Jaidip Chanda

October 12, 2017

CAM‐1518

Women, Investments & Philanthropy

This material is solely for the private use of State Street Global Advisors and is not intended for public dissemination. 

Historical View of Charitable Giving

The Almanac of American Philanthropy 2015.(www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/)Source: Giving USA; US Bureau of the Census.

2CAM‐1504

Charitable giving was more than 6 ½ timesgreater and per capita donations were almost 3 ½ times greater in 2014 than in 1954

$390B in 2016

Growth inAmericans’ Giving

(inflation adjusted)

S&P 500® Index Growth(inflation adjusted)

An Overview of Giving in 2016

3CAM‐1490

Source: 2017 Giving USA

Total 2016 contributions by source(by percentage of the total)

2016 contributions by recipient organization(by percentage of the total)

Individuals71%

Foundations16%

Bequests9%

Corporations5%

Public7%

Health8%

Foundation11%

Human Services12%

Education15%

Religion32%

Generational Wealth Transfer

4CAM‐1490

The Greatest Generation

Heirs/Millennials

Baby Boomers

$12T

501c(3) Charities

$30T

???

Source: The Sharpe Group, 2017

• Growth in online giving has recently outpaced overall giving — up 9.2% YOY.  Technology has increased transparency which helps investors determine their ultimate impact.

• Significantly more women than men donate to charities and do so more often.  Female investors actively seek ways to get more traction and bandwidth in framing the conversation on philanthropy.

• Assets in socially responsible investment (SRI) strategies expanded from $ 3.7 T in 2012 to $ 6.6 T in 2014. That’s a market share of $ 1 in every 5 $ under professional management in the US.

• The next generation of investors is more likely to see socially responsible investing as a natural expression of their own values and beliefs. Millennials place a higher value on making an impact and are investing to pursue values over the long term. 

• 62% of investors believe that philanthropy is important to educate the next generation on family values and legacy —why the wealth exists, how to respect it and how to use it wisely. Strategic philanthropy is a way to engage younger generations, through shared values and responsible development. 

What the Numbers Say

CAM‐1518

Source: SSGA, as of 2017.

5

Regulatory Impact on Charitable Giving

6CAM‐1490

Source: Ropes & Gray and The Sharpe Group

Washington has been favorable to the charitable industry

American Taxpayers Relief Act

Estate Tax ChangesAppreciated Securities

Pease Limitation

David Camp Bill

2 percent floorExtension of April 15th deadline

Donor‐advised fundpay‐outs

Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act

IRA Charitable Rollover

Gifts Made Through S‐Corporations

Changes to Charitable Deductions

The Opportunity to Address the Heart of Wealth Management has Never been Greater

7CAM‐1518

Investment strategies and

portfolio optimization

Estate planning and the legacy

roadmap

Intergenerational asset continuity

and financial stewardship

There are multiple reasons to raise the values-based subject and address the way clients think about, use and allocate their wealth

Perpetuating the Mission Over the Long-term:Millennials and Women are Re-shaping the Approach

Sources: (Millennials): State Street Global Advisors Survey, “Money in Motion” 2015(Women): US Trust, Insights on Wealth and Worth, 2013

8CAM‐1504

Women are nearly 2x as likely as men to say that giving

back is the most satisfactory aspect of having wealth

Millennials are more motivated to give by a sense of purpose and by making an impact globally

Millennials: Empowerment through Participatory Giving

Sources:(57%): Blackbaud 2013 Generational Giving Report, “How Millennials Are Reshaping Charity And Online Giving” on NPR October 13, 2014(67%): US Trust study, US Trust Insights on Wealth and Worth, 2014

9CAM‐1504

And smart charities are answering the call

They're investing their capital — and are more open to perpetuating the mission in the

long‐term

Place a higher value on making an impact

Place a higher value on making an impact

57% want to know their charitable "investment" is making an impact

A natural expression of their ideals

A natural expression of their ideals

67% agree their investment decisions are a way to express social, political and 

environmental values

Source: The Women’s Philanthropy Institute at the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy,Accessed at: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the‐gender‐gap‐in‐charitable‐giving‐1454295689 

Women: More likely to Donate than Men — and to Donate More

10CAM‐1504

Baby Boomer and older women give 89% more to charity than men their age. And women in the top 25% of permanent income give 156% more than men in that same category.

