Common use of Profitability Clause in Contracts

Profitability. The Board reviewed detailed information regarding revenues received by XXXX under the Agreements. The Board considered the estimated costs to XXXX, and pre-tax profits realized by XXXX, from advising the DWS Funds, as well as estimates of the pre-tax profits attributable to managing the Fund in particular. The Board also received information regarding the estimated enterprise-wide profitability of DIMA and its affiliates with respect to all fund services in totality and by fund. The Board and the Fee Consultant reviewed XXXX’s methodology in allocating its costs to the management of the Fund. Based on the information provided, the Board concluded that the pre-tax profits realized by XXXX in connection with the management of the Fund were not unreasonable. The Board also reviewed certain publicly available information regarding the profitability of certain similar investment management firms. The Board noted that, while information regarding the profitability of such firms is limited (and in some cases is not necessarily prepared on a comparable basis), DIMA and its affiliates’ overall profitability with respect to the DWS Funds (after taking into account distribution and other services provided to the funds by XXXX and its affiliates) was lower than the overall profitability levels of most comparable firms for which such data was available. The Board did not consider the profitability of NTI with respect to the Portfolio. The Board noted that XXXX pays NTI’s fee out of its management fee, and its understanding that the Portfolio’s sub-advisory fee schedule was the product of an arm’s length negotiation with XXXX.

Profitability. The Board reviewed detailed information regarding revenues received by XXXX DIMA under the AgreementsAgreement. The Board considered the estimated costs to XXXXDIMA, and pre-tax profits realized by XXXXDIMA, from advising the DWS Funds, as well as estimates of the pre-tax profits attributable to managing the Fund in particular. The Board also received information regarding the estimated enterprise-wide profitability of DIMA and its affiliates with respect to all fund services in totality and by fund. The Board and the Fee Consultant reviewed XXXX’s methodology in allocating its costs to the management of the Fund. Based on the information provided, the Board concluded that the pre-tax profits realized by XXXX DIMA in connection with the management of the Fund were not unreasonable. The Board also reviewed certain publicly available information regarding the profitability of certain similar investment management firms. The Board noted that, while information regarding the profitability of such firms is limited (and in some cases is not necessarily prepared on a comparable basis), DIMA and its affiliates’ overall profitability with respect to the DWS Funds (after taking into account distribution and other services provided to the funds by XXXX DIMA and its affiliates) was lower than the overall profitability levels of most comparable firms for which such data was available. The Board did not consider the profitability of NTI with respect to the PortfolioFund. The Board noted that XXXX pays NTI’s fee out of its management fee, and its understanding that the PortfolioFund’s sub-advisory fee schedule was the product of an arm’s length negotiation with XXXXDIMA.

Profitability. The Board reviewed detailed information regarding revenues received by XXXX under the AgreementsAgreement. The Board considered the estimated costs to XXXX, and pre-tax profits realized by XXXX, from advising the DWS Funds, as well as estimates of the pre-tax profits attributable to managing the Fund in particular. The Board also received information regarding the estimated enterprise-wide profitability of DIMA and its affiliates with respect to all fund services in totality and by fund. The Board and the Fee Consultant reviewed XXXX’s methodology in allocating its costs to the management of the Fund. Based on the information provided, the Board concluded that the pre-tax profits realized by XXXX in connection with the management of the Fund were not unreasonable. The Board also reviewed certain publicly available information regarding the profitability of certain similar investment management firms. The Board noted that, while information regarding the profitability of such firms is limited (and in some cases is not necessarily prepared on a comparable basis), DIMA and its affiliates’ overall profitability with respect to the DWS Funds (after taking into account distribution and other services provided to the funds by XXXX and its affiliates) was lower than the overall profitability levels of most comparable firms for which such data was available. The Board did not consider the profitability of NTI with respect to the PortfolioFund. The Board noted that XXXX pays NTI’s fee out of its management fee, and its understanding that the PortfolioFund’s sub-advisory fee schedule was the product of an arm’s length negotiation with XXXXDIMA.

