UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20549
FORM N-CSR
Investment Company Act file number
|
811-21340
|
DWS RREEF Real Estate Fund II, Inc.
(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)
345 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10154-0004
(Address of Principal Executive Offices) (Zip Code)
Registrant’s Telephone Number, including Area Code:
(212) 454-7190
Paul Schubert
345 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10154-0004
(Name and Address of Agent for Service)
Date of fiscal year end:
|
12/31
|
Date of reporting period:
|
12/31/09
|
ITEM 1.
REPORT TO STOCKHOLDERS
DECEMBER 31, 2009
Annual Report
to Stockholders
|
|
DWS RREEF
Real Estate Fund II, Inc.
Ticker Symbol: SRO
|
|
Contents
4
Performance Summary
6
Portfolio Management Review
9
Portfolio Summary
11
Consolidated Investment Portfolio
15
Consolidated Financial Statements
18
Consolidated Financial Highlights
20
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
29
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
30
Tax Information
31
Other Information
33
Stockholder Meeting Results
34
Dividend Reinvestment and Cash Purchase Plan
37
Investment Management Agreement Approval
42
Board Members and Officers
46
Additional Information
|
Investments in funds involve risk. The fund involves additional risk due to its narrow focus. There are special risks associated with an investment in real estate, including credit risk, interest rate fluctuations and the impact of varied economic conditions. Closed-end funds, unlike open-end funds, are not continuously offered. There is a one-time public offering and once issued, shares of closed-end funds are
traded in the open market through a stock exchange. Shares of closed-end funds frequently trade at a discount to net asset value. The price of the fund's shares is determined by a number of factors, several of which are beyond the control of the fund. Therefore, the fund cannot predict whether its shares will trade at, below or above net asset value.
This report is sent to the stockholders of DWS RREEF Real Estate Fund II, Inc. for their information. It is not a prospectus, circular, or representation intended for use in the purchase or sale of shares of the fund or of any securities mentioned in the report.
DWS Investments is part of Deutsche Bank's Asset Management division and, within the US, represents the retail asset management activities of Deutsche Bank AG, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc. and DWS Trust Company.
NOT FDIC/NCUA INSURED NO BANK GUARANTEE MAY LOSE VALUE NOT A DEPOSIT NOT INSURED BY ANY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY
Performance Summary
December 31, 2009
Performance is historical, assumes reinvestment of all dividend and capital gain distributions, and does not guarantee future results. Investment return and principal value fluctuate with changing market conditions so that, when sold, shares may be worth more or less than their original cost. Current performance may be lower or higher than the performance data quoted. Please visit www.dws-investments.com for the
Fund's most recent month-end performance.
Please keep in mind that high double-digit returns were primarily achieved during favorable market conditions. Investors should not expect that such favorable returns can be consistently achieved. A fund's performance, especially for very short time periods, should not be the sole factor in making your investor decision.
Fund specific data and performance are provided for informational purposes only and are not intended for trading purposes.
Returns and rankings based on net asset value during all periods shown reflect a fee and/or expense reimbursement. Without this waiver/reimbursement, returns and rankings would have been lower.
Average Annual Returns
as of 12/31/09
|
|
1-Year
|
3-Year
|
5-Year
|
Life of Fund
*
|
Based on Net Asset Value
(a)
|
33.33%
|
-57.64%
|
-35.11%
|
-24.17%
|
Based on Market Value
(a)
|
63.64%
|
-57.02%
|
-34.70%
|
-25.97%
|
NAREIT Equity REIT Index
(b)
|
27.99%
|
-12.41%
|
0.36%
|
6.86%
|
Lipper Closed-End Real Estate Funds Category
(c)
|
47.73%
|
-24.02%
|
-9.19%
|
-3.44%
|
Sources: Lipper Inc. and Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc.
*
The Fund commenced operations on August 29, 2003. Index comparison began on August 31, 2003.
a
Total return based on net asset value reflects changes in the Fund's net asset value during each period. Total return based on market value reflects changes in market value. Each figure assumes that dividend and capital gain distributions, if any, were reinvested. These figures will differ depending upon the level of any discount from or premium to NAV at which the Fund's shares traded during the
period.
b
The NAREIT Equity REIT Index is an unmanaged, unleveraged weighted index of REITs which own, or have "equity interest" in, real estate (rather than making loans secured by real estate collateral). Index returns assume reinvestment of dividends and, unlike Fund returns, do not reflect any fees or expenses. It is not possible to invest directly into an index.
c
Lipper's Closed-End Real Estate Funds Category represents Funds that invest primarily in equity securities of domestic and foreign companies engaged in the real estate industry. Lipper figures represent the average of the total returns based on net asset value reported by all of the closed-end funds designated by Lipper Inc. as falling into the Closed-End Real Estate Funds Category. Category
returns assume reinvestment of all distributions. It is not possible to invest directly into a Lipper category.
Net Asset Value and Market Price
|
|
As of 12/31/09
|
As of 12/31/08
|
Net Asset Value
|
$ 1.20
|
$ .90
|
Market Price
|
$ 1.08
|
$ .66
|
Prices and Net Asset Value fluctuate and are not guaranteed.
Lipper Rankings — Closed-End Real Estate Funds Category
as of 12/31/09
|
Period
|
Rank
|
|
Number of Funds Tracked
|
Percentile Ranking (%)
|
1-Year
|
18
|
of
|
19
|
90
|
3-Year
|
15
|
of
|
15
|
94
|
5-Year
|
12
|
of
|
12
|
93
|
Source: Lipper Inc. Rankings are historical and do not guarantee future results. Rankings are based on net asset value total return with distributions reinvested.
Portfolio Management Review
DWS RREEF Real Estate Fund II, Inc.: A Team Approach to Investing
Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc. ("DIMA" or the "Investment Manager"), which is part of Deutsche Asset Management, is the investment manager for DWS RREEF Real Estate Fund II, Inc. DIMA and its predecessors have more than 80 years of experience managing mutual funds and DIMA provides a full range of investment advisory services to institutional and retail clients. RREEF America, L.L.C. ("RREEF" or the "Investment
Advisor"), an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Deutsche Bank AG, is the investment advisor for the fund.
Deutsche Asset Management is a global asset management organization that offers a wide range of investing expertise and resources. This well-resourced global investment platform brings together a wide variety of experience and investment insight across industries, regions, asset classes and investing styles.
DIMA is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Deutsche Bank AG. Deutsche Bank AG is an international commercial and investment banking institution that is engaged in a wide range of financial services, including investment management, mutual funds, retail, private and commercial banking, investment banking and insurance.
Portfolio Management Team
John F. Robertson, CFA
Jerry W. Ehlinger, CFA
John W. Vojticek
Asad Kazim
Co-Managers
Market Overview and Fund Performance
The views expressed in the following discussion reflect those of the portfolio management team only through the end of the period of the report as stated on the cover. The management team's views are subject to change at any time based on market and other conditions and should not be construed as a recommendation. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Current and future portfolio holdings are subject
to risk.
Severe stock market volatility stemming from the subprime mortgage crisis, the global credit crunch and the worst US economic downturn since the Great Depression continued on through the first two months of 2009 as investors anxiously awaited details of the Obama administration's plans to deal with the series of financial disasters. As the government's massive stimulus package and innovative programs to ease the crisis from the
Treasury and the US Federal Reserve Board (the Fed) began to take effect, the crisis eased and REIT prices started to turn up in early March. A rally in REITs then ensued over much of 2009, pausing briefly in October as investors pondered whether REIT prices — which had strongly advanced in the second and third quarters — were moving beyond the progress of US economic recovery. However, the rally resumed in the fourth quarter based on more encouraging employment reports
and other favorable economic data.
For the 12-month period ended December 31, 2009, the fund returned 33.33% based on net asset value (NAV). The fund's NAV return outperformed the 27.99% return of the NAREIT Equity REIT Index. Based on market price, the fund posted a 63.64% return. The fund had a closing value of $1.08 per share based on market price ($1.20 per share based on net asset value) as of December 31, 2009. (Past performance is no
guarantee of future results. Please see pages
4
and
5
for more complete performance information.) Over the same period, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, Standard & Poor's 500
®
(S&P 500) Index and the Nasdaq Composite Index returned 22.68%, 26.46% and 43.89%, respectively.
1
Starting at the close of the first quarter, in what became a critically important trend for the US REIT market, many REIT firms were able to successfully prop up their balance sheets by issuing equity. Though such issuance can dilute the value of existing shares, investors perceived that REIT firms could benefit by reducing the proportion of debt on their balance sheets, thereby greatly reducing the threat of bankruptcy that had
previously been priced into many REIT stocks. Gradual improvement for global credit markets also boosted the fortunes of many US REITs over the course of 2009: the fact that solid REIT companies could once again issue medium- to longer-term debt — initially at high costs and later at reduced costs — significantly eased financial pressures on a number of these firms.
For the fund's most recent fiscal year, stock selection contributed to performance, while sector selection detracted from returns. Stock selection within industrials and hotels made the largest contribution, while stock selection in the retail and office sectors detracted. In addition, the fund's underweights to both the hotel and regional mall sectors represented significant detractors from performance.
2
Investors pushed up hotel REIT prices (hotels historically have been the most economically-sensitive REIT sector) in response to signs of an economic turnaround, and the fund was underweight strongly performing regional malls due to their lower relative yield.
Positive Contributors to Fund Performance
During the period, our decision to take an underweight position in Public Storage.* significantly boosted performance. The fund was underweight in Public Storage — viewed as one of the most defensive issues in the REIT universe given its solid balance sheet — because of the company's relatively low dividend yield. As investor risk tolerance grew during 2009, Public Storage significantly underperformed compared
with many of its REIT counterparts. Holdings in the industrial REIT ProLogis were also additive to returns as improving economic data boosted the outlook for industrial REIT issues. In addition, the fund's preferred holdings contributed strongly to performance as a variety of investors looking for higher yield snapped up real estate preferred stocks, particularly toward the end of 2009.
Negative Contributors to Fund Performance
In the retail sector, a significant detractor from fund performance came from our large overweight to Regency Centers Corp. During the third quarter, the company announced a significant downward revision to its previous earnings forecast. The revision was so large that investors began to question the credibility of the company's management team. While Regency's stock price did advance during the quarter, its return fell well
short of market averages. Lastly, the fund's underweight position in Simon Property Group, Inc. detracted from performance. The company performed strongly, but we underweighted Simon Property Group due to the stock's relatively low dividend yield.
Recent Fund Developments
On January 29, 2010, the fund's stockholders approved a proposal to liquidate and dissolve the fund. Accordingly, as of a "Cessation Date" to be determined by a committee of the Board, the fund will cease operating as an investment company except for the purpose of liquidating and winding up its business and affairs. For more information regarding the fund's pending liquidation, please see the "Other Information" section of this
report and "Note F. Fund Liquidation" in Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
1
The NAREIT Equity REIT Index is an unmanaged, unleveraged weighted index of REITs which own or have "equity interest" in real estate (rather than making loans secured by real estate collateral).
The Dow Jones Industrial Average (Dow) is an unmanaged index of common stocks of major industrial companies.
The Standard & Poor's 500 (S&P 500) Index is an unmanaged, capitalization-weighted index of 500 stocks. The index is designed to measure performance of the broad domestic economy through changes in the aggregate market value of 500 stocks representing all major industries.
The Nasdaq Composite Index (Nasdaq) is an unmanaged, broad-based, capitalization-weighted index of all Nasdaq National Market and SmallCap Market stocks.
Index returns assume reinvestment of all dividends and, unlike fund returns, do not reflect fees or expenses. It is not possible to invest directly into an index.
2
"Overweight" means the fund holds a higher weighting in a given sector or security than the benchmark. "Underweight" means the fund holds a lower weighting.
*
Not held in the portfolio as of December 31, 2009.
Portfolio Summary
Asset Allocation
(As a % of Consolidated Investment Portfolio)
|
12/31/09
|
12/31/08
|
|
|
|
Common Stocks
|
75%
|
38%
|
Preferred Stocks
|
23%
|
52%
|
Cash Equivalents
|
2%
|
10%
|
|
100%
|
100%
|
Sector Diversification
(As a % of Common and Preferred Stocks)
|
12/31/09
|
12/31/08
|
|
|
|
Shopping Centers
|
18%
|
12%
|
Apartments
|
17%
|
8%
|
Diversified
|
15%
|
10%
|
Health Care
|
15%
|
20%
|
Hotels
|
13%
|
24%
|
Industrials
|
8%
|
3%
|
Office
|
6%
|
19%
|
Regional Malls
|
4%
|
2%
|
Storage
|
4%
|
2%
|
|
100%
|
100%
|
Asset allocation and sector diversification are subject to change.
Ten Largest Equity Holdings at December 31, 2009
(59.9% of Net Assets applicable to common shareholders)
|
1. Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc.
Manager of shopping centers
|
8.1%
|
2. ProLogis
Owner, manager and developer of global corporate distribution facilities
|
7.0%
|
3. Associated Estates Realty Corp.
Operates as a self-administrated and self-managed real estate investment trust
|
6.3%
|
4. Canyon Ranch Holdings LLC
Operator of hotels and resort spas
|
6.1%
|
5. Duke Realty Corp.
Owner and developer of industrial and retail properties
|
5.6%
|
6. Equity Residential
Operator of multifamily properties
|
5.6%
|
7. Simon Property Group, Inc.
Owner and operator of regional shopping malls
|
5.6%
|
8. Sovran Self Storage, Inc.
Acquires, develops and operates a chain of self-storage facilities
|
5.3%
|
9. Saul Centers, Inc.
Operates and manages a portfolio of shopping centers and office properties
|
5.2%
|
10. AvalonBay Communities, Inc.
Self-managed, multifamily real estate investment trust
|
5.1%
|
Consolidated portfolio holdings are subject to change.
For more complete details about the Fund's consolidated investment portfolio, see page
11
. A quarterly Fact Sheet is available upon request. A complete list of the Fund's consolidated portfolio holdings is posted as of the month end on www.dws-investments.com on or about the 15th day of the following month. More frequent posting of consolidated portfolio holdings information may be made
from time to time on www.dws-investments.com. Please see the Additional Information section for contact information.
Following the Fund's fiscal first and third quarter-end, a complete consolidated portfolio holdings listing is filed with the SEC on Form N-Q. The form will be available on the SEC's Web site at www.sec.gov, and it also may be reviewed and copied at the SEC's Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. Information on the operation of the SEC's Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling
(800) SEC-0330.
Consolidated Investment Portfolio
as of December 31, 2009
(Ratios are shown as a percentage of Net Assets)
|
Shares
|
Value ($)
|
|
|
Common Stocks 99.1%
|
Real Estate Investment Trusts ("REITs") 99.1%
|
Apartments 15.2%
|
AvalonBay Communities, Inc.
|
28,300
|
2,323,713
|
BRE Properties, Inc.
|
61,850
|
2,045,998
|
Equity Residential
|
75,800
|
2,560,524
|
|
6,930,235
|
Diversified 14.9%
|
Digital Realty Trust, Inc.
|
11,782
|
592,399
|
Duke Realty Corp.
|
210,550
|
2,562,393
|
Starwood Property Trust, Inc.
|
107,800
|
2,036,342
|
Washington Real Estate Investment Trust
|
57,750
|
1,591,013
|
|
6,782,147
|
Health Care 18.9%
|
Cogdell Spencer, Inc.
|
144,528
|
818,028
|
HCP, Inc.
|
73,250
|
2,237,055
|
Health Care REIT, Inc.
|
27,600
|
1,223,232
|
LTC Properties, Inc.
|
47,250
|
1,263,938
|
Medical Properties Trust, Inc.
|
136,700
|
1,367,000
|
Senior Housing Properties Trust
|
78,200
|
1,710,234
|
|
8,619,487
|
Hotels 10.5%
|
Canyon Ranch Holdings LLC (Units) (a)
|
864,000
|
2,790,720
|
Hospitality Properties Trust
|
84,400
|
2,001,124
|
|
4,791,844
|
Industrial 11.1%
|
AMB Property Corp.
|
53,900
|
1,377,145
|
Liberty Property Trust
|
16,250
|
520,162
|
ProLogis
|
230,700
|
3,158,283
|
|
5,055,590
|
Office 7.3%
|
BioMed Realty Trust, Inc.
|
52,750
|
832,395
|
Government Properties Income Trust
|
21,000
|
482,580
|
HRPT Properties Trust
|
89,896
|
581,627
|
Kilroy Realty Corp.
|
46,700
|
1,432,289
|
|
3,328,891
|
Regional Malls 5.6%
|
Simon Property Group, Inc.
|
31,992
|
2,552,962
|
Shopping Centers 10.3%
|
Inland Real Estate Corp.
|
199,650
|
1,627,147
|
Ramco-Gershenson Properties Trust
|
29,150
|
278,091
|
Regency Centers Corp.
|
47,850
|
1,677,621
|
Weingarten Realty Investors
|
55,300
|
1,094,387
|
|
4,677,246
|
Storage 5.3%
|
Sovran Self Storage, Inc.
|
67,850
|
2,424,281
|
Total Common Stocks
(Cost $54,696,906)
|
45,162,683
|
|
Preferred Stocks 29.9%
|
Real Estate Investment Trusts 29.9%
|
Apartments 6.3%
|
Associated Estates Realty Corp., Series II, 8.7%
|
117,650
|
2,882,425
|
Diversified 4.3%
|
NorthStar Realty Finance Corp., Series B, 8.25%
|
121,450
|
1,937,128
|
Health Care 0.2%
|
LTC Properties, Inc., Series F, 8.0%
|
3,000
|
72,840
|
Hotels 5.9%
|
FelCor Lodging Trust, Inc., Series C, 8.0%*
|
43,100
|
456,860
|
Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc., Series E, 8.875%
|
87,950
|
2,242,725
|
|
2,699,585
|
Shopping Centers 13.2%
|
Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc., Series A, 8.875%
|
153,000
|
3,667,410
|
Saul Centers, Inc., Series B, 9.0%
|
93,450
|
2,357,743
|
|
6,025,153
|
Total Preferred Stocks
(Cost $15,224,048)
|
13,617,131
|
|
Cash Equivalents 2.9%
|
Central Cash Management Fund, 0.14% (b) (Cost $1,310,649)
|
1,310,649
|
1,310,649
|
|
% of Net Assets
|
Value ($)
|
|
|
Total Consolidated Investment Portfolio
(Cost $71,231,603)
+
|
131.9
|
60,090,463
|
Other Assets and Liabilities, Net
|
(1.2)
|
(537,570)
|
Preferred Stock, at Liquidation Value
|
(30.7)
|
(14,000,000)
|
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
|
100.0
|
45,552,893
|
*
Non-income producing security.
+
The cost for federal income tax purposes was $71,449,836. At December 31, 2009, net unrealized depreciation for all securities based on tax cost was $11,359,373. This consisted of aggregate gross unrealized appreciation for all securities in which there was an excess of value over tax cost of $11,060,786 and aggregate gross unrealized depreciation for all securities in which there was an excess of
tax cost over value of $22,420,159.
(a)
The Fund may purchase securities that are subject to legal or contractual restrictions on resale ("restricted securities"). Restricted securities are securities which have not been registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Act of 1933. The Fund may be unable to sell a restricted security and it may be more difficult to determine a market value for a restricted security.
Moreover, if adverse market conditions were to develop during the period between the Fund's decision to sell a restricted security and the point at which the Fund is permitted or able to sell such security, the Fund might obtain a price less favorable than the price that prevailed when it decided to sell. This investment practice, therefore, could have the effect of increasing the level of illiquidity of the Fund. The future value of these securities is uncertain and there may be
changes in the estimated value of these securities.
Restricted Securities
|
Acquisition Date
|
Acquisition Cost ($)
|
Value ($)
|
Value as % of Net Assets
|
Canyon Ranch Holdings LLC
|
January 2005
|
21,600,000
|
2,790,720
|
6.1
|
(b)
Affiliated fund managed by Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc. The rate shown is the annualized seven-day yield at period end.
