November 7, 2019 Approvals with Respect to Virtus Reaves Utilities ETF (the “Fund”)
On November 7, 2019 at an in-person meeting (the “Meeting”) at which all of the
Trustees were present, including all of the Trustees who were not “interested persons” (as that term is defined in the Investment Company Act
of 1940) of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”), the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of ETFis Series Trust I (the
“Trust”), including the Independent Trustees voting separately, reviewed and unanimously approved for the Fund the continuance of an
investment advisory agreement between Virtus ETF Advisers LLC (the “Adviser”) and the Trust (the “Advisory Agreement”) and an
investment sub-advisory agreement among W. H. Reaves & Co., Inc. d/b/a/ Reaves Asset Management (the “Sub-Adviser”), the Adviser and the
Trust (
as amended April 1, 2019,
the “Sub-Advisory Agreement”).
At the Meeting, the Board received and reviewed information provided by the Adviser and the
Sub-Adviser in response to requests of the Board and its counsel, including a memorandum from the Adviser that included a description of the
Adviser’s business, a copy of the Adviser’s Form ADV, and certain other information about the Adviser to be considered in connection with the
Trustees’ review process (the “Adviser Memorandum”), and a memorandum from the Sub-Adviser that included a description of the
Sub-Adviser’s business, a copy of the Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV and certain other information about the Sub-Adviser to be considered in
connection with the Trustees’ review process (the “Sub-Adviser Memorandum”). The Board also met in person with representatives of the
Adviser to discuss the Fund.
Advisory Agreement
In deciding on whether to approve the continuance of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviser on
behalf of the Fund, the Board considered numerous factors, including:
The nature, extent, and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. The Board
considered the responsibilities the Adviser has under the Advisory Agreement, and the services provided by the Adviser to the Fund, including, without
limitation, the management, oversight, and administrative services that the Adviser and its employees provide to the Fund, the Adviser’s
coordination of services for the Fund by the Trust’s service providers, and its compliance procedures and practices, particularly with respect to
the Trust’s exemptive order permitting the operation of the Fund as an exchange-traded fund. The Board noted that many of the Trust’s
executive officers are employees of the Adviser, and serve the Trust without additional compensation from the Fund. The Board also considered the
information in the Adviser Memorandum, including descriptions of the Adviser’s investment advisory services and its related non-advisory business.
The Board concluded that the quality, extent, and nature of the services provided by the Adviser are satisfactory and adequate for the
Fund.
The investment management capabilities and experience of the Adviser. The Board evaluated
the management experience of the Adviser, in light of the services it has provided to the Fund. In particular, the Board received information from the
Adviser regarding, among other things, the Adviser’s experience in organizing, managing and overseeing the Fund and coordinating their operation
and administration. The Board determined that the Adviser possessed adequate capabilities and experience for the management of the Fund.
The costs of the services provided and profits to be realized by the Adviser from its
relationship with the Fund. The Board examined and evaluated the arrangements between the Adviser and the Fund under the Advisory Agreement. The
Board considered the fact that the Fund utilizes a “unified fee” structure in which a Fund’s ordinary operating expenses (subject to
customary exclusions) are paid from the Sub-Adviser’s management fee.
The Board also considered potential benefits for the Adviser in managing the Fund, including
promotion of the Adviser’s name and the interests of the Adviser in providing management and oversight services to the Fund. In addition, at the
Meetings, the Board compared the management fee and total expense ratio of the Fund to the expense ratios of other funds considered by the Adviser to
have similar investment objectives and strategies to the Fund and comparable assets under management (“AUM”). Following these comparisons and
upon further consideration and discussion of the foregoing, the Board concluded that the fees to be paid to the Adviser (pursuant to the Sub-Advisory
Agreement) are appropriate and representative of arm’s-length negotiations.
