SecProbe.io

CORRESP
1
filename1.htm

LEGG MASON GLOBAL ASSET MANAGEMENT TRUST

 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

101 Park Avenue

 New York, NY
10178-0060

 September 16, 2021

 VIA
EDGAR

 Securities and Exchange Commission

 Division of
Investment Management

 100 F Street, N.E.

 Washington, DC
20549

 Re: Legg Mason Global Asset Management Trust (File Nos. 333-162441 and
811-22338)

 Ladies and Gentlemen:

On behalf of Legg Mason Global Asset Management Trust, a Maryland statutory trust (the “Trust”), we are hereby submitting this letter
to respond to comments received from Alison White of the staff (the “Staff”) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) on August 17, 2021. The comments related to Post-Effective Amendment No. 205 to
the Registrant’s registration statement on Form N-1A with respect to the Martin Currie International Sustainable Equity Fund (the “Fund”), as filed with the Commission on July 26, 2021. The
following is a summary of the comments received from Ms. White and the Trust’s response on behalf of the Fund.

 1. Comment: Please advise
supplementally why the Fund is changing its name and strategy. Please describe the extent of any portfolio repositioning that has or will occur in connection with the change. In order to help us understand your strategy better, please provide 2 to 3
examples of the decision-making process behind a particular transaction.

 Response: Currently, the Fund applies environmental,
social and governance (“ESG”) criteria to its security selection process, but to date such use has not been highlighted as part of the Fund’s principal investment strategies or reflected in the Fund’s name. The use of ESG
criteria by the Fund has been generally discussed in the Prospectus in the section providing additional information about the Fund’s investment strategies. As a result, the implementation of the proposed changes are not expected to
significantly change the Fund’s existing security selection process or materially increase the Fund’s annual portfolio turnover rate, transaction costs, or other fees and expenses.

Below we have set forth two examples of the Fund’s security selection process:

Buy example

 Company A

Italy, Consumer Discretionary

 Idea Generation

Company A has a history of high return-on-invested-capital (ROIC) generation
and is highly cash generative due to high margin products and sales density. The firm is driven by organic growth from pricing power and geographic expansion – with strong emerging market potential. The subadviser believes asset turns will
continue to improve due to increased sales densities in existing stores, digital strategy growth, an increased retail mix supporting its margins and further Asian growth.

 Fundamental research

The subadviser’s analysis uses a systematic risk assessment across Industry, Company, Governance & Sustainability and Portfolio risks. The
subadviser’s research drills down to identify the highest risks and provide a fundamental assessment focused on the firm’s:

•

 Growth drivers and cyclicality

•

 ESG concerns on sourcing raw materials

•

 Working capital

In this case, the subadviser supplemented its research with extensive engagement with management and investor relations as noted below.

Growth drivers and cyclicality – Engagement with management confirmed that long-term signpost and retail key performance indicators were intact,
and they were making significant investments in digital. In later engagement the subadviser discussed under-penetration in China and their three-year plan to address it. The subadviser’s proprietary brand analysis established their brand is
underexposed, demonstrating opportunities for growth; the firm is gaining traction with emerging luxury spenders and in the subadviser’s opinion, they have no direct luxury brand competitors.

ESG concerns on sourcing of raw materials – Goose down is their primary raw material in producing jackets. Animal products can be a material risk
to brand equity; the subadviser’s research established that the down they use is a by-product of food production and backed by a clear sourcing policy.

Working capital – Flagged by the subadviser’s proprietary accounting analysis, this highlighted potentially higher leverage, a patent box
expiry (deferred tax implication) and low inventory relative to peers. Further research confirmed the firm remained in a net cash position, with taxes normalizing from 2019. Finally, the low inventory was to ensure the firm had limited markdown from
excess stock at the end of season which protects margins.

 Based on this analysis, the subadviser purchased the security on behalf of the portfolio.

Sell example

 Company B

UK, Financials

 Investment case

This UK-listed specialty insurer has a unique focus on emerging risks for which insurance coverage is limited or not
available at all. For instance, the company is a leader in cybersecurity, having developed a unique solution that offers claimants not only a financial payout, but also active support to promptly recover from a breach. Company B’s strategy,
together with its industry-leading underwriting capabilities, has rewarded shareholders with a long history of value creation.

