N-CSR
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM N-CSR
CERTIFIED SHAREHOLDER REPORT OF REGISTERED
MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES
Investment Company Act file number: 811-07111
Morgan Stanley Insured California Municipal Securities
(Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)
|
|
|
522 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York |
|
10036 |
(Address of principal executive offices)
|
|
(Zip code) |
Randy Takian
522 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10036
(Name and address of agent for service)
Registrants telephone number, including area code: 212-296-6990
Date of fiscal year end: October 31, 2008
Date of reporting period: October 31, 2008
Item 1 Report to Shareholders
|
|
|
INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT
|
|
|
Welcome,
Shareholder:
In
this report, youll learn about how your investment in
Morgan Stanley Insured California Municipal Securities performed
during the annual period. We will provide an overview of the
market conditions, and discuss some of the factors that affected
performance during the reporting period. In addition, this
report includes the Trusts financial statements and a list
of Trust investments.
Market forecasts provided in this report may not necessarily
come to pass. There is no assurance that the Trust will achieve
its investment objective. The Trust is subject to market risk,
which is the possibility that market values of securities owned
by the Trust will decline and, therefore, the value of the
Trusts shares may be less than what you paid for them.
Accordingly, you can lose money investing in this Trust.
Income earned by certain securities in the portfolio may be
subject to the federal alternative minimum tax (AMT).
Fund Report
For the year ended October 31, 2008
Market
Conditions
The financial markets were highly volatile throughout the
reporting period as disrupted credit markets, recession fears,
the declining housing market, and ongoing losses in the
financial sector led to increasing investor anxiety. The third
quarter of 2008, in particular, will go down as a defining
moment in financial history, a period in which the
industrys landscape changed in ways most would have never
imagined.
As the quarter began, Federal National Mortgage Association
(Fannie Mae) and Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation (Freddie Mac), the two bedrock
government-sponsored entities that own or guarantee about half
of the nations outstanding mortgage debt, were facing
financial disintegration as the value of the agencies
assets had severely eroded. At the same time, economic data was
signaling slowing growth while rising food and energy prices
were fueling inflation, heightening investor anxiety. In early
September, deteriorating market conditions caused the U.S.
Treasury to rescue both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Shortly
thereafter, these same conditions led Lehman Brothers to file
for bankruptcy protection. Investor confidence plummeted,
initiating a downward spiral in the market that accelerated at
an alarming pace. In the weeks that followed, several other
large financial institutions were forced into mergers, rescued
by the government, or failed altogether.
Credit markets became nearly frozen as liquidity dried up.
Overnight and short-term credit markets convulsed as banks
stopped lending to both companies and each other, causing
short-term borrowing costs to soar. As fear gripped the market,
credit spreads dramatically widened as investors demanded
substantial compensation for assuming any degree of risk. In
response, government officials took various steps including a
$700 billion plan to fortify the precarious financial
system.
Overall, the consolidation in the banking and brokerage industry
has altered the flow of capital and resulted in a general lack
of liquidity in the municipal market. The biggest issue facing
the municipal market as of the end of the period is a general
lack of trading as new issue offerings have been pulled and/or
downsized. And, while liquidity improved in October, demand
remains well below historic levels. As a result, yields on even
the highest quality, most liquid municipal securities are at
historic highs, with yields on
30-year
high-grade municipal issues at levels well above that of
comparable Treasuries.
Rising unemployment has resulted in declining tax receipts,
which directly impacts the bottom line of state budgets. In
fact, state budget gaps have widened substantially, with 39
states projected to face fiscal distress in 2009 and 2010. In
California, the budget gap ballooned following Governor
Schwarzeneggers announcement of proposed tax increases and
budget cuts. This is on top of a staggering 7.7 percent
increase in the states unemployment rate in the month of
August.
Performance
Analysis
For the
12-month
period ended October 31, 2008, the net asset value (NAV) of
Morgan Stanley Insured California Municipal Securities (ICS)
decreased from $14.86 to $13.05 per share. Based on this change
plus reinvestment of tax-free dividends totaling $0.63
2
per share, a taxable income
dividend of $0.021518 and a long-term capital gain distribution
of $0.110661 per share, the Trusts total NAV return was
−7.12 percent. ICSs value on the New York Stock
Exchange (NYSE) moved from $14.19 to $12.55 per share during the
same period. Based on this change plus reinvestment of dividends
and distributions, the Trusts total market return was
−6.46 percent. ICSs NYSE market price was at a
3.83 percent discount to its NAV. During the fiscal period,
the Trust purchased and retired 22,518 shares of common
stock at a weighted average market discount of
5.53 percent. Past performance is no guarantee of future
results.
The October dividend was unchanged at $0.0525 per share. The
dividend reflects the current level of the Trusts net
investment income. ICSs level of undistributed net
investment income was $0.051 per share on October 31, 2008
versus $0.117 per share 12 months
earlier.1
Over the course of the reporting period, we maintained an
overweight to the hospital/life care and tobacco sectors, which
detracted from relative performance as spreads in these sectors
widened, pushing prices lower. Conversely, an overweight to the
public utility sector benefited performance as the flight to
quality that took place during the period helped to boost the
performance of this infrastructure sector.
In the first half of the period, the Trust maintained a lower
interest-rate sensitivity (as measured by duration*), which
benefited relative performance as yield rose. During the second
half of the period, we increased the duration to a neutral
stance in order to better position the Trust to benefit from a
potential retracement in yields in the future.
The Trusts procedure for reinvesting all dividends and
distributions in common shares is through purchases in the open
market. This method helps support the market value of the
Trusts shares. In addition, we would like to remind you
that the Trustees have approved a share repurchase program
whereby the Trust may, when appropriate, purchase shares in the
open market or in privately negotiated transactions at a price
not above market value or net asset value, whichever is lower at
the time of purchase.
Performance data quoted represents past performance, which is
no guarantee of future results, and current performance may be
lower or higher than the figures shown. Investment return, net
asset value and common share market price will fluctuate and
Trust shares, when sold, may be worth more or less than their
original cost.
There is no guarantee that any sectors mentioned will
continue to perform as discussed herein or that securities in
such sectors will be held by the Trust in the future.
1 Income
earned by certain securities in the portfolio may be subject to
the federal alternative minimum tax (AMT).
* A measure of the sensitivity of a bonds price to
changes in interest rates, expressed in years. Each year of
duration represents an expected 1 percent change in the
price of a bond for every 1 percent change in interest
rates. The longer a bonds duration, the greater the effect
of interest-rate movements on its price. Typically, trusts with
shorter durations perform better in rising-interest-rate
environments, while trusts with longer durations perform better
when rates decline.
3
|
|
|
|
|
TOP FIVE SECTORS as of 10/31/08
|
|
|
Appropriation
|
|
|
18
|
.0%
|
General Obligation
|
|
|
16
|
.0
|
Water & Sewer
|
|
|
14
|
.9
|
Dedicated Tax
|
|
|
11
|
.1
|
Public Power
|
|
|
9
|
.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
LONG-TERM CREDIT ENHANCEMENTS as of 10/31/08
|
|
|
FSA
|
|
|
32
|
.9%
|
FGIC
|
|
|
31
|
.4
|
MBIA
|
|
|
17
|
.5
|
AMBAC
|
|
|
11
|
.9
|
U.S. Govt Backed
|
|
|
2
|
.4
|
AGC
|
|
|
2
|
.1
|
XLCA
|
|
|
1
|
.8
|
Subject to change daily. Provided for informational purposes
only and should not be deemed as a recommendation to buy or sell
the securities mentioned or securities in the sectors shown
above. Top five sectors are as a percentage of total
investments. Long-term credit enhancements are as a percentage
of long-term investments. Securities are classified by sectors
that represent broad groupings of related industries. Morgan
Stanley is a full-service securities firm engaged in securities
trading and brokerage activities, investment banking, research
and analysis, financing and financial advisory services.
For
More Information About Portfolio Holdings
Each Morgan Stanley trust provides a complete schedule of
portfolio holdings in its semiannual and annual reports within
60 days of the end of the trusts second and fourth
fiscal quarters. The semiannual reports and the annual reports
are filed electronically with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) on
Form N-CSRS
and
Form N-CSR,
respectively. Morgan Stanley also delivers the semiannual and
annual reports to trust shareholders and makes these reports
available on its public web site, www.morganstanley.com. Each
Morgan Stanley trust also files a complete schedule of portfolio
holdings with the SEC for the trusts first and third
fiscal quarters on
Form N-Q.
Morgan Stanley does not deliver the reports for the first and
third fiscal quarters to shareholders, nor are the reports
posted to the Morgan Stanley public web site. You may, however,
obtain the
Form N-Q
filings (as well as the
Form N-CSR
and N-CSRS filings) by accessing the SECs web site,
http://www.sec.gov.
You may also review and copy them at the SECs public
reference room in Washington, DC. Information on the operation
of the SECs public reference room may be obtained by
calling the SEC at (800) SEC-0330. You can also request
copies of these materials, upon payment of a duplicating fee, by
electronic request at the SECs
e-mail
address (publicinfo@sec.gov) or by writing the public reference
section of the SEC, Washington,
DC 20549-0102.
4
Investment Advisory Agreement
Approval
Nature,
Extent and Quality of Services
The Board reviewed and considered the nature and extent of the
investment advisory services provided by the Investment Adviser
(as defined herein) under the advisory agreement, including
portfolio management, investment research and fixed income
securities trading. The Board also reviewed and considered the
nature and extent of the non-advisory, administrative services
provided by the Trusts Administrator (as defined herein)
under the administration agreement, including accounting,
clerical, bookkeeping, compliance, business management and
planning, and the provision of supplies, office space and
utilities at the Investment Advisers expense. (The
Investment Adviser and the Administrator together are referred
to as the Adviser and the advisory and
administration agreements together are referred to as the
Management Agreement.) The Board also compared the
nature of the services provided by the Adviser with similar
services provided by non-affiliated advisers as reported to the
Board by Lipper Inc. (Lipper).
The Board reviewed and considered the qualifications of the
portfolio managers, the senior administrative managers and other
key personnel of the Adviser who provide the administrative and
advisory services to the Trust. The Board determined that the
Advisers portfolio managers and key personnel are well
qualified by education
and/or
training and experience to perform the services in an efficient
and professional manner. The Board concluded that the nature and
extent of the advisory and administrative services provided were
necessary and appropriate for the conduct of the business and
investment activities of the Trust. The Board also concluded
that the overall quality of the advisory and administrative
services was satisfactory.
Performance
Relative to Comparable Funds Managed by Other Advisers
On a regular basis, the Board reviews the performance of all
funds in the Morgan Stanley Fund Complex, including the
Trust, compared to their peers, paying specific attention to the
underperforming funds. In addition, the Board specifically
reviewed the Trusts performance for the one-, three- and
five-year periods ended December 31, 2007, as shown in a
report provided by Lipper (the Lipper Report),
compared to the performance of comparable funds selected by
Lipper (the performance peer group). The Board also
discussed with the Adviser the performance goals and the actual
results achieved in managing the Trust. The Board concluded that
the Trusts performance was competitive with that of its
performance peer group.
Fees
Relative to Other Proprietary Funds Managed by the Adviser with
Comparable Investment Strategies
The Board noted that the Adviser did not manage any other
proprietary funds with investment strategies comparable to the
Trust.
5
Fees
and Expenses Relative to Comparable Funds Managed by Other
Advisers
The Board reviewed the advisory and administrative fee
(together, the management fee) rate and total
expense ratio of the Trust as compared to the average management
fee rate and average total expense ratio for funds, selected by
Lipper (the expense peer group), managed by other
advisers with investment strategies comparable to those of the
Trust, as shown in the Lipper Report. The Board concluded that
the Trusts management fee rate and total expense ratio
were competitive with those of its expense peer group.
Breakpoints
and Economies of Scale
The Board reviewed the structure of the Trusts management
fee schedule under the Management Agreement and noted that it
does not include any breakpoints. The Board considered that the
Trust is a closed-end fund and, therefore, that the Trusts
assets are not likely to grow with new sales or grow
significantly as a result of capital appreciation. The Board
concluded that economies of scale for the Trust were not a
factor that needed to be considered at the present time.
Profitability
of the Adviser and Affiliates
The Board considered information concerning the costs incurred
and profits realized by the Adviser and affiliates during the
last year from their relationship with the Trust and during the
last two years from their relationship with the Morgan Stanley
Fund Complex and reviewed with the Adviser the cost
allocation methodology used to determine the profitability of
the Adviser and affiliates. Based on its review of the
information it received, the Board concluded that the profits
earned by the Adviser and affiliates were not excessive in light
of the advisory, administrative and other services provided to
the Trust.
Fall-Out
Benefits
The Board considered so-called fall-out benefits
derived by the Adviser and affiliates from their relationship
with the Trust and the Morgan Stanley Fund Complex, such as
float benefits derived from handling of checks for
purchases and sales of Trust shares, through a broker-dealer
affiliate of the Adviser. The Board also considered that, from
time to time, the Adviser may, directly or indirectly, effect
trades on behalf of certain Morgan Stanley Funds through various
electronic communications networks or other alternative trading
systems in which the Advisers affiliates have ownership
interests
and/or board
seats. The Board concluded that the fall-out benefits were
relatively small.
Soft
Dollar Benefits
The Board considered whether the Adviser realizes any benefits
from commissions paid to brokers who execute securities
transactions for the Trust (soft dollars). The Board
noted that the Trust invests only in fixed income securities,
which do not generate soft dollars.
6
Adviser
Financially Sound and Financially Capable of Meeting the
Trusts Needs
The Board considered whether the Adviser is financially sound
and has the resources necessary to perform its obligations under
the Management Agreement. The Board concluded that the Adviser
has the financial resources necessary to fulfill its obligations
under the Management Agreement.
Historical
Relationship Between the Trust and the Adviser
The Board also reviewed and considered the historical
relationship between the Trust and the Adviser, including the
organizational structure of the Adviser, the policies and
procedures formulated and adopted by the Adviser for managing
the Trusts operations and the Boards confidence in
the competence and integrity of the senior managers and key
personnel of the Adviser. The Board concluded that it is
beneficial for the Trust to continue its relationship with the
Adviser.
Other
Factors and Current Trends
The Board considered the controls and procedures adopted and
implemented by the Adviser and monitored by the Trusts
Chief Compliance Officer and concluded that the conduct of
business by the Adviser indicates a good faith effort on its
part to adhere to high ethical standards in the conduct of the
Trusts business.
General
Conclusion
After considering and weighing all of the above factors, the
Board concluded that it would be in the best interest of the
Trust and its shareholders to approve renewal of the Management
Agreement for another year.
