| | |
| | of such terms in fund names. In response to ICI’s request, the Staff members indicated that the |
| | Staff “seeks to ensure that funds using these terms explain how they intend to invest consistent |
| | with this connotation”. The ICI indicated further that the Staff “believes thatoneeffective way to |
| | satisfy this mandate is to state that the fund would invest, under normal market conditions, in at |
| | least three different countries, and invest at least 40 percent of its assets outside the US or, if |
| | conditions are not favorable, invest at least 30 percent of its assets outside the US. They do not |
| | believe, however, that this approach is compulsory.” (emphasis added) |
|
| | Consistent with the Staff’s position, GLO notes that it has included language that under normal |
| | circumstances, the Fund expects to invest in securities of issuers located in at least three |
| | countries. GLV and GLQ each also have included language that under normal circumstances, the |
| | Fund expects to invest in securities of issuers located in at least three countries (in addition to the |
| | United States). Each Fund also notes its long operating history such that this type of new |
| | disclosure discussing its investment strategy to invest globally may inappropriately indicate an |
| | investment strategy change to shareholders and result in shareholder confusion. |
|
| | Each Registrant further confirms, for the Staff’s information, that as of August 31, 2016 it has |
| | invested in the securities of companies in 17 countries outside of the U.S. and GLV, GLQ and |
| | GLO have invested as of August 31, 2016, 49.6%, 50.6%, and 52.8%, respectively, of its assets |
| | invested in securities of companies located, or doing a substantial amount of business, outside the |
| | United States. These values are calculated based on the gross market value of securities plus the |
| | gross notional value of swap contracts as a percent of each Fund’s total net assets. The values |
| | shown in each Fund’s fact sheets are calculated based on total investments, including securities |
| | sold short and derivatives contracts. |
|
| | In addition, a “substantial amount of business” would include securities of companies that, during |
| | a company’s most recent fiscal year, derived at least 50% of its revenues or profits from goods |
| | produced or sold, investments made, or services performed outside of the United States. |
|
2 | . | Comment:Each Fund’s asset coverage ratio is below 300%. In its 2013 Response Letter, the |
| | Registrant states that the Committed Facility Agreement with BNP Paribas Prime Brokerage, Inc. |
| | (“BNP”) (the “Facility”) “is not considered a ‘senior security’ per Section 18(g) of the 1940 |
| | Act…” Please explain why the Registrant believes the Facility is not considered a senior |
| | security. |
|
| | Further, please confirm the Registrant was in compliance each time it drew on the Facility. |
| | Additionally, please confirm or discuss whether the Registrant has breached any loan covenants |
| | under the Facility. |
|
| | Response:Each Registrant believes it has met the 300% asset coverage test imposed by Section |
| | 18(a)(1) of the 1940 Act. Each Registrant notes that the calculation of the asset coverage of at |
| | least 300% is only required to be made at the time the Registrant draws on the Facility and not on |
| | a daily basis. Each Registrant further notes that the Facility is not considered a ‘senior security’ |
| | for purposes of Section 18(a)(1)(B) and (C) of the 1940 Act such that the Registrant is not |
| | required to meet the 300% asset coverage test at the time of declaration of a dividend or |
| | distribution. |
|
| | During the period covered by the Annual Report, the Registrant notes that it did not draw on the |
| | Facility. The Registrant notes that the last time it drew on the Facility was December 31, 2013, at |
| | which time the Registrant was compliant with the 300% asset coverage test imposed by Section |