Investment Company Act file
number: 811-09261
|
11 Hanover Square, New York,
NY 10005
|
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zipcode)
|
PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS
December 31, 2018
|
TOP TEN |
December 31, 2018 |
TOP TEN |
December 31, 2018 |
|||||||
SECURITY HOLDINGS
|
INDUSTRIES
|
|||||||||
1 Alphabet Inc. Class A
2 Discovery, Inc.
3 AutoZone, Inc.
4 Broadcom Inc.
5 The Kroger Co.
6 Apple Inc.
7 Robert Half International Inc.
8 Amgen Inc.
9 Omnicom Group Inc.
10 Marcus & Millichap, Inc.
Top ten security holdings comprise approximately 30% of total assets. |
1 Business Services
2 Transportation Equipment
3 Electronic and Other Electrical Equipment and Components, except Computer Equipment
4 Security and Commodity Brokers, Dealers, Exchanges, and Services
5 Chemical and Allied Products
6 Insurance Carriers
7 Communications
8 Transportation by Air
9 Automotive Dealers and Gasoline Service Stations
10 Building Materials, Hardware, Garden Supply, and Mobile Home Dealers
|
Top ten security holdings and industries are shown for informational purposes only and are subject to change. The above portfolio information should not be considered as a recommendation to purchase or sell a particular security and there is no assurance that any securities will remain in or out of the Fund.
Security Holdings by Sector on December 31, 2018*
* Based on approximate percentages of net assets and may not add up to 100% due to leverage, cash or other assets, rounding, and other factors. Allocations of less than 1% in the aggregate are not shown. Allocations are subject to change. |
FOXBY CORP. |
Annual Report 2018
|
TO OUR SHAREHOLDERS
December 31, 2018
|
1 Annual Report 2018 |
FOXBY CORP.
|
TO OUR SHAREHOLDERS
December 31, 2018
|
FOXBY CORP. |
Annual Report 2018 2
|
SCHEDULE OF PORTFOLIO INVESTMENTS | December 31, 2018 | |
Financial Statements
|
Shares
|
Common Stocks (112.51%)
|
Value
|
||||
Apparel and Accessory Stores (1.35%) |
||||||
3,600 |
The GAP, Inc. | $ | 92,736 | |||
Automotive Dealers and Gasoline Service Stations (4.26%) | ||||||
2,300 |
AutoNation, Inc. (a) | 82,110 | ||||
250 |
AutoZone, Inc. (a) | 209,585 | ||||
|
|
|||||
291,695 | ||||||
Automotive Repair, Services, and Parking (2.40%) | ||||||
500 |
AMERCO | 164,055 | ||||
Building Construction General Contractors and Operative Builders (1.68%) | ||||||
2,550 |
LGI Homes, Inc. (a) | 115,311 | ||||
Building Materials, Hardware, Garden Supply (3.60%) | ||||||
850 |
The Home Depot, Inc. | 146,047 | ||||
1,200 |
Tractor Supply Company | 100,128 | ||||
|
|
|||||
246,175 | ||||||
Business Services (13.86%) | ||||||
500 |
Alphabet Inc. Class A (a) | 522,480 | ||||
2,400 |
Omnicom Group Inc. | 175,776 | ||||
3,300 |
Robert Half International Inc. | 188,760 | ||||
600 |
United Rentals, Inc. (a) | 61,518 | ||||
|
|
|||||
948,534 | ||||||
Chemical and Allied Products (8.54%) | ||||||
950 |
Amgen Inc. | 184,936 | ||||
500 |
Biogen Inc. (a) | 150,460 | ||||
1,375 |
United Therapeutics Corporation (a) | 149,737 | ||||
1,500 |
Westlake Chemical Corporation | 99,255 | ||||
|
|
|||||
584,388 | ||||||
Communications (5.26%) | ||||||
13,000 |
Discovery, Inc. (a) | 321,620 | ||||
350 |
The Walt Disney Company | 38,378 | ||||
|
|
|||||
359,998 | ||||||
Electronic and Other Electrical Equipment and Components, except Computer Equipment (10.82%) | ||||||
2,700 |
Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. (a) | 115,911 | ||||
800 |
Broadcom Inc. | 203,424 | ||||
3,200 |
Intel Corporation | 150,176 | ||||
3,250 |
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. | 119,958 | ||||
1,600 |
Texas Instruments Incorporated | 151,200 | ||||
|
|
|||||
740,669 | ||||||
Fabricated Metal Products, except Machinery and Transportation Equipment (1.59%) | ||||||
750 |
Snap-on Incorporated | 108,968 | ||||
Food and Kindred Products (3.31%) | ||||||
5,000 |
Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation (a) | 77,550 | ||||
1,500 |
Sanderson Farms, Inc. | 148,935 | ||||
|
|
|||||
|
226,485
|
|
See notes to financial statements.
3 Annual Report 2018 |
FOXBY CORP.
|
SCHEDULE OF PORTFOLIO INVESTMENTS |
December 31, 2018 | |
Financial Statements
|
Shares
|
Common Stocks (continued)
|
Value
|
||||||
Food Stores (2.81%) |
||||||||
7,000 | The Kroger Co. | $ | 192,500 | |||||
General Merchandise Stores (2.51%) | ||||||||
1,900 | Dollar Tree, Inc. (a) | 171,608 | ||||||
Health Services (2.40%) | ||||||||
1,300 | Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (a) | 164,268 | ||||||
Home Furniture, Furnishings, and Equipment Stores (1.84%) | ||||||||
2,500 | Williams-Sonoma, Inc. | 126,125 | ||||||
Industrial and Commercial Machinery and Computer Equipment (2.76%) | ||||||||
1,200 | Apple Inc. | 189,288 | ||||||
Insurance Carriers (6.11%) | ||||||||
700 | Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. Class B (a) | 142,926 | ||||||
4,000 | Essent Group Ltd. (a) | 136,720 | ||||||
1,700 | Prudential Financial, Inc. | 138,635 | ||||||
|
|
|||||||
418,281 | ||||||||
Motor Freight Transportation and Warehousing (1.90%) | ||||||||
1,400 | J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. | 130,256 | ||||||
Miscellaneous Retail (2.05%) | ||||||||
2,050 | Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. | 140,076 | ||||||
Oil and Gas Extraction (0.22%) | ||||||||
8,000 | Permianville Royalty Trust | 15,040 | ||||||
Paper and Allied Products (0.58%) | ||||||||
1,588 | Schweitzer-Mauduit International, Inc. | 39,779 | ||||||
Railroad Transportation (0.49%) | ||||||||
350 | Kansas City Southern | 33,408 | ||||||
Real Estate (2.51%) | ||||||||
5,000 | Marcus & Millichap, Inc. (a) | 171,650 | ||||||
Retail Consulting and Investment (0.00%) | ||||||||
72,728 | Amerivon Holdings LLC (a) (b) | 0 | ||||||
Security and Commodity Brokers, Dealers, Exchanges, and Services (10.01%) | ||||||||
1,200 | Affiliated Managers Group, Inc. | 116,928 | ||||||
1,200 | Ameriprise Financial Inc. | 125,244 | ||||||
400 | BlackRock, Inc. | 157,128 | ||||||
684 | Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc. | 102,224 | ||||||
4,500 | Hennessy Advisors, Inc. | 45,045 | ||||||
1,500 | T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. | 138,480 | ||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
685,049
|
|
See notes to financial statements.
FOXBY CORP. |
Annual Report 2018 4
|
SCHEDULE OF PORTFOLIO INVESTMENTS | December 31, 2018 | |
Financial Statements
|
Shares
|
Common Stocks (concluded)
|
Value
|
||||||
Tobacco Products (2.96%) | ||||||||
2,750 | Altria Group, Inc. | $ | 135,822 | |||||
1,000 | Philip Morris International Inc. | 66,760 | ||||||
|
|
|||||||
202,582 | ||||||||
Transportation by Air (4.36%) | ||||||||
400 | Allegiant Travel Company | 40,088 | ||||||
4,500 | Hawaiian Holdings, Inc. | 118,845 | ||||||
3,000 | Southwest Airlines Co. | 139,440 | ||||||
|
|
|||||||
298,373 | ||||||||
Transportation Equipment (11.74%) | ||||||||
1,450 | LCI Industries | 96,860 | ||||||
950 | Lear Corporation | 116,717 | ||||||
3,000 | Magna International Inc. | 136,350 | ||||||
1,600 | Oshkosh Corporation | 98,096 | ||||||
2,500 | PACCAR Inc. | 142,850 | ||||||
1,200 | Thor Industries, Inc. | 62,400 | ||||||
1,400 | WABCO Holdings Inc. (a) | 150,276 | ||||||
|
|
|||||||
803,549 | ||||||||
Wholesale Trade - Nondurable Goods (0.59%) | ||||||||
365 | McKesson Corporation | 40,322 | ||||||
|
|
|||||||
Total common stocks (Cost $7,970,376) |
7,701,168 | |||||||
|
|
|||||||
Master Limited Partnerships (0.47%) | ||||||||
Mining and Quarrying of Nonmetallic Minerals, Except Fuels (0.47%) | ||||||||
1,500 | Ciner Resources LP (Cost $38,296) | 32,175 | ||||||
|
|
|||||||
Preferred Stocks (1.25%) | ||||||||
Retail Consulting and Investment (1.25%) | ||||||||
207,852 | Amerivon Holdings LLC (Cost $497,531) (b) | 85,219 | ||||||
|
|
|||||||
Total investments (Cost $8,506,203) (114.23%) (c) |
7,818,562 | |||||||
Liabilities in excess of cash and other assets (-14.23%) |
(973,843 | ) | ||||||
|
|
|||||||
Net assets (100.00%) |
$ | 6,844,719 | ||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
(a) Non-income producing. (b) Illiquid and/or restricted security that has been fair valued. (c) The Fund’s total investment portfolio value of $7,818,562 has been pledged as collateral for borrowings under the Fund’s credit facility. |
|||||||
See notes to financial statements.