7
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Portfolio
of Investments - October 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PRINCIPAL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AMOUNT IN
|
|
|
|
COUPON
|
|
MATURITY
|
|
|
|
|
THOUSANDS
|
|
|
|
RATE
|
|
DATE
|
|
|
|
VALUE
|
|
|
|
|
Tax-Exempt Municipal
Bonds (93.7%)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California (91.5%)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
235
|
|
|
Alameda County Joint Powers Authority, Ser 2008 (FSA Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.00
|
%
|
|
|
12/01/24
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
228,662
|
|
|
185
|
|
|
Alvord Unified School District, California, Ser 2007 A (FSA Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.00
|
|
|
|
08/01/28
|
|
|
|
|
|
176,714
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
|
Anaheim Public Financing Authority, Distribution Electric Ser
2007-A
(MBIA Insd)
|
|
|
4
|
.50
|
|
|
|
10/01/37
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,533,500
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
|
California Department of Veterans Affairs, Home Purchase 2002
Ser A (AMBAC Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.35
|
|
|
|
12/01/27
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,941,740
|
|
|
1,480
|
|
|
California Department of Water Resources, Central Valley Ser Y
(FGIC Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.25
|
|
|
|
12/01/19
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,513,759
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
|
California Infrastructure & Economic Development Bank,
Bay Area Toll Bridges Seismic Retrofit First Lien Ser 2003 A
(FGIC Insd) (ETM)
|
|
|
5
|
.00
|
|
|
|
07/01/29
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,030,780
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
California State University, Ser 2005 A (AMBAC Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.00
|
|
|
|
11/01/35
|
|
|
|
|
|
907,950
|
|
|
400
|
|
|
California Veterans Ser BH (AMT) (FSA Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.40
|
|
|
|
12/01/16
|
|
|
|
|
|
394,760
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
Capistrano Unified School District, Community Facilities
District #98-2 Ladera Ser 2005 (FGIC Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.00
|
|
|
|
09/01/29
|
|
|
|
|
|
860,610
|
|
|
3,025
|
|
|
Fairfield Water Financing, Ser 2007 A (COPs) (XLCA Insd) (a)
|
|
|
0
|
.00
|
|
|
|
04/01/30
|
|
|
|
|
|
733,532
|
|
|
1,055
|
|
|
Fontana Unified School District, Ser 2008 B (FSA Insd) (a)
|
|
|
0
|
.00
|
|
|
|
02/01/33
|
|
|
|
|
|
236,077
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
Golden State Tobacco Securitization Corporation, Enhanced Asset
Backed Ser 2005 A (FGIC Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.00
|
|
|
|
06/01/38
|
|
|
|
|
|
747,590
|
|
|
775
|
|
|
Grossmont Union High School District, Election of 2004 Ser 2006
(MBIA Insd) (a)
|
|
|
0
|
.00
|
|
|
|
08/01/24
|
|
|
|
|
|
308,450
|
|
|
775
|
|
|
Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District, Election of
2002 Ser 2008C (AGC Insd) (a)
|
|
|
0
|
.00
|
|
|
|
08/01/30
|
|
|
|
|
|
218,341
|
|
|
1,280
|
|
|
Huntington Beach Union High School District Ser 2004 (FSA Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.00
|
|
|
|
08/01/26
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,233,216
|
|
|
1,110
|
|
|
Kern County Board of Education Refg 2006 Ser A (COPs) (MBIA Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.00
|
|
|
|
06/01/31
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,025,185
|
|
|
245
|
|
|
Kern County Water Agency, Improvement District No 4 Ser 2008A
(COPs) (AGC Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.00
|
|
|
|
05/01/28
|
|
|
|
|
|
226,870
|
|
|
1,100
|
|
|
La Quinta Financing Authority, Local Agency 2004 Ser A (AMBAC
Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.25
|
|
|
|
09/01/24
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,082,499
|
|
|
1,030
|
|
|
Los Angeles, Ser 2004 A (MBIA Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.00
|
|
|
|
09/01/24
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,015,528
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Sales
Tax Ser 2000 A (FGIC Insd)
|
|
|
4
|
.50
|
|
|
|
07/01/29
|
(b)
|
|
|
|
|
862,710
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, 2001 Ser A
(FSA Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.25
|
|
|
|
07/01/21
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,001,400
|
|
|
800
|
|
|
Los Angeles Municipal Improvement Corporation, Police
Headquarters Ser 2006 A (FGIC Insd)
|
|
|
4
|
.75
|
|
|
|
01/01/31
|
|
|
|
|
|
682,576
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 2003 Ser
B-2
(FGIC Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.00
|
|
|
|
10/01/27
|
|
|
|
|
|
977,230
|
|
|
1,020
|
|
|
Murrieta Valley Unified School District, Election of 2006 Ser
2008 (FSA Insd) (a)
|
|
|
0
|
.00
|
|
|
|
09/01/31
|
|
|
|
|
|
248,013
|
|
|
820
|
|
|
Murrieta Valley Unified School District, Election of 2006 Ser
2008 (FSA Insd) (a)
|
|
|
0
|
.00
|
|
|
|
09/01/33
|
|
|
|
|
|
173,627
|
|
|
235
|
|
|
Oakland Joint Powers Financing Authority, Oakland Administration
Buildings Ser 2008 A (AGC Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.00
|
|
|
|
08/01/26
|
|
|
|
|
|
221,264
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
Oxnard Financing Authority, Wastewater 2004 Ser A (FGIC Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.00
|
|
|
|
06/01/29
|
|
|
|
|
|
929,490
|
|
See Notes to Financial
Statements
8
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Portfolio
of Investments - October 31,
2008 continued
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PRINCIPAL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AMOUNT IN
|
|
|
|
COUPON
|
|
MATURITY
|
|
|
|
|
THOUSANDS
|
|
|
|
RATE
|
|
DATE
|
|
|
|
VALUE
|
$
|
250
|
|
|
Placer County Water Agency Water Refg, Ser 2008 (COPs) (FSA Insd)
|
|
|
4
|
.75
|
%
|
|
|
07/01/29
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
222,470
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
Rancho Mirage Redevelopment Agency, Ser 2003 A (MBIA Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.00
|
|
|
|
04/01/33
|
|
|
|
|
|
911,960
|
|
|
360
|
|
|
Redding Electric System, Ser 2008 A (COPs) (FSA Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.00
|
|
|
|
06/01/27
|
|
|
|
|
|
343,631
|
|
|
500
|
|
|
Riverside Electric, Issue of 2008D (FSA Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.00
|
|
|
|
10/01/28
|
|
|
|
|
|
473,420
|
|
|
1,235
|
|
|
Rocklin Unified School District, Community Facilities District
No 2 Ser 2007 (MBIA Insd) (a)
|
|
|
0
|
.00
|
|
|
|
09/01/34
|
|
|
|
|
|
227,882
|
|
|
1,255
|
|
|
Rocklin Unified School District, Community Facilities District
No 2 Ser 2007 (MBIA Insd) (a)
|
|
|
0
|
.00
|
|
|
|
09/01/35
|
|
|
|
|
|
215,007
|
|
|
1,230
|
|
|
Rocklin Unified School District, Community Facilities District
No 2 Ser 2007 (MBIA Insd) (a)
|
|
|
0
|
.00
|
|
|
|
09/01/36
|
|
|
|
|
|
196,308
|
|
|
1,025
|
|
|
Rocklin Unified School District, Community Facilities District
No 2 Ser 2007 (MBIA Insd) (a)
|
|
|
0
|
.00
|
|
|
|
09/01/37
|
|
|
|
|
|
152,346
|
|
|
675
|
|
|
Roseville Joint Union High School District, Election Ser 2004 C
(FSA Insd) (a)
|
|
|
0
|
.00
|
|
|
|
08/01/25
|
|
|
|
|
|
255,454
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
Sacramento County Sanitation District Financing Authority, Refg
Ser 2006 (FGIC Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.00
|
|
|
|
12/01/28
|
|
|
|
|
|
939,620
|
|
|
180
|
|
|
Sacramento City Financing Authority, 1999 Solid
Waste & Redevelopment (AMBAC Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.75
|
|
|
|
12/01/22
|
|
|
|
|
|
181,453
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
San Diego County Water Authority, California, Ser 2004 A (COPs)
(FSA Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.00
|
|
|
|
05/01/29
|
|
|
|
|
|
937,810
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
San Francisco City & County, City Buildings Ser 2007 A
(COPs) (FGIC Insd)
|
|
|
4
|
.50
|
|
|
|
09/01/37
|
|
|
|
|
|
778,190
|
|
|
1,360
|
|
|
San Francisco City & County, Laguna Honda Hospital Ser
2005 I (FSA Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.00
|
|
|
|
06/15/30
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,279,447
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
|
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Water Refg Ser A 2001
(FSA Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.00
|
|
|
|
11/01/31
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,836,200
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
San Jose, Airport Ser 2001 A (FGIC Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.00
|
|
|
|
03/01/25
|
|
|
|
|
|
951,660
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
San Jose-Evergreen Community College District, Election Ser 2004
B (FSA Insd) (a)
|
|
|
0
|
.00
|
|
|
|
09/01/32
|
|
|
|
|
|
241,030
|
|
|
1,870
|
|
|
School Facilities Financing Authority, Grant Joint Union High
School District Ser 2008A (FSA Insd) (a)
|
|
|
0
|
.00
|
|
|
|
08/01/33
|
|
|
|
|
|
377,572
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
Simi Valley Public Financing Authority, Ser 2004 (COPs) (AMBAC
Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.00
|
|
|
|
09/01/30
|
|
|
|
|
|
881,310
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
Southern California Public Power Authority, Transmission Refg
Ser 2002 A (FSA Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.25
|
|
|
|
07/01/18
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,028,430
|
|
|
250
|
|
|
Tustin Unified School Facilities District No
2002-1-2002
Election Ser 2008 C (FSA Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.00
|
|
|
|
06/01/28
|
|
|
|
|
|
241,212
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
University of California, Ser 2007 J (FSA Insd)
|
|
|
4
|
.50
|
|
|
|
05/15/31
|
|
|
|
|
|
835,420
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
University of California, Ser 2007 J (FSA Insd)
|
|
|
4
|
.50
|
|
|
|
05/15/35
|
|
|
|
|
|
814,550
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
University of California Regents Ser 2007 A (MBIA Insd)
|
|
|
4
|
.50
|
|
|
|
05/15/37
|
|
|
|
|
|
810,530
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
Upland School District, Election 2000 Ser 2001 B (FSA Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.125
|
|
|
|
08/01/25
|
|
|
|
|
|
980,650
|
|
|
675
|
|
|
Val Verde Unified School District of Construction, Ser 2005 B
(COPs) (FGIC Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.00
|
|
|
|
01/01/30
|
|
|
|
|
|
543,517
|
|
|
1,375
|
|
|
Washington Unified School District, 2004 Ser A (FGIC Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.00
|
|
|
|
08/01/22
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,340,212
|
|
|
245
|
|
|
West Basin Municipal Water District, Refg Ser 2008B (COPs) (AGC
Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.00
|
|
|
|
08/01/27
|
|
|
|
|
|
232,130
|
|
|
570
|
|
|
Yosemite Community College District, Election of 2004, Ser 2008
C (FSA Insd) (a)
|
|
|
0
|
.00
|
|
|
|
08/01/25
|
|
|
|
|
|
219,826
|
|
See Notes to Financial
Statements
9
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Portfolio
of Investments - October 31,
2008 continued
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PRINCIPAL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AMOUNT IN
|
|
|
|
COUPON
|
|
MATURITY
|
|
|
|
|
THOUSANDS
|
|
|
|
RATE
|
|
DATE
|
|
|
|
VALUE
|
$
|
1,000
|
|
|
Yucaipa Valley Water District, Ser 2004 A (COPs) (MBIA Insd)
|
|
|
5
|
.25
|
%
|
|
|
09/01/24
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
934,600
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40,895,920
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Puerto
Rico (2.2%)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
Puerto Rico Infrastructure Financing Authority, 2000 Ser A (ETM)
(c)
|
|
|
5
|
.50
|
|
|
|
10/01/32
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,002,080
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Tax-Exempt Municipal
Bonds (Cost $46,073,270)
|
|
|
|
|
41,898,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California Short-Term Tax-Exempt
Municipal Obligations (5.1%)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
400
|
|
|
California Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities
Ser 2004A-1 (Demand 11/03/08)
|
|
|
0
|
.95(d)
|
|
|
|
05/01/34
|
|
|
|
|
|
400,000
|
|
|
600
|
|
|
California Department of Water Resources, Power Supply Ser 2008I
Subser I-2 (Demand
11/03/08)
|
|
|
0
|
.70(d)
|
|
|
|
05/01/22
|
|
|
|
|
|
600,000
|
|
|
590
|
|
|
California Housing Finance Agency, Multifamily Housing Ser 2000
D (Demand 11/03/08)
|
|
|
1
|
.40(d)
|
|
|
|
02/01/31
|
|
|
|
|
|
590,000
|
|
|
600
|
|
|
California Economic Recovery, Ser 2004C-3 (Demand 11/03/08)
|
|
|
0
|
.60(d)
|
|
|
|
07/01/23
|
|
|
|
|
|
600,000
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Waterworks
Ser 2000 B-1 (Demand 11/03/08)
|
|
|
0
|
.60(d)
|
|
|
|
07/01/35
|
|
|
|
|
|
100,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total California Short-Term
Tax-Exempt Municipal Obligations (Cost
$2,290,000)
|
|
|
|
|
2,290,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Investments
(Cost $48,363,270) (e)(f)
|
|
|
98.8%
|
|
|
|
|
|
44,188,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Assets in Excess of
Liabilities
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
542,276
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Assets Applicable to Common
Shareholders
|
|
|
100.0%
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
44,730,276
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: The categories of investments are shown as a
percentage of net assets applicable to common shareholders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AMT
|
|
Alternative Minimum Tax.
|
COPs
|
|
Certificates of Participation.
|
ETM
|
|
Escrowed to Maturity.
|
(a)
|
|
Capital appreciation bond.
|
(b)
|
|
Prefunded to call date shown.
|
(c)
|
|
A portion of this security has been physically segregated in
connection with open futures contracts in the amount of
$355,779.
|
(d)
|
|
Current coupon rate of variable rate demand obligation.
|
(e)
|
|
Securities have been designated as collateral in an amount
equal to $20,444,734 in connection with open futures
contracts.
|
(f)
|
|
The aggregate cost for federal income tax purposes is
$48,356,707.The aggregate gross unrealized appreciation is
$297,043 and the aggregate gross unrealized depreciation is
$4,465,750 resulting in net unrealized depreciation of
$4,168,707.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bond Insurance:
|
AGC
|
|
Assured Guaranty Corporation.
|
AMBAC
|
|
AMBAC Assurance Corporation.
|
FGIC
|
|
Financial Guaranty Insurance Company.
|
FSA
|
|
Financial Security Assurance Inc.
|
MBIA
|
|
Municipal Bond Investors Assurance Corporation.
|
XLCA
|
|
XL Capital Assurance Inc.
|
See Notes to Financial
Statements
10
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Portfolio
of Investments - October 31,
2008 continued
Futures
Contracts Open at October 31, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UNREALIZED
|
NUMBER OF
|
|
|
|
DESCRIPTION, DELIVERY
|
|
UNDERLYING FACE
|
|
APPRECIATION
|
CONTRACTS
|
|
LONG/SHORT
|
|
MONTH AND YEAR
|
|
AMOUNT AT VALUE
|
|
(DEPRECIATION)
|
|
187
|
|
|
Long
|
|
Swap Future 5 Year
December 2008
|
|
$
|
20,470,656
|
|
|
$
|
74,785
|
|
|
69
|
|
|
Long
|
|
U.S. Treasury Notes 10 Year
December 2008
|
|
|
7,802,391
|
|
|
|
42,459
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
Long
|
|
Swap Future 10 Year
December 2008
|
|
|
3,029,063
|
|
|
|
(15,668
|
)
|
|
28
|
|
|
Short
|
|
U.S. Treasury Bonds 30 Year
December 2008
|
|
|
(3,167,500
|
)
|
|
|
137,533
|
|
|
86
|
|
|
Short
|
|
U.S. Treasury Notes 5 Year
December 2008
|
|
|
(9,740,172
|
)
|
|
|
1,154
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Unrealized Appreciation
|
|
$
|
240,263
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Financial
Statements
11
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Financial
Statements
Statement
of Assets and Liabilities
October 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
Investments in securities, at value
(cost $48,363,270)
|
|
|
$44,188,000
|
|
Cash
|
|
|
740
|
|
Interest receivable
|
|
|
644,158
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other assets
|
|
|
5,809
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets
|
|
|
44,838,707
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
Payable for:
|
|
|
|
|
Variation margin
|
|
|
26,859
|
|
Investment advisory fee
|
|
|
11,513
|
|
Administration fee
|
|
|
3,411
|
|
Transfer agent fee
|
|
|
728
|
|
Accrued expenses and other payables
|
|
|
65,920
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities
|
|
|
108,431
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred shares of beneficial interest
(1,000,000 shares authorized of non-participating $.01
par value, none issued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Assets Applicable to Common
Shareholders
|
|
|
$44,730,276
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Composition of Net Assets
Applicable to Common Shareholders:
|
|
|
|
|
Common shares of beneficial interest (unlimited shares
authorized of $.01 par value, 3,427,554 shares
outstanding)
|
|
|
$48,716,453
|
|
Net unrealized depreciation
|
|
|
(3,935,007
|
)
|
Accumulated undistributed net investment income
|
|
|
176,236
|
|
Accumulated net realized loss
|
|
|
(227,406
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Assets Applicable to Common
Shareholders
|
|
|
$44,730,276
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Asset Value Per Common Share
($44,730,276 divided by 3,427,554 common shares
outstanding)
|
|
|
$13.05
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Financial
Statements
12
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Financial
Statements continued
Statement
of Operations
For the year ended
October 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
Net Investment Income:
|
|
|
|
|
Interest Income
|
|
$
|
2,321,682
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
Investment advisory fee
|
|
|
130,817
|
|
Professional fees
|
|
|
56,752
|
|
Administration fee
|
|
|
38,761
|
|
Shareholder reports and notices
|
|
|
37,918
|
|
Listing fees
|
|
|
19,288
|
|
Custodian fees
|
|
|
13,414
|
|
Transfer agent fees and expenses
|
|
|
10,376
|
|
Trustees fees and expenses
|
|
|
1,323
|
|
Other
|
|
|
13,548
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Expenses
|
|
|
322,197
|
|
Less: expense offset
|
|
|
(9,222
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Expenses
|
|
|
312,975
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Investment Income
|
|
|
2,008,707
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss):
|
|
|
|
|
Realized Gain (Loss) on:
|
|
|
|
|
Investments
|
|
|
106,026
|
|
Futures contracts
|
|
|
(268,911
|
)
|
Swap contracts
|
|
|
(61,277
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Realized Loss
|
|
|
(224,162
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in Unrealized
Appreciation/Depreciation:
|
|
|
|
|
Investments
|
|
|
(5,641,044
|
)
|
Futures contracts
|
|
|
237,025
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Change in Unrealized
Appreciation/Depreciation
|
|
|
(5,404,019
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Loss
|
|
|
(5,628,181
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease
|
|
$
|
(3,619,474
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Financial
Statements
13
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Financial
Statements continued
Statements
of Changes in Net Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOR THE YEAR
|
|
FOR THE YEAR
|
|
|
ENDED
|
|
ENDED
|
|
|
OCTOBER 31, 2008
|
|
OCTOBER 31, 2007
|
|
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net investment income
|
|
$
|
2,008,707
|
|
|
$
|
2,100,376
|
|
Net realized gain (loss)
|
|
|
(224,162
|
)
|
|
|
357,398
|
|
Net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation
|
|
|
(5,404,019
|
)
|
|
|
(1,250,052
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase (Decrease)
|
|
|
(3,619,474
|
)
|
|
|
1,207,722
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends and Distributions to
Common Shareholders from:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net investment income
|
|
|
(2,236,146
|
)
|
|
|
(2,092,309
|
)
|
Net realized gain
|
|
|
(381,490
|
)
|
|
|
(142,684
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Dividends and Distributions
|
|
|
(2,617,636
|
)
|
|
|
(2,234,993
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decrease from transactions in common shares of beneficial
interest
|
|
|
(315,022
|
)
|
|
|
(561,984
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease
|
|
|
(6,552,132
|
)
|
|
|
(1,589,255
|
)
|
Net Assets Applicable to Common
Shareholders:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beginning of period
|
|
|
51,282,408
|
|
|
|
52,871,663
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
End of Period
(Including accumulated undistributed net investment
income of $176,236 and $403,688, respectively)
|
|
$
|
44,730,276
|
|
|
$
|
51,282,408
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Financial
Statements
14
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Notes
to Financial Statements - October 31,
2008
1.
