SEC Form N-2 filed by Columbia Seligman Premium Technology Growth Fund Inc
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
REGISTRATION STATEMENT
THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940 ☒
(Address of Principal Executive Offices) (Zip Code)
Christopher O. Petersen, Esq. c/o Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC 290 Congress Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 |
Ryan C. Larrenaga, Esq. c/o Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC 290 Congress Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 |
The Registrant hereby amends this Registration Statement on such date or dates as may be necessary to delay its effective date until the Registrant shall file a further amendment which specifically states this Registration Statement shall thereafter become effective in accordance with Section 8(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended or until the Registration Statement shall become effective on such dates as the Commission, acting pursuant to said Section 8(a), may determine.
NYSE: STK |
3
| |
3 | |
4 | |
8 | |
11 | |
12 | |
13
| |
14 | |
15
| |
16 | |
16 | |
16 | |
17 | |
23 | |
25 | |
26 | |
26 | |
27 | |
28
| |
28 | |
29 | |
31 | |
33
| |
35 | |
35 | |
35 | |
35 | |
36 | |
36 | |
37 |
Stockholder Transaction Expenses | |
Sales Load(a) |
1.00 % |
Offering Expenses |
None (b) |
Dividend Investment Plan and Stock Repurchase Program Fees |
None
(c) |
Annual Expenses (as a percentage of net assets
attributable to Common Shares) | ||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Management fees(d) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.06 % |
|
|
Other expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.07 % |
|
|
Acquired fund fees and expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.00 % |
|
|
Total Annual Expenses(e)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.13 % |
|
|
|
1 year |
3 years |
5 years |
10 years |
Common Shares |
$12 |
$36 |
$62 |
$137 |
Year ended December 31, |
2023 |
2022 |
2021 |
Per share data |
|
|
|
Net asset value, beginning of period |
$22.63 |
$35.42 |
$27.86 |
Income from investment operations: |
|
|
|
Net investment income (loss) |
(0.05 ) |
(0.08 ) |
(0.06 ) |
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) |
8.58 |
(9.78 ) |
10.76 |
Total from investment operations |
8.53 |
(9.86 ) |
10.70 |
Less distributions to Stockholders from: |
|
|
|
Net investment income |
— |
— |
— |
Net realized gains |
(2.12 ) |
(2.93 ) |
(3.14 ) |
Total distributions to Stockholders |
(2.12 ) |
(2.93 ) |
(3.14 ) |
(Dilution) Anti-dilution in net asset value from share purchases (via dividend
reinvestment program)(a) |
0.01 |
(0.00 )(b) |
— |
Anti-dilution in net asset value from share buy-backs (via stock repurchase
program)(a) |
— |
— |
— |
Net asset value, end of period |
$29.05 |
$22.63 |
$35.42 |
Market price, end of period |
$31.60 |
$23.23 |
$37.01 |
Total return |
|
|
|
Based upon net asset value |
38.89 % |
(28.74 %) |
39.38 % |
Based upon market price |
47.19 % |
(29.99 %) |
48.96 % |
Ratios to average net assets |
|
|
|
Total gross expenses(c) |
1.13 % |
1.13 % |
1.13 % |
Net investment income (loss) |
(0.19 %) |
(0.29 %) |
(0.18 %) |
Supplemental data |
|
|
|
Net assets, end of period (in thousands): |
$478,924 |
$366,036 |
$564,220 |
Portfolio turnover |
25 % |
9 % |
27 % |
2020 |
2019 |
2018 |
2017 |
2016 |
2015 |
2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$23.43 |
$16.96 |
$20.83 |
$17.78 |
$17.29 |
$17.69 |
$16.18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.11 |
(0.02 ) |
(0.01 ) |
(0.06 ) |
(0.05 ) |
(0.04 ) |
(0.07 ) |
6.17 |
8.34 |
(1.36 ) |
5.74 |
2.39 |
1.49 |
3.43 |
6.28 |
8.32 |
(1.37 ) |
5.68 |
2.34 |
1.45 |
3.36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.11 ) |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
(1.74 ) |
(1.85 ) |
(2.50 ) |
(2.63 ) |
(1.85 ) |
(1.85 ) |
(1.85 ) |
(1.85 ) |
(1.85 ) |
(2.50 ) |
(2.63 ) |
(1.85 ) |
(1.85 ) |
(1.85 ) |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
$27.86 |
$23.43 |
$16.96 |
$20.83 |
$17.78 |
$17.29 |
$17.69 |
$27.24 |
$23.55 |
$16.81 |
$22.25 |
$18.74 |
$17.93 |
$18.93 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29.17 % |
51.04 % |
(7.77 %) |
32.72 % |
15.29 % |
8.40 % |
22.32 % |
25.65 % |
53.17 % |
(14.42 %) |
34.51 % |
17.18 % |
5.05 % |
47.17 % |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.15 % |
1.15 % |
1.15 % |
1.16 % |
1.17 % |
1.17 % |
1.17 % |
0.50 % |
(0.08 %) |
(0.05 %) |
(0.28 %) |
(0.33 %) |
(0.24 %) |
(0.41 %) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$443,114 |
$372,063 |
$265,315 |
$320,472 |
$273,226 |
$265,426 |
$271,300 |
32 % |
43 % |
34 % |
47 % |
61 % |
61 % |
60 % |
Title of Class |
Amount Authorized |
Amount Held by Fund or for
its Account |
Amount Outstanding
Exclusive of Amount
Held by Fund |
Common Stock, $0.01 par value per share |
1,000,000,000 shares |
0 shares |
16,579,622 shares |
|
Market Price ($) |
Corresponding NAV ($) |
Corresponding (Discount)/Premium to NAV (%) | |||
|
High |
Low |
High |
Low |
High |
Low |
2022 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Quarter |
37.50 |
28.28 |
35.64 |
28.72 |
5.22 |
(1.53) |
2nd Quarter |
32.11 |
24.47 |
32.13 |
24.64 |
(0.06) |
(0.69) |
3rd Quarter |
32.24 |
23.19 |
28.62 |
22.78 |
12.65 |
1.80 |
4th Quarter |
27.69 |
22.48 |
25.84 |
21.98 |
7.16 |
2.27 |
2023 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Quarter |
28.08 |
22.73 |
26.34 |
22.48 |
6.61 |
1.11 |
2nd Quarter |
31.35 |
26.23 |
27.65 |
24.66 |
13.38 |
6.37 |
3rd Quarter |
31.04 |
26.75 |
28.99 |
26.05 |
7.07 |
2.69 |
4th Quarter |
31.91 |
25.18 |
29.26 |
24.88 |
9.06 |
1.21 |
2024 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Quarter |
34.05 |
29.37 |
30.72 |
27.81 |
10.84 |
5.61 |
|
As of May 31, 2024
(unaudited)
Actual |
Pro Forma
(unaudited)
As Adjusted |
Net assets |
$[___] |
$[___] |
Additional paid-in capital |
$[___] |
$[___] |
Total distributable earnings (loss) |
$[___] |
$[___] |
Net assets |
$[___] |
[___] |
Net assets per Common Share |
$[___] |
$[___] |
Common Shares issued and outstanding |
16,579,622 |
[___] |
When the VXN Index is: |
Aggregate Notional Amount of Written Call Options as a Percentage of the Fund’s
Holdings in Common Stocks |
17 or less |
25% |
Greater than 17, but less than
18 |
Increase up to 50% |
At least 18, but less than 33 |
50% |
At least 33, but less than 34 |
Increase up to 90% |
At least 34, but less than 55 |
90% |
At 55 or greater |
0% to 90% |
Portfolio Management |
Role with Fund |
Managed Fund Since |
Paul Wick |
Lead Portfolio Manager |
2009 |
Braj Agrawal |
Portfolio Manager |
2010 |
Christopher Boova |
Portfolio Manager |
2016 |
Jeetil Patel |
Technology Team Member |
2015 |
Vimal Patel |
Technology Team Member |
2018 |
Shekhar Pramanick |
Technology Team Member |
2018 |
Number of outstanding Common Shares
SAIPRIMER..................................................................................................................................................
|
2 |
ABOUTTHEFUND.......................................................................................................................................... |
5 |
ADDITIONALINVESTMENTPOLICIES.............................................................................................................. |
6 |
ABOUTFUNDINVESTMENTS.......................................................................................................................... |
9 |
Types of
Investments................................................................................................................................. |
9 |
Information Regarding
Risks....................................................................................................................... |
45 |
Lending of Portfolio
Securities..................................................................................................................... |
77 |
Interfund
Lending....................................................................................................................................... |
77 |
INVESTMENTMANAGEMENTANDOTHERSERVICES...................................................................................... |
79 |
The Investment
Manager............................................................................................................................ |
79 |
Potential Conflicts of
Interest...................................................................................................................... |
81 |
Structure of
Compensation......................................................................................................................... |
83 |
The
Administrator....................................................................................................................................... |
84 |
Other Services
Provided............................................................................................................................. |
84 |
Other Roles and Relationships of Ameriprise Financial and Its Affiliates —
Certain Conflicts of Interest........... |
84 |
Codes of
Ethics.......................................................................................................................................... |
89 |
Proxy Voting Policies and
Procedures........................................................................................................... |
89 |
FUNDGOVERNANCE......................................................................................................................................
|
91 |
Board of Directors and
Officers................................................................................................................... |
91 |
Compensation............................................................................................................................................
|
101
|
BROKERAGEALLOCATIONANDRELATEDPRACTICES..................................................................................... |
103
|
General Brokerage Policy, Brokerage Transactions and Broker
Selection......................................................... |
103
|
Brokerage
Commissions............................................................................................................................. |
106
|
Directed
Brokerage..................................................................................................................................... |
107
|
Securities of Regular
Broker-Dealers............................................................................................................ |
107
|
TAXATION...................................................................................................................................................... |
108
|
CONTROLPERSONSANDPRINCIPALHOLDERSOFSECURITIES...................................................................... |
120
|
INFORMATIONREGARDINGPENDINGANDSETTLEDLEGALPROCEEDINGS..................................................... |
121
|
OtherInformation....................................................................................................................................
|
122
|
Certain Provisions of the Fund’s Charter and
Bylaws.................................................................................... |
122
|
ReportofIndependentRegisteredPublicAccountingFirmonFinancialStatementSchedule.. |
125
|
IncorporationbyReference................................................................................................................... |
126
|
APPENDIXA—DESCRIPTIONOFCREDITRATINGS........................................................................................ |
A-1 |
APPENDIXB—CORPORATEGOVERNANCEGUIDELINES................................................................................ |
B-1 |
Boston, MA 02210
Equinity Trust Company, LLC
48 Wall Street, Floor 23
New York, NY 10005
Toll-Free Telephone: (866) 666-1532
2
| |
5 | |
6
| |
9 | |
9 | |
45 | |
77 | |
77 | |
79
| |
79 | |
81 | |
83 | |
84 | |
84 | |
84 | |
89 | |
89 | |
91 | |
91 | |
101 | |
103
| |
103 | |
106 | |
107 | |
107 | |
108 | |
120
| |
121 | |
122
| |
122 | |
125
| |
126 | |
A-1 | |
B-1 |
1933 Act |
Securities Act of 1933, as amended |
1934 Act |
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended |
1940 Act |
Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended |
Ameriprise Financial |
Ameriprise Financial, Inc. |
Board |
The Fund’s Board of Directors |
Business Day |
Any day on which the NYSE is open for business. A business day typically ends at the close of regular trading on the NYSE, usually at 4:00 p.m. Eastern time. If the NYSE is scheduled to close early, the business day will be considered to end as of the time of the NYSE’s scheduled close.