 2

 Sell decision

Company B’s performance in the second quarter of 2020 was affected by the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic,
which brought material uncertainty in terms of primary losses (events cancellation and potential business-interruption claims) and third-party losses (directors’ and officers’ liability, employee liability and medical malpractice). While
the company’s primary losses were expected to be contained – roughly in line with those of a heavy natural catastrophe season – lingering mid-term uncertainty over third-party claims and reduced
profitability due to lower interest rates led our conviction weakening and for us to exit the portfolio’s position in the company.

 COVID-19 was very much a tail event (a risk factor), and the repercussions on the industry and Company B were such that the subadviser believed that the next 18–24 months would bring material uncertainty –
both on the upside (hard market, solid pricing) and the downside (‘black swan’ losses from the pandemic). The risk/reward profile of Company B was at the high end of the spectrum in the subadviser view, and in any case, a positive outcome
would take time to play out, increasing the risk of the company becoming a ‘value trap’. As such, the security was sold from the portfolio.

 2.
Comment: The fee table on page 3, Footnote 6, indicates that other expenses have been restated to exclude fees recaptured pursuant to the fund’s expense limitation agreement. Briefly explain why you have done this and why doing so is
appropriate.

 Response: The referenced footnote has been deleted. No fees were recaptured pursuant to the Fund’s expense
limitation agreement during the last fiscal year.

 3. Comment: With respect to the fee waiver, given that the recapture period could potentially
exceed three years, please either (1) remove the fee waiver line item and footnote from the fee table or (2) confirm that you have done a FAS 5 analysis concluding that recoupment is not probable, and have provided an analysis to the
Fund’s auditor.

 Response: In response to the Staff’s comment, the Registrant confirms that a FAS 5 analysis has been
performed and that a liability is not necessary. The Registrant confirms that the Registrant’s auditor has agreed with this conclusion. The Registrant notes that FASB ASC 946-20-25-4 states that a liability for expense recapture plans should be recognized if, and to the extent that, the expense limitation agreement’s established terms for repayment of the waived
expenses and the circumstances meet criteria (a), (b), and (c) of paragraph 36 of FASB Concepts Statement No. 6, Elements of Financial Statements, and the criteria in FASB ASC
450-20-25-2. The Registrant confirms that the preceding criteria have not been met. Further, the Registrant confirms that in
accordance with FASB ASC 946-20-50-6, the existence of reimbursement agreements and the carryover of excess expenses potentially
reimbursable to the adviser but not recorded as a liability are disclosed in the Notes to Financial Statements.

 4. Comment: In “Principal
investment strategies,” the first sentence states that: “Under normal market conditions, the fund pursues its objective by investing at least 80% of its net assets plus borrowings for investment purposes, if any, in equity and equity
related securities of foreign companies and other investments with similar economic characteristics that meet the subadviser’s environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) criteria for the fund.” What do you mean by “other
investments with similar economic characteristics” and how do you evaluate those from an ESG perspective?

 3

 Response: The term “other investments with similar economic characteristics” is
designed to capture investments that, while not technically equity securities of foreign companies, provide economic exposure to equity securities of foreign companies. An example would be a derivative contract that provides exposure to equity
securities of foreign companies. The ESG evaluation of such an instrument is based on the underlying exposure it provides. The Fund may invest in a derivative transaction if it is permitted to own, invest in, or otherwise have economic exposure to
the reference instrument.

 5. Comment: Also under “Principal investment strategies,” how does the adviser determine a company has the
potential for “high and durable returns” or “reasonable valuations”? What do these terms mean to the adviser and what data and analyses does the adviser use to evaluate companies for such criteria?

Response: The following provides a brief summary of the subadviser’s analysis with respect to seeking investments that have
potential for “high and durable returns” or “reasonable valuations.”

 Durable returns

In seeking to identify companies with high and durable returns, the subadviser first screens global listed companies for those that have generated a Return on
Invested Capital (ROIC) in excess of their Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC). In addition, the subadviser screens for companies with market caps of > US$3 billion, low debt and a level of goodwill on the balance sheet.

