GATES Capital Corp Year-End Tax Swaps in MLP ETFs & ETNs Part 2 November 5, 2015

GATES ETF Research Coverage, Recommendations & Alerts GATES Capital Corp Year-End Tax Swaps in MLP ETFs & ETNs Part 2 November 5, 2015 Swapping out of similar ETNs and into ETFs can produce approximately 127 bps in additional income plus realization of a valuable tax loss. We are lowering our rating on AMLP to Neutral from Constructive. Name ETFs Pricing and Fund Data Ticker Rec. Price ($) Div. Yield (%) NAV (S/share) Premium/ Discount (%) Index Ticker Avg. Trading Vol. (000) (a) Alerian MLP (AMLP) AMLP N 13.96 8.56 14.11-0.64 AMZI 7,671 7.890-17.41 Global X MLP ETF MLPA C 12.03 7.97 12.22 +0.25 SOLMLPA 86 161-21.89 ETNs Credit Suisse X-Links Cush. MLP Infra ETN MLPN UC 22.84 6.71 22.76 +0.22 MLPX 315 522-28.25 JP Morgan Alerian MLP ETN AMJ UC 34.45 6.64 34.72 +0.32 AMZ 2,237 4.310-25.85 UBS ETRACS Alerian MLP ETN MLPI UC 29.99 6.64 NA +0.13 AMZI 699 1,940-25.16 UBS ETRACS Alerian Nat. Gas MLP ETN MLPG UC 25.50 6.81 NA -0.23 ANGI 2 22-27.79 Source: Bloomberg, pricing as of November 4, 2015. a: 15-day moving average. b. 1-year trailing total return. In preparing this tax-swap report, we examined the structure and methodology of each MLP ETF/ETN index, the structure of each MLP ETF & MLP ETN, as well as their distribution policies before proposing our swaps. Our conclusions and recommendations are summarized below. MLP ETN to MLP ETF Swap: We recommend investors sell their MLP ETN positions in MLPN, AMJ, MLPI & MLPG and replace them with positions in the Global X MLPA MLP ETF (MLPA). Investors will realize a valuable tax benefit, increase their current yield by anywhere between 75 bp and 150 bp and in our view will be moving into an ETF that has excellent distribution coverage and a well-constructed underlying index. These and other factors supporting this recommendation are: Because of the differences in how MLP ETNs and ETFs structure their distributions, ETFs have a builtin yield advantage vs. their ETN counterparts that ranges anywhere between 75 bp and 150 bp. Approximately 35% to 100% of the distributions from MLP ETFs are typically considered a return of capital, vs. MLP ETN distributions that are considered 100% ordinary income. The underlying indices for the ETNs (MLPN, AMJ, MLPI & MLPG) are very similar to the index used by the Global X MLP ETF, with the notable exception that the Global X MLP ETF index modified its methodology in March 2015 to exclude natural gas processing companies and the commodity exposure these companies bring to the index. On a year-to-date basis, the Global X MLP ETF index outperformed the AMZI index by 605 bp based on market price. AMLP to MLPA Swap: Within the MLP ETF universe we recommend investors sell their positions in the Alerian AMLP ETF in favor of the Global X MLP ETF (MLPA) for the following reasons: MLPA has a much higher distribution coverage ratio of 103.4% and 97.2% for 2013 & 2014, respectively. This is also far higher and more consistent than AMLP s distribution coverage, which has recently slipped from 90.9% to 86.4% for 2013 and 2014. This lower distribution coverage is also likely lead to increased tracking error for AMLP vs. AMZI. Management fees on the Global X MLP ETF are only 45 bp, far lower than AMLP s 85 bp. We are also lowering our rating on the Alerian MLP ETF (AMLP) from Constructive to Neutral until the inconsistencies in its distribution coverage are resolved. We also feel that investors seeking exposure to energy midstream assets will have both a lower risk profile and superior returns in the Global X MLP ETF. Additionally, we are initiating coverage of the Credit Suisse X-Links Cush. MLP Infra ETN (MLPN) and the UBS ETRACS Alerian Nat. Gas MLP ETN (MLPG) with Unconstructive ratings (UC). Managed Assets ($mm) Equity Research Contributing Analyst Total Return (%) (b) N. Charles Earle Head of ETF & CEF Research (212) 682-6810 charles.earle@gatescapital.com This report is available at www.gatescapital.com 1 See Disclosure Appendix A-1 for the Analyst Certification and other important disclosures GATES Capital Corporation

