NYSE. Any assets or liabilities denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar are converted into U.S. dollars at the current market rates on the date of valuation as quoted by one or more sources.

The values of the Fund’s portfolio securities are based on the securities’ closing prices on their local principal markets, where available. Due to the time differences between the United States and China, securities on the Chinese exchanges may not trade at times when Shares of the Fund will trade. In the absence of a last reported sales price, or if no sales were reported, and for other assets for which market quotes are not readily available, values may be based on quotes obtained from a quotation reporting system, established market makers or by an outside independent pricing service. Fixed income securities are normally valued on the basis of quotes from brokers or dealers, established market makers or an outside independent pricing service using data reflecting the earlier closing of the principal markets for those securities. Prices obtained by an outside independent pricing service may use information provided by market makers or estimates of market values obtained from yield data related to investments or securities with similar characteristics and may use a computerized grid matrix of securities and its evaluations in determining what it believes is the fair value of the portfolio securities. Short-term investments having a maturity of 60 days or less are valued at amortized cost. If a market quotation for a security is not readily available or the Adviser believes it does not otherwise accurately reflect the market value of the security at the time the Fund calculates its NAV, the security will be fair valued by the Adviser in accordance with the Trust’s valuation policies and procedures approved by the Board of Trustees. The Fund may also use fair value pricing in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to, situations where the value of a security in the Fund’s portfolio has been materially affected by events occurring after the close of the market on which the security is principally traded (such as a corporate action or other news that may materially affect the price of a security) or trading in a security has been suspended or halted. In addition, the Fund currently expects that it will fair value most or all of the foreign securities held by the Fund each day the Fund calculates its NAV, except those securities principally traded on exchanges that close at the same time the Fund calculates its NAV. Accordingly, the Fund’s NAV may reflect certain portfolio securities’ fair values rather than their market prices at the time the exchanges on which they principally trade close. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments and it is possible that a fair value determination for a security is materially different than the value that could be realized upon the sale of the security. In addition, fair value pricing could result in a difference between the prices used to calculate the Fund’s NAV and the prices used by the Index. This may adversely affect the Fund’s ability to track the Index. With respect to securities that are traded in foreign markets, the value of the Fund’s portfolio securities may change on days when you will not be able to purchase or sell your Shares.

The following information supplements and should be read in conjunction with the section in the Fund’s Prospectus entitled “Shareholder Information—Distributions.”

Dividends from net investment income, if any, are declared and paid monthly by the Fund. Distributions of net realized capital gains, if any, generally are declared and paid once a year, but the Trust may make distributions on a more frequent basis for the Fund to improve its Index tracking or to comply with the distribution requirements of the Internal Revenue Code, in all events in a manner consistent with the provisions of the 1940 Act. It is currently expected that the Fund will distribute virtually all of its net income (interest less expenses) monthly while capital gains distributions will generally occur annually in December. In addition, the Trust may distribute at least annually amounts representing the full dividend yield on the underlying portfolio securities of the Fund, net of expenses of the Fund, as if the Fund owned such underlying portfolio securities for the entire dividend period in which case some portion of each distribution may result in a return of capital for tax purposes for certain shareholders.

Dividends and other distributions on Shares are distributed, as described below, on a pro rata basis to Beneficial Owners of such Shares. Dividend payments are made through DTC Participants and Indirect Participants to Beneficial Owners then of record with proceeds received from the Trust. The Trust makes additional distributions to the minimum extent necessary (i) to distribute the entire annual taxable income and net tax-exempt interest income of the Trust, plus any net capital gains and (ii) to avoid imposition of the excise tax imposed by Section 4982 of the Internal Revenue Code. Management of the Trust reserves the right to declare special dividends if, in its reasonable discretion, such action is necessary or advisable to preserve the status of the Fund as a regulated investment company (“RIC”) or to avoid imposition of income or excise taxes on undistributed income.

No reinvestment service is provided by the Trust. Broker-dealers may make available the DTC book-entry Dividend Reinvestment Service for use by Beneficial Owners of the Fund through DTC Participants for reinvestment of their dividend distributions. If this service is used, dividend distributions of both income and realized gains will be automatically reinvested in additional whole Shares of the Fund. Beneficial Owners should contact their broker to determine the availability and costs of the service and the details of participation therein. Brokers may require Beneficial Owners to adhere to specific procedures and timetables.

As of the date of this SAI, no entity beneficially owned any voting securities of the Fund.

The following information also supplements and should be read in conjunction with the section in the Fund’s Prospectus entitled “Shareholder Information—Tax Information” and the section in this Statement of Additional Information entitled “Special Considerations and Risks.” The following summary of certain relevant tax provisions is subject to change, and does not constitute legal or tax advice.

The Fund intends to qualify for and to elect treatment as a RIC under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code. As a RIC, the Fund will not be subject to U.S. federal income tax on the portion of its taxable investment income and capital gains that it distributes to its shareholders. To qualify for treatment as a RIC, a company must annually distribute an amount at least equal to 90% of its net investment company taxable income (which includes dividends, interest and net short-term capital gains) and 90% of its net tax-exempt interest income, for each tax year, if any, to its shareholders and meet several other requirements relating to the nature of its income and the diversification of its assets, among others. However, to the extent the Fund invests directly in RMB Bonds, if the Fund does not receive approval from SAFE to repatriate funds associated with such direct investment on a timely basis, it may be unable to meet the distribution requirements required to qualify for the favorable tax treatment otherwise generally afforded to regulated investment companies under the Internal Revenue Code. Additionally, the Fund intends to create a reserve account with respect to earnings on certain investments in China that are not currently subject to withholding tax. If the Fund fails to qualify for any taxable year as a RIC, all of its taxable income will be subject to tax at regular corporate income tax rates without any deduction for distributions to shareholders, and such distributions generally will be taxable to shareholders as ordinary dividends to the extent of the Fund’s current and accumulated earnings and profits.

The Fund will be subject to a 4% excise tax on certain undistributed income if it generally does not distribute to its shareholders in each calendar year an amount at least equal to the sum of 98% of its ordinary income (taking into account certain deferrals and elections) for the calendar year, 98.2% of its capital gain net income for the twelve months ended October 31 of such year, and 100% of any undistributed amounts from the prior years. Although the Fund generally intends to declare and distribute dividends and distributions in the amounts and at the times necessary to avoid the application of this 4% excise tax, the Fund may elect to retain a portion of its income and gains, and in such a case, the Fund may be subject to excise tax.

As a result of U.S. federal income tax requirements, the Trust on behalf of the Fund, has the right to reject an order for a creation of Shares if the creator (or group of creators) would, upon obtaining the Shares so ordered, own 80% or more of the outstanding Shares of the Fund and if, pursuant to Section 351 of the Internal Revenue Code, the Fund would have a basis in the Deposit Securities different from the market value of such securities on the date of deposit. The Trust also has the right to require information necessary to determine beneficial share ownership for purposes of the 80% determination. See “Creation and Redemption of Creation Units—Procedures for Creation of Creation Units.”

Dividends, interest and gains received by the Fund from a non-U.S. investment may give rise to withholding and other taxes imposed by foreign countries. Tax conventions between certain countries and the United States may reduce or eliminate such taxes. If more than 50% of the Fund’s total assets at the end of its taxable year consist of foreign stock or securities or if at least 50% of the value of the Fund’s total assets at the close of each quarter of its taxable year is represented by interests in RICs, the Fund may elect to “pass through” to its investors certain foreign income taxes paid by the Fund, with the result that each investor will (i) include in gross income, as an additional dividend, even though not actually received, the investor’s pro rata share of the Fund’s foreign income taxes, and (ii) either deduct

(in calculating U.S. taxable income) or credit (in calculating U.S. federal income), subject to certain holding period and other limitations, the investor’s pro rata share of the Fund’s foreign income taxes. It is expected that more than 50% of the Fund’s assets will consist of foreign securities. Even if the Fund is qualified to make that election and does so, however, this treatment will not apply with respect to amounts the Fund reserves in anticipation of the imposition of withholding taxes not currently in effect (as discussed below). If these amounts are used to pay any tax liability of the Fund in a later year, they will be treated as paid by the stockholders in such later year, even if they are imposed with respect to income of an earlier year. It is expected that more than 50% of the Fund’s assets will consist of foreign securities.

Under Section 988 of the Internal Revenue Code, special rules are provided for certain transactions in a foreign currency other than the taxpayer’s functional currency (i.e., unless certain special rules apply, currencies other than the U.S. dollar). In general, foreign currency gains or losses from forward contracts, from futures contracts that are not “regulated futures contracts,” and from unlisted options will be treated as ordinary income or loss under Section 988 of the Internal Revenue Code. Also, certain foreign exchange gains or losses derived with respect to foreign fixed income securities are also subject to Section 988 treatment. In general, therefore, Section 988 gains or losses will increase or decrease the amount of the Fund’s investment company taxable income available to be distributed to shareholders as ordinary income, rather than increasing or decreasing the amount of the Fund’s net capital gain. If a portion of the Fund’s investment income may be received in foreign currencies, the Fund will be required to compute its income in U.S. dollars for distribution to shareholders. After the Fund has distributed income, subsequent foreign currency losses may result in the Fund having distributed more income in a particular fiscal period than was available from investment income, which could result in a return of capital to shareholders.

The Fund will report to shareholders annually the amounts of dividends received from ordinary income and the amount of distributions received from capital gains and the portion of dividends, if any, which may qualify for the dividends received deduction. Certain ordinary dividends paid to non-corporate shareholders may qualify for taxation at a lower tax rate applicable to long-term capital gains provided holding period and other requirements are met at both the shareholder and Fund levels. The Fund does not expect that any of its distributions will be qualified dividends eligible for lower tax rates or for the corporate dividends received deduction.

In general, a sale of Shares results in capital gain or loss, and for individual shareholders, is taxable at a federal rate dependent upon the length of time the Shares were held. A redemption of a shareholder’s Fund Shares is normally treated as a sale for tax purposes. Fund Shares held for a period of one year or less at the time of such sale or redemption will, for tax purposes, generally result in short-term capital gains or losses, and those held for more than one year will generally result in long-term capital gains or losses. The maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains available to a non-corporate shareholder generally is 15% or 20%, depending on whether the shareholder’s income exceeds certain threshold amounts.

Special tax rules may change the normal treatment of gains and losses recognized by the Fund if and when the Fund invests in structured notes, swaps, options, futures transactions, futures transactions and non-U.S. corporations classified as passive foreign investment companies (“PFICs”). Those special tax rules can, among other things, affect the treatment of capital gain or loss as long-term or short-term and may result in ordinary income or loss rather than capital gain or loss and may accelerate when the Fund has to take these items into account for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The application of these special rules would therefore also affect the timing and character of distributions made by the Fund. See “U.S. Federal Tax Treatment of Futures Contracts” for certain federal income tax rules regarding futures contracts.

The Fund’s investments in swaps and other derivative instruments may generally be less tax-efficient than a direct investment in RMB Bonds. Furthermore, the Fund may be required to periodically adjust its positions in these swaps or derivatives to comply with certain regulatory requirements which may further cause these investments to be less efficient than a direct investment in RMB Bonds.

There may be uncertainty as to the appropriate treatment of certain of the Fund’s investments for U.S. federal income tax purposes. In particular, the Fund may invest a portion of its net assets in below investment grade instruments. Investments in these types of instruments may present special tax issues for the Fund. U.S. federal income tax rules are not entirely clear about issues such as when the Fund may cease to accrue interest, original issue discount or market discount, when and to what extent deductions may be taken for bad debts or worthless instruments, how payments received on obligations in default should be allocated between principal and income and whether exchanges of debt obligations in a bankruptcy or workout context are taxable. These and other issues will be addressed by the Fund, to the extent necessary, in order to seek to ensure that it distributes sufficient income to ensure that it does not become subject to U.S. federal income or excise tax.

An additional 3.8% Medicare tax is imposed on certain net investment income (including ordinary dividends and capital gain distributions received from the Fund and net gains from redemptions or other taxable dispositions of Fund Shares) of U.S. individuals, estates and trusts to the extent that such person’s “modified adjusted gross income” (in the case of an individual) or “adjusted gross income” (in the case of an estate or trust) exceeds certain threshold amounts.

The Fund may make investments, both directly and through swaps or other derivative positions, in PFICs. Investments in PFICs are subject to special tax rules which may result in adverse tax consequences to the Fund and its shareholders. To the extent the Fund invests in PFICs, it generally intends to elect to “mark to market” these investments at the end of each taxable year. By making this election, the Fund will recognize as ordinary income any increase in the value of such shares as of the close of the taxable year over their adjusted basis and as ordinary loss any decrease in such investment (but only to the extent of prior income from such investment under the mark to market rules). Gains realized with respect to a disposition of a PFIC that the Fund has elected to mark to market will be ordinary income. By making the mark to market election, the Fund may recognize income in excess of the distributions that it receives from its investments. Accordingly, the Fund may need to borrow money or dispose of some of its investments in order to meet its distribution requirements. If the Fund does not make the mark to market election with respect to an investment in a PFIC, the Fund could become subject to U.S. federal income tax with respect to certain distributions from, and gain on the dispositions of, the PFIC which cannot be avoided by distributing such amounts to the Fund’s shareholders.