Organization and Accounting Policies
Morgan Stanley Insured California Municipal Securities (the
Trust) is registered under the Investment Company
Act of 1940, as amended, as a diversified, closed-end management
investment company. The Trusts investment objective is to
provide current income which is exempt from both federal and
California income taxes. The Trust was organized as a
Massachusetts business trust on October 14, 1993 and
commenced operations on February 28, 1994.
The Trust may be affected by economic and political developments
in the State of California.
The following is a summary of significant accounting policies:
A. Valuation of
Investments (1) portfolio securities are
valued by an outside independent pricing service approved by the
Trustees. The pricing service uses both a computerized grid
matrix of tax-exempt securities and evaluations by its staff, in
each case based on information concerning market transactions
and quotations from dealers which reflect the mean between the
last reported bid and asked price. The portfolio securities are
thus valued by reference to a combination of transactions and
quotations for the same or other securities believed to be
comparable in quality, coupon, maturity, type of issue, call
provisions, trading characteristics and other features deemed to
be relevant. The Trustees believe that timely and reliable
market quotations are generally not readily available for
purposes of valuing tax-exempt securities and that the
valuations supplied by the pricing service are more likely to
approximate the fair value of such securities; (2) futures
are valued at the latest sale price on the commodities exchange
on which they trade unless it is determined that such price does
not reflect their market value, in which case they will be
valued at their fair value as determined in good faith under
procedures established by and under the supervision of the
Trustees; (3) interest rate swaps are
marked-to-market
daily based upon quotations from market makers; and
(4) short-term debt securities having a maturity date of
more than sixty days at time of purchase are valued on a
mark-to-market
basis until sixty days prior to maturity and thereafter at
amortized cost based on their value on the 61st day. Short-term
debt securities having a maturity date of sixty days or less at
the time of purchase are valued at amortized cost.
B. Accounting for
Investments Security transactions are
accounted for on the trade date (date the order to buy or sell
is executed). Realized gains and losses on security transactions
are determined by the identified cost method. Discounts are
accreted and premiums are amortized over the life of the
respective securities and are included in interest income.
Interest income is accrued daily.
C. Futures Contracts
A futures contract is an agreement between two parties to
buy and sell financial instruments or contracts based on
financial indices at a set price on a future date. Upon entering
into such a contract, the Trust is required to pledge to the
broker cash, U.S. Government securities or other liquid
portfolio securities equal to the minimum initial margin
requirements of the applicable futures exchange.
15
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Notes
to Financial Statements - October 31,
2008 continued
Pursuant to the contract, the Trust agrees to receive from or
pay to the broker an amount of cash equal to the daily
fluctuation in the value of the contract. Such receipts or
payments known as variation margin are recorded by the Trust as
unrealized gains and losses. Upon closing of the contract, the
Trust realizes a gain or loss equal to the difference between
the value of the contract at the time it was opened and the
value at the time it was closed.
D. Floating Rate
Note Obligations Related to Securities Held
The Trust enters into transactions in which it transfers
to Dealer Trusts (Dealer Trusts), fixed rate bonds
in exchange for cash and residual interests in the Dealer
Trusts assets and cash flows, which are in the form of
inverse floating rate investments. The Dealer Trusts fund the
purchases of the fixed rate bonds by issuing floating rate notes
to third parties and allowing the Trust to retain residual
interest in the bonds. The Trust enters into shortfall
agreements with the Dealer Trusts which commit the Trust to pay
the Dealer Trusts, in certain circumstances, the difference
between the liquidation value of the fixed rate bonds held by
the Dealer Trusts and the liquidation value of the floating rate
notes held by third parties, as well as any shortfalls in
interest cash flows. The residual interests held by the Trust
(inverse floating rate investments) included the right of the
Trust (1) to cause the holders of the floating rate notes
to tender their notes at par at the next interest rate reset
date, and (2) to transfer the municipal bond from the
Dealer Trusts to the Trust, thereby collapsing the Dealer
Trusts. The Trust accounts for the transfer of bonds to the
Dealer Trusts as secured borrowings, with the securities
transferred remaining in the Trusts investment assets, and
the related floating rate notes reflected as Trust liabilities
under the caption floating rate note
obligations on the Statement of Assets and
Liabilities. The Trust records the interest income from the
fixed rate bonds under the caption interest and
records the expenses related to floating rate note obligations
and any administrative expenses of the Dealer Trusts under the
caption interest and residual trust expenses in the
Trusts Statement of Operations. The floating rate notes
issued by the Dealer Trusts have interest rates that reset
weekly and the floating rate note holders have the option to
tender their notes to the Dealer Trusts for redemption at par at
each reset date. As of the year ended October 31, 2008, the
Trust did not hold any floating rate note obligations.
E. Interest Rate Swaps
Interest rate swaps involve the exchange of commitments
to pay and receive interest based on a notional principal
amount. Net periodic interest payments to be received or paid
are accrued daily and are recorded as realized gains or losses
in the Statement of Operations. The Trust may pay or receive
cash to collateralize interest rate swap contracts. This cash
collateral is recorded as asset/liabilities on the Trusts
books.
F. Federal Income Tax
Policy It is the Trusts policy to
comply with the requirements of Subchapter M of the Internal
Revenue Code applicable to regulated investment companies and to
distribute substantially all of its taxable and non taxable
income to its shareholders. Therefore, no provision for federal
income taxes is required. The Trust files tax returns with the
U.S. Internal Revenue Service, New York State and New York
16
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Notes
to Financial Statements - October 31,
2008 continued
City. The Trust adopted the provisions of the Financial
Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Interpretation
No. 48 (FIN 48) Accounting for
Uncertainty in Income Taxes on April 29, 2008.
FIN 48 sets forth a minimum threshold for financial
statement recognition of the benefit of a tax position taken or
expected to be taken in a tax return. The implementation of
FIN 48 did not result in any unrecognized tax benefits in
the accompanying financial statements. If applicable, the Trust
recognizes interest accrued related to unrecognized tax benefits
in interest expense and penalties in other expenses in the
Statement of Operations. Each of the tax years in the four year
period ended October 31, 2008, remains subject to
examination by taxing authorities.
The Trust purchases municipal securities whose interest, in the
opinion of the issuer, is free from income tax. There is no
assurance that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
will agree with this opinion. In the event the IRS determines
that the issuer does not comply with relevant tax requirements,
interest payments from a security could become federally taxable.
G. Dividends and Distributions to
Shareholders Dividends and distributions to
shareholders are recorded on the ex-dividend date.
H. Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles requires
management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the
reported amounts and disclosures. Actual results could differ
from those estimates.
2.
Investment Advisory/Administration Agreements
Pursuant to an Investment Advisory Agreement with Morgan Stanley
Investment Advisors Inc. (the Investment Adviser),
the Trust pays an advisory fee, calculated weekly and payable
monthly, by applying the annual rate of 0.27% to the
Trusts average weekly net assets.
Pursuant to an Administration Agreement with Morgan Stanley
Services Company Inc. (the Administrator), an
affiliate of the Investment Adviser, the Trust pays an
administration fee, calculated weekly and payable monthly, by
applying the annual rate of 0.08% to the Trusts average
weekly net assets.
Under an agreement between the Administrator and State Street
Bank and Trust Company (State Street), State
Street provides certain administrative services to the Trust.
For such services, the Administrator pays State Street a portion
of the fee the Administrator receives from the Trust.
3.
Security Transactions and Transactions with Affiliates
The cost of purchases and proceeds from sales of portfolio
securities, excluding short-term investments, for the year ended
October 31, 2008, aggregated $8,442,904 and $9,466,029,
respectively.
The Trust has an unfunded Deferred Compensation Plan (the
Compensation Plan) which allows each independent
Trustee to defer payment of all, or a portion, of the fees he or
she receives for serving on the
17
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Notes
to Financial Statements - October 31,
2008 continued
Board of Trustees. Each eligible Trustee generally may elect to
have the deferred amounts credited with a return equal to the
total return on one or more of the Morgan Stanley funds that are
offered as investment options under the Compensation Plan.
Appreciation/depreciation and distributions received from these
investments are recorded with an offsetting increase/decrease in
the deferred compensation obligation and do not affect the net
asset value of the Trust.
4.
Preferred Shares of Beneficial Interest
The Trust is authorized to issue up to 1,000,000
non-participating preferred shares of beneficial interest having
a par value of $.01 per share, in one or more series, with
rights as determined by the Trustees, without approval of the
common shareholders. The preferred shares have a liquidation
value of $50,000 per share plus the redemption premium, if any,
plus accumulated but unpaid dividends, whether or not declared,
thereon to the date of distribution. The Trust may redeem such
shares, in whole or in part, at the original purchase price of
$50,000 per share plus accumulated but unpaid dividends, whether
or not declared, thereon to the date of redemption.
The Trust is subject to certain restrictions relating to the
preferred shares. Failure to comply with these restrictions
could preclude the Trust from declaring any distributions to
common shareholders or purchasing common shares and/or could
trigger the mandatory redemption of preferred shares at
liquidation value.
The preferred shares, which are entitled to one vote per share,
generally vote with the common shares but vote separately as a
class to elect two Trustees and on any matters affecting the
rights of the preferred shares.
As of October 31, 2008, there were no preferred shares
outstanding.
5.
Common Shares of Beneficial Interest
Transactions in common shares of beneficial interest were as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITAL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PAID IN
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXCESS OF
|
|
|
SHARES
|
|
PAR VALUE
|
|
PAR VALUE
|
Balance, October 31, 2006
|
|
|
3,489,972
|
|
|
$
|
34,900
|
|
|
$
|
49,558,559
|
|
Shares repurchased (weighted average discount 5.59%)+
|
|
|
(39,900
|
)
|
|
|
(399
|
)
|
|
|
(561,585
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, October 31, 2007
|
|
|
3,450,072
|
|
|
|
34,501
|
|
|
|
48,996,974
|
|
Shares repurchased (weighted average discount 5.53%)+
|
|
|
(22,518
|
)
|
|
|
(225
|
)
|
|
|
(314,797
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, October 31, 2008
|
|
|
3,427,554
|
|
|
$
|
34,276
|
|
|
$
|
48,682,177
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Trustees have approved a share repurchase program whereby
the Trust may, when appropriate, purchase shares in the open
market or in privately negotiated transactions at a price not
above market value or net asset value, whichever is lower at the
time of purchase.
|
|
|
+
|
|
The Trustees have voted to retire
the shares purchased.
|
18
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Notes
to Financial Statements - October 31,
2008 continued
6.
Dividends to Common Shareholders (subsequent to October 31,
2008)
On November 11, 2008 and December 9, 2008, the Trust
declared the following dividends from net investment income:
|
|
|
|
|
AMOUNT
|
|
RECORD
|
|
PAYABLE
|
PER SHARE
|
|
DATE
|
|
DATE
|
$0.0525
|
|
November 21, 2008
|
|
November 28, 2008
|
$0.0525
|
|
December 19, 2008
|
|
December 26, 2008
|
7.
Expense Offset
The expense offset represents a reduction of the fees and
expenses for interest earned on cash balances maintained by the
Trust with the transfer agent and custodian.
8.
Purposes of and Risks Relating to Certain Financial Instruments
The Trust may invest a portion of its assets in inverse floating
rate instruments, either through outright purchases of inverse
floating rate securities or through the transfer of bonds to
Dealer Trusts in exchange for cash and residual interests in the
Dealer Trusts (See Note 1D). These investments are
typically used by the Trust in seeking to enhance the yield of
the portfolio. These instruments typically involve greater risks
than a fixed rate municipal bond. In particular, these
instruments are acquired through leverage or may have leverage
embedded in them and therefore involve many of the risks
associated with leverage. Leverage is a speculative technique
that may expose the Trust to greater risk and increased costs.
Leverage may cause the Trusts net asset value to be more
volatile than if it had not been leveraged because leverage
tends to magnify the effect of any increases or decreases in the
value of the Trusts portfolio securities. The use of
leverage may also cause the Trust to liquidate portfolio
positions when it may not be advantageous to do so in order to
satisfy its obligations with respect to inverse floating rate
instruments.
To hedge against adverse interest rate changes, the Trust may
invest in financial futures contracts or municipal bond index
futures contracts (futures contracts). These futures
contracts involve elements of market risk in excess of the
amount reflected in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The
Trust bears the risk of an unfavorable change in the value of
the underlying securities. Risks may also arise upon entering
into these contracts from the potential inability of the
counterparties to meet the terms of their contracts.
The Trust may enter into interest rate swaps and may purchase or
sell interest rate caps, floors and collars. The Trust expects
to enter into these transactions primarily to manage interest
rate risk, hedge portfolio positions and preserve a return or
spread on a particular investment or portion of its portfolio.
The Trust may also enter into these transactions to protect
against any increase in the price of securities the Trust
anticipates purchasing at a later date. Interest rate swap
transactions are subject to market risk, risk of default by the
other party to the transaction, risk of imperfect correlation
and manager risk. Such risks may exceed the related amounts
shown in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.
19
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Notes
to Financial Statements - October 31,
2008 continued
9.
Federal Income Tax Status
The amount of dividends and distributions from net investment
income and net realized capital gains are determined in
accordance with federal income tax regulations which may differ
from generally accepted accounting principles. These
book/tax differences are either considered temporary
or permanent in nature. To the extent these differences are
permanent in nature, such amounts are reclassified within the
capital accounts based on their federal tax-basis treatment;
temporary differences do not require reclassification. Dividends
and distributions which exceed net investment income and net
realized capital gains for tax purposes are reported as
distributions of paid-in-capital.
The tax character of distributions paid was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOR THE YEAR
|
|
FOR THE YEAR
|
|
|
ENDED
|
|
ENDED
|
|
|
OCTOBER 31, 2008
|
|
OCTOBER 31, 2007
|
Tax-exempt income
|
|
$
|
2,161,965
|
|
|
$
|
2,092,309
|
|
Ordinary income
|
|
|
74,181
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term capital gains
|
|
|
381,490
|
|
|
|
142,684
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total distributions
|
|
$
|
2,617,636
|
|
|
$
|
2,234,993
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of October 31, 2008, the tax-basis components of
accumulated losses were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Undistributed tax-exempt income
|
|
$
|
160,185
|
|
|
|
|
|
Undistributed ordinary income
|
|
|
9,955
|
|
|
|
|
|
Undistributed long-term gains
|
|
|
12,901
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net accumulated earnings
|
|
|
183,041
|
|
|
|
|
|
Temporary differences
|
|
|
(511
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Net unrealized depreciation
|
|
|
(4,168,707
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total accumulated losses
|
|
$
|
(3,986,177
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of October 31, 2008, the Trust had temporary book/tax
differences primarily attributable to book amortization of
discounts on debt securities and mark-to-market of open futures
contracts.
Permanent differences, due to tax adjustments on debt securities
sold by the Trust, resulted in the following reclassifications
among the Trusts components of net assets at
October 31, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ACCUMULATED
|
|
|
|
|
UNDISTRIBUTED
|
|
ACCUMULATED
|
|
|
NET INVESTMENT
|
|
NET REALIZED
|
|
|
INCOME
|
|
LOSS
|
|
PAID-IN-CAPITAL
|
$
|
(13
|
)
|
|
$
|
13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Notes
to Financial Statements - October 31,
2008 continued
10.
Accounting Pronouncements
In September 2006, Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 157, Fair Value Measurements
(SFAS 157), was issued and is effective for
fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007.
SFAS 157 defines fair value, establishes a framework for
measuring fair value and expands disclosures about fair value
measurements. Management is currently evaluating the impact the
adoption of SFAS 157 will have on the Trusts
financial statement disclosures.
On March 19, 2008, FASB released Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 161, Disclosures about
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, an amendment of
FASB statement No. 133 (SFAS 161).
SFAS 161 requires qualitative disclosures about objectives
and strategies for using derivatives, quantitative disclosures
about fair value amounts of and gains and losses on derivative
instruments, and disclosures about credit- risk-related
contingent features in derivative agreements. The application of
SFAS 161 is required for fiscal years beginning after
November 15, 2008 and interim periods within those fiscal
years. At this time, management is evaluating the implications
of SFAS 161 and its impact on the Trusts financial
statements has not been determined.
