SEC Company Response from Neuberger Berman High Yield Strategies Fund Inc. (NHS) (CIK 0001487610) (NHS) — Jul 8, 2016
Neuberger Berman High Yield Strategies Fund Inc. (NHS) (CIK 0001487610)
Date: July 8, 2016 · CIK: 0001487610 · Accession: 0000898432-16-002731
AI Filing Summary & Sentiment
Letter
Securities and Exchange Commission Neuberger Berman High Yield Strategies Fund Inc. Neuberger Berman Intermediate Municipal Fund Inc. Neuberger Berman New York Intermediate Municipal Fund Inc. Neuberger Berman Real Estate Securities Income Fund Inc.
Dear Ms. Fettig:
This letter is in response to your phone call on September 2, 2015 with Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers LLC (“NBIA”), formerly Neuberger Berman Management LLC,1 personnel, during which you made inquiries on the N-CSR for the period ending October 31, 2014 and various other filings made with respect to each of the above captioned funds, each of which is managed by NBIA (each a “Fund” and collectively, the “Funds”). Summarized below are the questions and comments from that discussion, along with our responses.
In providing our response, we acknowledge that: (1) each Fund is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of the disclosure in its filings, (2) Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) staff comments, or changes to disclosure in response to staff comments, in the filings reviewed by the staff do not foreclose the Commission from taking any action with respect to the filing; and (3) no Fund may assert staff comments as a defense in any proceeding initiated by the Commission or any person under the federal securities laws of the United States.
Please note that where changes are being made to future disclosure in response to staff comments, we do not thereby acknowledge that past practices were deficient. Rather, changes are being made primarily to accommodate staff requests.
Your questions/comments are reflected in bold, and our answers are beneath.
1 On January 1, 2016, Neuberger Berman Management LLC and Neuberger Berman LLC transferred to Neuberger Berman Fixed Income LLC (“NBFI”) their rights and obligations pertaining to all services they provided to any Fund under any investment management, investment sub-advisory, and/or administration agreement, as applicable (the “Agreements”). Following this transfer, NBFI was renamed Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers LLC. The consolidation did not result in any change in personnel servicing the Funds, investment processes employed by any Fund, the nature or level of services provided to any Fund, or the fees any Fund pays under its advisory or administration agreements.
1.
Comment: Please consider whether the benchmark for Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Fund meets the definition of an appropriate broad based benchmark under Item 27(b)(7)(ii)(A) of the instructions to Form N-1A.
Response: We believe that the blended benchmark meets this definition. Management is aware of several fund groups that similarly use a blended index as the “broad-based securities market index” for a fund registered on Form N-1A. We believe that these blended indexes are often used across the industry because they reflect the market for the principal investments of these funds better than available non-blended indexes.
Management is not aware of any authoritative guidance from the SEC or the SEC staff indicating that a blended index cannot represent an “appropriate broad-based securities market index” as that term is used in Form N-1A. We believe, however, that our approach is consistent with the limited authoritative guidance from the SEC and the SEC staff regarding this definition.
Form N-1A defines “appropriate broad-based securities market index” to mean an index “that is administered by an organization that is not an affiliated person of the Fund, its investment adviser, or principal underwriter, unless the index is widely recognized and used.” The SEC has stated that “[t]he purpose of including return information for a broad-based securities market index was to provide investors with a basis for evaluating a fund’s performance and risks relative to the market.”2 In rejecting the mandatory use of peer group comparisons for all funds, the SEC stated that “[t]he index comparison requirement is designed to show how much value the management of the fund added by showing whether the fund ‘out-performed’ or ‘under-performed’ the market, and not so much whether one fund ‘out-performed’ another.”3 The SEC has also stated that a “broad-based index is one that provides investors with a performance indicator of the overall applicable stock or bond markets, as appropriate” and that an “index would not be considered to be broad-based if it is composed of securities of firms in a particular industry or group of related industries.”4 We respectfully note that the Fund’s blended primary benchmark index reflects the markets in which the Fund principally invests, and is not “composed of securities of firms in a particular industry or group of related industries.” This chosen blended index is more relevant for shareholders than any other available non-blended index.