The extent to which economies of scale would be realized as the Fund grows and whether
management fee levels reflect these economies of scale for the benefit of the Fund’s investors. The Board considered the AUM and operational
history of the Fund, together with the fees paid to the Adviser (including any capped fees). The Board considered that the Fund is subject to a unified
fee. The Board considered that the Fund has experienced benefits from the unified fee arrangement, and would continue to do so even after the
Fund’s assets grow to a level where the Sub-Adviser is no longer required to reimburse the Fund’s ordinary operating expenses in excess of
the amount received by the Sub-Adviser under the unified fee. Accordingly, the Board concluded that the Fund’s fee arrangement with the Adviser
and Sub-Adviser would provide benefits through the unified fee structure, and that, at the Fund’s current and projected asset levels, the
Fund’s arrangement with the Adviser would be appropriate.
12
Approval
of Advisory Agreements & Board Considerations (unaudited) (continued)
Other benefits derived by the Adviser from its relationship with the Fund. The Board
considered material “fall-out” or ancillary benefits that accrue to the Adviser as a result of its relationship with the Fund (other than the
advisory fee). The Board noted that affiliates of the Adviser serve as principal underwriter and operational administrator for the Fund, and that the
association could result in non-quantifiable reputational benefits for those entities. Based on the foregoing information, the Board concluded that
such potential benefits are immaterial to its consideration and approval of the continuance of the Advisory Agreement.
Conclusion. The Board did not identify any single factor as being of paramount
importance, and different Trustees may have given different weight to different factors. The Board reviewed with counsel to the Independent Trustees
the legal standards applicable to its consideration of the Advisory Agreement. Based on its review, including consideration of each of the factors
referenced above, the Board determined, in the exercise of its reasonable business judgment, that the Advisory Agreement was fair and reasonable in
light of the services performed or to be performed, expenses incurred or to be incurred and such other matters as the Board considered relevant.
After full consideration of the above factors as well as other factors, the Board, including the
Independent Trustees, unanimously approved the continuance of the Advisory Agreement on behalf of the Fund.
Sub-Advisory Agreement
In deciding on whether to approve the continuance of the Sub-Advisory Agreement with the
Sub-Adviser on behalf of the Fund, the Board considered numerous factors, including:
The nature, extent, and quality of the services provided by the Sub-Adviser. The Board
considered the responsibilities the Sub-Adviser has under the Sub-Advisory Agreement and the services provided by the Sub-Adviser including, without
limitation, its investment advisory services and compliance procedures and practices. After reviewing the foregoing information and further information
in the materials, including the Sub-Adviser Memorandum (which included descriptions of the Sub-Adviser’s business and the Sub-Adviser’s Form
ADV), the Board concluded that the quality, extent, and nature of the services provided by the Sub-Adviser are satisfactory and adequate for the
Fund.
The investment management capabilities and experience of the Sub-Adviser. The Board
evaluated the investment management experience of the Sub-Adviser and experience of the Sub-Adviser in carrying out the day-to-day management of the
Fund’s portfolio. In particular, the Board received information from the Sub-Adviser regarding the performance of its portfolio managers in
implementing the investment strategies for the Fund. The Board discussed the investment objective and strategies for the Fund and the
Sub-Adviser’s performance in implementing the strategies. After consideration of these factors, the Board determined that the Sub-Adviser
continued to be an appropriate sub-adviser to the Fund.
The costs of the services provided and profits to be realized by the Sub-Adviser from its
relationship with the Fund. The Board examined and evaluated the arrangements between the Sub-Adviser and the Adviser under the Sub-Advisory
Agreement. The Board considered the fact that the Fund utilizes a “unified fee” structure in which the Fund’s ordinary operating
expenses (subject to customary exclusions) are paid from the Sub-Adviser’s management fee. The Board noted that, under such an arrangement, the
Sub-Adviser would likely supplement a portion of the cost of operating the Fund for some period of time and considered the benefits that would accrue
to the Fund.