21
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Financial
Highlights
Selected ratios and per share data for a common share of
beneficial interest outstanding throughout each period:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOR THE YEAR ENDED OCTOBER
31,
|
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
2006
|
|
2005
|
|
2004
|
Selected Per Share Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net asset value, beginning of period
|
|
|
$14.86
|
|
|
|
|
$15.15
|
|
|
|
|
$15.17
|
|
|
|
|
$15.35
|
|
|
|
|
$15.24
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from investment operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net investment
income(1)
|
|
|
0.59
|
|
|
|
|
0.60
|
|
|
|
|
0.59
|
|
|
|
|
0.62
|
|
|
|
|
0.66
|
|
|
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss)
|
|
|
(1.65
|
)
|
|
|
|
(0.26
|
)
|
|
|
|
0.32
|
|
|
|
|
(0.05
|
)
|
|
|
|
0.25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total income (loss) from investment operations
|
|
|
(1.06
|
)
|
|
|
|
0.34
|
|
|
|
|
0.91
|
|
|
|
|
0.57
|
|
|
|
|
0.91
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less dividends and distributions from:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net investment income
|
|
|
(0.65
|
)
|
|
|
|
(0.60
|
)
|
|
|
|
(0.61
|
)
|
|
|
|
(0.66
|
)
|
|
|
|
(0.63
|
)
|
|
Net realized gain
|
|
|
(0.11
|
)
|
|
|
|
(0.04
|
)
|
|
|
|
(0.35
|
)
|
|
|
|
(0.13
|
)
|
|
|
|
(0.20
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total dividends and distributions
|
|
|
(0.76
|
)
|
|
|
|
(0.64
|
)
|
|
|
|
(0.96
|
)
|
|
|
|
(0.79
|
)
|
|
|
|
(0.83
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anti-dilutive effect of acquiring treasury
shares(1)
|
|
|
0.01
|
|
|
|
|
0.01
|
|
|
|
|
0.03
|
|
|
|
|
0.04
|
|
|
|
|
0.03
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net asset value, end of period
|
|
|
$13.05
|
|
|
|
|
$14.86
|
|
|
|
|
$15.15
|
|
|
|
|
$15.17
|
|
|
|
|
$15.35
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market value, end of period
|
|
|
$12.55
|
|
|
|
|
$14.19
|
|
|
|
|
$14.06
|
|
|
|
|
$13.99
|
|
|
|
|
$13.96
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
Return(2)
|
|
|
(6.46
|
)
|
%
|
|
|
5.54
|
|
%
|
|
|
7.68
|
|
%
|
|
|
5.96
|
|
%
|
|
|
7.19
|
|
%
|
Ratios to Average Net Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses (before expense offset)
|
|
|
0.66%(4
|
)
|
|
|
|
0.76%(3
|
)
|
|
|
|
0.61%(3
|
)
|
|
|
|
0.62%(3
|
)
|
|
|
|
0.58%(3
|
)
|
|
Total expenses (before expense offset, exclusive of interest and
residual trust expenses)
|
|
|
0.66%(4
|
)
|
|
|
|
0.62%(3
|
)
|
|
|
|
0.61%(3
|
)
|
|
|
|
0.62%(3
|
)
|
|
|
|
0.58%(3
|
)
|
|
Net investment income
|
|
|
4.10
|
|
%
|
|
|
4.05
|
|
%
|
|
|
4.07
|
|
%
|
|
|
4.09
|
|
%
|
|
|
4.37
|
|
%
|
Supplemental Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets, end of period, in thousands
|
|
|
$44,730
|
|
|
|
|
$51,282
|
|
|
|
|
$52,872
|
|
|
|
|
$54,413
|
|
|
|
|
$56,955
|
|
|
Portfolio turnover rate
|
|
|
18
|
|
%
|
|
|
25
|
|
%
|
|
|
5
|
|
%
|
|
|
26
|
|
%
|
|
|
31
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The per share amounts were
computed using an average number of shares outstanding during
the period. |
(2) |
|
Total return is based upon the
current market value on the last day of each period reported.
Dividends and distributions are assumed to be reinvested at the
prices obtained under the Trusts dividend reinvestment
plan. Total return does not reflect brokerage
commissions. |
(3) |
|
Does not reflect the effect of
expense offset of 0.01%. |
(4) |
|
Does not reflect the effect of
expense offset of 0.02%. |
See Notes to Financial
Statements
22
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Report
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
To
the Shareholders and Board of Trustees of
Morgan Stanley Insured California Municipal Securities:
We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and
liabilities of Morgan Stanley Insured California Municipal
Securities (the Trust), including the portfolio of
investments, as of October 31, 2008, and the related
statements of operations for the year then ended and changes in
net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended,
and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the
period then ended. These financial statements and financial
highlights are the responsibility of the Trusts
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements and financial highlights based on our
audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and
financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The
Trust is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform,
an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our
audits included consideration of internal control over financial
reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are
appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of
expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trusts
internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we
express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles
used and significant estimates made by management, as well as
evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our
procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of
October 31, 2008, by correspondence with the custodian and
brokers. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis
for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements and financial
highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material
respects, the financial position of Morgan Stanley Insured
California Municipal Securities as of
October 31, 2008, the results of its operations for
the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of
the two years in the period then ended, and the financial
highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended,
in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in
the United States of America.
Deloitte & Touche LLP
New York, New York
December 24, 2008
23
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Shareholder
Voting Results (unaudited)
On June 19, 2008, an annual meeting of the Trusts
shareholders was held for the purpose of voting on the following
matter, the results of which were as follows:
Election
of Trustees by all Shareholders:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For
|
|
Withhold
|
|
Abstain
|
Frank L. Bowman
|
|
2,880,224
|
|
|
99,411
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
Michael Bozic
|
|
2,877,037
|
|
|
102,598
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
James F. Higgins
|
|
2,879,926
|
|
|
99,709
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
Special
Shareholder Meeting Results (unaudited)
On November 14, 2008, a Special Meeting of Shareholders of
the Trust was scheduled in order to vote on the proposals set
forth below. The voting results with respect to these proposals
were as follows:
(1) Approval of a modification to the Trusts
investment policies to allow the Trust to invest, under normal
market conditions, at least 80% of the Trusts net assets
in municipal obligations which are covered by insurance
guaranteeing the timely payment of principal and interest
thereon and that are rated at least A by a
nationally recognized statistical rating organization
(NRSRO) or are unrated but judged to be of similar
credit quality by the Trusts Investment Adviser, or
covered by insurance issued by insurers rated at least
A by a NRSRO:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For
|
|
Against
|
|
Abstain
|
|
BNV*
|
|
|
|
1,690,121
|
|
|
|
206,471
|
|
|
|
110,658
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2) Approval of a modification to the Trusts
investment policies to allow the Trust to invest up to 20% of
the Trusts net assets in taxable or tax-exempt fixed
income securities rated at least investment grade by a
nationally recognized statistical rating organization or, if not
rated, determined by the Trusts Investment Adviser to be
of comparable quality, including uninsured municipal
obligations, obligations of the U.S. government, its respective
agencies or instrumentalities, and other fixed income
obligations, and, during periods in which the Investment Adviser
believes that changes in economic, financial or political
conditions
24
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Special
Shareholder Meeting Results
(unaudited) continued
make it advisable to do so, to invest an unlimited extent in
such investments for temporary defensive purposes. The Trust may
also invest in options, futures, swaps and other derivatives:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For
|
|
Against
|
|
Abstain
|
|
BNV*
|
|
|
|
1,676,224
|
|
|
|
218,728
|
|
|
|
112,298
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3) Eliminate
certain fundamental policies and restrictions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For
|
|
Against
|
|
Abstain
|
|
BNV*
|
Eliminate fundamental policy restricting the Trusts
ability to pledge assets
|
|
1,380,230
|
|
|
489,268
|
|
|
|
137,752
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
Eliminate fundamental policy restricting purchases of securities
on margin
|
|
1,385,670
|
|
|
489,488
|
|
|
|
132,092
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
Eliminate fundamental policy prohibiting investments in oil, gas
and other types of mineral leases
|
|
1,395,881
|
|
|
475,292
|
|
|
|
136,077
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
Eliminate fundamental policy prohibiting investments for
purposes of exercising control
|
|
1,397,609
|
|
|
476,289
|
|
|
|
133,352
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
Eliminate fundamental policy regarding investments in unseasoned
companies
|
|
1,383,929
|
|
|
487,569
|
|
|
|
135,752
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
Eliminate fundamental policy prohibiting or restricting the
purchase of securities of issuers in which trustees or officers
have an interest
|
|
1,365,591
|
|
|
510,066
|
|
|
|
131,593
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
Eliminate fundamental policy regarding purchase of common stock
|
|
1,396,429
|
|
|
483,515
|
|
|
|
127,306
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
Eliminate fundamental policy regarding the purchase or sale of
puts, calls and combinations thereof
|
|
1,377,018
|
|
|
497,334
|
|
|
|
132,898
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
Eliminate fundamental policy regarding the short sale of
securities
|
|
1,380,622
|
|
|
498,205
|
|
|
|
128,423
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
Eliminate fundamental policy prohibiting investments in other
investment companies
|
|
1,412,547
|
|
|
472,224
|
|
|
|
122,479
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
(4) Modify
certain fundamental investment policies and restrictions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For
|
|
Against
|
|
Abstain
|
|
BNV*
|
Modify fundamental policy regarding borrowing money
|
|
1,396,804
|
|
|
483,928
|
|
|
|
126,518
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
Modify fundamental policy regarding loans
|
|
1,398,903
|
|
|
477,545
|
|
|
|
130,802
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
Modify fundamental policy regarding investment in commodities
|
|
1,393,384
|
|
|
483,721
|
|
|
|
130,145
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
Modify fundamental policy regarding issuance of senior securities
|
|
1,422,343
|
|
|
453,792
|
|
|
|
131,115
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Broker non-votes are
shares held in street name for which the broker indicates that
instructions have not been received from the beneficial owners
or other persons entitled to vote and for which the broker does
not have discretionary voting authority. |
25
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Revised
Investment Policies (unaudited)
While the Trusts policy is to emphasize investments in
municipal obligations with longer-term maturities because
generally longer-term obligations, while more susceptible to
market fluctuations resulting from changes in interest rates,
produce higher yields than short-term obligations, the Trust no
longer expects to maintain a specific average weighted maturity
of its portfolio. As a result of changes in the fixed-income and
municipal marketplace, the Trusts average portfolio
maturity will vary depending upon market conditions and other
factors.
As previously stated in the Joint Proxy Statement dated
October 1, 2008, which was distributed in connection with
the November 14, 2008 Special Shareholder Meeting, the
Trust may invest in options, futures, variable rate obligations
and when-issued or delayed delivery securities as noted below.
Options and
Futures The Trust may invest in options and
futures. The Trust may use options and futures to protect
against a decline in the Trusts securities or an increase
in prices of securities that may be purchased. If the Trust
invests in options
and/or
futures, its participation in these markets would subject the
Trusts portfolio to certain risks. If the Investment
Advisers predictions of movements in the direction of the
markets are inaccurate, the adverse consequences to the Trust
(e.g., a reduction in the Trusts net asset value or a
reduction in the amount of income available for distribution)
may leave the Trust in a worse position than if these strategies
were not used. Other risks inherent in the use of options and
futures include, for example, the possible imperfect correlation
between the price of options and futures contracts and movements
in the prices of the securities being hedged and the possible
absence of a liquid secondary market for any particular
instrument. Certain options may be over-the-counter options
which are options negotiated with dealers; there is no secondary
market for these investments and they may be difficult to value.
Variable Rate
Obligations The Trust may invest in Municipal
Obligations of the type called variable rate obligations. The
interest rate payable on a variable rate obligation is adjusted
at predesignated periodic intervals. Other features may include
the right whereby the Trust may demand prepayment of the
principal amount of the obligation prior to its stated maturity
(a demand feature) and the right of the issuer to
prepay the principal amount prior to maturity. The principal
benefit of a variable rate obligation is that the interest rate
adjustment minimizes changes in the market value of the
obligation. As a result, the purchase of variable rate
obligations should enhance the ability of the Trust to maintain
a stable net asset value per share and to sell obligations prior
to maturity at a price that is approximately the full principal
amount of the obligations. The principal benefit to the Trust of
purchasing obligations with a demand feature is that liquidity,
and the ability of the Trust to obtain repayment of the full
principal amount of an obligation prior to maturity, is
enhanced. The payment of principal and interest by issuers of
certain obligations purchased by the Trust may be guaranteed by
letters of credit or other credit facilities offered by banks or
other financial
26
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Revised
Investment Policies (unaudited)
continued
institutions. Such guarantees will be considered in determining
whether an obligation meets the Trusts investment quality
requirements.
When-Issued and Delayed Delivery
Securities From time to time, the Trust may
purchase securities on a when-issued or delayed delivery basis.
When these transactions are negotiated, the price is fixed at
the time of the commitment, but delivery and payment can take
place a month or more after the date of commitment. The Trust
may sell the securities before the settlement date, if it is
deemed advisable. The securities so purchased or sold are
subject to market fluctuation and no interest or dividends
accrue to the purchaser prior to the settlement date. At the
time the Trust makes the commitment to purchase or sell
securities on a when-issued or delayed delivery basis, it will
record the transaction and thereafter reflect the value, each
day, of such security purchased, or if a sale, the proceeds to
be received, in determining its net asset value. At the time of
delivery of the securities, their value may be more or less than
the purchase or sale price. An increase in the percentage of the
Trusts assets committed to the purchase of securities on a
when-issued or delayed delivery basis may increase the
volatility of its net asset value. The Trust will also establish
a segregated account on the Trusts books in which it will
continually maintain cash or cash equivalents or other liquid
portfolio securities equal in value to commitments to purchase
securities on a when-issued or delayed delivery basis.
27
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Dividend
Reinvestment Plan (unaudited)
The dividend reinvestment plan (the Plan) offers you
a prompt and simple way to reinvest your dividends and capital
gains distributions into additional shares of the Trust. Under
the Plan, the money you earn from dividends and capital gains
distributions will be reinvested automatically in more shares of
the Trust, allowing you to potentially increase your investment
over time. All shareholders in the Trust are automatically
enrolled in the Plan when shares are purchased.
Plan
benefits
Add
to your account
You may increase your shares in the Trust easily and
automatically with the Plan.
Low
transaction costs
Transaction costs are low because the new shares are bought in
blocks and brokerage commission, is shared among all
participants.
Convenience
You will receive a detailed account statement from Computershare
Trust Company, N.A., which administers the Plan, whenever shares
are reinvested for you. The statement shows your total
distributions, date of investment, shares acquired, and price
per share, as well as the total number of shares in your
reinvestment account. You can also access your account via the
Internet. To do this, please go to morganstanley.com.
Safekeeping
Computershare Trust Company, N.A. will hold the shares it has
acquired for you in safekeeping.
How
to participate in the Plan
If you own shares in your own name, you can participate directly
in the Plan. If your shares are held in street
name in the name of your brokerage firm,
bank, or other financial institution you must
instruct that entity to participate on your behalf. If they are
unable to participate on your behalf, you may request that they
reregister your shares in your own name so that you may enroll
in the Plan.
If you choose to participate in the Plan, whenever the Trust
declares dividend and capital gains distributions, it will be
invested in additional shares of your Trust that are purchased
in the open market.
How
to enroll
To enroll in the Plan, please read the Terms and Conditions in
the Plan brochure. You can obtain a copy of the Plan Brochure
and enroll in the Plan by visiting morganstanley.com, calling
toll-free
(888) 421-4015
or notifying us in writing at Morgan Stanley Closed-End Funds,
Computershare Trust Company, N.A., P.O. Box 43078, Providence,
RI 02940-3078. Please include the Trust name and account number
and ensure that all shareholders listed on the account sign
these written instructions. Your participation in the Plan will
begin with the next dividend or capital gains distribution
payable after Computershare Trust Company, N.A.
28
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Dividend
Reinvestment Plan
(unaudited) continued
receives your authorization, as long as they receive it before
the record date, which is generally ten business
days before the dividend is paid. If your authorization arrives
after such record date, your participation in the Plan will
begin with the following dividend or distribution.
Costs
of the Plan
There is no direct charge to you for reinvesting dividends and
capital gains distributions because the Plans fees are
paid by the Trust. However, when applicable, you will pay your
portion of any brokerage commissions incurred when the new
shares are purchased on the open market. These brokerage
commissions are typically less than the standard brokerage
charges for individual transactions, because shares are
purchased for all participants in blocks, resulting in lower
commissions for each individual participant. Any brokerage
commissions or service fees are averaged into the purchase price.
Tax
implications
The automatic reinvestment of dividends and capital gains
distributions does not relieve you of any income tax that may be
due on dividends or distributions. You will receive tax
information annually to help you prepare your federal and state
income tax returns.
Morgan Stanley does not offer tax advice. The tax information
contained herein is general and is not exhaustive by nature. It
was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by
any taxpayer, for avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the
taxpayer under U.S. federal tax laws. Federal and state tax laws
are complex and constantly changing. Shareholders should always
consult a legal or tax advisor for information concerning their
individual situation.
How
to withdraw from the Plan
To withdraw from the Plan please visit morganstanley.com or call
(888) 421-4015
or notify us in writing at the address below.
Morgan Stanley Closed-End Funds
Computershare Trust Company, N.A.
P.O. Box 43078
Providence, RI 02940-3078
All shareholders listed on the account must sign any written
withdrawal instructions. If you withdraw, you have three options
with regard to the shares held in your account:
|
|
1.
|
If you opt to continue to hold your non-certificated shares,
they will be held by Computershare Trust Company, N.A.
|
2.
|
If you opt to sell your shares through Morgan Stanley, we will
sell all full and fractional shares and send the proceeds via
check to your address of record after deducting brokerage
commissions.
|
29
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Dividend
Reinvestment Plan
(unaudited) continued
|
|
3. |
You may sell your shares through your financial advisor through
the Direct Registration Systems (DRS). DRS is a
service within the securities industry that allows Trust shares
to be held in your name in electronic format. You retain full
ownership of your shares, without having to hold a stock
certificate.
|
The Trust and Computershare Trust Company, N.A. may
amend or terminate the Plan. Participants will receive written
notice at least 30 days before the effective date of any
amendment. In the case of termination, Participants will receive
written notice at least 30 days before the record date for
the payment of any dividend or capital gains distribution by the
Trust. In the case of amendment or termination necessary or
appropriate to comply with applicable law or the rules and
policies of the Securities and Exchange Commission or any other
regulatory authority, such written notice will not be
required.
