Quality and Extent of Services The Board considered the terms of the Agreement, including the scope of advisory services provided under the Agreement. The Board noted that, under the Agreement, XXXX provides portfolio management services to the Fund and that, pursuant to a separate administrative services agreement, DIMA provides administrative services to 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 XXXX in sponsoring or managing the Fund, including financial, operational and reputational risks, the potential economic impact to XXXX from such risks and XXXX’s approach to addressing such risks. The Board reviewed the Fund’s performance over short-term and long-term periods and compared those returns to various agreed-upon performance measures, including market index(es) and a peer universe compiled using information supplied by Morningstar Direct (“Morningstar”), 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 XXXX regarding such funds and, where appropriate, XXXX’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 noted that, for the one-, three- and five-year periods ended December 31, 2021, the Fund’s performance (Class A shares) was in the 2nd quartile of the applicable Morningstar universe (the 1st quartile being the best performers and the 4th quartile being the worst performers). The Board also observed that the Fund has outperformed its benchmark in the one-, three- and five-year periods ended December 31, 2021. Fees and Expenses. The Board considered the Fund’s investment management fee schedule, operating expenses and total expense ratios, and comparative information provided by Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. (“Broadridge”) and the Fee Consultant regarding investment management fee rates paid to other investment advisors by similar funds (1st quartile being the most favorable and 4th quartile being the least favorable). With respect to management fees paid to other investment advisors by similar funds, the Board noted that the contractual fee rates paid by the Fund, which include a 0.097% fee paid to XXXX under the Fund’s administrative services agreement, were higher than the median (3rd quartile) of the applicable Broadridge peer group (based on Broadridge data provided as of December 31, 2021). The Board noted that the Fund’s Class A shares total (net) operating expenses (excluding 12b-1 fees) were expected to be higher than the median (3rd quartile) of the applicable Broadridge expense universe (based on Broadridge data provided as of December 31, 2021, and analyzing Broadridge expense universe Class A (net) expenses less any applicable 12b-1 fees) (“Broadridge Universe Expenses”). The Board also reviewed data comparing each other operational share class’s total (net) operating expenses to the applicable Broadridge Universe Expenses. The Board noted that the expense limitations agreed to by XXXX were expected to help the Fund’s total (net) operating expenses remain competitive. The Board considered the Fund’s management fee rate as compared to fees charged by XXXX to comparable DWS U.S. registered funds (“DWS Funds”), noting that XXXX indicated that it does not provide services to any other comparable DWS Funds. The information requested by the Board as part of its review of fees and expenses also included information about institutional accounts (including any sub-advised funds and accounts) and funds offered primarily to European investors (“DWS Europe Funds”) managed by DWS Group. The Board noted that XXXX indicated that DWS Group does not manage any institutional accounts or DWS Europe Funds comparable to the Fund. On the basis of the information provided, the Board concluded that management fees were reasonable and appropriate in light of the nature, quality and extent of services provided by DIMA.