Gain or loss on the sale or redemption of Fund Shares is measured by the difference between the amount of cash received (or the fair market value of any property received) and the adjusted tax basis of the Shares. Shareholders should keep records of investments made (including Shares acquired through reinvestment of dividends and distributions) so they can compute the tax basis of their Fund Shares. Legislation passed by Congress requires reporting of adjusted cost basis information for covered securities, which generally include shares of a regulated investment company acquired after January 1, 2012, to the Internal Revenue Service and to taxpayers. Shareholders should contact their financial intermediaries with respect to reporting of cost basis and available elections for their accounts.

A loss realized on a sale or exchange of Shares of the Fund may be disallowed if other Fund Shares (or substantially identical shares) are acquired (whether through the automatic reinvestment of dividends or otherwise) within a sixty-one (61) day period beginning thirty (30) days before and ending thirty (30) days after the date that the Shares are disposed of. In such a case, the basis of the Shares acquired will be adjusted to reflect the disallowed loss. Any loss upon the sale or exchange of Shares

held for six (6) months or less will be treated as long-term capital loss to the extent of any capital gain dividends received by the shareholders. Distribution of ordinary income and capital gains may also be subject to foreign, state and local taxes.

Any market discount recognized on a bond is taxable as ordinary income. A market discount bond is a bond acquired in the secondary market at a price below redemption value or adjusted issue price if issued with original issue discount. Absent an election by the Fund to include the market discount in income as it accrues, gain on the Fund’s disposition of such an obligation will be treated as ordinary income rather than capital gain to the extent of the accrued market discount.

The Fund may make investments in which it recognizes income or gain prior to receiving cash with respect to such investment. For example, under certain tax rules, the Fund may be required to accrue a portion of any discount at which certain securities are purchased as income each year even though the Fund receives no payments in cash on the security during the year. To the extent that the Fund makes such investments, it generally would be required to pay out such income or gain as a distribution in each year to avoid taxation at the Fund level.

Distributions reinvested through the means of a dividend reinvestment service (see “Dividend Reinvestment Service”) in additional Fund Shares will nevertheless be taxable dividends to Beneficial Owners acquiring such additional Shares to the same extent as if such dividends had been received in cash.

Some shareholders may be subject to a withholding tax on distributions of ordinary income, capital gains and any cash received on redemption of Creation Units (“backup withholding”). The backup withholding rate for individuals is currently 28%. Generally, shareholders subject to backup withholding will be those for whom no certified taxpayer identification number is on file with the Fund or who, to the Fund’s knowledge, have furnished an incorrect number. When establishing an account, an investor must certify under penalty of perjury that such number is correct and that such investor is not otherwise subject to backup withholding. Backup withholding is not an additional tax. Any amounts withheld will be allowed as a credit against shareholders’ U.S. federal income tax liabilities, and may entitle them to a refund, provided that the required information is timely furnished to the Internal Revenue Service.

Distributions of ordinary income paid to shareholders who are nonresident aliens or foreign entities will generally be subject to a 30% U.S. withholding tax unless a reduced rate of withholding or a withholding exemption is provided under applicable treaty law. Prospective investors are urged to consult their tax advisors regarding such withholding.

As part of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, (“FATCA”), the Fund may be required to impose a 30% withholding tax on certain types of U.S. sourced income (e.g., dividends, interest, and other types of passive income) paid effective July 1, 2014, and proceeds from the sale or other disposition of property producing U.S. sourced income paid effective January 1, 2017 to (i) foreign financial institutions (“FFI’s”), including non-U.S. investment funds, unless they agree to collect and disclose to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) information regarding their direct and indirect U.S. account holders and (ii) certain nonfinancial foreign entities (“NFFE’s”), unless they certify certain information regarding their direct and indirect U.S. owners. To avoid possible withholding, FFI’s will need to enter into agreements with the IRS which state that they will provide the IRS information, including the names, account numbers and balances, addresses and taxpayer identification numbers of direct and indirect U.S. account holders and comply with due diligence procedures with respect to the identification of U.S. accounts as well as agree to withhold tax on certain types of withholdable payments made to non-compliant foreign financial institutions or to applicable foreign account holders who fail to provide the required information to the IRS, or similar account information and required documentation to a local

revenue authority, should an applicable intergovernmental agreement be implemented. NFFE’s will need to provide the name, address, account numbers and balances and taxpayer identification number of each substantial U.S. owner or certifications of no substantial U.S. ownership, unless certain exceptions apply, or agree to provide certain information to the IRS.

While final FATCA rules have not been finalized, the Fund may be subject to the FATCA withholding obligation, and also will be required to perform extensive due diligence reviews to classify foreign entity investors for FATCA purposes. Investors are required to agree to provide information necessary to allow the Fund to comply with the FATCA rules. If the Fund is required to withhold amounts from payments pursuant to FATCA, investors will receive distributions that are reduced by such withholding amounts.

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

Under promulgated Treasury regulations, if a shareholder recognizes a loss on disposition of the Fund’s Shares of $2 million or more in any one taxable year (or $4 million or more over a period of six taxable years) for an individual shareholder or $10 million or more in any taxable year (or $20 million or more over a period of six taxable years) for a corporate shareholder, the shareholder must file with the IRS a disclosure statement on Form 8886. Direct shareholders of portfolio securities are in many cases excepted from this reporting requirement, but under current guidance, shareholders of a RIC that engaged in a reportable transaction are not excepted. Future guidance may extend the current exception from this reporting requirement to shareholders of most or all RICs. In addition, significant penalties may be imposed for the failure to comply with the reporting requirements. The fact that a loss is reportable under these regulations does not affect the legal determination of whether the taxpayer’s treatment of the loss is proper. Shareholders should consult their tax advisors to determine the applicability of these regulations in light of their individual circumstances.

Specific rules governing taxes on capital gains derived by RQFIIs and QFIIs from the trading of PRC securities have yet to be announced. In the absence of specific rules, the tax treatment of the Fund’s investments in RMB Bonds through the Sub-Adviser’s RQFII quota should be governed by the general PRC tax provisions and provisions applicable to RQFIIs. Under these provisions, the Fund is generally subject to a tax of 10% on any dividends, distributions and interest it receives from its investment in PRC securities. In addition, a nonresident enterprise is subject to withholding tax at a rate of 10% on its capital gains. However, it is unclear if this tax will be applied to investments by an RQFII such as the Sub-Adviser or what the methodology for calculating or collecting the tax will be. Withholding taxes on dividends, interest and capital gains may be taxed at a reduced rate under an applicable tax treaty, but the application of such treaties for an RQFII acting on behalf of a foreign investor (i.e., the Sub-Adviser acting on behalf of the Fund) is also uncertain and would depend on the approval of PRC tax authorities.

It is also unclear how China’s business tax may apply to activities of an RQFII such as the Sub-Adviser and how such application may be affected by tax treaty provisions. The current PRC tax laws and regulations may be revised or amended in the future, and may be applied retroactively. Any revision or amendment in tax laws and regulations may adversely affect the Fund. In light of this uncertainty, the Fund plans to reserve 10% of its realized and unrealized gains from its RMB Bond invested through the Sub-Adviser’s RQFII quota to meet any potential withholding tax liability. The tax reserve will be reflected in the Fund’s daily NAV calculations as a deduction from the Fund’s NAV. This reserve may turn out to be excessive or inadequate in light of the Fund’s actual tax liabilities. Therefore, if the Fund’s tax reserve turns out to be excessive or inadequate and the Fund’s tax reserve and related deduction from NAV is modified accordingly, this will work to the benefit or detriment, respectively, of the Fund’s existing shareholders at the time the uncertainty surrounding the Fund’s tax liabilities is resolved. The Fund may also be liable to the Sub-Adviser for any tax that is imposed on the Sub-Adviser by the PRC with respect to the Fund’s investments.

In the absence of specific guidance, RQFIIs such as the Sub-Adviser may be potentially subject to PRC business tax at a rate of 5% with respect to the capital gains derived from the trading of RMB Bonds. Existing guidance provides a business tax exemption for QFIIs with respect to their gains derived from the trading of PRC securities, but this business tax exemption does not explicitly apply to RQFIIs. However, in practice, the Chinese tax authorities have not actively enforced the collection of business tax on such gains. The Fund’s shareholder’s ability to claim a credit for certain Chinese taxes may be limited under general U.S. tax principles. .

The Trust currently is comprised of 60 investment funds. The Trust issues Shares of beneficial interest with no par value. The Board may designate additional funds of the Trust.

Each Share issued by the Trust has a pro rata interest in the assets of the Fund. Shares have no pre-emptive, exchange, subscription or conversion rights and are freely transferable. Each Share is entitled to participate equally in dividends and distributions declared by the Board with respect to the Fund, and in the net distributable assets of the Fund on liquidation. The Fund may liquidate and terminate at any time and for any reason, including as a result of the termination of the license agreement between the Adviser and China Central Depository & Clearing Co., Ltd. (the “Index Provider”), without shareholder approval.

Each Share has one vote with respect to matters upon which a shareholder vote is required consistent with the requirements of the 1940 Act and the rules promulgated thereunder and each fractional Share has a proportional fractional vote. Shares of all funds vote together as a single class except that if the matter being voted on affects only a particular fund it will be voted on only by that fund, and if a matter affects a particular fund differently from other funds, that fund will vote separately on such matter. Under Delaware law, the Trust is not required to hold an annual meeting of shareholders unless required to do so under the 1940 Act. The policy of the Trust is not to hold an annual meeting of shareholders unless required to do so under the 1940 Act. All Shares of the Trust have noncumulative voting rights for the election of Trustees. Under Delaware law, Trustees of the Trust may be removed by vote of the shareholders.

Under Delaware law, the shareholders of the Fund are not generally subject to liability for the debts or obligations of the Trust. Similarly, Delaware law provides that the Fund will not be liable for the debts or obligations of any other series of the Trust. However, no similar statutory or other authority limiting statutory trust shareholder liability may exist in other states. As a result, to the extent that a Delaware statutory trust or a shareholder is subject to the jurisdiction of courts of such other states, the

courts may not apply Delaware law and may thereby subject the Delaware statutory trust’s shareholders to liability for the debts or obligations of the Trust. The Trust’s Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust (the “Declaration of Trust”) provides for indemnification by the Fund for all loss suffered by a shareholder as a result of an obligation of the Fund. The Declaration of Trust also provides that the Fund shall, upon request, assume the defense of any claim made against any shareholder for any act or obligation of the Fund and satisfy any judgment thereon.

The Trust will issue through DTC Participants to its shareholders semi-annual reports containing unaudited financial statements and annual reports containing financial statements audited by an independent auditor approved by the Trust’s Trustees and by the shareholders when meetings are held and such other information as may be required by applicable laws, rules and regulations. Beneficial Owners also receive annually notification as to the tax status of the Trust’s distributions.

Shareholder inquiries may be made by writing to the Trust, c/o Van Eck Associates Corporation, 335 Madison Avenue, 19th Floor, New York, New York 10017.

Dechert LLP, 1095 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036, is counsel to the Trust and has passed upon the validity of the Fund’s Shares.

Ernst & Young LLP, 5 Times Square, New York, New York 10036, is the Trust’s independent registered public accounting firm and audits the Fund’s financial statements and performs other related audit services.

The Adviser has entered into a licensing agreement with the Index Provider to use the Index. The Fund is entitled to use the Index pursuant to a sub-licensing arrangement with the Adviser.

Van Eck Global (the “Adviser”) has adopted the following policies and procedures which are reasonably designed to ensure that proxies are voted in a manner that is consistent with the best interests of its clients in accordance with its fiduciary duties and Rule 206(4)-6 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. When an adviser has been granted proxy voting authority by a client, the adviser owes its clients the duties of care and loyalty in performing this service on their behalf. The duty of care requires the adviser to monitor corporate actions and vote client proxies. The duty of loyalty requires the adviser to cast the proxy votes in a manner that is consistent with the best interests of the client.

Rule 206(4)-6 also requires the Adviser to disclose information about the proxy voting procedures to its clients and to inform clients how to obtain information about how their proxies were voted. Additionally, Rule 204-2 under the Advisers Act requires the Adviser to maintain certain proxy voting records.

An adviser that exercises voting authority without complying with Rule 206(4)-6 will be deemed to have engaged in a “fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative” act, practice or course of business within the meaning of Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act.

The Adviser intends to vote all proxies in accordance with applicable rules and regulations, and in the best interests of clients without influence by real or apparent conflicts of interest. To assist in its responsibility for voting proxies and the overall voting process, the Adviser has engaged an independent third party proxy voting specialist, Glass Lewis & Co., LLC. The services provided by Glass Lewis include in-depth research, global issuer analysis, and voting recommendations as well as vote execution, reporting and recordkeeping.

When a material conflict of interest exists, proxies will be voted in the following manner:

Any deviations from the foregoing voting mechanisms must be approved by the Chief Compliance Officer with a written explanation of the reason for the deviation.