The Board considered the Sub-Adviser’s staffing, personnel, and methods of operating; the
Sub-Adviser’s compliance policies and procedures; the financial condition of the Sub-Adviser and the level of commitment to the Fund by the
Sub-Adviser; the current and projected asset levels of the Fund; the Sub-Adviser’s payment of startup costs for the Fund; and the overall
projected expenses of the Fund. The Board also considered potential benefits to the Sub-Adviser in sub-advising the Fund, including promotion of the
Sub-Adviser’s name.
In addition, at the Meeting, the Board compared the fees and expenses of the Fund (including the
sub-advisory fee) to other funds considered by the Adviser to have investment objectives and strategies similar to the Fund and comparable AUM.
Following these comparisons and upon further consideration and discussion of the foregoing, the Board concluded that the fees to be paid to the
Sub-Adviser by the Fund are appropriate and representative of arm’s-length negotiations.
The extent to which economies of scale would be realized as the Fund grows and whether
sub-advisory fee levels reflect these economies of scale for the benefit of the Fund’s investors. The Board considered the AUM and operational
history of the Fund, together with the fees paid to the Sub-Adviser (including any capped fees). The Board considered that the Fund is subject to a
unified fee. The Board considered that the Fund has experienced benefits from the unified fee arrangement, particularly where the Sub-Adviser is paying
Fund expenses in excess of the unified fee. The Board considered that the Fund would continue to experience such benefits even after each Fund’s
assets grow to a level where the Sub-Adviser is no longer required to reimburse the Fund’s ordinary operating expenses in
excess
13
Approval
of Advisory Agreements & Board Considerations (unaudited) (continued)
of the amount received by the Sub-Adviser under the unified fee. Accordingly, the Board concluded that, in light of the
current AUM for the Fund, it was not necessary to consider economies of scale at this time.
Conclusion. The Board did not identify any single factor as being of paramount
importance, and different Trustees may have given different weight to different factors. The Board reviewed with counsel to the Independent Trustees
the legal standards applicable to its consideration of the Sub-Advisory Agreement. Based on its review, including consideration of each of the factors
referenced above, the Board determined, in the exercise of its reasonable business judgment, that the sub-advisory arrangement, as outlined in the
Sub-Advisory Agreement, was fair and reasonable in light of the services performed or to be performed, expenses incurred or to be incurred, and such
other matters as the Board considered relevant.
After full consideration of the above factors as well as other factors, the Board, including the
Independent Trustees, unanimously approved the continuance of the Sub-Advisory Agreement with the Sub-Adviser on behalf of the
Fund.
14
Supplemental
Information (unaudited)
INFORMATION ABOUT PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS
For periods prior to the quarter ended April 30, 2019, the Fund has filed a complete schedule of
portfolio holdings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year on Form N-Q. The
Fund’s Form N-Qs are available on the SEC’s website at https://www.sec.gov.
Effective October 31, 2019, the Fund files its complete schedule of portfolio holdings with the
SEC for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year as an exhibit to its reports on Form N-PORT-P. Form N-PORT-P is available on the SEC’s
website at https://www.sec.gov.
The Fund’s premium/discount information for the most recently completed calendar year, and
the most recently completed calendar quarters since that year is available by visiting www.virtusetfs.com or by calling (888)
383-4184.
INFORMATION ABOUT PROXY VOTING
A description of the policies and procedures the Fund uses to determine how to vote proxies
relating to portfolio securities is provided in the Statement of Additional Information (”SAI“). The SAI is available without charge upon
request by calling toll-free at (888) 383-0553, by accessing the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov or by accessing the Fund’s website at
www.virtusetfs.com.
Information regarding how the Fund voted proxies relating to portfolio securities during the
most recent twelve-month period ended June 30th is available by calling toll-free at (888) 383-0553 or by accessing the SEC’s website at
www.sec.gov.
15
c/o VP Distributors, LLC
One Financial Plaza
Hartford, Connecticut 06103
8572(03/20)