Early guidance on the meaning of an “appropriate broad-based securities market index” comes from SEC statements in 1972 regarding their use in the context of Section 205(b) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Specifically, the SEC stated:
In determining whether an index is appropriate for a particular investment company, directors should consider factors such as the volatility, diversification of holdings, types of securities owned and objectives of the investment company. For example, a broadly based market value
2 Registration Form Used by Open-End Management Investment Companies, SEC Release No. IC-23064 (Mar. 13, 1998).
3 Disclosure of Mutual Fund Performance and Portfolio Managers, SEC Release No. IC-19382 (Apr. 6, 1993).
4 Id.
weighted index of common stocks ordinarily would be an appropriate index, but an index based upon a relatively few large ‘blue chip’ stocks would not. For investment companies that invest exclusively in a particular type of security or industry, either a specialized index that adequately represents the performance of that type of security or a broadly based market value weighted index ordinarily would be considered appropriate. Of course, if an investment company invests in a particular type of security an index which measures the performance of another particular type of security would be inappropriate.5 (emphasis added)
Finally, with regards to the ability of a fund to select a broad-based index, the SEC stated that “[the ‘appropriate index’ language] would give a fund a considerable degree of flexibility to select an index that it believes best reflects the markets in which the fund invests. In some cases, of course, there will not be an index available that encompasses the types of securities in which the fund invests. Nonetheless, a broad market index could always be used to serve as a benchmark for how an alternative, unmanaged investment in the securities market performed during the period” (emphasis added).6
We believe that using a blended primary benchmark index complies with the requirements of Form N-1A and the SEC guidance cited above. The comparison to an appropriate index appears intended to permit investors and potential investors to see how well a fund is accomplishing what it says it will do, and how much relative risk the fund is undertaking in the process. This requires an index that reflects what the fund says it will do. As the Staff is aware, funds are increasingly using diverse investment strategies which at times have multiple distinct components and asset classes with various weightings. As a result, a fund’s strategy may have a higher degree of correlation with a blended index than a more commonly used broad-based index. In this regard, we believe that a blended primary benchmark index, consisting of component indexes that are intended to represent similar risk attributes as each distinct portion of the fund’s holdings, will provide investors with a more useful basis for evaluating the applicable Fund’s performance and risks relative to the markets in which the Fund invests. This comparison is consistent with the SEC’s stated purpose of including return information for a broad-based securities market index.
We emphasize that, consistent with the SEC’s guidance that funds should have “a considerable degree of flexibility to select an index that it believes best reflects the markets in which the fund invests”, we should be given considerable deference in determining whether a blended benchmark index is an “appropriate broad-based securities market index” for the Fund.
2.
Comment: Please consider whether investments in derivatives should be in the financial report narrative for Neuberger Berman Absolute Return Multi-Manager Fund and Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Fund.
5 Factors to be Considered in Connection with Investment Advisory Contracts Containing Incentive Fee Arrangements, SEC Release Nos. IA-315, IC-7113 (Apr. 18, 1972).
6 Disclosure and Analysis of Mutual Fund Performance Information; Portfolio Manager Disclosure, SEC Release No. IC-17294 (Jan. 8, 1990).
Response: The July 30, 2010, letter from Barry Miller, Associate Director, Office of Legal and Disclosure, Securities and Exchange Commission, to the Investment Company Institute states the following regarding the content of management’s discussion of fund performance (MDFP):
Further, the MDFP should be consistent with operations reflected in the financial statements, and a fund whose performance was materially affected by derivatives should discuss that fact, whether or not derivatives are reflected in the portfolio schedule at the close of the fiscal year.
For each Fund, the effect from derivatives was considered; however, it was not material enough to warrant discussion in the MDFP.
3.
Comment: Please consider adding to the portfolio holdings chart a note indicating that derivatives are not included.
Response: Management will include a footnote going forward.
4.
Comment: For Neuberger Berman Flexible Select Fund, Golub Capital BDC was listed in the schedule of investments. Please confirm that this was included in the Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses (“AFFEs”) line item in the prospectus fee table.