A material conflict of interest means the existence of a business relationship between a portfolio company or an affiliate and the Adviser, any affiliate or subsidiary, or an “affiliated person” of a Van Eck mutual fund. Examples of when a material conflict of interest exists include a situation where the adviser provides significant investment advisory, brokerage or other services to a company whose management is soliciting proxies; an officer of the Adviser serves on the board of a charitable organization that receives charitable contributions from the portfolio company and the charitable organization is a client of the

Adviser; a portfolio company that is a significant selling agent of the Adviser’s products and services solicits proxies; a broker-dealer or insurance company that controls 5% or more of the Adviser’s assets solicits proxies; the Adviser serves as an investment adviser to the pension or other investment account of the portfolio company; the Adviser and the portfolio company have a lending relationship. In each of these situations voting against management may cause the Adviser a loss of revenue or other benefit.

All inquiries by clients as to how the Adviser has voted proxies must immediately be forwarded to Portfolio Administration.

At times the Adviser may determine that, in the best interests of its clients, a particular proxy should not be voted. This may occur, for example, when the cost of voting a foreign proxy (translation, transportation, etc.) would exceed the benefit of voting the proxy or voting the foreign proxy may cause an unacceptable limitation on the sale of the security. Any such instances will be documented by the Portfolio Manager and reviewed by the Chief Compliance Officer.

Certain portfolios managed by the Adviser participate in securities lending programs to generate additional revenue. Proxy voting rights generally pass to the borrower when a security is on loan. The Adviser will use its best efforts to recall a security on loan and vote such securities if the Portfolio Manager determines that the proxy involves a material event.

The Adviser has reviewed the Glass Lewis Proxy Guidelines (“Guidelines”) and has determined that the Guidelines are consistent with the Adviser’s proxy voting responsibilities and its fiduciary duty with respect to its clients. The Adviser will review any material amendments to the Guidelines.

While it is the Adviser’s policy to generally follow the Guidelines, the Adviser retains the right, on any specific proxy, to vote differently from the Guidelines, if the Adviser believes it is in the best interests of its clients. Any such exceptions will be documented by the Adviser and reviewed by the Chief Compliance Officer.

The portfolio manager or analyst covering the security is responsible for making proxy voting decisions. Portfolio Administration, in conjunction with the portfolio manager and the custodian, is responsible for monitoring corporate actions and ensuring that corporate actions are timely voted.

PROXY PAPER^{^TM}

GUIDELINES

2014 PROXY SEASON

AN OVERVIEW OF THE GLASS LEWIS

APPROACH TO PROXY ADVICE

UNITED STATES

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

SEC FINAL RULES REGARDING COMPENSATION COMMITTEE MEMBER INDEPENDENCE AND COMPENSATION CONSULTANTS

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

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

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

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

Independent Director – An independent director has no material financial, familial or other current relationships with the company, its executives, or other board members, except for board service and standard fees paid for that service. Relationships that existed within three to five years¹before the inquiry are usually considered “current” for purposes of this test.

In our view, a director who is currently serving in an interim management position should be considered an insider, while a director who previously served in an interim management position for less than one year and is no longer serving in such capacity is considered independent. Moreover, a director who previously served in an interim management position for over one year and is no longer serving in such capacity is considered an affiliate for five years following the date of his/her resignation or departure from the interim management position. Glass Lewis applies a three-year look-back period to all directors who have an affiliation with the company other than former employment, for which we apply a five-year look-back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 If a company classifies one of its non-employee directors as non-independent, Glass Lewis will classify that director as an affiliate.

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

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

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

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

Glass Lewis believes a board will be most effective in protecting shareholders’ interests if it is at least two-thirds independent. We note that each of the Business Roundtable, the Conference Board, and the Council of Institutional Investors advocates that two-thirds of the board be independent. Where more than one-third of the members are affiliated or inside directors, we typically⁷recommend voting against some of the inside and/or affiliated directors in order to satisfy the two-thirds threshold.

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

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

We believe that only independent directors should serve on a company’s audit, compensation, nominating, and governance committees.⁸We typically recommend that shareholders vote against any affiliated or inside director seeking appointment to an audit, compensation, nominating, or governance committee, or who has served in that capacity in the past year.

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

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

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

It can become difficult for a board to fulfill its role of overseer and policy setter when a CEO/chairman controls the agenda and the boardroom discussion. Such control can allow a CEO to have an entrenched

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

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

position, leading to longer-than-optimal terms, fewer checks on management, less scrutiny of the business operation, and limitations on independent, shareholder-focused goal-setting by the board.

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

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

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

Glass Lewis believes that the installation of an independent chairman is almost always a positive step from a corporate governance perspective and promotes the best interests of shareholders. Further, the presence of an independent chairman fosters the creation of a thoughtful and dynamic board, not dominated by the views of senior management. Encouragingly, many companies appear to be moving in this direction—one study even indicates that less than 12 percent of incoming CEOs in 2009 were awarded the chairman title, versus 48 percent as recently as 2002.⁹Another study finds that 45 percent of S&P 500 boards now separate the CEO and chairman roles, up from 23 percent in 2003, although the same study found that of those companies, only 25 percent have truly independent chairs.¹⁰

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

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

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

9 Ken Favaro, Per-Ola Karlsson and Gary Neilson. “CEO Succession 2000-2009: A Decade of Convergence and Compression.” Booz & Company (from Strategy+Business, Issue 59, Summer 2010).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Audit committees play an integral role in overseeing the financial reporting process because “[v]ibrant and stable capital markets depend on, among other things, reliable, transparent, and objective financial information to support an efficient and effective capital market process. The vital oversight role audit committees play in the process of producing financial information has never been more important.”¹²

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

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

For an audit committee to function effectively on investors’ behalf, it must include members with sufficient knowledge to diligently carry out their responsibilities. In its audit and accounting recommendations, the Conference Board Commission on Public Trust and Private Enterprise said “members of the audit committee must be independent and have both knowledge and experience in auditing financial matters.”¹³

We are skeptical of audit committees where there are members that lack expertise as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), Chief Financial Officer (CFO) or corporate controller, or similar experience. While

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

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

we will not necessarily vote against members of an audit committee when such expertise is lacking, we are more likely to vote against committee members when a problem such as a restatement occurs and such expertise is lacking.

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

When assessing the decisions and actions of the audit committee, we typically defer to its judgment and would vote in favor of its members, but we would recommend voting against the following members under the following circumstances:¹⁴

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

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

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

17 Auditors are required to report all potential illegal acts to management and the audit committee unless they are clearly inconsequential in nature. If the audit committee or the board fails to take appropriate action on an act that has been determined to be a violation of the law, the independent auditor is required to send a section 10A letter to the SEC. Such letters are rare and therefore we believe should be taken seriously.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When assessing the performance of compensation committees, we will recommend voting against for the following:²⁰

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

21 Where there are multiple CEOs in one year, we will consider not recommending against the compensation committee but will defer judgment on compensation policies and practices until the next year or a full year after arrival of the new CEO. In addition, if a company provides shareholders with a say-on-pay proposal and receives an F grade in our pay-for-performance model, we will recommend that shareholders only vote against the say-on-pay proposal rather than the members of the compensation committee, unless the company exhibits egregious practices. However, if the company receives successive F grades, we will then recommend against the members of the compensation committee in addition to recommending voting against the say-on-pay proposal.

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

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

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

Regarding the committee responsible for governance, we will recommend voting against the following:²⁴

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

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

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

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

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

28 We believe that one independent individual should be appointed to serve as the lead or presiding director. When such a position is rotated among directors from meeting to meeting, we will recommend voting against as if there were no lead or presiding director.

Regarding the nominating committee, we will recommend voting against the following:³⁰

Glass Lewis evaluates the risk management function of a public company board on a strictly case-by-case basis. Sound risk management, while necessary at all companies, is particularly important at

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

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

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

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

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

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

financial firms which inherently maintain significant exposure to financial risk. We believe such financial firms should have a chief risk officer reporting directly to the board and a dedicated risk committee or a committee of the board charged with risk oversight. Moreover, many non-financial firms maintain strategies which involve a high level of exposure to financial risk. Similarly, since many non-financial firms have complex hedging or trading strategies, those firms should also have a chief risk officer and a risk committee.

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

When analyzing the risk management practices of public companies, we take note of any significant losses or writedowns on financial assets and/or structured transactions. In cases where a company has disclosed a sizable loss or writedown, and where we find that the company’s board-level risk committee contributed to the loss through poor oversight, we would recommend that shareholders vote against such committee members on that basis. In addition, in cases where a company maintains a significant level of financial risk exposure but fails to disclose any explicit form of board-level risk oversight (committee or otherwise)³⁵, we will consider recommending to vote against the chairman of the board on that basis. However, we generally would not recommend voting against a combined chairman/CEO, except in egregious cases.

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

We typically recommend that shareholders vote against directors who have served on boards or as executives of companies with records of poor performance, inadequate risk oversight, excessive compensation, audit- or accounting-related issues, and/or other indicators of mismanagement or actions against the interests of shareholders.³⁶

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

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

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

36 We typically apply a three-year look-back to such issues and also take into account the level of support the director has received from shareholders since the time of the failure.

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

37 Glass Lewis will not recommend voting against the director at the company where he or she serves as an executive officer, only at the other public companies where he or she serves on the board.

38 Our guidelines are similar to the standards set forth by the NACD in its “Report of the NACD Blue Ribbon Commission on Director Professionalism,” 2001 Edition, pp. 14-15 (also cited approvingly by the Conference Board in its “Corporate Governance Best Practices: A Blueprint for the Post-Enron Era,” 2002, p. 17), which suggested that CEOs should not serve on more than 2 additional boards, persons with full-time work should not serve on more than 4 additional boards, and others should not serve on more than six boards.

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

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

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

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

Controlled companies present an exception to our independence recommendations. The board’s function is to protect shareholder interests; however, when an individual or entity owns more than 50% of the voting shares, the interests of the majority of shareholders are the interests of that entity or individual. Consequently, Glass Lewis does not apply our usual two-thirds independence rule and therefore we will not recommend voting against boards whose composition reflects the makeup of the shareholder population.

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

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

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

Where a shareholder group owns more than 50% of a company’s voting power but the company is not a “controlled” company as defined by relevant listing standards, we apply a lower independence requirement of a majority of the board but believe the company should otherwise be treated like another public company; we will therefore apply all other standards as outlined above.

Similarly, where an individual or entity holds between 20-50% of a company’s voting power, but the company is not “controlled,” we believe it is reasonable to allow proportional representation on the board and committees (excluding the audit committee) based on the individual or entity’s percentage of ownership.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In our view, there is no evidence to demonstrate that staggered boards improve shareholder returns in a takeover context. Research shows that shareholders are worse off when a staggered board blocks a transaction. A study by a group of Harvard Law professors concluded that companies whose staggered boards prevented a takeover “reduced shareholder returns for targets ... on the order of eight to ten percent in the nine months after a hostile bid was announced.”⁴³When a staggered board negotiates

43 Lucian Bebchuk, John Coates IV, Guhan Subramanian, “The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards: Further Findings and a Reply to Symposium Participants,” 55 Stanford Law Review 885-917 (2002), page 1.

a friendly transaction, no statistically significant difference in premiums occurs.⁴⁴Further, one of those same professors found that charter-based staggered boards “reduce the market value of a firm by 4% to 6% of its market capitalization” and that “staggered boards bring about and not merely reflect this reduction in market value.”⁴⁵A subsequent study reaffirmed that classified boards reduce shareholder value, finding “that the ongoing process of dismantling staggered boards, encouraged by institutional investors, could well contribute to increasing shareholder wealth.”⁴⁶

Shareholders have increasingly come to agree with this view. In 2013, 91% of S&P 500 companies had declassified boards, up from approximately 40% a decade ago.⁴⁷Clearly, more shareholders have supported the repeal of classified boards. Resolutions relating to the repeal of staggered boards garnered on average over 70% support among shareholders in 2008, whereas in 1987, only 16.4% of votes cast favored board declassification.⁴⁸

Given the empirical evidence suggesting staggered boards reduce a company’s value and the increasing shareholder opposition to such a structure, Glass Lewis supports the declassification of boards and the annual election of directors.

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

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

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

In our view, a director’s experience can be a valuable asset to shareholders because of the complex, critical issues that boards face. However, we support periodic director rotation to ensure a fresh perspective in the boardroom and the generation of new ideas and business strategies. We believe the board should implement such rotation instead of relying on arbitrary limits. When necessary, shareholders can address the issue of director rotation through director elections.

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

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

44 Id. at 2 (“Examining a sample of seventy-three negotiated transactions from 2000 to 2002, we find no systematic benefits in terms of higher premia to boards that have [staggered structures].”).

46 Lucian Bebchuk, Alma Cohen and Charles C.Y. Wang, “Staggered Boards and the Wealth of Shareholders:

Evidence from a Natural Experiment,” SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1706806 (2010), p. 26.

48 Lucian Bebchuk, John Coates IV and Guhan Subramanian, “The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards: Theory, Evidence, and Policy,” 54 Stanford Law Review 887-951 (2002).

