(a) The Registrant has adopted a code of ethics that applies to its principal executive officers and principal financial and accounting officer.
(f) Pursuant to Item 13(a)(1), the Registrant is attaching as an exhibit a copy of its code of ethics that applies to its principal executive officers and principal financial and accounting officer.
Item 3. Audit Committee Financial Expert.
(a)(1) The Registrant has an audit committee financial expert serving on its audit committee.
(2) The audit committee financial expert are Ann Torre Bates and David W. Niemiec and they are “independent" as defined under the relevant Securities and Exchange Commission Rules and Releases.
Principal Accountant Fees and Services. N/A
Members of the Audit Committee are: Ann Torre Bates, David W. Niemiec, J. Michael Luttig and Constantine D. Tseretopoulos
Item 6. Schedule of Investments. N/A
Item 7
. Disclosure of Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures for Closed-End Management Investment Companies.
The board of directors of the Fund has delegated the authority to vote proxies related to the portfolio securities held by the Fund to the Fund’s investment manager, Templeton Asset Management Ltd.(TAML), in accordance with the Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures (Policies) adopted by the investment manager.
The investment manager has delegated its administrative duties with respect to the voting of proxies for securities to the Proxy Group within Franklin Templeton Companies, LLC (Proxy Group), an affiliate and wholly owned subsidiary of Franklin Resources, Inc. All proxies received by the Proxy Group will be voted based upon the investment manager’s instructions and/or policies. The investment manager votes proxies solely in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders.
To assist it in analyzing proxies of equity securities, the investment manager subscribes to Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. (ISS), an unaffiliated third-party corporate governance research service that provides in-depth analyses of shareholder meeting agendas, vote recommendations, vote execution services, ballot reconciliation services, recordkeeping and vote disclosure services. In addition, the investment manager subscribes to Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC (Glass Lewis), an unaffiliated third-party analytical research firm, to receive analyses and vote recommendations on the shareholder meetings of publicly held U.S. companies, as well as a limited subscription to its international research. Although analyses provided by ISS, Glass Lewis, and/or another independent third party proxy service provider (each a "Proxy Service") are thoroughly reviewed and considered in making a final voting decision, the investment manager does not consider recommendations from a Proxy Service or any third party to be determinative of the investment manager's ultimate decision. Rather, the investment manager exercises its independent judgment in making voting decisions. For most proxy proposals, the investment manager’s evaluation will result in the same position being taken for all Funds. In some cases, however, the evaluation may result in a Fund or investment manager voting differently, depending upon the nature and objective of the Fund, the composition of its portfolio, whether the investment manager has adopted a custom voting policy, and other factors. As a matter of policy, the officers, directors/trustees and employees of the investment manager and the Proxy Group will not be influenced by outside sources whose interests conflict with the interests of the Fund and its shareholders. Efforts are made to resolve all conflicts in the best interests of the investment manager’s clients. Material conflicts of interest are identified by the Proxy Group based upon analyses of client, distributor, broker-dealer and vendor lists, information periodically gathered from directors and officers, and information derived from other sources, including public filings. In situations where a material conflict of interest is identified, the Proxy Group may vote consistent with the voting recommendation of a Proxy Service; or send the proxy directly to the Fund's board or a committee of the board with the investment manager's recommendation regarding the vote for approval.
Where a material conflict of interest has been identified, but the items on which the investment manager’s vote recommendations differ from a Proxy Service and relate specifically to (1) shareholder proposals regarding social or environmental issues, (2) “Other Business” without describing the matters that might be considered, or (3) items the investment manager wishes to vote in opposition to the recommendations of an issuer’s management, the Proxy Group may defer to the vote recommendations of the investment manager rather than sending the proxy directly to the Fund's board or a board committee for approval.