5 Annual Report 2018 |
FOXBY CORP.
|
STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES |
||
Financial Statements
|
December 31, 2018
|
||||||
Assets |
||||||
Investments at value (cost $8,506,203) |
$ | 7,818,562 | ||||
Cash |
4,433 | |||||
Dividends receivable |
11,554 | |||||
Interest receivable |
23 | |||||
Prepaid expenses and other assets |
2,806 | |||||
|
|
|||||
Total assets |
7,837,378 | |||||
|
|
|||||
Liabilities |
||||||
Credit facility borrowing |
940,900 | |||||
Payables |
||||||
Accrued expenses |
40,937 | |||||
Investment management fee |
6,768 | |||||
Directors |
3,191 | |||||
Administrative services |
863 | |||||
|
|
|||||
Total liabilities |
992,659 | |||||
|
|
|||||
Net Assets |
$ | 6,844,719 | ||||
|
|
|||||
Net Asset Value Per Share |
||||||
(applicable to 2,610,050 shares outstanding: 500,000,000 shares of $.01 par value authorized) |
$ | 2.62 | ||||
|
|
|||||
Net Assets Consist of |
||||||
Paid in capital |
$ | 7,460,941 | ||||
Distributable earnings |
(616,222 | ) | ||||
|
|
|||||
$ |
6,844,719 |
|
||||
|
|
|||||
See notes to financial statements.
FOXBY CORP. |
Annual Report 2018 6
|
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS | ||
Financial Statements
|
Year Ended
|
||||||||
Investment Income |
||||||||
Dividends (net of $1,192 foreign tax expense) |
$ | 154,856 | ||||||
Interest |
398 | |||||||
|
|
|||||||
Total investment income |
155,254 | |||||||
|
|
|||||||
Expenses |
||||||||
Investment management |
80,252 | |||||||
Interest and fees on credit facility |
31,136 | |||||||
Bookkeeping and pricing |
25,685 | |||||||
Audit |
13,605 | |||||||
Directors |
10,445 | |||||||
Shareholder communications |
8,630 | |||||||
Legal |
8,470 | |||||||
Administrative services |
8,099 | |||||||
Custody |
6,361 | |||||||
Transfer agent |
3,040 | |||||||
Insurance |
2,190 | |||||||
Registration |
1,695 | |||||||
Other |
969 | |||||||
|
|
|||||||
Total expenses |
200,577 | |||||||
Expense reduction |
(901 | ) | ||||||
|
|
|||||||
Net expenses |
199,676 | |||||||
|
|
|||||||
Net investment loss |
(44,422 | ) | ||||||
|
|
|||||||
Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss) |
||||||||
Net realized gain on investments |
780,654 | |||||||
Unrealized depreciation on investments |
(2,060,096 | ) | ||||||
|
|
|||||||
Net realized and unrealized loss |
(1,279,442 | ) | ||||||
|
|
|||||||
Net decrease in net assets resulting from operations |
$ | (1,323,864 | ) | |||||
|
|
|||||||
See notes to financial statements.
7 Annual Report 2018 |
FOXBY CORP.
|
STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN NET ASSETS |
||
Financial Statements
|
Year Ended
|
Year Ended
|
|||||||||||
Operations |
||||||||||||
Net investment loss |
$ | (44,422 | ) | $ | (96,755 | ) | ||||||
Net realized gain |
780,654 | 568,166 | ||||||||||
Unrealized appreciation (depreciation) |
(2,060,096 | ) | 629,007 | |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations |
(1,323,864 | ) | 1,100,418 | |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
Total change in net assets |
(1,323,864 | ) | 1,100,418 | |||||||||
Net Assets |
||||||||||||
Beginning of period |
8,168,583 | 7,068,165 | ||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
End of period (1) |
$ | 6,844,719 | $ | 8,168,583 | ||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
(1) End of year net assets includes undistributed net investment income of $88,197 for the year ended December 31, 2017. The SEC eliminated the requirement to disclose undistributed net investment income in September 2018.
|
See notes to financial statements.
FOXBY CORP. |
Annual Report 2018 8
|
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS | ||
Financial Statements
|
Year Ended
|
||||||
Cash Flows From Operating Activities |
||||||
Net decrease in net assets resulting from operations |
$ | (1,323,864 | ) | |||
Adjustments to reconcile decrease in net assets resulting from operations to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities: |
||||||
Unrealized depreciation of investments |
2,060,096 | |||||
Net realized gain on sales of investments |
(780,654 | ) | ||||
Purchase of long term investments |
(4,945,920 | ) | ||||
Proceeds from sales of long term investments |
6,022,887 | |||||
Net sales of short term investments |
43,965 | |||||
Increase in dividends receivable |
(794 | ) | ||||
Increase in interest receivable |
(23 | ) | ||||
Increase in prepaid expenses and other assets |
(1,052 | ) | ||||
Decrease in accrued expenses |
(8,538 | ) | ||||
Decrease in investment management fee payable |
(1,435 | ) | ||||
Decrease in administrative services payable |
(1,316 | ) | ||||
Increase in directors payable |
181 | |||||
|
|
|||||
Net cash provided by operating activities |
1,063,533 | |||||
|
|
|||||
Cash Flows from Financing Activities |
||||||
Credit facility repayment, net |
(1,059,100 | ) | ||||
|
|
|||||
Net cash used in financing activities |
(1,059,100 | ) | ||||
|
|
|||||
Net change in cash |
4,433 | |||||
Cash |
||||||
Beginning of period |
- | |||||
|
|
|||||
End of period |
$ | 4,433 | ||||
|
|
|||||
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information: |
||||||
Cash paid for interest on credit facility |
$ | 17,049 | ||||
See notes to financial statements. |
9 Annual Report 2018 |
FOXBY CORP.
|
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
|
December 31, 2018
|
|
Financial Statements
|
FOXBY CORP. |
Annual Report 2018 10
|
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Financial Statements
|
11 Annual Report 2018 |
FOXBY CORP.
|
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Financial Statements
|
FOXBY CORP. |
Annual Report 2018 12
|
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Financial Statements
|
The following is a summary of the inputs used as of December 31, 2018 in valuing the Fund’s assets. Refer to the Schedule of Portfolio Investments for detailed information on specific investments.
ASSETS
|
Level 1
|
Level 2
|
Level 3
|
Total
|
||||||||||||
Investments, at value |
||||||||||||||||
Common stocks |
$ | 7,701,168 | $ | - | $ | 0 | $ | 7,701,168 | ||||||||
Master limited partnerships |
32,175 | - | - | 32,175 | ||||||||||||
Preferred stocks
|
|
-
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
85,219
|
|
|
85,219
|
|
||||
Total investments, at value
|
$
|
7,733,343
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
$
|
85,219
|
|
$
|
7,818,562
|
|
||||
There were no securities transferred from level 1 to level 3 between December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2018.
The following is a reconciliation of level 3 assets:
Common Stocks
|
Preferred
|
Total | ||||||||
Balance at December 31, 2017 |
$ | 0 | $ | 87,298 | $ 87,298 | |||||
Change in unrealized depreciation |
|
-
|
|
|
(2,079
|
)
|
(2,079)
|
|||
Balance at December 31, 2018 |
$
|
0
|
|
$
|
85,219
|
|
$ 85,219
|
|||
Net change in unrealized appreciation attributable to assets still held as level 3 at December 31, 2018
|
$
|
-
|
|
$
|
(2,079
|
)
|
$ (2,079)
|
|||
The following table presents additional information about valuation techniques and inputs used for assets that are measured at fair value and categorized as level 3 as of December 31, 2018:
Fair Value
|
Valuation Technique
|
Unobservable Input
|
Range
|
|||||||
Common Stocks |
||||||||||
Retail - Consulting and Investment |
$ 0 | Value of liquidation per share | Discount rate due to lack of marketability | 80% | ||||||
Preferred Stocks |
||||||||||
Retail - Consulting and Investment
|
|
$ 85,219
|
|
Value of liquidation preference per share
|
Discount rate due to lack of marketability
|
80% | ||||
13 Annual Report 2018 |
FOXBY CORP.
|
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Financial Statements
|
FOXBY CORP. |
Annual Report 2018 14
|
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Financial Statements
|
15 Annual Report 2018 |
FOXBY CORP.