In an attempt to address lack of access to the ballot, shareholders sometimes propose that the board give shareholders a choice of directors for each open board seat in every election. However, we feel that policies requiring a selection of multiple nominees for each board seat would discourage prospective directors from accepting nominations. A prospective director could not be confident either that he or she is the board’s clear choice or that he or she would be elected. Therefore, Glass Lewis generally will vote against such proposals.

Proxy Access has garnered significant attention in recent years. As in 2013, we expect to see a number of shareholder proposals regarding this topic in 2014 and perhaps even some companies unilaterally adopting some elements of proxy access. However, considering the uncertainty in this area and the inherent case-by-case nature of those situations, we refrain from establishing any specific parameters at this time.

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

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

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

During the first half of 2013, Glass Lewis tracked approximately 30 shareholder proposals seeking to require a majority vote to elect directors at annual meetings in the U.S. While this is roughly on par with what we have reviewed in each of the past several years, it is a sharp contrast to the 147 proposals tracked during all of 2006. This large drop in the number of proposals being submitted in recent years compared to 2006 is a result of many companies having already adopted some form of majority voting, including approximately 84% of companies in the S&P 500 Index, up from 56% in 2008.⁴⁹During 2013, these proposals received, on average, 59% shareholder support (excluding abstentions and broker non-votes), up from 54% in 2008. Further, nearly half of these resolutions received majority shareholder support.

Today, most US companies still elect directors by a plurality vote standard. Under that standard, if one shareholder holding only one share votes in favor of a nominee (including himself, if the director is a shareholder), that nominee “wins” the election and assumes a seat on the board. The common concern among companies with a plurality voting standard is the possibility that one or more directors would not receive a majority of votes, resulting in “failed elections.” This was of particular concern during the 1980s, an era of frequent takeovers and contests for control of companies.

If a majority vote standard were implemented, a nominee would have to receive the support of a majority of the shares voted in order to be elected. Thus, shareholders could collectively vote to reject a director they believe will not pursue their best interests. We think that this minimal amount of protection for shareholders is reasonable and will not upset the corporate structure nor reduce the willingness of qualified shareholder-focused directors to serve in the future.

We believe that a majority vote standard will likely lead to more attentive directors. Occasional use of this power will likely prevent the election of directors with a record of ignoring shareholder interests in favor of other interests that conflict with those of investors. Glass Lewis will generally support proposals calling for the election of directors by a majority vote except for use in contested director elections.

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

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

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

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

As such, shareholders should demand an objective, competent and diligent auditor who performs at or above professional standards at every company in which the investors hold an interest. Like directors, auditors should be free from conflicts of interest and should avoid situations requiring a choice between the auditor’s interests and the public’s interests. Almost without exception, shareholders should be able to annually review an auditor’s performance and to annually ratify a board’s auditor selection. Moreover, in October 2008, the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession went even further, and recommended that “to further enhance audit committee oversight and auditor accountability... disclosure in the company proxy statement regarding shareholder ratification [should] include the name(s) of the senior auditing partner(s) staffed on the engagement.”⁵⁰

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At companies that received a significant level of shareholder disapproval (25% or greater) to their say-on-pay proposal at the previous annual meeting, we believe the board should demonstrate some level of engagement and responsiveness to the shareholder concerns behind the discontent. While we recognize that sweeping changes cannot be made to a compensation program without due consideration and that a majority of shareholders voted in favor of the proposal, we will look for disclosure in the proxy statement and other publicly-disclosed filings that indicates the compensation committee is responding to the prior year’s vote results including engaging with large shareholders to identify the concerns causing the substantial vote against. In the absence of any evidence that the board is actively engaging shareholders on these issues and responding accordingly, we may recommend holding compensation committee members accountable for failing to adequately respond to shareholder opposition, giving careful consideration to the level of shareholder protest and the severity and history of compensation problems.

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

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

We also use this analysis to inform our voting decisions on say-on-pay proposals. As such, if a company receives a failing grade from our proprietary model, we are likely to recommend that shareholders vote against the say-on-pay proposal. However, there may be exceptions to this rule such as when a company makes significant enhancements to its compensation programs that may not be reflected yet in a quantitative assessment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We also believe shareholders should evaluate the relative success of a company’s compensation programs, particularly with regard to existing equity-based incentive plans, in linking pay and performance in evaluating new LTI plans to determine the impact of additional stock awards. We

will therefore review the company’s pay-for-performance grade (see below for more information) and specifically the proportion of total compensation that is stock-based.

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

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

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

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

However, we also recognize that the pledging of shares can present a risk that, depending on a host of factors, an executive with significant pledged shares and limited other assets may have an incentive to take steps to avoid a forced sale of shares in the face of a rapid stock price decline. Therefore, to avoid substantial losses from a forced sale to meet the terms of the loan, the executive may have an incentive to boost the stock price in the short term in a manner that is unsustainable, thus hurting shareholders in the long-term. We also recognize concerns regarding pledging may not apply to less senior employees, given the latter group’s significantly more limited influence over a company’s stock price. Therefore, we believe that the issue of pledging shares should be reviewed in that context, as should polices that distinguish between the two groups.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glass Lewis believes the narrative and tabular disclosure of golden parachute arrangements benefits all shareholders. Glass Lewis analyzes each golden parachute arrangement on a case-by-case basis, taking into account, among other items: the ultimate value of the payments particularly compared to the value of the transaction, the tenure and position of the executives in question, and the type of triggers involved (single vs. double).

We believe that equity compensation awards are useful, when not abused, for retaining employees and providing an incentive for them to act in a way that will improve company performance. Glass Lewis evaluates equity-based compensation plans using a detailed model and analytical review.

Equity-based compensation programs have important differences from cash compensation plans and bonus programs. Accordingly, our model and analysis takes into account factors such as plan administration, the method and terms of exercise, repricing history, express or implied rights to reprice, and the presence of evergreen provisions.

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

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

Glass Lewis views option repricing plans and option exchange programs with great skepticism. Shareholders have substantial risk in owning stock and we believe that the employees, officers, and directors who receive stock options should be similarly situated to align their interests with shareholder interests.

We are concerned that option grantees who believe they will be “rescued” from underwater options will be more inclined to take unjustifiable risks. Moreover, a predictable pattern of repricing or exchanges substantially alters a stock option’s value because options that will practically never expire deeply out of the money are worth far more than options that carry a risk of expiration.

In short, repricings and option exchange programs change the bargain between shareholders and employees after the bargain has been struck.

There is one circumstance in which a repricing or option exchange program is acceptable: if macroeconomic or industry trends, rather than specific company issues, cause a stock’s value to decline dramatically and the repricing is necessary to motivate and retain employees. In this circumstance, we think it fair to conclude that option grantees may be suffering from a risk that was not foreseeable when the original “bargain” was struck. In such a circumstance, we will recommend supporting a repricing only if the following conditions are true:

Glass Lewis views option backdating, and the related practices of spring-loading and bullet-dodging, as egregious actions that warrant holding the appropriate management and board members responsible. These practices are similar to re-pricing options and eliminate much of the downside risk inherent in an option grant that is designed to induce recipients to maximize shareholder return.

Backdating an option is the act of changing an option’s grant date from the actual grant date to an earlier date when the market price of the underlying stock was lower, resulting in a lower exercise price for the option. Since 2006, Glass Lewis has identified over 270 companies that have disclosed internal or government investigations into their past stock-option grants.

Spring-loading is granting stock options while in possession of material, positive information that has not been disclosed publicly. Bullet-dodging is delaying the grants of stock options until after the release of material, negative information. This can allow option grants to be made at a lower price either before the release of positive news or following the release of negative news, assuming the stock’s price will move up or down in response to the information. This raises a concern similar to that of insider trading, or the trading on material non-public information.

The exercise price for an option is determined on the day of grant, providing the recipient with the same market risk as an investor who bought shares on that date. However, where options were backdated, the executive or the board (or the compensation committee) changed the grant date retroactively. The new date may be at or near the lowest price for the year or period. This would be like allowing an investor to look back and select the lowest price of the year at which to buy shares.

A 2006 study of option grants made between 1996 and 2005 at 8,000 companies found that option backdating can be an indication of poor internal controls. The study found that option backdating was more likely to occur at companies without a majority independent board and with a long-serving CEO; both factors, the study concluded, were associated with greater CEO influence on the company’s compensation and governance practices.⁵²

Where a company granted backdated options to an executive who is also a director, Glass Lewis will recommend voting against that executive/director, regardless of who decided to make the award. In addition, Glass Lewis will recommend voting against those directors who either approved or allowed the backdating. Glass Lewis feels that executives and directors who either benefited from backdated options or authorized the practice have breached their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders.

Given the severe tax and legal liabilities to the company from backdating, Glass Lewis will consider recommending voting against members of the audit committee who served when options were backdated, a restatement occurs, material weaknesses in internal controls exist and disclosures indicate there was a lack of documentation. These committee members failed in their responsibility to ensure the integrity of the company’s financial reports.

When a company has engaged in spring-loading or bullet-dodging, Glass Lewis will consider recommending voting against the compensation committee members where there has been a pattern of granting options at or near historic lows. Glass Lewis will also recommend voting against executives serving on the board who benefited from the spring-loading or bullet-dodging.

Glass Lewis believes that non-employee directors should receive reasonable and appropriate compensation for the time and effort they spend serving on the board and its committees. However, a

52 Lucian Bebchuk, Yaniv Grinstein and Urs Peyer. “LUCKY CEOs.” November, 2006.

balance is required. Fees should be competitive in order to retain and attract qualified individuals, but excessive fees represent a financial cost to the company and potentially compromise the objectivity and independence of non-employee directors. We will consider recommending supporting compensation plans that include option grants or other equity-based awards that help to align the interests of outside directors with those of shareholders. However, equity grants to directors should not be performance-based to ensure directors are not incentivized in the same manner as executives but rather serve as a check on imprudent risk-taking in executive compensation plan design.

Glass Lewis uses a proprietary model and analyst review to evaluate the costs of equity plans compared to the plans of peer companies with similar market capitalizations. We use the results of this model to guide our voting recommendations on stock-based director compensation plans.

Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code allows companies to deduct compensation in excess of $1 million for the CEO and the next three most highly compensated executive officers, excluding the CFO, if the compensation is performance-based and is paid under shareholder-approved plans. Companies therefore submit incentive plans for shareholder approval to take of advantage of the tax deductibility afforded under 162(m) for certain types of compensation.

We believe the best practice for companies is to provide robust disclosure to shareholders so that they can make fully-informed judgments about the reasonableness of the proposed compensation plan. To allow for meaningful shareholder review, we prefer that disclosure should include specific performance metrics, a maximum award pool, and a maximum award amount per employee. We also believe it is important to analyze the estimated grants to see if they are reasonable and in line with the company’s peers.

We typically recommend voting against a 162(m) proposal where: (i) a company fails to provide at least a list of performance targets; (ii) a company fails to provide one of either a total maximum or an individual maximum; or (iii) the proposed plan is excessive when compared with the plans of the company’s peers.

The company’s record of aligning pay with performance (as evaluated using our proprietary pay-for-performance model) also plays a role in our recommendation. Where a company has a record of setting reasonable pay relative to business performance, we generally recommend voting in favor of a plan even if the plan caps seem large relative to peers because we recognize the value in special pay arrangements for continued exceptional performance.

As with all other issues we review, our goal is to provide consistent but contextual advice given the specifics of the company and ongoing performance. Overall, we recognize that it is generally not in shareholders’ best interests to vote against such a plan and forgo the potential tax benefit since shareholder rejection of such plans will not curtail the awards; it will only prevent the tax deduction associated with them.

Glass Lewis believes that poison pill plans are not generally in shareholders’ best interests. They can reduce management accountability by substantially limiting opportunities for corporate takeovers. Rights plans can thus prevent shareholders from receiving a buy-out premium for their stock. Typically we recommend that shareholders vote against these plans to protect their financial interests and ensure that they have an opportunity to consider any offer for their shares, especially those at a premium.

We believe boards should be given wide latitude in directing company activities and in charting the company’s course. However, on an issue such as this, where the link between the shareholders’ financial interests and their right to consider and accept buyout offers is substantial, we believe that shareholders should be allowed to vote on whether they support such a plan’s implementation. This issue is different from other matters that are typically left to board discretion. Its potential impact on and relation to shareholders is direct and substantial. It is also an issue in which management interests may be different from those of shareholders; thus, ensuring that shareholders have a voice is the only way to safeguard their interests.

In certain circumstances, we will support a poison pill that is limited in scope to accomplish a particular objective, such as the closing of an important merger, or a pill that contains what we believe to be a reasonable qualifying offer clause. We will consider supporting a poison pill plan if the qualifying offer clause includes each of the following attributes:

Where these requirements are met, we typically feel comfortable that shareholders will have the opportunity to voice their opinion on any legitimate offer.