The Fund will not treat an intraday unscheduled disruption in NYSE
trading or an intraday unscheduled closing as a close of regular trading
on the NYSE for these purposes and will price its shares as of the
regularly scheduled closing time for that day (typically, 4:00 p.m.
Eastern time). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the NAV of Fund
shares may be determined at such other time or times (in addition
to or in lieu of the time set forth above) as the Fund’s
Board may approve or ratify. On holidays and other days when the
NYSE is closed, the Fund's NAV is not calculated and the Fund does
not accept buy or sell orders. However, the value of the Fund's
assets may still be affected on such days to the extent that the
Fund holds foreign securities that trade on days that foreign
securities markets are open. |
CEA |
Commodity Exchange Act |
CFTC |
The United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission |
Code |
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended |
Codes of Ethics |
The codes of ethics adopted by the Fund, Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC (the Investment Manager) and/or any sub- adviser, as applicable, pursuant to Rule 17j-1 under the 1940 Act |
Columbia Funds or Columbia Funds Complex |
The fund complex, including the Fund, that is comprised of the registered
investment companies, including traditional mutual funds, closed-end
funds, and ETFs, advised by the Investment Manager or its
affiliates |
Columbia Management |
Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC |
Columbia Threadneedle Investments |
The global brand name of the Columbia and Threadneedle group of companies |
Common Shares |
Shares of the Fund’s common stock |
Custodian |
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. |
DBRS |
Morningstar DBRS |
Director(s) |
One or more of the Board’s Directors |
Distributor |
ALPS Distributors, Inc. is the Distributor of Common Shares issued by the
Fund solely in connection with the Fund's at-the-market offering.
|
FDIC |
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation |
FHLMC |
The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation |
Fitch |
Fitch Ratings, Inc. |
FNMA |
Federal National Mortgage Association |
GICS |
The Global Industry Classification Standard
(GICS®). GICS was developed
by and/or is the exclusive property of MSCI, Inc. (MSCI®) and S&P Global
Market Intelligence Inc. (S&P Global Market Intelligence). GICS is a
service mark of MSCI and S&P Global Market Intelligence and has
been licensed for use by the Investment Manager. Neither GICS,
MSCI, nor S&P Global Market Intelligence are affiliated with
the Fund, the Investment Manager or any Columbia
entity. |
GNMA |
Government National Mortgage Association |
Independent Directors |
The Directors of the Board who are not “interested persons” (as defined
in the 1940 Act) of the Fund |
Interested Director |
A Director of the Board who is currently deemed to be an “interested
person” (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the Fund |
Investment Manager |
Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC |
IRS |
United States Internal Revenue Service |
JPMorgan |
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., the Fund's custodian |
KBRA |
Kroll Bond Rating Agency |
LIBOR |
London Inter-bank Offered Rate* |
Management Agreement |
The Management Agreement, as amended, between the Fund and the Investment Manager |
Moody’s |
Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. |
NRSRO |
Nationally recognized statistical ratings organization (for example, Moody’s, Fitch or S&P) |
NYSE |
New York Stock Exchange |
PwC |
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
REIT |
Real estate investment trust |
REMIC |
Real estate mortgage investment conduit |
S&P |
S&P Global Ratings, a division of S&P Global Inc. (“Standard & Poor’s”
and “S&P” are trademarks of S&P Global Inc. and have been
licensed for use by the Investment Manager. The Columbia Funds are
not sponsored, endorsed, sold or promoted by S&P Global
Ratings, and S&P Global Ratings makes no representation
regarding the advisability of investing in the Columbia
Funds.) |
SAI |
This Statement of Additional Information, as amended and supplemented from time-to-time |
SEC |
United States Securities and Exchange Commission |
Shares |
Shares of the Fund |
SOFR |
Secured Overnight Financing Rate |
Transfer Agent |
Equiniti Trust Company, LLC (formerly known as American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC) |
Transfer Agency and Registrar Agreement |
The Transfer Agency Agreement, as amended, between the Fund and the Transfer Agent |
Fund |
Fiscal Year End |
Prospectus Date |
Diversified* |
Columbia Seligman Premium Technology Growth Fund, Inc. |
December 31 |
TBD |
No |
Type of Investment |
Columbia Seligman Premium Technology Growth Fund |
Asset-Backed Securities |
Yes |
Bank Obligations (Domestic and Foreign) |
Yes |
Collateralized Bond Obligations |
Yes |
Commercial Paper |
Yes |
Common Stock |
Yes |
Convertible Securities |
Yes |
Corporate Debt Securities |
Yes |
Custody Receipts and Trust Certificates |
Yes |
Debt Obligations |
Yes |
Depositary Receipts |
Yes |
Type of Investment |
Columbia Seligman Premium Technology Growth Fund |
Derivatives |
Yes |
Dollar Rolls |
Yes |
Exchange-Traded Notes |
Yes |
Foreign Currency Transactions |
Yes |
Foreign Securities |
Yes |
Guaranteed Investment Contracts (Funding Agreements) |
Yes |
High-Yield Securities |
Yes |
Illiquid Investments |
Yes |
Inflation Protected Securities |
Yes |
Initial Public Offerings |
Yes |
Inverse Floaters |
Yes |
Investment in Other Investment Companies (Including ETFs)
|
Yes |
Listed Private Equity Funds |
Yes |
Money Market Instruments |
Yes |
Mortgage-Backed Securities |
Yes |
Municipal Securities |
Yes |
Participation Interests |
Yes |
Partnership Securities |
Yes |
Preferred Stock |
Yes |
Private Placement and Other Restricted Securities |
Yes |
Real Estate Investment Trusts |
Yes |
Repurchase Agreements |
Yes |
Reverse Repurchase Agreements |
Yes |
Short Sales |
Yes |
Sovereign Debt |
Yes |
Standby Commitments |
Yes |
U.S. Government and Related Obligations |
Yes |
Variable- and Floating-Rate Obligations |
Yes |
Warrants and Rights |
Yes |
The value of CoCos may be influenced by the creditworthiness of the issuer and/or fluctuations in such issuer’s applicable capital ratios; supply and demand for CoCos; general market conditions and available liquidity; and economic, financial or political events impacting the issuer, its particular market or the financial markets more broadly. Due to the contingent conversion or principal write-down or write-off features, CoCos may have substantially greater risk than other securities in times of financial stress. The occurrence of an automatic conversion or write-down or write-off event may be unpredictable and the potential effects of such event could cause a Fund’s shares to lose value. The coupon payments offered by CoCos are discretionary and may be cancelled or adjusted downward by the issuer or at the request of the relevant regulatory authority at any point, for any reason, and for any length of time. As a result of the uncertainty with respect to coupon payments, the value of CoCos may be volatile and their price may decline rapidly if coupon payments are suspended. CoCos are typically structurally subordinated to traditional convertible bonds in the issuer’s capital structure. There may be circumstances under which investors in CoCos may suffer a capital loss ahead of equity holders or when equity holders do not.
Although one or more of the other risks described in this SAI may also apply, the risks typically associated with CoCos include: Convertible Securities Risk, Credit Risk, Foreign Securities Risk, High-Yield Investments Risk, Interest Rate Risk, Issuer Risk, and Market Risk.
The Indian government has exercised, and continues to exercise, significant influence over many aspects of the economy, and the number of public sector enterprises in India is substantial. Accordingly, Indian government actions in the future could have a significant effect on the Indian economy, which could affect private sector companies, market conditions, and prices and yields of securities in the Fund’s portfolio. The Fund’s performance will also be affected by changes in value of the Indian rupee versus the U.S. dollar. For example, if the value of the U.S. dollar goes up compared to the Indian rupee, an investment traded in the rupee will go down in value because it will be worth fewer U.S. dollars. Furthermore, the Fund may incur costs in connection with conversions between U.S. dollars and rupees.
Indian issuers are subject to less regulation and scrutiny with regard to financial reporting, accounting and auditing than U.S. companies. Information regarding Indian corporations may be less reliable and all material information may not be available to the Fund. Securities laws in India are relatively new and unsettled and, consequently, there is a risk of rapid and unpredictable change in laws regarding foreign investment, securities regulation, title to securities and shareholder rights. Accordingly, foreign investors may be adversely affected by new or amended laws and regulations. In addition, it may be difficult to obtain and enforce a judgment in a court in India. It may not be possible for the Fund to effect service of process in India, and if the Fund obtains a judgment in a U.S. court, it may be difficult to enforce such judgment in India. The stock markets in the region are undergoing a period of growth and change, which may result in trading or price volatility and difficulties in the settlement and recording of transactions, and in interpreting and applying the relevant laws and regulations. The securities industries in India are comparatively underdeveloped, and stockbrokers and other intermediaries may not perform as well as their counterparts in the United States and other more developed securities markets and which may impose additional costs on investment.