To obtain a complete copy of the
Dividend Reinvestment Plan, please call our Client Relations
department at
888-421-4015
or visit morganstanley.com.
30
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Morgan
Stanley Advisor Closed-End Funds
An Important Notice Concerning Our U.S. Privacy Policy
(unaudited)
We are required by federal law to provide you with a copy of our
Privacy Policy annually.
The following Policy applies to current and former individual
investors in Morgan Stanley Advisor closed-end funds. This
Policy is not applicable to partnerships, corporations, trusts
or other non-individual clients or account holders. Please note
that we may amend this Policy at any time, and will inform you
of any changes to this Policy as required by law.
We
Respect Your Privacy
We appreciate that you have provided us with your personal
financial information. We strive to maintain the privacy of such
information while we help you achieve your financial objectives.
This Policy describes what non-public personal information we
collect about you, why we collect it, and when we may share it
with others. We hope this Policy will help you understand how we
collect and share non-public personal information that we gather
about you. Throughout this Policy, we refer to the non-public
information that personally identifies you or your accounts as
personal information.
|
|
1.
|
What
Personal Information Do We Collect About You?
|
To serve you better and manage our business, it is important
that we collect and maintain accurate information about you. We
may obtain this information from applications and other forms
you submit to us, from your dealings with us, from consumer
reporting agencies, from our Web sites and from third parties
and other sources.
For
example:
|
|
|
We may collect information such as your name, address,
e-mail
address, telephone/fax numbers, assets, income and investment
objectives through applications and other forms you submit to us.
|
|
|
We may obtain information about account balances, your use of
account(s) and the types of products and services you prefer to
receive from us through your dealings and transactions with us
and other sources.
|
|
|
We may obtain information about your creditworthiness and credit
history from consumer reporting agencies.
|
|
|
We may collect background information from and through
third-party vendors to verify representations you have made and
to comply with various regulatory requirements.
|
|
|
If you interact with us through our public and private Web
sites, we may collect information that you provide directly
through online communications (such as an
e-mail
address). We may also collect information about your Internet
service provider, your domain name, your computers
operating system and Web browser, your use of our Web sites and
your product and service preferences, through the use
|
31
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Morgan
Stanley Advisor Closed-End Funds
An Important Notice Concerning Our U.S. Privacy Policy
(unaudited) continued
|
|
|
of cookies. Cookies recognize your
computer each time you return to one of our sites, and help to
improve our sites content and personalize your experience
on our sites by, for example, suggesting offerings that may
interest you. Please consult the Terms of Use of these sites for
more details on our use of cookies.
|
|
|
2.
|
When
Do We Disclose Personal Information We Collect About
You?
|
To provide you with the products and services you request, to
serve you better and to manage our business, we may disclose
personal information we collect about you to our affiliated
companies and to non-affiliated third parties as required or
permitted by law.
A. Information We Disclose
to Our Affiliated Companies. We do not
disclose personal information that we collect about you to our
affiliated companies except to enable them to provide services
on our behalf or as otherwise required or permitted by law.
B. Information We Disclose
to Third Parties. We do not disclose
personal information that we collect about you to non-affiliated
third parties except to enable them to provide services on our
behalf, to perform joint marketing agreements with other
financial institutions, or as otherwise required or permitted by
law. For example, some instances where we may disclose
information about you to non-affiliated third parties include:
for servicing and processing transactions, to offer our own
products and services, to protect against fraud, for
institutional risk control, to respond to judicial process or to
perform services on our behalf. When we share personal
information with these companies, they are required to limit
their use of personal information to the particular purpose for
which it was shared and they are not allowed to share personal
information with others except to fulfill that limited purpose.
|
|
3.
|
How
Do We Protect the Security and Confidentiality of Personal
Information We Collect About You?
|
We maintain physical, electronic and procedural security
measures to help safeguard the personal information we collect
about you. We have internal policies governing the proper
handling of client information. Third parties that provide
support or marketing services on our behalf may also receive
personal information, and we require them to adhere to
confidentiality standards with respect to such information.
32
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Trustee and Officer Information
(unaudited)
Independent
Trustees:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Portfolios
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in Fund
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Term of
|
|
|
|
Complex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Office and
|
|
|
|
Overseen
|
|
|
|
|
Position(s)
|
|
Length of
|
|
|
|
by
|
|
|
Name, Age and Address of
|
|
Held with
|
|
Time
|
|
Principal Occupation(s)
|
|
Independent
|
|
Other Directorships
|
Independent Trustee
|
|
Registrant
|
|
Served*
|
|
During Past
5 Years
|
|
Trustee**
|
|
Held by Independent
Trustee
|
|
Frank L. Bowman (63)
c/o Kramer
Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
Counsel to the Independent Trustees
1177 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
|
|
Trustee
|
|
Since
August 2006
|
|
President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute
(policy organization) (since February 2005); Director or Trustee
of various Retail Funds and Institutional Funds (since August
2006); Chairperson of the Insurance Sub-Committee of the
Insurance, Valuation and Compliance Committee (since February
2007); formerly, variously, Admiral in the U.S. Navy, Director
of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program and Deputy
AdministratorNaval Reactors in the National Nuclear
Security Administration at the U.S. Department of Energy
(1996-2004).
Honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the
British Empire.
|
|
|
180
|
|
|
Director of the National Energy Foundation, the U.S. Energy
Association, the American Council for Capital Formation and the
Armed Services YMCA of the USA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Bozic (67)
c/o Kramer
Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP Counsel to the
Independent Trustees
1177 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
|
|
Trustee
|
|
Since
April 1994
|
|
Private investor; Chairperson of the Insurance, Valuation and
Compliance Committee (since October 2006); Director or Trustee
of the Retail Funds (since April 1994) and Institutional Funds
(since July 2003); formerly, Chairperson of the Insurance
Committee (July 2006-September 2006); Vice Chairman of Kmart
Corporation (December
1998-October
2000), Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Levitz Furniture
Corporation (November 1995-November 1998) and President and
Chief Executive Officer of Hills Department Stores (May
1991-July
1995); variously Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, President
and Chief Operating Officer (1987-1991) of the Sears Merchandise
Group of Sears, Roebuck & Co.
|
|
|
182
|
|
|
Director of various business organizations.
|
33
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Trustee and Officer Information
(unaudited) continued
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Portfolios
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in Fund
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Term of
|
|
|
|
Complex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Office and
|
|
|
|
Overseen
|
|
|
|
|
Position(s)
|
|
Length of
|
|
|
|
by
|
|
|
Name, Age and Address of
|
|
Held with
|
|
Time
|
|
Principal Occupation(s)
|
|
Independent
|
|
Other Directorships
|
Independent Trustee
|
|
Registrant
|
|
Served*
|
|
During Past
5 Years
|
|
Trustee**
|
|
Held by Independent
Trustee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kathleen A. Dennis (55)
c/o Kramer
Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP Counsel to the
Independent Trustees
1177 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
|
|
Trustee
|
|
Since
August 2006
|
|
President, Cedarwood Associates (mutual fund and investment
management) (since July 2006); Chairperson of the Money Market
and Alternatives Sub-Committee of the Investment Committee
(since October 2006) and Director or Trustee of various Retail
Funds and Institutional Funds (since August 2006); formerly,
Senior Managing Director of Victory Capital Management
(1993-2006).
|
|
|
180
|
|
|
Director of various non-profit organizations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. Manuel H. Johnson (59)
c/o Johnson
Smick Group, Inc.
888 16th Street, N.W.
Suite 740
Washington, D.C. 20006
|
|
Trustee
|
|
Since
July 1991
|
|
Senior Partner, Johnson Smick International, Inc. (consulting
firm); Chairperson of the Investment Committee (since October
2006) and Director or Trustee of the Retail Funds (since July
1991) and Institutional Funds (since July 2003); Co-Chairman and
a founder of the Group of Seven Council (G7C) (international
economic commission); formerly, Chairperson of the Audit
Committee (July
1991-September
2006); Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System and Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury.
|
|
|
182
|
|
|
Director of NVR, Inc. (home construction); Director of Evergreen
Energy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joseph J. Kearns (66)
c/o Kearns &
Associates LLC
PMB754
23852 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
|
|
Trustee
|
|
Since
August 1994
|
|
President, Kearns & Associates LLC (investment consulting);
Chairperson of the Audit Committee (since October 2006) and
Director or Trustee of the Retail Funds (since July 2003) and
Institutional Funds (since August 1994); formerly, Deputy
Chairperson of the Audit Committee (July 2003-September 2006)
and Chairperson of the Audit Committee of Institutional Funds
(October 2001-July 2003); CFO of the J. Paul Getty Trust.
|
|
|
183
|
|
|
Director of Electro Rent Corporation (equipment leasing) and The
Ford Family Foundation.
|
34
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Trustee and Officer Information
(unaudited) continued
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Portfolios
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in Fund
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Term of
|
|
|
|
Complex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Office and
|
|
|
|
Overseen
|
|
|
|
|
Position(s)
|
|
Length of
|
|
|
|
by
|
|
|
Name, Age and Address of
|
|
Held with
|
|
Time
|
|
Principal Occupation(s)
|
|
Independent
|
|
Other Directorships
|
Independent Trustee
|
|
Registrant
|
|
Served*
|
|
During Past
5 Years
|
|
Trustee**
|
|
Held by Independent
Trustee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael F. Klein (49)
c/o Kramer
Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
Counsel to the Independent Trustees
1177 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
|
|
Trustee
|
|
Since
August 2006
|
|
Managing Director, Aetos Capital, LLC (since March 2000) and
Co-President, Aetos Alternatives Management, LLC (since January
2004); Chairperson of the Fixed-Income Sub-Committee of the
Investment Committee (since October 2006) and Director or
Trustee of various Retail Funds and Institutional Funds (since
August 2006); formerly, Managing Director, Morgan Stanley &
Co. Inc. and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Investment Management,
President, Morgan Stanley Institutional Funds (June
1998-March
2000) and Principal, Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. and Morgan
Stanley Dean Witter Investment Management (August 1997-December
1999).
|
|
|
180
|
|
|
Director of certain investment funds managed or sponsored by
Aetos Capital, LLC. Director of Sanitized AG and Sanitized
Marketing AG (specialty chemicals).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael E. Nugent (72)
c/o Triumph
Capital, L.P.
445 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022
|
|
Chairperson of the Board and Trustee
|
|
Chairperson of the Boards
since
July 2006
and Trustee
since
July 1991
|
|
General Partner, Triumph Capital, L.P. (private investment
partnership); Chairperson of the Boards of the Retail Funds and
Institutional Funds (since July 2006); Director or Trustee of
the Retail Funds (since July 1991) and Institutional Funds
(since July 2001); formerly, Chairperson of the Insurance
Committee (until July 2006).
|
|
|
182
|
|
|
None.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. Allen Reed (61)
c/o Kramer
Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
Counsel to the Independent Trustees
1177 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
|
|
Trustee
|
|
Since
August 2006
|
|
Chairperson of the Equity Sub-Committee of the Investment
Committee (since October 2006) and Director or Trustee of
various Retail Funds and Institutional Funds (since August
2006); formerly, President and CEO of General Motors Asset
Management; Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the GM Trust
Bank and Corporate Vice President of General Motors Corporation
(August
1994-December
2005).
|
|
|
180
|
|
|
Director of Temple-Inland Industries (packaging and forest
products); Director of Legg Mason, Inc. and Director of the
Auburn University Foundation.
|
35
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Trustee and Officer Information
(unaudited) continued
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Portfolios
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in Fund
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Term of
|
|
|
|
Complex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Office and
|
|
|
|
Overseen
|
|
|
|
|
Position(s)
|
|
Length of
|
|
|
|
by
|
|
|
Name, Age and Address of
|
|
Held with
|
|
Time
|
|
Principal Occupation(s)
|
|
Independent
|
|
Other Directorships
|
Independent Trustee
|
|
Registrant
|
|
Served*
|
|
During Past
5 Years
|
|
Trustee**
|
|
Held by Independent
Trustee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fergus Reid (76)
c/o Lumelite
Plastics Corporation
85 Charles Colman Blvd.
Pawling, NY 12564
|
|
Trustee
|
|
Since
June 1992
|
|
Chairman of Lumelite Plastics Corporation; Chairperson of the
Governance Committee and Director or Trustee of the Retail Funds
(since July 2003) and Institutional Funds (since June 1992).
|
|
|
183
|
|
|
Trustee and Director of certain investment companies in the
JPMorgan Funds complex managed by J.P. Morgan Investment
Management Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interested Trustee:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Portfolios
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in Fund
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Term of
|
|
|
|
Complex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Office and
|
|
|
|
Overseen
|
|
|
|
|
Position(s)
|
|
Length of
|
|
|
|
by
|
|
|
Name, Age and Address of
|
|
Held with
|
|
Time
|
|
Principal Occupation(s)
|
|
Interested
|
|
Other Directorships
|
Interested Trustee
|
|
Registrant
|
|
Served*
|
|
During Past
5 Years
|
|
Trustee**
|
|
Held by Interested
Trustee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James F. Higgins (60)
c/o Morgan
Stanley Trust
Harborside Financial Center
Plaza Two
Jersey City, NJ 07311
|
|
Trustee
|
|
Since
June 2000
|
|
Director or Trustee of the Retail Funds (since June 2000) and
Institutional Funds (since July 2003); Senior Advisor of Morgan
Stanley (since August 2000).
|
|
|
181
|
|
|
Director of AXA Financial, Inc. and The Equitable Life Assurance
Society of the United States (financial services).
|
|
|
|
* |
|
This is the earliest date the
Trustee began serving the funds advised by Morgan Stanley
Investment Advisors Inc. (the Investment Adviser)
(the Retail Funds) or the funds advised by Morgan
Stanley Investment Management Inc. and Morgan Stanley AIP GP LP
(the Institutional Funds). |
** |
|
The Fund Complex includes
all open-end and closed-end funds (including all of their
portfolios) advised by the Investment Adviser and any funds that
have an investment adviser that is an affiliated person of the
Investment Adviser (including, but not limited to, Morgan
Stanley Investment Management Inc.). |
36
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Trustee and Officer Information
(unaudited) continued
Executive
Officers:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Term of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Office and
|
|
|
|
|
Position(s)
|
|
Length of
|
|
|
Name, Age and Address of
|
|
Held with
|
|
Time
|
|
|
Executive Officer
|
|
Registrant
|
|
Served*
|
|
Principal Occupation(s) During
Past 5 Years
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Takian (34)
522 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10036
|
|
President and Principal Executive Officer
|
|
President and Principal Executive Officer (since September 2008)
|
|
President and Principal Executive Officer (since September
2008) of funds in the Fund Complex; President and
Chief Executive Officer of Morgan Stanley Services Company Inc.
(since September 2008). President of the Investment Adviser
(since July 2008). Head of the Retail and Intermediary business
within Morgan Stanley Investment Management (since July 2008).
Head of Liquidity and Bank Trust business (since July
2008) and the Latin American franchise (since July
2008) at Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Managing
Director, Director
and/or
Officer of the Investment Adviser and various entities
affiliated with the Investment Adviser. Formerly Head of
Strategy and Product Development for the Alternatives Group and
Senior Loan Investment Management. Formerly with Bank of America
(July 1996-March 2006), most recently as Head of the
Strategy, Mergers and Acquisitions team for Global Wealth and
Investment Management.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin Klingert (46)
522 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10036
|
|
Vice President
|
|
Since June 2008
|
|
Chief Operating Officer of the Global Fixed Income Group of
Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc. and the Investment
Adviser (since March 2008). Head of Global Liquidity Portfolio
Management and co-Head of Liquidity Credit Research of Morgan
Stanley Investment Management (since December 2007). Managing
Director of Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc. and the
Investment Adviser (since December 2007). Previously, Managing
Director on the Management Committee and head of Municipal
Portfolio Management and Liquidity at BlackRock (October 1991 to
January 2007).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dennis F. Shea (55)
522 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10036
|
|
Vice President
|
|
Since February 2006
|
|
Managing Director and (since February 2006) Chief Investment
OfficerGlobal Equity of Morgan Stanley Investment
Management; Vice President of the Retail Funds and Institutional
Funds (since February 2006). Formerly, Managing Director and
Director of Global Equity Research at Morgan Stanley.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amy R. Doberman (46)
522 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10036
|
|
Vice President
|
|
Since July 2004
|
|
Managing Director and General Counsel, U.S. Investment
Management of Morgan Stanley Investment Management (since July
2004); Vice President of the Retail Funds and Institutional
Funds (since July 2004); Vice President of the Van Kampen Funds
(since August 2004); Secretary (since February 2006) and
Managing Director (since July 2004) of the Investment Adviser
and various entities affiliated with the Investment Adviser.