Response: The Fund’s fee table showed 0.06% of AFFEs. This was primarily due to its investment in the State Street Institutional Treasury Money Market Fund. The AFFEs related to the Golub Capital BDC were included in this amount but were not material enough to affect this line item.
5.
Comment: For floating rate securities listed in the Schedule of Investments, please consider adding a description of the rate terms within the description of the security- e.g. (Libor plus spread, 1.00% floor).
Response: We reviewed multiple competitor fund disclosures and were not able to identify any funds that include this additional description for floating rate securities. We also asked various fund service providers whether including such a description is a common practice. They indicated that they have not seen this additional description for floating rate securities and are not aware of any requirement to disclose this level of information.
Comment: Referring to PIK bonds and the AICPA Audit Risk Alert - Investment Company Industry Developments 2013/2014 (see excerpt below), the cash and PIK rates of interest should be disclosed.
Certain registrants have debt investments that pay both PIK and cash interest. The SEC staff has noticed certain registrants hold debt instruments that have a provision permitting the issuer to determine a range of PIK interest that will be paid, along with a minimum cash percentage to be paid. For example, a bond may have a 15-percent stated interest rate that includes two rate components: (a) a minimum cash interest rate of 10 percent and (b) a PIK interest rate with a range between 0 percent and 5 percent. The SEC staff believes that if an issuer has the
ability to pay a range of PIK interest, the current PIK and cash interest rates should be disclosed on the schedule of investments, along with the possible PIK interest rate range or the maximum PIK interest rate that could be paid. For example, if the issuer of the bond previously referenced with a 15-percent stated interest rate is currently paying 12 percent cash interest and 3 percent PIK interest as of the date of the financial statements, then the schedule of investments would disclose the current 12 percent cash and 3 percent PIK interest rates, along with the range of possible PIK interest rates that could be paid (0-5 percent) or the maximum allowable amount of PIK interest (0 percent to 5 percent).
Response: Financial statements dating back to 1/31/15 started disclosing both the current PIK/cash rates as well as the range of allowable PIK rates.
6.
Comment: Please consider adding a line item to the balance sheet for funds with unfunded commitments (Reg. SX 604-15). Some examples of this will be sent to you.
Response: We currently disclose unfunded commitments in the notes to the financial statements. Going forward, we will include on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities a line item titled “Commitments and contingencies.” Based on present conditions, the line item will show no value but will include a reference to the applicable note. As it relates to Section 18, our current procedures require the full cost of unfunded commitments to be covered.
7.
Comment: For Neuberger Berman Absolute Return Multi-Manager Fund, on page 47 of the annual report, please provide more detail describing the transfer of securities to/from Level 2 and Level 3.
Response: The accounting standards require disclosure of the reason for a transfer of securities to/from Level 2 and Level 3. While management believes the current language sufficiently describes the reasons for any such transfers, in the future we will attempt to provide additional detail that may be useful for shareholders, such as a methodology based on a single broker quote.
8.
Comment: For Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Fund, please add to the notes any accounting policies for accruing foreign capital gain taxes.
Response: A note will be added going forward.
9.
Comment: For Neuberger Berman MLP Income Fund, please confirm that it is complying with Section 19A requirements.
Response: Yes. 19a-1 notices are being sent, as appropriate, and the Fund is complying with Section 19A requirements.
10.
Comment: For portfolio turnover rates including/excluding short sales that are disclosed in the financial highlights tables, are the denominators the same?
Response: No. The denominator for portfolio turnover rates including short sales is the average market value of both long and short securities. The denominator for portfolio turnover rates excluding short sales is the average market value of only long securities.
While N-1A is very specific regarding the treatment of short sales for the purchase and sales component of the portfolio turnover calculation (numerator) Form N-1A does not reference short sales for the monthly average value of portfolio securities’ component (denominator). We understand the inclusion of the absolute value of securities sold short in the denominator to be the industry best practice. We will continue to monitor industry best practices and will consider whether additional disclosure is warranted.
11.
Comment: For Neuberger Berman Real Estate Income Fund Inc., in the financial highlights, please modify the heading (Ratio of net investment income excluding preferred share distributions) to reflect the current leverage structure.