The Indian population is comprised of diverse religious, linguistic, ethnic and religious groups. India has, from time to time, experienced civil unrest and hostility with neighboring countries such as Pakistan. Violence and disruption associated with these tensions could have a negative effect on the economy and, consequently, adversely affect the Fund. Agriculture occupies a prominent position in the Indian economy, alongside India’s service and industrial sectors. Adverse changes in weather, including monsoons, and other natural disasters in India and surrounding regions can have a significant adverse effect on the Indian economy, which could adversely affect the Fund.
|
Asset (in Millions) |
Annual rate at each asset level |
Columbia Seligman Premium Technology Growth Fund, Inc. |
$0 - $500 |
1.060% |
˃$500 - $1,000 |
1.055% | |
˃$1,000 - $3,000 |
1.050% | |
˃$3,000 - $4,000 |
1.010% | |
˃$4,000 - $6,000 |
0.960% |
|
Asset
(in Millions) |
Annual rate at each asset level |
|
˃$6,000 - $12,000 |
0.910% |
|
˃$12,000 - $20,000 |
0.900% |
|
˃$20,000 - $24,000 |
0.890% |
|
˃$24,000 - $50,000 |
0.880% |
|
˃$50,000 |
0.850% |
|
Management
Services Fees Paid | ||
Fund |
|
|
|
For Funds with fiscal period ending December 31
|
2023 |
2022 |
2021 |
Columbia Seligman Premium Technology Growth Fund, Inc. |
$4,580,664 |
$4,704,400 |
$5,496,087 |
|
|
Other
Accounts Managed (excluding the Fund) |
| ||
Fund |
Portfolio Manager |
Number and type
of account* |
Approximate
Total Net Assets
(excluding the fund) |
Performance
Based
Accounts** |
Ownership of Fund Shares |
Information is as of December 31, 2023, unless otherwise noted
| |||||
Columbia Seligman Premium Technology Growth Fund |
Paul Wick |
4 RICs
3 PIVs
8 other accounts |
$13.82 billion
$1.94 billion
$1.73 billion |
2 PIVs -$998.01M
1 other account –
$182.78M |
None |
Braj Agrawal |
15 other accounts |
$1.45 million |
None |
None | |
Christopher Boova |
2 RICs
6 other accounts |
$2.28 billion
$6.77 million |
None |
None | |
Jeetil Patel |
1 RIC
10 other accounts |
$11.50 billion
$6.54 million |
None |
None | |
Vimal Patel |
3 RICs
8 other accounts |
$13.79 billion
$6.36 million |
None |
None | |
Shekhar Pramanick |
4 RICs 6 other accounts |
$13.82 billion $14.05 million |
None |
None |
Certain Conflicts of Interest
Name, Address, Year of Birth |
Position Held
with the Fund and
Length of Service |
Principal Occupation(s)
During the Past Five Years
and Other Relevant
Professional Experience |
Number of
Funds in the
Columbia Funds
Complex
Overseen |
Other Directorships Held
by Director During the
Past Five Years and Other
Relevant Board
Experience |
Committee Assignments |
George S. Batejan c/o Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC, 290 Congress Street, Boston, MA 02210 1954 |
Director since January 2018 |
Executive Vice President, Global Head of Technology and Operations, Janus Capital Group, Inc., 2010- 2016 |
161 |
Former Chairman of the Board, NICSA (National Investment Company Services Association) (Executive Committee, Nominating Committee and Governance Committee), 2014- 2016; former Director, Intech Investment Management, 2011- 2016; former Board Member, Metro Denver Chamber of Commerce, 2015-2016; former Advisory Board Member, University of Colorado Business School, 2015-2018; former Board Member, Chase Bank International, 1993- 1994 |
Compliance,
Contracts, Investment
Review |
Name, Address, Year of Birth |
Position Held
with the Fund and
Length of Service |
Principal Occupation(s)
During the Past Five Years
and Other Relevant
Professional Experience |
Number of
Funds in the
Columbia Funds
Complex
Overseen |
Other Directorships Held
by Director During the
Past Five Years and Other
Relevant Board
Experience |
Committee Assignments |
Kathleen Blatz c/o Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC, 290 Congress Street, Boston, MA 02210 1954 |
Director since
October 2009 |
Attorney, specializing in
arbitration and mediation;
Trustee of Gerald
Rauenhorst 1982 Trusts,
since 2020; Chief Justice,
Minnesota Supreme Court,
1998-2006; Associate
Justice, Minnesota
Supreme Court, 1996-
1998; Fourth Judicial
District Court Judge,
Hennepin County, 1994-
1996; Attorney in private
practice and public service,
1984-1993; State
Representative, Minnesota
House of Representatives,
1979-1993, which included
service on the Tax and
Financial Institutions and
Insurance Committees;
Member and Interim Chair,
Minnesota Sports Facilities
Authority, January-July
2017; Interim President
and Chief Executive Officer,
Blue Cross and Blue Shield
of Minnesota (health care
insurance), February-July
2018, April-October 2021 |
161 |
Former Trustee, Blue
Cross and Blue Shield
of Minnesota, 2009-
2021 (Chair of the
Business Development
Committee, 2014-
2017; Chair of the
Governance Committee,
2017-2019); former
Member and Chair of
the Board, Minnesota
Sports Facilities
Authority, January 2017-
July 2017; former
Director, Robina
Foundation, 2009-2020
(Chair, 2014-2020);
Director, Richard M.
Schulze Family
Foundation, since 2021 |
Compliance, Contracts,
Investment Review |
Pamela G. Carlton c/o Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC, 290 Congress Street, Boston, MA 02210 1954 |
Director since
October 2009;
Chair of the
Board since
January 2023 |
President, Springboard-
Partners in Cross Cultural
Leadership (consulting
company), since 2003;
Managing Director of US
Equity Research, JP Morgan
Chase, 1999-2003;
Director of US Equity
Research, Chase Asset
Management, 1996-1999;
Co-Director Latin America
Research, 1993-1996,
COO Global Research,
1992-1996, Co-Director of
US Research, 1991-1992,
Investment Banker, 1982-
1991, Morgan Stanley;
Attorney, Cleary Gottlieb
Steen & Hamilton LLP,
1980-1982 |
161 |
Trustee, New York
Presbyterian Hospital
Board, since 1996;
Director, DR Bank (Audit
Committee, since 2017
and Audit Committee
Chair, since November
2023); Director,
Evercore Inc. (Audit
Committee, Nominating
and Governance
Committee) (financial
services company),
since 2019; Director,
Apollo Commercial Real
Estate Finance, Inc.
(Chair, Nominating and
Governance
Committee), since
2021; the Governing
Council of the
Independent Directors
Council (IDC), since
2021 |
Board
Governance, Contracts,
Investment Review |
Janet Langford Carrig c/o Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC, 290 Congress Street Boston, MA 02210 1957 |
Director since January 2023 |
Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, ConocoPhillips (independent energy company), September 2007-October 2018 |
161 |
Director, EQT Corporation (natural gas producer), since 2019; former Director, Whiting Petroleum Corporation (independent oil and gas company), 2020- 2022 |
Board
Governance, Contracts,
Investment Review |
Name, Address, Year of Birth |
Position Held
with the Fund and
Length of Service |
Principal Occupation(s)
During the Past Five Years
and Other Relevant
Professional Experience |
Number of
Funds in the
Columbia Funds
Complex
Overseen |
Other Directorships Held
by Director During the
Past Five Years and Other
Relevant Board
Experience |
Committee Assignments |
Patricia M. Flynn c/o Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC, 290 Congress Street,
Boston, MA 02210 1950 |
Director since
October 2009 |
Professor Emeritus of
Economics and
Management, Bentley
University since 2023;
Professor of Economics
and Management, Bentley
University, 1976-2023;
Dean, McCallum Graduate
School of Business,
Bentley University, 1992-
2002 |
161 |
Former Trustee, MA
Taxpayers Foundation,
1997-2022; former
Director, The MA
Business Roundtable,
2003-2019; former
Chairperson, Innovation
Index Advisory
Committee, MA
Technology
Collaborative, 1997-
2020 |
Audit, Contracts,
Investment Review |
Brian J. Gallagher c/o Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC, 290 Congress Street, Boston, MA 02210 1954 |
Director since
January 2020 |
Retired; Partner with
Deloitte & Touche LLP and
its predecessors, 1977-
2016 |
161 |
Trustee, Catholic
Schools Foundation,
since 2004 |
Audit, Board
Governance, Contracts,
Investment Review |
Douglas A. Hacker c/o Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC, 290 Congress Street Boston, MA 02210 1955 |
Director since January 2022 |
Independent business executive since May 2006; Executive Vice President – Strategy of United Airlines, December 2002-May 2006; President of UAL Loyalty Services (airline marketing company), September 2001-December 2002; Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of United Airlines, July 1999-September 2001 |
161 |
Director, SpartanNash Company (food distributor), since November 2013 (Chair of the Board since May 2021); Director, Aircastle Limited (aircraft leasing), since August 2006 (Chair of Audit Committee); former Director, Nash Finch Company (food distributor), 2005-2013; former Director, SeaCube Container Leasing Ltd. (container leasing), 2010-2013; and former Director, Travelport Worldwide Limited (travel information technology), 2014-2019 |
Audit, Board
Governance, Contracts,
Investment Review |
Name, Address, Year of Birth |
Position Held
with the Fund and
Length of Service |
Principal Occupation(s)
During the Past Five Years
and Other Relevant
Professional Experience |
Number of
Funds in the
Columbia Funds
Complex
Overseen |
Other Directorships Held
by Director During the
Past Five Years and Other
Relevant Board
Experience |
Committee Assignments |
David M. Moffett c/o Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC, 290 Congress Street Boston, MA 02210 1952 |
Director since
January 2024 |
Retired; former Chief
Executive Officer of Freddie
Mac and Chief Financial
Officer of U.S. Bank |
161 |
Director, CSX
Corporation
(transportation
suppliers); Director,
PayPal Holdings Inc.
(payment and data
processing services);
former Director, eBay
Inc. (online trading
community), 2007-
2015; and former
Director, CIT Bank, CIT
Group Inc. (commercial
and consumer finance),
2010-2016; former
Senior Adviser to The
Carlyle Group (financial
services), March 2008-
September 2008;
former Governance
Consultant to
Bridgewater Associates
(investment company),
January 2013-
December 2015 |
Audit, Contracts,
Investment Review |
Catherine James Paglia c/o Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC, 290 Congress Street, Boston, MA 02210 1952 |
Director since
October 2009 |
Director, Enterprise Asset
Management, Inc. (private
real estate and asset
management company),
since September 1998;
Managing Director and
Partner, Interlaken Capital,
Inc., 1989-1997; Vice
President, 1982-1985,
Principal, 1985-1987,
Managing Director, 1987-
1989, Morgan Stanley;
Vice President, Investment
Banking, 1980-1982,
Associate, Investment
Banking, 1976-1980, Dean
Witter Reynolds, Inc. |
161 |
Director, Valmont
Industries, Inc.
