differences. Tax fees for fiscal year end February 28, 2019 includes fees billed for reviewing tax returns and/or services related to tax compliance.

Fees Billed by PwC Related to Invesco and Invesco Affiliates

PwC billed Invesco Advisers, Inc. ("Invesco"), the Registrant's adviser, and any entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with Invesco that provides ongoing services to the Registrant ("Invesco Affiliates") aggregate fees for pre-approved non-audit services rendered to Invesco and Invesco Affiliates for the last two fiscal years as shown in the following table. The Audit Committee pre-approved all non-audit services provided to Invesco and Invesco Affiliates that were required to be pre-approved.

	Fees Billed for Non-Audit Services				Fees Billed for Non-Audit Services
	Rendered to Invesco and Invesco				Rendered to Invesco and Invesco
	Affiliates for fiscal year end 2020				Affiliates for fiscal year end 2019 That
	That Were Required				Were Required
	to be Pre-Approved				to be Pre-Approved
	by the Registrant's				by the Registrant's
	Audit Committee				Audit Committee
Audit-Related Fees(1)	$		690,000		$		690,000
Tax Fees	$		0		$		0
All Other Fees		$	0			$	0
Total Fees	$		690,000		$		690,000

(1)Audit-Related Fees for the fiscal years ended 2020 and 2019 include fees billed related to reviewing controls at a service organization.

(e)(1)

PRE-APPROVAL OF AUDIT AND NON-AUDIT SERVICES

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES As adopted by the Audit Committees of the Invesco Funds (the "Funds")

Last Amended March 29, 2017

I.Statement of Principles

The Audit Committees (the "Audit Committee") of the Boards of Trustees of the Funds (the "Board") have adopted these policies and procedures (the "Procedures") with respect to the pre- approval of audit and non-audit services to be provided by the Funds' independent auditor (the "Auditor") to the Funds, and to the Funds' investment adviser(s) and any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the investment adviser(s) that provides ongoing services to the Funds (collectively, "Service Affiliates").

Under Section 202 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, all audit and non-audit services provided to the Funds by the Auditor must be preapproved by the Audit Committee. Rule 2-01 of Regulation S- X requires that the Audit Committee also pre-approve a Service Affiliate's engagement of the Auditor for non-audit services if the engagement relates directly to the operations and financial reporting of the Funds (a "Service Affiliate's Covered Engagement").

These Procedures set forth the procedures and the conditions pursuant to which the Audit Committee may pre-approve audit and non-audit services for the Funds and a Service Affiliate's Covered Engagement pursuant to rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and other organizations and regulatory bodies applicable to the Funds ("Applicable

a.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 Fund's financial statements or that are traditionally performed by an independent auditor. 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; services related to mergers, acquisitions or dispositions; compliance with ratings agency requirements and interfund lending activities; and assistance with internal control reporting requirements.

b.Tax Services

"Tax services" include, but are not limited to, the review and signing of the Funds' federal tax returns, the review of required distributions by the Funds and consultations regarding tax matters such as the tax treatment of new investments or the impact of new regulations. The Audit Committee will not approve proposed services of the Auditor which the Audit Committee believes are to be provided in connection with a service or transaction initially recommended by the Auditor, the sole business purpose of which may be tax avoidance and the tax treatment of which may not be supported in the Internal Revenue Code and related regulations. The Audit Committee will consult with the Funds' Treasurer (or his or her designee) and may consult with outside counsel or advisers as necessary to ensure the consistency of tax services rendered by the Auditor with the foregoing policy. The Auditor shall not represent any Fund or any Service Affiliate before a tax court, district court or federal court of claims.

Each request to provide tax services under either the general or specific pre-approval of the Audit Committee will include a description from the Auditor in writing of (i) the scope of the service, the fee structure for the engagement, and any side letter or other amendment to the engagement letter, or any other agreement (whether oral, written, or otherwise) between the Auditor and the Funds, relating to the service; and (ii) any compensation arrangement or other agreement, such as a referral agreement, a referral fee or fee-sharing arrangement, between the Auditor (or an affiliate of the Auditor) and any person (other than the Funds or Service Affiliates receiving the services) with respect to the promoting, marketing, or recommending of a transaction covered by the service. The Auditor will also discuss with the Audit Committee the potential effects of the services on the independence of the Auditor, and document the substance of its discussion with the Audit Committee.

c.Other Services

The Audit Committee may pre-approve other non-audit services so long as the Audit Committee believes that the service will not impair the independence of the Auditor. Appendix I includes a list of services that the Auditor is prohibited from performing by the SEC rules. Appendix I also includes a list of services that would impair the Auditor's independence unless the Audit Committee reasonably concludes that the results of the services will not be subject to audit procedures during an audit of the Funds' financial statements.

