X hits on this document





36 / 40

Templeton Emerging Markets Fund

Shareholder Information (continued)

Board Review of Investment Management Agreement (continued)

funds within the Lipper expense group assuming they were similar in size to the Fund, as well as the actual total expense ratio of the Fund in comparison with those of such other funds. The Lipper contractual investment management fee analysis considers administrative fees to be part of manage- ment fees. The Lipper expense group was composed of six funds, including the Fund, and the results of such expense comparison showed the Fund’s investment contractual management fee rate to be the highest in such expense group, and its actual total expense ratio to be the second highest of such group, but within one basis point of the group median. While acknowledging the Fund’s good investment performance and cost factors relating to the Fund’s operation, such as the background and experience of its portfolio managers and research staff and the Manager’s physical presence and coverage in the geographical areas in which the Fund invests, the Board believed it appropriate to reduce the Fund’s investment management fee and negotiated with the Manager downward reductions in such fee as discussed under “Economies of Scale.”

MANAGEMENT PROFITABILITY. The Board also considered the level of profits realized by the Manager and its affiliates in connection with the operation of the Fund. In this respect, the Board reviewed the Fund profitability analysis that addresses the overall profitability of Franklin Templeton’s U.S. fund business, as well as its profits in providing management and other services to each of the individual funds during the 12-month period ended September 30, 2010, being the most recent fiscal year-end for Franklin Resources, Inc., the Manager’s parent. In reviewing the analysis, attention was given to the methodology followed in allocating costs to the Fund, it being recognized that allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various allocation methodologies may each be reasonable while producing different results. In this respect, the Board noted that, while being continuously refined and reflecting changes in the Manager’s own cost accounting, the allocation methodology was consistent with that followed in profitability report presentations made in prior years and that the Fund’s independent registered public accounting firm had been engaged by the Manager to review the reasonableness of the allocation methodologies solely for use by the Fund’s Board in reference to the profitability analysis. In reviewing and discussing such analysis, manage- ment discussed with the Board its belief that costs incurred in establishing the infrastructure necessary for the type of fund operations conducted by the Manager and its affiliates may not be fully reflected in the expenses allocated to the Fund in determining its profitability, as well as the fact that the level of profits, to a certain extent, reflected operational cost savings and efficiencies initiated by manage- ment. In addition, the Board considered a third-party study comparing the profitability of the Manager’s parent on an overall basis to other publicly held managers broken down to show profitability from management operations exclusive of distribution expenses, as well as profitability including distribution expenses. The Board also considered the extent to which the Manager and its affiliates might derive ancillary benefits from fund operations, as well as potential benefits resulting from allocation of fund brokerage and the use of commission dollars to pay for research. Based upon its consideration of all these factors, the Board determined that the level of profits real- ized by the Manager and its affiliates from providing services to the Fund was not excessive in view of the nature, quality and extent of services provided.

34 |

Annual Report

Document info
Document views62
Page views62
Page last viewedSat Oct 22 02:31:11 UTC 2016