At December 31, 2009, open interest rate swap contracts were as follows:
Effective/
Expiration Dates
|
Notional Amount ($)
|
Cash Flows Paid by the Fund
|
Cash Flows Received by the Fund
|
Unrealized Depreciation ($)
|
1/29/2008 1/29/2018
|
14,000,000
1
|
Fixed — 4.275%
|
USD — Floating LIBOR BBA
|
(613,748)
|
Counterparty:
1
UBS Securities LLC
BBA: British Bankers' Association
LIBOR: London InterBank Offered Rate
|
For information on the Fund's policy and additional disclosures regarding interest rate swap contracts, please refer to the Derivatives section of Note A in the accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Fair Value Measurements
Various inputs are used in determining the value of the Fund's investments. These inputs are summarized in three broad levels. Level 1 includes quoted prices in active markets for identical securities. Level 2 includes other significant observable inputs (including quoted prices for similar securities, interest rates, prepayment speeds and credit risk). Level 3 includes significant unobservable inputs
(including the Fund's own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments). The inputs or methodology used for valuing securities are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in those securities.
The following is a summary of the inputs used as of December 31, 2009 in valuing the Fund's investments. For information on the Fund's policy regarding the valuation of investments, please refer to the Security Valuation section of Note A in the accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Assets
|
Level 1
|
Level 2
|
Level 3
|
Total
|
Common and Preferred Stocks
|
Apartments
|
$ 9,812,660
|
$ —
|
$ —
|
$ 9,812,660
|
Diversified
|
8,719,275
|
—
|
—
|
8,719,275
|
Health Care
|
8,692,327
|
—
|
—
|
8,692,327
|
Hotels
|
4,700,709
|
—
|
2,790,720
|
7,491,429
|
Industrial
|
5,055,590
|
—
|
—
|
5,055,590
|
Office
|
3,328,891
|
—
|
—
|
3,328,891
|
Regional Malls
|
2,552,962
|
—
|
—
|
2,552,962
|
Shopping Centers
|
10,702,399
|
—
|
—
|
10,702,399
|
Storage
|
2,424,281
|
—
|
—
|
2,424,281
|
Short-Term Investments
|
1,310,649
|
—
|
—
|
1,310,649
|
Total
|
$ 57,299,743
|
$ —
|
$ 2,790,720
|
$ 60,090,463
|
Liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives (c)
|
$ —
|
$ (613,748)
|
$ —
|
$ (613,748)
|
Total
|
$ —
|
$ (613,748)
|
$ —
|
$ (613,748)
|
(c)
Derivatives include unrealized depreciation on open interest rate swap contracts.
Level 3 Reconciliation
The following is a reconciliation of the Fund's Level 3 investments for which significant unobservable inputs were used in determining value:
|
Common and Preferred Stocks
|
Balance as of December 31, 2008
|
$ 1,887,200
|
Realized gain (loss)
|
(14,323,694)
|
Change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)
|
15,930,425
|
Amortization premium/discount
|
—
|
Net purchases (sales)
|
(703,211)
|
Net transfers in (out) of Level 3
|
—
|
Balance as of December 31, 2009
|
$ 2,790,720
|
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) from investments still held as of December 31, 2009
|
$ 976,320
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.
Consolidated
Financial Statements
Consolidated Statement of Assets and Liabilities
as of December 31, 2009
|
Assets
|
Investments:
Investments in securities, at value (cost $69,920,954)
|
$ 58,779,814
|
Investment in Central Cash Management Fund (cost $1,310,649)
|
1,310,649
|
Total investments, at value (cost $71,231,603)
|
60,090,463
|
Cash
|
50,989
|
Dividends receivable
|
292,693
|
Interest receivable
|
170
|
Other assets
|
9,790
|
Total assets
|
60,444,105
|
Liabilities
|
Distributions payable
|
2,769
|
Unrealized depreciation on interest rate swap contracts
|
613,748
|
Accrued investment management fee
|
17,652
|
Other accrued expenses and payables
|
257,043
|
Total liabilities
|
891,212
|
Preferred Shares ($25,000 net asset and liquidation value per share applicable to an aggregate of 560 shares issued and outstanding)
|
14,000,000
|
Net assets applicable to common shareholders, at value
|
$ 45,552,893
|
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders Consist of
|
Undistributed net investment income
|
570,464
|
Net unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments
|
(11,141,140)
|
Interest rate swap contracts
|
(613,748)
|
Accumulated net realized gain (loss)
|
(448,958,212)
|
Cost of 1,484,532 shares held in treasury
|
(25,844,311)
|
Paid-in capital
|
531,539,840
|
Net assets applicable to common shareholders, at value
|
$ 45,552,893
|
Net Asset Value
|
Net Asset Value
per common share ($45,552,893 ÷ 37,904,857 shares of common stock outstanding, $.01 par value, 240,000,000 common shares authorized)
|
$ 1.20
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.
Consolidated Statement of Operations
for the year ended December 31, 2009
|
Investment Income
|
Income:
Dividends
|
$ 3,705,695
|
Interest
|
7,371
|
Income distributions — affiliated cash management vehicles
|
23,212
|
Total Income
|
3,736,278
|
Expenses:
Management fee
|
373,681
|
Administration fee
|
30,000
|
Services to shareholders
|
21,765
|
Custodian and accounting fees
|
55,030
|
Legal fees
|
488,770
|
Audit and tax fees
|
108,647
|
Directors' fees and expenses
|
2,832
|
Reports to shareholders and shareholder meetings
|
461,197
|
Stock exchange listing fee
|
40,021
|
Interest expense
|
279,933
|
Auction service fee
|
44,780
|
Other
|
36,231
|
Total expenses before expense reductions
|
1,942,887
|
Expense reductions
|
(64,123)
|
Total expenses after expense reductions
|
1,878,764
|
Net investment income
|
1,857,514
|
Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss)
|
Net realized gain (loss) from:
Investments
|
(65,694,047)
|
Capital gains dividends received
|
498,083
|
Interest rate swap contracts
|
(11,194,822)
|
|
(76,390,786)
|
Changes in net unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments
|
74,169,714
|
Interest rate swap contracts
|
12,315,314
|
|
86,485,028
|
Net gain (loss)
|
10,094,242
|
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations
|
11,951,756
|
Distributions to Preferred Shareholders
|
(484,112)
|
Net increase (decrease) in net assets, applicable to common shareholders
|
$ 11,467,644
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.
Consolidated Statement of Changes in Net Assets
|
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
2009
|
2008
|
Operations:
Net investment income
|
$ 1,857,514
|
$ 34,867,215
|
Net realized gain (loss)
|
(76,390,786)
|
(377,115,902)
|
Change in net unrealized appreciation (depreciation)
|
86,485,028
|
(50,813,955)
|
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations
|
11,951,756
|
(393,062,642)
|
Distributions to Preferred Shareholders
|
(484,112)
|
(14,646,994)
|
Net increase (decrease) in net assets, applicable to common shareholders
|
11,467,644
|
(407,709,636)
|
Distributions to common shareholders from:
Net investment income
|
—
|
(27,189,410)
|
Net realized gains
|
—
|
(42,784,235)
|
Return of capital
|
—
|
(25,091,735)
|
Total distributions to common shareholders
|
—
|
(95,065,380)
|
Increase (decrease) in net assets
|
11,467,644
|
(502,775,016)
|
Net assets at beginning of period applicable to common shareholders
|
34,085,249
|
536,860,265
|
Net assets at end of period applicable to common shareholders (including undistributed net investment income of $570,464 and $518,156, respectively)
|
$ 45,552,893
|
$ 34,085,249
|
Other Information
|
Common shares outstanding at beginning of period
|
37,904,857
|
37,904,857
|
Common shares outstanding at end of period
|
37,904,857
|
37,904,857
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.
Consolidated Financial Highlights
Years Ended December 31,
|
2009
|
2008
|
2007
|
2006
|
2005
|
Selected Per Share Data Applicable to Common Shareholders
|
Net asset value, beginning of period
|
$ .90
|
$ 14.16
|
$ 22.42
|
$ 18.39
|
$ 19.31
|
Income (loss) from investment operations:
Net investment income
a
|
.05
|
.92
|
.90
|
.92
|
.81
|
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss)
|
.26
|
(11.28)
|
(7.00)
|
6.02
|
.71
|
Total from investment operations
|
.31
|
(10.36)
|
(6.10)
|
6.94
|
1.52
|
Distributions to Preferred Shareholders from net investment income (common share equivalent)
|
(.01)
|
(.39)
|
(.49)
|
(.44)
|
(.29)
|
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations applicable to common shareholders
|
.30
|
(10.75)
|
(6.59)
|
6.50
|
1.23
|
Less distributions from:
Net investment income
|
—
|
(.72)
|
(1.46)
|
(1.26)
|
(.71)
|
Net realized gains
|
—
|
(1.13)
|
(.24)
|
(1.23)
|
(1.49)
|
Return of capital
|
—
|
(.66)
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
Total distributions to common shareholders
|
—
|
(2.51)
|
(1.70)
|
(2.49)
|
(2.20)
|
NAV accretion resulting from repurchases of shares at value
a
|
—
|
—
|
.03
|
.02
|
.05
|
Net asset value, end of period
|
$ 1.20
|
$ .90
|
$ 14.16
|
$ 22.42
|
$ 18.39
|
Market price, end of period
|
$ 1.08
|
$ .66
|
$ 12.90
|
$ 19.32
|
$ 15.35
|
Total Return
|
Based on net asset value (%)
b,c
|
33.33
|
(91.23)
|
(29.88)
|
39.01
|
8.84
|
Based on market price (%)
b,c
|
63.64
|
(93.45)
|
(25.87)
|
43.51
|
4.17
|
Years Ended December 31,
(continued)
|
2009
|
2008
|
2007
|
2006
|
2005
|
Ratios to Average Net Assets and Supplemental Data
|
Net assets, end of period ($ millions)
|
46
|
34
|
537
|
863
|
714
|
Ratio of expenses before expense reductions (%) (based on net assets of common shares)
e
|
5.98
d
|
1.90
|
1.43
|
1.41
|
1.45
|
Ratio of expenses after expense reductions (%) (based on net assets of common shares)
f
|
5.78
d
|
1.48
|
1.07
|
1.05
|
1.08
|
Ratio of net investment income (%) (based on net assets of common shares)
g
|
5.72
|
8.47
|
4.47
|
4.47
|
4.29
|
Ratio of net investment income (%) (based on net assets of common and preferred shares)
|
3.68
|
4.78
|
3.07
|
3.10
|
2.91
|
Portfolio turnover rate (%)
|
187
|
37
|
30
|
19
|
21
|
Preferred Share information at period end:
Aggregate amount outstanding ($ millions)
|
14
|
33
|
350
|
350
|
350
|
Asset coverage per share ($)
*
|
106,344
|
50,822
|
63,347
|
86,655
|
75,972
|
Liquidation value per share ($)
|
25,000
|
25,000
|
25,000
|
25,000
|
25,000
|
a
Based on average common shares outstanding during the period.
b
Total return would have been lower had certain expenses not been reduced.
c
Total return based on net asset value reflects changes in the Fund's net asset value during the period. Total return based on market value reflects changes in market value. Each figure includes reinvestments of distributions. These figures will differ depending upon the level of any discount from or premium to net asset value at which the Fund's shares trade during the
period.
d
Increase in expense ratio is the result of significant reduction of assets and the addition of certain expenses related to proxy costs.
e
The ratio of expenses before expense reductions (based on net assets of common and preferred shares) were 3.85%, 1.08%, .99%, .98% and .98% for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
f
The ratio of expenses after expense reductions (based on net assets of common and preferred shares) were 3.73%, .84%, .74%, .73% and .73% for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
g
Net investment income ratios for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006 and 2005 do not reflect distributions to Preferred Shareholders. Ratios reflecting such payments are 4.23%, 4.91%, 2.05%, 2.34% and 2.74%, respectively.
*
Asset coverage per share equals net assets of common shares plus the liquidation value of the Preferred Shares divided by the total number of Preferred Shares outstanding at the end of the period.
|
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
A. Organization and Significant Accounting Policies
DWS RREEF Real Estate Fund II, Inc. (the ``Fund'') is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the ``1940 Act''), as a closed-end, diversified management investment company organized as a Maryland corporation. The Fund is authorized to issue 250,000,000 shares, of which 240,000,000 shares are classified as Common Shares, $0.01 par value per share, and 10,000,000 shares are classified as Preferred Shares,
$0.01 par value per share.
The Fund's consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America which require the use of management estimates. Actual results could differ from those estimates. The policies described below are followed consistently by the Fund in the preparation of its consolidated financial statements.
Principles of Consolidation.
Effective February 4, 2009, the Fund invests indirectly in Canyon Ranch Holdings LLC through its wholly owned subsidiary, DWS Real Estate Fund II, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Delaware (the "Subsidiary"). As of December 31, 2009, the Fund's investment in the Subsidiary was $2,797,642, representing 6.1% of the Fund's net assets. The
Fund's Investment Portfolio has been consolidated and includes the portfolio holdings of the Fund and the Subsidiary.
The consolidated financial statements include accounts of the Fund and the Subsidiary. All inter-company transactions and balances have been eliminated.
Security Valuation.
Investments are stated at value determined as of the close of regular trading on the New York Stock Exchange on each day the exchange is open for trading. Equity securities are valued at the most recent sale price or official closing price reported on the exchange (US or foreign) or over-the-counter market on which they trade. Securities for which no sales are reported are valued
at the calculated mean between the most recent bid and asked quotations on the relevant market or, if a mean cannot be determined, at the most recent bid quotation.
Money market instruments purchased with an original or remaining maturity of sixty days or less, maturing at par, are valued at amortized cost. Investments in open-end investment companies are valued at their net asset value each business day.
Securities and other assets for which market quotations are not readily available or for which the above valuation procedures are deemed not to reflect fair value are valued in a manner that is intended to reflect their fair value as determined in accordance with procedures approved by the Directors. In accordance with the Fund's valuation procedures, factors used in determining value may include, but are not limited to, the
type of the security, the size of the holding, the initial cost of the security, the existence of any contractual restrictions on the security's disposition, the price and extent of public trading in similar securities of the issuer or of comparable companies, quotations or evaluated prices from broker-dealers and/or pricing services, information obtained from the issuer, analysts, and/or the appropriate stock exchange (for exchange-traded securities), an analysis of the company's
or issuer's financial statements, an evaluation of the forces that influence the issuer and the market(s) in which the security is purchased and sold and with respect to debt securities, the maturity, coupon, creditworthiness, currency denomination, and the movement of the market in which the security is normally traded. The value determined under these procedures may differ from published values for the same securities.
Disclosure about the classification of fair value measurements is included in a table following the Fund's Consolidated Investment Portfolio.
Derivatives.
Authoritative accounting guidance requires that disclosures about the Fund's derivative and hedging activities and derivatives accounted for as hedging instruments must be disclosed separately from derivatives that do not qualify for hedge accounting. Because investment companies account for their derivatives at fair value and record any changes in fair value in current period earnings,
the Fund's derivatives are not accounted for as hedging instruments. As such, even though the Fund may use derivatives in an attempt to achieve an economic hedge, the Fund's derivatives are not considered to be hedging instruments. The disclosure below is presented in accordance with authoritative accounting guidance.
Interest Rate Swap Contracts.
The Fund enters into interest rate swap transactions to reduce the interest rate risk inherent in the Fund's underlying investments and issued preferred shares. The use of interest rate swap contracts is a highly specialized activity that involves investment techniques and risks different from those associated with ordinary portfolio security transactions. In an
interest rate swap contract, the Fund agrees to pay to the other party to the interest rate swap contract (which is known as the "counterparty") a fixed rate payment in exchange for the counterparty agreeing to pay to the Fund a variable rate payment, or the Fund agrees to receive from the counterparty a fixed rate payment in exchange for the counterparty agreeing to receive from the Fund a variable rate payment. The payment obligations are based on the notional amount of the swap
contract. Certain risks may arise when entering into swap transactions including counterparty default, liquidity or unfavorable changes in interest rates. In connection with these agreements, securities and or cash may be identified as collateral in accordance with the terms of the swap agreements to provide assets of value and recourse in the event of default. The maximum counterparty credit risk is the net present value of the cash flows to be received from or paid to the
counterparty over the term of the interest rate swap contract, to the extent that this amount is beneficial to the Fund, in addition to any related collateral posted to the counterparty by the Fund. This risk may be partially reduced by a master netting arrangement between the Fund and the counterparty. Payments received or made at the end of the measurement period are recorded as realized gain or loss in the Consolidated Statement of Operations. The value of the swap contract is
adjusted daily based upon a price supplied by a Board-approved pricing vendor and the change in value is recorded as unrealized appreciation or depreciation.
A summary of the open interest rate swap contracts as of December 31, 2009 is included in a table following the Fund's Consolidated Investment Portfolio. For the year ended December 31, 2009, the Fund invested in interest rate swap contracts with total notional amounts ranging from $14,000,000 to $87,500,000.
The following tables summarize the value of the Fund's derivative instruments held as of December 31, 2009 and the related location in the accompanying Consolidated Statement of Assets and Liabilities, presented by primary underlying risk exposure:
Liability Derivatives
|
Swap Contracts
|
Interest Rate Contracts (a)
|
$ (613,748)
|
The above derivative is located in the following Consolidated Statement of Assets and Liabilities account:
(a)
Unrealized depreciation on interest rate swap contracts
Additionally, the amount of unrealized and realized gains and losses on derivative instruments recognized in Fund earnings during the year ended December 31, 2009 and the related location in the accompanying Consolidated Statement of Operations is summarized in the following tables by primary underlying risk exposure:
Realized Gain (Loss)
|
Swap Contracts
|
Interest Rate Contracts (a)
|
$ (11,194,822)
|
The above derivative is located in the following Consolidated Statement of Operations account:
(a)
Net realized gain (loss) from interest rate swap contracts
Change in Net Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation)
|
Swap Contracts
|
Interest Rate Contracts (a)
|
$ 12,315,314
|
The above derivative is located in the following Consolidated Statement of Operations account:
(a)
Change in net unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on interest rate swap contracts
Federal Income Taxes.
The Fund's policy is to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, which are applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute all of its taxable income to its shareholders.
At December 31, 2009, the Fund had a net tax basis capital loss carryforward of approximately $448,740,000, which may be applied against any realized net taxable capital gains of each succeeding year until fully utilized or until December 31, 2016, ($197,858,000) and December 31, 2017 ($250,882,000), the respective expiration dates, whichever occurs first. (See Note F. Fund Liquidation)
The Fund has reviewed the tax positions for the open tax years as of December 31, 2009 and has determined that no provision for income tax is required in the Fund's consolidated financial statements. The Fund's federal tax returns for the prior three years remain open subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.
Distribution of Income and Gains.
Net investment income of the Fund is usually declared and distributed to shareholders quarterly. Net realized gains from investment transactions, in excess of available capital loss carryforwards, would be taxable to the Fund if not distributed, and, therefore, will be distributed to shareholders at least annually. The Fund estimates that at times it will distribute
more than its income, therefore, a portion of the distributions may be a return of capital.
The Fund did not declare a distribution to common shareholders in March 2009 because market conditions resulted in a decline in portfolio values causing the Fund to not meet the preferred share asset coverage ratio that is a precondition to the declaration of common share distributions under the 1940 Act. The Fund did not declare a distribution to common shareholders in June, September or December 2009 because the Fund did not
have sufficient income to pay a distribution.
The timing and characterization of certain income and capital gains distributions are determined annually in accordance with federal tax regulations which may differ from accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. These differences primarily relate to certain securities sold at a loss. As a result, net investment income and net realized gain (loss) on investment transactions for a reporting period
may differ significantly from distributions during such period. Accordingly, the Fund may periodically make reclassifications among certain of its capital accounts without impacting the net asset value of the Fund.
At December 31, 2009, the Fund's components of distributable earnings (accumulated losses) on a tax basis were as follows:
Undistributed ordinary income
|
$ 514,662
|
Capital loss carryforwards
|
$ (448,740,000)
|
Unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments
|
$ (11,359,373)
|
In addition, the tax character of distributions paid to common and Preferred Shareholders by the Fund is summarized as follows:
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
2009
|
2008
|
Distributions from ordinary income (common)
|
$ —
|
$ 27,189,410
|
Distributions from ordinary income (Preferred)
|
$ 484,112
|
$ 5,691,330
|
Distributions from long-term capital gains (common)
|
$ —
|
$ 42,784,235
|
Distributions from long-term capital gains (Preferred)
|
$ —
|
$ 8,955,664
|
Distributions from return on capital (common)
|
$ —
|
$ 25,091,735
|
Preferred Shares.