Similarly, Glass Lewis may consider supporting a limited poison pill in the unique event that a company seeks shareholder approval of a rights plan for the express purpose of preserving Net Operating Losses (NOLs). While companies with NOLs can generally carry these losses forward to offset future taxable income, Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code limits companies’ ability to use NOLs in the event of a “change of ownership.”⁵³In this case, a company may adopt or amend a poison pill (“NOL pill”) in order to prevent an inadvertent change of ownership by multiple investors purchasing small

53 Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code refers to a “change of ownership” of more than 50 percentage points by one or more 5% shareholders within a three-year period. The statute is intended to deter the “trafficking” of net operating losses.

chunks of stock at the same time, and thereby preserve the ability to carry the NOLs forward. Often such NOL pills have trigger thresholds much lower than the common 15% or 20% thresholds, with some NOL pill triggers as low as 5%.

Glass Lewis evaluates NOL pills on a strictly case-by-case basis taking into consideration, among other factors, the value of the NOLs to the company, the likelihood of a change of ownership based on the size of the holding and the nature of the larger shareholders, the trigger threshold and whether the term of the plan is limited in duration (i.e., whether it contains a reasonable “sunset” provision) or is subject to periodic board review and/or shareholder ratification. However, we will recommend that shareholders vote against a proposal to adopt or amend a pill to include NOL protective provisions if the company has adopted a more narrowly tailored means of preventing a change in control to preserve its NOLs. For example, a company may limit share transfers in its charter to prevent a change of ownership from occurring.

Furthermore, we believe that shareholders should be offered the opportunity to vote on any adoption or renewal of a NOL pill regardless of any potential tax benefit that it offers a company. As such, we will consider recommending voting against those members of the board who served at the time when an NOL pill was adopted without shareholder approval within the prior twelve months and where the NOL pill is not subject to shareholder ratification.

Fair price provisions, which are rare, require that certain minimum price and procedural requirements be observed by any party that acquires more than a specified percentage of a corporation’s common stock. The provision is intended to protect minority shareholder value when an acquirer seeks to accomplish a merger or other transaction which would eliminate or change the interests of the minority stockholders. The provision is generally applied against the acquirer unless the takeover is approved by a majority of ”continuing directors” and holders of a majority, in some cases a supermajority as high as 80%, of the combined voting power of all stock entitled to vote to alter, amend, or repeal the above provisions.

The effect of a fair price provision is to require approval of any merger or business combination with an “interested stockholder” by 51% of the voting stock of the company, excluding the shares held by the interested stockholder. An interested stockholder is generally considered to be a holder of 10% or more of the company’s outstanding stock, but the trigger can vary.

Generally, provisions are put in place for the ostensible purpose of preventing a back-end merger where the interested stockholder would be able to pay a lower price for the remaining shares of the company than he or she paid to gain control. The effect of a fair price provision on shareholders, however, is to limit their ability to gain a premium for their shares through a partial tender offer or open market acquisition which typically raise the share price, often significantly. A fair price provision discourages such transactions because of the potential costs of seeking shareholder approval and because of the restrictions on purchase price for completing a merger or other transaction at a later time.

Glass Lewis believes that fair price provisions, while sometimes protecting shareholders from abuse in a takeover situation, more often act as an impediment to takeovers, potentially limiting gains to shareholders from a variety of transactions that could significantly increase share price. In some cases, even the independent directors of the board cannot make exceptions when such exceptions may be in the best interests of shareholders. Given the existence of state law protections for minority shareholders such as Section 203 of the Delaware Corporations Code, we believe it is in the best interests of shareholders to remove fair price provisions.

In general, Glass Lewis believes that the board is in the best position to determine the appropriate jurisdiction of incorporation for the company. When examining a management proposal to reincorporate to a different state or country, we review the relevant financial benefits, generally related to improved corporate tax treatment, as well as changes in corporate governance provisions, especially those relating to shareholder rights, resulting from the change in domicile. Where the financial benefits are de minimis and there is a decrease in shareholder rights, we will recommend voting against the transaction.

However, costly, shareholder-initiated reincorporations are typically not the best route to achieve the furtherance of shareholder rights. We believe shareholders are generally better served by proposing specific shareholder resolutions addressing pertinent issues which may be implemented at a lower cost, and perhaps even with board approval. However, when shareholders propose a shift into a jurisdiction with enhanced shareholder rights, Glass Lewis examines the significant ways would the company benefit from shifting jurisdictions including the following:

We note, however, that we will only support shareholder proposals to change a company’s place of incorporation in exceptional circumstances.

Glass Lewis believes that charter or bylaw provisions limiting a shareholder’s choice of legal venue are not in the best interests of shareholders. Such clauses may effectively discourage the use of shareholder derivative claims by increasing their associated costs and making them more difficult to pursue. As such, shareholders should be wary about approving any limitation on their legal recourse including limiting themselves to a single jurisdiction (e.g. Delaware) without compelling evidence that it will benefit shareholders.

For this reason, we recommend that shareholders vote against any bylaw or charter amendment seeking to adopt an exclusive forum provision unless the company: (i) provides a compelling argument on why the provision would directly benefit shareholders; (ii) provides evidence of abuse of legal process in other, non-favored jurisdictions; and (ii) maintains a strong record of good corporate governance practices.

Moreover, in the event a board seeks shareholder approval of a forum selection clause pursuant to a bundled bylaw amendment rather than as a separate proposal, we will weigh the importance of

the other bundled provisions when determining the vote recommendation on the proposal. We will nonetheless recommend voting against the chairman of the governance committee for bundling disparate proposals into a single proposal (refer to our discussion of nominating and governance committee performance in Section I of the guidelines).

Glass Lewis believes that adequate capital stock is important to a company’s operation. When analyzing a request for additional shares, we typically review four common reasons why a company might need additional capital stock:

Issuing additional shares can dilute existing holders in limited circumstances. Further, the availability of additional shares, where the board has discretion to implement a poison pill, can often serve as a deterrent to interested suitors. Accordingly, where we find that the company has not detailed a plan for use of the proposed shares, or where the number of shares far exceeds those needed to accomplish a detailed plan, we typically recommend against the authorization of additional shares. Similar concerns may also lead us to recommend against a proposal to conduct a reverse stock split if the board does not state that it will reduce the number of authorized common shares in a ratio proportionate to the split.

While we think that having adequate shares to allow management to make quick decisions and effectively operate the business is critical, we prefer that, for significant transactions, management come to shareholders to justify their use of additional shares rather than providing a blank check in the form of a large pool of unallocated shares available for any purpose.

We typically recommend that shareholders vote against proposals that would require advance notice of shareholder proposals or of director nominees.

These proposals typically attempt to require a certain amount of notice before shareholders are allowed to place proposals on the ballot. Notice requirements typically range between three to six months prior to the annual meeting. Advance notice requirements typically make it impossible for a shareholder who misses the deadline to present a shareholder proposal or a director nominee that might be in the best interests of the company and its shareholders.

We believe shareholders should be able to review and vote on all proposals and director nominees. Shareholders can always vote against proposals that appear with little prior notice. Shareholders, as owners of a business, are capable of identifying issues on which they have sufficient information and ignoring issues on which they have insufficient information. Setting arbitrary notice restrictions limits the opportunity for shareholders to raise issues that may come up after the window closes.

Cumulative voting increases the ability of minority shareholders to elect a director by allowing shareholders to cast as many shares of the stock they own multiplied by the number of directors to be elected. As companies generally have multiple nominees up for election, cumulative voting allows shareholders to cast all of their votes for a single nominee, or a smaller number of nominees than up for election, thereby raising the likelihood of electing one or more of their preferred nominees to the board. It can be important when a board is controlled by insiders or affiliates and where the company’s ownership structure includes one or more shareholders who control a majority-voting block of company stock.

Glass Lewis believes that cumulative voting generally acts as a safeguard for shareholders by ensuring that those who hold a significant minority of shares can elect a candidate of their choosing to the board. This allows the creation of boards that are responsive to the interests of all shareholders rather than just a small group of large holders.

However, academic literature indicates that where a highly independent board is in place and the company has a shareholder-friendly governance structure, shareholders may be better off without cumulative voting. The analysis underlying this literature indicates that shareholder returns at firms with good governance structures are lower and that boards can become factionalized and prone to evaluating the needs of special interests over the general interests of shareholders collectively.

We review cumulative voting proposals on a case-by-case basis, factoring in the independence of the board and the status of the company’s governance structure. But we typically find these proposals on ballots at companies where independence is lacking and where the appropriate checks and balances favoring shareholders are not in place. In those instances we typically recommend in favor of cumulative voting.

Where a company has adopted a true majority vote standard (i.e., where a director must receive a majority of votes cast to be elected, as opposed to a modified policy indicated by a resignation policy only), Glass Lewis will recommend voting against cumulative voting proposals due to the incompatibility of the two election methods. For companies that have not adopted a true majority voting standard but have adopted some form of majority voting, Glass Lewis will also generally recommend voting against cumulative voting proposals if the company has not adopted antitakeover protections and has been responsive to shareholders.

Where a company has not adopted a majority voting standard and is facing both a shareholder proposal to adopt majority voting and a shareholder proposal to adopt cumulative voting, Glass Lewis will support only the majority voting proposal. When a company has both majority voting and cumulative voting in place, there is a higher likelihood of one or more directors not being elected as a result of not receiving a majority vote. This is because shareholders exercising the right to cumulate their votes could unintentionally cause the failed election of one or more directors for whom shareholders do not cumulate votes.

Glass Lewis believes that supermajority vote requirements impede shareholder action on ballot items critical to shareholder interests. An example is in the takeover context, where supermajority vote requirements can strongly limit the voice of shareholders in making decisions on such crucial matters as selling the business. This in turn degrades share value and can limit the possibility of buyout premiums to shareholders. Moreover, we believe that a supermajority vote requirement can enable a small group of shareholders to overrule the will of the majority shareholders. We believe that a simple majority is appropriate to approve all matters presented to shareholders.

We typically recommend that shareholders not give their proxy to management to vote on any other business items that may properly come before an annual or special meeting. In our opinion, granting unfettered discretion is unwise.

Glass Lewis will support proposals to adopt a provision preventing the payment of greenmail, which would serve to prevent companies from buying back company stock at significant premiums from a certain shareholder. Since a large or majority shareholder could attempt to compel a board into purchasing its shares at a large premium, the anti-greenmail provision would generally require that a majority of shareholders other than the majority shareholder approve the buyback.

Glass Lewis believes that decisions about a fund’s structure and/or a fund’s relationship with its investment advisor or sub-advisors are generally best left to management and the members of the board, absent a showing of egregious or illegal conduct that might threaten shareholder value. As such, we focus our analyses of such proposals on the following main areas:

We generally support amendments to a fund’s investment advisory agreement absent a material change that is not in the best interests of shareholders. A significant increase in the fees paid to an investment advisor would be reason for us to consider recommending voting against a proposed amendment to an investment advisory agreement. However, in certain cases, we are more inclined to support an increase in advisory fees if such increases result from being performance-based rather than asset-based. Furthermore, we generally support sub-advisory agreements between a fund’s advisor and sub-advisor, primarily because the fees received by the sub-advisor are paid by the advisor, and not by the fund.

In matters pertaining to a fund’s investment objective or strategy, we believe shareholders are best served when a fund’s objective or strategy closely resembles the investment discipline shareholders understood and selected when they initially bought into the fund. As such, we generally recommend voting against amendments to a fund’s investment objective or strategy when the proposed changes would leave shareholders with stakes in a fund that is noticeably different than when originally contemplated, and which could therefore potentially negatively impact some investors’ diversification strategies.

The complex organizational, operational, tax and compliance requirements of Real Estate Investment Trusts (“REITs”) provide for a unique shareholder evaluation. In simple terms, a REIT must have a minimum of 100 shareholders (the “100 Shareholder Test”) and no more than 50% of the value of its shares can be held by five or fewer individuals (the “5/50 Test”). At least 75% of a REITs’ assets must be in real estate, it must derive 75% of its gross income from rents or mortgage interest, and it must pay out 90% of its taxable earnings as dividends. In addition, as a publicly traded security listed on a stock exchange, a REIT must comply with the same general listing requirements as a publicly traded equity.

In order to comply with such requirements, REITs typically include percentage ownership limitations in their organizational documents, usually in the range of 5% to 10% of the REITs outstanding shares. Given the complexities of REITs as an asset class, Glass Lewis applies a highly nuanced approach in our evaluation of REIT proposals, especially regarding changes in authorized share capital, including preferred stock.

Glass Lewis is generally against the authorization of preferred shares that allows the board to determine the preferences, limitations and rights of the preferred shares (known as “blank-check preferred stock”). We believe that granting such broad discretion should be of concern to common shareholders, since blank-check preferred stock could be used as an antitakeover device or in some other fashion that adversely affects the voting power or financial interests of common shareholders. However, given the requirement that a REIT must distribute 90% of its net income annually, it is inhibited from retaining capital to make investments in its business. As such, we recognize that equity financing likely plays a key role in a REIT’s growth and creation of shareholder value. Moreover, shareholder concern regarding the use of preferred stock as an anti-takeover mechanism may be allayed by the fact that most REITs maintain ownership limitations in their certificates of incorporation. For these reasons, along with the fact that REITs typically do not engage in private placements of preferred stock (which result in the rights of common shareholders being adversely impacted), we may support requests to authorize shares of blank-check preferred stock at REITs.