One woman, who graduated from NYU with a degree in game design, became head of her family’s donor-advised fund and shifted the focus to advancing women — providing grants for women in the area of science, technology, engineering and math, and specifically coding. Being in the

field herself, she saw how few women had chosen the same path. She hoped to make a difference with her philanthropy.

— Wirehouse Managing Director, Philanthropy Program

“

$11T: Daisy Maxey, “Where are the Female Fund Managers?” The Wall Street Journal, July 6, 2015. Accessed at http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1167062717502099336630458106629274274464683%: “Who Makes the Call at the Mall, Men or Women?” The Wall Street Journal, April 23, 2011, accessed at http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703521304576278964279316994 2/3: Boston College’s Center on Wealth Philanthropy, 20099 in 10: “Women’s Financial Power Grows Faster than Savvy,” USA Today, August 17, 2012; http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/basics/story/2012‐08‐16/womens‐financial‐literacy‐confidence/57104200/ Image: Sculpture by Kristen Visbal, commissioned by State Street Global Advisors 

Controls $11T in investable assets —

and 83% of all consumer purchases

Expected to control 2/3 of nation’s wealth by 2030

9 in 10 will be sole financial decision-maker at some point in their lives

CAM‐1518 11

Women are Playing an Important Role

Women Give 2016

Shifts in charitable giving with GenX/Millennials:

Source: Women Give 2016, The Women’s Philanthropy Institute (WPI) is part of the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy

CAM‐1504 12

• Married couples whose giving decisions were influenced by women, giving is higher

• Married couples who give large amounts, women have more influence

• Women’s labor force participation and median earnings have seen a steady increase

Gender Differences in Crowdfunding Donors

CAM‐1504 13

Male and female crowdfunding donors give differently and to different projects% of male/female crowdfunding donors in US who…

Source: Survey conducted November 24 – December 21, 2015.“Shared, Collaborative and On Demand: The New Digital Economy”

17%

22%

58%

42%

36%

9%

12%

75%

27%

25%

Have given to6+ projects

Have donated $100or more to a project

Have donated to aproject to help

someone in need

Have donated to aproject for a new

product or invention

Have donated to aproject for acreative artist

Men Women

Pew Research Center 

Investors like the way Giving Makes them Feel

State Street Global Advisors’ survey, “Money in Motion: Philanthropy Qualitative Research,” 2016. 20 investors were surveyed nationally. 

14CAM‐1504

“I feel good when I can help others. It’s a like a high.”

“I’ve been blessed, so I have an obligation to help others. I can’t say ‘I want to keep this all to myself.’”

“I feel good spiritually when I give. I teach my children that by giving you receive.”

1. Family values

2. Personal satisfaction

3. Sense of duty

Technology is a Significant Player

15CAM‐1504

Source: Network for Good 2015 Digital Giving Index.

Q: For which of the following three client types are the following factors most commonly reflected?Source: State Street Global Advisors’ Survey, “Money in Motion,” June 2015.

Advisor-Observed Behavioral Patterns of the Generations

CAM‐1504

More Risk Tolerant

Accepting of Non‐Traditional Asset Allocation

Interest in Ethics and Social Justice

Emphasis on Philanthropy

Emphasis on Short‐Term Rather than Long‐Term Gains

More Conservative

Demand for Personalized Experience and Performance Supporting Objectives

Reliance on Technology

Concern with Tax Planning Strategies

Millennials 1981–2000

Generation X 1965–1980

Baby Boomers1946–1964

2%

81%

10%

17%

46%

4%

48%

18%

32%

24%

15%

52%

10%

33%

14%

33%

59%

48%

74%

4%

38%

73%

21%

82%

20%

23%

21%

16CAM‐1504

Impact Investing a Growing Trend

US SIF Foundation Report on US Sustainable, Responsible and Impact Investing Trends 2014. http://www.ussif.org/files/Trends/US%20SIF%202016%20Trends%20Overview_Foundations.pdf on page 1. Source: The Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment, US SIF Foundation Biennial Report on US Sustainable, Responsible and Impact Investing Trends: 2016 Trends Report Highlights 2016, 2016.