Response: We will mo
Show Raw Text
CORRESP 1 filename1.htm Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers LLC 605 Third Avenue New York, NY 10158-3698 July 8, 2016 Christina DiAngelo Fettig Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street NE Washington, D.C. 20549 Re: SEC Questions on Neuberger Berman Registered Funds’ N-CSRs and other filings: Neuberger Berman Income Funds Neuberger Berman Alternative Funds Neuberger Berman California Intermediate Municipal Fund Inc. Neuberger Berman High Yield Strategies Fund Inc. Neuberger Berman Intermediate Municipal Fund Inc. Neuberger Berman New York Intermediate Municipal Fund Inc. Neuberger Berman Real Estate Securities Income Fund Inc. Dear Ms. Fettig: This letter is in response to your phone call on September 2, 2015 with Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers LLC (“NBIA”), formerly Neuberger Berman Management LLC,1 personnel, during which you made inquiries on the N-CSR for the period ending October 31, 2014 and various other filings made with respect to each of the above captioned funds, each of which is managed by NBIA (each a “Fund” and collectively, the “Funds”). Summarized below are the questions and comments from that discussion, along with our responses. In providing our response, we acknowledge that: (1) each Fund is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of the disclosure in its filings, (2) Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) staff comments, or changes to disclosure in response to staff comments, in the filings reviewed by the staff do not foreclose the Commission from taking any action with respect to the filing; and (3) no Fund may assert staff comments as a defense in any proceeding initiated by the Commission or any person under the federal securities laws of the United States. Please note that where changes are being made to future disclosure in response to staff comments, we do not thereby acknowledge that past practices were deficient. Rather, changes are being made primarily to accommodate staff requests. Your questions/comments are reflected in bold, and our answers are beneath. 1 On January 1, 2016, Neuberger Berman Management LLC and Neuberger Berman LLC transferred to Neuberger Berman Fixed Income LLC (“NBFI”) their rights and obligations pertaining to all services they provided to any Fund under any investment management, investment sub-advisory, and/or administration agreement, as applicable (the “Agreements”). Following this transfer, NBFI was renamed Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers LLC. The consolidation did not result in any change in personnel servicing the Funds, investment processes employed by any Fund, the nature or level of services provided to any Fund, or the fees any Fund pays under its advisory or administration agreements. 1. Comment: Please consider whether the benchmark for Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Fund meets the definition of an appropriate broad based benchmark under Item 27(b)(7)(ii)(A) of the instructions to Form N-1A. Response: We believe that the blended benchmark meets this definition. Management is aware of several fund groups that similarly use a blended index as the “broad-based securities market index” for a fund registered on Form N-1A. We believe that these blended indexes are often used across the industry because they reflect the market for the principal investments of these funds better than available non-blended indexes. Management is not aware of any authoritative guidance from the SEC or the SEC staff indicating that a blended index cannot represent an “appropriate broad-based securities market index” as that term is used in Form N-1A. We believe, however, that our approach is consistent with the limited authoritative guidance from the SEC and the SEC staff regarding this definition. Form N-1A defines “appropriate broad-based securities market index” to mean an index “that is administered by an organization that is not an affiliated person of the Fund, its investment adviser, or principal underwriter, unless the index is widely recognized and used.” The SEC has stated that “[t]he purpose of including return information for a broad-based securities market index was to provide investors with a basis for evaluating a fund’s performance and risks relative to the market.”2 In rejecting the mandatory use of peer group comparisons for all funds, the SEC stated that “[t]he index comparison requirement is designed to show how much value the management of the fund added by showing whether the fund ‘out-performed’ or ‘under-performed’ the market, and not so much whether one fund ‘out-performed’ another.”3 The SEC has also stated that a “broad-based index is one that provides investors with a performance indicator of the overall applicable stock or bond markets, as appropriate” and that an “index would not be considered to be broad-based if it is composed of securities of firms in a particular industry or group of related industries.”4 We respectfully note that the Fund’s blended primary benchmark index reflects the markets in which the Fund principally invests, and is not “composed of securities of firms in a particular industry or group of related industries.” This chosen blended index is more relevant for shareholders than any other available non-blended index. Early guidance on the meaning of an “appropriate broad-based securities market index” comes from SEC statements in 1972 regarding their use in the context of Section 205(b) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Specifically, the SEC stated: In determining whether an index is appropriate for a particular investment company, directors should consider factors such as the volatility, diversification of holdings, types of securities owned and objectives of the investment company. For example, a broadly based market value 2 Registration Form Used by Open-End Management Investment Companies, SEC Release No. IC-23064 (Mar. 13, 1998). 