Business Development Companies (“BDCs”) were created by the U.S. Congress in 1980; they are regulated under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and are taxed as regulated investment companies (“RICs”) under the Internal Revenue Code. BDCs typically operate as publicly traded private equity firms that invest in early stage to mature private companies as well as small public companies. BDCs realize operating income when their investments are sold off, and therefore maintain complex organizational, operational, tax and compliance requirements that are similar to those of REITs—the most evident of which is that BDCs must distribute at least 90% of their taxable earnings as dividends.

Considering that BDCs are required to distribute nearly all their earnings to shareholders, they sometimes need to offer additional shares of common stock in the public markets to finance operations and acquisitions. However, shareholder approval is required in order for a BDC to sell shares of common stock at a price below Net Asset Value (“NAV”). Glass Lewis evaluates these proposals using a case-by-case approach, but will recommend supporting such requests if the following conditions are met:

In short, we believe BDCs should demonstrate a responsible approach to issuing shares below NAV, by proactively addressing shareholder concerns regarding the potential dilution of the requested share issuance, and explaining if and how the company’s past below-NAV share issuances have benefitted the company.

Glass Lewis typically prefers to leave decisions regarding day-to-day management and policy decisions, including those related to social, environmental or political issues, to management and the board, except when there is a clear link between the proposal and value enhancement or risk mitigation. We feel strongly that shareholders should not attempt to micromanage the company, its businesses or its executives through the shareholder initiative process. Rather, we believe shareholders should use their influence to push for governance structures that protect shareholders and promote director accountability. Shareholders should then put in place a board they can trust to make informed decisions that are in the best interests of the business and its owners, and then hold directors accountable for management and policy decisions through board elections. However, we recognize that support of appropriately crafted shareholder initiatives may at times serve to promote or protect shareholder value.

To this end, Glass Lewis evaluates shareholder proposals on a case-by-case basis. We generally recommend supporting shareholder proposals calling for the elimination of, as well as to require shareholder approval of, antitakeover devices such as poison pills and classified boards. We generally recommend supporting proposals likely to increase and/or protect shareholder value and also those that promote the furtherance of shareholder rights. In addition, we also generally recommend supporting proposals that promote director accountability and those that seek to improve compensation practices, especially those promoting a closer link between compensation and performance.

For a detailed review of our policies concerning compensation, environmental, social and governance shareholder initiatives, please refer to our comprehensive Proxy Paper Guidelines for Shareholder Initiatives.

This document sets forth the proxy voting policy and guidelines of Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC. The policies included herein have been developed based on Glass Lewis’ experience with proxy voting and corporate governance issues and are not tailored to any specific person. Moreover, these guidelines are not intended to be exhaustive and do not include all potential voting issues. The information included herein is reviewed periodically and updated or revised as necessary. Glass Lewis is not responsible for any actions taken or not taken on the basis of this information. This document may not be reproduced or distributed in any manner without the written permission of Glass Lewis.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

SAN FRANCISCO

Headquarters

Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC

One Sansome Street

Suite 3300

San Francisco, CA 94104

Tel: +1 415-678-4110

Tel: +1 888-800-7001

Fax: +1 415-357-0200

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

NEW YORK

Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC

48 Wall Street

15th Floor

New York, N.Y. 10005

Tel: +1 212-797-3777

Fax: +1 212-980-4716

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

AUSTRALIA

CGI Glass Lewis Pty Limited

Suite 8.01, Level 8,

261 George St

Sydney NSW 2000

Australia

Tel: +61 2 9299 9266

Fax: +61 2 9299 1866

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

IRELAND

Glass Lewis Europe, Ltd.

15 Henry Street

Limerick, Ireland

Phone: +353 61 292 800

Fax: +353 61 292 899

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

PROXY PAPER^{^TM}

GUIDELINES

2014 PROXY SEASON

AN OVERVIEW OF THE GLASS LEWIS

APPROACH TO PROXY ADVICE

INTERNATIONAL

Boards are put in place to represent shareholders and protect their interests. Glass Lewis seeks boards with a proven record of protecting shareholders and delivering value over the medium- and long-term. In our view, boards working to protect and enhance the best interests of shareholders typically include some independent directors (the percentage will vary by local market practice and regulations), boast a record of positive performance, have directors with diverse backgrounds, and appoint directors with a breadth and depth of experience.

When companies disclose sufficient relevant information, we look at each individual on the board and examine his or her relationships with the company, the company’s executives and with other board members. The purpose of this inquiry is to determine whether pre-existing personal, familial or financial relationships are likely to impact the decisions of that board member. Where the company does not disclose the names and backgrounds of director nominees with sufficient time in advance of the shareholder meeting to evaluate their independence and performance, we will consider recommending abstaining on the directors’ election.

We vote in favor of governance structures that will drive positive performance and enhance shareholder value. The most crucial test of a board’s commitment to the company and to its shareholders is the performance of the board and its members. The performance of directors in their capacity as board members and as executives of the company, when applicable, and in their roles at other companies where they serve is critical to this evaluation.

We believe a director is independent if he or she has no material financial, familial or other current relationships with the company, its executives or other board members except for service on the board and standard fees paid for that service. Relationships that have existed within the three-five years prior to the inquiry are usually considered to be “current” for purposes of this test.

In our view, a director is affiliated if he or she has a material financial, familial or other relationship with the company or its executives, but is not an employee of the company. This includes directors whose employers have a material financial relationship with the Company. This also includes a director who owns or controls 10-20% or more of the company’s voting stock.

We define an inside director as one who simultaneously serves as a director and as an employee of the company. This category may include a chairman of the board who acts as an employee of the company or is paid as an employee of the company.

Although we typically vote for the election of directors, we will recommend voting against directors for the following reasons:

We also feel that the following conflicts of interest may hinder a director’s performance and will therefore recommend voting against a:

In some countries, companies elect their board members as a slate, whereby shareholders are unable to vote on the election of each individual director, but rather are limited to voting for or against the board as a whole. If significant issues exist concerning one or more of the nominees or in markets where directors are generally elected individually, we will recommend voting against the entire slate of directors.

We believe that independent directors should serve on a company’s audit, compensation, nominating and governance committees. We will support boards with such a structure and encourage change where this is not the case.

We believe companies, particularly financial firms, should have a dedicated risk committee, or a committee of the board charged with risk oversight, as well as a chief risk officer who reports directly to that committee, not to the CEO or another executive. In cases where a company has disclosed a sizable loss or writedown, and where a reasonable analysis indicates that the company’s board-level risk committee should be held accountable for poor oversight, we would recommend that shareholders vote against such committee members on that basis. In addition, in cases where a company maintains a significant level of financial risk exposure but fails to disclose any explicit form of board-level risk oversight (committee or otherwise), we will consider recommending to vote against the chairman of the board on that basis.

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

Many countries require companies to submit the annual financial statements, director reports and independent auditors’ reports to shareholders at a general meeting. Shareholder approval of such a proposal does not discharge the board or management. We will usually recommend voting in favor of these proposals except when there are concerns about the integrity of the statements/reports. However, should the audited financial statements, auditor’s report and/or annual report not be published at the writing of our report, we will recommend that shareholders abstain from voting on this proposal.

In many countries, companies must submit the allocation of income for shareholder approval. We will generally recommend voting for such a proposal. However, we will give particular scrutiny to cases where the company’s dividend payout ratio is exceptionally low or excessively high relative to its peers and the company has not provided a satisfactory explanation.

We believe that role of the auditor is crucial in protecting shareholder value. Like directors, auditors should be free from conflicts of interest and should assiduously avoid situations that require them to make choices between their own interests and the interests of the shareholders.

We generally support management’s recommendation regarding the selection of an auditor and support granting the board the authority to fix auditor fees except in cases where we believe the independence of an incumbent auditor or the integrity of the audit has been compromised.

However, we recommend voting against ratification of the auditor and/or authorizing the board to set auditor fees for the following reasons:

We closely review companies’ remuneration practices and disclosure as outlined in company filings to evaluate management-submitted advisory compensation report and policy vote proposals. In evaluating these proposals, which can be binding or non-binding depending on the country, we examine how well the company has disclosed information pertinent to its compensation programs, the extent to which overall compensation is tied to performance, the performance metrics selected by the company and the levels of remuneration in comparison to company performance and that of its peers.

We will usually recommend voting against approval of the compensation report or policy when the following occur:

Glass Lewis recognizes the value of equity-based incentive programs. When used appropriately, they can provide a vehicle for linking an employee’s pay to a company’s performance, thereby aligning their interests with those of shareholders. Tying a portion of an employee’s compensation to the performance of the Company provides an incentive to maximize share value. In addition, equity-based compensation is an effective way to attract, retain and motivate key employees.

In order to allow for meaningful shareholder review, we believe that incentive programs should generally include: (i) specific and appropriate performance goals; (ii) a maximum award pool; and (iii) a maximum award amount per employee. In addition, the payments made should be reasonable relative to the performance of the business and total compensation to those covered by the plan should be in line with compensation paid by the Company’s peers.

Glass Lewis believes in performance-based equity compensation plans for senior executives. We feel that executives should be compensated with equity when their performance and that of the company warrants such rewards. While we do not believe that equity-based compensation plans for all employees need to be based on overall company performance, we do support such limitations for grants to senior executives (although even some equity-based compensation of senior executives

without performance criteria is acceptable, such as in the case of moderate incentive grants made in an initial offer of employment).

Boards often argue that such a proposal would hinder them in attracting talent. We believe that boards can develop a consistent, reliable approach, as boards of many companies have, that would still attract executives who believe in their ability to guide the company to achieve its targets. We generally recommend that shareholders vote in favor of performance-based option requirements.

There should be no retesting of performance conditions for all share- and option- based incentive schemes. We will generally recommend that shareholders vote against performance-based equity compensation plans that allow for re-testing.

Glass Lewis believes that non-employee directors should receive appropriate types and levels of compensation for the time and effort they spend serving on the board and its committees. Director fees should be reasonable in order to retain and attract qualified individuals. In particular, we support compensation plans that include non performance-based equity awards, which help to align the interests of outside directors with those of shareholders.

Glass Lewis compares the costs of these plans to the plans of peer companies with similar market capitalizations in the same country to help inform its judgment on this issue.

We will typically recommend voting against proposals to grant retirement benefits to non-executive directors. Such extended payments can impair the objectivity and independence of these board members. Directors should receive adequate compensation for their board service through initial and annual fees.

As a general rule, Glass Lewis believes that shareholders should not be involved in setting executive compensation. Such matters should be left to the board’s compensation committee. We view the election of directors, and specifically those who sit on the compensation committee, as the appropriate mechanism for shareholders to express their disapproval or support of board policy on this issue. Further, we believe that companies whose pay-for-performance is in line with their peers should be granted the flexibility to compensate their executives in a manner that drives growth and profit.

However, Glass Lewis favors performance-based compensation as an effective means of motivating executives to act in the best interests of shareholders. Performance-based compensation may be limited if a chief executive’s pay is capped at a low level rather than flexibly tied to the performance of the company.

We will evaluate proposed amendments to a company’s articles of association on a case-by-case basis. We are opposed to the practice of bundling several amendments under a single proposal because it prevents shareholders from evaluating each amendment on its own merits. In such cases, we will analyze each change individually and will recommend voting for the proposal only when we believe that the amendments on balance are in the best interests of shareholders.

Glass Lewis believes that poison pill plans generally are not in the best interests of shareholders. Specifically, they can reduce management accountability by substantially limiting opportunities for corporate takeovers. Rights plans can thus prevent shareholders from receiving a buy-out premium for their stock.

We believe that boards should be given wide latitude in directing the activities of the company and charting the company’s course. However, on an issue such as this where the link between the financial interests of shareholders and their right to consider and accept buyout offers is so substantial, we believe that shareholders should be allowed to vote on whether or not they support such a plan’s implementation.

In certain limited circumstances, we will support a limited poison pill to accomplish a particular objective, such as the closing of an important merger, or a pill that contains what we believe to be a reasonable ‘qualifying offer’ clause.

Glass Lewis favors a simple majority voting structure. Supermajority vote requirements act as impediments to shareholder action on ballot items that are critical to our interests. One key example is in the takeover context where supermajority vote requirements can strongly limit shareholders’ input in making decisions on such crucial matters as selling the business.

Glass Lewis believes that having adequate capital stock available for issuance is important to the operation of a company. We will generally support proposals when a company could reasonably use the requested shares for financing, stock splits and stock dividends. While we think that having adequate shares to allow management to make quick decisions and effectively operate the business is critical, we prefer that, for significant transactions, management come to shareholders to justify their use of additional shares rather than providing a blank check in the form of large pools of unallocated shares available for any purpose.

In general, we will support proposals to increase authorized shares up to 100% of the number of shares currently authorized unless, after the increase the company would be left with less than 30% of its authorized shares outstanding.