(irrigation systems
manufacturer), since
2012; Trustee, Carleton
College (on the
Investment Committee),
since 1987; Trustee,
Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace
(on the Investment
Committee), since
2009 |
Board
Governance, Compliance,
Contracts, Investment
Review |
Sandra L. Yeager c/o Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC, 290 Congress Street,
Boston, MA 02210 1964 |
Director since June 2020 |
Retired; President and founder, Hanoverian Capital, LLC (SEC registered investment advisor firm), 2008-2016; Managing Director, DuPont Capital, 2006-2008; Managing Director, Morgan Stanley Investment Management, 2004-2006; Senior Vice President, Alliance Bernstein, 1990- 2004 |
161 |
Former Director, NAPE (National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity) Education Foundation, October 2016-October 2020; Advisory Board, Jennersville YMCA, June 2022-June 2023 |
Audit,
Contracts, Investment
Review |
Name, Address, Year of Birth |
Position Held
with the Fund and
Length of Service |
Principal Occupation(s)
During the Past Five Years
and Other Relevant
Professional Experience |
Number of
Funds in the
Columbia Funds
Complex*
Overseen |
Other Directorships Held
by Director During the
Past Five Years and Other
Relevant Board
Experience |
Committee Assignments |
Daniel J. Beckman c/o Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC 290 Congress Street Boston, MA 02210
1962 |
Director since November 2021 and President since June 2021 |
President and Principal Executive Officer of the Columbia Funds, since June 2021; Vice President, Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC, since April 2015; formerly, Vice President – Head of North America Product, Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC, April 2015 – December 2023; President and Principal Executive Officer, Columbia Acorn/Wanger Funds, since July 2021 |
161 |
Director, Ameriprise Trust Company, since October 2016; Director, Columbia Management Investment Distributors, Inc., since November 2018; Board of Governors, Columbia Wanger Asset Management, LLC, since January 2022 |
None |
Name, Address
and Year of Birth |
Position and Year
First Appointed to
Position for any Fund in the Columbia Funds Complex or a Predecessor Thereof |
Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years |
Michael G. Clarke 290 Congress Street Boston, MA 02210 1969 |
Chief Financial Officer
and Principal Financial
Officer (2009); Senior
Vice President (2019);
and Treasurer and Chief
Accounting Officer
(Principal Accounting
Officer) (2024) |
Senior Vice President and North America Head of Operations &
Investor Services, Columbia Management Investment Advisers,
LLC, since June 2023 (previously Senior Vice President and Head
of Global Operations & Investor Services, March 2022 – June
2023, Vice President, Head of North America Operations, and Co-
Head of Global Operations, June 2019 - February 2022 and Vice
President – Accounting and Tax, May 2010 - May 2019); senior
officer of Columbia Funds and affiliated funds, since 2002;
Director, Ameriprise Trust Company, since June 2023. |
Marybeth Pilat 290 Congress Street Boston, MA 02210 1968 |
Assistant Treasurer (2021) |
Vice President – Product Pricing and Administration, Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC, since May 2017. |
Name, Address and Year of Birth |
Position and Year
First Appointed to
Position for any Fund in the
Columbia Funds Complex
or a Predecessor Thereof |
Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years |
William F. Truscott 290 Congress Street Boston, MA 02210 1960 |
Senior Vice President
(2001) |
Formerly, Trustee/Director of Columbia Funds Complex or legacy
funds, November 2001 – January 1, 2021; Chief Executive Officer,
Global Asset Management, Ameriprise Financial, Inc., since
September 2012; Chairman of the Board and President, Columbia
Management Investment Advisers, LLC, since July 2004 and
February 2012, respectively; Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer, Columbia Management Investment Distributors,
Inc., since November 2008 and February 2012, respectively;
Chairman of the Board and Director, TAM UK International
Holdings Limited, since July 2021; formerly Chairman of the Board
and Director, Threadneedle Asset Management Holdings, Sàrl,
March 2013 – December 2022 and December 2008 – December
2022, respectively; senior executive of various entities affiliated
with Columbia Threadneedle Investments. |
Christopher O. Petersen 5228 Ameriprise
Financial Center Minneapolis, MN 55474 1970 |
Senior Vice President and
Assistant Secretary (2021) |
Formerly, Trustee/Director of funds within the Columbia Funds Complex, July 1, 2020 - November 22, 2021; Senior Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, Ameriprise Financial, Inc., since September 2021 (previously Vice President and Lead Chief Counsel, January 2015 - September 2021); formerly, President and Principal Executive Officer of the Columbia Funds, 2015 - 2021; officer of Columbia Funds and affiliated funds since 2007. |
Thomas P. McGuire 290 Congress Street
Boston, MA 02210 1972 |
Senior Vice President and
Chief Compliance Officer
(2012) |
Vice President – Asset Management Compliance, Ameriprise
Financial, Inc., since May 2010; Chief Compliance Officer,
Columbia Acorn/Wanger Funds since December 2015; formerly,
Chief Compliance Officer, Ameriprise Certificate Company,
September 2010 – September 2020. |
Ryan C. Larrenaga 290 Congress Street Boston, MA 02210 1970 |
Senior Vice President
(2017), Chief Legal
Officer (2017) and
Secretary (2015) |
Vice President and Chief Counsel, Ameriprise Financial, Inc., since August 2018 (previously Vice President and Group Counsel, August 2011 – August 2018); Chief Legal Officer, Columbia Acorn/Wanger Funds, since September 2020; officer of Columbia Funds and affiliated funds since 2005. |
Michael E. DeFao 290 Congress Street
Boston, MA 02210 1968 |
Vice President (2011)
and Assistant Secretary
(2010) |
Vice President and Chief Counsel, Ameriprise Financial, Inc., since
May 2010; Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Assistant
Secretary, Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC, since
October 2021 (previously Vice President and Assistant Secretary,
May 2010 – September 2021). |
Lyn Kephart-Strong 5903 Ameriprise Financial Center Minneapolis, MN 55474 1960 |
Vice President (2015) |
Vice President, Global Investment Operations Services, Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC, since 2010; Director (since January 2007) and President (since October 2014), Columbia Management Investment Services Corp.; Director (since December 2017) and President (since January 2017), Ameriprise Trust Company. |
Board Member |
Dollar Range of Equity
Securities Owned by
Director of the Fund |
Aggregate Dollar Range of Equity
Securities in all Funds
in the Columbia Funds
Complex Overseen by the Director |
George S. Batejan |
$1-$10,000 |
Over $100,000(a) |
Kathleen Blatz |
$1-$10,000 |
Over $100,000 |
Pamela G. Carlton |
$50,001-$100,000 |
Over $100,000(a) |
Janet Langford Carrig |
$1-$10,000 |
Over $100,000(a) |
Patricia M. Flynn |
$1-$10,000 |
Over $100,000(a) |
Brian J. Gallagher |
$1-$10,000 |
Over $100,000(a) |
Douglas A. Hacker |
$1-$10,000 |
Over $100,000 |
David M. Moffett(b) |
$0 |
Over $100,000(a) |
Catherine James Paglia |
$1-$10,000 |
Over $100,000(a) |
Board Member |
Dollar Range of Equity
Securities Owned by
Director of the Fund |
Aggregate Dollar Range of Equity
Securities in all Funds
in the Columbia Funds
Complex Overseen by the Director |
Sandra L. Yeager |
$10,001-$50,000 |
Over $100,000(a) |
Interested Director |
Dollar Range of Equity
Securities Owned by
Director of the Fund |
Aggregate Dollar Range of Equity
Securities Owned by Director or Nominee of All Funds Overseen by Director of the Columbia Funds
Complex |
Daniel J. Beckman |
$10,001-$50,000 |
Over $100,000(a) |
Director Name(a)
|
Total Cash
Compensation from the Columbia Funds Complex
Paid to Director(b) |
Amount Deferred
from Total Compensation(c) |
George S. Batejan |
$469,000 |
$23,450 |
Kathleen Blatz |
$481,000 |
$0 |
Pamela G. Carlton |
$560,000 |
$0 |
Janet Langford Carrig |
$484,000 |
$484,000 |
Patricia M. Flynn |
$451,000 |
$0 |
Brian J. Gallagher |
$499,000 |
$249,500 |
Douglas A. Hacker |
$466,000 |
$0 |
David M. Moffett(d) |
$456,000 |
$0 |
Catherine James Paglia |
$466,000 |
$0 |
Sandra L. Yeager |
$484,000 |
$242,000 |
Director Name |
Total Cash
Compensation from the Fund
Paid to Director |
Amount Deferred
from Compensation |
George S. Batejan(a) |
$3,553 |
$178 |
Kathleen Blatz |
$3,553 |
$0 |
Pamela G. Carlton(b) |
$3,553 |
$0 |
Janet Langford Carrig(c)
|
$3,553 |
$3,553 |
Patricia M. Flynn(d) |
$3,553 |
$0 |
Brian J. Gallagher(e) |
$3,553 |
$1,777 |
Douglas A. Hacker |
$3,553 |
$0 |
David M. Moffett(f) |
$0 |
$0 |
Catherine James Paglia(g) |
$3,553 |
$0 |
Sandra Yeager(h) |
$3,553 |
$1,777 |
|
Total Brokerage
Commissions | ||
Fund |
2023 |
2022 |
2021 |
For Funds with fiscal period ending December 31
| |||
Columbia Seligman Premium Technology Growth Fund, Inc. |
$132,756 |
$87,967 |
$116,373 |
|
Brokerage
directed for research | |
Fund |
Amount of
Transactions |
Amount of
Commissions Imputed or Paid |
For Funds with fiscal period ending December 31
| ||
Columbia Seligman Premium Technology Growth Fund, Inc. |
$136,499,843 |
$27,539 |
Fund |
Issuer |
Value of securities owned at end of fiscal period |
For Funds with fiscal period ending December 31,
2023 | ||
Seligman Premium Technology Growth Fund, Inc. |
None |
N/A |
The following ratings descriptions, which were derived as of March 23, 2023 from the particular credit rating agency’s website, identify the date such descriptions were then last updated by such credit rating agency.