As of December 31, 2009, the Fund had 112 shares of Series A, 112 shares of Series B, 112 shares of Series C, 112 shares of Series D and 112 shares of Series E preferred shares ("Preferred Shares") outstanding, each at a liquidation value of $25,000 per share. During the year ended December 31, 2009, the Fund redeemed a total of 760 of its Preferred Shares (152 shares of
each of Series A, B, C, D and E Preferred Shares) at their liquidation preference of $25,000 per share, aggregating to $19,000,000 in order to ensure compliance with the Fund's asset coverage requirements. The Fund redeemed the Preferred Shares with the proceeds from sales of portfolio assets, resulting in a reduction of the Fund's overall leverage. The Fund incurred brokerage expenses as a result of such sales. All of the Fund's currently outstanding Preferred Shares will be
redeemed prior to completion of the Fund's pending liquidation. See "Note F. Fund Liquidation."
The Preferred Shares are senior to, and have certain class-specific preferences over, the Fund's common shares. The dividend rate on each series of Preferred Shares is set through a "Dutch" auction process, and the dividends are generally paid every seven days. In the auction process, holders of the Preferred Shares indicate the dividend rate at which they would be willing to hold or sell their Preferred
Shares. An auction fails if there are more Preferred Shares offered for sale than there are buyers. If an auction fails, the Preferred Shares' dividend rate adjusts to a "maximum rate," which, based on the credit rating assigned to the Preferred Shares by Moody's (Aaa as of December 31, 2009), is the greater of (i) 125% of the applicable AA Composite Commercial Paper Rate and (ii) 2.5% plus the applicable AA Composite Commercial Paper Rate. In addition, existing Preferred
Shareholders that submit sell orders in a failed auction may not be able to sell any or all of the shares for which they have submitted sell orders. Preferred Shareholders may sell their shares at the next scheduled auction, subject to the same risk that the subsequent auction will not attract sufficient demand for a successful auction to occur. Broker-dealers may also try to facilitate secondary trading in the Preferred Shares, although such secondary trading may be limited and may
only be available for shareholders willing to sell at a discount.
During the year ended December 31, 2009, the dividend rates ranged from for Series A, 2.570% to 3.651% for Series B, 2.570% to 3.651% for Series C, 2.560% to 2.960% for Series D 2.540% to 2.951% and for Series E, 2.550% to 3.651%. The 1940 Act requires that the Preferred Shareholders of the Fund, voting as a separate class, have the right to: a) elect at least two directors at all times, and b) elect a majority of the
directors at any time when dividends on the Preferred Shares are unpaid for two full years. Unless otherwise required by law or under the terms of the Fund's Articles Supplementary, each Preferred Share is entitled to one vote and Preferred Shareholders will vote together with common shareholders as a single class and have the same voting rights. Dividends on the Preferred Shares are cumulative. The Fund is subject to certain limitations and restrictions while the Preferred Shares
are outstanding. Under its Articles Supplementary, the Fund is required to maintain asset coverage of at least 200% with respect to the Preferred Shares as of the last business day of each month in which any Preferred Shares are outstanding.
Since February 2008, the Fund has experienced failed auctions on its auction rate Preferred Shares. These auctions have failed because there were not enough bids to cover the shares for sale, indicating a lack of liquidity in the market. While repeated auction fails have affected the liquidity for the auction rate Preferred Shares, a failed auction does not represent a default or loss of capital of the Fund's
auction rate Preferred Shares and the auction rate Preferred Shareholders have continued to receive dividends at the previously defined "maximum rate." Prolonged auction failures may increase the cost of leverage to the Fund.
Contingencies.
In the normal course of business, the Fund may enter into contracts with service providers that contain general indemnification clauses. The Fund's maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown as this would involve future claims that may be made against the Fund that have not yet been made. However, based on experience, the Fund expects the risk of loss to be
remote.
Real Estate Investment Trusts.
The Fund periodically recharacterizes distributions received from a Real Estate Investment Trust ("REIT") investment based on information provided by the REIT into the following categories: ordinary income, long-term and short-term capital gains, and return of capital. If information is not available timely from a REIT, the recharacterization will be estimated and a
recharacterization will be made in the following year when such information becomes available. Distributions received from REITs in excess of income are recorded as either a reduction of cost of investments or realized gains. The Fund distinguishes between dividends on a tax basis and a financial reporting basis and only distributions in excess of tax basis earnings and profits are reported in the consolidated financial statements as a return of capital for tax reporting
purposes.
Other.
Investment transactions are accounted for on the trade date plus one basis for daily net asset value calculations. However, for financial reporting purposes, investment security transactions are reported on trade date. Interest income is recorded on the accrual basis. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date net of foreign withholding taxes. Realized gains and losses from
investment transactions are recorded on an identified cost basis.
B. Purchases and Sales of Securities
During the year ended December 31, 2009, purchases and sales of investment securities (excluding short-term investments) aggregated $94,611,287 and $115,847,154, respectively.
C. Related Parties
Management Agreement.
Under the Investment Management Agreement with Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc. ("DIMA" or the "Investment Manager"), an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Deutsche Bank AG, the Investment Manager is responsible for managing the Fund's affairs and supervising all aspects of the Fund's operations, subject at all times to the general supervision of the Fund's Board
of Directors (the "Board").
Pursuant to the Investment Management Agreement, the Investment Manager has delegated the day to day management of the Fund's investment portfolio to RREEF America, L.L.C. (the "Investment Advisor"), also an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Deutsche Bank AG and an affiliate of DB Real Estate, the real estate investment management group of Deutsche Asset Management. Subject to the general supervision of the
Board and the Investment Manager, the Investment Advisor is responsible for managing the investment operations of the Fund and the composition of the Fund's holdings of securities and other investments. The Investment Manager, not the Fund, compensates the Investment Advisor for its services. Effective September 1, 2009, the Investment Management Fee payable under the Investment Management Agreement is equal to an annual rate of 0.55% of the Fund's average daily total managed
assets, computed and accrued daily and payable monthly. Total managed assets equal the net asset value of the common shares plus the liquidation preference of any Preferred Shares plus the principal amount of any borrowings used for leverage.
Prior to September 1, 2009, the Fund's management fee was fixed at an annual rate of 0.85% of the Fund's average daily total managed assets, computed and accrued daily and payable monthly.
In addition, for the period from January 1, 2009 through August 28, 2009, the Investment Manager had contractually agreed to waive a portion of its Investment Management Fee in the amount of 0.20% of the Fund's average daily total managed assets. For the period from August 29, 2009 through August 31, 2009, the Investment Manager had contractually agreed to waive a portion of its Investment Management Fee in the amount of 0.15%
of the Fund's average daily total managed assets. Accordingly, for the year ended December 31, 2009, the Investment Manager waived a portion of its Investment Management Fee pursuant to the Investment Management Agreement aggregating $64,123 and the amount imposed aggregated $309,558, which was equivalent to an annual effective rate of 0.61% of the Fund's average daily total managed assets.
Service Provider Fees.
DWS Investments Service Company ("DISC"), an affiliate of the Investment Manager and Investment Advisor, is the transfer agent, dividend-paying agent and shareholder service agent for the Fund. Pursuant to a sub-transfer agency agreement between DISC and DST Systems, Inc. ("DST"), DISC has delegated certain transfer agent, dividend-paying agent and shareholder service agent
functions to DST. DISC compensates DST out of the shareholder servicing fee it receives from the Fund. For the year ended December 31, 2009, the amount charged to the Fund by DISC aggregated $16,129, of which $2,705 is unpaid.
DWS Investments Fund Accounting Corporation ("DIFA"), an affiliate of the Investment Manager and the Investment Advisor, is responsible for determining the daily net asset value per share and maintaining the portfolio and general accounting records of the Fund. Pursuant to a sub-accounting agreement between DIFA and State Street Bank and Trust Company ("SSB"), DIFA has delegated certain fund accounting
functions to SSB. DIFA compensates SSB for the accounting service fee it receives from the Fund. The amount charged to the Fund for the year ended December 31, 2009 by DIFA aggregated $44,982, of which $4,276 is unpaid.
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA"), an affiliate of the Investment Manager and the Investment Advisor, is the auction agent with respect to the Preferred Shares. The auction agent will pay each broker dealer a service charge from funds provided by the Fund ("Auction Service Fee"). The Auction Service Fee charged to the Fund for the year ended December 31, 2009 aggregated $44,780, of which $332 is unpaid.
In addition, DBTCA, as auction agent, is paid an administration fee. The amount charged to the Fund for the year ended December 31, 2009 aggregated $30,000, all of which was paid.
Directors' Fees and Expenses.
The Fund paid each Director not affiliated with the Investment Manager retainer fees plus specified amounts for various committee services and for the Board Chairperson.
Typesetting and Filing Service Fees.
Under an agreement with DIMA, DIMA is compensated for providing typesetting and certain regulatory filing services to the Fund. For the year ended December 31, 2009, the amount charged to the Fund by DIMA included in the Consolidated Statement of Operations under "reports to shareholders and shareholder meetings" aggregated $17,071, of which $7,630 is
unpaid.
Affiliated Cash Management Vehicles.
The Fund may invest uninvested cash balances in affiliated funds managed by the Investment Manager. Affiliated cash management vehicles do not pay the Investment Manager a management fee. The Fund currently invests in Central Cash Management Fund. Prior to October 2, 2009, the Fund invested in Cash Management QP Trust ("QP Trust"). Effective October 2, 2009,
QP Trust merged into Central Cash Management Fund. Central Cash Management Fund seeks to provide a high level of current income consistent with liquidity and the preservation of capital.
D. Real Estate Concentration Risk
The Fund concentrates its investments in real estate securities, including REITs. A fund with a concentrated portfolio is vulnerable to the risks of the industry in which it invests and is subject to greater risks and market fluctuations than funds investing in a broader range of industries. Real estate securities are susceptible to the risks associated with direct ownership of real estate such as declines in property values;
increases in property taxes, operating expenses, interest rates or competition; zoning changes; and losses from casualty and condemnation.
E. Secured Credit Facility
The Fund entered into a secured credit facility with two commercial banks effective August 26, 2008. The secured credit facility had an initial term of 364 days and initially allowed the Fund to borrow in an aggregate amount up to $275,000,000 ($33,000,000 effective January 14, 2009). A commitment fee was charged to the Fund and is included with "interest expense" in the Consolidated Statement of Operations. An arrangement fee
incurred by the Fund in connection with this facility was deferred and has been amortized on a straight-line basis over the term if the facility.
Effective February 5, 2009, the secured credit facility was terminated. The facility was originally needed to facilitate the redemption of the Fund's Preferred Shares. In the first quarter of 2009, using cash on hand, the Fund redeemed a total of 760 of its Preferred Shares (152 shares of each of its Series A, B, C, D and E Preferred Shares) at their liquidation preference of $25,000 per share, aggregating to $19,000,000.
See Note A, Organization and Significant Accounting Policies — Preferred Shares.
F. Fund Liquidation
At a stockholders' meeting held on January 29, 2010, the Fund's stockholders approved a plan of liquidation and dissolution proposed by the Fund's Board. Accordingly, the Fund will cease its business as an investment company, except for the purpose of liquidation and the winding up of its business and affairs, as of a "Cessation Date" to be determined by a committee of the Board. In setting the Cessation Date, the committee will
consider the steps required to accomplish an orderly liquidation of the Fund under current market conditions. It is currently expected that the timing of the Cessation Date will be announced in the first quarter of 2010 and that the Cessation Date will occur sometime before December 31, 2010.
G. Review for Subsequent Events
Management has reviewed the events and transactions for subsequent events from January 1, 2010 through March 1, 2010, the date the consolidated financial statements were available to be issued, and has determined that there were no other material events other than described in Note F that would require disclosure in the Fund's consolidated financial statements through this date.
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of DWS
RREEF Real Estate Fund
II, Inc.:
In our opinion, the accompanying consolidated statement of assets and liabilities, including the consolidated investment portfolio, and the related consolidated statements of operations and of changes in net assets and the consolidated financial highlights present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of DWS RREEF Real Estate Fund II, Inc. (the "Fund") and its subsidiary at December 31, 2009, and the results
of their operations, the changes in their net assets and the financial highlights for each of the periods indicated therein, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. These financial statements and financial highlights (hereafter referred to as "financial statements") are the responsibility of the Fund's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits
of these financial statements in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made
by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits, which included confirmation of securities at December 31, 2009 by correspondence with the custodian and brokers, provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
As discussed in Note F to the consolidated financial statements, on January 29, 2010, the stockholders approved the Board's proposal to liquidate and dissolve the Fund in 2010.
Boston, Massachusetts
March 1, 2010
|
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
|
Tax Information
(Unaudited)
Please consult a tax advisor if you have questions about federal or state income tax laws, or on how to prepare your tax returns. If you have specific questions about your account, please call (800) 294-4366.
Other Information
Fund Liquidation
On January 29, 2010, the Fund's stockholders approved a proposal to liquidate and dissolve the Fund. Under the plan of liquidation and dissolution approved by stockholders, as of a "Cessation Date" to be determined by a committee of the Board, the Fund will cease operating as an investment company and will not engage in any business activities except for the purpose of winding up its business affairs, preserving the value of its
assets, discharging and/or providing for the payment of its liabilities, distributing its remaining assets to stockholders, and doing all other acts required to liquidate and wind up its business and affairs. In setting the Cessation Date, the Board committee will consider the steps required to accomplish an orderly liquidation of the Fund under current market conditions. It is currently expected that the timing of the Cessation Date will be announced in the first quarter of 2010
and that the Cessation Date will occur sometime before December 31, 2010.
Prior to the Cessation Date, the Fund's portfolio managers may adjust the Fund's portfolio to include more liquid assets, as they may deem appropriate. During this time, the Fund may, but is not required to, commence the sale of portfolio securities and invest the proceeds of such sales in investment grade short-term debt securities denominated in U.S. dollars, U.S. cash, or U.S. cash equivalents. Following the
Cessation Date, the Fund will seek to convert any remaining portfolio securities to U.S. cash or U.S. cash equivalents.
On the Cessation Date, the books of the Fund will be closed with respect to the Fund's common stockholders, and the proportionate interests of common stockholders in the assets of the Fund will be fixed on the basis of their respective stockholdings at the close of business on such date. Thereafter, unless otherwise legally required, the common stockholders' respective interests in the Fund's assets will not be transferable by
the negotiation of share certificates, and the Fund's common shares will cease to be traded on NYSE Amex.
As soon as practicable after the Cessation Date, after the payment of, or reservation of sufficient funds for the payment of, any existing Fund liabilities and the complete redemption of any preferred shares of the Fund that remain outstanding as of the Cessation Date, the Fund will distribute all of the remaining liquidation proceeds, including any final dividend distributions, to common stockholders (the "Liquidation
Distribution"). The Fund may pay the Liquidation Distribution in more than one installment, if appropriate, to ensure the orderly disposition of portfolio securities.
The expenses incurred by the Fund in carrying out the plan of liquidation and dissolution will be borne by the Fund. The Board has the authority to authorize certain non-material variations from, and amendments to, the plan of liquidation and dissolution.
Lastly, the Fund is no longer a defendant in a previously disclosed putative class action lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York, on behalf of certain Fund stockholders, alleging securities law violations. Accordingly, said lawsuit is not currently expected to delay or otherwise affect the Fund's liquidation and dissolution. The Fund's investment advisor, sub-advisor and certain Fund officers are still named as
defendants in the lawsuit.
Bylaw Amendments
On March 11, 2009, the Fund's Board of Directors approved an amendment to the Fund's by-laws expanding the conditions under which a meeting of shareholders may be adjourned.
On April 9, 2009, the Fund's Board of the Directors approved an amendment to the Fund's bylaws requiring higher thresholds for Director approval of investment advisory agreements in certain circumstances.
On July 15, 2009, the Fund's Board of Directors adopted an amendment to the Fund's bylaws clarifying the application of the advance notice provision, which sets forth the time within which stockholders must submit nominations and other business to be properly brought before the Fund's annual meetings.
Notice of Possible Share Repurchases
In accordance with Section 23(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Fund hereby gives notice that it may from time to time repurchase shares of the Fund in the open market at the option of the Board of Directors and on such terms as the Directors may determine.
Stockholder Meeting Results
The Annual Meeting of Stockholders of DWS RREEF Real Estate Fund II, Inc. (the "Fund") was held on December 7, 2009. At the close of business on October 16, 2009, the record date for the determination of stockholders entitled to vote at the Meeting, there were issued and outstanding 37,904,857 common shares and 560 preferred shares of the Fund's stock, each being entitled to one vote. The following matter was voted upon by
the stockholders of the Fund.
1. The election of the following four Class III Board Members to hold office for a term of three years and until their respective successors have been duly elected and qualified:
|
Number of Votes:
|
|
For
|
Withheld
|
Kenneth C. Froewiss*
|
4
|
450
|
Rebecca W. Rimel
|
30,811,753
|
4,828,861
|
William McClayton
|
30,814,470
|
4,826,144
|
William N. Searcy, Jr.
|
30,810,947
|
4,829,667
|
*
Elected by Preferred Stockholders only.
A reconvened Annual Meeting of Stockholders of DWS RREEF Real Estate Fund II, Inc. (the "Fund") was held on January 29, 2010. At the close of business on October 16, 2009, the record date for the determination of stockholders entitled to vote at the Meeting, there were issued and outstanding 37,904,857 common shares and 560 preferred shares of the Fund's stock, each being entitled to one vote. The following matter was voted upon
by the stockholders of the Fund.
1. The approval of the liquidation and dissolution of DWS RREEF Real Estate Fund II, Inc. pursuant to a plan of Liquidation and Dissolution:
For
|
Against
|
Withheld
|
19,202,651
|
4,506,918
|
718,056
|
Dividend Reinvestment and Cash Purchase Plan
The Board of Directors of the Fund has established a Dividend Reinvestment and Cash Purchase Plan (the "Plan") for shareholders who have not elected in writing to receive dividends and distributions in cash. (each a "Participant"). A Plan Agent (currently, Computershare Inc.) has been appointed by the Fund's Board of Directors to act as agent for each Participant.
A summary of the Plan is set forth below. Shareholders may obtain a copy of the entire Dividend Reinvestment and Cash Purchase Plan by visiting the Fund's Web site at www.dws-investments.com or by calling (800) 294-4366.
Whenever the Fund declares an income dividend or a capital gains distribution payable in shares of common stock or cash at the option of the shareholders, each Participant is deemed to have elected to take such dividend or distribution entirely in additional shares of common stock of the Fund. If the market price per share of the Fund's common stock on the valuation date equals or exceeds the net asset value per share on the
valuation date, the number of additional shares of common stock to be issued by the Fund and credited to the Participant's account shall be determined by dividing the dollar amount of the dividend or capital gains distribution payable on the Participant's shares by the greater of the following amounts per share of the Fund's common stock on the valuation date: (a) the net asset value, or (b) 95% of the market price. If the market price per share of the common stock on the valuation
date is less than the net asset value per share on the valuation date, the Plan Agent shall apply the dollar amount of the dividend or capital gains distribution on such Participant's shares (less such Participant's pro rata share of brokerage commissions incurred with respect to the Plan Agent's open-market purchases in connection with the reinvestment of such dividend and distribution) to the purchase on the open market of shares of the common stock for the Participant's account.
Should the Fund declare an income dividend or capital gains distribution payable only in cash, the amount of such dividend or distribution on each Participant's shares (less such Participant's pro rata share of brokerage commissions incurred with respect to open-market purchases in connection with the reinvestment of such dividend or distribution) shall be applied to the purchase on the open market of shares of common stock for the Participant's account. Each Participant,
semiannually, also has the option of sending additional funds, in any amount from $100 to $3,000, for the purchase on the open market of shares of common stock for such Participant's account. Voluntary payments will be invested by the Plan Agent on or shortly after the 15th of February and August, and in no event more than 45 days after such dates, except where temporary curtailment or suspension of purchases is necessary to comply with applicable provisions of federal securities
law. Optional cash payments received from a Participant on or prior to the fifth day preceding the 15th of February or August will be applied by the Plan Agent to the purchase of additional shares of common stock as of that investment date. Funds received after the fifth day preceding the 15th of February or August and prior to the 30th day preceding the next investment date will be returned to the Participant. No interest will be paid on optional cash payments held until
investment. Consequently, Participants are strongly urged to make their optional cash payments shortly before the 15th of February or August. Optional cash payments should be made in US dollars and be sent by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to DWS Investments Service Company (the "Transfer Agent") at the following address:
DWS RREEF Real Estate Fund II, Inc.