|
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
Financial Statements
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Per Share Operating Performance |
2018
|
2017
|
2016
|
2015
|
2014
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
(for a share outstanding throughout each period) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net asset value, beginning of period |
$3.13 | $2.71 | $2.44 | $2.68 | $2.66 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Income from investment operations: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net investment income (loss) (1) |
(0.02) | (0.04) | - | * | 0.02 | 0.02 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments |
(0.49) | 0.46 | 0.28 | (0.24) | -* | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
Total from investment operations |
(0.51) | 0.42 | 0.28 | (0.22) | 0.02 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Less distributions: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net investment income |
- | - | - | * | (0.01) | - | ||||||||||||||||||||
Return of capital |
- | - | (0.01) | (0.01) | - | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
Total distributions |
- | - | (0.01) | (0.02) | - | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
Net asset value, end of period |
$2.62 | $3.13 | $2.71 | $2.44 | $2.68 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
Market value, end of period |
$1.80 | $2.09 | $1.79 | $1.59 | $1.87 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
Total Return (2) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Based on net asset value |
(16.29 | )% | 15.50 | % | 11.69 | % | (7.81 | )% | 0.75% | |||||||||||||||||
Based on market price |
(13.88 | )% | 16.76 | % | 13.21 | % | (13.90 | )% | (4.10)% | |||||||||||||||||
Ratios/Supplemental Data |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net assets at end of period (000s omitted) |
$6,845 | $ | 8,169 | $7,068 | $6,357 | $6,996 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Ratio of total expenses to average net assets |
2.53 | % | 3.03 | % | 2.91 | % | 2.35 | % | 1.92% | |||||||||||||||||
Ratio of net expenses to average net assets (3) |
2.52 | % | 3.03 | % | 2.91 | % | 2.35 | % | 1.92% | |||||||||||||||||
Ratio of net investment income (loss) to average net assets |
(0.56 | )% | (1.31 | )% | (0.07 | )% | 0.64 | % | 0.75% | |||||||||||||||||
Portfolio turnover rate |
59 | % | 40 | % | 58 | % | 34 | % | 53% | |||||||||||||||||
Leverage analysis, end of period: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Outstanding loan balance (000s omitted) |
$ | 941 | $ | 2,000 | $ | 1,255 | $ | 1,186 | $ 546 | |||||||||||||||||
Asset coverage per $1,000 (4) |
$ | 8,275 | $ | 5,084 | $ | 6,632 | $ | 6,362 | $13,821 | |||||||||||||||||
Average commission rate paid |
$ | 0.0232 | $ | 0.0182 | $ | 0.0137 | $ | 0.0167 | $0.0114 | |||||||||||||||||
(1) |
The per share amounts were calculated using the average number of shares outstanding during the period. |
(2) |
Total return on a market value basis is calculated assuming a purchase of common stock on the opening of the first day and a sale on the closing of the last day of each period reported. Dividends and distributions, if any, are assumed for purposes of this calculation to be reinvested at prices obtained under the Fund’s dividend reinvestment plan if in effect or, if there is no plan in effect, at the lower of the per share net asset value or the closing market price of the Fund’s shares on the dividend/distribution date. Generally, total return on a net asset value basis will be higher than total return on a market value basis in periods where there is an increase in the discount or a decrease in the premium of the market value to the net asset value from the beginning to the end of such periods. Conversely, total return on a net asset value basis will be lower than total return on a market value basis in periods where there is a decrease in the discount or an increase in the premium of the market value to the net asset value from the beginning to the end of such periods. The calculation does not reflect brokerage commissions, if any. |
(3) |
The ratio of net expenses excluding loan interest and fees from the use of leverage to average net assets was 2.13%, 2.62%, 2.68%, 2.29%, and 1.86%, for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, and 2014, respectively. |
(4) |
Represents the value of total assets less liabilities not represented by senior securities representing indebtedness divided by the total number of senior indebtedness units, where one unit equals $1,000 of senior indebtedness. For purposes of this calculation, the credit facility is considered a senior security representing indebtedness. |
* |
Less than $0.005 per share. |
See notes to financial statements.
FOXBY CORP. |
Annual Report 2018 16
|
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED ACCOUNTING FIRM
Financial Statements
|
To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Foxby Corp.
New York, New York
17 Annual Report 2018 |
FOXBY CORP.
|
DIRECTORS | (Unaudited) |
Additional Information
|
The following table sets forth certain information concerning the Directors currently serving on the Board of Directors of the Fund.
INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS (1)
|
||||||||||||
Name, Address (2), and Date of Birth
|
Position(s) Held with the Fund
|
Director Since
|
Principal Occupation(s) for the Past Five Years
|
Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex Overseen by Director (3)
|
Other Directorships Held by Director During the Past Five Years (4)
|
|||||||
Peter K. Werner August 16, 1959 |
Class IIl Director |
2002 |
Since 1996, Mr. Werner has taught, directed, and coached many programs at The Governor’s Academy of Byfield, MA. Currently, he teaches economics and history at the Governor’s Academy. Previously, he held the position of Vice President in the Fixed Income Departments of Lehman Brothers and First Boston. His responsibilities included trading sovereign debt instruments, currency arbitrage, syndication, medium term note trading, and money market trading.
|
4 | None | |||||||
Jon Tomasson September 20, 1958 |
Class V Director |
2017 |
Since 2002, Mr. Tomasson has served as the Chief Executive Officer of Vinland Capital Investments, LLC, a real estate investment company that he founded. Prior to starting Vinland, Mr. Tomasson was a principal with Cardinal Capital Partners, a leading investor in single-tenant net-leased property, and served as a Vice President at Citigroup in the Global Real Estate Equity and Structured Finance group, part of the Real Estate Investment Bank, with both transactional and various management responsibilities.
|
4 |
Eagle Bulk Shipping Inc.(7) |
|||||||
INTERESTED DIRECTOR
|
||||||||||||
Thomas B. Winmill (5) (6) PO Box 4 Walpole, NH 03608 June 25, 1959 |
Class IV Director; President, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman, Chief Legal Officer |
2002 |
Mr. Winmill is President, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman, Chief Legal Officer, and a Trustee or Director of the Fund, Dividend and Income Fund, and Midas Series Trust. He is a Director or Manager, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Legal Officer of the Investment Manager and Bexil Advisers LLC, registered investment advisers (collectively, the “Advisers”), Bexil Securities LLC and Midas Securities Group, Inc., registered broker-dealers (collectively, the “Broker-Dealers”), Bexil Corporation, a holding company (“Bexil”) and Winmill & Co. Incorporated, a holding company (“Winco”). He is a Director of Global Self Storage, Inc., a self storage REIT (“SELF”), and Bexil American Mortgage Inc. He is Chairman of the Investment Policy Committee of each of the Advisers (the “IPCs”), and he is a portfolio manager of the Fund, Dividend and Income Fund, Midas Fund, and Midas Magic. He is a member of the New York State Bar and the SEC Rules Committee of the Investment Company Institute.
|
4 |
Global Self Storage, Inc.
Eagle Bulk Shipping Inc.(7) |
(1) Refers to directors who are not “interested persons” of the Fund as defined under the Act. (2) Unless otherwise noted, the address of record for the directors is 11 Hanover Square, New York, New York 10005. (3) The “Fund Complex” is comprised of the Fund, Dividend and Income Fund, and Midas Series Trust (with two series), which are managed by the Investment Manager or its affiliates. (4) Refers to directorships and trusteeships held by a director during the past five years in any company with a class of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or any company registered as an investment company under the Act, excluding those within the Fund Complex. (5) Thomas B. Winmill is an “interested person” (as such term is defined in the Act) of the Fund due to his affiliation with the Investment Manager. (6) Thomas B. Winmill and Mark C. Winmill are brothers; Thomas B. Winmill and William M. Winmill are father and son, respectively; William M. Winmill is the nephew of Mark C. Winmill. (7) Thomas B. Winmill and Jon Tomasson ceased serving as directors of Eagle Bulk Shipping Inc. in 2014.
Messrs. Tomasson and Werner also serve on the Audit and Nominating Committees of the Board. Mr. Winmill serves on the Executive Committee of the Board. Each of the directors serves on the Continuing Directors Committee of the Board.
|
FOXBY CORP. |
Annual Report 2018 18
|
OFFICERS | (Unaudited) | |
Additional Information
|
The executive officers, other than those who serve as Directors, and their relevant biographical information are set forth below.