‘AAA’ ratings denote the lowest expectation of credit risk. They are assigned only in cases of exceptionally strong capacity for payment of financial commitments. This capacity is highly unlikely to be adversely affected by foreseeable events.
‘AA’ ratings denote expectations of very low credit risk. They indicate very strong capacity for payment of financial commitments. This capacity is not significantly vulnerable to foreseeable events.
‘A’ ratings denote expectations of low credit risk. The capacity for payment of financial commitments is considered strong. This capacity may, nevertheless, be more vulnerable to adverse business or economic conditions than is the case for higher ratings.
‘BBB’ ratings indicate that expectations of credit risk are currently low. The capacity for payment of financial commitments is considered adequate, but adverse business or economic conditions are more likely to impair this capacity.
‘BB’ ratings indicate an elevated vulnerability to credit risk, particularly in the event of adverse changes in business or economic conditions over time; however, business or financial alternatives may be available to allow financial commitments to be met.
‘B’ ratings indicate that material credit risk is present.
‘CCC’ ratings indicate that substantial credit risk is present.
‘CC’ ratings indicate very high levels of credit risk.
‘C’ indicates exceptionally high levels of credit risk.
Indicates the strongest intrinsic capacity for timely payment of financial commitments; may have an added "+" to denote any exceptionally strong credit feature.
Good intrinsic capacity for timely payment of financial commitments.
The intrinsic capacity for timely payment of financial commitments is adequate.
Minimal capacity for timely payment of financial commitments, plus heightened vulnerability to near term adverse changes in financial and economic conditions.
Default is a real possibility.
Indicates an entity that has defaulted on one or more of its financial commitments, although it continues to meet other financial obligations. Typically applicable to entity ratings only.
Indicates a broad-based default event for an entity, or the default of a short-term obligation.
Long-Term Rating |
Short-Term Rating |
AAA |
F1+ |
AA+ |
F1+ |
AA |
F1+ |
AA– |
F1+ |
A+ |
F1 or F1+ |
A |
F1 or F1+ |
A– |
F2 or F1 |
BBB+ |
F2 or F1 |
BBB |
F3 or F2 |
BBB– |
F3 |
BB+ |
B |
BB |
B |
BB– |
B |
B+ |
B |
B |
B |
B– |
B |
CCC+ / CCC / CCC– |
C |
CC |
C |
C |
C |
RD / D |
RD / D |
Highest credit quality. The capacity for the payment of financial obligations is exceptionally high and unlikely to be adversely affected by future events.
Superior credit quality. The capacity for the payment of financial obligations is considered high. Credit quality differs from AAA only to a small degree. Unlikely to be significantly vulnerable to future events.
Good credit quality. The capacity for the payment of financial obligations is substantial, but of lesser credit quality than AA. May be vulnerable to future events, but qualifying negative factors are considered manageable.
Adequate credit quality. The capacity for the payment of financial obligations is considered acceptable. May be vulnerable to future events.
Speculative, non-investment-grade credit quality. The capacity for the payment of financial obligations is uncertain. Vulnerable to future events.
Highly speculative credit quality. There is a high level of uncertainty as to the capacity to meet financial obligations.
Very highly speculative credit quality. In danger of defaulting on financial obligations. There is little difference between these three categories, although CC and C ratings are normally applied to obligations that are seen as highly likely to default, or subordinated to obligations rated in the CCC to B range. Obligations in respect of which default has not technically taken place but is considered inevitable may be rated in the C category.
When the issuer has filed under any applicable bankruptcy, insolvency or winding up statute or there is a failure to satisfy an obligation after the exhaustion of grace periods, a downgrade to D may occur. Morningstar DBRS may also use SD (Selective Default) in cases where only some securities are impacted, such as the case of a “distressed exchange”. See the Default Definition document on dbrsmorningstar.com under Understanding Ratings for more information.
Highest credit quality. The capacity for the payment of short-term financial obligations as they fall due is exceptionally high. Unlikely to be adversely affected by future events.
Superior credit quality. The capacity for the payment of short-term financial obligations as they fall due is very high. Differs from R-1 (high) by a relatively modest degree. Unlikely to be significantly vulnerable to future events.
Good credit quality. The capacity for the payment of short-term financial obligations as they fall due is substantial. Overall strength is not as favorable as higher rating categories. May be vulnerable to future events, but qualifying negative factors are considered manageable.
Upper end of adequate credit quality. The capacity for the payment of short-term financial obligations as they fall due is acceptable. May be vulnerable to future events.
Adequate credit quality. The capacity for the payment of short-term financial obligations as they fall due is acceptable. May be vulnerable to future events or may be exposed to other factors that could reduce credit quality.
Lower end of adequate credit quality. The capacity for the payment of short-term financial obligations as they fall due is acceptable. May be vulnerable to future events. A number of challenges are present that could affect the issuer’s ability to meet such obligations.
Lowest end of adequate credit quality. There is capacity for the payment of short-term financial obligations as they fall due. May be vulnerable to future events and the certainty of meeting such obligations could be impacted by a variety of developments.
Speculative credit quality. The capacity for the payment of short-term financial obligations as they fall due is uncertain.
Highly speculative credit quality. There is a high level of uncertainty as to the capacity to meet short-term financial obligations as they fall due.
When the issuer has filed under any applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, or winding up statute or there is a failure to satisfy an obligation after the exhaustion of grace periods, a downgrade to D may occur. Morningstar DBRS may also use SD (Selective Default) in cases where only some securities are impacted, such as the case of a “distressed exchange”. See the Default Definition document on dbrsmorningstar.com under Understanding Ratings for more information.
Long-Term Rating |
Short-Term Rating |
AAA AA+
AA AA– |
K1+ |
A+ |
K1+ or K1 |
A |
K1 |
A– |
K1 or K2 |
BBB+ |
K2 |
BBB |
K2 or K3 |
BBB– |
K3 |
BB+
BB BB–
B+ B
B– |
B |
CCC+ CCC
CCC– CC
C |
C |
D |
D |
1 Overview of key principles and approach |
B-1 |
2 Role, structure and operation of boards |
B-2 |
3 Board committees |
B-5 |
4 Compensation |
B-6 |
5 Audit, risk and control |
B-7 |
6 Shareholder rights |
B-8 |
7 Reporting |
B-9 |
8 Social and environmental factors |
B-11 |
9 Voting matters |
B-13 |
The roles of the chair and chief executive officer (CEO) are substantively different and should be separated. We regard separation of the roles as important for securing a proper balance of authority and responsibility between executive management and the board, as well as preserving accountability within the board. If for any reason the roles are combined (e.g., over an unexpected transitional period) this should be explained and justified in the report and accounts. In all such cases, a strong senior independent non-executive director should be nominated (i.e., a lead independent director).
Including executives in board meetings is essential to enhance discussion and allow independent directors to gain the fullest understanding of company operations. In markets where customary, we encourage the appointment of key executives to the board alongside the CEO and the chief financial officer (CFO). The presence of other executives provides additional company knowledge for the board and ensures the board is not solely dependent on the CEO for input relating to the company’s operations and strategies. However, the number of executive directors should not outweigh the number of independent non-executives.
We assess the number of directorships an individual director holds to ensure they have sufficient time and energy to perform their role as a non-executive director properly as this is a demanding role. Factors that determine the appropriate number of directorships are the size of the company, its complexity, its circumstances, other commitments that a director has and the results of board evaluation, among others. We consider that holding multiple directorships in large companies can be excessive even for a full-time non-executive director, especially when considering board committee participation. Multiple directorships should be avoided for a full-time executive. For complex companies, particularly in developed markets, we may vote against non-executive directors who hold more than five directorships.
Difficult decisions that center on the best interest of shareholders arise from open and direct interplay between boards and company executives. It is important to have enough independent non-executive directors for an adequate diversity of views and to fulfil committee membership quotas. We expect all widely-held companies to have a majority of independent directors.
Independence of individual directors is valued, but a well- balanced board is valued above all. We will support non- independent directors when they bring skills, sector knowledge and other experience that justify their presence on the board, particularly where the appropriate balance of independence is maintained.
We seek to ensure that directors are not only independent from the company, but also of one another. We expect companies to disclose interlocking board relationships and to explain how the independence of individual directors is preserved when directors jointly serve on two or more of the same boards.ii
Prolonged membership on a board jeopardizes independence as directors may become close with management and overly invested in prior strategic decisions. Independence is critical to ensuring shareholders have adequate voice inside the boardroom. After a certain length of board service, directors may not be considered fully independent and it may be inappropriate for such directors to serve on committees, such as the audit committee, where absolute independence is a key requirement.
While a number of countries have legislation mandating a certain percentage of employee representatives on the board, we do not consider these individuals to be fully independent. Hence, we expect companies domiciled in countries with mandatory co-determination (the process by which employees elect their representatives to the board) or employee representation to ensure that the board and its committees have adequate representation of truly independent directors.
A relevant and suitably diverse mix of skills and perspectives is critical to the quality of the board and the strategic direction of the company. Companies should therefore strive to widen the pool of potential candidates for board and management roles to ensure they draw on the richest possible combination of competencies and experiences.
To ensure that it retains an open and critical perspective, the board should be continually refreshed. For this reason, all directors should be required to submit themselves for re-election at regular intervals. We prefer to have all directors standing for annual election to strengthen the accountability of the board to shareholders. Failing that, we encourage the chair of the board, as well as the chairs of the audit, compensation and nomination committees to stand for annual re-election to strengthen accountability for the core functions of the board. We also believe that a minimum of one-third of board members should stand for election annually.
We strongly believe that a board nominating committee composed of a majority of independent non-executive directors is best placed to identify and put forward suitable candidates for the board. Shareholders should only put forward candidates where there is clear evidence of ineffective board oversight and unwillingness to correct the problem—or where a cumulative voting system or similar arrangement encourages direct shareholder participation in board nominations. We expect companies to put forward only one candidate for each available position as an indication that the company is clear about the value each director brings to the board. We encourage companies to specify each candidate’s qualifications, experiences and skills that are of relevance and importance to the board’s oversight of company strategy.