Dividend Reinvestment and Cash Purchase Plan
210 West 10th Street, Kansas City, MO 64105
(800) 294-4366
Participants may withdraw their entire voluntary cash payment by written notice received by the Plan Agent not less than 48 hours before such payment is to be invested.
Investment of voluntary cash payments and other open-market purchases may be made on any securities exchange where the shares of common stock are traded, in the OTC market or in negotiated transactions.
A statement reflecting the amount of cash received by the Transfer Agent will be issued on receipt of each cash deposit. The statements are the record of the costs of shares and should be retained for tax purposes.
The reinvestment of dividends and capital gains distributions does not relieve the Participant of any tax that may be payable on such dividends and distributions. The Transfer Agent will report to each Participant the taxable amount of dividends and distributions credited to his or her account.
The service fees for handling capital gains distributions or income dividends will be paid by the Fund. Participants will be charged a $1.00 service fee for each optional cash investment and a pro rata share of brokerage commissions on all open market purchases.
Participants may terminate their accounts under the Plan by notifying the Transfer Agent in writing. Such termination will be effective immediately if such Participant's notice is received by the Transfer Agent not less than 10 days prior to any dividend or distribution record date; otherwise, such termination will be effective as soon as practicable upon completion of the reinvestment of capital gains distributions or
income dividends. The Plan may be terminated by the Fund upon notice in writing mailed to Participants at least 30 days prior to any record date for the payment of any dividend or distribution by the Fund. The terms and conditions of the Plan may be amended or supplemented by the Fund at any time or times, but, except when necessary or appropriate to comply with applicable law or the rules or policies of the Securities and Exchange Commission, any securities exchange on which shares
of the Fund's common stock are listed, or any other regulatory authority and with certain other limited exceptions, only by mailing to Participants appropriate written notice at least 30 days prior to the effective date thereof.
If a Participant elects, by notice to the Plan Agent in writing in advance of such termination, to have the Plan Agent sell part or all of such Participant's shares and remit the proceeds to such Participant, the Plan Agent is authorized to deduct a fee of 5% of the gross proceeds, to a maximum of $3.50, plus brokerage commissions for this transaction and any transfer taxes.
All correspondence and inquiries concerning the Plan, and requests for additional information about the Plan, should be directed to the Transfer Agent at P.O. Box 219066, Kansas City, Missouri 64105 or (800) 294-4366.
Investment Management Agreement Approval
The Board of Directors, including the Independent Directors, approved the renewal of your Fund's investment management agreement (the "Agreement") with Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc. ("DWS") and sub-advisory agreement (the "Sub-Advisory Agreement" and together with the Agreement, the "Agreements") between DWS and RREEF America, L.L.C. ("RREEF"), an affiliate of DWS, in September 2009.
In terms of the process that the Board followed prior to approving the Agreements, shareholders should know that:
•
In September 2009, all but one of the Fund's Directors were independent of DWS and its affiliates.
•
The Directors meet frequently to discuss fund matters. Each year, the Directors dedicate substantial time to contract review matters. Over the course of several months, the Board's Contract Committee, in coordination with the Board's Equity Oversight Committee, reviewed comprehensive materials received from DWS, independent third parties and independent counsel. These materials included an analysis
of the Fund's performance, fees and expenses, and profitability compiled by the Fund's independent fee consultant. The Board also received extensive information throughout the year regarding performance of the Fund.
•
The Independent Directors regularly meet privately with their independent counsel to discuss contract review and other matters. In addition, the Independent Directors were also advised by the Fund's independent fee consultant in the course of their review of the Fund's contractual arrangements and considered a comprehensive report prepared by the independent fee consultant in connection with their
deliberations (the "IFC Report").
•
In connection with reviewing the Agreements, the Board also reviewed the terms of the Fund's other material service agreements.
•
Based on its evaluation of the information provided, the Contract Committee presented its findings and recommendations to the Independent Directors as a group. The Independent Directors reviewed the Contract Committee's findings and recommendations and presented their recommendations to the full Board.
•
In connection with the 2009 contract review, the Board negotiated a new management fee for the Fund at a fixed rate of 0.55% of average daily managed assets. The new fee, which reflects a significant reduction, took effect September 1, 2009.
In connection with the contract review process, the Contract Committee and the Board considered the factors discussed below, among others. The Board also considered that DWS and its predecessors have managed the Fund since its inception, and the Board believes that a long-term relationship with a capable, conscientious advisor is in the best interests of the Fund. The Board considered, generally, that
shareholders chose to invest in the Fund knowing that DWS managed the Fund. DWS and RREEF are part of Deutsche Bank, a major global banking institution that is engaged in a wide range of financial services. The Board believes that there are significant advantages to being part of a global asset management business that offers a wide range of investing expertise and resources, including hundreds of portfolio managers and analysts with research capabilities in many countries
throughout the world.
While shareholders may focus primarily on fund performance and fees, the Fund's Board considers these and many other factors, including the quality and integrity of DWS's and RREEF's personnel and such other issues as back-office operations, fund valuations, and compliance policies and procedures.
Nature, Quality and Extent of Services.
The Board considered the terms of the Agreements, including the scope of advisory services provided under the Agreements. The Board noted that, under the Agreements, DWS and RREEF provide portfolio management and administrative services to the Fund. The Board considered the experience and skills of senior management and investment personnel, the resources made
available to such personnel, the ability of DWS and RREEF to attract and retain high-quality personnel, and the organizational depth and stability of DWS and RREEF. The Board reviewed the Fund's performance over short-term and long-term periods and compared those returns to various agreed-upon performance measures, including market indices and a peer universe compiled by the independent fee consultant using information supplied by Lipper Inc. ("Lipper"). The Board also noted that it
has put into place a process of identifying "Focus Funds" (e.g., funds performing poorly relative to their benchmark or a peer universe compiled by Lipper), and receives more frequent reporting and information from DWS regarding such funds, along with DWS's remedial plans to address underperformance. The Board believes this process is an effective manner of identifying and addressing underperforming funds. Based on the information provided, the Board noted that for each of the one-,
three- and five-year periods ended December 31, 2008, the Fund's performance was in the 4th quartile of the applicable Lipper universe (the 1st quartile being the best performers and the 4th quartile being the worst performers). The Board also observed that the Fund has underperformed its benchmark in each of the one-, three- and five-year periods ended December 31, 2008. The Board noted the disappointing investment performance of the Fund in recent periods and continued to discuss
with senior management of DWS and RREEF the factors contributing to such underperformance and actions being taken to improve performance. The Board also noted its intention to give Fund stockholders another opportunity to vote on the Fund's liquidation at the Fund's 2009 annual meeting.
Fees and Expenses.
The Board considered the Fund's investment management fee schedule, sub-advisory fee schedule, operating expenses and total expense ratios, and comparative information provided by Lipper and the independent fee consultant regarding investment management fee rates paid to other investment advisors by similar funds (1st quartile being the most favorable and 4th
quartile being the least favorable). With respect to management fees paid to other investment advisors by similar funds, the Board noted that the contractual fee rates paid by the Fund were lower than the median (2nd quartile) of the applicable Lipper peer group (based on Lipper data provided as of December 31, 2008). With respect to the sub-advisory fee paid to RREEF, the Board noted that the fee is paid by DWS out of its fee and not directly by the Fund. The Board also reviewed
data comparing the Fund's total (net) operating expenses to the applicable Lipper expense universe. The Board concluded that the comparative Lipper operating expense data was of limited utility, as it likely significantly understated the current expense ratios of many peer funds due to the substantial declines in net assets as a result of market losses that many funds experienced between mid-September 2008 and March 2009 and that were not reflected in the data.
The information considered by the Board as part of its review of management fees included information regarding fees charged by DWS and its affiliates to similar institutional accounts and to similar funds managed by the same portfolio management teams but offered primarily to European investors ("DWS Europe funds"), in each case as applicable. The Board observed that advisory fee rates for institutional accounts generally were
lower than the management fees charged by similarly managed DWS US mutual funds ("DWS Funds"), but also took note of the differences in services provided to DWS Funds as compared to institutional accounts. In the case of DWS Europe funds, the Board observed that fee rates for DWS Europe funds generally were higher than for similarly managed DWS Funds, but noted that differences in the types of services provided to DWS Funds relative to DWS Europe funds made it difficult to compare
such fees.
The Board noted that, in connection with the 2009 contract renewal, DWS agreed to a substantial reduction in the Fund's contractual management fee effective September 1, 2009. The Board concluded that the Fund's fee schedule represents an appropriate sharing between the Fund and DWS of such economies of scale as may exist in the management of the Fund at current asset levels.
On the basis of the information provided, the Board concluded that management fees were reasonable and appropriate in light of the nature, quality and extent of services provided by DWS and RREEF.
Profitability.
The Board reviewed detailed information regarding revenues received by DWS under the Agreement. The Board considered the estimated costs and pre-tax profits realized by DWS from advising the DWS Funds, as well as estimates of the pre-tax profits attributable to managing the Fund in particular. The Board also received information regarding the estimated enterprise-wide profitability of
DWS and its affiliates with respect to all fund services in totality and by fund. The Board reviewed DWS's methodology in allocating its costs to the management of the Fund. Based on the information provided, the Board concluded that the pre-tax profits realized by DWS in connection with the management of the Fund were not unreasonable. The Board also reviewed information regarding the profitability of certain similar investment management firms. The Board noted that while
information regarding the profitability of such firms is limited (and in some cases is not necessarily prepared on a comparable basis), DWS and its affiliates' overall profitability with respect to the DWS fund complex (after taking into account distribution and other services provided to the funds by DWS and its affiliates) was lower than the overall profitability levels of many comparable firms for which such data was available.
Other Benefits to DWS and Its Affiliates.
The Board also considered the character and amount of other incidental benefits received by DWS and its affiliates, including any fees received by DWS for administrative services provided to the Fund. The Board also considered benefits to DWS related to brokerage and soft-dollar allocations, including allocating brokerage to pay for research generated by
parties other than the executing broker dealers, which pertain primarily to funds investing in equity securities, along with the incidental public relations benefits to DWS related to DWS Funds advertising and cross-selling opportunities among DWS products and services. The Board concluded that management fees were reasonable in light of these fallout benefits.
Compliance.
The Board considered the significant attention and resources dedicated by DWS to documenting and enhancing its compliance processes in recent years. The Board noted in particular (i) the experience and seniority of both DWS's chief compliance officer and the Fund's chief compliance officer; (ii) the large number of DWS compliance personnel; and (iii) the substantial commitment of
resources by DWS and its affiliates to compliance matters.
Based on all of the information considered and the conclusions reached, the Board unanimously (including the Independent Directors) determined that the continuation of the Agreements is in the best interests of the Fund. In making this determination, the Board did not give particular weight to any single factor identified above. The Board considered these factors over the course of numerous meetings, certain
of which were in executive session with only the Independent Directors and their counsel present. It is possible that individual Directors may have weighed these factors differently in reaching their individual decisions to approve the continuation of the Agreements.
Board Members and Officers
The following table presents certain information regarding the Board Members and Officers of the Corporation as of December 31, 2009. Each Board Member's year of birth is set forth in parentheses after his or her name. Unless otherwise noted, (i) each Board Member has engaged in the principal occupation(s) noted in the table for at least the most recent five years, although not necessarily in the same capacity; and (ii) the
address of each Independent Board Member is c/o Paul K. Freeman, Independent Chairman, DWS Funds, PO Box 101833, Denver, CO 80250-1833. The Board is divided into three classes of Board Members, Class I, Class II and Class III. At each annual meeting of shareholders of the Corporation, the class of Board Members elected at such meeting is elected to hold office until the annual meeting held in the third succeeding year and until the election and qualification of such Board Member's
successor, if any, or until such Board Member sooner dies, resigns, retires or is removed. In addition, the holders of the Preferred Shares, voting as a separate class, are entitled to elect two Board Members. The Board Members elected by the holders of the Remarketed Preferred Shares, voting as a separate class, are elected to hold office until the next annual meeting and until the election and qualification of such Board Member's successor, if any, or until such Board Member
sooner dies, resigns, retires or is removed. The Board Members may also serve in similar capacities with other funds in the fund complex. The Length of Time Served represents the year in which the Board Member joined the board of one or more DWS funds now overseen by the Board.
Independent Board Members
|
Name, Year of Birth, Position with the Fund and Length of Time Served
1
|
Business Experience and Directorships During the Past Five Years
|
Number of Funds in DWS Fund Complex Overseen
|
Paul K. Freeman (1950)
Chairperson since 2009
Board Member since 1993
|
Consultant, World Bank/Inter-American Development Bank; Governing Council of the Independent Directors Council (governance, education committees); formerly, Project Leader, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (1998-2001); Chief Executive Officer, The Eric Group, Inc. (environmental insurance) (1986-1998)
|
126
|
John W. Ballantine (1946)
Board Member since 1999
|
Retired; formerly, Executive Vice President and Chief Risk Management Officer, First Chicago NBD Corporation/The First National Bank of Chicago (1996-1998); Executive Vice President and Head of International Banking (1995-1996). Directorships: Healthways, Inc. (provider of disease and care management services); Portland General Electric (utility company); Stockwell Capital Investments PLC (private
equity). Former Directorships: First Oak Brook Bancshares, Inc. and Oak Brook Bank; Prisma Energy International
|
126
|
Henry P. Becton, Jr. (1943)
Board Member since 1990
|
Vice Chair and former President, WGBH Educational Foundation. Directorships: Association of Public Television Stations; Lead Director, Becton Dickinson and Company
3
(medical technology company); Lead Director, Belo Corporation
3
(media company); Public Radio International; Public Radio Exchange (PRX); The PBS Foundation. Former Directorships: Boston Museum of Science; American
Public Television; Concord Academy; New England Aquarium; Mass. Corporation for Educational Telecommunications; Committee for Economic Development; Public Broadcasting Service
|
126
|
Dawn-Marie Driscoll (1946)
Board Member since 1987
|
President, Driscoll Associates (consulting firm); Executive Fellow, Center for Business Ethics, Bentley University; formerly, Partner, Palmer & Dodge (1988-1990); Vice President of Corporate Affairs and General Counsel, Filene's (1978-1988). Directorships: Trustee of 20 open-end mutual funds managed by Sun Capital Advisers, Inc. (since 2007); Director of ICI Mutual Insurance Company (since
2007); Advisory Board, Center for Business Ethics, Bentley University; Trustee, Southwest Florida Community Foundation (charitable organization). Former Directorships: Investment Company Institute (audit, executive, nominating committees) and Independent Directors Council (governance, executive committees)
|
126
|
Keith R. Fox (1954)
Board Member since 1996
|
Managing General Partner, Exeter Capital Partners (a series of private investment funds). Directorships: Progressive Holding Corporation (kitchen goods importer and distributor); Box Top Media Inc. (advertising); The Kennel Shop (retailer); former Chairman, National Association of Small Business Investment Companies
|
126
|
Kenneth C. Froewiss (1945)
Board Member since 2001
|
Adjunct Professor of Finance, NYU Stern School of Business (September 2009-present; Clinical Professor from 1997-September 2009); Member, Finance Committee, Association for Asian Studies (2002-present); Director, Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Group (US) (2004-present); prior thereto, Managing Director, J.P. Morgan (investment banking firm) (until 1996)
|
126
|
Richard J. Herring (1946)
Board Member since 1990
|
Jacob Safra Professor of International Banking and Professor, Finance Department, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania (since July 1972); Co-Director, Wharton Financial Institutions Center (since July 2000); Director, Japan Equity Fund, Inc. (since September 2007), Thai Capital Fund, Inc. (since September 2007), Singapore Fund, Inc. (since September 2007). Formerly, Vice Dean and
Director, Wharton Undergraduate Division (July 1995-June 2000); Director, Lauder Institute of International Management Studies (July 2000-June 2006)
|
126
|
William McClayton (1944)
Board Member since 2004
|
Private equity investor (since October 2009); previously, Managing Director, Diamond Management & Technology Consultants, Inc. (global consulting firm) (2001-2009); Directorship: Board of Managers, YMCA of Metropolitan Chicago; formerly: Senior Partner, Arthur Andersen LLP (accounting) (1966-2001); Trustee, Ravinia Festival
|
126
|
Rebecca W. Rimel (1951)
Board Member since 1995
|
President and Chief Executive Officer, The Pew Charitable Trusts (charitable organization) (1994 to present); Trustee, Thomas Jefferson Foundation (charitable organization) (1994 to present); Trustee, Executive Committee, Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce (2001-2007); Trustee, Pro Publica (2007-present) (charitable organization); Director, CardioNet, Inc.
2
(2009-present) (health
care). Formerly, Executive Vice President, The Glenmede Trust Company (investment trust and wealth management) (1983-2004); Board Member, Investor Education (charitable organization) (2004-2005); Director, Viasys Health Care
2
(January 2007-June 2007)
|
126
|
William N. Searcy, Jr. (1946)
Board Member since 1993
|
Private investor since October 2003; Trustee of 20 open-end mutual funds managed by Sun Capital Advisers, Inc. (since October 1998). Formerly, Pension & Savings Trust Officer, Sprint Corporation
2
(telecommunications) (November 1989-September 2003)
|
126
|
Jean Gleason Stromberg (1943)
Board Member since 1997
|
Retired. Formerly, Consultant (1997-2001); Director, Financial Markets US Government Accountability Office (1996-1997); Partner, Fulbright & Jaworski, L.L.P. (law firm) (1978-1996). Directorships: The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; Business Leadership Council, Wellesley College. Former Directorships: Service Source, Inc., Mutual Fund Directors Forum (2002-2004), American Bar Retirement
Association (funding vehicle for retirement plans) (1987-1990 and 1994-1996)
|
126
|
Robert H. Wadsworth
(1940)
Board Member since 1999
|
President, Robert H. Wadsworth & Associates, Inc. (consulting firm) (1983 to present); Director, The Phoenix Boys Choir Association
|
129
|
Officers
4
|
Name, Year of Birth, Position with the Fund and Length of Time Served
5
|
Principal Occupation(s) During Past 5 Years and Other Directorships Held
|
Michael G. Clark
6
(1965)
President, 2006-present
|
Managing Director
3
, Deutsche Asset Management (2006-present); President of DWS family of funds; Director, ICI Mutual Insurance Company (since October 2007); formerly, Director of Fund Board Relations (2004-2006) and Director of Product Development (2000-2004), Merrill Lynch Investment Managers; Senior Vice President Operations, Merrill Lynch Asset Management (1999-2000)
|
John Millette
7
(1962)
Vice President and Secretary, 1999-present
|
Director
3
, Deutsche Asset Management
|
Paul H. Schubert
6
(1963)
Chief Financial Officer, 2004-present
Treasurer, 2005-present
|
Managing Director
3
, Deutsche Asset Management (since July 2004); formerly, Executive Director, Head of Mutual Fund Services and Treasurer for UBS Family of Funds (1998-2004); Vice President and Director of Mutual Fund Finance at UBS Global Asset Management (1994-1998)
|
Caroline Pearson
7
(1962)
Assistant Secretary, 1997-present
|
Managing Director
3
, Deutsche Asset Management
|
Rita Rubin
8
(1970)
Assistant Secretary, 2009-present
|
Vice President and Counsel, Deutsche Asset Management (since October 2007); formerly, Vice President, Morgan Stanley Investment Management (2004-2007); Attorney, Shearman & Sterling LLP (2004); Director and Associate General Counsel, UBS Global Asset Management (US) Inc. (2001-2004)
|
Paul Antosca
7
(1957)
Assistant Treasurer, 2007-present
|
Director
3
, Deutsche Asset Management (since 2006); Vice President, The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (U.S.A.) (1990-2006)
|
Jack Clark
7
(1967)
Assistant Treasurer, 2007-present
|
Director
3
, Deutsche Asset Management (since 2007); formerly, Vice President, State Street Corporation (2002-2007)
|
Diane Kenneally
7
(1966)
Assistant Treasurer, 2007-present
|
Director
3
, Deutsche Asset Management
|
Jason Vazquez
8
(1972)
Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Officer, 2007-present
|
Vice President, Deutsche Asset Management (since 2006); formerly, AML Operations Manager for Bear Stearns (2004-2006), Supervising Compliance Principal and Operations Manager for AXA Financial (1999-2004)
|
Robert Kloby
8
(1962)
Chief Compliance Officer, 2006-present
|
Managing Director
3
, Deutsche Asset Management
|
J. Christopher Jackson
8
(1951)
Chief Legal Officer, 2006-present
|
Director
3
, Deutsche Asset Management (2006-present); formerly, Director, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Assistant Secretary, Hansberger Global Investors, Inc. (1996-2006); Director, National Society of Compliance Professionals (2002-2005) (2006-2009)
|
1
The length of time served represents the year in which the Board Member joined the board of one or more DWS funds currently overseen by the Board.