To avoid certain potential conflicts of interest, the investment manager will employ echo voting or pass-through voting, if possible, in the following instances: (1) when the Fund invests in an underlying fund in reliance on any one of Sections 12(d)(1)(F) or (G) of the 1940 Act, the rules thereunder, or pursuant to a SEC exemptive order thereunder; (2) when the Fund invests uninvested cash in affiliated money market funds pursuant to the rules under the 1940 Act or any exemptive orders thereunder (“cash sweep arrangement”); or (3) when required pursuant to the Fund’s governing documents or applicable law. Echo voting means that the investment manager will vote the shares in the same proportion as the vote of all other holders of the underlying fund's shares. With respect to instances when a Franklin Templeton U.S. registered investment company invests in an underlying fund in reliance on any one of Sections 12(d)(1)(F) or (G) of the 1940 Act, the rules thereunder, or pursuant to an SEC exemptive order thereunder, and there are no other unaffiliated shareholders also invested in the underlying fund, the investment manager will vote in accordance with the recommendation of such investment company’s board of trustees or directors. In addition, to avoid certain potential conflicts of interest, and where required under a fund’s governing documents or applicable law, the investment manager will employ pass-through voting when a Franklin Templeton U.S. registered investment company invests in an underlying fund in reliance on Section 12(d)(1)(E) of the 1940 Act, the rules thereunder, or pursuant to an SEC exemptive order thereunder. In “pass-through voting,” a feeder fund will solicit voting instructions from its shareholders as to how to vote on the master fund’s proposals. If a Franklin Templeton investment company becomes a holder of more than 25% of the shares on a non-affiliated fund, as a result of a decrease in the outstanding shares of the non-affiliated fund, then the investment manager will vote the shares in the same proportion as the vote of all other holders of the non-affiliated fund.
The recommendation of management on any issue is a factor that the investment manager considers in determining how proxies should be voted. However, the investment manager does not consider recommendations from management to be determinative of the investment manager’s ultimate decision. As a matter of practice, the votes with respect to most issues are cast in accordance with the position of the company's management. Each issue, however, is considered on its own merits, and the investment manager will not support the position of the company's management in any situation where it deems that the ratification of management’s position would adversely affect the investment merits of owning that company’s shares.
Engagement with issuers
. The investment manager believes that engagement with issuers is important to good corporate governance and to assist in making proxy voting decisions. The investment manager may engage with issuers to discuss specific ballot items to be voted on in advance of an annual or special meeting to obtain further information or clarification on the proposals. The investment manager may also engage with management on a range of environmental, social or corporate governance issues throughout the year.
Investment manager’s proxy voting policies and principles
The investment manager has adopted general proxy voting guidelines, which are summarized below. These guidelines are not an exhaustive list of all the issues that may arise and the investment manager cannot anticipate all future situations. In all cases, each proxy and proposal (including both management and shareholder proposals) will be considered based on the relevant facts and circumstances on a case-by-case basis.
Board of directors
. The investment manager supports an independent, diverse board of directors, and prefers that key committees such as audit, nominating, and compensation committees be comprised of independent directors. The investment manager supports boards with strong risk management oversight. The investment manager will generally vote against management efforts to classify a board and will generally support proposals to declassify the board of directors. The investment manager will consider withholding votes from directors who have attended less than 75% of meetings without a valid reason. While generally in favor of separating Chairman and CEO positions, the investment manager will review this issue as well as proposals to restore or provide for cumulative voting on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration factors such as the company’s corporate governance guidelines or provisions and performance. The investment manager generally will support non-binding shareholder proposals to require a majority vote standard for the election of directors; however, if these proposals are binding, the investment manager will give careful review on a case-by-case basis of the potential ramifications of such implementation.
In the event of a contested election, the investment manager will review a number of factors in making a decision including management’s track record, the company’s financial performance, qualifications of candidates on both slates, and the strategic plan of the dissidents and/or shareholder nominees.
Ratification of auditors of portfolio companies
. The investment manager will closely scrutinize the independence, role and performance of auditors. On a case-by-case basis, the investment manager will examine proposals relating to non-audit relationships and non-audit fees. The investment manager will also consider, on a case-by-case basis, proposals to rotate auditors, and will vote against the ratification of auditors when there is clear and compelling evidence of a lack of independence, accounting irregularities or negligence. The investment manager may also consider whether the ratification of auditors has been approved by an appropriate audit committee that meets applicable composition and independence requirements.