We will consider voting against the chair or members of nominating committees who have not constructed appropriately balanced, independent boards. Indicators include: an overreliance on long-standing members; an over-reliance on affiliated directors; and a lack of appropriate diversity characteristics, including gender, race, nationality, ethnicity, etc., that reflect the nature, scope and aspirations of the business.
In the case of a two-tier board structure, neither board should be large: between five and 10 members typically is appropriate. A unitary board normally should have between five and 15 members. In the case of overly large boards and in the absence of a commitment to reduce board size, we may withhold support from the nominating or corporate governance committee chair unless clear justification has been provided explaining the need for such a large board.
We are agnostic as to the merits of a two-tier board as opposed to a unitary board, and we recognize that a two-tier board structure is the norm in many markets. At the same time, we are aware that there can be challenges in communication between a supervisory board and a management board. Where there is more than one body forming the board, companies should maintain an effective mechanism for the various elements of the board to work together and should explain how this happens. This system should ensure the most effective use is made of all individuals involved so that the company can optimize the unique skills and experiences of their directors.
Board evaluations are an important tool for improving board performance. All boards should implement an evaluation process that considers the effectiveness of the entire board, its committees, the contributions made by each member, including its systems for interaction between the board and company management, areas for improvement, and behaviors and overall board culture. The nominating or governance committee may oversee the evaluation process and should report general findings and areas for improvement publicly to shareholders. Large or systemically important companies should leverage professional, independent assistance to facilitate evaluations on a periodic basis (typically every three years).
The board should meet at regular intervals to ensure effective oversight of the company. We regard six meetings per year as a minimum guidance, and often more frequent meetings are necessary.
NEDs should meet without executive board members present on a regular basis and when circumstances demand. They should also have at least one meeting per year to hold an unconstrained discussion away from day-to-day business matters. Ideally, this should be chaired by a senior or lead independent director, although the chair may be present (provided they are a non- executive). Conversely, in the case of two-tiered boards, supervisory boards should meet with executives on a regular basis to minimize the risk that NEDs could become marginalized from the business.
All directors should receive appropriate training when being onboarded. Ideally, the onboarding process should include assignment of a board mentor. Mentors are normally long- or medium-standing directors willing to take on the responsibility of providing ad hoc support and context for new directors.
The audit committee provides an important safeguard for shareholders and for other stakeholders that rely upon the integrity of the report and accounts as a basis for their investing in the company.
The compensation (or remuneration) committee is responsible for setting the compensation of executive directors and senior executives and should coordinate with the company’s human resources function to develop a coherent and effective compensation strategy throughout the company. As a best practice we believe that compensation committees should consist exclusively of independent non-executive directors. We encourage compensation committees to engage in direct dialogue with shareholders when developing compensation policies. (See “4. Compensation” below).
A nomination committee should oversee all board and senior executive appointments. Normally it should be a committee of independent non-executive directors and the board chair. In certain instances, it may be appropriate for the committee to leverage management’s advice. Although we prefer a fully independent committee, we recognize that a non-independent director or representative of a large shareholder may be appropriate in some circumstances.
We recognize that companies may choose to have the nominating committee or a specific corporate governance committee responsible for corporate governance practices and procedures. Regardless of the structure, the committee should monitor emerging regulatory and industry standards, strive to achieve global best practice, and should consult with shareholders to understand investor expectations.
We believe that committees with responsibilities related to oversight of corporate social responsibility, ethics or sustainability are prudent for purposes of risk management. For large companies exposed to significant ESG risks, such committees are essential to protecting shareholder value and managing reputational risk.
We expect boards to demonstrate an understanding of (and sensitivity to) the views and expectations of shareholders and other key stakeholders, such as employees, when setting executive pay.
We expect companies to demonstrate the alignment of their compensation policy with their overall business strategy and planning. Performance metrics should relate to the company’s articulated strategy and risk tolerance. Targets should be constructed to align executive incentives to the interests of long-term shareholders and should not create incentives for executives to undertake short-term risks that might imperil sustainable long-term performance. We advocate for risk-related preconditions to bonus awards to ensure inappropriate incentive payments are not awarded in the event the company’s financial strength or credit quality deteriorates.
Prior to employment contract agreements, companies should actively consider the potential rewards concerning severance in the event of inadequate performance and clarify the performance conditions under which such severance benefits are to be payable. We encourage companies to seek mitigation in case a director has taken up employment elsewhere and to adjust the length and size of any payments accordingly. We recommend that companies make larger severance packages the subject of a shareholder vote.
We believe that strict guidelines should be observed regarding the issue, or potential issue, of shares for incentive schemes (also known as equity-based compensation plans) both as to the proportion of shares issued and to the rate at which these are issued each year. For us to accept large share schemes, the commercial drivers must outweigh the dilutive impacts. If the company is insufficiently transparent regarding the details of such schemes, we may abstain or vote against them.
We support the principle of motivating and rewarding executives through the granting of equity incentives.
Bonus payments and long-term incentive schemes should be structured to reward long-term growth in shareholder value and be subject to performance-vesting conditions. We encourage companies to include deferred shares as a portion of short-term bonuses. Longer-term incentive plans should be fully sharebased, and vesting periods should extend from at least three to five years or longer. We also encourage companies to require longer-term holding periods post vesting. The compensation committee should maintain a malus authority to withhold all or part of performance-based pay from executives before it has vested in cases where it deems it appropriate. The compensation committee should also have clawback authority to recover sums already paid out to executives. This might occur following a significant restatement of accounts, where previously granted awards were paid on the basis of inaccurate figures, or where the long-term outcomes of a specific strategy result in significant value destruction for shareholders.
Widespread employee ownership can contribute positively to shareholder value, as it further aligns employees’ interests with those of shareholders. Such devices should not, however, be instituted as anti-takeover devices, and should be included within company-wide dilution limits.
The auditors’ performance and appointment should be reviewed periodically. Where the same firm remains as auditor for a period of time, there should be a policy of regular rotation of the lead audit partner. We believe that systematic rotation of audit firms is both desirable and in the best interests of shareholders.
We recognize the disproportionate risk that joint & several liability may place upon audit firms. However, we will only consider supporting arrangements to cap auditor liability in exceptional circumstances (e.g., where the risk of a catastrophic and disproportionate claim can be demonstrated).
Companies should disclose when auditors carry out consultancy work in addition to auditing the company and the audit committee should consider whether there is a risk that an auditor’s impartiality may be jeopardized. The range, nature and tendering process for any such non-audit work should be supervised by the audit committee, whose responsibilities in this area should be fully disclosed. Where substantial non-audit fees are paid for more than one year, we may not support the reappointment of the auditor or the payment of auditor fees in its voting at AGMs.
Many companies are involved in material related-party transactions, which represent a significant risk to shareholders. This risk is mitigated in companies with fully independent audit committees whose responsibility it is to ensure that such transactions are conducted on the basis of arm’s-length valuations. We strongly encourage companies to use such committees for scrutiny, and to secure prior shareholder approval for material related-party transactions.
Board and management teams should be ready, where practicable, to engage in dialogue with shareholders based on an understanding of shared objectives. They should also be proactive in making sure important news is imparted, subject to appropriate inside information procedures, and should react helpfully to investor inquiries.
We respect a company’s right to issue shares to raise capital. However, share issuance should be strictly limited to that which is necessary to maintain business operations and drive company strategy. We will not support requests to increase authorized share capital that exceed 50% of existing capital, unless specific justification has been provided (e.g., to complete a strategically important acquisition or undertake a necessary stock split).
We believe that pre-emptive rights for existing shareholders are essential. Shares may be issued for cash without pre-emptive rights or for compensation purposes, subject to shareholder approval. Companies should adhere to strict limits for issuing new shares as a proportion of the issued share capital. Furthermore, they should also be subject to flow rates, where appropriate.
We expect companies to repurchase shares in the market when it is advantageous for the company and its shareholders.
We favor a share structure that gives all shares equal voting rights. We do not support the issue of shares with impaired or enhanced voting rights.
We oppose voting caps in principle and believe that all shares should be entitled to full voting rights irrespective of the holding period. However, we recognize the widespread use of voting caps in certain markets, and the benefits accruing to shareholders not subject to a cap. Therefore, at a minimum, we expect companies to clearly disclose any caps and encourage them not to introduce new caps while phasing out existing caps over time.
We expect boards to conduct thorough due diligence prior to pursuing any merger or acquisition and to maximize shareholder value in any deal. Where major transactions are not subject to shareholder approval, companies should consider the views of their major shareholders, subject to regulatory constraints and shareholders’ policies concerning insiders.
We regard artificial devices to deter bids, known as poison pills, as inappropriate and inefficient unless they are strictly controlled and very limited in duration. We believe that any control-enhancing mechanism or poison pill that entrenches management and protects the company from market pressures is not in the interests of shareholders.
Companies should be aware of, and report to shareholders on, significant liabilities such as those arising from unfunded or under-funded pension commitments. The extent of the liability should be reported, and the plans put in place to cover the deficit should also be reported within a reasonable timeframe for action. The principal assumptions used in calculating amounts should form part of this disclosure. Other significant liabilities could include specific operational or ESG risks that the company faces. The company should provide some indication of how these risks can result in “contingent liabilities.”
We consider all shareholder resolutions that appear on the ballot and vote in accordance with our view of the long-term economic benefit to shareholders. On this basis we will typically support requests to improve board accountability, executive pay practices, ESG disclosure and climate change scenario analyses where we agree with both the broader issue highlighted as well as the implementation proposed. We also typically support shareholder proposals asking companies to report on implementation of environmental and social policies and assessments where there is reason for concern that links to financially material risks that could impact the performance of the company. We will review company and outside data and information, assess peers for benchmarking and consider the proponents’ and company’s arguments in full.
Adequate biographical information on the directors should be provided for shareholders in advance of the AGM. This should include information about directors’ qualifications and experience, term of office, date of first appointment, level of independence, board committee memberships and other personal and professional commitments that may influence the quality of their contribution and independence (e.g., other directorships, family and social ties, and affiliations with related companies or organizations). For all newly appointed directors, we encourage disclosure of qualifications, experiences and skills that are considered by the board to be of relevance and importance to its oversight of company strategy. To this end, we encourage disclosure of a clear and concise board skills matrix in the proxy voting materials and annual report.