2
A publicly held company with securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
3
Executive title, not a board directorship.
4
As a result of their respective positions held with the Advisor, these individuals are considered "interested persons" of the Advisor within the meaning of the 1940 Act. Interested persons receive no compensation from the fund.
5
The length of time served represents the year in which the officer was first elected in such capacity for one or more DWS funds.
6
Address: 345 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10154.
7
Address: One Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02108.
8
Address: 280 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10017.
Additional Information
Automated Information Line
|
DWS Investments Closed-End Fund Info Line
(800) 349-4281
|
Web Site
|
www.dws-investments.com
Obtain quarterly fact sheets, financial reports, press releases and webcasts when available.
|
Written Correspondence
|
Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc.
345 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10154
|
Proxy Voting
|
The fund's policies and procedures for voting proxies for portfolio securities and information about how the fund voted proxies related to its portfolio securities during the 12-month period ended June 30
are available on our Web site — www.dws-investments.com (click on "proxy voting"at the bottom of the page) — or on the SEC's Web
site — www.sec.gov. To obtain a written copy of the fund's policies and procedures without charge, upon request, call us toll free at (800) 621-1048.
|
Legal Counsel
|
Ropes & Gray LLP
One International Place
Boston, MA 02110
|
Dividend Reinvestment Plan Agent
|
Computershare Inc.
P.O. Box 43078
Providence, RI 02940-3078
|
Shareholder Service Agent
|
DWS Investments Service Company
P.O. Box 219066
Kansas City, MO 64121-9066
(800) 294-4366
|
Custodian and Transfer Agent
|
State Street Bank and Trust Company
225 Franklin Street
Boston, MA 02110
|
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
|
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
125 High Street
Boston, MA 02110
|
NYSE Amex Symbol
|
SRO
|
CUSIP Numbers
|
Common Shares
|
23338X 102
|
|
Series M
|
23338X 201
|
|
Series T
|
23338X 300
|
|
Series W
|
23338X 409
|
|
Series Th
|
23338X 508
|
|
Series TF
|
23338X 607
|
Notes
Notes
Notes
Notes
Notes
Notes
Notes
ITEM 2.
|
CODE OF ETHICS
|
|
|
|
As of the end of the period, December 31, 2009, DWS RREEF Real Estate Fund II, Inc. has a code of ethics, as defined in Item 2 of Form N-CSR, that applies to its Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer.
There have been no amendments to, or waivers from, a provision of the code of ethics during the period covered by this report that would require disclosure under Item 2.
A copy of the code of ethics is filed as an exhibit to this Form N-CSR.
|
|
|
ITEM 3.
|
AUDIT COMMITTEE FINANCIAL EXPERT
|
|
|
|
The fund’s audit committee is comprised solely of trustees who are "independent" (as such term has been defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in regulations implementing Section 407 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (the "Regulations")). The fund’s Board of Trustees has determined that there are several "audit committee
financial experts" (as such term has been defined by the Regulations) serving on the fund’s audit committee including Mr. William McClayton, the chair of the fund’s audit committee. An “audit committee financial expert” is not an “expert” for any purpose, including for purposes of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and the designation or identification of a person as an “audit committee financial expert” does
not impose on such person any duties, obligations or liability that are greater than the duties, obligations and liability imposed on such person as a member of the audit committee and board of directors in the absence of such designation or identification. In accordance with New York Stock Exchange requirements, the Board believes that all members of the fund’s audit committee are financially literate, as such qualification is interpreted by the Board in
its business judgment, and that at least one member of the audit committee has accounting or related financial management expertise.
|
|
|
ITEM 4.
|
PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES
|
DWS RREEF REAL ESTATE FUND II, INC.
FORM N-CSR DISCLOSURE RE: AUDIT FEES
The following table shows the amount of fees that PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (“PWC”), the Fund’s independent registered public accounting firm, billed to the Fund during the Fund’s last two fiscal years. The Audit Committee approved in advance all audit services and non-audit services that PWC provided to the Fund.
Services that the Fund’s Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm Billed to the Fund
Fiscal Year
Ended
December 31,
|
Audit Fees Billed to Fund
|
Audit-Related
Fees Billed to Fund
|
Tax Fees Billed to Fund
|
All
Other Fees Billed to Fund
|
2009
|
$57,921
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
2008
|
$63,800
|
$0
|
$0
|
$0
|
Services that the Fund’s Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm Billed to the Adviser and Affiliated Fund Service Providers
The following table shows the amount of fees billed by PWC to Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc. (“DeIM” or the “Adviser”), and any entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with DeIM (“Control Affiliate”) that provides ongoing services to the Fund (“Affiliated Fund Service Provider”), for engagements directly related to
the Fund’s operations and financial reporting, during the Fund’s last two fiscal years.
Fiscal Year
December 31,
|
Audit-Related
Fees Billed to Adviser and Affiliated Fund Service Providers
|
Tax Fees Billed to Adviser and Affiliated Fund Service Providers
|
All
Other Fees Billed to Adviser and Affiliated Fund Service Providers
|
2009
|
$2,000
|
$0
|
$0
|
2008
|
$0
|
$19,000
|
$0
|
The “Audit-Related Fees” were billed for services in connection with the agreed-upon procedures and the above “Tax Fees” were billed in connection with tax compliance and tax planning.
Non-Audit Services
The following table shows the amount of fees that PWC billed during the Fund’s last two fiscal years for non-audit services. The Audit Committee pre-approved all non-audit services that PWC provided to the Adviser and any Affiliated Fund Service Provider that related directly to the Fund’s operations and financial reporting. The Audit Committee requested and received information from
PWC about any non-audit services that PWC rendered during the Fund’s last fiscal year to the Adviser and any Affiliated Fund Service Provider. The Committee considered this information in evaluating PWC’s independence.
Fiscal Year
Ended
December 31,
|
Total
Non-Audit Fees Billed to Fund
(A)
|
Total Non-Audit Fees billed to Adviser and Affiliated Fund Service Providers (engagements related directly to the operations and financial reporting of the Fund)
(B)
|
Total Non-Audit Fees billed to Adviser and Affiliated Fund Service Providers (all other engagements)
(C)
|
Total of (A), (B)
and (C)
|
2009
|
$0
|
$0
|
$100,000
|
$100,000
|
2008
|
$0
|
$19,000
|
$0
|
$19,000
|
All other engagement fees were billed for services in connection with an internal control review of a subadvisor.
Audit Committee Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures. Generally, each Fund’s Audit Committee must pre approve (i) all services to be performed for a Fund by a Fund’s Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm and (ii) all non-audit services to be performed by a Fund’s Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm for the DIMA Entities with respect to operations and financial
reporting of the Fund, except that the Chairperson or Vice Chairperson of each Fund’s Audit Committee may grant the pre-approval for non-audit services described in items (i) and (ii) above for non-prohibited services for engagements of less than $100,000. All such delegated pre approvals shall be presented to each Fund’s Audit Committee no later than the next Audit Committee meeting.
There were no amounts that were approved by the Audit Committee pursuant to the de minimis exception under Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X.
According to the registrant’s principal Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, all of the principal Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm's hours spent on auditing the registrant's financial statements were attributed to work performed by full-time permanent employees of the principal Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.
***
PwC advised the Fund's Audit Committee that PwC has identified two matters that it determined to be inconsistent with the SEC's auditor independence rules. In the first instance, an employee of PwC had power of attorney over an account which included DWS funds. The employee did not perform any audit services for the DWS Funds, but did work on a non audit project for Deutsche Bank AG. In the second
instance, an employee of PwC served as a nominee shareholder (effectively equivalent to a Trustee) of various companies/trusts since 2001. Some of these companies held shares of Aberdeen, a sub advisor to certain DWS Funds, and of certain funds sponsored by subsidiaries of Deutsche Bank AG. The trustee relationship has ceased. PwC informed the Audit Committee that these matters could have constituted an investment in an affiliate of an audit client in violation of the Rule
2-01(c)(1) of Regulation S-X. PwC advised the Audit Committee that PwC believes its independence had not been impacted as it related to the audits of the Fund. In reaching this conclusion, PwC noted that during the time of its audit, the engagement team was not aware of the investment and that PwC does not believe these situations affected PwC's ability to act objectively and impartially and to issue a report on financial statements as the funds' independent auditor.
|
|
ITEM 5.
|
AUDIT COMMITTEE OF LISTED REGISTRANTS
|
|
|
|
The registrant has a separately-designated standing audit committee established in accordance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The registrant's audit committee consists of William McClayton (Chairman), Keith R. Fox, Kenneth C. Froewiss, Henry P. Becton, Jr., Richard J. Herring and William N. Searcy.
|
|
|
ITEM 6.
|
SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS
|
|
|
|
Not Applicable
|
|
|
ITEM 7.
|
DISCLOSURE OF PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES
|
|
|
Proxy Voting and Guidelines
AM has adopted and implemented the following policies and procedures, which it believes are reasonably designed to ensure that proxies are voted in the best economic interest of clients, in accordance with its fiduciary duties and local regulation. These Proxy Voting Policies, Procedures and Guidelines shall apply to all accounts managed by US domiciled advisers and to all US client accounts
managed by non US regional offices. Non US regional offices are required to maintain procedures and to vote proxies as may be required by law on behalf of their non US clients. In addition, AM’s proxy policies reflect the fiduciary standards and responsibilities for ERISA accounts.
The attached guidelines represent a set of global recommendations that were determined by the Global Proxy Voting Sub-Committee (“the GPVSC”). These guidelines were developed to provide AM with a comprehensive list of recommendations that represent how AM will generally vote proxies for its clients. The recommendations derived from the application of these guidelines are not intended
to influence the various AM legal entities either directly or indirectly by parent or affiliated companies. In addition, the organizational structures and documents of the various AM legal entities allows, where necessary or appropriate, the execution by individual AM subsidiaries of the proxy voting rights independently of any DB parent or affiliated company. This applies in particular to non U.S. fund management companies. The individuals that make proxy voting decisions are
also free to act independently, subject to the normal and customary supervision by the management/boards of these AM legal entities.
|
II.
|
AM’S PROXY VOTING RESPONSIBILITIES
|
Proxy votes are the property of AM’s advisory clients.
1
As such, AM’s authority and responsibility to vote such proxies depend upon its contractual relationships with its clients. AM has delegated responsibility for effecting its advisory clients’ proxy votes to Institutional Shareholder Services (“ISS”), an independent third-party proxy voting specialist.
ISS votes AM’s advisory clients’ proxies in accordance with AM’s proxy guidelines or AM’s specific instructions. Where a client has given specific instructions as to how a proxy should be voted, AM will notify ISS to carry out those instructions. Where no specific instruction exists, AM will follow the procedures in voting the proxies set forth in this document. Certain Taft-Hartley clients may direct AM to have ISS vote their proxies in accordance with
Taft Hartley voting Guidelines.
Clients may in certain instances contract with their custodial agent and notify AM that they wish to engage in securities lending transactions. In such cases, it is the responsibility of the custodian to deduct the number of shares that are on loan so that they do not get voted twice.
|
1.
|
Proxy voting activities are conducted in the best economic interest of clients
|
AM has adopted the following policies and procedures to ensure that proxies are voted in accordance with the best economic interest of its clients, as determined by AM in good faith after appropriate review.
|
2.
|
The Global Proxy Voting Sub-Committee
|
The Global Proxy Voting Sub-Committee (the “GPVSC”) is an internal working group established by the applicable AM’s Investment Risk Oversight Committee pursuant to a written charter. The GPVSC is responsible for overseeing AM’s proxy voting activities, including:
(i)
|
adopting, monitoring and updating guidelines, attached as Exhibit A (the “Guidelines”), that provide how AM will generally vote proxies pertaining to a comprehensive list of common proxy voting matters;
|
_________________________
1
|
For purposes of these Policies and Procedures, “clients” refers to persons or entities: for which AM serves as investment adviser or sub-adviser; for which AM votes proxies; and that have an economic or beneficial ownership interest in the portfolio securities of issuers soliciting such proxies.
|
(ii)
|
voting proxies where (A) the issues are not covered by specific client instruction or the Guidelines; (B) the Guidelines specify that the issues are to be determined on a case-by-case basis; or (C) where an exception to the Guidelines may be in the best economic interest of AM’s clients; and
|
(iii)
|
monitoring the Proxy Vendor Oversight’s proxy voting activities (see below).
|
AM’s Proxy Vendor Oversight, a function of AM’s Operations Group, is responsible for coordinating with ISS to administer AM’s proxy voting process and for voting proxies in accordance with any specific client instructions or, if there are none, the Guidelines, and overseeing ISS’ proxy responsibilities in this regard.
|
3.
|
Availability of Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures and proxy voting record
|
Copies of these Policies and Procedures, as they may be updated from time to time, are made available to clients as required by law and otherwise at AM’s discretion. Clients may also obtain information on how their proxies were voted by AM as required by law and otherwise at AM’s discretion; however, AM must not selectively disclose its investment company clients’ proxy voting
records. The Proxy Vendor Oversight will make proxy voting reports available to advisory clients upon request. The investment companies’ proxy voting records will be disclosed to shareholders by means of publicly-available annual filings of each company’s proxy voting record for 12-month periods ended June 30 (see “Recordkeeping” below), if so required by relevant law.
The key aspects of AM’s proxy voting process are as follows:
|
1.
|
The GPVSC’s Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
The Guidelines set forth the GPVSC’s standard voting positions on a comprehensive list of common proxy voting matters. The GPVSC has developed, and continues to update the Guidelines based on consideration of current corporate governance principles, industry standards, client feedback, and the impact of the matter on issuers and the value of the investments.
The GPVSC will review the Guidelines as necessary to support the best economic interests of AM’s clients and, in any event, at least annually. The GPVSC will make changes to the Guidelines, whether as a result of the annual review or otherwise, taking solely into account the best economic interests of clients. Before changing the Guidelines, the GPVSC will thoroughly review and evaluate the
proposed change and the reasons therefore, and the GPVSC Chair will ask GPVSC members whether anyone outside of the AM organization (but within Deutsche Bank and its affiliates) or any entity that identifies itself as a AM advisory client has requested or attempted to influence the proposed change and whether any member has a conflict of interest with respect to the proposed change. If any such matter is reported to the GPVSC Chair, the Chair will promptly notify the Conflicts
of Interest Management Sub-Committee (see below) and will defer the approval, if possible. Lastly, the GPVSC will fully document its rationale for approving any change to the Guidelines.
The Guidelines may reflect a voting position that differs from the actual practices of the public company(ies) within the Deutsche Bank organization or of the investment companies for which AM or an affiliate serves as investment adviser or sponsor. Investment companies, particularly closed-end investment companies, are different from traditional operating companies. These differences may call
for differences in voting positions on the same matter. Further, the manner in which AM votes investment company proxies may differ from proposals for which a AM-advised or sponsored investment company solicits proxies from its shareholders. As reflected in the Guidelines, proxies solicited by closed-end (and open-end) investment companies are generally voted in accordance with the pre-determined guidelines of ISS. See Section IV.3.B.
Funds (“Underlying Funds”) in which Topiary Fund Management Fund of Funds (each, a “Fund”) invest, may from time to time seek to revise their investment terms (i.e. liquidity, fees, etc.) or investment structure. In such event, the Underlying Funds may require approval/consent from its investors to effect the relevant changes. Topiary Fund Management has adopted Proxy
Voting Procedures which outline the process for these approvals.
|
2.
|
Specific proxy voting decisions made by the GPVSC
|
The Proxy Vendor Oversight will refer to the GPVSC all proxy proposals (i) that are not covered by specific client instructions or the Guidelines; or (ii) that, according to the Guidelines, should be evaluated and voted on a case-by-case basis.
Additionally, if, the Proxy Vendor Oversight, the GPVSC Chair or any member of the GPVSC, a portfolio manager, a research analyst or a sub-adviser believes that voting a particular proxy in accordance with the Guidelines may not be in the best economic interests of clients, that individual may bring the matter to the attention of the GPVSC Chair and/or the Proxy Vendor
Oversight.
2
If the Proxy Vendor Oversight refers a proxy proposal to the GPVSC or the GPVSC determines that voting a particular proxy in accordance with the Guidelines is not in the best economic interests of clients, the GPVSC will evaluate and vote the proxy, subject to the procedures below regarding conflicts.
The GPVSC endeavors to hold meetings to decide how to vote particular proxies sufficiently before the voting deadline so that the procedures below regarding conflicts can be completed before the GPVSC’s voting determination.
|
3.
|
Certain proxy votes may not be cast
|
In some cases, the GPVSC may determine that it is in the best economic interests of its clients not to vote certain proxies. If the conditions below are met with regard to a proxy proposal, AM will abstain from voting:
•
|
Neither the Guidelines nor specific client instructions cover an issue;
|
•
|
ISS does not make a recommendation on the issue;
|
_________________________
2
|
The Proxy Vendor Oversight generally monitors upcoming proxy solicitations for heightened attention from the press or the industry and for novel or unusual proposals or circumstances, which may prompt the Proxy Vendor Oversight to bring the solicitation to the attention of the GPVSC Chair. AM portfolio managers, AM research analysts and sub-advisers also may bring a particular proxy vote to the attention of the GPVSC Chair, as a result of
their ongoing monitoring of portfolio securities held by advisory clients and/or their review of the periodic proxy voting record reports that the GPVSC Chair distributes to AM portfolio managers and AM research analysts.
|
•
|
The GPVSC cannot convene on the proxy proposal at issue to make a determination as to what would be in the client’s best interest. (This could happen, for example, if the Conflicts of Interest Management Sub-committee found that there was a material conflict or if despite all best efforts being made, the GPVSC quorum
requirement could not be met).
|
In addition, it is AM’s policy not to vote proxies of issuers subject to laws of those jurisdictions that impose restrictions upon selling shares after proxies are voted, in order to preserve liquidity. In other cases, it may not be possible to vote certain proxies, despite good faith efforts to do so. For example, some jurisdictions do not provide adequate notice to shareholders so that
proxies may be voted on a timely basis. Voting rights on securities that have been loaned to third-parties transfer to those third-parties, with loan termination often being the only way to attempt to vote proxies on the loaned securities. Lastly, the GPVSC may determine that the costs to the client(s) associated with voting a particular proxy or group of proxies outweighs the economic benefits expected from voting the proxy or group of proxies.
The Proxy Vendor Oversight will coordinate with the GPVSC Chair regarding any specific proxies and any categories of proxies that will not or cannot be voted. The reasons for not voting any proxy shall be documented.
|
4.
|
Conflict of Interest Procedures
|
|
A.
|
Procedures to Address Conflicts of Interest and Improper Influence
|
Overriding Principle
. In the limited circumstances where the GPVSC votes proxies,
3
the GPVSC will vote those proxies in accordance with what it, in good faith, determines to be the best economic interests of AM’s clients.
4
Independence of the GPVSC
. As a matter of Compliance policy, the GPVSC and the Proxy Vendor Oversight are structured to be independent from other parts of Deutsche Bank. Members of the GPVSC and the employee responsible for Proxy Vendor Oversight are employees of AM. As such, they may not be subject to the supervision or control of any employees of Deutsche Bank
Corporate and Investment Banking division (“CIB”). Their compensation cannot be based upon their contribution to any business activity outside of AM without prior approval of Legal and Compliance. They can have no contact with employees of Deutsche Bank outside of the Private Client and Asset Management division (“PCAM”) regarding specific clients, business matters or initiatives without the prior approval of Legal and Compliance. They furthermore may not
discuss proxy votes with any person outside of AM (and within AM only on a need to know basis).