ETF Index Review Before we can recommend swapping out of one ETF and into another, a careful examination of the underlying ETF Index is required. Every ETF is managed against one particular index, with the ETF manager s performance measured by comparing the total return of their ETF against that index. This measure of performance is called tracking error, and is commonly used to measure an ETF fund manager s performance. Because of the desire of ETF fund managers to attract assets and to differentiate themselves against their peers, it is very common to have ETFs within the same market sector utilize different indices. Some indices can be weighted by using the market capitalization of the underlying securities, while others can be equal-weighted and still others can utilize a combination of rules or factors in determining the index composition. Therefore, it is critical to understand the types of indices being tracked by the ETF to make sure the tax-swap being contemplated will not also change the character of the investor s initial investment. Within the MLP ETF universe, the Alerian, Cushing and Solactive family of indices dominate the sector, with the Alerian family dominating the space in terms of ETF AUM. The Alerian indices used by the MLP ETFs we cover are variations on market capitalization-based indices composed of midstream MLPs, while the Solactive index excludes upstream and natural gas processing assets. However, the Cushing indices cover a slightly broader base of energy MLPs and utilize several factors in determining index composition. After examining all of the underlying indices used in our family of MLP ETFs, we have a much more favorable view of the Alerian and Solactive family of market capitalization-weighted midstream indices in the current low-commodity price environment. We especially like the exclusion of upstream and natural gas processing MLPs from the Solactive index used by the Global X MLP ETF (MLPA) and feel the Cushing family of indices are better suited to a stronger commodity price environment. MLP ETFs: Within this universe the Alerian MLP ETF (AMLP) dominates in terms of assets under management (AUM), which currently stands at $7,374 bn. The fund is indexed to the Alerian MLP Infrastructure Index (AMZI), which is largely a capped (22 issuers) market capitalization-weighted index whose constituents earn the majority of their cash flow from midstream MLP energy companies. The Global X MLP ETF (MLPA) fund is indexed to the Solactive MLP Infrastructure Index and is also a caped (40 issuers), free float market capitalization-weighted index that is composed of MLPs engaged in the transportation, storage and refining of marketing of natural resources. While this index has a similar composition when compared against the AMZI Index, it has outperformed the AMZI Index on a market-price basis by 605 bp and 568 bp, respectively over the YTD and 1-year periods. In our view, the index s more diverse exposure to the sector, 40 issuers vs. AMZI s 22 issues, plus the recent exclusion of natural gas processing business from the index contributed to this outperformance. MLP ETNs: Based on AUM, the majority of MLP ETN assets are based on indices produced by Alerian, with a much smaller group based on indices produced by Cushing Asset Management. The Alerian-based ETNs, the largest being the JP Morgan Alerian MLP ETN (AMJ), is based on the Alerian MLP Index (AMZ). Like its sister Alerian Index, AMZI (discussed above), AMZ is a capped market capitalization-weighted index, but has a much lower market capitalization threshold of $500 mm vs AMZI s market capitalization threshold of $2.0 bn. The UBS ETRACS Alerian MLP ETN (MLPI), like the AMLP ETF, is based on the Alerian MLP Infrastructure Index (AMZI). The UBS ETRACS Alerian Nat. Gas MLP ETN (MLPG) is also based on an Alerian Index, but this index, the Alerian Natural Gas MLP Index (ANGI), is based on similar underlying index rules, but focuses only on natural gas-based pipeline transportation, storage and processing companies as an additional filter. Like the AMZ index, this index also has a lower market capitalization threshold of $500 mm. However, the Credit Suisse X-Links Cush. MLP Infra ETN (MLPN) uses an index developed by Cushing Asset Management. The Credit Suisse MLPN ETN, based on the Cushing 30 MLP Index (MLPX), is designed to track widely held energy infrastructure MLPs, but is an equal-weight index that is also based on a proprietary valuation methodology. The index has 30 MLP constituents that hold midstream energy infrastructure assets. We believe the equal weight component of this index tracks the Alerian AMZI index fairly closely. On a total return basis the Cushing MLPX index outperformed the Alerian AMZI index by approximately 314 bp and 332 bp over the YTD and 1-year basis, but underperformed the Alerian AMZI index by 335 bp over a 5-year period. 2 GATES Capital Corporation