Formerly, Managing Director and General CounselAmericas,
UBS Global Asset Management (July 2000-July 2004).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carsten Otto (45)
522 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10036
|
|
Chief Compliance Officer
|
|
Since October 2004
|
|
Managing Director and Global Head of Compliance for Morgan
Stanley Investment Management (since April 2007); and Chief
Compliance Officer of the Retail Funds and Institutional Funds
(since October 2004). Formerly, U.S. Director of Compliance
(October 2004-April 2007) and Assistant Secretary and Assistant
General Counsel of the Retail Funds.
|
37
Morgan Stanley
Insured California Municipal Securities
Trustee and Officer Information
(unaudited) continued
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Term of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Office and
|
|
|
|
|
Position(s)
|
|
Length of
|
|
|
Name, Age and Address of
|
|
Held with
|
|
Time
|
|
|
Executive Officer
|
|
Registrant
|
|
Served*
|
|
Principal Occupation(s) During
Past 5 Years
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stefanie V. Chang Yu (42)
522 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10036
|
|
Vice President
|
|
Since December 1997
|
|
Managing Director of the Investment Adviser and various entities
affiliated with the Investment Adviser; Vice President of the
Retail Funds (since July 2002) and Institutional Funds (since
December 1997). Formerly, Secretary of various entities
affiliated with the Investment Adviser.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Francis J. Smith (43)
c/o Morgan
Stanley Trust
Harborside Financial Center
Plaza Two
Jersey City, NJ 07311
|
|
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
|
|
Treasurer since July 2003 and Chief Financial Officer since
September 2002
|
|
Executive Director of the Investment Adviser and various
entities affiliated with the Investment Adviser; Treasurer and
Chief Financial Officer of the Retail Funds (since July 2003).
Formerly, Vice President of the Retail Funds (September 2002 to
July 2003).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mary E. Mullin (41)
522 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10036
|
|
Secretary
|
|
Since June 1999
|
|
Executive Director of the Investment Adviser and various
entities affiliated with the Investment Adviser; Secretary of
the Retail Funds (since July 2003) and Institutional Funds
(since June 1999).
|
|
|
|
* |
|
This is the earliest date the
Officer began serving the Retail Funds or Institutional
Funds. |
In accordance with Section 303A.12(a) of the New York Exchange
Listed Company Manual, the Trusts Annual CEO Certification
certifying as to compliance with NYSEs Corporate
Governance Listing Standards was submitted to the Exchange on
November 10, 2008.
The Trusts Principal Executive Officer and Principal
Financial Officer Certifications required by Section 302 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 were filed with the Trusts
N-CSR and are available on the Securities and Exchange
Commissions Web site at http://www.sec.gov.
2008 Federal Tax Notice (unaudited)
For Federal income tax purposes, the following information is
furnished with respect to the distributions paid by the Trust
during its taxable year ended October 31, 2008. The Trust
designated 96.68% of its income dividends as tax-exempt income
dividends. The Trust designated and paid $381,490 as a long-term
capital gain distribution.
In January, the Trust provides tax information to shareholders
for the preceding calendar year.
38
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
Trustees
Michael Bozic
Kathleen A. Dennis
James F. Higgins
Dr. Manuel H. Johnson
Joseph J. Kearns
Michael F. Klein
Michael E. Nugent
W. Allen Reed
Fergus Reid
Officers
Chairperson of the
Board
Randy Takian
President
and Principal
Executive Officer
Kevin Klingert
Vice President
Dennis F. Shea
Vice President
Amy R. Doberman
Vice President
Carsten Otto
Chief Compliance
Officer
Stefanie V. Chang Yu
Vice President
Francis J. Smith
Treasurer
and Chief Financial
Officer
Mary E. Mullin
Secretary
Transfer
Agent
Computershare
Trust Company, N.A.
P.O. Box 43078
Providence, RI 02940-3078
Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm
Two World Financial Center
New York, New York 10281
Legal
Counsel
31 West 52nd Street
New York, New York 10019
Counsel to the
Independent Trustees
Kramer
Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
1177 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036
Investment
Adviser
Morgan
Stanley Investment Advisors Inc.
522 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10036
INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT
Morgan
Stanley
Insured
California
Municipal
Securities
NYSE:
ICS
Annual Report
October 31,
2008
ICSANN
lU08-06169P-Y10/08
Item 2. Code of Ethics.
(a) The Trust/Fund has adopted a code of ethics (the Code of Ethics) that applies to its
principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or
controller, or persons performing similar functions, regardless of whether these individuals are
employed by the Trust/Fund or a third party.
(b) |
|
No information need be disclosed pursuant to this paragraph. |
|
(c) |
|
Not applicable. |
|
(d) |
|
Not applicable. |
|
(e) |
|
Not applicable. |
|
(f) |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The Trust/Funds Code of Ethics is attached hereto as Exhibit 12 A. |
|
|
(2) |
|
Not applicable. |
|
|
(3) |
|
Not applicable. |
Item 3. Audit Committee Financial Expert.
The Funds Board of Trustees has determined that Joseph J. Kearns, an independent Trustee, is an
audit committee financial expert serving on its audit committee. Under applicable securities
laws, a person who is determined to be an audit committee financial expert will not be deemed an
expert for any purpose, including without limitation for the purposes of Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as a result of being designated or identified as an audit committee
financial expert. The designation or identification of a person as an audit committee financial
expert does not impose on such person any duties, obligations, or liabilities that are greater than
the duties, obligations, and liabilities imposed on such person as a member of the audit committee
and Board of Trustees in the absence of such designation or identification.
Item 4. Principal Accountant Fees and Services.
(a)(b)(c)(d) and (g). Based on fees billed for the periods shown:
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
|
Registrant |
|
|
Covered Entities(1) |
|
Audit Fees |
|
$ |
38,775 |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
Non-Audit Fees |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Audit-Related Fees |
|
$ |
|
(2) |
|
$ |
6,418,000 |
(2) |
Tax Fees |
|
$ |
5,501 |
(3) |
|
$ |
881,000 |
(4) |
All Other Fees |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Total Non-Audit Fees |
|
$ |
5,501 |
|
|
$ |
7,299,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
44,276 |
|
|
$ |
7,299,000 |
|
|
2007 |
|
Registrant |
|
|
Covered Entities(1) |
|
Audit Fees |
|
$ |
31,250 |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Audit Fees |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Audit-Related Fees |
|
$ |
|
(2) |
|
$ |
5,041,000 |
(2) |
Tax Fees |
|
$ |
5,047 |
(3) |
|
$ |
761,000 |
(4) |
All Other Fees |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
(5) |
Total Non-Audit Fees |
|
$ |
5,047 |
|
|
$ |
5,802,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
36,297 |
|
|
$ |
5,802,000 |
|
|
|
|
N/A |
|
Not applicable, as not required by Item 4. |
|
(1) |
|
Covered Entities include the Adviser (excluding sub-advisors) and
any entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Adviser
that provides ongoing services to the Registrant. |
|
(2) |
|
Audit-Related Fees represent assurance and related services provided
that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit of the financial
statements of the Covered Entities and funds advised by the Adviser or its
affiliates, specifically data verification and agreed-upon procedures related
to asset securitizations and agreed-upon procedures engagements. |
|
(3) |
|
Tax Fees represent tax compliance, tax planning and tax advice
services provided in connection with the preparation and review of the
Registrants tax returns. |
|
(4) |
|
Tax Fees represent tax compliance, tax planning and tax advice
services provided in connection with the review of Covered Entities tax
returns. |
|
(5) |
|
All other fees represent project management for future business
applications and improving business and operational processes. |
3
(e)(1) The audit committees pre-approval policies and procedures are as follows:
APPENDIX A
AUDIT COMMITTEE
AUDIT AND NON-AUDIT SERVICES
PRE-APPROVAL POLICY AND PROCEDURES
OF THE
MORGAN STANLEY RETAIL AND INSTITUTIONAL FUNDS
AS ADOPTED AND AMENDED JULY 23, 2004,1
1. Statement of Principles
The Audit Committee of the Board is required to review and, in its sole discretion, pre-approve all
Covered Services to be provided by the Independent Auditors to the Fund and Covered Entities in
order to assure that services performed by the Independent Auditors do not impair the auditors
independence from the Fund.
The SEC has issued rules specifying the types of services that an independent auditor may not
provide to its audit client, as well as the audit committees administration of the engagement of
the independent auditor. The SECs rules establish two different approaches to pre-approving
services, which the SEC considers to be equally valid. Proposed services either: may be
pre-approved without consideration of specific case-by-case services by the Audit Committee
(general pre-approval); or require the specific pre-approval of the Audit Committee or
its delegate (specific pre-approval). The Audit Committee believes that the combination
of these two approaches in this Policy will result in an effective and efficient procedure to
pre-approve services performed by the Independent Auditors. As set forth in this Policy, unless a
type of service has received general pre-approval, it will require specific pre-approval by the
Audit Committee (or by any member of the Audit Committee to which pre-approval authority has been
delegated) if it is to be provided by the Independent Auditors. Any proposed services exceeding
pre-approved cost levels or budgeted amounts will also require specific pre-approval by the Audit
Committee.
The appendices to this Policy describe the Audit, Audit-related, Tax and All Other services that
have the general pre-approval of the Audit Committee. The term of any general pre-approval is
12 months from the date of pre-approval, unless the Audit Committee considers and provides a
different period and states otherwise. The Audit Committee will annually review and pre-approve
the services that may be provided by the Independent Auditors without obtaining specific
pre-approval from the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee will add to or subtract from the list
of general pre-approved services from time to time, based on subsequent determinations.
The purpose of this Policy is to set forth the policy and procedures by which the Audit Committee
intends to fulfill its responsibilities. It does not delegate the Audit Committees
responsibilities to pre-approve services performed by the Independent Auditors to management.
The Funds Independent Auditors have reviewed this Policy and believes that implementation of the
Policy will not adversely affect the Independent Auditors independence.
|
|
|
1 |
|
This Audit Committee Audit and Non-Audit Services
Pre-Approval Policy and Procedures (the Policy), adopted as of the
date above, supersedes and replaces all prior versions that may have been
adopted from time to time. |
4
2. Delegation
As provided in the Act and the SECs rules, the Audit Committee may delegate either type of
pre-approval authority to one or more of its members. The member to whom such authority is
delegated must report, for informational purposes only, any pre-approval decisions to the Audit
Committee at its next scheduled meeting.
3. Audit Services
The annual Audit services engagement terms and fees are subject to the specific pre-approval of the
Audit Committee. Audit services include the annual financial statement audit and other procedures
required to be performed by the Independent Auditors to be able to form an opinion on the Funds
financial statements. These other procedures include information systems and procedural reviews
and testing performed in order to understand and place reliance on the systems of internal control,
and consultations relating to the audit. The Audit Committee will approve, if necessary, any
changes in terms, conditions and fees resulting from changes in audit scope, Fund structure or
other items.
In addition to the annual Audit services engagement approved by the Audit Committee, the Audit
Committee may grant general pre-approval to other Audit services, which are those services that
only the Independent Auditors reasonably can provide. Other Audit services may include statutory
audits and services associated with SEC registration statements (on Forms N-1A, N-2, N-3, N-4,
etc.), periodic reports and other documents filed with the SEC or other documents issued in
connection with securities offerings.
The Audit Committee has pre-approved the Audit services in Appendix B.1. All other Audit services
not listed in Appendix B.1 must be specifically pre-approved by the Audit Committee (or by any
member of the Audit Committee to which pre-approval has been delegated).
4. Audit-related Services
Audit-related services are assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the
performance of the audit or review of the Funds financial statements and, to the extent they are
Covered Services, the Covered Entities or that are traditionally performed by the Independent
Auditors. Because the Audit Committee believes that the provision of Audit-related services does
not impair the independence of the auditor and is consistent with the SECs rules on auditor
independence, the Audit Committee may grant general pre-approval to Audit-related services.
Audit-related services include, among others, accounting consultations related to accounting,
financial reporting or disclosure matters not classified as Audit services; assistance with
understanding and implementing new accounting and financial reporting guidance from rulemaking
authorities; agreed-upon or expanded audit procedures related to accounting and/or billing records
required to respond to or comply with financial, accounting or regulatory reporting matters; and
assistance with internal control reporting requirements under Forms N-SAR and/or N-CSR.
The Audit Committee has pre-approved the Audit-related services in Appendix B.2. All other
Audit-related services not listed in Appendix B.2 must be specifically pre-approved
5
by the Audit Committee (or by any member of the Audit Committee to which pre-approval has been
delegated).
5. Tax Services
The Audit Committee believes that the Independent Auditors can provide Tax services to the Fund
and, to the extent they are Covered Services, the Covered Entities, such as tax compliance, tax
planning and tax advice without impairing the auditors independence, and the SEC has stated that
the Independent Auditors may provide such services.
Pursuant to the preceding paragraph, the Audit Committee has pre-approved the Tax Services in
Appendix B.3. All Tax services in Appendix B.3 must be specifically pre-approved by the Audit
Committee (or by any member of the Audit Committee to which pre-approval has been delegated).
6. All Other Services
The Audit Committee believes, based on the SECs rules prohibiting the Independent Auditors from
providing specific non-audit services, that other types of non-audit services are permitted.
Accordingly, the Audit Committee believes it may grant general pre-approval to those permissible
non-audit services classified as All Other services that it believes are routine and recurring
services, would not impair the independence of the auditor and are consistent with the SECs rules
on auditor independence.
The Audit Committee has pre-approved the All Other services in Appendix B.4. Permissible All Other
services not listed in Appendix B.4 must be specifically pre-approved by the Audit Committee (or by
any member of the Audit Committee to which pre-approval has been delegated).
7. Pre-Approval Fee Levels or Budgeted Amounts
Pre-approval fee levels or budgeted amounts for all services to be provided by the Independent
Auditors will be established annually by the Audit Committee. Any proposed services exceeding
these levels or amounts will require specific pre-approval by the Audit Committee. The Audit
Committee is mindful of the overall relationship of fees for audit and non-audit services in
determining whether to pre-approve any such services.
8. Procedures
All requests or applications for services to be provided by the Independent Auditors that do not
require specific approval by the Audit Committee will be submitted to the Funds Chief Financial
Officer and must include a detailed description of the services to be rendered. The Funds Chief
Financial Officer will determine whether such services are included within the list of services
that have received the general pre-approval of the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee will be
informed on a timely basis of any such services rendered by the Independent Auditors. Requests or
applications to provide services that require specific approval by the Audit Committee will be
submitted to the Audit Committee by both the Independent Auditors and the Funds Chief Financial
Officer, and must include a joint statement as to whether, in their view, the request or
application is consistent with the SECs rules on auditor independence.
6
The Audit Committee has designated the Funds Chief Financial Officer to monitor the performance of
all services provided by the Independent Auditors and to determine whether such services are in
compliance with this Policy. The Funds Chief Financial Officer will report to the Audit Committee
on a periodic basis on the results of its monitoring. Both the Funds Chief Financial Officer and
management will immediately report to the chairman of the Audit Committee any breach of this Policy
that comes to the attention of the Funds Chief Financial Officer or any member of management.
9. Additional Requirements
The Audit Committee has determined to take additional measures on an annual basis to meet its
responsibility to oversee the work of the Independent Auditors and to assure the auditors
independence from the Fund, such as reviewing a formal written statement from the Independent
Auditors delineating all relationships between the Independent Auditors and the Fund, consistent
with Independence Standards Board No. 1, and discussing with the Independent Auditors its methods
and procedures for ensuring independence.
10. Covered Entities
Covered Entities include the Funds investment adviser(s) and any entity controlling, controlled by
or under common control with the Funds investment adviser(s) that provides ongoing services to the
Fund(s). Beginning with non-audit service contracts entered into on or after May 6, 2003, the
Funds audit committee must pre-approve non-audit services provided not only to the Fund but also
to the Covered Entities if the engagements relate directly to the operations and financial
reporting of the Fund. This list of Covered Entities would include:
Morgan Stanley Retail Funds
Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc.
Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated
Morgan Stanley DW Inc.
Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc.
Morgan Stanley Investment Management Limited
Morgan Stanley Investment Management Private Limited
Morgan Stanley Asset & Investment Trust Management Co., Limited
Morgan Stanley Investment Management Company
Van Kampen Asset Management
Morgan Stanley Services Company, Inc.
Morgan Stanley Distributors Inc.
Morgan Stanley Trust FSB
Morgan Stanley Institutional Funds
Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc.
Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc.
Morgan Stanley Investment Management Limited
Morgan Stanley Investment Management Private Limited
Morgan Stanley Asset & Investment Trust Management Co., Limited
Morgan Stanley Investment Management Company
Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated
7
Morgan Stanley Distribution, Inc.
Morgan Stanley AIP GP LP
Morgan Stanley Alternative Investment Partners LP
(e)(2) Beginning with non-audit service contracts entered into on or after May 6, 2003, the audit
committee also is required to pre-approve services to Covered Entities to the extent that the
services are determined to have a direct impact on the operations or financial reporting of the
Registrant. 100% of such services were pre-approved by the audit committee pursuant to the Audit
Committees pre-approval policies and procedures (attached hereto).
(f) Not applicable.
(g) See table above.
(h) The audit committee of the Board of Trustees/Directors has considered whether the provision
of services other than audit services performed by the auditors to the Registrant and Covered
Entities is compatible with maintaining the auditors independence in performing audit services.
Item 5. Audit Committee of Listed Registrants.
(a) The Fund has a separately-designated standing audit committee established in accordance with
Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Exchange Act whose members are:
Joseph Kearns, Michael Nugent and Allen Reed.
(b) Not applicable.
Item 6. Schedule of Investments
(a) See Item 1.
(b) Not applicable.
Item 7. Disclosure of Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures for Closed-End Management Investment
Companies.
