any one factor. Moreover, each Director may have afforded different weight to the various factors in reaching his or her conclusions with respect to theSub-Advisory Agreement.
Nature, Extent and Quality of Services
The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the advisory services anticipated to be provided by theSub-Adviser. As part of its review, the Board reviewed information regarding theSub-Adviser’s operations, procedures and personnel. The Directors considered the capabilities and resources that theSub-Adviser is expected to dedicate to performing services on behalf of the Portfolio, as well as the quality of its administrative and other services. The Directors also considered the quality of the compliance programs of theSub-Adviser, and reviewed information on theSub-Adviser’s portfolio management and brokerage practices, including any soft dollar benefits received. It was the Directors’ conclusion that overall they were satisfied with the nature, extent and quality of services anticipated to be provided to the equity portion of the Portfolio by theSub-Adviser.
Investment Performance
With respect to the equity portion of the Portfolio, the Board considered the performance of a composite of large cap core accounts following a strategy similar to that which BlackRock will use for the Portfolio, relative to that of the Portfolio’s benchmark and Morningstar peer group. The Directors noted that the composite outperformed the benchmark and peer group for the1-,3- and5-year periods ended December 31, 2018 and was in the 4th percentile of its peer group for the5-year period. Based on this performance, the Directors concluded that BlackRock has the ability to manage the equity portion of the Portfolio effectively going forward.
Fees and Expenses, Profitability, & Economies of Scale
The Board reviewed charts showing how the Portfolio’s proposed advisory andsub-advisory fees compared to the advisory andsub-advisory fees of the funds in its peer group. The charts showed the number of funds in the peer group within each defined range of advisory fees orsub-advisory fees, and the range that included the Portfolio. The Directors also noted that the Adviser, and not the Portfolio, is responsible for payingsub-advisory fees to theSub-Adviser. The Board also considered the reasonableness of the proposedsub-advisory fees to be paid by the Adviser to theSub-Adviser for the Portfolio. The Directors relied on the ability of the Adviser to negotiate the terms of theSub-Advisory Agreement, including thesub-advisory fee, atarm’s-length, noting that the Adviser is not affiliated with theSub-Adviser. With respect to the Portfolio, the Directors noted that the proposed advisory andsub-advisory fees were lower than the current fees. They also noted that the advisory fees payable by the Portfolio were well within the range of fees payable by the Portfolio’s peer group. The Directors remarked that, because thesub-advisory fees were paid by the Adviser and not by the Portfolio, the Adviser was incentivized to negotiate a favorable fee. Accordingly, the cost of services provided by theSub-Adviser and the profitability of theSub-Adviser in connection with its relationship with the Portfolio were not material factors in the Board’s deliberations. For similar reasons, the Board concluded that the potential realization of economies of scale by the Portfolio from thesub-advisory arrangement with theSub-Adviser should not be a material factor in its deliberations.
After consideration of the foregoing, the Board reached the following conclusions regarding the proposedSub-Advisory Agreement, in addition to the conclusions set forth above: (a) theSub-Adviser possesses the capability and resources to perform the duties required of it under the
5