Passive ETF Structure Review In reviewing the broad structural characteristics of passive ETFs, we will focus particular attention on how their structural elements will lead to different tax treatments of their distributions. As both MLP ETFs in our universe are C-corps and use an in-kind creation/redemption process to minimize tax liabilities, the largest factor that will influence the tax efficiency of distributions is portfolio turnover. As a general rule, higher levels of portfolio turnover can generate higher levels of realized portfolio gains, which will reduce the ability of the ETF to pass through return-of-capital losses received from investments to shareholders. While ETFs are passive strategies from a portfolio management perspective, changes in the underlying index will require the ETF to do a cash sale/purchase in order to rebalance the index. As both of the indices used by our two MLP ETFs are market capitalization-weighted, periods of higher than average market volatility can also lead to changes in index composition and higher portfolio turnover. Both indices rebalance quarterly, but can do so more frequently due to mergers, acquisitions and spinoffs. Lastly, changes in index methodology can also have a significant impact on index composition and by extension ETF portfolio turnover. Both the Alerian MLP (AMLP) and Global X MLP (MLPA) ETFs experienced portfolio turnover for fiscal 2014 that was twice that of prior periods. The factors behind this increase in turnover are largely associated with those previously mentioned. However, during March 2015 the Solactive MLP Infrastructure Index implemented a methodology change which excluded natural gas-processing MLPs from the index. This was the only major structural change since index inception approximately 3 years ago, but will undoubtedly increase portfolio turnover in the MLPA for fiscal 2015. By comparison, the AMZI index has not had significant methodology changes since inception, which should promote lower portfolio turnover. Conclusion: While passive ETF structures can give investors a cost-effective exposure to a particular market sector, index turnover can significantly reduce the tax efficiency of their distributions. In comparing these two indices, we would have to say that the index supporting the AMLP ETF has had fewer methodology changes to its index than MLPA. This should promote less portfolio turnover for AMLP. ETN Structure Review An Exchange-Traded Note (ETN) is nothing more than a structured unsecured debt security of the issuing broker-dealer. While the interest payments on the ETN are linked to one of several MLP Indices, interest payments are considered ordinary income. The obligation to pay interest and principal upon maturity is that of the issuing broker-dealer. Both market price and distribution levels are linked to the underlying index, and can vary among the several MLP ETNs in our universe. Moreover, it is important to remember that all MLP ETNs have a final maturity. Typically these maturities average 20 years from issuance date. Conclusion: These structures offer investors a much better tool to track index performance without a management fee drag on NAV. However, distributions are universally lower than ETFs and are 100% taxable. Distributions At the most basic level ETNs distribute all dividends received from their underlying investment to shareholders after deducting management fees, while ETFs distribute all of their dividends received before management fees. This disparity is the principal reason distribution rates from ETFs exceed those from ETNs by approximately 75 bp to 1750 bp depending on fees (See Figure 1). Figure 1 Source: Bloomberg In Figure 1 above we compared distribution yields between one ETF (MLPA) with one ETN (AMJ), which also used similar indices. As can be seen in Figure 1, while this differential did vary over time, it did 3 GATES Capital Corporation