3 Disclosure of Mutual Fund Performance and Portfolio Managers, SEC Release No. IC-19382 (Apr. 6, 1993). 4 Id. 2 weighted index of common stocks ordinarily would be an appropriate index, but an index based upon a relatively few large ‘blue chip’ stocks would not. For investment companies that invest exclusively in a particular type of security or industry, either a specialized index that adequately represents the performance of that type of security or a broadly based market value weighted index ordinarily would be considered appropriate. Of course, if an investment company invests in a particular type of security an index which measures the performance of another particular type of security would be inappropriate.5 (emphasis added) Finally, with regards to the ability of a fund to select a broad-based index, the SEC stated that “[the ‘appropriate index’ language] would give a fund a considerable degree of flexibility to select an index that it believes best reflects the markets in which the fund invests. In some cases, of course, there will not be an index available that encompasses the types of securities in which the fund invests. Nonetheless, a broad market index could always be used to serve as a benchmark for how an alternative, unmanaged investment in the securities market performed during the period” (emphasis added).6 We believe that using a blended primary benchmark index complies with the requirements of Form N-1A and the SEC guidance cited above. The comparison to an appropriate index appears intended to permit investors and potential investors to see how well a fund is accomplishing what it says it will do, and how much relative risk the fund is undertaking in the process. This requires an index that reflects what the fund says it will do. As the Staff is aware, funds are increasingly using diverse investment strategies which at times have multiple distinct components and asset classes with various weightings. As a result, a fund’s strategy may have a higher degree of correlation with a blended index than a more commonly used broad-based index. In this regard, we believe that a blended primary benchmark index, consisting of component indexes that are intended to represent similar risk attributes as each distinct portion of the fund’s holdings, will provide investors with a more useful basis for evaluating the applicable Fund’s performance and risks relative to the markets in which the Fund invests. This comparison is consistent with the SEC’s stated purpose of including return information for a broad-based securities market index. We emphasize that, consistent with the SEC’s guidance that funds should have “a considerable degree of flexibility to select an index that it believes best reflects the markets in which the fund invests”, we should be given considerable deference in determining whether a blended benchmark index is an “appropriate broad-based securities market index” for the Fund. 2. Comment: Please consider whether investments in derivatives should be in the financial report narrative for Neuberger Berman Absolute Return Multi-Manager Fund and Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Fund. 5 Factors to be Considered in Connection with Investment Advisory Contracts Containing Incentive Fee Arrangements, SEC Release Nos. IA-315, IC-7113 (Apr. 18, 1972). 6 Disclosure and Analysis of Mutual Fund Performance Information; Portfolio Manager Disclosure, SEC Release No. IC-17294 (Jan. 8, 1990). 3 Response: The July 30, 2010, letter from Barry Miller, Associate Director, Office of Legal and Disclosure, Securities and Exchange Commission, to the Investment Company Institute states the following regarding the content of management’s discussion of fund performance (MDFP): Further, the MDFP should be consistent with operations reflected in the financial statements, and a fund whose performance was materially affected by derivatives should discuss that fact, whether or not derivatives are reflected in the portfolio schedule at the close of the fiscal year. For each Fund, the effect from derivatives was considered; however, it was not material enough to warrant discussion in the MDFP. 3. Comment: Please consider adding to the portfolio holdings chart a note indicating that derivatives are not included. Response: Management will include a footnote going forward. 