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
|
||||||||
Name, Address (1), and Date of Birth
|
Position(s) Held with the Fund
|
Officer Since (2)
|
Principal Occupation(s) for the Past Five Years
|
|||||
Russell Kamerman, Esq. July 8, 1982 |
Chief Compliance Officer, Secretary, and General Counsel | 2014 |
Chief Compliance Officer (since 2014), Secretary (since 2017), and General Counsel (since 2017) of the other investment companies in the Fund Complex, the Advisers, the Broker-Dealers, and Bexil. He is Assistant Chief Compliance Officer, Assistant Secretary, and Assistant General Counsel of SELF, Winco, and Tuxis Corporation, a real estate company (“Tuxis”). From December 2014 to June 2017, Mr. Kamerman served as Anti-Money Laundering Officer of the other investment companies in the Fund Complex, the Advisers, Bexil, SELF, Winco and Tuxis. He is a member of the New York State Bar and the Chief Compliance Officer Committee and the Advertising Compliance Advisory Committee of the Investment Company Institute. Previously, he was an attorney in private practice focusing on regulatory, compliance, and other general corporate matters relating to the structure, formation, and operation of investment funds and investment advisers.
|
|||||
Heidi Keating March 28, 1959 |
Vice President | 2002 |
Vice President of the other investment companies in the Fund Complex, the Advisers, the Broker-Dealers, Bexil, SELF, Tuxis, and Winco. She is a member of the IPCs.
|
|||||
Donald Klimoski II, Esq. September 24, 1980 |
Assistant Secretary, Assistant General Counsel, and Assistant Chief Compliance Officer | 2017 |
Assistant Secretary, Assistant General Counsel, and Assistant Chief Compliance Officer of the other investment companies in the Fund Complex, the Advisers, the Broker-Dealers, and Bexil. He is Chief Compliance Officer, Secretary, and General Counsel of SELF, Winco, and Tuxis. He is a member of the New York, New Jersey and Patent Bars and the Compliance Advisory Committee of the Investment Company Institute. Previously, he served as Associate General Counsel of Commvault Systems, Inc. Prior to that, he was an associate at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, where his practice focused on mergers and acquisitions, securities law, corporate governance, intellectual property and related matters.
|
|||||
Thomas O’Malley July 22, 1958 |
Chief Accounting Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, and Vice President
|
2005 |
Chief Accounting Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Vice President, and Treasurer of the other investment companies in the Fund Complex, the Advisers, the Broker-Dealers, Bexil, SELF, Tuxis, and Winco. He is a certified public accountant. |
|||||
Mark C. Winmill (3) November 26, 1957 |
Vice President | 2012 |
Vice President of the other investment companies in the Fund Complex and Midas Management Corporation. He is a member of the IPCs. He is President, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman and a Director of SELF and Tuxis. He is Executive Vice President and a Director of Winco and a principal of the Broker-Dealers.
|
|||||
William M. Winmill (3) December 29, 1991 |
Vice President | 2017 |
Vice President of the other investment companies in the Fund Complex, the Advisers, the Broker-Dealers, Bexil, SELF, Tuxis, and Winco. From 2014 to 2016, he served these companies as Compliance Assistant and Accounting Assistant, after graduating from Bowdoin College in 2014. He is a member of the IPCs, and he is a portfolio manager of Dividend and Income Fund, Foxby Corp., and Midas Magic.
|
|||||
(1) Unless otherwise noted, the address of record for the officers is 11 Hanover Square, New York, New York 10005. (2) Officers hold their positions with the Fund until a successor has been duly elected and qualifies. Officers are generally elected annually. The officers were last elected on December 13, 2018. (3) Thomas B. Winmill and Mark C. Winmill are brothers; Thomas B. Winmill and William M. Winmill are father and son, respectively; William M. Winmill is the nephew of Mark C. Winmill.
|
19 Annual Report 2018 |
FOXBY CORP.
|
GENERAL INFORMATION, POLICIES, AND UPDATES
Additional Information
|
Policies and Updates
Certain provisions in the Fund’s Charter and/or Bylaws (“Governing Documents”) could have the effect of, among other things, depriving the owners of shares in the Fund of opportunities to sell their shares at a premium over prevailing market prices by discouraging a third party from seeking to obtain control of the Fund in a tender offer or similar transaction or bringing litigation against the Fund and/or any director, officer, employee or affiliate thereof. The overall effect of these provisions is to, among other things, render more difficult the accomplishment of a merger or the assumption of control by a principal shareholder. The foregoing summary is subject to the Governing Documents of the Fund, which are on file with the SEC and available on the Fund’s website http://www.FoxbyCorp.com.
Section 23 Notice
Pursuant to Section 23 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, notice is hereby given that the Fund may in the future purchase its own shares in the open market. These purchases may be made from time to time, at such times, and in such amounts, as may be deemed advantageous to the Fund, although nothing herein shall be considered a commitment to purchase such shares.
This report is for shareholder information. This is not a prospectus intended for use in the purchase or sale of Fund shares. NOT FDIC INSURED MAY LOSE VALUE NOT BANK GUARANTEED |
FOXBY CORP. |
Annual Report 2018 20
|
GENERAL INFORMATION, POLICIES, AND UPDATES
Additional Information
|
Investment Strategies
In seeking its objective, the Fund exercises a flexible strategy in the selection of securities, and is not limited by the issuer’s location, size, or market capitalization. The Fund may invest in equity and fixed income securities of new and seasoned U.S. and foreign issuers, including securities convertible into common stock, debt securities, futures, options, derivatives, and other instruments. The Fund also may employ aggressive and speculative investment techniques, such as selling securities short and borrowing money for investment purposes, a practice known as “leveraging,” and may invest defensively in short term, liquid, high grade securities and money market instruments. There is a risk that these transactions sometimes may reduce returns or increase volatility. In addition, derivatives, such as options and futures, can be illiquid and highly sensitive to changes in their underlying security, interest rate or index, and as a result can be highly volatile. A small investment in certain derivatives could have a potentially large impact on the Fund’s performance. The Fund may invest in debt securities rated below investment grade, commonly referred to as junk bonds, as well as investment grade and U.S. Government securities. Generally, investments in securities in the lower rating categories or comparable unrated securities provide higher yields but involve greater price volatility and risk of loss of principal and interest than investments in securities with higher ratings. A potential benefit of its closed end structure, the Fund may invest without limit in illiquid investments such as private placements and private companies.
Please Note
There is no assurance that the Fund’s investment objective will be attained. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. You should consider the investment objective, risks, and charges and expenses of the Fund carefully before investing. The Fund’s investment policies, management fees, and other matters of interest to prospective investors may be found in its filings with the SEC, including its annual and semi-annual reports. To obtain a copy of the reports, please call toll-free at 855-411-6432 or download them at www.foxbycorp.com/literature/. Please read the reports carefully before investing.
Shares of closed end funds frequently trade at a discount from their Net Asset Value (“NAV”). This characteristic is a risk separate and distinct from the risk that the Fund’s NAV has decreased in the past, and therefore could decrease in the future, as a result of its investment activities. Neither the Investment Manger nor the Fund can predict whether shares of the Fund will trade at, below, or above NAV. The risk of holding shares of the Fund that might trade at a discount is more pronounced for investors expecting to sell their shares in a relatively short period of time after acquiring them because, for those investors, realization of a gain or loss on their investments is likely to be more dependent upon the existence of a premium or discount than upon portfolio performance. The shares of the Fund are designed primarily for long term investors and should not be considered a vehicle for trading purposes. The NAV of the Fund shares typically will fluctuate with price changes of the Fund’s portfolio securities, and these fluctuations are likely to be greater in the case of a fund which uses leverage, as the Fund may from time to time. In the event that shares of the Fund trade at a premium to NAV, there is no assurance that any such premium will be sustained for any period of time and will not decrease, or that the shares of the Fund will not trade at a discount to NAV thereafter. The market price for the Fund is based on supply and demand which fluctuates daily based on many factors, such as economic conditions and global events, investor sentiment, and security-specific factors.
This report, including the financial statements herein, is provided for informational purposes only. This is not a prospectus, circular, or representation intended for use in the purchase of shares of the Fund or any securities mentioned in this report. This report shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy, nor shall there be any sale of, these securities in any state in which such offer, solicitation, or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such state, or an exemption therefrom.
The Fund does not make available copies of its Statement of Additional Information because the Fund’s shares are not continuously offered, which means that the Fund’s Statement of Additional Information has not been updated since completion of the Fund’s most recent offering and the information contained in the Fund’s Statement of Additional Information may have become outdated.
Investment products, including shares of the Fund, are not federally or FDIC insured, are not deposits or obligations of, or guaranteed by, any financial institution and involve investment risk, including possible loss of principal and fluctuation in value. Consult with your tax advisor or attorney regarding specific tax issues.
21 Annual Report 2018 |
FOXBY CORP.
|
GENERAL INFORMATION, POLICIES, AND UPDATES
Additional Information
|
Cautionary Note Regarding Forward Looking Statements
Our views and opinions regarding the prospects of our portfolio holdings, the Fund, and the economy are “forward looking statements” as defined under the U.S. federal securities laws which may or may not be accurate and may be materially different over future periods. Generally, the words “believe,” “expect,” “intend,” “estimate,” “anticipate,” “project,” “will,” and similar expressions identify forward looking statements, which generally are not historical in nature. Forward looking statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to materially differ from the Fund’s historical experience and its current expectations or projections indicated in any forward looking statements. These risks include, but are not limited to, equity securities risk, corporate bonds risk, credit risk, interest rate risk, leverage and borrowing risk, additional risks of certain securities in which the Fund invests, market discount from net asset value, distribution policy risk, management risk, and other risks discussed in the Fund’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. We disclaim any obligation to update or alter any forward looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. Thus you should not place undue reliance on forward looking statements, which speak only as of the date they are made.