Management and director compensation
. A company’s equity-based compensation plan should be in alignment with the shareholders’ long-term interests. The investment manager believes that executive compensation should be directly linked to the performance of the company. The investment manager evaluates plans on a case-by-case basis by considering several factors to determine whether the plan is fair and reasonable, including the ISS quantitative model utilized to assess such plans and/or the Glass Lewis evaluation of the plans. The investment manager will generally oppose plans that have the potential to be excessively dilutive, and will almost always oppose plans that are structured to allow the repricing of underwater options, or plans that have an automatic share replenishment “evergreen” feature. The investment manager will generally support employee stock option plans in which the purchase price is at least 85% of fair market value, and when potential dilution is 10% or less.
Severance compensation arrangements will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, although the investment manager will generally oppose “golden parachutes” that are considered to be excessive. The investment manager will normally support proposals that require a percentage of directors’ compensation to be in the form of common stock, as it aligns their interests with those of shareholders.
The investment manager will review non-binding say-on-pay proposals on a case-by-case basis, and will generally vote in favor of such proposals unless compensation is misaligned with performance and/or shareholders’ interests, the company has not provided reasonably clear disclosure regarding its compensation practices, or there are concerns with the company’s remuneration practices.
Anti-takeover mechanisms and related issues
. The investment manager generally opposes anti-takeover measures since they tend to reduce shareholder rights. However, as with all proxy issues, the investment manager conducts an independent review of each anti-takeover proposal. On occasion, the investment manager may vote with management when the research analyst has concluded that the proposal is not onerous and would not harm the Fund or its shareholders’ interests. The investment manager generally supports proposals that require shareholder rights’ plans (often referred to as “poison pills”) to be subject to a shareholder vote and will closely evaluate such plans on a case-by-case basis to determine whether or not they warrant support. In addition, the investment manager will generally vote against any proposal to issue stock that has unequal or subordinate voting rights. The investment manager generally opposes any supermajority voting requirements as well as the payment of “greenmail.” The investment manager generally supports “fair price” provisions and confidential voting. The investment manager will review a company’s proposal to reincorporate to a different state or country on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration financial benefits such as tax treatment as well as comparing corporate governance provisions and general business laws that may result from the change in domicile.
Changes to capital structure
. The investment manager realizes that a company's financing decisions have a significant impact on its shareholders, particularly when they involve the issuance of additional shares of common or preferred stock or the assumption of additional debt. The investment manager will review, on a case-by-case basis, proposals by companies to increase authorized shares and the purpose for the increase. The investment manager will generally not vote in favor of dual-class capital structures to increase the number of authorized shares where that class of stock would have superior voting rights. The investment manager will generally vote in favor of the issuance of preferred stock in cases where the company specifies the voting, dividend, conversion and other rights of such stock and the terms of the preferred stock issuance are deemed reasonable. The investment manager will review proposals seeking preemptive rights on a case-by-case basis.
Mergers and corporate restructuring
. Mergers and acquisitions will be subject to careful review by the research analyst to determine whether they would be beneficial to shareholders. The investment manager will analyze various economic and strategic factors in making the final decision on a merger or acquisition. Corporate restructuring proposals are also subject to a thorough examination on a case-by-case basis.
Environmental and social issues
. The investment manager considers environmental and social issues alongside traditional financial measures to provide a more comprehensive view of the value, risk and return potential of an investment. Companies may face significant financial, legal and reputational risks resulting from poor environmental and social practices, or negligent oversight of environmental or social issues. Franklin Templeton’s “Responsible Investment Principles and Policies” describes the investment manager’s approach to consideration of environmental, social and governance issues within the investment manager’s processes and ownership practices.
Shareholder proposals.
The investment manager will review shareholder proposals on a case-by-case basis and may support those that serve to enhance value or mitigate risk, are drafted appropriately, and do not disrupt the course of business or require a disproportionate or inappropriate use of company resources.
In the investment manager’s experience, those companies that are managed well are often effective in dealing with the relevant environmental and social issues that pertain to their business. As such, the investment manager will generally give management discretion with regard to environmental and social issues. However, in cases where management and the board have not demonstrated adequate efforts to mitigate material environmental or social risks, have engaged in inappropriate or illegal conduct, or have failed to adequately address current or emergent risks that threaten shareholder value, the investment manager may choose to support well-crafted shareholder proposals that serve to promote or protect shareholder value. This may include seeking appropriate disclosure regarding material environmental and social issues.