The committee should report annually on its activity and the report should provide a detailed discussion of its process for identifying and appointing executive and non-executive directors, including the processes it employs to ensure board membership reflects an appropriate diversity of perspectives, experiences, gender and racial or ethnic representation as well as cultural backgrounds. Where necessary, the report should include a thorough discussion of the board’s view of the independence of certain members. The report should also include a robust description of the board evaluation process, cadence, and outcomes (including strengths and opportunities identified).
The audit committee should report on its conduct during the year and, in particular, any specific matters of judgement relating to the application of accounting principles or the scope of the audit. It should also comment on the process for ensuring the independence of the auditors and for evaluating the impact of non-audit work. The audit committee report should include a narrative description of any related-party transactions, with reference to how these might impact the interests of minority shareholders. Any qualification of the audit statement and all matters raised in the auditor’s report must be fully explained.
If the audit committee’s remit includes risk management, the audit committee report should also address the board’s oversight of enterprise-wide risks. Either as part of the audit committee report or a standalone report, the company should explain the results of the board’s review of internal controls, including any identified (or potential) weaknesses in internal controls and how the board plans to respond to these.
We expect all companies to publish an annual compensation report in line with international good governance standards. Good compensation reporting outlines a company’s overall philosophy and its policies and formulas for determining annual, short- and long-term pay. We look for compensation reports to break down fixed versus variable pay and to clearly align total pay packages with long-term shareholder value. The compensation report should clearly disclose specific long-term performance targets and total potential pay-outs.
We encourage companies to report on any significant ESG or ethical risks and opportunities in their annual reports including the systems in place to manage these risks. This may be supported by more detailed disclosure in a separate corporate social responsibility or sustainability report.
Companies should provide a full and clear statement of all matters relating to the application of the provisions of the relevant national code of corporate governance. The way the provisions are put into effect should be clearly discussed. Any deviations should be supported by meaningful explanations.
Companies should maintain a code of conduct reflecting corporate values and promotion of ethical business practices. Such codes should address business-critical compliance issues including anti-corruption practices.
Irrespective of the potential benefits a smaller tax burden may bring, we will typically vote against resolutions for a company to reincorporate in a new legal jurisdiction that offers lower legal and governance protections to shareholders. Aggressive tax strategies, even if structured legally, can pose potentially significant reputational and commercial risks for companies.
Companies that are listed on an exchange should comply with the rules and listing requirements of that exchange.
Shareholder resolutions represent the exercise of a key shareholder right and may encompass a wide range of issues. We encourage companies to engage in constructive dialogue with shareholders and other key stakeholders. Where engagement is unsuccessful, we support shareholders’ right to submit a shareholder proposal for consideration by all investors. In these instances, companies should behave respectfully by communicating promptly and fully with shareholders while refraining from obstructing the process. The board should provide a full and reasoned response to any shareholder proposal on the ballot. We consider all shareholder resolutions put forward and vote in accordance with our understanding of the long-term economic benefit to shareholders. We may support shareholder resolutions relating to the right to nominate or remove directors, including those related to an advisory shareholder vote on pay. We will incorporate into our decision whether a shareholder resolution is binding in nature or advisory (non-binding) in applying the above considerations.
Companies should determine how financially material environmental and social risks and opportunities are addressed via their core business strategy. As part of this process, companies should proactively identify, assess and manage those risks and opportunities, as well as implement robust sustainability governance frameworks to promote accountability and ensure effective oversight. We expect companies to align their disclosure of environmental and social policies, management systems and performance according to internationally accepted standards. We also expect companies to quantify impacts from environmental and social factors and set targets to mitigate and manage material sustainability risks and impacts.
We recognize that climate change and the global transition to a lower-carbon economy present both risks and opportunities to businesses. We are supporters of both CDP (formerly, the Carbon Disclosure Project) and the recommendations of the Taskforce on Climate Related Financial Disclosuresiii and expect to see companies report climate risks and strategy against the proper standards and frameworks. We also support company efforts to implement net zero targets; however, the company should disclose specifics as to how they will accomplish this.
Loss of biodiversity degrades ecosystems which underpin the Earth’s ability to provide regulating, provisioning, cultural and supporting ecosystem benefits. For companies in sectors with high biodiversity impact that fail to provide appropriate disclosure (e.g., CDP Water Security and/or Forests disclosures), we may not support management resolutions if we think this is in the best economic interests of our clients.
A company’s recognition and management of financially material environmental and social exposures and related disclosures provides shareholders with an additional lens through which to assess the quality, leadership, strategic focus, risk management and operational standards of practice of the business.
We appreciate that auditing and assurance practices for environmental and social systems require further development; nevertheless, we consider third-party auditing of sustainability reports to be best practice. We encourage companies to move towards third-party verification.
Companies may incur significant risks because of the employment practices of their own operations and those of their suppliers and sub-contractors. Codes of conduct that address such risks and include detailed and effective procedures for their supply chain are usually in companies’ best interests.
Companies may incur extraordinary risks to their operations, staff, or reputation as a result of operating in conflict zones or in locations at risk of human rights abuses. Risks may also be encountered via supply chains when primary product inputs are sourced from at-risk areas. Where there is cause for concern, we support resolutions asking companies to develop and implement policies and management systems addressing human rights and security management. These policies should reflect internationally recognized standards (e.g., United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and should apply to suppliers and sub-contractors.
Recruiting and hiring from the widest possible talent pool is in the best interests of companies, as is maintaining a diverse workforce. We support efforts to strengthen non-discrimination policies, achieve diversity objectives and address glass ceilings at all levels within organizations. We welcome disclosure of specific diversity targets and reporting on performance against these targets, as well as reporting on gender and ethnicity pay gaps within companies and plans to address these. We will look for
Charitable and political donations should be consistent with the company’s stated sustainability strategy. (See “Reporting” above). We recommend that the board provide ultimate oversight for political donations and related activity. Furthermore, we believe that companies that undertake charitable giving should have transparent policies and undertake charitable giving programs with due regard for the interests of shareholders and key stakeholders.
Companies should determine how key environmental risks and opportunities fit into their core business strategy. As part of this process, companies should identify, assess, and manage their environmental impacts. This may include minimizing key environmental impacts, reporting on environmental management systems and performance, and discussing related financial impacts. Areas of increasing business interest include energy use, emissions, water, waste, and the utilization of natural resources.
Although we supported company efforts to hold virtual-only AGMs during the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, we encourage a return to physical annual meetings of the shareholders that are supplemented with a robust and accessible virtual (or hybrid) option. If the company decides to provide a hybrid meeting, shareholders joining virtually should be provided the same treatment and transparency as those attending in-person.
We expect companies to disclose the voting results of their general meetings, both at the meeting and on their websites. This should include a detailed breakdown of votes for and against, as well as abstentions.
We believe that shareblocking—the practice of preventing shares from being transferred for a fixed period prior to the vote at a company meeting—discourages shareholder participation and should be replaced with a record date. Where shareblocking exists, we will follow client policy and may be prevented from voting because of concerns about failed trade settlements and extraordinary cost to clients.
We typically exercise voting rights electronically. We currently vote using ProxyExchange, the electronic voting platform provided by Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS). We do not follow ISS vote recommendations, except as provided for in our Conflict of Interest Policy or if instructed by clients. Instead, ISS assists us though pre-populating our vote instructions in accordance with our vote policies. Our Responsible Investment team reviews a proportion of meetings based on an internal prioritization model.
Our standard voting approach is to either vote for or against resolutions where these options are available to shareholders. However, there are cases where we consider abstaining to be appropriate—for example, where company practices have improved significantly but do not fully meet our expectations.
If we become aware that an issuer has filed additional soliciting materials prior to a proxy vote submission deadline, then we endeavor to review and reflect those in the application of our voting policy where: (a) the submission is published at least five days prior to our earliest client vote cut-off; and (b) the enclosed information is considered to be material towards impacting our voting position.
We observe that stock lending is a widespread market practice involving the sale and contractually pre-agreed repurchase of a stock. We believe that stock lending is an important factor in preserving the liquidity of markets and in facilitating hedging
We recommend that a record date be set a maximum of five working days prior to AGMs for custodians and registrars to clearly establish those shareholders eligible to vote. This will give time for all relevant formalities to be completed and serves the same purpose as shareblocking without the disruptions noted above.
All companies should conduct voting by poll, rather than relying on a show of hands.
Resolutions put to company meetings should cover single issues, or issues that are clearly interdependent. Any other practice potentially reduces the value of votes and can lead to opposition to otherwise acceptable proposals. We will normally oppose resolutions that contain such inappropriately bundled provisions.
We expect to vote on resolutions where the content has been made clear to shareholders and is in the interests of the company and its shareholders. Where a resolution invites shareholders to vote on “any other business,” we will systematically vote against.
We welcome the opportunity to vote on company donations if material. With respect to donations to political parties or to organizations closely associated with political parties, we believe the board is best positioned to oversee the appropriateness of such spending and should review as often as is necessary to ensure congruency with both corporate strategy and values.
We are generally unsupportive of amendments to the articles of incorporation which limit the liability of company officers.