FOXBY CORP. |
Annual Report 2018 22
|
Rev. 7/2017
PRIVACY POLICY
FACTS | WHAT DOES FOXBY CORP. DO WITH YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION? |
Why? | Financial companies choose how they share your personal information. Federal law gives consumers the right to limit some but not all sharing. Federal law also requires us to tell you how we collect, share, and protect your personal information. Please read this notice carefully to understand what we do. |
What? | The types of personal information we collect and share depend on the product or service you have with us. This information can include: | |||
◾ Social Security number |
◾ Transaction or loss history |
|||
◾ Account balances |
◾ Account transactions |
|||
◾ Transaction history |
◾ Retirement assets |
|||
When you are no longer our customer, we continue to share your information as described in this notice. |
How? | All financial companies need to share customers’ personal information to run their everyday business. In the section below, we list the reasons financial companies can share their customers’ personal information; the reasons Foxby Corp. chooses to share; and whether you can limit this sharing. |
Reasons we can share your personal information
|
Does Foxby Corp.
|
Can you limit this sharing?
|
||
For our everyday business purposes – such as to process your transactions, maintain your account(s), respond to court orders and legal investigations, or report to credit bureaus
|
Yes | No | ||
For our marketing purposes – to offer our products and services to you
|
Yes | No | ||
For joint marketing with other nonaffiliated financial companies
|
No | We don’t share | ||
For our affiliates’ everyday business purposes – Information about your transactions and experiences
|
No | We don’t share | ||
For our affiliates’ everyday business purposes – Information about your creditworthiness
|
No | We don’t share | ||
For our affiliates to market to you
|
Yes | Yes | ||
For nonaffiliates to market to you
|
No | We don’t share |
To Limit Sharing |
◾ Call Foxby Corp. at 212-785-0900 – our menu will prompt you through your choices; or |
|
◾ Mail the form below |
||
Please note: |
||
If you are a new customer, we can begin sharing your information 30 days from the date we sent this notice. When you are no longer our customer, we continue to share your information as described in this notice. |
||
However, you can contact us at any time to limit our sharing.
|
Questions?
|
Call Foxby Corp. at 1-212-785-0900 or go to www.foxbycorp.com |
"............................................................................................................................................................. |
Mail-in Form
|
||||||||||||
Leave Blank or [If you have a joint account, your choice will apply to everyone on your account unless you mark below. ☐ Apply my choice only to me] |
Mark if you want to limit: | |||||||||||
☐ Do not allow your affiliates to use my personal information to market to me.
|
||||||||||||
Name |
Mail to: Foxby Corp. 11 Hanover Square, 12th Floor New York, NY 10005 |
|||||||||||
Address | ||||||||||||
City, State, Zip | ||||||||||||
Account #
|
FOXBY CORP. |
Annual Report 2018 24
|
Page 2 |
Who we are
|
||
Who is providing this notice?
|
Foxby Corp.
|
What we do
|
||
How does Foxby Corp. protect my personal information? |
To protect your personal information from unauthorized access and use, we use security measures that comply with federal law. These measures include computer safeguards and secured files and buildings.
|
|
How does Foxby Corp. collect my personal information? |
We collect your personal information, for example, when you
◾ Open an account ◾ Buy securities from us ◾ Provide account information ◾ Give us your contact information ◾ Tell us where to send the money
|
|
Why can’t I limit all sharing? |
Federal law gives you the right to limit only
◾ Sharing for affiliates’ everyday business purposes – information about your creditworthiness ◾ Affiliates from using your information to market to you ◾ Sharing for nonaffiliates to market to you
State laws and individual companies may give you additional rights to limit sharing. |
|
What happens when I limit sharing for an account I hold jointly with someone else?
|
Your choices will apply to everyone on your account – unless you tell us otherwise. |
Definitions
|
||
Affiliates | Companies related by common ownership or control. They can be financial and nonfinancial companies. | |
◾ Foxby Corp. shares with our affiliates.
|
||
Nonaffiliates | Companies not related by common ownership or control. They can be financial and nonfinancial companies. | |
◾ Foxby Corp. does not share with nonaffiliates so they can market their financial products or services to you.
|
||
Joint marketing | A formal agreement between nonaffiliated financial companies that together market financial products or services to you. | |
◾ Foxby Corp. does not jointly market.
|
25 Annual Report 2018 |
FOXBY CORP.
|
(a)
|
|
The registrant has adopted a code of ethics (the "Code") that applies to its principal executive officer, principal financial officer,
principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions, regardless of whether these individuals are employed by the registrant or a third party.
|
|
|
|
(b)
|
|
No information need be disclosed pursuant to this paragraph.
|
|
|
|
(c)
|
|
Not applicable.
|
|
|
|
(d)
|
|
Not applicable.
|
|
|
|
(e)
|
|
Not applicable.
|
|
|
|
(f)
|
|
The text of the Code can be viewed on the registrant's website, www.foxbycorp.com, or a copy of the Code may be obtained free of
charge by calling the registrant collect at 1-212-785-0900.
|
|
(a)
|
The aggregate fees billed for each of the last two fiscal years for professional services rendered by the principal accountant for the
audit of the registrant's annual financial statements or services that are normally provided by the accountant in connection with statutory and regulatory filings or engagements for those fiscal years are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
AUDIT FEES
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018 - $14,500
|
|
|
2017 - $14,500
|
|
|
|
|
(b)
|
The aggregate fees billed in each of the last two fiscal years for assurance and related services by the principal accountant that are
reasonably related to the performance of the audit of the registrant's financial statements and are not reported under paragraph (a) of this Item are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
AUDIT-RELATED FEES
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018 - $2,000
|
|
|
2017 - $2,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Audit-related fees include amounts reasonably related to the performance of the audit of the registrant's financial statements,
including the issuance of a report on internal controls and review of periodic reporting.
|
|
|
|
|
(c)
|
The aggregate fees billed in each of the last two fiscal years for professional services rendered by the principal accountant for tax
compliance, tax advice, and tax planning are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
TAX FEES
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018 - $4,500
|
|
|
2017 - $4,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax fees include amounts related to tax compliance, tax planning, and tax advice.
|
|
|
|
|
(d)
|
The aggregate fees billed in each of the last two fiscal years for products and services provided by the principal accountant, other
than the services reported in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this Item are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
ALL OTHER FEES
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018 - $0
|
|
|
2017 - $0
|
|
|
|
All other fees consist of the aggregate fees billed for products and services provided by the principal accountant other than audit,
audit-related, and tax services.
|
||
|
|
|
|
(e)
|
(1) Pursuant to the registrant's Audit Committee Charter, the Audit Committee shall consider for pre-approval any non-audit services
proposed to be provided by the auditors to the registrant, and any non-audit services proposed to be provided by such auditors to the registrant’s investment manager and any service providers controlling, controlled by, or under common
control with the registrant’s investment manager, if any, which have a direct impact on registrant operations or financial reporting. In those situations when it is not convenient to obtain full Audit Committee approval, the Chairman
of the Audit Committee is delegated the authority to grant pre-approvals of auditing, audit-related, non-audit related, tax, and all other services so long as all such pre-approved decisions are reviewed with the full Audit Committee at
its next scheduled meeting. Such pre-approval of non-audit services proposed to be provided by the auditors to the registrant is not necessary, however, if such services fall within the de minimis exception under Section 10A of the
Exchange Act of 1934.
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2) No services included in (b) - (d) above were approved pursuant to paragraph (c)(7)(i)(C) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X.
|
|
|
|
|
(f)
|
Not applicable.
|
|
|
|
|
(g)
|
The aggregate non-audit fees billed by the registrant's accountant for services rendered to the registrant, and rendered to the
registrant's investment adviser (not including any sub-adviser whose role is primarily portfolio management and is subcontracted with or overseen by another investment adviser), and any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common
control with the adviser that provides ongoing services to the registrant for each of the last two fiscal years of the registrant were $36,000 in 2018 and $31,500 in 2017.
|
|
|
|
|
(h)
|
The registrant's audit committee has determined that the provision of non-audit services that were rendered by accountant to the
registrant's investment adviser (not including any sub-adviser whose role is primarily portfolio management and is subcontracted with or overseen by another investment adviser), and any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common
control with the investment adviser that provides ongoing services to the registrant that were not pre-approved pursuant to paragraph (c)(7)(ii) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X is compatible with maintaining the principal accountant's
independence.
|
1.
|
Delegation to Proxy Service
Provider
|
2.
|
Conflicts of Interest
|
3.
|
Review of and Response to Errors
|
4.
|
Ongoing Due Diligence
|
i.
|
Review the adequacy of these proxy voting policies and procedures;
|
ii.
|
Assess whether the Proxy Firm has properly submitted the voting instructions on behalf of the Funds;
|
iii.
|
Review the proxy voting guidelines of the Proxy Firm; and
|
iv.
|
Request the Proxy Firm to provide information about, among other things, changes to its policies and procedures.
|
United States
Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
Benchmark Policy Recommendations
|
Effective for Meetings on or after February 1, 2019
Published December 18, 2018
|
|
General Recommendation: Generally vote for director nominees, except
under the following circumstances:
|
›
|
Independent directors comprise 50 percent or less of the board;
|
›
|
The non-independent director serves on the audit, compensation, or nominating committee;
|
›
|
The company lacks an audit, compensation, or nominating committee so that the full board functions
as that committee; or
|
›
|
The company lacks a formal nominating committee, even if the board attests that the independent
directors fulfill the functions of such a committee.
|
›
|
Medical issues/illness;
|
›
|
Family emergencies; and
|
›
|
Missing only one meeting (when the total of all meetings is three or fewer).
|
›
|
Sit on more than five public company boards; or
|
›
|
Are CEOs of public companies who sit on the boards of more than two public companies besides their
own—withhold only at their outside boards3.
|
›
|
A firm commitment, as stated in the proxy statement, to appoint at least one female to the board
in the near term;
|
›
|
The presence of a female on the board at the preceding annual meeting; or
|
›
|
Other relevant factors as applicable.
|
›
|
The board failed to act on a shareholder proposal that received the support of
a majority of the shares cast in the previous year or failed to act on a management proposal seeking to ratify an existing charter/bylaw provision that received opposition of a majority of the shares cast in the previous
year. Factors that will be considered are:
|
›
|
Disclosed outreach efforts by the board to shareholders in the wake of the
vote;
|
›
|
Rationale provided in the proxy statement for the level of implementation;
|
›
|
The subject matter of the proposal;
|
›
|
The level of support for and opposition to the resolution in past meetings;
|
›
|
Actions taken by the board in response to the majority vote and its engagement
with shareholders;
|
›
|
The continuation of the underlying issue as a voting item on the ballot (as
either shareholder or management proposals); and
|
›
|
Other factors as appropriate.
|
›
|
The board failed to act on takeover offers where the majority of shares are
tendered;
|
›
|
At the previous board election, any director received more than 50 percent
withhold/against votes of the shares cast and the company has failed to address the issue(s) that caused the high withhold/against vote.
|
›
|
The company’s previous say-on-pay received the support of less than 70 percent of votes cast.
