FACTORS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD IN APPROVING CONTINUANCE
OF THE INVESTMENT ADVISORY AGREEMENTS
FOR VALUE LINE CORE BOND FUND AND THE VALUE LINE TAX EXEMPT FUND, INC.
The Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”) requires the Boards of Directors (the “Board”) of Value Line Core Bond Fund and The Value Line Tax Exempt Fund, Inc. (each, a “Fund” and collectively, the “Funds”), including a majority of each Board’s Trustees or Directors, as applicable, who are not “interested persons,” as that term is defined in the 1940 Act (the “Independent Directors”), to annually consider the continuance of each Fund’s investment advisory agreement (each, an ”Agreement”) with its investment adviser, EULAV Asset Management (the “Adviser”).
In considering whether the continuance of a Fund’s Agreement was in the best interests of such Fund and its shareholders, the Board requested, and the Adviser provided, such information as the Board deemed to be reasonably necessary to evaluate the terms of such Agreement. At meetings held throughout the year, including the meeting specifically focused upon the review of each Agreement, the Independent Directors met in executive sessions separately from the non-Independent Director of the Funds and any officers of the Adviser. In selecting the Adviser and approving the continuance of each Agreement, the Independent Directors relied upon the assistance of counsel to the Independent Directors.
Both in the meeting specifically focused upon the review of the Agreements and at other meetings, the Board, including the Independent Directors, received materials relating to the Adviser’s investment and management services under the Agreements. These materials included information for each Fund regarding: (i) the Fund’s investment performance, performance-related metrics and risk-related related metrics over various periods of time and comparisons thereof to similar information regarding the Fund’s benchmark index, the Fund’s category of comparable funds (the “Category”) (as objectively classified, selected and prepared by Morningstar, Inc., an independent evaluation service (“Morningstar”)), and the Fund’s more narrow peer group of comparable funds (the “Peer Group”) (again, as objectively classified, selected and prepared by Morningstar); (ii) the Fund’s investment process, portfolio holdings, investment restrictions, valuation procedures, and financial statements; (iii) purchases and redemptions of the Fund’s shares; (iv) the Adviser’s view of the general investment outlook in the markets in which the Fund invests; (v) arrangements with respect to the distribution of the Fund’s shares; (vi) the allocation and cost of the Fund’s brokerage (none of which was effected through any affiliate of the Adviser, including EULAV Securities LLC (the “Distributor”)); and (vii) the overall nature, quality and extent of services provided by the Adviser.
As part of their review, the Board requested, and the Adviser provided, additional information in order to evaluate the quality of the Adviser’s services and the reasonableness of its fees under each Fund’s Agreement. In a separate executive session, the Independent Directors reviewed information for each Fund, which included data comparing: (i) advisory, administrative, distribution, custody, accounting, audit, legal, transfer agency, and other non-management expenses incurred by the Fund to those incurred by the Fund’s Peer Group and Category; (ii) the Fund’s expense ratio to those of its Peer Group and Category; and (iii) the Fund’s investment performance, performance-related metrics and risk-related related metrics over various time periods to similar information regarding the Fund’s benchmark index, Peer Group and Category.
In classifying a Fund within a Category, Morningstar considered the characteristics of the Fund’s actual portfolio holdings over various periods of time relative to the market and other factors that distinguish a particular investment strategy under Morningstar’s methodology with the objective to permit meaningful comparisons. Morningstar classified the Value Line Core Bond Fund within its Intermediate-Term Bond category and The Value Line Tax Exempt Fund, Inc. within its Muni National Long category.
In preparing a Peer Group for each Fund, Morningstar considered the Fund’s most recent portfolio holdings in light of the same factors used in classifying a Fund within a Category, as well as additional factors including similarity of expense structure (e.g., same share class characteristics) and net asset size. Generally, the final Peer Group consists of funds that range in net assets from twice-in-size to half-in-size of the Fund and includes roughly equal numbers of funds that are smaller and larger than the Fund. Morningstar prepared the Peer Group for the Value Line Core Bond Fund consisting of 12 other retail, no-load funds with similar investment style, expense structure and asset size as the Fund and the Peer Group for The Value Line Tax Exempt Fund, Inc. consisting of 7 other retail funds with similar investment style, expense structure and asset size as the Fund. The Peer Group for The Value Line Tax Exempt Fund, Inc. was selected from amongst funds lacking a Rule 12b-1 fee because the Distributor has waived such fee for the Fund.
In their executive session, the Independent Directors also reviewed information regarding: (a) the financial results and condition of the Adviser and the Distributor and their profitability from the services that have been performed for each Fund and the Value Line family of funds; (b) the Adviser’s investment management staffing and resources; (c) the ownership, control and day-to-day management of the Adviser; and (d) each Fund’s potential for achieving economies of scale. In support of its review of the statistical information, the Board discussed with Morningstar the description of the methodology used by Morningstar to determine each Fund’s Peer Group and Category and the results of the statistical information prepared by Morningstar.
The Board observed that there is a range of investment options available to shareholders of the Funds, including other mutual funds, and that each Fund’s shareholders have chosen to invest in the Fund.
The following summarizes matters considered by the Board in connection with its continuance of each of the Agreements. However, the Board did not identify any single factor as all-important or controlling, each Director may have weighed certain factors differently, and the summary does not detail all the matters that were considered.