_________________________
3
|
As mentioned above, the GPVSC votes proxies (i) where neither a specific client instruction nor a Guideline directs how the proxy should be voted, (ii) where the Guidelines specify that an issue is to be determined on a case by case basis or (iii) where voting in accordance with the Guidelines may not be in the best economic interests of clients.
|
4
|
The Proxy Vendor Oversight, who serves as the non-voting secretary of the GPVSC, may receive routine calls from proxy solicitors and other parties interested in a particular proxy vote. Any contact that attempts to exert improper pressure or influence shall be reported to the Conflicts of Interest Management Sub-Committee.
|
Conflict Review Procedures
. There will be a committee (the “Conflicts of Interest Management Sub-Committee”) established within AM that will monitor for potential material conflicts of interest in connection with proxy proposals that are to be evaluated by the GPVSC. Promptly upon a determination that a vote shall be presented to the GPVSC, the GPVSC Chair
shall notify the Conflicts of Interest Management Sub-Committee. The Conflicts of Interest Management Sub-Committee shall promptly collect and review any information deemed reasonably appropriate to evaluate, in its reasonable judgment, if AM or any person participating in the proxy voting process has, or has the appearance of, a material conflict of interest. For the purposes of this policy, a conflict of interest shall be considered “material” to the extent that a
reasonable person could expect the conflict to influence, or appear to influence, the GPVSC’s decision on the particular vote at issue. GPVSC should provide the Conflicts of Interest Management Sub-Committee a reasonable amount of time (no less than 24 hours) to perform all necessary and appropriate reviews. To the extent that a conflicts review can not be sufficiently completed by the Conflicts of Interest Management Sub-Committee the proxies will be voted in accordance
with the standard guidelines.
The information considered by the Conflicts of Interest Management Sub-Committee may include without limitation information regarding (i) AM client relationships; (ii) any relevant personal conflict known by the Conflicts of Interest Management Sub-Committee or brought to the attention of that sub-committee; (iii) and any communications with members of the GPVSC (or anyone participating or
providing information to the GPVSC) and any person outside of the AM organization (but within Deutsche Bank and its affiliates) or any entity that identifies itself as a AM advisory client regarding the vote at issue. In the context of any determination, the Conflicts of Interest Management Sub-Committee may consult with, and shall be entitled to rely upon, all applicable outside experts, including legal counsel.
Upon completion of the investigation, the Conflicts of Interest Management Sub-Committee will document its findings and conclusions. If the Conflicts of Interest Management Sub-Committee determines that (i) AM has a material conflict of interest that would prevent it from deciding how to vote the proxies concerned without further client consent or (ii) certain individuals should be recused from
participating in the proxy vote at issue, the Conflicts of Interest Management Sub-Committee will so inform the GPVSC chair.
If notified that AM has a material conflict of interest as described above, the GPVSC chair will obtain instructions as to how the proxies should be voted either from (i) if time permits, the effected clients, or (ii) in accordance with the standard guidelines. If notified that certain individuals should be recused from the proxy vote at issue, the GPVSC Chair shall do so in accordance with the
procedures set forth below.
Note: Any AM employee who becomes aware of a potential, material conflict of interest in respect of any proxy vote to be made on behalf of clients shall notify Compliance. Compliance shall call a meeting of the conflict review committee to evaluate such conflict and determine a recommended course of action.
Procedures to be followed by the GPVSC
. At the beginning of any discussion regarding how to vote any proxy, the GPVSC Chair (or his or her delegate) will inquire as to whether any GPVSC member (whether voting or ex officio) or any person participating in the proxy voting process has a personal conflict of interest or has actual knowledge of an actual or apparent
conflict that has not been reported to the Conflicts of Interest Management Sub-Committee.
The GPVSC Chair also will inquire of these same parties whether they have actual knowledge regarding whether any director, officer or employee outside of the AM organization (but within Deutsche Bank and its affiliates) or any entity that identifies itself as a AM advisory client, has: (i) requested that AM, the Proxy Vendor Oversight (or any member thereof) or a GPVSC member vote a particular
proxy in a certain manner; (ii) attempted to influence AM, the Proxy Vendor Oversight (or any member thereof), a GPVSC member or any other person in connection with proxy voting activities; or (iii) otherwise communicated with a GPVSC member or any other person participating or providing information to the GPVSC regarding the particular proxy vote at issue, and which incident has not yet been reported to the Conflicts of Interest Management Sub- Committee.
If any such incidents are reported to the GPVSC Chair, the Chair will promptly notify the Conflicts of Interest Management Sub-Committee and, if possible, will delay the vote until the Conflicts of Interest Management Sub-Committee can complete the conflicts report. If a delay is not possible, the Conflicts of Interest Management Sub-Committee will instruct the GPVSC whether anyone should be
recused from the proxy voting process, or whether AM should vote the proxy in accordance with the standard guidelines, seek instructions as to how to vote the proxy at issue from ISS or, if time permits, the effected clients. These inquiries and discussions will be properly reflected in the GPVSC’s minutes.
Duty to Report
. Any AM employee, including any GPVSC member (whether voting or ex officio), that is aware of any actual or apparent conflict of interest relevant to, or any attempt by any person outside of the AM organization (but within Deutsche Bank and its affiliates) or any entity that identifies itself as a AM advisory client to influence, how AM votes its
proxies has a duty to disclose the existence of the situation to the GPVSC Chair (or his or her designee) and the details of the matter to the Conflicts of Interest Management Sub-Committee. In the case of any person participating in the deliberations on a specific vote, such disclosure should be made before engaging in any activities or participating in any discussion pertaining to that vote.
Recusal of Members
. The GPVSC will recuse from participating in a specific proxy vote any GPVSC members (whether voting or ex officio) and/or any other person who (i) are personally involved in a material conflict of interest; or (ii) who, as determined by the Conflicts of Interest Management Sub-Committee, have actual knowledge of a circumstance or fact that could
effect their independent judgment, in respect of such vote. The GPVSC will also exclude from consideration the views of any person (whether requested or volunteered) if the GPVSC or any member thereof knows, or if the Conflicts of Interest Management Sub-Committee has determined, that such other person has a material conflict of interest with respect to the particular proxy, or has attempted to influence the vote in any manner prohibited by these policies.
If, after excluding all relevant GPVSC voting members pursuant to the paragraph above, there are three or more GPVSC voting members remaining, those remaining GPVSC members will determine how to vote the proxy in accordance with these Policies and Procedures. If there are fewer than three GPVSC voting members remaining, the GPVSC Chair will vote the proxy in accordance with the standard
guidelines, will obtain instructions as to how to have the proxy voted from, if time permits, the effected clients and otherwise from ISS.
|
B.
|
Investment Companies and Affiliated Public Companies
|
Investment Companies
. As reflected in the Guidelines, all proxies solicited by open-end and closed-end investment companies are voted in accordance with the pre-determined guidelines of ISS, unless the investment company client directs AM to vote differently on a specific proxy or specific categories of proxies. However, regarding investment companies for which AM or
an affiliate serves as investment adviser or principal underwriter, such proxies are voted in the same proportion as the vote of all other shareholders (i.e., “mirror” or “echo” voting). Master fund proxies solicited from feeder funds are voted in accordance with applicable provisions of Section 12 of the Investment Company Act of 1940.
Subject to participation agreements with certain Exchange Traded Funds ("ETF") issuers that have received exemptive orders from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission allowing investing DWS funds to exceed the limits set forth in Section 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, DeAM will echo vote proxies for ETFs in which Deutsche Bank holds more than 25% of outstanding
voting shares globally when required to do so by participation agreements and SEC orders.
Affiliated Public Companies
. For proxies solicited by non-investment company issuers of or within the Deutsche Bank organization, e.g., Deutsche bank itself, these proxies will be voted in the same proportion as the vote of other shareholders (i.e., “mirror” or “echo” voting).
Note: With respect to the QP Trust (not registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940), the Fund is not required to engage in echo voting and the investment adviser will use these Guidelines, and may determine, with respect to the QP Trust, to vote contrary to the positions in the Guidelines, consistent with the Fund’s best interest.
|
C.
|
Other Procedures That Limit Conflicts of Interest
|
AM and other entities in the Deutsche Bank organization have adopted a number of policies, procedures and internal controls that are designed to avoid various conflicts of interest, including those that may arise in connection with proxy voting, including:
•
|
Deutsche Bank Americas Restricted Activities Policy
. This policy provides for, among other things, independence of AM employees from CIB, and information barriers between AM and other affiliates. Specifically, no AM employee may be subject to the supervision or control of any employee of CIB. No
AM employee shall have his or her compensation based upon his or her contribution to any business activity within the Bank outside of the business of AM, without the prior approval of Legal or Compliance. Further, no employee of CIB shall have any input into the compensation of a AM employee without the prior approval of Legal or Compliance. Under the information barriers section of this policy, as a general rule, AM employees who are associated with the
investment process should have no contact with employees of Deutsche Bank or its affiliates, outside of PCAM, regarding specific clients, business matters, or initiatives. Further, under no circumstances should proxy votes be discussed with any Deutsche Bank employee outside of AM (and should only be discussed on a need-to-know basis within AM).
|
Other relevant internal policies include the Deutsche Bank Americas Code of Professional Conduct, the Deutsche Asset Management Information Sharing Procedures, the Deutsche Asset Management Code of Ethics, the Sarbanes-Oxley Senior Officer Code of Ethics, and the Deutsche Bank Group Code of Conduct. The GPVSC expects that these policies, procedures and internal controls will greatly reduce the
chance that the GPVSC (or, its members) would be involved in, aware of or influenced by, an actual or apparent conflict of interest.
At a minimum, the following types of records must be properly maintained and readily accessible in order to evidence compliance with this policy.
•
|
AM will maintain a record of each vote cast by AM that includes among other things, company name, meeting date, proposals presented, vote cast and shares voted.
|
•
|
The Proxy Vendor Oversight maintains records for each of the proxy ballots it votes. Specifically, the records include, but are not limited to:
|
The proxy statement (and any additional solicitation materials) and relevant portions of annual statements.
Any additional information considered in the voting process that may be obtained from an issuing company, its agents or proxy research firms.
Analyst worksheets created for stock option plan and share increase analyses.
Proxy Edge print-screen of actual vote election.
•
|
AM will retain these Policies and Procedures and the Guidelines; will maintain records of client requests for proxy voting information; and will retain any documents the Proxy Vendor Oversight or the GPVSC prepared that were material to making a voting decision or that memorialized the basis for a proxy voting
decision.
|
•
|
The GPVSC also will create and maintain appropriate records documenting its compliance with these Policies and Procedures, including records of its deliberations and decisions regarding conflicts of interest and their resolution.
|
•
|
With respect to AM’s investment company clients, ISS will create and maintain records of each company’s proxy voting record for 12-month periods ended June 30. AM will compile the following information for each matter relating to a portfolio security considered
at any shareholder meeting
held during the period covered
by the report and with respect to which the company was entitled to vote:
|
The name of the issuer of the portfolio security;
The exchange ticker symbol of the portfolio security (if symbol is available through reasonably practicable means);
The Council on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures number for the portfolio security (if the number is available through reasonably practicable means);
The shareholder meeting date;
A brief identification of the matter voted on;
Whether the matter was proposed by the issuer or by a security holder;
Whether the company cast its vote on the matter;
How the company cast its vote (e.g., for or against proposal, or abstain; for or withhold regarding election of directors); and
Whether the company cast its vote for or against management.
Note
: This list is intended to provide guidance only in terms of the records that must be maintained in accordance with this policy. In addition, please note that records must be maintained in accordance with the applicable AM Records Management Policy.
With respect to electronically stored records, “properly maintained” is defined as complete, authentic (unalterable) usable and backed-up. At a minimum, records should be retained for a period of not less than six years (or longer, if necessary to comply with applicable regulatory requirements), the first three years in an appropriate AM office.
|
VI.
|
THE GPVSC’S OVERSIGHT ROLE
|
In addition to adopting the Guidelines and making proxy voting decisions on matters referred to it as set forth above, the GPVSC will monitor the proxy voting process by reviewing summary proxy information presented by ISS. The GPVSC will use this review process to determine, among other things, whether any changes should be made to the Guidelines. This review will take place at least quarterly
and will be documented in the GPVSC’s minutes.
Attachment A – Global Proxy Voting Guidelines
Deutsche Asset Management
Global Proxy Voting Guidelines
As Amended October 2008
Table of contents
I
|
Board Of Directors And Executives
|
|
B
|
Classified Boards Of Directors
|
|
C
|
Board And Committee Independence
|
|
D
|
Liability And Indemnification Of Directors
|
|
E
|
Qualifications Of Directors
|
|
F
|
Removal Of Directors And Filling Of Vacancies
|
|
G
|
Proposals To Fix The Size Of The Board
|
|
H
|
Proposals to Restrict Chief Executive Officer’s Service on Multiple Boards
|
|
I
|
Proposals to Restrict Supervisory Board Members Service on Multiple Boards
|
|
J
|
Proposals to Establish Audit Committees
|
|
A
|
Authorization Of Additional Shares
|
|
B
|
Authorization Of “Blank Check” Preferred Stock
|
|
C
|
Stock Splits/Reverse Stock Splits
|
|
D
|
Dual Class/Supervoting Stock
|
|
F
|
Recapitalization Into A Single Class Of Stock
|
|
H
|
Reductions In Par Value
|
III
|
Corporate Governance Issues
|
|
C
|
Supermajority Voting Requirements
|
|
D
|
Shareholder Right To Vote
|
|
A
|
Establishment of a Remuneration Committee
|
|
B
|
Executive And Director Stock Option Plans
|
|
C
|
Employee Stock Option/Purchase Plans
|
|
E
|
Proposals To Limit Benefits Or Executive Compensation
|
|
G
|
Management board election and motion
|
|
H
|
Remuneration (variable pay)
|
|
I
|
Long-term incentive plans
|
|
J
|
Shareholder Proposals Concerning “Pay For Superior Performance”
|
|
K
|
Executive Compensation Advisory
|
V
|
Anti-Takeover Related Issues
|
|
A
|
Shareholder Rights Plans (“Poison Pills”)
|
|
D
|
Exemption From State Takeover Laws
|
|
E
|
Non-Financial Effects Of Takeover Bids
|
VI
|
Mergers & Acquisitions
|
VII
|
Social & Political Issues
|
VIII
|
Environmental Issues
|
|
A
|
Ratification Of Auditors
|
|
B
|
Limitation Of Non-Audit Services Provided By Independent Auditor
|
|
D
|
Transaction Of Other Business
|
|
E
|
Motions To Adjourn The Meeting
|
|
H
|
Proposals Related To The Annual Meeting
|
|
I
|
Reimbursement Of Expenses Incurred From Candidate Nomination
|
|
J
|
Investment Company Proxies
|
|
K
|
International Proxy Voting
|
These Guidelines may reflect a voting position that differs from the actual practices of the public company (ies) within the Deutsche Bank organization or of the investment companies for which AM or an affiliate serves as investment adviser or sponsor.
NOTE: Because of the unique structure and regulatory scheme applicable to closed-end investment companies, the voting guidelines (particularly those related to governance issues) generally will be inapplicable to holdings of closed-end investment companies. As a result, determinations on the appropriate voting recommendation for closed-end investment company shares will be made on a case-by-case
basis.
|
I.
|
Board of Directors and Executives
|
Routine: AM Policy is to vote “for” the uncontested election of directors. Votes for a director in an uncontested election will be withheld in cases where a director has shown an inability to perform his/her duties in the best interests of the shareholders.
Proxy contest: In a proxy contest involving election of directors, a case-by-case voting decision will be made based upon analysis of the issues involved and the merits of the incumbent and dissident slates of directors. AM will incorporate the decisions of a third party proxy research vendor, currently, Institutional Shareholder Services (“ISS”) subject to review by the Proxy Voting
Sub-Committee (GPVSC) as set forth in the AM’s Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.
Rationale: The large majority of corporate directors fulfill their fiduciary obligation and in most cases support for management’s nominees is warranted. As the issues relevant to a contested election differ in each instance, those cases must be addressed as they arise.
|
B.
|
Classified Boards of Directors
|
AM policy is to vote against proposals to classify the board and for proposals to repeal classified boards and elect directors annually.
Rationale: Directors should be held accountable on an annual basis. By entrenching the incumbent board, a classified board may be used as an anti-takeover device to the detriment of the shareholders in a hostile take-over situation.
|
C.
|
Board and Committee Independence
|
AM policy is to vote:
1.
|
“For” proposals that require that a certain percentage (majority up to 66 2/3%) of members of a board of directors be comprised of independent or unaffiliated directors.
|
2.
|
“For” proposals that require all members of a company's compensation, audit, nominating, or other similar committees be comprised of independent or unaffiliated directors.
|
3.
|
“Against” shareholder proposals to require the addition of special interest, or constituency, representatives to boards of directors.
|
4.
|
“For” separation of the Chairman and CEO positions.
|
5.
|
“Against” proposals that require a company to appoint a Chairman who is an independent director.
|
Rationale: Board independence is a cornerstone of effective governance and accountability. A board that is sufficiently independent from management assures that shareholders' interests are adequately represented. However, the Chairman of the board must have sufficient involvement in and experience with the operations of the company to perform the functions required of that position and lead the
company.
No director qualifies as 'independent' unless the board of directors affirmatively determines that the director has no material relationship with the listed company (either directly or as a partner, shareholder or officer of an organization that has a relationship with the company).
Whether a director is in fact not "independent" will depend on the laws and regulations of the primary market for the security and the exchanges, if any, on which the security trades.
|
D.
|
Liability and Indemnification of Directors
|
AM policy is to vote “for” management proposals to limit directors' liability and to broaden the indemnification of directors, unless broader indemnification or limitations on directors' liability would effect shareholders' interests in pending litigation.
Rationale: While shareholders want directors and officers to be responsible for their actions, it is not in the best interests of the shareholders for them to be to risk averse. If the risk of personal liability is too great, companies may not be able to find capable directors willing to serve. We support expanding coverage only for actions taken in good faith and not for serious violations of
fiduciary obligation or negligence.
|
E.
|
Qualifications of Directors
|
AM policy is to follow management’s recommended vote on either management or shareholder proposals that set retirement ages for directors or require specific levels of stock ownership by directors.
Rationale: As a general rule, the board of directors, and not the shareholders, is most qualified to establish qualification policies.
|
F.
|
Removal of Directors and Filling of Vacancies
|
AM policy is to vote “against” proposals that include provisions that directors may be removed only for cause or proposals that include provisions that only continuing directors may fill board vacancies.
Rationale: Differing state statutes permit removal of directors with or without cause. Removal of directors for cause usually requires proof of self-dealing, fraud or misappropriation of corporate assets, limiting shareholders' ability to remove directors except under extreme circumstances. Removal without cause requires no such showing.
Allowing only incumbent directors to fill vacancies can serve as an anti-takeover device, precluding shareholders from filling the board until the next regular election.
|
G.
|
Proposals to Fix the Size of the Board
|
AM policy is to vote:
1.
|
“For” proposals to fix the size of the board unless: (a) no specific reason for the proposed change is given; or (b) the proposal is part of a package of takeover defenses.
|
2.
|
“Against” proposals allowing management to fix the size of the board without shareholder approval.
|
Rationale: Absent danger of anti-takeover use, companies should be granted a reasonable amount of flexibility in fixing the size of its board.
|
H.
|
Proposals to Restrict Chief Executive Officer’s Service on Multiple Boards
|
AM policy is to vote “For” proposals to restrict a Chief Executive Officer from serving on more than three outside boards of directors.
Rationale: Chief Executive Officer must have sufficient time to ensure that shareholders’ interests are represented adequately.
Note: A director’s service on multiple closed-end fund boards within a fund complex are treated as service on a single Board for the purpose of the proxy voting guidelines.
|
I.
|
Proposals to Restrict Supervisory Board Members Service on Multiple Boards
(For FFT Securities)
|
AM policy is to vote “for” proposals to restrict a Supervisory Board Member from serving on more than five supervisory boards.
Rationale: We consider a strong, independent and knowledgeable supervisory board as important counter-balance to executive management to ensure that the interests of shareholders are fully reflected by the company.
Full information should be disclosed in the annual reports and accounts to allow all shareholders to judge the success of the supervisory board controlling their company.
Supervisory Board Member must have sufficient time to ensure that shareholders’ interests are represented adequately.
Note: A director’s service on multiple closed-end fund boards within a fund complex are treated as service on a single Board for the purpose of the proxy voting guidelines.
|
J.
|
Proposals to Establish Audit Committees
(For FFT and U.S. Securities)
|
AM policy is to vote “for” proposals that require the establishment of audit committees.