17CAM‐1504

The total US assets under management using Sustainable, Responsible Impact Investing (SRI) strategies expanded from $3.7 trillion in 2012 to $6.6 trillion in 2014, an increase of 76%

“Philanthropy today is also more inclusive. It doesn’t require an ‘or,’ it’s an ‘and’; an ampersand. People don’t have investing and philanthropy separately. There are more opportunities to combine the two through impact investing.

— Wirehouse Managing Director, Philanthropy Program

Philanthropy can Strengthen and Transform the Client Relationship in an Extraordinary Way

State Street Global Advisors Philanthropy Omnibus Survey, 2016. 1,100 investment decision‐makers with $200,000 in investable assets were surveyed nationally.

18CAM‐1504

48% 50% 52% 58% 58%46%

54%46% 46%

44% 40% 38% 31% 29%40% 29%

33% 31%

Satisfied Very Satisfied

Among investors whose advisor offers philanthropic management, satisfaction with the role their advisor plays is over

80% in all areas except two.

More Satisfied Client — and a Loyalty Driver

State Street Global Advisors’ survey, Money in Motion, 2015. 400 financial advisors and 560 individual investors were surveyed nationally.

19CAM‐1504

59% 61%42% 45%

Impact InvestingGuidance on philanthropy

Advisor offers

Advisor does not offer

Advisor offers

Advisor does not offer

Very satisfied

Very satisfied

Very satisfied

Very satisfied

44%would like more guidance from their advisor to help define and meet their goals for giving

48%are more likely to stay with an advisor who guided them on their giving plan

The Investment Case for Gender Diversity

20CAM‐1504

Executive Summary

Source: SSGAHunt, Vivian, et al. Diversity Matters. McKinsey & Company. February 2015.The methodology used in MSCI’s and McKinsey’s studies is different than that of the index, and as such, the results of the study should not be viewed as indicative of future performance of the index or SHE. Return on equity is not representative of the performance of any investment or the potential return of any ETF.

21CAM‐1504

SHE is Leadership• SHE seeks investment in companies with higher levels of senior

leadership gender diversity• SHE is the ticker symbol for the SPDR SSGA Gender Diversity ETF• SHE tracks a proprietary index of listed US large‐capitalization companies 

(out of the largest 1,000) that are leaders within their respective sectors in advancing women through gender diversity on their boardsof directors and in senior leadership

SHE is Influence• SHE may inspire conversation and action to increase gender equality 

in company leadership teams

SHE is Impact• Representing our commitment to the future of women in leadership, 

SSGA will direct a portion of the SHE revenue to SHE Impacts (a donor‐ advised fund) to support charities that seek to remove bias and empower young girls and women to take their place in business leadership

7.4%

For the purposes of the study, MSCI defined strong female leadership as having a board of directors with at least three women, which research suggests comprises a critical mass for decision‐making influence, or a percentage of women that’s higher than average in the company’s country.