The investment manager will consider supporting a shareholder proposal seeking disclosure and greater board oversight of lobbying and corporate political contributions if the investment manager believes that there is evidence of inadequate oversight by the company’s board, if the company’s current disclosure is significantly deficient, or if the disclosure is notably lacking in comparison to the company’s peers.
Governance matters
. The investment manager generally supports the right of shareholders to call special meetings and act by written consent. However, the investment manager will review such shareholder proposals on a case-by-case basis in an effort to ensure that such proposals do not disrupt the course of business or require a disproportionate or inappropriate use of company resources.
Proxy access
. In cases where the investment manager is satisfied with company performance and the responsiveness of management, it will generally vote against shareholder proxy access proposals not supported by management. In other instances, the investment manager will consider such proposals on a case-by-case basis, taking into account factors such as the size of the company, ownership thresholds and holding periods, nomination limits (e.g., number of candidates that can be nominated), the intentions of the shareholder proponent, and shareholder base.
Global corporate governance
. Many of the tenets discussed above are applied to the investment manager's proxy voting decisions for international investments. However, the investment manager must be flexible in these worldwide markets. Principles of good corporate governance may vary by country, given the constraints of a country’s laws and acceptable practices in the markets. As a result, it is on occasion difficult to apply a consistent set of governance practices to all issuers. As experienced money managers, the investment manager's analysts are skilled in understanding the complexities of the regions in which they specialize and are trained to analyze proxy issues germane to their regions.
The investment manager will generally attempt to process every proxy it receives for all domestic and foreign securities. However, there may be situations in which the investment manager may be unable to successfully vote a proxy, or may choose not to vote a proxy, such as where: (i) a proxy ballot was not received from the custodian bank; (ii) a meeting notice was received too late; (iii) there are fees imposed upon the exercise of a vote and it is determined that such fees outweigh the benefit of voting; (iv) there are legal encumbrances to voting, including blocking restrictions in certain markets that preclude the ability to dispose of a security if the investment manager votes a proxy or where the investment manager is prohibited from voting by applicable law, economic or other sanctions, or other regulatory or market requirements, including but not limited to, effective Powers of Attorney; (v) additional documentation or the disclosure of beneficial owner details is required; (vi) the investment manager held shares on the record date but has sold them prior to the meeting date; (vii) a proxy voting service is not offered by the custodian in the market; (viii) due to either system error or human error, the investment manager’s intended vote is not correctly submitted; (ix) the investment manager believes it is not in the best interest of the Fund or its shareholders to vote the proxy for any other reason not enumerated herein; or (x) a security is subject to a securities lending or similar program that has transferred legal title to the security to another person.
In some non-U.S. jurisdictions, even if the investment manager uses reasonable efforts to vote a proxy on behalf of the Fund, such vote or proxy may be rejected because of (a) operational or procedural issues experienced by one or more third parties involved in voting proxies in such jurisdictions; (b) changes in the process or agenda for the meeting by the issuer for which the investment manager does not have sufficient notice; or (c) the exercise by the issuer of its discretion to reject the vote of the investment manager. In addition, despite the best efforts of the Proxy Group and its agents, there may be situations where the investment manager's votes are not received, or properly tabulated, by an issuer or the issuer's agent.
The investment manager or its affiliates may, on behalf of one or more of the proprietary registered investment companies advised by the investment manager or its affiliates, determine to use its best efforts to recall any security on loan where the investment manager or its affiliates (a) learn of a vote on a material event that may affect a security on loan and (b) determine that it is in the best interests of such proprietary registered investment companies to recall the security for voting purposes.