Factors that will be considered are:
|
›
|
The company's response, including:
|
›
|
Disclosure of engagement efforts with major institutional investors, including
the frequency and timing of engagements and the company participants (including whether independent directors participated);
|
›
|
Disclosure of the specific concerns voiced by dissenting shareholders that led
to the say-on-pay opposition;
|
›
|
Disclosure of specific and meaningful actions taken to address shareholders'
concerns;
|
›
|
Other recent compensation actions taken by the company;
|
›
|
Whether the issues raised are recurring or isolated;
|
›
|
The company's ownership structure; and
|
›
|
Whether the support level was less than 50 percent, which would warrant the
highest degree of responsiveness.
|
›
|
The board implements an advisory vote on executive compensation on a less
frequent basis than the frequency that received the plurality of votes cast.
|
›
|
The company has a
poison pill that was not approved by shareholders5. However, vote case-by-case on
nominees if the board adopts an initial pill with a term of one year or less, depending on the disclosed rationale for the adoption, and other factors as relevant (such as a commitment to put any renewal to a shareholder
vote).
|
›
|
The board makes a material adverse modification to an existing pill, including, but not limited
to, extension, renewal, or lowering the trigger, without shareholder approval.
|
›
|
A classified board structure;
|
›
|
A supermajority vote requirement;
|
›
|
Either a plurality vote standard in uncontested director elections, or a majority vote standard in
contested elections;
|
›
|
The inability of shareholders to call special meetings;
|
›
|
The inability of shareholders to act by written consent;
|
›
|
A multi-class capital structure; and/or
|
›
|
A non-shareholder-approved poison pill.
|
›
|
The board's rationale for adopting the bylaw/charter amendment without shareholder ratification;
|
›
|
Disclosure by the company of any significant engagement with shareholders regarding the amendment;
|
›
|
The level of impairment of shareholders' rights caused by the board's unilateral amendment to the
bylaws/charter;
|
›
|
The board's track record with regard to unilateral board action on bylaw/charter amendments or
other entrenchment provisions;
|
›
|
The company's ownership structure;
|
›
|
The company's existing governance provisions;
|
›
|
The timing of the board's amendment to the bylaws/charter in connection with a significant
business development; and
|
›
|
Other factors, as deemed appropriate, that may be relevant to determine the impact of the
amendment on shareholders.
|
›
|
Classified the board;
|
›
|
Adopted supermajority vote requirements to amend the bylaws or charter; or
|
›
|
Eliminated shareholders' ability to amend bylaws.
|
›
|
The level of impairment of shareholders' rights;
|
›
|
The disclosed rationale;
|
›
|
The ability to change the governance structure (e.g., limitations on shareholders’ right to amend
the bylaws or charter, or supermajority vote requirements to amend the bylaws or charter);
|
›
|
The ability of shareholders to hold directors accountable through annual director elections, or
whether the company has a classified board structure;
|
›
|
Any reasonable sunset provision; and
|
›
|
Other relevant factors.
|
›
|
The presence of a shareholder proposal addressing the same issue on the same ballot;
|
›
|
The board's rationale for seeking ratification;
|
›
|
Disclosure of actions to be taken by the board should the ratification proposal fail;
|
›
|
Disclosure of shareholder engagement regarding the board’s ratification request;
|
›
|
The level of impairment to shareholders' rights caused by the existing provision;
|
›
|
The history of management and shareholder proposals on the provision at the company’s past
meetings;
|
›
|
Whether the current provision was adopted in response to the shareholder proposal;
|
›
|
The company's ownership structure; and
|
›
|
Previous use of ratification proposals to exclude shareholder proposals.
|
›
|
The company’s governing documents impose undue restrictions on shareholders’ ability to amend the
bylaws. Such restrictions include but are not limited to: outright prohibition on the submission of binding shareholder proposals or share ownership requirements or time holding requirements in excess of SEC Rule 14a-8.
Vote against on an ongoing basis.
|
›
|
The non-audit fees
paid to the auditor are excessive;
|
›
|
The company receives an adverse opinion on the company’s financial statements from its auditor; or
|
›
|
There is persuasive evidence that the Audit Committee entered into an inappropriate
indemnification agreement with its auditor that limits the ability of the company, or its shareholders, to pursue legitimate legal recourse against the audit firm.
|
›
|
Poor accounting practices are identified that rise to a level of serious concern, such as: fraud;
misapplication of GAAP; and material weaknesses identified in Section 404 disclosures. Examine the severity, breadth, chronological sequence, and duration, as well as the company’s efforts at remediation or corrective
actions, in determining whether withhold/against votes are warranted.
|
›
|
There is an
unmitigated misalignment between CEO pay and company performance (pay for performance);
|
›
|
The company maintains
significant problematic pay practices; or
|
›
|
The board exhibits a
significant level of poor communication and responsiveness to shareholders.
|
›
|
The company fails to include a Say on Pay ballot item when required under SEC
provisions, or under the company’s declared frequency of say on pay; or
|
›
|
The company fails to include a Frequency of Say on Pay ballot item when required
under SEC provisions.
|
›
|
The presence of an anti-pledging policy, disclosed in the proxy statement, that prohibits future
pledging activity;
|
›
|
The magnitude of aggregate pledged shares in terms of total common shares outstanding, market
value, and trading volume;
|
›
|
Disclosure of progress or lack thereof in reducing the magnitude of aggregate pledged shares over
time;
|
›
|
Disclosure in the proxy statement that shares subject to stock ownership and holding requirements
do not include pledged company stock; and
|
›
|
Any other relevant factors.
|
›
|
Material failures of
governance, stewardship, risk oversight6, or fiduciary responsibilities at the
company;
|
›
|
Failure to replace management as appropriate; or
|
›
|
Egregious actions related to a director’s service on other boards that raise substantial doubt
about his or her ability to effectively oversee management and serve the best interests of shareholders at any company.
|
|
General Recommendation: In cases where companies are targeted in
connection with public “vote-no” campaigns, evaluate director nominees under the existing governance policies for voting on director nominees in uncontested elections. Take into consideration the arguments submitted by
shareholders and other publicly available information.
|
|
General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on the election of
directors in contested elections, considering the following factors:
|
›
|
Long-term financial performance of the company relative to its industry;
|
›
|
Management’s track record;
|
›
|
Background to the contested election;
|
›
|
Nominee qualifications and any compensatory arrangements;
|
›
|
Strategic plan of dissident slate and quality of the critique against management;
|
›
|
Likelihood that the proposed goals and objectives can be achieved (both slates); and
|
›
|
Stock ownership positions.
|
|
General Recommendation: Generally vote for shareholder proposals
requiring that the chairman’s position be filled by an independent director, taking into consideration the following:
|
›
|
The scope of the proposal;
|
›
|
The company's current board leadership structure;
|
›
|
The company's governance structure and practices;
|
›
|
Company performance; and
|
›
|
Any other relevant factors that may be applicable.
|
|
General Recommendation: Generally vote for management and shareholder
proposals for proxy access with the following provisions:
|
›
|
Ownership
threshold: maximum requirement not more than three percent (3%) of the voting power;
|
›
|
Ownership
duration: maximum requirement not longer than three (3) years of continuous ownership for each member of the nominating group;
|
›
|
Aggregation:
minimal or no limits on the number of shareholders permitted to form a nominating group;
|
›
|
Cap:
cap on nominees of generally twenty-five percent (25%) of the board.
|
|
General Recommendation: Generally vote against management proposals to ratify provisions of the company’s existing charter or bylaws, unless these
governance provisions align with best practice.
|
›
|
The presence of a shareholder proposal addressing the same issue on the same ballot;
|
›
|
The board's rationale for seeking ratification;
|
›
|
Disclosure of actions to be taken by the board should the ratification proposal fail;
|
›
|
Disclosure of shareholder engagement regarding the board’s ratification request;
|
›
|
The level of impairment to shareholders' rights caused by the existing provision;
|
›
|
The history of management and shareholder proposals on the provision at the company’s past
meetings;
|
›
|
Whether the current provision was adopted in response to the shareholder proposal;
|
›
|
The company's ownership structure; and
|
›
|
Previous use of ratification proposals to exclude shareholder proposals.