4. Comment: For Neuberger Berman Flexible Select Fund, Golub Capital BDC was listed in the schedule of investments. Please confirm that this was included in the Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses (“AFFEs”) line item in the prospectus fee table. Response: The Fund’s fee table showed 0.06% of AFFEs. This was primarily due to its investment in the State Street Institutional Treasury Money Market Fund. The AFFEs related to the Golub Capital BDC were included in this amount but were not material enough to affect this line item. 5. Comment: For floating rate securities listed in the Schedule of Investments, please consider adding a description of the rate terms within the description of the security- e.g. (Libor plus spread, 1.00% floor). Response: We reviewed multiple competitor fund disclosures and were not able to identify any funds that include this additional description for floating rate securities. We also asked various fund service providers whether including such a description is a common practice. They indicated that they have not seen this additional description for floating rate securities and are not aware of any requirement to disclose this level of information. Comment: Referring to PIK bonds and the AICPA Audit Risk Alert - Investment Company Industry Developments 2013/2014 (see excerpt below), the cash and PIK rates of interest should be disclosed. Certain registrants have debt investments that pay both PIK and cash interest. The SEC staff has noticed certain registrants hold debt instruments that have a provision permitting the issuer to determine a range of PIK interest that will be paid, along with a minimum cash percentage to be paid. For example, a bond may have a 15-percent stated interest rate that includes two rate components: (a) a minimum cash interest rate of 10 percent and (b) a PIK interest rate with a range between 0 percent and 5 percent. The SEC staff believes that if an issuer has the 4 ability to pay a range of PIK interest, the current PIK and cash interest rates should be disclosed on the schedule of investments, along with the possible PIK interest rate range or the maximum PIK interest rate that could be paid. For example, if the issuer of the bond previously referenced with a 15-percent stated interest rate is currently paying 12 percent cash interest and 3 percent PIK interest as of the date of the financial statements, then the schedule of investments would disclose the current 12 percent cash and 3 percent PIK interest rates, along with the range of possible PIK interest rates that could be paid (0-5 percent) or the maximum allowable amount of PIK interest (0 percent to 5 percent). Response: Financial statements dating back to 1/31/15 started disclosing both the current PIK/cash rates as well as the range of allowable PIK rates. 6. Comment: Please consider adding a line item to the balance sheet for funds with unfunded commitments (Reg. SX 604-15). Some examples of this will be sent to you. Response: We currently disclose unfunded commitments in the notes to the financial statements. Going forward, we will include on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities a line item titled “Commitments and contingencies.” Based on present conditions, the line item will show no value but will include a reference to the applicable note. As it relates to Section 18, our current procedures require the full cost of unfunded commitments to be covered. 7. Comment: For Neuberger Berman Absolute Return Multi-Manager Fund, on page 47 of the annual report, please provide more detail describing the transfer of securities to/from Level 2 and Level 3. Response: The accounting standards require disclosure of the reason for a transfer of securities to/from Level 2 and Level 3. While management believes the current language sufficiently describes the reasons for any such transfers, in the future we will attempt to provide additional detail that may be useful for shareholders, such as a methodology based on a single broker quote. 8. Comment: For Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Fund, please add to the notes any accounting policies for accruing foreign capital gain taxes. Response: A note will be added going forward. 9. Comment: For Neuberger Berman MLP Income Fund, please confirm that it is complying with Section 19A requirements. Response: Yes. 19a-1 notices are being sent, as appropriate, and the Fund is complying with Section 19A requirements. 10. Comment: For portfolio turnover rates including/excluding short sales that are disclosed in the financial highlights tables, are the denominators the same? Response: No. The denominator for portfolio turnover rates including short sales is the average market value of both long and short securities. The denominator for portfolio turnover rates excluding short sales is the average market value of only long securities. 5 While N-1A is very specific regarding the treatment of short sales for the purchase and sales component of the portfolio turnover calculation (numerator) Form N-1A does not reference short sales for the monthly average value of portfolio securities’ component (denominator). We understand the inclusion of the absolute value of securities sold short in the denominator to be the industry best practice. We will continue to monitor industry best practices and will consider whether additional disclosure is warranted. 11. Comment: For Neuberger Berman Real Estate Income Fund Inc., in the financial highlights, please modify the heading (Ratio of net investment income excluding preferred share distributions) to reflect the current leverage structure. Response: We will mo