average 97 bp over this period. This differential is largely driven by the different distribution strategies discussed above, which will at most equal the sum of the management fees from the two funds. In our example above, MLPA charges a management fee of 0.45 bp, while AMJ charges 0.85 bp, which will equal 130 bp. In addition, there are some disparities between the distribution policies among MLP ETFs. Specifically, while many largely distribute their gross proceeds to shareholders every quarter, which can result in some quarters producing small periodic reductions in distributions rates, the Alerian AMLP ETF is guided by several principles. The principles they consider include (1) the rate of growth in underlying MLP distributions, (2) the actual yield from these MLPs, (3) the desire to minimize distribution volatility and (4) the income of the fund. Over the past 18 months the Alerian AMLP ETF has been paying out a distribution rate than has been higher than the level of gross distributions it received. This has been a departure from the fund s pre-2013 history, where distribution rates matched distributions received very closely. The fund has attributed this disparity to the rapid growth of the ETF and to index changes that have occurred over the past year and has suggested that its distribution growth rate would be lower going forward until this disparity is eliminated. While we think these are good reasons behind why this disparity currently exists, we place a significant amount of weight behind distribution coverage. Because the tax character of MLP ETN s are 100% taxable, we will only show tables for AMLP and MLPA. As we have discussed and as can be seen in the table below, distribution coverage is much stronger for MLPA than AMLP. While the tax character of AMLP is a bit better than that of MLPA, the issues already discussed about AMLP s weak distribution coverage will also have the effect of boosting the return of capital percentage for distributions. While we do give significant weight to the tax character of distributions, we give a much higher weighting to their coverage ratio. AMLP Distribution History (%) 6-months 11/30/12 11/30/13 11/30/14 5/31/15 Return of Capital 99.68 100.0 64.25 35.0 Ordinary Income 0.32 0.0 35.75 65.0 Distribution Coverage (a) 93.0 90.9 86.4 80.3 Source: Alerian a. net investment income plus return of capital distributions/distributions paid. MLPA Distribution History (%) 6-months 11/30/12 (b) 11/30/13 11/30/14 5/31/15 Return of Capital 96.9 71.4 35.5 86.0 Ordinary Income 3.1 28.6 64.5 14.0 Distribution Coverage (a) 86.0 103.4 97.2 88.1 Source: Global X a. net investment income plus return of capital distributions/distributions paid. b. from the funds commencement of operations 4/18/12. While the distribution of the gross amount of dividends from MLP ETFs potentially builds in a NAV drag over time, we have a favorable view of the asset class and consider even a planned NAV distribution of up to 1% to be manageable. While we acknowledge AMLPs distributions are more tax efficient than MLPA, MLPA has a superior history of distribution coverage. 4 GATES Capital Corporation

Figure 2 Income Statement ($000) AMLP - Financial Highlights (000) semi-annual 11/30/11 11/30/12 11/30/13 11/30/14 5/31/15 Net Investment Income (a) -5,442-17,666-33,135-46,718-24,418 Return of Capital Adj 71,324 212,988 382,134 508,572 278,677 Net Realized Gains/Losses 14,982 17,955-13,345 267,383-30,803 Net Unrealized Gains/Losses 59,750 216,274 841,731 473,848-437,947 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Net Income (b) 140,614 429,551 1,177,385 1,203,085-214,491 Distribution Coverage Net Investment Income + ROC Adj. 65,882 195,322 348,999 461,854 254,259 Net Call Option Premiums 0 0 0 0 0 Cash Distributions (f) 73,019 209,978 383,931 534,310 316,775 Distribution Coverage 90.2% 93.0% 90.9% 86.4% 80.3% Net Assets ($000) Balance Beginning of Year 611,466 1,713,387 4,466,815 7,384,684 9,349,001 Net Investment Income 140,614 429,551 1,177,385 1,203,085-214,491 Return of Capital Adj. -71,324-212,988-382,134-508,572-278,677 Distributions -73,019-209,978-383,931-534,310-316,775 Share Distributions 0-0 0 0 Share Transactions (c) 1,105,649 2,746,843 2,506,550 1,804,113 590,997 Balance End of Year 1,713,386 4,466,815 7,384,685 9,349,000 9,130,055 Deferred Taxes (000) Net Opperating loss Carryforwards 28,590,449 165,703,528 174,838 391,388 Capital Loss Carryforwars 0 2681936 103,261 139,269 Other 2,494,257 12,680,831 14805804 713 622 Net Unrealized Gains -50,683,811-205,563,236-794,414,660-1,268,231-1,244,536 Other 0-18531129 -38365159-49,954-37,001 Balance End of Year -48,189,554-182,823,085-649,588,551-1,039,373-750,258 Key Leverage Data Bank Debt Facility (mm) 0 0 0 0 0 Senior Notes (mm) 0 0 0 0 0 Preferred Stock (mm) 0 0 0 0 - Leverage Ratio (d) (%) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Common Shares Oust (mm) 107.3 273.7 417.5 516.51 550.86 Per Share Fees & Expenses e Management Fees 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Other Expenses 0 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 Subtotal 0.85 0.87 0.86 0.86 0.85 Leverage Expenses 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Total 0.85 0.87 0.86 0.86 0.85 Portfolio Turnover 10% 12% 12% 29% 13% a: Investment income adds back return of capital adjustments. b: Reported as net increases/decreases in net assets from operations, net investment income plus realized and unrealized gains/losses from operations less preferred stock dividends. c: Reinvestments and/or tenders. d: Leverage Ratio = total debt& preferred stock/ (net assets + total debt & preferred stock). e: Fees and expenses are expressed as a percentage of average net assets, semi-annual results are annualized. f: Excluding shares issued for dividend re-investment. g: leverage adjustments for deferred tax liabilities adds back 100% of current deferred tax liabilities. Source: Alps Exchange Traded Funds 5 GATES Capital Corporation

Figure 3 Income Statement ($000) MLPA - Financial Highlights (000) semi-annual 11/30/12 11/30/13 11/30/14 5/31/15 Net Investment Income (a) -15-151 -301-213 Return of Capital Adj 432 3375 6,110 4,672 Net Realized Gains/Losses 14-50 1,792-5,712 Net Unrealized Gains/Losses 279 6435 4,736-53 Other 0 0 0 0 Net Income (b) 710 9,609 12,337-1,306 Distribution Coverage Net Investment Income + ROC Adj. 417 3,224 5,809 4,459 Net Call Option Premiums 0 0 0 0 Cash Distributions (f) 485 3,118 5,978 5,062 Distribution Coverage 86.0% 103.4% 97.2% 88.1% Net Assets ($000) Balance Beginning of Year 0 16330 66,852 142,278 Net Investment Income 710 9,609 12,337-1,306 Return of Capital Adj. -432-3,375-6,110-4,672 Distributions -485-3,118-5,978-5,062 Share Distributions 0 0 0 Share Transactions (c) 16,537 47,407 75,177 31,274 Balance End of Year 16,330 66,853 142,278 162,512 Deferred Taxes (000) Net Operating loss Carryforwards 0 0 0 228 Capital Loss Carryforwards 0 0 6 0 Other 8 3 0 0 Net Unrealized Gains -163-3492 -6,072-2,972 Income from MLP Investments -149 Other 0 0-361 -10 Balance End of Year -155-3,489-6,427-2,903 Key Leverage Data Bank Debt Facility (mm) 0 0 0 0 Senior Notes (mm) 0 0 0 0 Preferred Stock (mm) 0 0 0 - Leverage Ratio (d) (%) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Common Shares Oust (mm) 1.1 4.15 4.50 2.0 Per Share Fees & Expenses e Management Fees 0.45 0.45 0.44 0.46 Other Expenses 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 Subtotal 0.45 0.47 0.47 0.46 Leverage Expenses 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.45 0.47 0.47 0.46 Portfolio Turnover 6% 14% 31% 33% a: Investment income adds back return of capital adjustments. b: Reported as net increases/decreases in net assets from operations, net investment income plus realized and unrealized gains/losses from operations less preferred stock dividends. c: Reinvestments and/or tenders. d: Leverage Ratio = total debt& preferred stock/ (net assets + total debt & preferred stock). e: Fees and expenses are expressed as a percentage of average net assets, semi-annual results are annualized. f: Excluding shares issued for dividend re-investment. g: leverage adjustments for deferred tax liabilities adds back 100% of current deferred tax liabilities. The funds inceptino date was 4/18/12. Source: Global X Management Co. 6 GATES Capital Corporation