|
|
General Recommendation: Vote for proposals to increase the number of
authorized common shares where the primary purpose of the increase is to issue shares in connection with a transaction on the same ballot that warrants support.
|
›
|
Past Board Performance:
|
›
|
The company's use of authorized shares during the last three years;
|
›
|
The Current Request:
|
›
|
Disclosure in the proxy statement of the specific purposes of the proposed increase;
|
›
|
Disclosure in the proxy statement of specific and severe risks to shareholders of not approving
the request; and
|
›
|
The dilutive impact of the request as determined relative to an allowable increase calculated by
ISS (typically 100 percent of existing authorized shares) that reflects the company's need for shares and total shareholder returns.
|
A.
|
Most companies: 100 percent of existing authorized shares.
|
B.
|
Companies with less than 50 percent of existing authorized shares either outstanding or reserved
for issuance: 50 percent of existing authorized shares.
|
C.
|
Companies with one- and three-year total shareholder returns (TSRs) in the bottom 10 percent of
the U.S. market as of the end of the calendar quarter that is closest to their most recent fiscal year end: 50 percent
of existing authorized shares.
|
D.
|
Companies at which both conditions (B and C) above are both present: 25 percent of existing authorized shares.
|
|
General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on mergers and
acquisitions. Review and evaluate the merits and drawbacks of the proposed transaction, balancing various and sometimes countervailing factors including:
|
›
|
Valuation
- Is the value to be received by the target shareholders (or paid by the acquirer) reasonable? While the fairness opinion may provide an initial starting point for assessing valuation reasonableness, emphasis is placed on
the offer premium, market reaction, and strategic rationale.
|
›
|
Market
reaction - How has the market responded to the proposed deal? A negative market reaction should cause closer scrutiny of a deal.
|
›
|
Strategic
rationale - Does the deal make sense strategically? From where is the value derived? Cost and revenue synergies should not be overly aggressive or optimistic, but reasonably achievable. Management should also have
a favorable track record of successful integration of historical acquisitions.
|
›
|
Negotiations
and process - Were the terms of the transaction negotiated at arm's-length? Was the process fair and equitable? A fair process helps to ensure the best price for shareholders. Significant negotiation "wins" can
also signify the deal makers' competency. The comprehensiveness of the sales process (e.g., full auction, partial auction, no auction) can also affect shareholder value.
|
›
|
Conflicts
of interest - Are insiders benefiting from the transaction disproportionately and inappropriately as compared to non-insider shareholders? As the result of potential conflicts, the directors and officers of the
company may be more likely to vote to approve a merger than if they did not hold these interests. Consider whether these interests may have influenced these directors and officers to support or recommend the merger. The
CIC figure presented in the "ISS Transaction Summary" section of this report is an aggregate figure that can in certain cases be a misleading indicator of the true value transfer from shareholders to insiders. Where such
figure appears to be excessive, analyze the underlying assumptions to determine whether a potential conflict exists.
|
›
|
Governance
- Will the combined company have a better or worse governance profile than the current governance profiles of the respective parties to the transaction? If the governance profile is to change for the worse, the burden is
on the company to prove that other issues (such as valuation) outweigh any deterioration in governance.
|
1.
|
Maintain appropriate pay-for-performance alignment, with emphasis on long-term shareholder value: This principle
encompasses overall executive pay practices, which must be designed to attract, retain, and appropriately motivate the key employees who drive shareholder value creation over the long term. It will take into consideration,
among other factors, the link between pay and performance; the mix between fixed and variable pay; performance goals; and equity-based plan costs;
|
2.
|
Avoid arrangements that risk “pay for failure”: This principle addresses the appropriateness of long or indefinite
contracts, excessive severance packages, and guaranteed compensation;
|
3.
|
Maintain an independent and effective compensation committee: This principle promotes oversight of executive pay
programs by directors with appropriate skills, knowledge, experience, and a sound process for compensation decision-making (e.g.,
including access to independent expertise and advice when needed);
|
4.
|
Provide shareholders with clear, comprehensive compensation disclosures: This principle underscores the importance of
informative and timely disclosures that enable shareholders to evaluate executive pay practices fully and fairly;
|
5.
|
Avoid inappropriate pay to non-executive directors: This principle recognizes the interests of shareholders in
ensuring that compensation to outside directors is reasonable and does not compromise their independence and ability to make appropriate judgments in overseeing managers’ pay and performance. At the market level, it may
incorporate a variety of generally accepted best practices.
|
|
General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on ballot items related to
executive pay and practices, as well as certain aspects of outside director compensation.
|
›
|
There is an
unmitigated misalignment between CEO pay and company performance (pay for performance);
|
›
|
The company maintains
significant problematic pay practices;
|
›
|
The board exhibits a
significant level of poor communication and responsiveness to shareholders.
|
›
|
There is no SOP on the ballot, and an against vote on an SOP would otherwise be warranted due to
pay-for-performance misalignment, problematic pay practices, or the lack of adequate responsiveness on compensation issues raised previously, or a combination thereof;
|
›
|
The board fails to respond adequately to a previous SOP proposal that received less than 70
percent support of votes cast;
|
›
|
The company has recently practiced or approved problematic pay practices, such as option repricing
or option backdating; or
|
›
|
The situation is egregious.
|
1.
|
Peer Group8 Alignment:
|
›
|
The degree of alignment between the company's annualized TSR rank and the CEO's annualized total
pay rank within a peer group, each measured over a three-year period.
|
›
|
The rankings of CEO total pay and company financial performance within a peer group, each measured
over a three-year period.
|
›
|
The multiple of the CEO's total pay relative to the peer group median in the most recent fiscal
year.
|
2.
|
Absolute Alignment9 – the absolute alignment between the trend in CEO pay and company TSR over the prior five fiscal
years – i.e., the difference between the trend in annual pay changes and the trend in annualized TSR during the period.
|
›
|
The ratio of performance- to time-based incentive awards;
|
›
|
The overall ratio of performance-based compensation;
|
›
|
The completeness of disclosure and rigor of performance goals;
|
›
|
The company's peer group benchmarking practices;
|
›
|
Actual results of financial/operational metrics, both absolute and relative to peers;
|
›
|
Special circumstances related to, for example, a new CEO in the prior FY or anomalous equity grant
practices (e.g., bi-annual awards);
|
›
|
Realizable pay10 compared to grant pay; and
|
›
|
Any other factors deemed relevant.
|
›
|
Problematic practices related to non-performance-based compensation elements;
|
›
|
Incentives that may motivate excessive risk-taking or present a windfall risk; and
|
›
|
Pay decisions that circumvent pay-for-performance, such as options backdating or waiving
performance requirements.
|
›
|
Repricing or replacing of underwater stock options/SARS without prior shareholder approval
(including cash buyouts and voluntary surrender of underwater options);
|
›
|
Extraordinary perquisites or tax gross-ups;
|
›
|
New or materially amended agreements that provide for:
|
›
|
Excessive termination or CIC severance payments (generally exceeding 3 times base salary and
average/target/most recent bonus);
|
›
|
CIC severance payments without involuntary job loss or substantial diminution of duties ("single"
or "modified single" triggers) or in connection with a problematic Good Reason definition;
|
›
|
CIC excise tax gross-up entitlements (including "modified" gross-ups);
|
›
|
Multi-year guaranteed awards that are not at risk due to rigorous performance conditions;
|
›
|
Liberal CIC definition combined with any single-trigger CIC benefits;
|
›
|
Insufficient executive compensation disclosure by externally-managed issuers (EMIs) such that a
reasonable assessment of pay programs and practices applicable to the EMI's executives is not possible;
|
›
|
Any other provision or practice deemed to be egregious and present a significant risk to
investors.
|
›
|
Failure to respond to majority-supported shareholder proposals on executive pay topics; or
|
›
|
Failure to adequately respond to the company's previous say-on-pay proposal that received the
support of less than 70 percent of votes cast, taking into account:
|
›
|
The company's response, including:
|
›
|
Disclosure of engagement efforts with major institutional investors, including
the frequency and timing of engagements and the company participants (including whether independent directors participated);
|
›
|
Disclosure of the specific concerns voiced by dissenting shareholders that led
to the say-on-pay opposition;
|
›
|
Disclosure of specific and meaningful actions taken to address shareholders'
concerns;
|
›
|
Other recent compensation actions taken by the company;
|
›
|
Whether the issues raised are recurring or isolated;
|
›
|
The company's ownership structure; and
|
›
|
Whether the support level was less than 50 percent, which would warrant the
highest degree of responsiveness.
|
|
General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on certain equity-based
compensation plans11 depending on a combination of certain plan features and equity
grant practices, where positive factors may counterbalance negative factors, and vice versa, as evaluated using an "Equity Plan Scorecard" (EPSC) approach with three pillars:
|
›
|
Plan
Cost: The total estimated cost of the company’s equity plans relative to industry/market cap peers, measured by the company's estimated Shareholder Value Transfer (SVT) in relation to peers and considering both:
|
›
|
SVT based on new shares requested plus shares remaining for future grants, plus outstanding
unvested/unexercised grants; and
|
›
|
SVT based only on new shares requested plus shares remaining for future grants.