Rationale: The audit committee should deal with accounting and risk management related questions, verifies the independence of the auditor with due regard to possible conflicts of interest. It also should determine the procedure of the audit process.
|
A.
|
Authorization of Additional Shares (For U.S. Securities)
|
AM policy is to vote “for” proposals to increase the authorization of existing classes of stock that do not exceed a 3:1 ratio of shares authorized to shares outstanding for a large cap company, and do not exceed a 4:1 ratio of shares authorized to shares outstanding for a small-midcap company (companies having a market capitalization under one billion U.S. dollars.).
Rationale: While companies need an adequate number of shares in order to carry on business, increases requested for general financial flexibility must be limited to protect shareholders from their potential use as an anti-takeover device. Requested increases for specifically designated, reasonable business purposes (stock split, merger, etc.) will be considered in light of those purposes and the
number of shares required.
|
B.
|
Authorization of “Blank Check” Preferred Stock (For U.S. Securities)
|
AM policy is to vote:
1.
|
“Against” proposals to create blank check preferred stock or to increase the number of authorized shares of blank check preferred stock unless the company expressly states that the stock will not be used for anti-takeover purposes and will not be issued without shareholder approval.
|
2.
|
“For” proposals mandating shareholder approval of blank check stock placement.
|
Rationale: Shareholders should be permitted to monitor the issuance of classes of preferred stock in which the board of directors is given unfettered discretion to set voting, dividend, conversion and other rights for the shares issued.
|
C.
|
Stock Splits/Reverse Stock Splits
|
AM policy is to vote “for” stock splits if a legitimate business purpose is set forth and the split is in the shareholders' best interests. A vote is cast “for” a reverse stock split only if the number of shares authorized is reduced in the same proportion as the reverse split or if the effective increase in authorized shares (relative to outstanding shares) complies with
the proxy guidelines for common stock increases (see, Section II.A, above.)
Rationale: Generally, stock splits do not detrimentally effect shareholders. Reverse stock splits, however, may have the same result as an increase in authorized shares and should be analyzed accordingly.
|
D.
|
Dual Class/Supervoting Stock
|
AM policy is to vote “against” proposals to create or authorize additional shares of super-voting stock or stock with unequal voting rights.
Rationale: The “one share, one vote” principal ensures that no shareholder maintains a voting interest exceeding their equity interest in the company.
|
E.
|
Large Block Issuance (For U.S. Securities)
|
AM policy is to address large block issuances of stock on a case-by-case basis, incorporating the recommendation of an independent third party proxy research firm (currently ISS) subject to review by the GPVSC as set forth in AM’s Proxy Policies and Procedures.
Additionally, AM supports proposals requiring shareholder approval of large block issuances.
Rationale: Stock issuances must be reviewed in light of the business circumstances leading to the request and the potential impact on shareholder value.
|
F.
|
Recapitalization into a Single Class of Stock
|
AM policy is to vote “for” recapitalization plans to provide for a single class of common stock, provided the terms are fair, with no class of stock being unduly disadvantaged.
Rationale: Consolidation of multiple classes of stock is a business decision that may be left to the board and/management if there is no adverse effect on shareholders.
AM policy is to vote “for” share repurchase plans provided all shareholders are able to participate on equal terms.
Rationale: Buybacks are generally considered beneficial to shareholders because they tend to increase returns to the remaining shareholders.
|
H.
|
Reductions in Par Value
|
AM policy is to vote “for” proposals to reduce par value, provided a legitimate business purpose is stated (e.g., the reduction of corporate tax responsibility.)
Rationale: Usually, adjustments to par value are a routine financial decision with no substantial impact on shareholders.
|
III.
|
Corporate Governance Issues
|
AM policy is to vote “for” proposals to provide for confidential voting and independent tabulation of voting results and to vote “against” proposals to repeal such provisions.
Rationale: Confidential voting protects the privacy rights of all shareholders. This is particularly important for employee-shareholders or shareholders with business or other affiliations with the company, who may be vulnerable to coercion or retaliation when opposing management. Confidential voting does not interfere with the ability of corporations to communicate with all shareholders, nor
does it prohibit shareholders from making their views known directly to management.
|
B.
|
Cumulative Voting (For U.S. Securities)
|
AM policy is to vote “against” shareholder proposals requesting cumulative voting and “for”management proposals to eliminate it. The protections afforded shareholders by cumulative voting are not necessary when a company has a history of good performance and does not have a concentrated ownership interest. Accordingly, a vote is cast “against” cumulative voting
and “for” proposals to eliminate it if:
a)
|
The company has a five year return on investment greater than the relevant industry index,
|
b)
|
All directors and executive officers as a group beneficially own less than 10% of the outstanding stock,
and
|
c)
|
No shareholder (or voting block) beneficially owns 15% or more of the company.
|
Thus, failure of any one of the three criteria results in a vote for cumulative voting in accordance with the general policy.
Rationale: Cumulative voting is a tool that should be used to ensure that holders of a significant number of shares may have board representation; however, the presence of other safeguards may make their use unnecessary.
|
C.
|
Supermajority Voting Requirements
|
AM policy is to vote “against” management proposals to require a supermajority vote to amend the charter or bylaws and to vote “for” shareholder proposals to modify or rescind existing supermajority requirements.
*Exception made when company holds a controlling position and seeks to lower threshold to maintain control and/or make changes to corporate by-laws.
Rationale: Supermajority voting provisions violate the democratic principle that a simple majority should carry the vote. Setting supermajority requirements may make it difficult or impossible for shareholders to remove egregious by-law or charter provisions. Occasionally, a company with a significant insider held position might attempt to lower a supermajority threshold to make it easier for
management to approve provisions that may be detrimental to shareholders. In that case, it may not be in the shareholders interests to lower the supermajority provision.
|
D.
|
Shareholder Right to Vote
|
AM policy is to vote “against” proposals that restrict the right of shareholders to call special meetings, amend the bylaws, or act by written consent. Policy is to vote “for” proposals that remove such restrictions.
Rationale: Any reasonable means whereby shareholders can make their views known to management or effect the governance process should be supported.
Annual Incentive Plans or Bonus Plans are often submitted to shareholders for approval. These plans typically award cash to executives based on company performance. Deutsche Bank believes that the responsibility for executive compensation decisions rest with the board of directors and/or the compensation committee, and its policy is not to second-guess the board’s award of cash compensation
amounts to executives unless a particular award or series of awards is deemed excessive. If stock options are awarded as part of these bonus or incentive plans, the provisions must meet Deutsche Bank’s criteria regarding stock option plans, or similar stock-based incentive compensation schemes, as set forth below.
|
A.
|
Establishment of a Remuneration Committee
(For FFT Securities)
|
AM policy is to vote “for” proposals that require the establishment of a remuneration committee.
Rationale: Corporations should disclose in each annual report or proxy statement their policies on remuneration. Essential details regarding executive remuneration including share options, long-term incentive plans and bonuses, should be disclosed in the annual report, so that investors can judge whether corporate pay policies and practices meet the standard.
The remuneration committee shall not comprise any board members and should be sensitive to the wider scene on executive pay. It should ensure that performance-based elements of executive pay are designed to align the interests of shareholders.
|
B.
|
Executive and Director Stock Option Plans
|
AM policy is to vote “for” stock option plans that meet the following criteria:
(1)
|
The resulting dilution of existing shares is less than (a) 15 percent of outstanding shares for large capital corporations or (b) 20 percent of outstanding shares for small-mid capital companies (companies having a market capitalization under one billion U.S. dollars.)
|
(2)
|
The transfer of equity resulting from granting options at less than FMV is no greater than 3% of the over-all market capitalization of large capital corporations, or 5% of market cap for small-mid capital companies.
|
(3)
|
The plan does not contain express repricing provisions and, in the absence of an express statement that options will not be repriced; the company does not have a history of repricing options.
|
(4)
|
The plan does not grant options on super-voting stock.
|
AM will support performance-based option proposals as long as a) they do not mandate that all options granted by the company must be performance based, and b) only certain high-level executives are subject to receive the performance based options.
AM will support proposals to eliminate the payment of outside director pensions.
Rationale: Determining the cost to the company and to shareholders of stock-based incentive plans raises significant issues not encountered with cash-based compensation plans. These include the potential dilution of existing shareholders' voting power, the transfer of equity out of the company resulting from the grant and execution of options at less than FMV and the authority to reprice or
replace underwater options. Our stock option plan analysis model seeks to allow reasonable levels of flexibility for a company yet still protect shareholders from the negative impact of excessive stock compensation. Acknowledging that small mid-capital corporations often rely more heavily on stock option plans as their main source of executive compensation and may not be able to compete with their large capital competitors with cash compensation, we provide slightly more
flexibility for those companies.
|
C.
|
Employee Stock Option/Purchase Plans
|
AM policy is to vote for employee stock purchase plans (ESPP's) when the plan complies with Internal Revenue Code 423, allowing non-management employees to purchase stock at 85% of FMV.
AM policy is to vote “for” employee stock option plans (ESOPs) provided they meet the standards for stock option plans in general. However, when computing dilution and transfer of equity, ESOPs are considered independently from executive and director option plans.
Rationale: ESOPs and ESPP’s encourage rank-and-file employees to acquire an ownership stake in the companies they work for and have been shown to promote employee loyalty and improve productivity.
AM policy is to vote “for” proposals to require shareholder approval of golden parachutes and for proposals that would limit golden parachutes to no more than three times base compensation. Policy is to vote “against” more restrictive shareholder proposals to limit golden parachutes.
Rationale: In setting a reasonable limitation, AM considers that an effective parachute should be less attractive than continued employment and that the IRS has opined that amounts greater than three times annual salary, are excessive.
|
E.
|
Proposals to Limit Benefits or Executive Compensation
|
AM policy is to vote “against”
1.
|
Proposals to limit benefits, pensions or compensation and
|
2.
|
Proposals that request or require disclosure of executive compensation greater than the disclosure required by Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations.
|
Rationale: Levels of compensation and benefits are generally considered to be day-to-day operations of the company, and are best left unrestricted by arbitrary limitations proposed by shareholders.
AM policy is to support proposals requesting companies to expense stock options.
Rationale: Although companies can choose to expense options voluntarily, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) does not yet require it, instead allowing companies to disclose the theoretical value of options as a footnote. Because the expensing of stock options lowers earnings, most companies elect not to do so. Given the fact that options have become an integral component of
compensation and their exercise results in a transfer of shareholder value, AM agrees that their value should not be ignored and treated as “no cost” compensation. The expensing of stock options would promote more modest and appropriate use of stock options in executive compensation plans and present a more accurate picture of company operational earnings.
|
G.
|
Management board election and motion
(For FFT Securities)
|
AM policy is to vote “against”:
•
|
the election of board members with positions on either remuneration or audit committees;
|
•
|
the election of supervisory board members with too many supervisory board mandates;
|
•
|
“
automatic
” election of former board members into the supervisory board.
|
Rationale: Management as an entity, and each of its members, are responsible for all actions of the company, and are - subject to applicable laws and regulations - accountable to the shareholders as a whole for their actions.
Sufficient information should be disclosed in the annual company report and account to allow shareholders to judge the success of the company.
|
H.
|
Remuneration (variable pay):
(For FFT Securities)
|
Executive remuneration for Management Board
AM policy is to vote “for” remuneration for Management Board that is transparent and linked to results.
Rationale: Executive compensation should motivate management and align the interests of management with the shareholders. The focus should be on criteria that prevent excessive remuneration; but enable the company to hire and retain first-class professionals.
Shareholder interests are normally best served when management is remunerated to optimise long-term returns. Criteria should include suitable measurements like return on capital employed or economic value added.
Interests should generally also be correctly aligned when management own shares in the company – even more so if these shares represent a substantial portion of their own wealth.
Its disclosure shall differentiate between fixed pay, variable (performance related) pay and long-term incentives, including stock option plans with valuation ranges as well as pension and any other significant arrangements.
Executive remuneration for Supervisory Board
AM policy is to vote “for” remuneration for Supervisory Board that is at least 50% in fixed form.
Rationale: It would normally be preferable if performance linked compensation were not based on dividend payments, but linked to suitable result based parameters. Consulting and procurement services should also be published in the company report.
|
I.
|
Long-term incentive plans
(For FFT Securities)
|
AM policy is to vote “for” long-term incentive plans for members of a management board that reward for above average company performance.
Rationale: Incentive plans will normally be supported if they:
•
|
directly align the interests of members of management boards with those of shareholders;
|
•
|
establish challenging performance criteria to reward only above average performance;
|
•
|
measure performance by total shareholder return in relation to the market or a range of comparable companies;
|
•
|
are long-term in nature and encourage long-term ownership of the shares once exercised through minimum holding periods;
|
•
|
do not allow a repricing of the exercise price in stock option plans.
|
|
J.
|
Shareholder Proposals Concerning “Pay for Superior Performance”
|
AM policy is to address pay for superior performance proposals on a case-by-case basis, incorporating the recommendation of an independent third party proxy research firm (currently ISS) subject to review by the GPVSC as set forth in AM’s Proxy Policies and Procedures.
Rationale: While AM agrees that compensation issues are better left to the discretion of management, they appreciate the need to monitor for excessive compensation practices on a case by case basis. If, after a review of the ISS metrics, AM is comfortable with ISS’s applying this calculation and will vote according to their recommendation.
|
K.
|
Executive Compensation Advisory
|
AM policy is to follow management’s recommended vote on shareholder proposals to propose an advisory resolution seeking to ratify the compensation of the company’s named executive officers (NEOs) on an annual basis.
Rationale: AM believes that controls exist within senior management and corporate compensation committees, ensuring fair compensation to executives. This might allow shareholders to require approval for all levels of management’s compensation.
|
V.
|
Anti-Takeover Related Issues
|
|
A.
|
Shareholder Rights Plans (“Poison Pills”)
|
AM policy is to vote “for” proposals to require shareholder ratification of poison pills or that request boards to redeem poison pills, and to vote “against” the adoption of poison pills if they are submitted for shareholder ratification.
Rationale: Poison pills are the most prevalent form of corporate takeover defenses and can be (and usually are) adopted without shareholder review or consent. The potential cost of poison pills to shareholders during an attempted takeover outweighs the benefits.
AM policy is to examine reincorporation proposals on a case-by-case basis. The voting decision is based on: (1) differences in state law between the existing state of incorporation and the proposed state of incorporation; and (2) differences between the existing and the proposed charter/bylaws/articles of incorporation and their effect on shareholder rights. If changes resulting from the proposed
reincorporation violate the corporate governance principles set forth in these guidelines, the reincorporation will be deemed contrary to shareholder’s interests and a vote cast “against.”
Rationale: Reincorporations can be properly analyzed only by looking at the advantages and disadvantages to their shareholders. Care must be taken that anti-takeover protection is not the sole or primary result of a proposed change.
AM policy is to vote “for” management fair-price proposals, provided that: (1) the proposal applies only to two-tier offers; (2) the proposal sets an objective fair-price test based on the highest price that the acquirer has paid for a company's shares; (3) the supermajority requirement for bids that fail the fair-price test is no higher than two-thirds of the outstanding shares; (4)
the proposal contains no other anti-takeover provisions or provisions that restrict shareholders rights.
A vote is cast for shareholder proposals that would modify or repeal existing fair-price requirements that do not meet these standards.
Rationale: While fair price provisions may be used as anti-takeover devices, if adequate provisions are included, they provide some protection to shareholders who have some say in their application and the ability to reject those protections if desired.
|
D.
|
Exemption from state takeover laws
|
AM policy is to vote “for” shareholder proposals to opt out of state takeover laws and to vote “against” management proposals requesting to opt out of state takeover laws.
Rationale: Control share statutes, enacted at the state level, may harm long-term share value by entrenching management. They also unfairly deny certain shares their inherent voting rights.
|
E.
|
Non-financial Effects of Takeover Bids
|
Policy is to vote “against” shareholder proposals to require consideration of non-financial effects of merger or acquisition proposals.
Rationale: Non-financial effects may often be subjective and are secondary to AM’s stated purpose of acting in its client’s best economic interest.
|
VI.
|
Mergers & Acquisitions
|
Evaluation of mergers, acquisitions and other special corporate transactions (i.e., takeovers, spin-offs, sales of assets, reorganizations, restructurings and recapitalizations) are performed on a case-by-case basis incorporating information from an independent proxy research source (currently ISS.) Additional resources including portfolio management and research analysts may be considered as set
forth in AM’s Policies and Procedures.
|
VII.
|
Social, Environmental & Political Issues
|
Social and environmental issues are becoming increasingly important to corporate success. We incorporate social and environmental considerations into both our investment decisions and our proxy voting decisions – particularly if the financial performance of the company could be impacted.
With increasing frequency, shareholder proposals are submitted relating to social and political responsibility issues. Almost universally, the company management will recommend a vote “against” these proposals. These types of proposals cover an extremely wide range of issues. Many of the issues tend to be controversial and are subject to more than one reasonable, yet opposing, theory
of support. More so than with other types of proxy proposals, social and political responsibility issues may not have a connection to the economic and corporate governance principles effecting shareholders’ interests. AM’s policy regarding social and political responsibility issues, as with any other issue, is designed to protect our client shareholders’ economic interests.
Occasionally, a distinction is made between a shareholder proposal requesting direct action on behalf of the board and a request for a report on (or disclosure of) some information. In order to avoid unduly burdening any company with reporting requirements, AM’s policy is to vote against shareholder proposals that demand additional disclosure or reporting than is required by the Securities
and Exchange Commission unless it appears there is a legitimate issue and the company has not adequately addressed shareholders' concerns.
AM policy is to vote “against” adopting global codes of conduct or workplace standards exceeding those mandated by law.
Rationale: Additional requirements beyond those mandated by law are deemed unnecessary and potentially burdensome to companies
1.
|
AM policy is to vote “against” shareholder proposals to force equal employment opportunity, affirmative action or board diversity.
|
Rationale: Compliance with State and Federal legislation along with information made available through filings with the EEOC provides sufficient assurance that companies act responsibly and make information public.
2.
|
AM policy is also to vote “against” proposals to adopt the Mac Bride Principles. The Mac Bride Principles promote fair employment, specifically regarding religious discrimination.
|
Rationale: Compliance with the Fair Employment Act of 1989 makes adoption of the Mac Bride Principles redundant. Their adoption could potentially lead to charges of reverse discrimination.
1.
|
AM policy is to vote “against” adopting a pharmaceutical price restraint policy or reporting pricing policy changes.
|
Rationale: Pricing is an integral part of business for pharmaceutical companies and should not be dictated by shareholders (particularly pursuant to an arbitrary formula.) Disclosing pricing policies may also jeopardize a company’s competitive position in the marketplace.
2.
|
AM policy is to vote “against” shareholder proposals to control the use or labeling of and reporting on genetically engineered products.
|
Rationale: Additional requirements beyond those mandated by law are deemed unnecessary and potentially burdensome to companies.
1.
|
AM policy is to vote against shareholder proposals regarding the production or sale of military arms or nuclear or space-based weapons, including proposals seeking to dictate a company's interaction with a particular foreign country or agency.
|
Rationale: Generally, management is in a better position to determine what products or industries a company can and should participate in. Regulation of the production or distribution of military supplies is, or should be, a matter of government policy.
2.
|
AM policy is to vote “against” shareholder proposals regarding political contributions and donations.
|
Rationale: The Board of Directors and Management, not shareholders, should evaluate and determine the recipients of any contributions made by the company.
3.
|
AM policy is to vote “against” shareholder proposals regarding charitable contributions and donations.
|
Rationale: The Board of Directors and Management, not shareholders, should evaluate and determine the recipients of any contributions made by the company.
1.
|
AM policy is to vote “against” shareholder proposals requesting additional standards or reporting requirements for tobacco companies as well as “against” requesting companies to report on the intentional manipulation of nicotine content.
|
Rationale: Where a tobacco company’s actions meet the requirements of legal and industry standards, imposing additional burdens may detrimentally effect a company's ability to compete. The disclosure of nicotine content information could affect the company's rights in any pending or future litigation.
2.
|
Shareholder requests to spin-off or restructure tobacco businesses will be opposed.
|
Rationale: These decisions are more appropriately left to the Board and management, and not to shareholder mandate.
|
VIII.
|
Environmental Issues
|
AM policy is to follow management's recommended vote on CERES Principles or other similar environmental mandates (e.g., those relating to Greenhouse gas emissions or the use of nuclear power).
