Common use of Quality and Extent of Services Clause in Contracts

Quality and Extent of Services. The Board considered the terms of the Agreements, including the scope of advisory services provided under the Agreements. The Board noted that, under the Agreements, ▇▇▇▇ provides portfolio management services to the Portfolio and the Fund and that, pursuant to separate administrative services agreements, DIMA provides administrative services to the Portfolio and the Fund. The Board considered the experience and skills of senior management and investment personnel and the resources made available to such personnel. The Board also considered the risks to ▇▇▇▇ in sponsoring or managing the Portfolio and the Fund, including financial, operational and reputational risks, the potential economic impact to ▇▇▇▇ from such risks and ▇▇▇▇’s approach to addressing such risks. The Board reviewed the Portfolio’s and the Fund’s performance over short-term and long-term periods and compared those returns to various agreed-upon performance measures, including a peer universe compiled using information supplied by iMoneyNet, an independent fund data service. The Board also noted that it has put into place a process of identifying “Funds in Review” (e.g., funds performing poorly relative to a peer universe), and receives additional reporting from ▇▇▇▇ regarding such funds and, where appropriate, ▇▇▇▇’s plans to address underperformance. The Board believes this process is an effective manner of identifying and addressing underperforming funds. Based on the information provided, the Board

Quality and Extent of Services. The Board considered the terms of the Agreements, including the scope of advisory services provided under the Agreements. The Board noted that, under the Agreements, ▇▇▇▇ DIMA provides portfolio management services to the Portfolio and the Fund and that, pursuant to separate administrative services agreements, DIMA provides administrative services to the Portfolio and the Fund. The Board considered the experience and skills of senior management and investment personnel and the resources made available to such personnel. The Board also considered the risks to ▇▇▇▇ DIMA in sponsoring or managing the Portfolio and the Fund, including financial, operational and reputational risks, the potential economic impact to ▇▇▇▇ from such risks and ▇▇▇▇’s approach to addressing such risks. The Board reviewed the Portfolio’s and the Fund’s performance over short-term and long-term periods and compared those returns to various agreed-upon performance measures, including a peer universe compiled using information supplied by iMoneyNet, an independent fund data service. The Board also noted that it has put into place a process of identifying “Funds in Review” (e.g., funds performing poorly relative to a peer universe), and receives additional reporting from ▇▇▇▇ DIMA regarding such funds and, where appropriate, ▇▇▇▇’s plans to address underperformance. The Board believes this process is an effective manner of identifying and addressing underperforming funds. Based on the information provided, the Board

Quality and Extent of Services. The Board considered the terms of the Agreements, including the scope of advisory services provided under the Agreements. The Board noted that, under the Agreements, ▇▇▇▇ provides portfolio management services to the Portfolio and the Fund and that, pursuant to separate administrative services agreements, DIMA provides administrative services to the Portfolio and the Fund. The Board considered the experience and skills of senior management and investment personnel and the resources made available to such personnel. The Board also considered the risks to ▇▇▇▇ in sponsoring or managing the Portfolio and the Fund, including financial, operational and reputational risks, the potential economic impact to ▇▇▇▇ from such risks and ▇▇▇▇’s approach to addressing such risks. The Board reviewed the Portfolio’s and the Fund’s performance over short-term and long-term periods and compared those returns to various agreed-upon performance measures, including a peer universe compiled using information supplied by iMoneyNet, an independent fund data service. The Board also noted that it has put into place a process of identifying “Funds in Review” (e.g., funds performing poorly relative to a peer universe), and receives additional reporting from ▇▇▇▇ regarding such funds and, where appropriate, ▇▇▇▇’s plans to address underperformance. The Board believes this process is an effective manner of identifying and addressing underperforming funds. Based on the information provided, the BoardBoard noted that, for the one- and three-year periods ended December 31, 2019, the Fund’s performance (Institutional Class shares) was in the 2nd quartile of the applicable iMoneyNet universe (the 1st quartile being the best performers and the 4th quartile being the worst performers).