Item 1 of 2 is just to approve the Board members. Item 2 is to shorten considerably the statement of the fund's objective.
Current: "The fund seeks to provide shareholders with regular current income, the potential for capital appreciation, and a moderate level of risk by investing in a diversified portfolio including bonds, preferred stocks, common stocks and other securities convertible into common stock. The objective of the fund is also to provide a current income yield of at least 25% greater than that of the S & P 500 Index, although there can be no assurance that this objective will be met."
Proposed: "The fund seeks to provide capital growth, current income, and preservation of capital."
Clearly, they want to open things up, leave open the possibility of taking on more risk than is the case currently, and they want out of the 25% goal. On the other hand, "preservation of capital" is not in the current wording, either. THAT part, I like.
If the current wording is no longer do-able, ok. But my impression is that the proposed greater opportunity to be more freewheeling isn't a good thing. What say you others? I just received this in the mail today. Thanks.
Comments
Great. If the current wording is too specific for them and they want to simplify, ok. The proposed phrasing, however, is as general and non-specific as it could be. Like the proposed new wording was written not offend anyone--- like the Presbyterian rule book. Good ideas, no teeth.
Or, as 00by stated, this is lawyer speak.
Take a snapshot of their holdings now and another one in the future. See what if any changes have occurred.
My read is that M&P don't want to be held to the 25% target if it means they need to take on more likely-bad risk to get there. I'm totally fine with that, as that's in keeping with their conservative investing philosophy.