Issuing additional shares can dilute existing holders in some circumstances. Further, the availability of additional shares, where the board has discretion to implement a poison pill, can often serve as a deterrent to interested suitors. Accordingly, where we find that the company has not disclosed a detailed plan for use of the proposed shares, or where the number of shares requested are excessive, we typically recommend against the issuance. In the case of a private placement, we will also consider whether the company is offering a discount to its share price.

In general, we will support proposals to issue shares (with pre-emption rights) when the requested increase is the lesser of (i) the unissued ordinary share capital; or (ii) a sum equal to one-third of the issued ordinary share capital. This authority should not exceed five years. In some countries, if the proposal contains a figure greater than one-third, the company should explain the nature of the additional amounts.

We will also generally support proposals to suspend pre-emption rights for a maximum of 5-20% of the issued ordinary share capital of the company, depending on the country in which the company is located. This authority should not exceed five years, or less for some countries.

We will recommend voting in favor of a proposal to repurchase shares when the plan includes the following provisions: (i) a maximum number of shares which may be purchased (typically not more than 15% of the issued share capital); and (ii) a maximum price which may be paid for each share (as a percentage of the market price).

We believe companies should actively evaluate risks to long-term shareholder value stemming from exposure to environmental and social risks and should incorporate this information into their overall business risk profile. In addition, we believe companies should consider their exposure to changes in environmental or social regulation with respect to their operations as well as related legal and reputational risks. Companies should disclose to shareholders both the nature and magnitude of such risks as well as steps they have taken or will take to mitigate those risks.

When we identify situations where shareholder value is at risk, we may recommend voting in favor of a reasonable and well-targeted proposal if we believe supporting the proposal will promote disclosure of and/or mitigate significant risk exposure. In limited cases where a company has failed to adequately mitigate risks stemming from environmental or social practices, we will recommend shareholders vote against: (i) ratification of board and/or management acts; (ii) approving a company’s accounts and reports and/or; (iii) directors (in egregious cases).

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

SAN FRANCISCO

Headquarters

Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC

One Sansome Street

Suite 3300

San Francisco, CA 94104

Tel: +1 415-678-4110

Tel: +1 888-800-7001

Fax: +1 415-357-0200

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

NEW YORK

Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC

48 Wall Street

15th Floor

New York, N.Y. 10005

Tel: +1 212-797-3777

Fax: +1 212-980-4716

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

AUSTRALIA

CGI Glass Lewis Pty Limited

Suite 8.01, Level 8,

261 George St

Sydney NSW 2000

Australia

Tel: +61 2 9299 9266

Fax: +61 2 9299 1866

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

IRELAND

Glass Lewis Europe, Ltd.

15 Henry Street

Limerick, Ireland

Phone: +353 61 292 800

Fax: +353 61 292 899

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —


Shareholder Fees (fees paid directly from your investment)		None

Annual Fund Operating Expenses (expenses that you pay each year as a percentage of the value of your investment)
Management Fee		0.40%
Other Expenses^(a)		0.17%
Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses^(b)		0.57%
Fee Waivers and Expense Reimbursement^(b)		(0.07)%
Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses After Fee Waiver and Expense Reimbursement^(b)		0.50%

1 YEAR		3 YEARS
$51		$176

Name	Title with Sub-Adviser	Date Began Managing the Fund


David Lai	Portfolio Manager	Since Inception
Jeffrey Wu	Portfolio Manager	Since Inception

Name	Title with Adviser	Date Began Managing the Fund


Michael F. Mazier	Portfolio Manager	Since Inception
Francis G. Rodilosso	Portfolio Manager	Since Inception

Name, Address¹ and Age	Position(s) Held with the Trust	Term of Office² and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex³ Overseen	Other Directorships Held By Trustee During Past Five Years


David H. Chow, 56*†	Chairman Trustee	Since 2008 Since 2006	Founder and CEO, DanCourt Management LLC (financial/strategy consulting firm and Registered Investment Adviser), March 1999 to present.	60	Director, Forward Management LLC and Audit Committee Chairman, January 2008 to present; Trustee, Berea College of Kentucky and Vice-Chairman of the Investment Committee, May 2009 to present; Member of the Governing Council of the Independent Directors Council, October 2012 to present; President, July 2013 to present, and Board Member of the CFA Society of Stamford, July 2009 to present.
R. Alastair Short, 61*†	Trustee	Since 2006	President, Apex Capital Corporation (personal investment vehicle), January 1988 to present; Vice Chairman, W.P. Stewart & Co., Inc. (asset management firm), September 2007 to September 2008; and Managing Director,	73	Chairman and Independent Director, EULAV Asset Management, January 2011 to present; Independent Director, Tremont offshore funds,

Summary Information	3
Additional Information About the Fund’s Investment Strategies and Risks	13
Portfolio Holdings	28
Management of the Fund	28
Portfolio Managers	30
Shareholder Information	32
Index Provider	38
ChinaBond China High Quality Bond Index	39
License Agreement and Disclaimers	40
Financial Highlights	41
Premium/Discount Information	42
General Information	43

Fund	Principal U.S. Listing Exchange	Ticker


Market Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF	NYSE Arca, Inc.	CBON

		Page

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE TRUST		1

INVESTMENT POLICIES AND RESTRICTIONS		2

	Repurchase Agreements	2

	Futures Contracts and Options	2

	Swaps	4

	Warrants and Subscription Rights	5

	Currency Forwards	6

	Convertible Securities	6

	Structured Notes	6

	Participation Notes	6

	Future Developments	7

	Investment Restrictions	7

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND RISKS		10

	General	10

	RQFII Program Risk	11

	U.S. Federal Tax Treatment of Futures Contracts	12

EXCHANGE LISTING AND TRADING		13

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TRUST		14

	Trustees and Officers of the Trust	14

	Independent Trustees	15

	Interested Trustee	16

	Officer Information	17

	Remuneration of Trustees	21

PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS DISCLOSURE		22

QUARTERLY PORTFOLIO SCHEDULE		22

CODE OF ETHICS		22

PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES		22

MANAGEMENT		24

	Investment Adviser and Sub-Adviser	24

	The Administrator	25

	Custodian and Transfer Agent	25

	The Distributor	25

	Other Accounts Managed by the Portfolio Managers	26

	Portfolio Manager Compensation	27

	Portfolio Manager Share Ownership	28

BROKERAGE TRANSACTIONS		29

BOOK ENTRY ONLY SYSTEM		30

CREATION AND REDEMPTION OF CREATION UNITS		32

	General	32

	Fund Deposit	32

	Procedures for Creation of Creation Units	33

	Placement of Creation Orders Using Clearing Process	35

	Placement of Creation Orders Outside Clearing Process—Domestic Funds	35

	Placement of Creation Orders Outside Clearing Process—Foreign Funds	36

	Acceptance of Creation Orders	36

	Creation Transaction Fee	37

	Redemption of Creation Units	37

	Redemption Transaction Fee	38

	Placement of Redemption Orders Using Clearing Process	38

	Placement of Redemption Orders Outside Clearing Process—Domestic Funds	39

	Placement of Redemption Orders Outside Clearing Process—Foreign Funds	39

DETERMINATION OF NET ASSET VALUE		42

DIVIDENDS AND DISTRIBUTIONS		43

	General Policies	43

DIVIDEND REINVESTMENT SERVICE		43

CONTROL PERSONS AND PRINCIPAL SHAREHOLDERS		43

TAXES		44

	Reportable Transactions	48

	PRC Taxation	48

CAPITAL STOCK AND SHAREHOLDER REPORTS		49

COUNSEL AND INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM		50

LICENSE AGREEMENT AND DISCLAIMERS		51

APPENDIX A VAN ECK GLOBAL PROXY VOTING POLICIES		52

Officer’s Name, Address¹ and Age	Position(s) Held with the Trust	Term of Office² and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During The Past Five Years


Russell G. Brennan, 49	Assistant Vice President and Assistant Treasurer	Since 2008	Assistant Vice President and Assistant Treasurer of the Adviser (since 2008); Manager (Portfolio Administration) of the Adviser, September 2005 to October 2008; Officer of other investment companies advised by the Adviser.
Charles T. Cameron, 54	Vice President	Since 2006	Director of Trading (since 1995) and Portfolio Manager (since 1997) for the Adviser; Officer of other investment companies advised by the Adviser.
Simon Chen, 42	Assistant Vice President	Since 2012	Greater China Director of the Adviser (Since January 2012); General Manager, SinoMarkets Ltd. (June 2007 to December 2011).
John J. Crimmins, 57	Vice President, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer	Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer (Since 2012); Treasurer (Since 2009)	Vice President of Portfolio Administration of the Adviser, June 2009 to present; Vice President of VESC and VEARA, June 2009 to present; Chief Financial, Operating and Compliance Officer, Kern Capital Management LLC, September 1997 to February 2009; Officer of other investment companies advised by the Adviser.

Name of Trustee	Dollar Range of Equity Securities in Market Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (As of December 31, 2013)	Aggregate Dollar Range of Equity Securities in all Registered Investment Companies Overseen By Trustee In Family of Investment Companies (As of December 31, 2013)
David H. Chow	None	Over $100,000
R. Alastair Short	None	Over $100,000
Peter J. Sidebottom	None	None
Richard D. Stamberger	None	Over $100,000
Jan F. van Eck	None	Over $100,000

Name of Trustee	Aggregate Compensation From the Trust		Deferred Compensation From the Trust		Pension or Retirement Benefits Accrued as Part of the Trust’s Expenses⁽²⁾	Estimated Annual Benefits Upon Retirement	Total Compensation From the Trust and the Fund Complex⁽¹⁾ Paid to Trustee⁽²⁾
David H. Chow	$	215,500	$	53,875	N/A	N/A	$	215,500
R. Alastair Short	$	189,500	$	0	N/A	N/A	$	319,500
Peter J. Sidebottom	$	170,000	$	0	N/A	N/A	$	170,000
Richard D. Stamberger	$	183,000	$	36,600	N/A	N/A	$	323,000
Jan F. van Eck⁽³⁾	$	0	$	0	N/A	N/A	$	0

Name of Portfolio Managers	Other Accounts Managed (As of August 31, 2014)			Accounts with respect to which the advisory fee is based on the performance of the account
Name of Portfolio Managers	Category of Account	Number of Accounts in Category	Total Assets in Accounts in Category	Number of Accounts in Category	Total Assets in Accounts in Category
Michael F. Mazier	Registered investment companies	14	$3,987.64 million	0	0
	Other pooled investment vehicles	0	$0	0	$0
	Other accounts	0	$0	0	$0
Francis G. Rodilosso	Registered investment companies	8	$1,670.06 million	0	0
	Other pooled investment vehicles	0	$0	0	$0
	Other accounts	0	$0	0	$0

Name of Portfolio Manager	Other Accounts Managed (As of June 30, 2014)			Accounts with respect to which the advisory fee is based on the performance of the account
Name of Portfolio Manager	Category of Account	Number of Accounts in Category	Total Assets in Accounts in Category	Number of Accounts in Category	Total Assets in Accounts in Category
David Lai	Registered investment companies	1	$22.69 million	0	$0
	Other pooled investment vehicles	1	$1.28 billion	0	$0
	Other accounts	1	$97.34 million	0	$0
Jeffrey Wu	Registered investment companies	1	$22.69 million	0	$0
	Other pooled investment vehicles	1	$11.48 million	0	$0
	Other accounts	1	$20.38 million	0	$0

CHINA
January 1	February 6	May 7	October 6
January 20	February 7	May 26	October 7
January 30	February 17	July 4	October 13
January 31	May 1	September 1	November 11
February 3	May 2	October 1	November 27
February 4	May 5	October 2	December 25
February 5	May 6	October 3

CHINA
January 1	February 23	September 27	October 7
January 2	February 24	October 1	December 25
February 18	April 6	October 2
February 19	May 1	October 5
February 20	June 20	October 6

I. OVERVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT UPDATES FOR 2014		1

	Majority-Approved Shareholder Proposals Seeking Board Declassification	1
	Poison Pills with a Term of One Year or Less	1
	Dual-Listed Companies	1
	Hedging and Pledging of Stock	1
	SEC Final Rules Regarding Compensation Committee Member Independence and Compensation Consultants	1

II. A BOARD OF DIRECTORS THAT SERVES THE INTERESTS OF SHAREHOLDERS		2

	Election of Directors	2
	Independence	2
	Voting Recommendations on the Basis of Board Independence	4
	Committee Independence	4
	Independent Chairman	4
	Performance	5
	Voting Recommendations on the Basis of Performance	5
	Board Responsiveness	6
	The Role of a Committee Chairman	6
	Audit Committees and Performance	7
	Standards for Assessing the Audit Committee	7
	Compensation Committee Performance	10
	Nominating and Governance Committee Performance	12
	Board Level Risk Management Oversight	13
	Experience	14
	Other Considerations	14
	Controlled Companies	16
	Unofficially Controlled Companies and 20-50% Beneficial Owners	17
	Exceptions for Recent IPOs	17
	Dual-Listed Companies	18
	Mutual Fund Boards	18
	Declassified Boards	19
	Mandatory Director Term and Age limits	20
	Requiring Two or More Nominees per Board Seat	21
	Proxy Access	21