Return on Equity10.1%

Firms without a Critical Mass of

Female Leaders1

+36.4%Higher Return on Equity for companies with 

strong female leadership compared to companies without a critical massof women at the top

According to a 2015MSCI study of 4,200public companies¹

Firms with StrongFemale 

Leadership

Return on equity is not representative of theperformance of any

investment or the potential return of any ETF

The methodology used in MSCI’s study is differentthan that of the index,

and as such,the results of thestudy should

not be viewed as indicativeof future performance of the index or SHE

Why Gender Diversity Matters to Investors

1 Lee, Linda‐Eling, et al. Women on Boards: Global Trends in Gender Diversity on Corporate Boards, MSCI, November 2015. Accessed on February 17, 2016.at: https://www.msci.com/documents/10199/04b6f646‐d638‐4878‐9c61‐4eb91748a82b. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

22CAM‐1504

Research has shown that companies with strong female leadership have performed better (as measured by return on equity) than those without a critical mass of female leaders1

Research has show that companies that have increased gender diversity amongst their senior leadership have seen gains in profitability1

Going from having no women in corporate leadership(the CEO, the board, and other C‐suite positions) to a 30% female share is associated with:

+15%Increase

in Profitability

According to a 2014 Peterson Institute of International Economics study of 21,980public companies¹

100 bpsIncrease

in Net Profit Margin

Profitability and increasein profit margin are not representative of the performance of any

investment or the potential return of any ETF

The methodology usedin this study is differentthan that of the index,and as such, the results

of the study should not beviewed as indicative of 

future performance of theindex or SHE

Why Gender Diversity Matters to Investors

1 Marcus Noland, Tyler Moran, and Barbara Kotschwar Is Gender Diversity Profitable? Evidence from a Global Survey, Peterson Institute for International Economics, February 2016.Accessed on February 19, 2016 at: http://www.piie.com/publications/wp/wp16‐3.pdf. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

23CAM‐1504

Representation of Women inS&P 500 Companies

CEOs

Board Seats

Executive & Senior Level

First & Mid Level

S&P 500Labor Force

4.0%

19.2%

25.1%

36.8%

45.0%

Despite the Benefits, US Companies have a Dearth of Women in Leadership

The graphic above is for illustrative purposes only and is not drawn to scale. Sources: Catalyst. As of September 30, 2015.Catalyst, Women CEOs of the S&P 500 (2015).Catalyst, 2014 Catalyst Census: Women Board Directors (2015).US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), “2013 EEO‐1 Survey Data.” S&P 500 is owned by S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC.

24CAM‐1504

Minimum Thresholds on Board Composition(% of Females Required)

FranceIcelandNorwaySpain

Italy BelgiumGermany (Largest 100 companies)

Netherlands (Nonbinding)

Regulation Trending Toward Gender Diversity —Around the World

Source: SSGA. As of December 31, 2015.

25CAM‐1504

New Approaches to Solving the Problem

Source: SSGA. As of December 31, 2016.

26CAM‐1504

CAM-1504The 30% Club The Thirty 

Percent Coalition• National US organization of more than 80 members committed to the goal of women holding 30% of board seats across public companies

• Twenty‐seven industry leaders, including senior business executives, national women’s organizations, institutional investors, corporate governance experts and board members gathered for a high‐level summit in late 2011 to address the lack of gender diversity in corporate boardrooms

• Prompted by what participants called “glacial progress” on increasing the number of women on US corporate boards — a number which has essentially remained stagnant over the past five years — the leaders formed The Thirty Percent Coalition

Institutional Investor InfluenceCalSTRS, CalPERS131 California companies contacted, 15+ new women board members within 4 months

NY City Pension Fund Targeting 24 companies with no or minimal gender diversity on the board

• Launched in the UK in 2010 with a goal of achieving a minimum of 30% women on FTSE‐100 boards by end of 2015

• As of November 2015, the figures stood at 26.1% up from 12.5% (http://30percentclub.org/)

Exerting InfluenceMisperceptions still rule at school – and in the media

27CAM‐1504

By investing in companies with gender-diverse senior leadership, we believe investors may inspire conversations and action to increase

gender diversity in company leadership teams

SHE Details

28CAM‐1504

Investing with SHE

Source: SSGA. As of December 31, 2016.