Disclosure Appendix A1 Analyst Certification: I, N. Charles Earle, hereby certify that all of the views expressed in this report accurately reflect my personal opinions about any and all of the subject securities or issuers, and that no part of my compensation was, is, or will be directly or indirectly related to the specific recommendations or views expressed by me in this research report. Conflicts of Interest This research contains the views, opinions and recommendations of GATES Capital Corporation research analysts. GATES Capital has adopted research conflict-of-interest policies, including prohibitions on non-research personnel influencing the content of research. Research analysts still may speak to GATES Capital trading desk personnel in formulating views, opinions and recommendations. The trading desk may trade or may have traded as principal on the basis of the research analyst s views and research. Therefore, this research may not be independent from any proprietary interest of the GATES Capital trading desk which may conflict with your interests. As a general matter, GATES Capital and/or its affiliates trade as principal in connection with making markets in fixed income securities discussed in research reports. Analyst Ownership As of November 5, 2015, N. Charles Earle and household owns 415 shares of CEM, 1020.432 shares of NRK, 1,088 shares of BTO, 5,967.203 shares of BDJ, 364.3576 shares of CII, 54 shares of HYT, 1085.656 shares of CBA and 2,950.0 shares of NDP. Important Disclosures Analyst s Compensation: The research analyst responsible for the preparation of this report receives compensation based upon various factors, including the quality and accuracy of research, client feedback, competitive factors and overall firm revenues. Risk Associated With Exchange-Traded & Closed-End Funds All investments are subject to risk and the potential for principal loss, with the following risks more specific to Exchange-Traded & Closed-End Funds: Investments in equity securities can expose investors to a greater risk of loss of principal vs. investment-grade debt. The use of leverage, options and derivatives may also increase the volatility of NAV and the market price of common shares, which may increase the risk of loss of principal. Exposure to foreign-based equity securities may also expose investors to currency risks, where positions are not fully hedged. Exposure to smaller capitalized issuers may also increase volatility in NAV and the market prices of common shares. At times, liquidity in certain ETFs & CEFs may be limited, which can produce both upward and downward volatility in market prices. Closed-End Fund Rating System Gates Capital Corporation rates Closed-End Funds (CEF) Buy, Hold and Sell. Investors should carefully read Gates Capital Corporations research in its entirety and not infer the contents from the ratings alone. In any case, ratings (or research) should not be used or relied upon as investment advice. An investor s decision to buy or sell a security or fund should depend on individual circumstances, such as the investor s existing holdings, tax status or risk tolerance, and other individual circumstances. Closed-End Fund Rating Definitions BUY (B): The CEF s total return is expected to exceed the average total return of the analyst s coverage universe, over the next twelve to eighteen months. HOLD (H): The CEF s total return is expected to be in line with the average total return of the analyst s coverage universe over the next twelve to eighteen month s SELL ( S): The CEF s total return is expected to be below the average total return of the analyst s coverage universe over the next twelve to eighteen months. Closed-End Fund Ratings Distribution As of November 5, 2015, the distribution of CEF ratings can be seen in the following table. Closed-End Fund Rating Category Count % of Total Buy 26 46% Hold 20 36% Sell 10 18% 4 Gates Capital Corporation

Price Chart and Rating History Gates Capital Corporation initiated its first equity research report on Closed-End Funds on May 19, 2014. For a current list of our price chart and rating history for closed-end funds please click on the following link. http://gatescapital.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/basedisclosure- Pricechartsratinghistoryv10152015.pdf However, feel free to contact Gates Capital Corporation at 1-800-752-1018 for additional information. Exchange-Traded Fund Rating System Gates Capital Corporation rates Exchange-Traded Funds (ETF) Constructive, Neutral and Unconstructive. Investors should carefully read Gates Capital Corporations research in its entirety and not infer the contents from the ratings alone. In any case, ratings (or research) should not be used or relied upon as investment advice. An investor s decision to buy or sell a security or fund should depend on individual circumstances, such as the investor s existing holdings, tax status or risk tolerance, and other individual