Profitability. The Board reviewed detailed information regarding revenues received by XXXX under the AgreementsAgreement. The Board considered the estimated costs to XXXX, and pre-tax profits realized by XXXX, from advising the DWS Funds, as well as estimates of the pre-tax profits attributable to managing the Fund in particular. The Board also received information regarding the estimated enterprise-wide profitability of DIMA and its affiliates with respect to all fund services in totality and by fund. The Board and the Fee Consultant reviewed XXXX’s methodology in allocating its costs to the management of the Fund. Based on the information provided, the Board concluded that the pre-tax profits realized by XXXX in connection with the management of the Fund were not unreasonable. The Board also reviewed certain publicly available information regarding the profitability of certain similar investment management firms. The Board noted that, while information regarding the profitability of such firms is limited (and in some cases is not necessarily prepared on a comparable basis), DIMA and its affiliates’ overall profitability with respect to the DWS Funds (after taking into account distribution and other services provided to the funds by XXXX and its affiliates) was lower than the overall profitability levels of most comparable firms for which such data was available. The Board did not consider the profitability of NTI with respect to the Portfolio. The Board noted that XXXX pays NTI’s fee out of its management fee, and its understanding that the Portfolio’s sub-advisory fee schedule was the product of an arm’s length negotiation with XXXX.overall

Profitability. The Board reviewed detailed information regarding revenues received by XXXX under the AgreementsAgreement. The Board considered the estimated costs to XXXX, and pre-tax profits realized by XXXX, from advising the DWS Funds, as well as estimates of the pre-tax profits attributable to managing the Fund in particular. The Board also received information regarding the estimated enterprise-wide profitability of DIMA and its affiliates with respect to all fund services in totality and by fund. The Board and the Fee Consultant reviewed XXXX’s methodology in allocating its costs to the management of the Fund. Based on the information provided, the Board concluded that the pre-tax profits realized by XXXX in connection with the management of the Fund were not unreasonable. The Board also reviewed certain publicly available information regarding the profitability of certain similar investment management firms. The Board noted that, while information regarding the profitability of such firms is limited (and in some cases is not necessarily prepared on a comparable basis), DIMA and its affiliates’ overall profitability with respect to the DWS Funds (after taking into account distribution and other services provided to the funds by XXXX and its affiliates) was lower than the overall profitability levels of most comparable firms for which such data was available. The Board did not consider the profitability of NTI with respect to the Portfolio. The Board noted that XXXX pays NTI’s fee out of its management fee, and its understanding that the Portfolio’s sub-advisory fee schedule was the product of an arm’s length negotiation with XXXX.

Profitability. The Board reviewed detailed information regarding revenues received by XXXX DIMA under the Agreements. The Board considered the estimated costs to XXXXDIMA, and pre-tax profits realized by XXXXDIMA, from advising the DWS Funds, as well as estimates of the pre-tax profits attributable to managing the Fund in particular. The Board also received information regarding the estimated enterprise-wide profitability of DIMA and its affiliates with respect to all fund services in totality and by fund. The Board and the Fee Consultant reviewed XXXX’s methodology in allocating its costs to the management of the Fund. Based on the information provided, the Board concluded that the pre-tax profits realized by XXXX DIMA in connection with the management of the Fund were not unreasonable. The Board also reviewed certain publicly available information regarding the profitability of certain similar investment management firms. The Board noted that, while information regarding the profitability of such firms is limited (and in some cases is not necessarily prepared on a comparable basis), DIMA and its affiliates’ overall profitability with respect to the DWS Funds (after taking into account distribution and other services provided to the funds by XXXX DIMA and its affiliates) was lower than the overall profitability levels of most comparable firms for which such data was available. The Board did not consider the profitability of NTI with respect to the Portfolio. The Board noted that XXXX pays NTI’s fee out of its management fee, and its understanding that the Portfolio’s sub-advisory fee schedule was the product of an arm’s length negotiation with XXXXDIMA.