29CAM‐1504

GOALCreate a transparent, relatively low‐cost vehicle for investors to express their preference for companies with the highest levels within their sectors of gender diversity on their boards of directors andin their senior leadership

INVESTMENT VIEW• We believe that female representation at a level which can affect change 

is important, thus our focus on senior leaders as opposed to company‐wide positions

• We also believe that female representation at the senior leadership levelreflects a true commitment to change, as opposed to single figureheads

INDEX OBJECTIVEThe index is designed to track the performance of US large‐capitalization companies that are leaders within their respective industry sectors in advancing women through gender diversity on their boards of directors and in senior leadership positions. The index utilizes transparent rules to identify companies that meet the following criteria:

• Representation of women at senior management levels assessed relative to their own sectors, and

• One female that is either CEO, Chairperson, or board member

ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES• Rules‐based approach, not an optimization‐based approach

Investing with SHE

As an investment vehicle, investors should consider that SHE:

• Invests in companies that demonstrate the highest levels of senior leadership gender diversity relative to other firms within their sector

• Seeks to minimize divergent sector weights versus the 1,000 largest US companies with the goal of isolating gender diversity as the primary factor exposure

• SSGA has committed to direct a portion of the SHE revenues to charitable organizations that empower women to take their place in business leadership

30

SHE seeks to meet the needs 

of a wide spectrum of investors, from those seeking large‐cap corediversification, to impact investors whoshare a similar passion for gender diversity awareness and value SSGA’scharitable component

CAM‐1504

Source: SSGA. As of December 31, 2016.

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%Percen

tage

ofFemales

Represen

ted

Female Leadership Across Sectors (Average, 1/2002 to 9/30/2015)

Director Ratio Board Ratio Senior Manager Ratio Executive Ratio CEO Ratio Chairperson Ratio

Sector Characteristics

Source: SSGA, BoardEx, FactSet, as of September 30, 2015.Sector characteristics are as of the date indicated, are subject to change, and should not be relied upon as current thereafter.Directors include all senior leadership positions including all Board and non‐Board members and all Senior Managers and all CEOs and Chairpersons. Executives refer to (1) Executive board members that areactually employed at the company (their day‐to‐day job) whereas non‐executive board members are only present on the board plus (2) all Senior Managers.

31CAM‐1504

Limiting active sector weights is challenging as there is significant variation of gender diversity across sectors

Charitable Program

32CAM‐1504

SHE Impacts Workflow

The charities included in the figure above are for illustrative purposes only and may not be representative of the actual charities that receive donations through this charitable contribution.

33CAM‐1504

I. Charitable contribution workflow to 3rd party administrator (501(c)3)

II. Charitable donation workflow to end charities

STT Revenue Donor‐Advised Fund 501(c)3

STT CorpTax Deduction

3rd Party/Partner Tax Deduction

AUM ofGender Diversity ETF used as barometer

State Street Charitable Donation to DAF

3rd Party/Partner Charitable Donations to DAF

Portion of the Advisor’s revenue donated

Grants directed tovetted charities by Cross‐STT Committee

Donor‐AdvisedFund 501(c)3

• Private‐labeled DAFadministered by a 3rd party

• $$$ resides in investment pools• Due diligence on charities• On‐line grant making• Year‐end tax processing

• Cross‐STT committee evaluates strategic fit of charity based on established selection criteria

• Research conducted on GuideStar/Charity Navigator• Committee monitors evaluation and metrics of granted charities

Women for Women International

Girl Scouts

Girls Who Code

Global Women Foundation

Michelle R. Clayman Institute for Gender Research— Stanford University

End Charities

Source: SSGA Charitable Asset Management. As of December 31, 2016.