circumstances. Exchange-Traded Fund Rating Definitions Constructive (C): The ETF s management, performance, structure and sponsor are judged to be substantially stronger than its peers in the same market sector. Neutral (N): The ETF s management, performance, structure and sponsor are judged to be no stronger or weaker than its peers in the same market sector. Unconstructive ( UC): The ETF s management, performance, structure and sponsor are judged to be substantially weaker than its peers in the same market sector. Exchange-Traded Fund Ratings Distribution As of November 5, 2015, the distribution of ETF ratings can be seen in the following table. Additionally and as of 11/5/2015, Gates Capital provided no investment banking services to any of the subject issuers for which this rating distribution applies Exchange-Taded Fund Rating Category Count % of Total Constructive 13 62% Neutral 4 19% Unconstructive 4 19% Exchange-Traded Funds - Price Chart and Rating History Gates Capital Corporation initiated its first equity research report on Exchange-Traded Funds on January 23, 2015. As such, there will be no rating history as of November 5, 2015. However, feel free to contact Gates Capital Corporation at 1-800-752-1018 for additional price chart and rating history information. Other Disclosures GATES Capital Corporation (the Firm) is a registered broker dealer. The Firm may make a market in the securities referenced herein and/or may actively trade these securities for its customers and for its own account. Accordingly, the Firm may have a long or short position in any such security at any time. The securities noted herein may not have been registered under the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) and may not be offered or sold except in a transaction pursuant to SEC Rule 144A or otherwise exempt from or not subject to the registration requirements of the Securities Act. Any information contained herein, that is associated with securities offered or sold under SEC Rule 144A, is not intended for distribution in the United States or to any US person other than a Qualified Institutional Buyer, as defined in Rule 144A. Any price indications contained herein are not firm bids or offers either as to price or size, and are provided solely for your information. Such indications (if any) are not intended as a solicitation with respect to the purchase or sale of any security and are subject to change at any time without notice. Nothing herein shall form the basis of or be relied on in connection with any contract or commitment whatsoever. Neither the Firm nor any other person accepts any liability whatsoever for any loss (however arising and whether direct or consequential) from any use of the information contained herein or otherwise arising in connection herein. Although the information contained herein has been obtained from sources that the Firm believes to be reliable, the Firm does not guarantee its accuracy, and such information may be incomplete or condensed. Although this material is not a research report, to the extent it contains a recommendation, this report does not take into account the investment objectives or financial situation of any particular person. Investors should obtain advice based on their own individual circumstances before making an investment decision on the basis of a recommendation contained in this report. This communication is made by the Firm and any investment service or products herein are offered solely to market counterparties, and intermediate customers. No other person may rely on the contents of this communication. This material is furnished on the understanding that the Firm is not undertaking to manage money or act as a fiduciary with respect to your account(s) or any of your managed fiduciary account(s) and that our services do not serve as a primary basis for any investment decision made with respect to such accounts. This material provided informative and/or alternatives we believe to be appropriate for consideration. The decision whether or not to adopt any strategy or engage in any transaction is your responsibility. @ GATES Capital Corporation, 2015. All rights reserved. The Bond Desk is a trademark of GATES Capital Corporation. 8 GATES Capital Corporation Additional Global X disclosure: This report is an independent third-party research report prepared by Gates Capital Corporation