V.Pre-Approval of Service Affiliate's Covered Engagements

Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X requires that the Audit Committee pre-approve a Service Affiliate's engagement of the Auditor for non-audit services if the engagement relates directly to the operations and financial reporting of the Funds, defined above as a "Service Affiliate's Covered Engagement".

The Audit Committee may provide either general or specific pre-approval of any Service Affiliate's Covered Engagement, including for audit-related, tax or other services, as described above, if the Audit Committee believes that the provision of the services to a Service Affiliate will not impair the independence of the Auditor with respect to the Funds. Any Service Affiliate's Covered Engagements that are not within the scope of General Pre-Approved Non-Audit Services have not received general pre-approval and require specific pre-approval.

Each request for specific pre-approval by the Audit Committee of a Service Affiliate's Covered Engagement must be submitted to the Audit Committee by the Funds' Treasurer (or his or her designee) and must include detailed information about the services to be provided, the fees or fee ranges to be charged, a description of the current status of the pre-approval process involving other audit committees in the Invesco investment company complex (as defined in Rule 2-201 of Regulation S-X) with respect to the proposed engagement, and other relevant information sufficient to allow the Audit Committee to consider whether the provision of such services will impair the independence of the Auditor from the Funds. Additionally, the Funds' Treasurer (or his or her designee) and the Auditor will provide the Audit Committee with a statement that the proposed engagement requires pre-approval by the Audit Committee, the proposed engagement, in their view, will not impair the independence of the Auditor and is consistent with Applicable Rules, and the description of the proposed engagement provided to the Audit Committee is consistent with that presented to or approved by the Invesco audit committee.

Information about all Service Affiliate engagements of the Auditor for non-audit services, whether or not subject to pre-approval by the Audit Committee, shall be provided to the Audit Committee at least quarterly, to allow the Audit Committee to consider whether the provision of such services is compatible with maintaining the Auditor's independence from the Funds. The Funds' Treasurer and Auditor shall provide the Audit Committee with sufficiently detailed information about the scope of services provided and the fees for such services, to ensure that the Audit Committee can adequately consider whether the provision of such services is compatible with maintaining the Auditor's independence from the Funds.

VI. Pre-Approved Fee Levels or Established Amounts

Pre-approved fee levels or ranges for audit and non-audit services to be provided by the Auditor to the Funds, and for a Service Affiliate's Covered Engagement, under general pre-approval or specific pre-approval will be set periodically by the Audit Committee. Any proposed fees exceeding 110% of the maximum pre-approved fee levels or ranges for such services or engagements will be promptly presented to the Audit Committee and will require specific pre-approval by the Audit Committee before payment of any additional fees is made.

VII. Delegation

The Audit Committee hereby delegates, subject to the dollar limitations set forth below, specific authority to its Chair, or in his or her absence, Vice Chair, to pre-approve audit and non-audit services proposed to be provided by the Auditor to the Funds and/or a Service Affiliate's Covered Engagement, between Audit Committee meetings. Such delegation does not preclude the Chair or Vice Chair from declining, on a case by case basis, to exercise his or her delegated authority and

instead convening the Audit Committee to consider and pre-approve any proposed services or engagements.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Audit Committee must pre-approve: (a) any non-audit services to be provided to the Funds for which the fees are estimated to exceed $500,000; (b) any Service Affiliate's Covered Engagement for which the fees are estimated to exceed $500,000; or (c) any cost increase to any previously approved service or engagement that exceeds the greater of $250,000 or 50% of the previously approved fees up to a maximum increase of $500,000.

VIII. Compliance with Procedures

Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, failure to pre-approve any services or engagements that are not required to be pre-approved pursuant to the de minimis exception provided for in Rule 2- 01(c)(7)(i)(C) of Regulation S-X shall not constitute a violation of these Procedures. The Audit Committee has designated the Funds' Treasurer to ensure services and engagements are pre- approved in compliance with these Procedures. The Funds' Treasurer will immediately report to the Chair of the Audit Committee, or the Vice Chair in his or her absence, any breach of these Procedures that comes to the attention of the Funds' Treasurer or any services or engagements that are not required to be pre-approved pursuant to the de minimis exception provided for in Rule 2- 01(c)(7)(i)(C) of Regulation S-X.

On at least an annual basis, the Auditor will provide the Audit Committee with a summary of all non-audit services provided to any entity in the investment company complex (as defined in section 2-01(f)(14) of Regulation S-X, including the Funds and Service Affiliates) that were not pre- approved, including the nature of services provided and the associated fees.