	Majority Vote for the Election of Directors	21
	The Plurality Vote Standard	21
	Advantages of a Majority Vote Standard	22

III. TRANSPARENCY AND INTEGRITY OF FINANCIAL REPORTING		23

	Auditor Ratification	23
	Voting Recommendations on Auditor Ratification	23
	Pension Accounting Issues	24

IV. THE LINK BETWEEN COMPENSATION AND PERFORMANCE		25

	Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (“Say-on-Pay”)	25
	Say-on-Pay Voting Recommendations	26
	Company Responsiveness	27
	Pay for Performance	27
	Short-Term Incentives	27
	Long-Term Incentives	28
	Recoupment (“Clawback”) Provisions	29
	Hedging of Stock	29
	Pledging of Stock	29
	Compensation Consultant Independence	30
	Frequency of Say-on-Pay	30
	Vote on Golden Parachute Arrangements	31
	Equity-Based Compensation Plan Proposals	31
	Option Exchanges	32
	Option Backdating, Spring-Loading and Bullet-Dodging	33
	Director Compensation Plans	33
	Executive Compensation Tax Deductibility (IRS 162(m) Compliance)	34

V. GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE AND THE SHAREHOLDER FRANCHISE		35

	Anti-Takeover Measures	35
	Poison Pills (Shareholder Rights Plans)	35
	NOL Poison Pills	35
	Fair Price Provisions	36
	Reincorporation	37
	Exclusive Forum Provisions	37
	Authorized Shares	38
	Advance Notice Requirements	38
	Voting Structure	39
	Cumulative Voting	39
	Supermajority Vote Requirements	40

	Transaction of Other Business	40
	Anti-Greenmail Proposals	40
	Mutual Funds: Investment Policies and Advisory Agreements	40
	Real Estate Investment Trusts	41
	Preferred Stock Issuances at REITs	41
	Business Development Companies	41
	Authorization to Sell Shares at a Price below Net Asset Value	41

VI. COMPENSATION, ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND GOVERNANCE SHAREHOLDER INITIATIVES OVERVIEW		43

	•	$50,000 (or where no amount is disclosed) for directors who are paid for a service they have agreed to perform for the company, outside of their service as a director, including professional or other services; or

	•	$120,000 (or where no amount is disclosed) for those directors employed by a professional services firm such as a law firm, investment bank, or consulting firm and the company pays the firm, not the individual, for services. This dollar limit would also apply to charitable contributions to schools where a board member is a professor; or charities where a director serves on the board or is an executive;⁵and any aircraft and real estate dealings between the company and the director’s firm; or

	1.	A CFO who is on the board: In our view, the CFO holds a unique position relative to financial reporting and disclosure to shareholders. Due to the critical importance of financial disclosure and reporting, we believe the CFO should report to the board and not be a member of it.

	2.	A director who is on an excessive number of boards: We will typically recommend voting against a director who serves as an executive officer of any public company while serving on more than two other public company boards and any other director who serves on more than six public company boards.³⁷Academic literature suggests that one board takes up approximately 200 hours per year of each member’s time. We believe this limits the number of boards on which directors can effectively serve, especially executives at other companies.³⁸Further, we note a recent study has shown that the average number of outside board seats held by CEOs of S&P 500 companies is 0.6, down from 0.7 in 2008 and 1.0 in 2003.³⁹

	3.	A director, or a director who has an immediate family member, providing material consulting or other material professional services to the company: These services may include legal, consulting, or financial services. We question the need for the company to have consulting relationships with its directors. We view such relationships as creating conflicts for directors, since they may be forced to weigh their own interests against shareholder interests when making board decisions. In addition, a company’s decisions regarding where to turn for the best professional services may be compromised when doing business with the professional services firm of one of the company’s directors.

	4.	A director, or a director who has an immediate family member, engaging in airplane, real estate, or similar deals, including perquisite-type grants from the company, amounting to more than $50,000. Directors who receive these sorts of payments from the company will have to make unnecessarily complicated decisions that may pit their interests against shareholder interests.

	5.	Interlocking directorships: CEOs or other top executives who serve on each other’s boards create an interlock that poses conflicts that should be avoided to ensure the promotion of shareholder interests above all else.⁴⁰

	6.	All board members who served at a time when a poison pill with a term of longer than one year was adopted without shareholder approval within the prior twelve months.⁴¹In the event a board is classified and shareholders are therefore unable to vote against all directors, we will recommend voting against the remaining directors the next year they are up for a shareholder vote. If a poison pill with a term of one year or less was adopted without shareholder approval, and without adequate justification, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against all members of the governance committee. If the board has, without seeking shareholder

1.	We do not require that controlled companies have boards that are at least two-thirds independent. So long as the insiders and/or affiliates are connected with the controlling entity, we accept the presence of non-independent board members.

2.	The compensation committee and nominating and governance committees do not need to consist solely of independent directors.

	•	We believe that standing nominating and corporate governance committees at controlled companies are unnecessary. Although having a committee charged with the duties of searching for, selecting, and nominating independent directors can be beneficial, the unique composition of a controlled company’s shareholder base makes such committees weak and irrelevant.

	•	Likewise, we believe that independent compensation committees at controlled companies are unnecessary. Although independent directors are the best choice for approving and monitoring senior executives’ pay, controlled companies serve a unique shareholder population whose voting power ensures the protection of its interests. As such, we believe that having affiliated directors on a controlled company’s compensation committee is acceptable. However, given that a controlled company has certain obligations to minority shareholders we feel that an insider should not serve on the compensation committee. Therefore, Glass Lewis

		will recommend voting against any insider (the CEO or otherwise) serving on the compensation committee.

3.	Controlled companies do not need an independent chairman or an independent lead or presiding director. Although an independent director in a position of authority on the board – such as chairman or presiding director – can best carry out the board’s duties, controlled companies serve a unique shareholder population whose voting power ensures the protection of its interests.

		of time while postponing and/or avoiding allowing public shareholders the ability to vote on the pill’s adoption. Such instances are indicative of boards that may subvert shareholders’ best interests following their IPO.

	2.	Adoption of an exclusive forum provision: Consistent with our general approach to boards that adopt exclusive forum provisions without shareholder approval (refer to our discussion of nominating and governance committee performance in Section I of the guidelines), in cases where a board adopts such a provision for inclusion in a company’s charter or bylaws before the company’s IPO, we will recommend voting against the chairman of the governance committee, or, in the absence of such a committee, the chairman of the board, who served during the period of time when the provision was adopted.

	1.	Size of the board of directors: The board should be made up of between five and twenty directors.

	2.	The CFO on the board: Neither the CFO of the fund nor the CFO of the fund’s registered investment adviser should serve on the board.

	3.	Independence of the audit committee: The audit committee should consist solely of independent directors.

	4.	Audit committee financial expert: At least one member of the audit committee should be designated as the audit committee financial expert.

		investment company boards. The Investment Company Act requires 40% of the board to be independent, but in 2001, the SEC amended the Exemptive Rules to require that a majority of a mutual fund board be independent. In 2005, the SEC proposed increasing the independence threshold to 75%. In 2006, a federal appeals court ordered that this rule amendment be put back out for public comment, putting it back into “proposed rule” status. Since mutual fund boards play a vital role in overseeing the relationship between the fund and its investment manager, there is greater need for independent oversight than there is for an operating company board.

	2.	When the auditor is not up for ratification: We do not recommend voting against the audit committee if the auditor is not up for ratification. Due to the different legal structure of an investment company compared to an operating company, the auditor for the investment company (i.e., mutual fund) does not conduct the same level of financial review for each investment company as for an operating company.

	3.	Non-independent chairman: The SEC has proposed that the chairman of the fund board be independent. We agree that the roles of a mutual fund’s chairman and CEO should be separate. Although we believe this would be best at all companies, we recommend voting against the chairman of an investment company’s nominating committee as well as the chairman of the board if the chairman and CEO of a mutual fund are the same person and the fund does not have an independent lead or presiding director. Seven former SEC commissioners support the appointment of an independent chairman and we agree with them that “an independent board chairman would be better able to create conditions favoring the long-term interests of fund shareholders than would a chairman who is an executive of the adviser.” (See the comment letter sent to the SEC in support of the proposed rule at http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/indchair.pdf)

	4.	Multiple funds overseen by the same director: Unlike service on a public company board, mutual fund boards require much less of a time commitment. Mutual fund directors typically serve on dozens of other mutual fund boards, often within the same fund complex. The Investment Company Institute’s (“ICI”) Overview of Fund Governance Practices, 1994-2012, indicates that the average number of funds served by an independent director in 2012 was 53. Absent evidence that a specific director is hindered from being an effective board member at a fund due to service on other funds’ boards, we refrain from maintaining a cap on the number of outside mutual fund boards that we believe a director can serve on.

	1.	When audit fees plus audit-related fees total less than the tax fees and/or other non-audit fees.

	2.	Recent material restatements of annual financial statements, including those resulting in the reporting of material weaknesses in internal controls and including late filings by the company where the auditor bears some responsibility for the restatement or late filing.⁵¹

	3.	When the auditor performs prohibited services such as tax-shelter work, tax services for the CEO or CFO, or contingent-fee work, such as a fee based on a percentage of economic benefit to the company.

	4.	When audit fees are excessively low, especially when compared with other companies in the same industry.

	5.	When the company has aggressive accounting policies.

	6.	When the company has poor disclosure or lack of transparency in its financial statements.

	7.	Where the auditor limited its liability through its contract with the company or the audit contract requires the corporation to use alternative dispute resolution procedures without adequate justification.

	8.	We also look for other relationships or concerns with the auditor that might suggest a conflict between the auditor’s interests and shareholder interests.

	•	The overall design and structure of the company’s executive compensation program including performance metrics;

	•	The quality and content of the company’s disclosure;

	•	The quantum paid to executives; and

	•	The link between compensation and performance as indicated by the company’s current and past pay-for-performance grades.

	•	Inappropriate peer group and/or benchmarking issues;

	•	Inadequate or no rationale for changes to peer groups;

	•	Egregious or excessive bonuses, equity awards or severance payments, including golden handshakes and golden parachutes;

	•	Guaranteed bonuses;

	•	Targeting overall levels of compensation at higher than median without adequate justification;

	•	Bonus or long-term plan targets set at less than mean or negative performance levels;

	•	Performance targets not sufficiently challenging, and/or providing for high potential payouts;

	•	Performance targets lowered without justification;

	•	Discretionary bonuses paid when short- or long-term incentive plan targets were not met;

	•	Executive pay high relative to peers not justified by outstanding company performance; and

	•	No re-testing or lowering of performance conditions;

	•	Performance metrics that cannot be easily manipulated by management;

	•	Two or more performance metrics;

	•	At least one relative performance metric that compares the company’s performance to a relevant peer group or index;

	•	Performance periods of at least three years;

	•	Stretching metrics that incentivize executives to strive for outstanding performance while not encouraging excessive risk-taking; and

	•	Individual limits expressed as a percentage of base salary.

•	The number of shares pledged;

•	The percentage executives’ pledged shares are of outstanding shares;

•	The percentage executives’ pledged shares are of each executive’s shares and total assets;

•	Whether the pledged shares were purchased by the employee or granted by the company;

•	Whether there are different policies for purchased and granted shares;

•	Whether the granted shares were time-based or performance-based;

•	The overall governance profile of the company;

•	The volatility of the company’s stock (in order to determine the likelihood of a sudden stock price drop);

•	The nature and cyclicality, if applicable, of the company’s industry;

•	The participation and eligibility of executives and employees in pledging;

•	The company’s current policies regarding pledging and any waiver from these policies for employees and executives; and

•	Disclosure of the extent of any pledging, particularly among senior executives.

	•	Companies should seek more shares only when needed;

	•	Requested share amounts should be small enough that companies seek shareholder approval every three to four years (or more frequently);

	•	If a plan is relatively expensive, it should not grant options solely to senior executives and board members;

	•	Annual net share count and voting power dilution should be limited;

	•	Annual cost of the plan (especially if not shown on the income statement) should be reasonable as a percentage of financial results and should be in line with the peer group;

	•	The expected annual cost of the plan should be proportional to the business’s value;

	•	The intrinsic value that option grantees received in the past should be reasonable compared with the business’s financial results;

	•	Plans should deliver value on a per-employee basis when compared with programs at peer companies;

	•	Plans should not permit re-pricing of stock options;

	•	Plans should not contain excessively liberal administrative or payment terms;

	•	Plans should not count shares in ways that understate the potential dilution, or cost, to common shareholders. This refers to “inverse” full-value award multipliers;

	•	Selected performance metrics should be challenging and appropriate, and should be subject to relative performance measurements; and

	•	Stock grants should be subject to minimum vesting and/or holding periods sufficient to ensure sustainable performance and promote retention.

	•	Officers and board members cannot participate in the program;

	•	The stock decline mirrors the market or industry price decline in terms of timing and approximates the decline in magnitude;

	•	The exchange is value-neutral or value-creative to shareholders using very conservative assumptions and with a recognition of the adverse selection problems inherent in voluntary programs; and

	•	Management and the board make a cogent case for needing to motivate and retain existing employees, such as being in a competitive employment market.