Competitive Analysis

34CAM‐1504

Other Strategies Focused on Gender Diversity

Source: SSGAAs of December 31, 2015

35CAM‐1504

COMPETITOR STRATEGY COMPARISON

Pax Ellevate Global Women’s Index Fund (Mutual Fund)

• Invests in companies that are committed to gender diversity on their boards of directors and in executive management and that embrace policies and programs, such as the Women’s Empowerment Principles, to elevate women in the workplace

• Approximately 97% of companies in the Fund have two or more women on their boards, and nearly 70% have three or more

• Does not neutralize sector overweights, potentially leading to high tracking error versus benchmark

• Does not include women in senior leadership roles as a criteria

US Trust’s Women & Girls Equality Strategy

• Within US equity and taxable corporate fixed income, the fund invests in companies that meet financial fundamentals and have progressive policies relating to women, along with a commitment to use business practices to change the landscape of rights and equality for women

• Criteria considers a company’s track record on hiring, retaining and promoting women; female representation in senior management and on the board; wage parity between women and men; career‐advancement opportunities; policies on family leave; supply chain practices and the portrayal of women and girls in advertising

• Only available at US Trust via an SMA vehicle

MorganStanley Parity Portfolio

• A separately managed account for high net worth individuals and institutional clients that focuses specifically on increasing female board representation

• Does not include women in senior leadership roles as a criteria

Barclays Women in Leadership ETN

• Composed of companies with a female chief executive officer or companies where women make up at least one‐fourth of the board of directors

• Companies must meet specific market capitalization and trading volume thresholds• An exchange traded note (ETN) currently tracks the Index

• Does not include women in senior leadership roles as a criteria

MSCI Women on Boards (WOB) Index

Global and US versions; companies must have

1. At least three female board members OR at least one woman in a current leadership role (e.g., CEO, Co‐CEO, Chair, Co‐Chair, Executive Chair, Lead Director, or CFO) AND at least one other female director;

2. Percentage of women on board must exceed national average OR 50%;

3. Excludes companies facing Severe and Very Severe “Labor Rights —Discrimination & Workforce Diversity” Controversy Scores

Key Takeaways

36CAM‐1504

• Frame conversations around philanthropy not just in terms of tax benefits; appeal to investors who want to give back

• Position philanthropy and mission-based investing as part of a comprehensive wealth management service

• Research shows that companies that have increased gender diversity amongst their senior leadership have seen gains in profitability and performance1

1 Marcus Noland, Tyler Moran, and Barbara Kotschwar Is Gender Diversity Profitable? Evidence from a Global Survey, Peterson Institute for International Economics, February 2016.Accessed on February 19, 2016.

Appendix A: Important Disclosures

CAM‐1504 37

Donor-advised Funds Lead the Way

Source: National Philanthropic TrustThe Almanac of American Philanthropy 2015.(www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/). Definition: A Donor‐Advised Fund is a fund in which donors invest assets they give to charitable organizations. Donors advise the fund on how they want their donations to be used; funds generally comply with donors’ requests, but they are not obligated to do so. https://www.nptrust.org/daf‐report/recent‐growth.html

38CAM‐1504

“Things not available in previous generations are now commonplace, including today’s “explosive” growth in donor-advised funds. These funds make it so simple and easy to for people to do this kind of gifting.

– Russell James, Associate Professor-Charitable Planning at Texas

Tech University

Total Charitable Assets in Donor‐Advised Funds

Total Number of Donor‐Advised Fund Accounts

$33.60

 

$38.16

 

$44.83

  $57.34

  $70.27

 

$78.64

 

$0.00

$10.00

$20.00

$30.00

$40.00

$50.00

$60.00

$70.00

$80.00

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

In Billions

184,36

4

192,37

8

205,63

5

222,95

7

242,39

0

269,18

0

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Important Risk Disclosures

ETFs trade like stocks, are subject to investment risk, fluctuate in market value and may trade at prices above or below the ETFs net asset value. Brokerage commissions and ETF expenses will reduce returns.

Frequent trading of ETFs could significantly increase commissions and other costs such that they may offset any savings from low fees or costs.

Equity securities are volatile and can decline significantly in response to broad market and economic conditions.

Non‐diversified funds that focus on a relatively small number of [stocks, issuers, countries] tend to be more volatile than diversified funds and the market as a whole.