IX. Amendments to Procedures

All material amendments to these Procedures must be approved in advance by the Audit Committee. Non-material amendments to these Procedures may be made by the Legal and Compliance Departments and will be reported to the Audit Committee at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Audit Committee.

Appendix I

Non-Audit Services That May Impair the Auditor's Independence

The Auditor is not independent if, at any point during the audit and professional engagement, the Auditor provides the following non-audit services:

∙Management functions;

∙Human resources;

∙Broker-dealer, investment adviser, or investment banking services ;

∙Legal services;

∙Expert services unrelated to the audit;

∙Any service or product provided for a contingent fee or a commission;

∙Services related to marketing, planning, or opining in favor of the tax treatment of confidential transactions or aggressive tax position transactions, a significant purpose of which is tax avoidance;

∙Tax services for persons in financial reporting oversight roles at the Fund; and

∙Any other service that the Public Company Oversight Board determines by regulation is impermissible.

An Auditor is not independent if, at any point during the audit and professional engagement, the Auditor provides the following non-audit services unless it is reasonable to conclude that the results of the services will not be subject to audit procedures during an audit of the Funds' financial statements:

∙Bookkeeping or other services related to the accounting records or financial statements of the audit client;

∙Financial information systems design and implementation;

∙Appraisal or valuation services, fairness opinions, or contribution-in-kind reports;

∙Actuarial services; and

∙Internal audit outsourcing services.

(e)(2) There were no amounts that were pre-approved by the Audit Committee pursuant to the de minimus exception under Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X.

(f)Not applicable.

(g)In addition to the amounts shown in the tables above, PwC billed Invesco and Invesco Affiliates aggregate fees of $4,089,000 for the fiscal year ended February 29, 2020 and $3,550,000 for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2019. for non-audit services not required to be pre-approved by the Registrant's Audit Committee. In total, PwC billed the Registrant, Invesco and Invesco Affiliates aggregate non-audit fees of $4,808,552 for the fiscal year ended February 29, 2020 and $4,245,075 for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2019.

PwC provided audit services to the Investment Company complex of approximately $33 million.

(h)The Audit Committee also has considered whether the provision of non-audit services that were rendered to Invesco and Invesco Affiliates that were not required to be pre-approved pursuant to SEC regulations, if any, is compatible with maintaining PwC's independence.

ITEM 5. AUDIT COMMITTEE OF LISTED REGISTRANTS.

Not applicable.

ITEM 6. SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS.

Investments in securities of unaffiliated issuers is included as part of the reports to stockholders filed under Item 1 of this Form.

ITEM 7. DISCLOSURE OF PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES.

Invesco's Policy Statement on Global Corporate Governance and Proxy Voting

February, 2020

I.Guiding Principles and Philosophy

Public companies hold shareholder meetings, attended by the company's executives, directors, and shareholders, during which important issues, such as appointments to the company's board of directors, executive compensation, and auditors, are addressed and where applicable, voted on. Proxy voting gives shareholders the opportunity to vote on issues that impact the company's operations and policies without being present at the meetings.

Invesco views proxy voting as an integral part of its investment management responsibilities and believes that the right to vote proxies should be managed with the same high standards of care and fiduciary duty to its clients as all other elements of the investment process. Invesco's proxy voting philosophy, governance structure and process are designed to ensure that proxy votes are cast in accordance with clients' best interests, which Invesco interprets to mean clients' best economic interests, this Policy and the operating guidelines and procedures of Invesco's regional investment centers.

Invesco investment teams vote proxies on behalf of Invesco-sponsored funds and both fund and non- fund advisory clients that have explicitly granted Invesco authority in writing to vote proxies on their behalf.

The proxy voting process at Invesco, which is driven by investment professionals, focuses on maximizing long-term value for our clients, protecting clients' rights and promoting governance structures and practices that reinforce the accountability of corporate management and boards of directors to shareholders. Invesco takes a nuanced approach to voting and, therefore, many matters to be voted upon are reviewed on a case by case basis.

Votes in favor of board or management proposals should not be interpreted as an indication of insufficient consideration by Invesco fund managers. Such votes may reflect the outcome of past or ongoing engagement and active ownership by Invesco with representatives of the companies in which we invest.

II.Applicability of this Policy

This Policy sets forth the framework of Invesco's corporate governance approach, broad philosophy and guiding principles that inform the proxy voting practices of Invesco's investment teams around the world. Given the different nature of these teams and their respective investment processes, as well as the significant differences in regulatory regimes and market practices across jurisdictions, not all aspects of this Policy may apply to all Invesco investment teams at all times. In the case of a conflict between this Policy and the operating guidelines and procedures of a regional investment center the latter will control.