The Funds/Trusts and its Investment Advisors Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures are as
follows:
8
FEBRUARY 28, 2008
MORGAN STANLEY INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT
PROXY VOTING POLICY AND PROCEDURES
I. POLICY STATEMENT
Introduction Morgan Stanley Investment Managements (MSIM) policy and procedures for
voting proxies (Policy) with respect to securities held in the accounts of clients applies to
those MSIM entities that provide discretionary investment management services and for which an MSIM
entity has authority to vote proxies. This Policy is reviewed and updated as necessary to address
new and evolving proxy voting issues and standards.
The MSIM entities covered by this Policy currently include the following: Morgan Stanley Investment
Advisors Inc., Morgan Stanley AIP GP LP, Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc., Morgan Stanley
Investment Management Limited, Morgan Stanley Investment Management Company, Morgan Stanley Asset &
Investment Trust Management Co., Limited, Morgan Stanley Investment Management Private Limited, Van
Kampen Asset Management, and Van Kampen Advisors Inc. (each an MSIM Affiliate and collectively
referred to as the MSIM Affiliates or as we below).
Each MSIM Affiliate will use its best efforts to vote proxies as part of its authority to manage,
acquire and dispose of account assets. With respect to the MSIM registered management investment
companies (Van Kampen, Institutional and Advisor Fundscollectively referred to herein as the
MSIM Funds), each MSIM Affiliate will vote proxies under this Policy pursuant to authority
granted under its applicable investment advisory agreement or, in the absence of such authority, as
authorized by the Board of Directors/Trustees of the MSIM Funds. An MSIM Affiliate will not vote
proxies if the named fiduciary for an ERISA account has reserved the authority for itself, or in
the case of an account not governed by ERISA, the investment management or investment advisory
agreement does not authorize the MSIM Affiliate to vote proxies. MSIM Affiliates will vote proxies
in a prudent and diligent manner and in the best interests of clients, including beneficiaries of
and participants in a clients benefit plan(s) for which the MSIM Affiliates manage assets,
consistent with the objective of maximizing long-term investment returns (Client Proxy Standard).
In certain situations, a client or its fiduciary may provide an MSIM Affiliate with a proxy voting
policy. In these situations, the MSIM Affiliate will comply with the clients policy.
Proxy Research Services - RiskMetrics Group ISS Governance Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis
(together with other proxy research providers as we may retain from time to time, the Research
Providers) are independent advisers that specialize in providing a variety of fiduciary-level
proxy-related services to institutional investment managers, plan sponsors, custodians,
consultants, and other institutional investors. The services
9
provided include in-depth research, global issuer analysis, and voting recommendations. While we
may review and utilize the recommendations of the Research Providers in making proxy voting
decisions, we are in no way obligated to follow such recommendations. In addition to research, ISS
provides vote execution, reporting, and recordkeeping.
Voting Proxies for Certain Non-U.S. Companies - Voting proxies of companies located in some
jurisdictions, particularly emerging markets, may involve several problems that can restrict or
prevent the ability to vote such proxies or entail significant costs. These problems include, but
are not limited to: (i) proxy statements and ballots being written in a language other than
English; (ii) untimely and/or inadequate notice of shareholder meetings; (iii) restrictions on the
ability of holders outside the issuers jurisdiction of organization to exercise votes; (iv)
requirements to vote proxies in person; (v) the imposition of restrictions on the sale of the
securities for a period of time in proximity to the shareholder meeting; and (vi) requirements to
provide local agents with power of attorney to facilitate our voting instructions. As a result, we
vote clients non-U.S. proxies on a best efforts basis only, after weighing the costs and benefits
of voting such proxies, consistent with the Client Proxy Standard. ISS has been retained to
provide assistance in connection with voting non-U.S. proxies.
II. GENERAL PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES
To promote consistency in voting proxies on behalf of its clients, we follow this Policy (subject
to any exception set forth herein), including the guidelines set forth below. These guidelines
address a broad range of issues, and provide general voting parameters on proposals that arise most
frequently. However, details of specific proposals vary, and those details affect particular
voting decisions, as do factors specific to a given company. Pursuant to the procedures set forth
herein, we may vote in a manner that is not in accordance with the following general guidelines,
provided the vote is approved by the Proxy Review Committee (see Section III for description) and
is consistent with the Client Proxy Standard. Morgan Stanley AIP GP LP will follow the procedures
as described in Appendix A.
We endeavor to integrate governance and proxy voting policy with investment goals and to follow the
Client Proxy Standard for each client. At times, this may result in split votes, for example when
different clients have varying economic interests in the outcome of a particular voting matter
(such as a case in which varied ownership interests in two companies involved in a merger result in
different stakes in the outcome). We also may split votes at times based on differing views of
portfolio managers, but such a split vote must be approved by the Proxy Review Committee.
We may abstain on matters for which disclosure is inadequate.
A. Routine Matters. We generally support routine management proposals. The following are examples
of routine management proposals:
10
|
|
|
Approval of financial statements and auditor reports. |
|
|
|
|
General updating/corrective amendments to the charter, articles of association or
bylaws. |
|
|
|
|
Most proposals related to the conduct of the annual meeting, with the following
exceptions. We generally oppose proposals that relate to the transaction of such other
business which may come before the meeting, and open-ended requests for adjournment.
However, where management specifically states the reason for requesting an adjournment and
the requested adjournment would facilitate passage of a proposal that would otherwise be
supported under this Policy (i.e. an uncontested corporate transaction), the adjournment
request will be supported. |
We generally support shareholder proposals advocating confidential voting procedures and
independent tabulation of voting results.
B. Board of Directors
|
1. |
|
Election of directors: In the absence of a proxy contest, we generally
support the boards nominees for director except as follows: |
|
a. |
|
We consider withholding support from or voting against interested
directors if the companys board does not meet market standards for director
independence, or if otherwise we believe board independence is insufficient. We
refer to prevalent market standards as promulgated by a stock exchange or other
authority within a given market (e.g., New York Stock Exchange or Nasdaq rules for
most U.S. companies, and The Combined Code on Corporate Governance in the United
Kingdom). Thus, for an NYSE company with no controlling shareholder, we would
expect that at a minimum a majority of directors should be independent as defined
by NYSE. Where we view market standards as inadequate, we may withhold votes
based on stronger independence standards. Market standards notwithstanding, we
generally do not view long board tenure alone as a basis to classify a director as
non-independent, although lack of board turnover and fresh perspective can be a
negative factor in voting on directors. |
|
i. |
|
At a company with a shareholder or group that
controls the company by virtue of a majority economic interest in the
company, we have a reduced expectation for board independence, although
we believe the presence of independent directors can be helpful,
particularly in staffing the audit committee, and at times we may
withhold support from or vote against a nominee on the view the board or
its committees are not sufficiently independent.
|
11
|
ii. |
|
We consider withholding support from or voting
against a nominee if he or she is affiliated with a major shareholder
that has representation on a board disproportionate to its economic
interest. |
|
b. |
|
Depending on market standards, we consider withholding support from
or voting against a nominee who is interested and who is standing for election as
a member of the companys compensation, nominating or audit committee. |
|
|
c. |
|
We consider withholding support from or voting against a nominee if
we believe a direct conflict exists between the interests of the nominee and the
public shareholders, including failure to meet fiduciary standards of care and/or
loyalty. We may oppose directors where we conclude that actions of directors are
unlawful, unethical or negligent. We consider opposing individual board members
or an entire slate if we believe the board is entrenched and/or dealing
inadequately with performance problems, and/or acting with insufficient
independence between the board and management. |
|
|
d. |
|
We consider withholding support from or voting against a nominee
standing for election if the board has not taken action to implement generally
accepted governance practices for which there is a bright line test. For
example, in the context of the U.S. market, failure to eliminate a dead hand or
slow hand poison pills would be seen as a basis for opposing one or more incumbent
nominees. |
|
|
e. |
|
In markets that encourage designated audit committee financial
experts, we consider voting against members of an audit committee if no members
are designated as such. |
|
|
f. |
|
We consider withholding support from or voting against a nominee who
has failed to attend at least 75% of board meetings within a given year without a
reasonable excuse. |
|
|
g. |
|
We consider withholding support from or voting against a nominee who
serves on the board of directors of more than six companies (excluding investment
companies). We also consider voting against a director who otherwise appears to
have too many commitments to serve adequately on the board of the company. |
|
2. |
|
Board independence: We generally support U.S. shareholder proposals
requiring that a certain percentage (up to
662/3%) of the companys board members be
independent directors, and promoting all-independent audit, compensation and
nominating/governance committees. |
12
|
3. |
|
Board diversity: We consider on a case-by-case basis shareholder proposals
urging diversity of board membership with respect to social, religious or ethnic group. |
|
|
4. |
|
Majority voting: We generally support proposals requesting or requiring
majority voting policies in election of directors, so long as there is a carve-out for
plurality voting in the case of contested elections. |
|
|
5. |
|
Proxy access: We consider on a case-by-case basis shareholder proposals to
provide procedures for inclusion of shareholder nominees in company proxy statements. |
|
|
6. |
|
Proposals to elect all directors annually: We generally support proposals to
elect all directors annually at public companies (to declassify the Board of Directors)
where such action is supported by the board, and otherwise consider the issue on a
case-by-case basis based in part on overall takeover defenses at a company. |
|
|
7. |
|
Cumulative voting: We generally support proposals to eliminate cumulative
voting in the U.S. market context. (Cumulative voting provides that shareholders may
concentrate their votes for one or a handful of candidates, a system that can enable a
minority bloc to place representation on a board). U.S. proposals to establish cumulative
voting in the election of directors generally will not be supported. |
|
|
8. |
|
Separation of Chairman and CEO positions: We vote on shareholder proposals
to separate the Chairman and CEO positions and/or to appoint a non-executive Chairman
based in part on prevailing practice in particular markets, since the context for such a
practice varies. In many non-U.S. markets, we view separation of the roles as a market
standard practice, and support division of the roles in that context. |
|
|
9. |
|
Director retirement age and term limits: Proposals recommending set director
retirement ages or director term limits are voted on a case-by-case basis. |
|
|
10. |
|
Proposals to limit directors liability and/or broaden indemnification of
directors. Generally, we will support such proposals provided that the officers and
directors are eligible for indemnification and liability protection if they have acted in
good faith on company business and were found innocent of any civil or criminal charges
for duties performed on behalf of the company. |
C. Corporate transactions and proxy fights. We examine proposals relating to mergers, acquisitions
and other special corporate transactions (i.e., takeovers, spin-offs, sales of assets,
reorganizations, restructurings and recapitalizations) on a case-by-case basis. However, proposals
for mergers or other significant transactions that are friendly and approved by the Research
Providers generally will be supported and in those instances will not need to be reviewed by the
Proxy Review Committee, where there is no
13
portfolio manager objection and where there is no material conflict of interest. We also analyze
proxy contests on a case-by-case basis.
D. Changes in capital structure.
|
1. |
|
We generally support the following: |
|
|
|
Management and shareholder proposals aimed at eliminating unequal voting
rights, assuming fair economic treatment of classes of shares we hold. |
|
|
|
|
Management proposals to increase the authorization of existing classes of
common stock (or securities convertible into common stock) if: (i) a clear
business purpose is stated that we can support and the number of shares requested
is reasonable in relation to the purpose for which authorization is requested;
and/or (ii) the authorization does not exceed 100% of shares currently authorized
and at least 30% of the total new authorization will be outstanding. |
|
|
|
|
Management proposals to create a new class of preferred stock or for issuances
of preferred stock up to 50% of issued capital, unless we have concerns about use
of the authority for anti-takeover purposes. |
|
|
|
|
Management proposals to authorize share repurchase plans, except in some cases
in which we believe there are insufficient protections against use of an
authorization for anti-takeover purposes. |
|
|
|
|
Management proposals to reduce the number of authorized shares of common or
preferred stock, or to eliminate classes of preferred stock. |
|
|
|
|
Management proposals to effect stock splits. |
|
|
|
|
Management proposals to effect reverse stock splits if management
proportionately reduces the authorized share amount set forth in the corporate
charter. Reverse stock splits that do not adjust proportionately to the
authorized share amount generally will be approved if the resulting increase in
authorized shares coincides with the proxy guidelines set forth above for common
stock increases. |
|
|
|
|
Management proposals for higher dividend payouts. |
|
2. |
|
We generally oppose the following (notwithstanding management support): |
|
|
|
Proposals to add classes of stock that would substantially dilute the voting
interests of existing shareholders. |
14
|
|
|
Proposals to increase the authorized or issued number of shares of existing
classes of stock that are unreasonably dilutive, particularly if there are no
preemptive rights for existing shareholders. |
|
|
|
|
Proposals that authorize share issuance at a discount to market rates, except
where authority for such issuance is de minimis, or if there is a special
situation that we believe justifies such authorization (as may be the case, for
example, at a company under severe stress and risk of bankruptcy). |
|
|
|
|
Proposals relating to changes in capitalization by 100% or more. |
We consider on a case-by-case basis shareholder proposals to increase dividend payout ratios, in
light of market practice and perceived market weaknesses, as well as individual company payout
history and current circumstances. For example, currently we perceive low payouts to shareholders
as a concern at some Japanese companies, but may deem a low payout ratio as appropriate for a
growth company making good use of its cash, notwithstanding the broader market concern.
E. Takeover Defenses and Shareholder Rights
|
1. |
|
Shareholder rights plans: We generally support proposals to require
shareholder approval or ratification of shareholder rights plans (poison pills). In
voting on rights plans or similar takeover defenses, we consider on a case-by-case basis
whether the company has demonstrated a need for the defense in the context of promoting
long-term share value; whether provisions of the defense are in line with generally
accepted governance principles; and the specific context if the proposal is made in the
midst of a takeover bid or contest for control. |
|
|
2. |
|
Supermajority voting requirements: We generally oppose requirements for
supermajority votes to amend the charter or bylaws, unless the provisions protect minority
shareholders where there is a large shareholder. In line with this view, in the absence
of a large shareholder we support reasonable shareholder proposals to limit such
supermajority voting requirements. |
|
|
3. |
|
Shareholder rights to call meetings: We consider proposals to enhance
shareholder rights to call meetings on a case-by-case basis. |
|
|
4. |
|
Reincorporation: We consider management and shareholder proposals to
reincorporate to a different jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis. We oppose such
proposals if we believe the main purpose is to take advantage of laws or judicial
precedents that reduce shareholder rights. |
|
|
5. |
|
Anti-greenmail provisions: Proposals relating to the adoption of
anti-greenmail provisions will be supported, provided that the proposal: (i) defines
greenmail; (ii) prohibits buyback offers to large block holders (holders of at least 1% of
the |
15
|
|
|
outstanding shares and in certain cases, a greater amount, as determined by the Proxy
Review Committee) not made to all shareholders or not approved by disinterested
shareholders; and (iii) contains no anti-takeover measures or other provisions restricting
the rights of shareholders. |
|
|
6. |
|
Bundled proposals: We may consider opposing or abstaining on proposals if
disparate issues are bundled and presented for a single vote. |
F. Auditors. We generally support management proposals for selection or ratification of
independent auditors. However, we may consider opposing such proposals with reference to incumbent
audit firms if the company has suffered from serious accounting irregularities and we believe
rotation of the audit firm is appropriate, or if fees paid to the auditor for non-audit-related
services are excessive. Generally, to determine if non-audit fees are excessive, a 50% test will
be applied (i.e., non-audit-related fees should be less than 50% of the total fees paid to the
auditor). We generally vote against proposals to indemnify auditors.
G. Executive and Director Remuneration.
|
1. |
|
We generally support the following proposals: |
|
|
|
Proposals for employee equity compensation plans and other employee ownership
plans, provided that our research does not indicate that approval of the plan
would be against shareholder interest. Such approval may be against shareholder
interest if it authorizes excessive dilution and shareholder cost, particularly in
the context of high usage (run rate) of equity compensation in the recent past;
or if there are objectionable plan design and provisions. |
|
|
|
|
Proposals relating to fees to outside directors, provided the amounts are not
excessive relative to other companies in the country or industry, and provided
that the structure is appropriate within the market context. While stock-based
compensation to outside directors is positive if moderate and appropriately
structured, we are wary of significant stock option awards or other
performance-based awards for outside directors, as well as provisions that could
result in significant forfeiture of value on a directors decision to resign from
a board (such forfeiture can undercut director independence). |
|
|
|
|
Proposals for employee stock purchase plans that permit discounts up to 15%,
but only for grants that are part of a broad-based employee plan, including all
non-executive employees. |
16
|
|
|
Proposals for the establishment of employee retirement and severance plans,
provided that our research does not indicate that approval of the plan would be
against shareholder interest. |
|
2. |
|
Shareholder proposals requiring shareholder approval of all severance
agreements will not be supported, but proposals that require shareholder approval for
agreements in excess of three times the annual compensation (salary and bonus)
generally will be supported. We generally oppose shareholder proposals that would
establish arbitrary caps on pay. We consider on a case-by-case basis shareholder
proposals that seek to limit Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans (SERPs), but
support such proposals where we consider SERPs to be excessive. |
|
|
3. |
|
Shareholder proposals advocating stronger and/or particular
pay-for-performance models will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with
consideration of the merits of the individual proposal within the context of the
particular company and its labor markets, and the companys current and past
practices. While we generally support emphasis on long-term components of senior
executive pay and strong linkage of pay to performance, we consider whether a proposal
may be overly prescriptive, and the impact of the proposal, if implemented as written,
on recruitment and retention. |
|
|
4. |
|
We consider shareholder proposals for U.K.-style advisory votes on pay on a
case-by-case basis. |
|
|
5. |
|
We generally support proposals advocating reasonable senior executive and
director stock ownership guidelines and holding requirements for shares gained in
option exercises. |
|
|
6. |
|
Management proposals effectively to re-price stock options are considered on
a case-by-case basis. Considerations include the companys reasons and justifications
for a re-pricing, the companys competitive position, whether senior executives and
outside directors are excluded, potential cost to shareholders, whether the re-pricing
or share exchange is on a value-for-value basis, and whether vesting requirements are
extended. |
H. Social, Political and Environmental Issues. We consider proposals relating to social, political
and environmental issues on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they will have a financial
impact on shareholder value. However, we generally vote against proposals requesting reports that
are duplicative, related to matters not material to the business, or that would impose unnecessary
or excessive costs. We may abstain from voting on proposals that do not have a readily determinable
financial impact on
17
shareholder value. We generally oppose proposals requiring adherence to workplace standards that
are not required or customary in market(s) to which the proposals relate.