Procedures for meetings involving fixed income securities & privately held issuers
. From time to time, certain custodians may process events for fixed income securities through their proxy voting channels rather than corporate action channels for administrative convenience. In such cases, the Proxy Group will receive ballots for such events on the ISS voting platform. The Proxy Group will solicit voting instructions from the investment manager for each Fund involved. If the Proxy Group does not receive voting instructions from the investment manager, the Proxy Group will take no action on the event. The investment manager may be unable to vote a proxy for a fixed income security, or may choose not to vote a proxy, for the reasons described above.
In the rare instance where there is a vote for a privately held issuer, the decision will generally be made by the relevant portfolio managers or research analysts.
The Proxy Group will monitor such meetings involving fixed income securities or privately held issuers for conflicts of interest in accordance with these procedures. If a fixed income or privately held issuer is flagged as a potential conflict of interest, the investment manager may nonetheless vote as it deems in the best interests of the Fund. The investment manager will report such decisions on an annual basis to the Fund board as may be required.
Shareholders may view the complete Policies online at franklintempleton.com. Alternatively, shareholders may request copies of the Policies free of charge by calling the Proxy Group collect at (954) 527-7678 or by sending a written request to: Franklin Templeton Companies, LLC, 300 S.E. 2nd Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-1923, Attention: Proxy Group. Copies of the Fund’s proxy voting records are available online at franklintempleton.com and posted on the SEC website at www.sec.gov. The proxy voting records are updated each year by August 31 to reflect the most recent 12-month period ended June 30.
Item 8. Portfolio Managers of Closed-End Management Investment Companies
. N/A
Item 9. Purchases of Equity Securities by Closed-End Management Investment Company and Affiliated Purchasers
. N/A
Item 10
. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.
There have been no changes to the procedures by which shareholders may recommend nominees to the Registrant's Board of Directors that would require disclosure herein.
Item 11. Controls and Procedures.
(a) Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures. The Registrant maintains disclosure controls and procedures that are designed to provide reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed in the Registrant’s filings under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the Investment Company Act of 1940 is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the periods specified in the rules and forms of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Such information is accumulated and communicated to the Registrant’s management, including its principal executive officer and principal financial officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. The Registrant’s management, including the principal executive officer and the principal financial officer, recognizes that any set of controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving the desired control objectives.
Within 90 days prior to the filing date of this Shareholder Report on Form N-CSRS, the Registrant had carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of the Registrant’s management, including the Registrant’s principal executive officer and the Registrant’s principal financial officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures. Based on such evaluation, the Registrant’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer concluded that the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures are effective.
(b) Changes in Internal Controls. There have been no changes in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the internal control over financial reporting.
Item 12. Disclosure of Securities Lending Activities for Closed-End Management Investment Company.
Securities lending agent
The board of trustees has approved the Fund’s participation in a securities lending program. Under the securities lending program, JP Morgan Chase Bank serves as the Fund’s securities lending agent.
For the six months ended June 30, 2021, the income earned by the Fund as well as the fees and/or compensation paid by the Fund in dollars pursuant to a securities lending agreement between the Trust with respect to the Fund and the Securities Lending Agent were as follows (figures may differ from those shown in shareholder reports due to time of availability and use of estimates):
Gross income earned by the Fund from securities lending activities | |
Fees and/or compensation paid by the Fund for securities lending activities and related services | |
Fees paid to Securities Lending Agent from revenue split | |
Fees paid for any cash collateral management service (including fees deducted from a pooled cash collateral reinvestment vehicle) not included in a revenue split | |
Administrative fees not included in a revenue split | |
Indemnification fees not included in a revenue split | |
Rebate (paid to borrower) | |
Other fees not included above | |
Aggregate fees/compensation paid by the Fund for securities lending activities | |
Net income from securities lending activities | |
(a)(2)
Certifications pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 of Matthew T. Hinkle, Chief Executive Officer - Finance and Administration, and Robert G. Kubilis, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer
(b)
Certifications pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 of Matthew T. Hinkle, Chief Executive Officer - Finance and Administration, and Robert G. Kubilis, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
Templeton Dragon Fund, Inc.
By S\Matthew T. Hinkle__________________________
Chief Executive Officer - Finance and Administration
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.
By S\Matthew T. Hinkle____________________________
Chief Executive Officer - Finance and Administration
By S\Robert G. Kubilis_______________________________
Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer
