At its March 14, 2019 meeting, the Board was informed that Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, an indirect corporate parent of Oppenheimer, had entered into an agreement to sell its interests in Oppenheimer to Invesco Ltd., which would result in a Change of Control of Oppenheimer and constitute an “assignment” (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the Prior Sub-Advisory Agreement under which Oppenheimer provided services to the Portfolio. Oppenheimer and the Sub-Adviser requested that the Board approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreement, pursuant to which the Sub-Adviser would succeed Oppenheimer as the sub-adviser to the Portfolio following the Change of Control and was expected to use the same portfolio management team as Oppenheimer. In light of the foregoing, at its in-person meeting on March 14, 2019, the Board approved the New Sub-Advisory Agreement to replace the Prior Sub-Advisory Agreement upon the Change of Control.
The decision by the Board, including a majority of the Independent Directors, to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreement was based on a determination by the Board that it would be in the best interests of the shareholders of the Portfolio for the same portfolio management team to continue managing the Portfolio, without interruption, after the Change of Control. Prior to its approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreement, the Board reviewed, among other matters, the quality, extent and nature of the services provided by Oppenheimer under the Prior Sub-Advisory Agreement and to be provided by the Sub-Adviser under the New Sub-Advisory Agreement. In considering the New Sub-Advisory Agreement at its March 14, 2019 meeting, the Board placed emphasis on the information provided to it previously in connection with the Board’s annual review of the Prior Sub-Advisory Agreement and the sub-advisory contracts with the Sub-Adviser for other Voya funds (“Existing Invesco Agreements”), which were most recently approved for continuation at the in-person meeting of the Board held on November 16, 2018. At that meeting, the Board concluded, in light of all factors it considered, to renew the Prior Sub-Advisory Agreement and Existing Invesco Agreements and that the fee rates set forth in the Prior Sub-Advisory Agreement were fair and reasonable. Among other factors, the Board considered: (1) the nature, extent and quality of services provided and to be provided under the Prior Sub-Advisory Agreement and Existing Invesco Agreements; (2) the extent to which economies of scale are reflected in fee rate schedules under the Prior Sub-Advisory Agreement; (3) a comparison of the Portfolio’s fee rate, expense ratio, and investment performance to those of similar funds; and (4) the existence of any “fall-out” benefits to Oppenheimer and its affiliates from Oppenheimer’s relationship with the Portfolio and to the Sub-Adviser and its affiliates from the Sub-Adviser’s relationship with other Voya funds.
A further description of the process that the Board followed in approving the Prior Sub-Advisory Agreement and Existing Invesco Agreements on November 16, 2018, including the information reviewed, certain material factors considered and certain related conclusions reached, is set forth in their respective Annual Reports, each dated December 31, 2018, under the section titled “ADVISORY CONTRACT APPROVAL DISCUSSION.”
In connection with its approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreement at its meeting on March 14, 2019, the Board also considered information provided by the Sub-Adviser regarding the Transaction and the New Sub-Advisory Agreement. In this regard, the Board took into account the considerations set out below.
1) The Sub-Adviser’s description of the Transaction and the impact thereof on the Sub-Adviser’s business.
2) The Sub-Adviser’s representation that it expected to provide the same nature, extent and quality of services to the Portfolio as those provided by Oppenheimer.
3) The Sub-Adviser’s representations that, following the Transaction, the Sub-Adviser expects to manage the Portfolio using the same investment philosophy, process and portfolio management team. Accordingly, the Board considered that it had already reviewed the Portfolio’s performance in connection with the November 2018 renewal of the Prior Sub-Advisory Agreement.
4) The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s representation that the terms of the New Sub-Advisory Agreement, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially similar to the terms of the Prior Sub-Advisory Agreement. The Board also considered the differences between the proposed fee schedule under the New Sub-Advisory Agreement and those charged by the Sub-Adviser to any accounts managed pursuant to a similar investment strategy and the reasons therefor.
5) The “fall-out” benefits the Sub-Adviser expected to receive from the Portfolio, including the use of soft-dollar benefits and the potential use of an affiliated broker-dealer to execute trades.
6) The fee schedule under the New Sub-Advisory Agreement, as with the Prior Sub-Advisory Agreement, includes breakpoints.
7) The Sub-Adviser’s representations that there were no other material changes or developments relating to the information provided by the Sub-Adviser in connection with the November 2018 renewal.
The Board did not consider the anticipated profitability of the Sub-Adviser under the New Sub-Advisory Agreement because it did not view this data as essential to its deliberations, given the arm’s-length nature of the relationship between the Adviser and each of the Sub-Adviser and Oppenheimer, which are unaffiliated with the Adviser, with respect to the negotiation of sub-advisory fee rates.
Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at an in-person meeting of the Board held on March 14, 2019, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Directors, voted to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreement. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Sub-Advisory Agreement, including the fee rate schedule, were fair and reasonable, and the New Sub-Advisory Agreement should be approved so as to enable a continuation without interruption of the services being provided by the Portfolio’s portfolio management team. The Board noted that no one factor was determinative of its decisions which, instead, were premised upon the totality of factors considered. The Board also noted that different Board members likely placed emphasis on different factors in reaching their individual conclusions to vote in favor of the New Sub-Advisory Agreement.