Stocks that are identified through the initial screening process are then subject to fundamental analysis, where the subadviser uses various criteria to
examine the quality and sustainability of the company’s business model. The criteria are based on the key aspects which are important to the subadviser.

The subadviser’s proprietary research process systematically provides a risk assessment of a company from 1 (lowest risk) to 5 (highest risk) against
four categories—industry dynamics, company risks, governance & sustainability and portfolio risks. This allows for effective comparisons across companies.

The subadviser then assesses an individual company’s thematic exposure in an effort to understand the future drivers of its growth. The thematic
assessment has three overall trends—resource scarcity, the future of technology and demographic change. These are incorporated within the subadviser’s modelling and qualitative assessments.

Analysis of ESG factors is integral to the strategy. The research includes qualitative ESG analysis and the subadviser’s proprietary ESG risk assessment.
The subadviser’s system is designed to capture the complexity of the ESG risks facing a company’s long-term outlook and sustainability – the categories reflecting what the subadviser believes are the most universal material ESG
factors. The subadviser believes monitoring and engagement are an essential part of being a long-term shareholder in a company. It allows the subadviser to improve its understanding of portfolio companies and their governance structures, so that the
subadviser’s voting decisions may be better informed. In addition, it enables the subadviser to understand to what extent companies have identified material ESG risks and how the companies are managing these risks.

Valuation approach

 The subadviser’s
valuation approach is long-sighted and targets year-five share prices. To do this the subadviser looks back over five years of historical data and looks forward five years to determine what the business might look like.

 4

 In valuing companies, the subadviser considers cash flow to be the most appropriate and consistent measure of
value. The subadviser creates a price target based upon an analysis of discounted cash flow, ROIC/WACC = Enterprise value (EV)/Invested capital (IC) and other multiples.

6. Comment: In the second sentence of the second paragraph under “Principal investment strategies” it states that “This analysis may
include such factors as shareholder rights, accounting standards, remuneration, board structure, supply chain, data protection, pollution/hazardous waste policies, water usage, and climate change policies.” Please change the word
“may” to “will” and revise as appropriate.

 Response: The Registrant respectfully has declined to make this
change. The subadviser’s ESG analysis with respect to Fund investments covers a variety of factors as noted above, but certain factors may not be relevant to all companies. For example, water usage might be less relevant or irrelevant to a
particular company and therefore may not be a material factor in the subadviser’s ESG analysis.

 7. Comment: The last sentence of the second
paragraph under “Principal investment strategies” states that: “In addition, the fund seeks to avoid investing in companies that the subadviser has determined, based on its exclusionary criteria, to be significantly involved in
certain business activities or industries, including the production of tobacco, production of weapons, the extraction of fossil fuels, or the mining of metals and minerals.” Please disclose what the subadviser considers to be
“significantly involved.”

 Response: The Prospectus has been revised to disclose that a company will be considered to be
“significantly involved” if, based upon information received by the subadviser, the company generates approximately 5% or more of revenue from tobacco production, approximately 5% or more of revenue from the production of weapons,
including nuclear weapons, or approximately 5% or more of revenue from direct involvement in extraction of fossil fuels. Further, the Fund will seek to avoid investing in any company that, based upon information received by the subadviser, generates
revenue from mining of metals and minerals as defined by GICS sub-industries Diversified Metals and Mining, Copper, Gold and Precious Metals and Minerals, or that is involved in the production, sale or
distribution of dedicated and key components of antipersonnel mines and cluster munitions.

 8. Comment: In the last paragraph on page 3, the
Prospectus states that: “The equity securities in which the fund will invest may include common stocks, preferred stocks, securities convertible into common stock, depositary receipts, exchange traded funds (“ETFs”) and synthetic
foreign equity securities, including international warrants and other instruments with similar economic characteristics.” Please provide detail about what is meant by “other instruments with similar economic characteristics.”

Response: As described above, “other investments with similar economic characteristics” is designed to capture investments
that provide economic exposure that is equivalent to an equity security. The language is intended to encompass securities that may exist or may be developed in the future that are similar to common stock and the other instruments described in the
listing.

 9. Comment: On the top of page 4, it states that the Fund may enter into derivatives “as a substitute for buying or selling
securities; to obtain market exposure; and to manage cash.” Please ad