I. Fund of Funds. Certain Funds advised by an MSIM Affiliate invest only in other MSIM Funds. If
an underlying fund has a shareholder meeting, in order to avoid any potential conflict of interest,
such proposals will be voted in the same proportion as the votes of the other shareholders of the
underlying fund, unless otherwise determined by the Proxy Review Committee.
III. ADMINISTRATION OF POLICY
The MSIM Proxy Review Committee (the Committee) has overall responsibility for creating and
implementing the Policy, working with an MSIM staff group (the Corporate Governance Team). The
Committee, which is appointed by MSIMs Chief Investment Officer of Global Equities (CIO),
consists of senior investment professionals who represent the different investment disciplines and
geographic locations of the firm. Because proxy voting is an investment responsibility and impacts
shareholder value, and because of their knowledge of companies and markets, portfolio managers and
other members of investment staff play a key role in proxy voting, although the Committee has final
authority over proxy votes.
The Committee Chairperson is the head of the Corporate Governance Team, and is responsible for
identifying issues that require Committee deliberation or ratification. The Corporate Governance
Team, working with advice of investment teams and the Committee, is responsible for voting on
routine items and on matters that can be addressed in line with these Policy guidelines. The
Corporate Governance Team has responsibility for voting case-by-case where guidelines and precedent
provide adequate guidance, and to refer other case-by-case decisions to the Proxy Review Committee.
The Committee will periodically review and have the authority to amend, as necessary, the Policy
and establish and direct voting positions consistent with the Client Proxy Standard.
A. Committee Procedures
The Committee will meet at least monthly to (among other matters) address any outstanding issues
relating to the Policy or its implementation. The Corporate Governance Team will timely communicate
to ISS MSIMs Policy (and any amendments and/or any additional guidelines or procedures the
Committee may adopt).
The Committee will meet on an ad hoc basis to (among other matters): (1) authorize split voting
(i.e., allowing certain shares of the same issuer that are the subject of the same proxy
solicitation and held by one or more MSIM portfolios to be voted differently than other shares)
and/or override voting (i.e., voting all MSIM portfolio shares in a manner contrary to the
Policy); (2) review and approve upcoming votes, as appropriate, for matters for which specific
direction has been provided in this Policy; and (3)
18
determine how to vote matters for which specific direction has not been provided in this Policy.
Members of the Committee may take into account Research Providers recommendations and research as
well as any other relevant information they may request or receive, including portfolio manager
and/or analyst research, as applicable. Generally, proxies related to securities held in accounts
that are managed pursuant to quantitative, index or index-like strategies (Index Strategies) will
be voted in the same manner as those held in actively managed accounts, unless economic interests
of the accounts differ. Because accounts managed using Index Strategies are passively managed
accounts, research from portfolio managers and/or analysts related to securities held in these
accounts may not be available. If the affected securities are held only in accounts that are
managed pursuant to Index Strategies, and the proxy relates to a matter that is not described in
this Policy, the Committee will consider all available information from the Research Providers, and
to the extent that the holdings are significant, from the portfolio managers and/or analysts.
B. Material Conflicts of Interest
In addition to the procedures discussed above, if the Committee determines that an issue raises a
material conflict of interest, the Committee will request a special committee to review, and
recommend a course of action with respect to, the conflict(s) in question (Special Committee).
The Special Committee shall be comprised of the Chairperson of the Proxy Review Committee, the
Chief Compliance Officer or his/her designee, a senior portfolio manager (if practicable, one who
is a member of the Proxy Review Committee) designated by the Proxy Review Committee, and MSIMs
relevant Chief Investment Officer or his/her designee, and any other persons deemed necessary by
the Chairperson. The Special Committee may request the assistance of MSIMs General Counsel or
his/her designee who will have sole discretion to cast a vote. In addition to the research
provided by Research Providers, the Special Committee may request analysis from MSIM Affiliate
investment professionals and outside sources to the extent it deems appropriate.
C. Identification of Material Conflicts of Interest
A potential material conflict of interest could exist in the following situations, among others:
|
1. |
|
The issuer soliciting the vote is a client of MSIM or an affiliate of MSIM and the
vote is on a material matter affecting the issuer. |
|
|
2. |
|
The proxy relates to Morgan Stanley common stock or any other security issued by
Morgan Stanley or its affiliates except if echo voting is used, as with MSIM Funds, as
described herein. |
19
|
3. |
|
Morgan Stanley has a material pecuniary interest in the matter submitted for a vote
(e.g., acting as a financial advisor to a party to a merger or acquisition for which
Morgan Stanley will be paid a success fee if completed). |
If the Chairperson of the Committee determines that an issue raises a potential material conflict
of interest, depending on the facts and circumstances, the Chairperson will address the issue as
follows:
|
1. |
|
If the matter relates to a topic that is discussed in this Policy, the proposal will
be voted as per the Policy. |
|
|
2. |
|
If the matter is not discussed in this Policy or the Policy indicates that the issue
is to be decided case-by-case, the proposal will be voted in a manner consistent with the
Research Providers, provided that all the Research Providers have the same recommendation,
no portfolio manager objects to that vote, and the vote is consistent with MSIMs Client
Proxy Standard. |
|
|
3. |
|
If the Research Providers recommendations differ, the Chairperson will refer the
matter to the Committee to vote on the proposal. If the Committee determines that an
issue raises a material conflict of interest, the Committee will request a Special
Committee to review and recommend a course of action, as described above. Notwithstanding
the above, the Chairperson of the Committee may request a Special Committee to review a
matter at any time as he/she deems necessary to resolve a conflict. |
D. Proxy Voting Reporting
The Committee and the Special Committee, or their designee(s), will document in writing all of
their decisions and actions, which documentation will be maintained by the Committee and the
Special Committee, or their designee(s), for a period of at least 6 years. To the extent these
decisions relate to a security held by an MSIM Fund, the Committee and Special Committee, or their
designee(s), will report their decisions to each applicable Board of Trustees/Directors of those
Funds at each Boards next regularly scheduled Board meeting. The report will contain information
concerning decisions made by the Committee and Special Committee during the most recently ended
calendar quarter immediately preceding the Board meeting.
The Corporate Governance Team will timely communicate to applicable portfolio managers and to ISS,
decisions of the Committee and Special Committee so that, among other things, ISS will vote proxies
consistent with their decisions.
MSIM will promptly provide a copy of this Policy to any client requesting it. MSIM will also, upon
client request, promptly provide a report indicating how each proxy was voted with respect to
securities held in that clients account.
20
MSIMs Legal Department is responsible for filing an annual Form N-PX on behalf of each MSIM Fund
for which such filing is required, indicating how all proxies were voted with respect to such
Funds holdings.
APPENDIX A
The following procedures apply to accounts managed by Morgan Stanley AIP GP LP (AIP).
Generally, AIP will follow the guidelines set forth in Section II of MSIMs Proxy Voting Policy and
Procedures. To the extent that such guidelines do not provide specific direction, or AIP
determines that consistent with the Client Proxy Standard, the guidelines should not be followed,
the Proxy Review Committee has delegated the voting authority to vote securities held by accounts
managed by AIP to the Liquid Markets investment team and the Private Markets investment team of
AIP. A summary of decisions made by the investment teams will be made available to the Proxy
Review Committee for its information at the next scheduled meeting of the Proxy Review Committee.
In certain cases, AIP may determine to abstain from determining (or recommending) how a proxy
should be voted (and therefore abstain from voting such proxy or recommending how such proxy should
be voted), such as where the expected cost of giving due consideration to the proxy does not
justify the potential benefits to the affected account(s) that might result from adopting or
rejecting (as the case may be) the measure in question.
Waiver of Voting Rights
For regulatory reasons, AIP may either 1) invest in a class of securities of an underlying fund
(the Fund) that does not provide for voting rights; or 2) waive 100% of its voting rights with
respect to the following:
|
1. |
|
Any rights with respect to the removal or replacement of a director, general partner,
managing member or other person acting in a similar capacity for or on behalf of the Fund
(each individually a Designated Person, and collectively, the Designated Persons),
which may include, but are not limited to, voting on the election or removal of a
Designated Person in the event of such Designated Persons death, disability, insolvency,
bankruptcy, incapacity, or other event requiring a vote of interest holders of the Fund to
remove or replace a Designated Person; and |
|
|
2. |
|
Any rights in connection with a determination to renew, dissolve, liquidate, or
otherwise terminate or continue the Fund, which may include, but are not limited to,
voting on the renewal, dissolution, liquidation, termination or continuance of the Fund
upon the occurrence of an event described in the Funds organizational documents;
provided, however, that, if the Funds organizational documents |
21
|
|
|
require the consent of the Funds general partner or manager, as the case may be, for any
such termination or continuation of the Fund to be effective, then AIP may exercise its
voting rights with respect to such matter. |
Item 8. Portfolio Managers of Closed-End Management Investment Companies
Applicable only to reports covering periods ending on or after December 31, 2005.
Morgan Stanley Insured California Municipal Securities (ICS)
Fund Management
PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT. As of the date of this report, the Fund is managed within the Morgan Stanley
Municipals team. The team consists of portfolio managers and analysts. Current members of the team
jointly and primarily responsible for the day-to-day management of the Funds portfolio are Neil
Stone and Steven K. Kreider, each a Managing Director of the Investment Adviser.
Mr. Stone has been associated with the Investment Adviser in an investment management capacity
since March 1995 and began managing the Fund in September 2007. Mr. Kreider has been associated
with the Investment Adviser in an investment management capacity since February 1988 and began
managing the Fund in September 2007.
The composition of the team may change from time to time.
OTHER ACCOUNTS MANAGED BY THE PORTFOLIO MANAGERS
The following information is as of October 31, 2008:
Neil Stone managed 20 registered investment companies with a total of approximately $7.3
billion in assets; no pooled investment vehicles other than registered investment companies;
and 42 other accounts with a total of approximately $9.0 billion in assets.
Steven K. Kreider managed 40 registered investment companies with a total of approximately
$25.9 billion in assets; two pooled investment vehicles other than registered investment
companies with a total of approximately $202.3 million; and 41 other accounts with a total
of approximately $6.4 billion in assets.
Because the portfolio managers manage assets for other investment companies, pooled investment
vehicles and/or other accounts (including institutional clients, pension plans and certain high net
worth individuals), there may be an incentive to favor one client over another resulting in
conflicts of interest. For instance, the Investment Adviser may receive fees from certain accounts
that are higher than the fee it receives from the Fund, or it may receive a performance-based fee
on certain accounts. In those instances, the portfolio managers may have an incentive to favor the
higher and/or performance-based fee accounts over the Fund. In addition, a conflict of interest
could exist to the extent the Investment Adviser has proprietary investments in certain accounts,
where portfolio managers have personal investments in certain accounts or when certain accounts are
investment options in the Investment Advisers employee benefits and/or deferred compensation
plans. The portfolio manager may have an incentive to favor these accounts over others. If the
Investment Adviser manages accounts that engage in short sales of securities of the type in
22
which the Fund invests, the Investment Adviser could be seen as harming the performance of the Fund
for the benefit of the accounts engaging in short sales if the short sales cause the market value
of the securities to fall. The Investment Adviser has adopted trade allocation and other policies
and procedures that it believes are reasonably designed to address these and other conflicts of
interest.
PORTFOLIO MANAGER COMPENSATION STRUCTURE
Portfolio managers receive a combination of base compensation and discretionary compensation,
comprising a cash bonus and several deferred compensation programs described below. The methodology
used to determine portfolio manager compensation is applied across all funds/accounts managed by
the portfolio managers.
BASE SALARY COMPENSATION. Generally, portfolio managers receive base salary compensation based
on the level of their position with the Investment Adviser.
DISCRETIONARY COMPENSATION. In addition to base compensation, portfolio managers may receive
discretionary compensation.
Discretionary compensation can include:
|
|
|
Cash Bonus. |
|
|
|
|
Morgan Stanleys Long Term Incentive Compensation awards a mandatory program that
defers a portion of discretionary year-end compensation into restricted stock units or
other awards based on Morgan Stanley common stock or other investments that are subject
to vesting and other conditions. |
|
|
|
|
Investment Management Alignment Plan (IMAP) awards a mandatory program that defers
a portion of discretionary year-end compensation and notionally invests it in
designated funds advised by the Investment Adviser or its affiliates. The award is
subject to vesting and other conditions. Portfolio managers must notionally invest a
minimum of 25% to a maximum of 100% of the IMAP deferral into a combination of the
designated funds they manage that are included in the IMAP fund menu, which may or may
not include the Fund. |
|
|
|
|
Voluntary Deferred Compensation Plans voluntary programs that permit certain
employees to elect to defer a portion of their discretionary year-end compensation and
directly or notionally invest the deferred amount: (1) across a range of designated
investment funds, including funds advised by the Investment Adviser or its affiliates;
and/or (2) in Morgan Stanley stock units. |
Several factors determine discretionary compensation, which can vary by portfolio management
team and circumstances. In order of relative importance, these factors include:
|
|
|
Investment performance. A portfolio managers compensation is linked to the pre-tax
investment performance of the funds/accounts managed by the portfolio manager.
Investment performance is calculated for one-, three- and five-year periods measured
against a funds/accounts primary benchmark (as set forth in the funds prospectus),
indices and/or peer groups where applicable. Generally, the greatest weight is placed
on the three- and five-year periods. |
|
|
|
|
Revenues generated by the investment companies, pooled investment vehicles and other
accounts managed by the portfolio manager. |
|
|
|
|
Contribution to the business objectives of the Investment Adviser. |
|
|
|
|
The dollar amount of assets managed by the portfolio manager. |
|
|
|
|
Market compensation survey research by independent third parties. |
23
|
|
|
Other qualitative factors, such as contributions to client objectives. |
|
|
|
|
Performance of Morgan Stanley and Morgan Stanley Investment Management, and the
overall performance of the investment team(s) of which the portfolio manager is a
member. |
SECURITIES OWNERSHIP OF PORTFOLIO MANAGERS
As of October 31, 2008, the portfolio managers did not own any shares of the Fund.
Item 9. Closed-End Fund Repurchases
REGISTRANT PURCHASE OF EQUITY SECURITIES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(d) Maximum |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(c) Total |
|
Number (or |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of |
|
Approximate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares (or |
|
Dollar Value) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Units) |
|
of Shares (or |
|
|
(a) Total |
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased as |
|
Units) that May |
|
|
Number of |
|
|
|
|
|
Part of Publicly |
|
Yet Be |
|
|
Shares (or |
|
(b) Average |
|
Announced |
|
Purchased |
|
|
Units) |
|
Price Paid per |
|
Plans or |
|
Under the Plans |
Period |
|
Purchased |
|
Share (or Unit) |
|
Programs |
|
or Programs |
November 1, 2007
November 30, 2007 |
|
|
2,700 |
|
|
|
13.9666 |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
December 1,
2007 -
December 31, 2007 |
|
|
11,312 |
|
|
|
13.8592 |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
January 1, 2008
January 31, 2008 |
|
|
8,506 |
|
|
|
14.1119 |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
February 1, 2008
February 28, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
mo-da-year
mo-da-year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
mo-da-year
mo-da-year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
mo-da-year
mo-da-year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
mo-da-year
mo-da-year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
mo-da-year
mo-da-year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
mo-da-year
mo-da-year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
mo-da-year
mo-da-year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
mo-da-year
mo-da-year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
Total |
|
|
118,533 |
|
|
|
13.6565 |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
24
Item 10. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
Not applicable.
Item 11. Controls and Procedures
(a) The Trusts/Funds principal executive officer and principal financial officer have concluded
that the Trusts/Funds disclosure controls and procedures are sufficient to ensure that
information required to be disclosed by the Trust/Fund in this Form N-CSR was recorded, processed,
summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange
Commissions rules and forms, based upon such officers evaluation of these controls and procedures
as of a date within 90 days of the filing date of the report.
(b) There were no changes in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the second fiscal quarter of the period covered by this report that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
Item 12. Exhibits
(a) The Code of Ethics for Principal Executive and Senior Financial Officers is attached hereto.
(b) A separate certification for each principal executive officer and principal financial officer
of the registrant are attached hereto as part of EX-99.CERT.
25
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company
Act of 1940, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
Morgan Stanley Insured California Municipal Securities
/s/ Randy Takian
Randy Takian
Principal Executive Officer
December 17, 2008
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company
Act of 1940, this report has been signed by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and
in the capacities and on the dates indicated.
/s/ Randy Takian
Randy Takian
Principal Executive Officer
December 17, 2008
/s/ Francis Smith
Francis Smith
Principal Financial Officer
December 17, 2008
26