Rationale: Environmental issues are extensively regulated by outside agencies and compliance with additional requirements often involves significant cost to companies.
|
A.
|
Ratification of Auditors
|
AM policy is to vote “for” a) the management recommended selection of auditors and b) proposals to require shareholder approval of auditors.
Rationale: Absent evidence that auditors have not performed their duties adequately, support for management’s nomination is warranted.
|
B.
|
Limitation of non-audit services provided by independent auditor
|
AM policy is to support proposals limiting non-audit fees to 50% of the aggregate annual fees earned by the firm retained as a company's independent auditor.
Rationale: In the wake of financial reporting problems and alleged audit failures at a number of companies, AM supports the general principle that companies should retain separate firms for audit and consulting services to avoid potential conflicts of interest. However, given the protections afforded by the recently enacted Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (which requires Audit Committee pre-approval
for non-audit services and prohibits auditors from providing specific types of services), and the fact that some non-audit services are legitimate audit-related services, complete separation of audit and consulting fees may not be warranted. A reasonable limitation is appropriate to help ensure auditor independence and it is reasonable to expect that audit fees exceed non-audit fees.
AM policy is to support proposals seeking audit firm rotation unless the rotation period sought is less than five years.
Rationale: While the Sarbanes-Oxley Act mandates that the lead audit partner be switched every five years, AM believes that rotation of the actual audit firm would provide an even stronger system of checks and balances on the audit function.
|
D.
|
Transaction of Other Business
|
AM policy is to vote against “transaction of other business” proposals.
Rationale: This is a routine item to allow shareholders to raise other issues and discuss them at the meeting. As the nature of these issues may not be disclosed prior to the meeting, we recommend a vote against these proposals. This protects shareholders voting by proxy (and not physically present at a meeting) from having action taken at the meeting that they did not receive proper notification
of or sufficient opportunity to consider.
|
E.
|
Motions to Adjourn the Meeting
|
AM Policy is to vote against proposals to adjourn the meeting.
Rationale: Management may seek authority to adjourn the meeting if a favorable outcome is not secured. Shareholders should already have had enough information to make a decision. Once votes have been cast, there is no justification for management to continue spending time and money to press shareholders for support.
AM policy is to vote against bundled proposals if any bundled issue would require a vote against it if proposed individually.
Rationale: Shareholders should not be forced to “take the good with the bad” in cases where the proposals could reasonably have been submitted separately.
|
G.
|
Change of Company Name
|
AM policy is to support management on proposals to change the company name.
Rationale: This is generally considered a business decision for a company.
|
H.
|
Proposals Related to the Annual Meeting
|
AM Policy is to vote in favor of management for proposals related to the conduct of the annual meeting (meeting time, place, etc.)
Rationale: These are considered routine administrative proposals.
|
I.
|
Reimbursement of Expenses Incurred from Candidate Nomination
|
AM policy is to follow management’s recommended vote on shareholder proposals related to the amending of company bylaws to provide for the reimbursement of reasonable expenses incurred in connection with nominating one or more candidates in a contested election of directors to the corporation’s board of directors.
Rationale: Corporations should not be liable for costs associated with shareholder proposals for directors.
|
J.
|
Investment Company Proxies
|
Proxies solicited by investment companies are voted in accordance with the recommendations of an independent third party, currently ISS. However, regarding investment companies for which AM or an affiliate serves as investment adviser or principal underwriter, such proxies are voted in the same proportion as the vote of all other shareholders. Proxies solicited by master funds from feeder funds
will be voted in accordance with applicable provisions of Section 12 of the Investment Company Act of 1940.
Investment companies, particularly closed-end investment companies, are different from traditional operating companies. These differences may call for differences in voting positions on the same matter. For example, AM could vote “for” staggered boards of closed-end investment companies, although AM generally votes “against” staggered boards for operating companies.
Further, the manner in which AM votes investment company proxies may differ from proposals for which a AM-advised investment company solicits proxies from its shareholders. As reflected in the Guidelines, proxies solicited by closed-end (and open-end) investment companies are voted in accordance with the pre-determined guidelines of an independent third-party.
Subject to participation agreements with certain Exchange Traded Funds ("ETF") issuers that have received exemptive orders from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission allowing investing DWS funds to exceed the limits set forth in Section 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, DeAM will echo vote proxies for ETFs in which Deutsche Bank holds more than 25% of outstanding
voting shares globally when required to do so by participation agreements and SEC orders.
Note: With respect to the QP Trust (not registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940), the Fund is not required to engage in echo voting and the investment adviser will use these Guidelines, and may determine, with respect to the QP Trust, to vote contrary to the positions in the Guidelines, consistent with the Fund’s best interest.
|
K.
|
International Proxy Voting
|
The above guidelines pertain to issuers organized in the United States, Canada and Germany. Proxies solicited by other issuers are voted in accordance with international guidelines or the recommendation of ISS and in accordance with applicable law and regulation.
IMPORTANT: The information contained herein is the property of Deutsche Bank Group and may not be copied, used or disclosed in whole or in part, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any
form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, reprographic, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission of Deutsche Bank Group.
ITEM 8.
|
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS OF CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES
|
|
|
Portfolio Manager Team Disclosure
The Fund is managed by a Team of investment professionals who collaborate to develop and implement the Fund’s investment strategy. Each Portfolio Manager on the Team has authority over all aspects of the Fund's investment portfolio, including but not limited to, purchases and sales of individual securities, portfolio construction techniques, portfolio risk assessment, and the management of
daily cash flows in accordance with portfolio holdings.
The following individuals handle the day-to-day management of the Fund.
John F. Robertson, CFA
Managing Director of Deutsche Asset Management and of RREEF and Co-Manager of the Fund.
|
•
|
Joined RREEF in 1997, Deutsche Asset Management 2002 and the Fund in 2003.
|
|
•
|
Prior to that, Assistant Vice President of Lincoln Investment Management responsible for REIT research.
|
|
•
|
Over 17 years of investment industry experience.
|
|
•
|
BA, Wabash College; MBA, Indiana University.
|
Jerry W. Ehlinger, CFA
Managing Director of Deutsche Asset Management and of RREEF and Co-Manager of the Fund.
|
•
|
Joined RREEF and Deutsche Asset Management in 2004 and the Fund in 2005.
|
|
•
|
Prior to that, Senior Vice President at Heitman Real Estate Investment Management from 2000-2004.
|
|
•
|
Prior to that, Senior Research Associate at Morgan Stanley Asset Management from 1996-2000.
|
|
•
|
Over 12 years of investment industry experience.
|
|
•
|
BA, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, MS, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
|
John W. Vojticek
Managing Director of Deutsche Asset Management and of RREEF and Co-Manager of the Fund.
|
•
|
Joined RREEF and Deutsche Asset Management in 2004 and the Fund in 2004.
|
|
•
|
Prior to that, Principal at KG Redding and Associates, March 2004–September 2004.
|
|
•
|
Prior to that, Managing Director of RREEF from 1996–March 2004 and Deutsche Asset Management from 2002–March 2004.
|
|
•
|
Over 12 years of investment industry experience.
|
|
•
|
BS, University of Southern California.
|
Asad Kazim
Director of Deutsche Asset Management. Vice President of RREEF and Co-Manager of the Fund.
|
•
|
Joined RREEF and Deutsche Asset Management in 2002 and the Fund in 2005.
|
|
•
|
Prior to that, Financial Analyst at Clarion CRA Securities from 2000−2002.
|
|
•
|
Over 9 years of investment industry experience.
|
|
•
|
BS, The College of New Jersey.
|
Compensation of Portfolio Managers
Portfolio managers are eligible for total compensation comprised of base salary and variable compensation.
Base Salary
– Base salary is linked to job functions, responsibilities and financial services industry peer comparison through the use of extensive market data surveys.
Variable Compensation –
Generally,variable compensation comprises a greater proportion of total compensation as a portfolio manager’s seniority and compensation levels increase. Variable Compensation may include a cash bonus incentive, and potential participation in long-term incentive programs including but not limited to, Deutsche Bank AG equity, equity
linked vehicle, and restricted cash. Variable compensation is determined based on an analysis of a number of factors, including among other things, the performance of Deutsche Bank AG, the performance of the Asset Management division, and the portfolio manager’s individual contribution. In evaluating individual contribution, management will consider a combination of quantitative and qualitative factors. Top performing investment professionals earn a total compensation
package that is highly competitive. As variable compensation increases, the percentage awarded in long-term incentives also increases. Long-term incentives are subject to a clawback provision for unvested portions only during the three-year life of the plan should the individual engage in any conduct that is a significant breach of Deutsche Bank AG policies and procedures.
|
•
|
The quantitative analysis of a portfolio manager’s individual performance is based on, among other factors, performance of all of the accounts managed by the portfolio manager (which includes a fund and any other accounts managed by the portfolio manager) over a one-, three-, and five-year period relative to the appropriate Morningstar and
Lipper peer group universes and/or benchmark index(es) with respect to each account. Additionally, the portfolio manager’s retail/institutional asset mix is weighted, as appropriate for evaluation purposes. Generally the benchmark index used is a benchmark index set forth in the fund's prospectus to which a fund's performance is compared. Additional or different appropriate peer group or benchmark indices may also be used. Primary weight is given to pre-tax
portfolio performance over three-year and five-year time periods (adjusted as appropriate if the portfolio manager has served for less than five years) with lesser consideration given to portfolio performance over a one-year period. The increase or decrease in a fund’s assets due to the purchase or sale of fund shares is not considered a material factor.
|
|
•
|
The qualitative analysis of a portfolio manager’s individual performance is based on, among other things, the results of an annual management and internal peer review process, and management's assessment of overall portfolio manager contributions to investor relations, the investment process and overall performance (distinct from fund and
other account performance). Other factors, including contributions made to the investment team, as well
as adherence to Compliance Policies and Procedures, Risk Management procedures, the firm’s Code of Ethics and “living the values” of the Advisor are also factors.
|
The quantitative analysis of a portfolio manager’s performance is given more weight in determining variable compensation than the qualitative portion.
Fund Ownership of Portfolio Managers
The following table shows the dollar range of shares owned beneficially and of record by each member of the Fund’s portfolio management team in the Fund as well as in all DWS Funds as a group (i.e. those funds advised by Deutsche Asset Management or its affiliates), including investments by their immediate family members sharing the same household and amounts invested through retirement and
deferred compensation plans. This information is provided as of the Fund’s most recent fiscal year end.
Name of
Portfolio Manager
|
Dollar Range of
Fund Shares Owned
|
Dollar Range of All DWS Fund Shares Owned
|
Jerry W. Ehlinger
|
-
|
$100,001-$500,000
|
John F. Robertson
|
-
|
$1-$10,000
|
Asad Kazim
|
-
|
$50,001-$100,000
|
John W. Vojticek
|
-
|
$10,001-$50,000
|
Conflicts of Interest
In addition to managing the assets of the Fund, the Fund’s portfolio managers may have responsibility for managing other client accounts of the Advisor or its affiliates. The tables below show, for each portfolio manager, the number and asset size of (1) SEC registered investment companies (or series thereof) other than the Fund, (2) pooled investment vehicles that are not registered investment
companies and (3) other accounts (e.g., accounts managed for individuals or organizations) managed by each portfolio manager. Total assets attributed to each portfolio manager in the tables below include total assets of each account managed by them, although the manager may only manage a portion of such account’s assets. The tables also show the number of performance based fee accounts, as well as the total assets of the accounts for which the advisory fee is based on the
performance of the account. This information is provided as of the Fund’s most recent fiscal year end.
Other SEC Registered Investment Companies Managed:
Name of Portfolio Manager
|
Number of Registered Investment Companies
|
Total Assets of Registered Investment Companies
|
Number of Investment Company Accounts with Performance Based Fee
|
Total Assets of Performance- Based Fee Accounts
|
Jerry W. Ehlinger
|
4
|
$735,328,535
|
-
|
-
|
John F. Robertson
|
8
|
$1,257,063,711
|
-
|
-
|
Asad Kazim
|
4
|
$735,328,535
|
-
|
-
|
John W. Vojticek
|
8
|
$1,257,063,711
|
-
|
-
|
Other Pooled Investment Vehicles Managed:
Name of Portfolio Manager
|
Number of Pooled Investment Vehicles
|
Total Assets of Pooled Investment Vehicles
|
Number of Pooled Investment Vehicle Accounts with Performance-Based Fee
|
Total Assets of Performance- Based Fee Accounts
|
Jerry W. Ehlinger
|
14
|
$811,003,320
|
1
|
$17,138,935
|
John F. Robertson
|
14
|
$811,003,320
|
1
|
$17,138,935
|
Asad Kazim
|
1
|
$61,878,268
|
-
|
-
|
John W. Vojticek
|
14
|
$811,003,320
|
1
|
$17,138,935
|
Other Accounts Managed:
Name of Portfolio Manager
|
Number of Other Accounts
|
Total Assets of Other Accounts
|
Number of Other Accounts with Performance- Based Fee
|
Total Assets of Performance- Based Fee Accounts
|
Jerry W. Ehlinger
|
46
|
$1,617,850,224
|
6
|
$133,860,187
|
John F. Robertson
|
46
|
$1,617,850,224
|
6
|
$133,860,187
|
Asad Kazim
|
27
|
$816,917,216
|
4
|
$62,595,487
|
John W. Vojticek
|
46
|
$1,617,850,224
|
6
|
$133,860,187
|
In addition to the accounts above, an investment professional may manage accounts in a personal capacity that may include holdings that are similar to, or the same as, those of the Funds. The Advisor has in place a Code of Ethics that is designed to address conflicts of interest and that, among other things, imposes restrictions on the ability of portfolio managers and other “access
persons” to invest in securities that may be recommended or traded in the Funds and other client accounts.
Real, potential or apparent conflicts of interest may arise when a portfolio manager has day-to-day portfolio management responsibilities with respect to more than one fund or account, including the following:
|
•
|
Certain investments may be appropriate for the Fund and also for other clients advised by the Advisor, including other client accounts managed by the Fund’s portfolio management team. Investment decisions for the Fund and other clients are made with a view to achieving their respective investment objectives and after consideration of such
factors as their current holdings, availability of cash for investment and the size of their investments generally. A particular security may be bought or sold for only one client or in different amounts and at different times for more than one but less than all clients. Likewise, because clients of the Advisor may have differing investment strategies, a particular security may be bought for one or more clients when one or more other clients are selling the
security. The investment results achieved for the Fund may differ from the results achieved for other clients of the Advisor. In addition, purchases or sales of the same security may be made for two or more clients on the same day. In such event, such transactions will be allocated among the clients in a manner believed by the Advisor to be most equitable to each client, generally utilizing a pro rata allocation methodology. In some cases, the allocation
procedure could potentially have an adverse effect or positive effect on the price or amount of the securities purchased or sold by the Fund. Purchase and sale orders for the Fund may be combined with those of other clients of the Advisor in the interest of achieving the most favorable net results to the Fund and the other clients.
|
|
•
|
To the extent that a portfolio manager has responsibilities for managing multiple client accounts, a portfolio manager will need to divide time and attention among relevant accounts. The Advisor attempts to minimize these conflicts by aligning its portfolio management teams by investment strategy and by employing similar investment models across
multiple client accounts.
|
|
•
|
In some cases, an apparent conflict may arise where the Advisor has an incentive, such as a performance-based fee, in managing one account and not with respect to other accounts it manages. The Advisor will not determine allocations based on whether it receives a performance-based fee from the client. Additionally, the Advisor has in place
supervisory oversight processes to periodically monitor performance deviations for accounts with like strategies.
|
|
•
|
The Advisor and its affiliates and the investment team of each Fund may manage other mutual funds and separate accounts on a long only or a long-short basis. The simultaneous management of long and short portfolios creates potential conflicts of interest including the risk that short sale activity could adversely affect the market value of the long
positions (and vice versa), the risk arising from sequential orders in long and short positions, and the risks associated with receiving opposing orders at the same time. The Advisor has adopted procedures that it believes are reasonably designed to mitigate these and other potential
conflicts of interest. Included in these procedures are specific guidelines developed to provide fair and equitable treatment for all clients whose accounts are
managed by each Fund’s portfolio management team. The Advisor and the portfolio management team have established monitoring procedures, a protocol for supervisory reviews, as well as compliance oversight to ensure that potential conflicts of interest relating to this type of activity are properly addressed.
|
The Advisor is owned by Deutsche Bank AG, a multi-national financial services company. Therefore, the Advisor is affiliated with a variety of entities that provide, and/or engage in commercial banking, insurance, brokerage, investment banking, financial advisory, broker-dealer activities (including sales and trading), hedge funds, real estate and private equity investing, in addition to the
provision of investment management services to institutional and individual investors. Since Deutsche Bank AG, its affiliates, directors, officers and employees (the “Firm”) are engaged in businesses and have interests in addition to managing asset management accounts, such wide ranging activities involve real, potential or apparent conflicts of interest. These interests and activities include potential advisory, transactional and financial activities and other
interests in securities and companies that may be directly or indirectly purchased or sold by the Firm for its clients’ advisory accounts. The Advisor may take investment positions in securities in which other clients or related persons within the Firm have different investment positions. There may be instances in which the Advisor is purchasing or selling for its client accounts, or pursuing an outcome in the context of a workout or restructuring with respect to,
securities in which the Firm is undertaking the same or differing strategy in other businesses or other client accounts. These are considerations of which advisory clients should be aware and which may cause conflicts that could be to the disadvantage of the Advisor’s advisory clients, including the Fund. The Advisor has instituted business and compliance policies, procedures and disclosures that are designed to identify, monitor and mitigate conflicts of interest and, as
appropriate, to report them to a Fund’s Board.
ITEM 9.
|
PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES BY CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANY AND AFFILIATED PURCHASERS
|
RREEF Real Estate Fund, Inc. II
|
|
Item 9 of Form N-CSR - Repurchase Disclosure
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period
|
Total Number of
Shares Purchased
|
(b)
Average Price Paid
per Share
|
(c)
Total Number of
Shares Purchased as
Part of Publicly Announced
Plans or Programs
|
(d)
Maximum Number of
Shares that May Yet Be
Purchased Under the
Plans or Programs
|
January 1 through January 31
|
0
|
$0
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
February 1 through February 28
|
0
|
$0
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
March 1 through March 31
|
0
|
$0
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
April 1 through April 30
|
0
|
$0
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
May 1 through May 31
|
0
|
$0
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
June 1 through June 30
|
0
|
$0
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
July 1 through July 31
|
0
|
$0
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
August 1 through August 31
|
0
|
$0
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
September 1 through September 30
|
0
|
$0
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
October 1 through October 31
|
0
|
$0
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
November 1 through November 30
|
0
|
$0
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
December 1 through December 31
|
0
|
$0
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
0
|
$0
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
ITEM 10.
|
SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS
|
|
|
|
There were no material changes to the procedures by which shareholders may recommend nominees to the Fund’s Board. The primary function of the Nominating and Governance Committee is to identify and recommend individuals for membership on the Board and oversee the administration of the Board Governance Guidelines. Shareholders may recommend
candidates for Board positions by forwarding their correspondence by U.S. mail or courier service to Paul K. Freeman, Independent Chairman, DWS Funds, P.O. Box 101833, Denver, CO 80250-1833.
|
|
|
ITEM 11.
|
CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
|
|
|
|
(a) The Chief Executive and Financial Officers concluded that the Registrant’s Disclosure Controls and Procedures are effective based on the evaluation of the Disclosure Controls and Procedures as of a date within 90 days of the filing date of this report.
|
|
|
|
(b) There have been no changes in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the second fiscal quarter of the period covered by this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal
controls over financial reporting.
|
|
|
ITEM 12.
|
EXHIBITS
|
|
|
|
(a)(1) Code of Ethics pursuant to Item 2 of Form N-CSR is filed and attached hereto as EX-99.CODE ETH.
|
|
|
|
(a)(2) Certification pursuant to Rule 30a-2(a) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (17 CFR 270.30a-2(a)) is filed and attached hereto as Exhibit 99.CERT.
|
|
|
|
(b) Certification pursuant to Rule 30a-2(b) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (17 CFR 270.30a-2(b)) is furnished and attached hereto as Exhibit 99.906CERT.
|