|
›
|
Plan Features:
|
›
|
Quality of disclosure around vesting upon a change in control (CIC);
|
›
|
Discretionary vesting authority;
|
›
|
Liberal share recycling on various award types;
|
›
|
Lack of minimum vesting period for grants made under the plan;
|
›
|
Dividends payable prior to award vesting.
|
›
|
Grant Practices:
|
›
|
The company’s three-year burn rate relative to its industry/market cap peers;
|
›
|
Vesting requirements in CEO's recent equity grants (3-year look-back);
|
›
|
The estimated duration of the plan (based on the sum of shares remaining available and the new
shares requested, divided by the average annual shares granted in the prior three years);
|
›
|
The proportion of the CEO's most recent equity grants/awards subject to performance conditions;
|
›
|
Whether the company maintains a sufficient claw-back policy;
|
›
|
Whether the company maintains sufficient post-exercise/vesting share-holding requirements.
|
›
|
Awards may vest in connection with a liberal change-of-control definition;
|
›
|
The plan would permit repricing or cash buyout of underwater options without shareholder approval
(either by expressly permitting it – for NYSE and Nasdaq listed companies – or by not prohibiting it when the company has a history of repricing – for non-listed companies);
|
›
|
The plan is a vehicle for problematic pay practices or a significant pay-for-performance
disconnect under certain circumstances;
|
›
|
The plan is excessively dilutive to shareholders' holdings; or
|
›
|
Any other plan features are determined to have a significant negative impact on shareholder
interests.
|
|
General Recommendation: Generally vote case-by-case, examining
primarily whether implementation of the proposal is likely to enhance or protect shareholder value. The following factors will be considered:
|
›
|
If the issues presented in the proposal are more appropriately or effectively dealt with through
legislation or government regulation;
|
›
|
If the company has already responded in an appropriate and sufficient manner to the issue(s)
raised in the proposal;
|
›
|
Whether the proposal's request is unduly burdensome (scope or timeframe) or overly prescriptive;
|
›
|
The company's approach compared with any industry standard practices for addressing the issue(s)
raised by the proposal;
|
›
|
Whether there are significant controversies, fines, penalties, or litigation associated with the
company's environmental or social practices;
|
›
|
If the proposal requests increased disclosure or greater transparency, whether reasonable and
sufficient information is currently available to shareholders from the company or from other publicly available sources; and
|
›
|
If the proposal requests increased disclosure or greater transparency, whether implementation
would reveal proprietary or confidential information that could place the company at a competitive disadvantage.
|
|
General Recommendation: Generally vote for resolutions requesting
that a company disclose information on the financial, physical, or regulatory risks it faces related to climate change on its operations and investments or on how the company identifies, measures, and manages such risks,
considering:
|
›
|
Whether the company already provides current, publicly-available information on the impact that
climate change may have on the company as well as associated company policies and procedures to address related risks and/or opportunities;
|
›
|
The company's level of disclosure compared to industry peers; and
|
›
|
Whether there are significant controversies, fines, penalties, or litigation associated with the
company's climate change-related performance.
|
›
|
The company already
discloses current, publicly-available information on the impacts that GHG emissions may have on the company as well as associated company policies and procedures to address related risks and/or opportunities;
|
›
|
The company's level of disclosure is comparable to that of industry peers; and
|
›
|
There are no
significant, controversies, fines, penalties, or litigation associated with the company's GHG emissions.
|
›
|
Whether the company provides disclosure of year-over-year GHG emissions performance data;
|
›
|
Whether company disclosure lags behind industry peers;
|
›
|
The company's actual GHG emissions performance;
|
›
|
The company's current GHG emission policies, oversight mechanisms, and related initiatives; and
|
›
|
Whether the company has been the subject of recent, significant violations, fines, litigation, or
controversy related to GHG emissions.
|
|
General Recommendation: Generally vote for requests for reports on a
company's efforts to diversify the board, unless:
|
›
|
The gender and racial minority representation of the company’s board is reasonably inclusive in
relation to companies of similar size and business; and
|
›
|
The board already reports on its nominating procedures and gender and racial minority initiatives
on the board and within the company.
|
›
|
The degree of existing gender and racial minority diversity on the company’s board and among its
executive officers;
|
›
|
The level of gender and racial minority representation that exists at the company’s industry
peers;
|
›
|
The company’s established process for addressing gender and racial minority board representation;
|
›
|
Whether the proposal includes an overly prescriptive request to amend nominating committee charter
language;
|
›
|
The independence of the company’s nominating committee;
|
›
|
Whether the company uses an outside search firm to identify potential director nominees; and
|
›
|
Whether the company has had recent controversies, fines, or litigation regarding equal employment
practices.
|
|
General Recommendation: Generally vote case-by-case on requests for
reports on a company's pay data by gender, or a report on a company’s policies and goals to reduce any gender pay gap, taking into account:
|
›
|
The company's current policies and disclosure related to both its diversity and inclusion policies
and practices and its compensation philosophy and fair and equitable compensation practices;
|
›
|
Whether the company has been the subject of recent controversy, litigation, or regulatory actions
related to gender pay gap issues; and
|
›
|
Whether the company's reporting regarding gender pay gap policies or initiatives is lagging its
peers.
|
›
|
How the company's recycling programs compare to similar programs of its industry peers.
|
|
General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals requesting that
a company report on its policies, initiatives, and oversight mechanisms related to social, economic, and environmental sustainability, unless:
|
›
|
The company already discloses similar information through existing reports or policies such as an
environment, health, and safety (EHS) report; a comprehensive code of corporate conduct; and/or a diversity report; or
|
›
|
The company has formally committed to the implementation of a reporting program based on Global
Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines or a similar standard within a specified time frame.
|
|
General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals requesting
information on a company’s lobbying (including direct, indirect, and grassroots lobbying) activities, policies, or procedures, considering:
|
›
|
The company’s current disclosure of relevant lobbying policies, and management and board
oversight;
|
›
|
The company’s disclosure regarding trade associations or other groups that it supports, or is a
member of, that engage in lobbying activities; and
|
›
|
Recent significant controversies, fines, or litigation regarding the company’s lobbying-related
activities.
|
|
General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals requesting
greater disclosure of a company's political contributions and trade association spending policies and activities, considering:
|
›
|
The company's policies, and management and board oversight related to its direct political
contributions and payments to trade associations or other groups that may be used for political purposes;
|
›
|
The company's disclosure regarding its support of, and participation in, trade associations or
other groups that may make political contributions; and
|
›
|
Recent significant controversies, fines, or litigation related to the company's political
contributions or political activities.
|
Portfolio Managers
|
Registered Investment Companies
|
Other Pooled Investment Vehicles
|
Other Accounts
|
|
Thomas B. Winmill
|
Number:
|
3
|
N/A
|
7
|
Total Assets (millions):
|
$218
|
N/A
|
$21
|
|
William M. Winmill
|
Number: | 2 | N/A | 7 |
Total Assets (millions): |
$200
|
N/A | $21 |
(a)
|
The registrant's principal executive officer and principal financial
officer have concluded that the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 30a- 3(c) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the "1940 Act")), are effective as of a date within 90 days of
the filing date of this report that includes the disclosure required by this paragraph, based on their evaluation of the disclosure controls and procedures required by Rule 30a-3(b) under the 1940 Act and Rule 15d-15(b) under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
|
(b)
|
There were no changes in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting (as defined in Rule 30a-3(d) under the 1940 Act) that occurred during the registrant's second fiscal quarter of the period covered by the report that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to
materially affect the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
|
(a)
|
No income was received by the registrant from securities lending activities in the period covered by this report. Previously, State Street Bank and Trust Company ("SSB")
had served as the registrant's securities lending agent until June 2018. Amounts paid by securities lending counterparties for loaned securities were retained by SSB. Currently, the registrant does not have a securities
lending agent.
|
(b)
|
Previously, the registrant entered into a Liquidity Agreement with SSB that allowed the registrant to draw up to the maximum liquidity commitment as specified therein. The Liquidity
Agreement was terminated in June 2018. The Liquidity Agreement included a securities lending authorization by the registrant to SSB to engage in agency securities lending and reverse repurchase activity. Previously, SSB had
also served as the registrant's custodian. Currently, the registrant does not have a securities lending agent.
|
(a)(1)
|
Not applicable.
|
(a)(2)
|
Certifications pursuant to Rule 30a-2(a) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (17 CFR 270.30a-2) attached hereto as
Exhibit 99.CERT.
|
|
|
(b) | Certifications pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 attached hereto as Exhibit 99.906 CERT. |
Foxby Corp.
|
|
March 4, 2019
|
By: /s/ Thomas B. Winmill
|
Thomas B. Winmill
|
|
President
|
|
Foxby Corp.
|
|
March 4, 2019
|
By: /s/ Thomas O’Malley
|
Thomas O’Malley
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
|
Foxby Corp.
|
|
March 4, 2019
|
By: /s/ Thomas B. Winmill
|
Thomas B. Winmill
|
|
President
|
|
Foxby Corp.
|
|
March 4, 2019
|
By: /s/ Thomas O’Malley
|
Thomas O’Malley
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
|