Passively managed funds hold a range of securities that, in the aggregate, approximates the full Index in terms of key risk factors and other characteristics. This may cause the fund to experience tracking errors relative to performance of the index.

Concentrated investments in a particular industry or sector may be more vulnerable to adverse changes in that industry or sector.

Gender Diversity Risk The returns on a portfolio of securities that excludes companies that are not gender diverse may trail the returns on a portfolio of securities that includes companies that are not gender diverse.

Companies with large market capitalizations go in and out of favor based on market and economic conditions. Larger companies tend to be less volatile than companies with smaller market capitalizations. In exchange for this potentially lower risk, the value of the security may not rise as much as companies with smaller market capitalizations.

CAM‐1504 39

Important Disclosures

FOR INVESTMENT PROFESSIONAL USE ONLY. 

Investing involves risk including the risk of loss of principal.

Before investing, consider the funds’ investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. To obtain a prospectus or summary prospectus which contains this and other information, call 1‐866‐787‐2257 or visit www.spdrs.com. Read it carefully.

The information provided does not constitute investment advice and it should not be relied on as such. It should not be considered a solicitation to buy or an offer to sell a security. It does not take into account any investor’s particular investment objectives, strategies, tax status or investment horizon. You should consult your tax and financial advisor.

The whole or any part of this work may not be reproduced, copied or transmitted or any of its contents disclosed to third parties without SSGA’s express written consent.

All information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy is not guaranteed. There is no representation or warranty as to the current accuracy, reliability or completeness of, nor liability for, decisions based on such information and it should not be relied on as such.

Standard & Poor’s, S&P and SPDR are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC (S&P); Dow Jones is a registered trademark of Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC (Dow Jones); and these trademarks have been licensed for use by S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC (SPDJI) and sublicensed for certain purposes by State Street Corporation. State Street Corporation’s financial products are not sponsored, endorsed, sold or promoted by SPDJI, Dow Jones, S&P, their respective affiliates and third party licensors and none of such parties make any representation regarding the advisability of investing in such product(s) nor do they have any liability in relation thereto, including for any errors, omissions, or interruptions of any index.

Distributor: State Street Global Advisors Funds Distributors, LLC, member FINRA, SIPC, a wholly owned subsidiary of State Street Corporation. References to State Street may include State Street Corporation and its affiliates. Certain State Street affiliates provide services and receive fees from the SPDR ETFs. 

Web: www.ssga.com

© 2017 State Street Corporation —All Rights Reserved.

State Street Global Markets, LLC, member FINRA, SIPC, One Lincoln Street, Boston, MA 02111.

Tracking Number: CAM‐1518

Expiration Date: November 30, 2017

CAM‐1518 40

Appendix B: Biography

41CAM‐1518

Biography

Jaidip Chanda

Jai is a Managing Director of State Street Global Advisors and Head of the firm’s Charitable Asset Management & Fiduciary Advisory Services Divisions. Charitable Asset Management is a division of State Street that invests and administers planned giving assets for charitable organizations in the United States. Fiduciary Advisory Services provides Outsourced CIO and customized advisory solutions to defined benefit, defined contribution, endowment and foundation clients.

Prior to joining SSGA in 2013, Jai spent 20 years at Fidelity Investments in various institutional sales and relationship management roles. At the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund, Jai led the fundraising efforts in the institutional marketplace for the largest donor‐advised fund in the US Prior to that, Jai spent 12 years at Fidelity Institutional overseeing the firm’s largest clearing & custody relationships and being responsible for all sales revenue of third party research content to all Fidelity’s institutional clients.

His career started in fixed income sales & trading at Bear Stearns and Fidelity Capital Markets. Jai earned an MBA from Boston University and a BS from the University of Vermont. Jai is on the Board of Overseers for Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. He is also a board member of Inversant and the Boston Estate Planning Council. He holds FINRA Series 7 and 63 licenses.

42CAM‐1518