Exhibit
Number |
Exhibit Description |
Filed Herewith or
Incorporated by
Reference |
Information About the
Filing that Includes the Document Incorporated by Reference | ||||
Registrant
that Made
the Filing |
File No.
of Such
Registrant |
Type of
Filing |
Exhibit of
Document
in that
Filing |
Filing
Date | |||
(a)(1) |
Incorporated by
Reference |
Columbia
Seligman Premium
Technology
Growth Fund, Inc. |
333-161752 |
Registration
Statement on Form
N-2 |
(a) |
9/4/2009 | |
(a)(2) |
Incorporated by
Reference |
Columbia
Seligman Premium
Technology
Growth Fund, Inc. |
333-161752 |
Post-Effective
Amendment #1 on
Form N-2 |
(a)(1) |
3/14/2016 | |
(b) |
Incorporated by
Reference |
Columbia
Seligman Premium
Technology
Growth Fund, Inc. |
333-161752 |
Post-Effective
Amendment #1 on
Form N-2 |
(b) |
3/14/2016 | |
(c) |
Not applicable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(d) |
Not applicable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(e) |
Incorporated by
Reference |
Columbia
Seligman Premium
Technology
Growth Fund, Inc. |
333-161752 |
Pre-Effective
Amendment #2 on
Form N-2 |
(e) |
10/22/2009 | |
(f) |
Not applicable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(g)(1) |
Incorporated by
Reference |
Columbia
Seligman Premium
Technology
Growth Fund, Inc. |
333-161752 |
Post-Effective
Amendment #2 on
Form N-2 |
(g) |
4/28/2016 | |
(g)(2) |
Filed Herewith |
Columbia
Seligman Premium
Technology
Growth Fund, Inc. |
|
|
(g)(2) |
6/26/2024 | |
(h)(1) |
Incorporated by
Reference |
Columbia
Seligman Premium
Technology
Growth Fund, Inc. |
333-161752 |
Pre-Effective
Amendment #2 on
Form N-2 |
(h)(1) |
10/22/2009 | |
(h)(2) |
Incorporated by Reference |
Columbia Seligman Premium Technology Growth Fund, Inc. |
333-161752 |
Pre-Effective Amendment #2 on Form N-2 |
(h)(2) |
10/22/2009 |
Exhibit
Number |
Exhibit Description |
Filed Herewith or
Incorporated by
Reference |
Information About the
Filing that Includes the Document Incorporated by Reference | ||||
Registrant
that Made
the Filing |
File No.
of Such
Registrant |
Type of
Filing |
Exhibit of
Document
in that
Filing |
Filing
Date | |||
(h)(3) |
Incorporated by
Reference |
Columbia
Seligman Premium
Technology
Growth Fund, Inc. |
333-161752 |
Pre-Effective
Amendment #2 on
Form N-2 |
(h)(3) |
10/22/2009 | |
(h)(4) |
Incorporated by
Reference |
Columbia
Seligman Premium
Technology
Growth Fund, Inc. |
333-161752 |
Pre-Effective
Amendment #4 on
Form N-2 |
(h)(4) |
11/24/2009 | |
(h)(5) |
Incorporated by
Reference |
Columbia
Seligman Premium
Technology
Growth Fund, Inc. |
333-161752 |
Pre-Effective
Amendment #4 on
Form N-2 |
(h)(5) |
11/24/2009 | |
(h)(6) |
Incorporated by
Reference |
Columbia
Seligman Premium
Technology
Growth Fund, Inc. |
333-161752 |
Pre-Effective
Amendment #4 on
Form N-2 |
(h)(6) |
11/24/2009 | |
(h)(7) |
Incorporated by
Reference |
Columbia
Seligman Premium
Technology
Growth Fund, Inc. |
333-161752 |
Pre-Effective
Amendment #4 on
Form N-2 |
(h)(7) |
11/24/2009 | |
(h)(8) |
Incorporated by
Reference |
Columbia
Seligman Premium
Technology
Growth Fund, Inc. |
333-161752 |
Pre-Effective
Amendment #4 on
Form N-2 |
(h)(8) |
11/24/2009 | |
(h)(9) |
Filed Herewith |
Columbia
Seligman Premium
Technology
Growth Fund, Inc. |
|
|
(h)(9) |
6/26/2024 | |
(h)(10) |
Sub-Placement Agent Agreement |
To be filed by
amendment |
|
|
|
|
|
(i) |
Incorporated by
Reference |
Columbia Funds
Series Trust II |
333-131683 |
Post-Effective
Amendment #218
on Form N-1A |
(f) |
2/25/2021 | |
(j) |
Incorporated by
Reference |
Columbia Funds
Series Trust |
333-89661 |
Post-Effective
Amendment #93
on Form N-1A |
(g)(3) |
5/27/2011 | |
(k)(1) |
Incorporated by
Reference |
Columbia
Seligman Premium
Technology
Growth Fund, Inc. |
333-16175 |
Pre-Effective
Amendment #2 on
Form N-2 |
(k)(1) |
10/22/2009 | |
(k)(2) |
Incorporated by
Reference |
Columbia Funds
Series Trust II |
333-131683 |
Post-Effective
Amendment #179
on Form N-1A |
(h)(11) |
5/25/2018 | |
(k)(2)(i) |
Incorporated by
Reference |
Columbia Funds
Series Trust |
333-89661 |
Post-Effective
Amendment #207
on Form N-1A |
(h)(9)(i) |
7/26/2023 | |
(k)(3) |
Incorporated by Reference |
Tri-Continental Corporation |
333-255533 |
Post-Effective Amendment #2 on Form N-2 |
(k)(3) |
6/2/2022 |
Exhibit
Number |
Exhibit Description |
Filed Herewith or
Incorporated by
Reference |
Information About the
Filing that Includes the Document Incorporated by Reference | ||||
Registrant
that Made
the Filing |
File No.
of Such
Registrant |
Type of
Filing |
Exhibit of
Document
in that
Filing |
Filing
Date | |||
(k)(4) |
Incorporated by
Reference |
Tri-Continental
Corporation |
333-255533 |
Post-Effective
Amendment #2 on
Form N-2 |
(k)(4) |
6/2/2022 | |
(l)(1) |
Incorporated by
Reference |
Columbia
Seligman Premium
Technology
Growth Fund, Inc. |
333-161752 |
Pre-Effective
Amendment #3 on
Form N-2 |
(l)(1) |
10/23/2009 | |
(l)(2) |
Incorporated by
Reference |
Columbia
Seligman Premium
Technology
Growth Fund, Inc. |
333-161752 |
Pre-Effective
Amendment #3 on
Form N-2 |
(l)(2) |
10/23/2009 | |
(l)(3) |
Filed Herewith |
Columbia
Seligman Premium
Technology
Growth Fund, Inc. |
|
|
(l)(3) |
6/26/2024 | |
(l)(4) |
Filed Herewith |
Columbia
Seligman Premium
Technology
Growth Fund, Inc. |
|
|
(l)(4) |
6/26/2024 | |
(m) |
Not Applicable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(n) |
Filed Herewith |
Columbia
Seligman Premium
Technology
Growth Fund, Inc. |
|
|
(n) |
6/26/2024 | |
(o) |
Not Applicable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(p) |
Incorporated by
Reference |
Columbia
Seligman Premium
Technology
Growth Fund, Inc. |
333-161752 |
Pre-Effective
Amendment #2 on
Form N-2 |
(p) |
10/22/2009 | |
(q) |
Not Applicable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(r)(1) |
Incorporated by
Reference |
Columbia Funds
Variable Series
Trust II |
333-146374 |
Post-Effective
Amendment #68
on Form N-1A |
(p)(1) |
4/26/2019 | |
(r)(2) |
Incorporated by
Reference |
Columbia Funds
Series Trust II |
333-131683 |
Post-Effective
Amendment #241
on Form N-1A |
(p)(2) |
12/21/2023 | |
(s) |
Filed Herewith |
Columbia Seligman Premium Technology Growth Fund, Inc. |
|
|
(s) |
6/26/2024 |
|
|
SEC Registration Fees |
$0 |
|
|
FINRA Fees |
$0 |
New York Stock Exchange Fees |
$0 |
Costs of Printing (other than stock certificates) |
$0 |
Accounting Fees and Expenses |
$0 |
Legal Fees and Expenses |
$0 |
Miscellaneous |
$0 |
Total |
$0 |
Title of Class |
Number of Recordholders |
Common Stock |
6 |
Columbia Seligman Premium Technology Growth Fund, Inc. | |
By: |
/s/ Daniel J. Beckman |
|
Daniel J. Beckman Director and President |
Signature |
Capacity |
Signature |
Capacity |
/s/ Daniel J. Beckman |
Director and President
(Principal Executive Officer) |
/s/
Patricia M. Flynn* |
Director |
Daniel J. Beckman |
Patricia M. Flynn | ||
/s/ Michael G. Clarke* |
Chief Financial Officer,
Principal Financial Officer, Senior Vice
President, Treasurer and Chief
Accounting Officer (Principal
Accounting Officer) |
/s/ Brian
J. Gallagher* |
Director |
Michael G. Clarke |
Brian J. Gallagher | ||
/s/ Pamela G. Carlton* |
Director and Chair of the Board |
/s/
Douglas A. Hacker* |
Director |
Pamela G. Carlton |
Douglas A. Hacker | ||
/s/ George S. Batejan* |
Director |
/s/ David
M. Moffett* |
Director |
George S. Batejan |
David Moffett | ||
/s/ Kathleen A. Blatz* |
Director |
/s/
Catherine James Paglia* |
Director |
Kathleen A. Blatz |
Catherine James Paglia | ||
/s/ Janet Langford Carrig* |
Director |
/s/
Sandra Yeager* |
Director |
Janet Langford Carrig |
Sandra Yeager |
* |
By: Name: |
/s/
Joseph D’Alessandro |
|
Joseph D’Alessandro** Attorney-in-fact |
| ||
** |
Executed by Joseph D’Alessandro on behalf of Michael G. Clarke pursuant to a Power of Attorney, dated February 1, 2021,
on behalf of the Directors pursuant to a Power of Attorney, dated January 1, 2023 and on
behalf of David M. Moffett pursuant to a Power of Attorney, dated December 20,
2023. |
Dated: January 1, 2023
/s/ Pamela G. Carlton |
Director and Chair of the Board |
/s/
Patricia M. Flynn |
Director |
Pamela G. Carlton |
Patricia M. Flynn | ||
/s/ George S. Batejan |
Director |
/s/ Brian
J. Gallagher |
Director |
George S. Batejan |
Brian J. Gallagher | ||
/s/ Daniel J. Beckman |
Director |
Douglas
A. Hacker |
Director |
Daniel J. Beckman |
Douglas A. Hacker | ||
/s/ Kathleen A. Blatz |
Director |
/s/
Catherine James Paglia |
Director |
Kathleen A. Blatz |
Catherine James Paglia | ||
/s/ Janet Langford Carrig |
Director |
/s/
Sandra L. Yeager |
Director |
Janet Langford Carrig |
Sandra L. Yeager |
David M. Moffett
(g)(2) |
Schedule A to the Management Agreement dated May 1, 2016, between Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC and
the Registrant |
(h)(9) |
Distribution Agreement between the Registrant and ALPS Distributors, Inc. relating to Registrant's Rule 415 “at the market”
offering |
(l)(3) |
Form of Opinion and Consent of Ropes & Gray LLP |
(l)(4) |
Opinion and Consent of Venable LLP |
(n) |
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm |
EX-FILING FEES |
Calculation of Filing Fee Table |