III.Proxy Voting for Certain Fixed Income, Money Market and Index Strategies

For proxies held by certain client accounts managed in accordance with fixed income, money market and index strategies (including exchange traded funds), Invesco will typically vote in line with the majority holder of the active-equity shares held by Invesco outside of those strategies ("Majority Voting"). In this manner Invesco seeks to leverage the active-equity expertise and comprehensive proxy voting reviews conducted by teams employing active-equity strategies, which typically incorporate analysis of proxy issues as a core component of the investment process. Portfolio managers for accounts employing Majority Voting still retain full discretion to override Majority Voting and to vote the shares as they determine to be in the best interest of those accounts, absent certain types of conflicts of interest, which are discussed elsewhere in this Policy. When there are no corresponding active-equity shares held by Invesco, the proxies for those strategies will be voted in the following manner: (i) for U.S. issuers, in line with Invesco custom voting guidelines derived from the guidelines set forth below; and (ii) for non-U.S. issuers, in line with the recommendations of a third-party proxy advisory service.

IV. Conflicts of Interest

There may be occasions where voting proxies may present a real or perceived conflict of interest between Invesco, as investment manager, and one or more of Invesco's clients or vendors. Under Invesco's Code of Conduct, Invesco entities and individuals are strictly prohibited from putting personal benefit, whether tangible or intangible, before the interests of clients. "Personal benefit" includes any intended benefit for Invesco, oneself or any other individual, company, group or organization of any kind whatsoever, except a benefit for the relevant Invesco client.

Firm-level Conflicts of Interest

A conflict of interest may exist if Invesco has a material business relationship with, or is actively soliciting business from, either the company soliciting a proxy or a third party that has a material interest in the outcome of a proxy vote or that is actively lobbying for a particular outcome of a proxy vote (e.g., issuers that are distributors of Invesco's products, or issuers that employ Invesco to manage portions of their retirement plans or treasury accounts). Invesco's proxy governance team maintains a list of all such issuers for which a conflict of interest exists.

If the proposal that gives rise to the potential conflict is specifically addressed by this Policy or the operating guidelines and procedures of the relevant regional investment center, Invesco generally will vote the proxy in accordance therewith. Otherwise, based on a majority vote of its members, the Global IPAC (as described below) will vote the proxy.

Because this Policy and the operating guidelines and procedures of each regional investment center are pre-determined and crafted to be in the best interest of clients, applying them to vote client proxies should, in most instances, resolve any potential conflict of interest. As an additional safeguard, persons from Invesco's marketing, distribution and other customer-facing functions may not serve on the Global IPAC. For the avoidance of doubt, Invesco may not consider Invesco Ltd.'s pecuniary interest when voting proxies on behalf of clients.

Personal Conflicts of Interest

A conflict also may exist where an Invesco employee has a known personal relationship with other proponents of proxy proposals, participants in proxy contests, corporate directors, or candidates for directorships.

functions, such as share blocking and managing conflicts of interest issuers. Managing these processes internally, as opposed to relying on third parties, gives Invesco greater quality control, oversight and independence in the proxy administration process.

The platform also includes advanced global reporting and record-keeping capabilities regarding proxy matters that enable Invesco to satisfy client, regulatory and management requirements. Historical proxy voting information, including commentary by investment professionals regarding the votes they cast, where applicable, is stored to build institutional knowledge across the Invesco complex with respect to individual companies and proxy issues. Certain investment teams also use the platform to access third-party proxy research.

VII. Non-Votes

In the great majority of instances, Invesco will vote proxies. However, in certain circumstances, Invesco may refrain from voting where the economic or other opportunity costs of voting exceeds any benefit to clients. Such circumstances could include, for example:

∙If the security in question is on loan as part of a securities lending program, Invesco may determine that the benefit to the client of voting a particular proxy is outweighed by the revenue that would be lost by terminating the loan and recalling the securities;

∙In some countries the exercise of voting rights imposes temporary transfer restrictions on the related securities ("share blocking"). Invesco generally refrains from voting proxies in share-blocking countries unless Invesco determines that the benefit to the client(s) of voting a specific proxy outweighs the client's temporary inability to sell the security; or

∙Some companies require a representative to attend meetings in person to vote a proxy. Invesco may determine that the costs of sending a representative or signing a power-of- attorney outweigh the benefit of voting a particular proxy.

In addition, there may be instances in which Invesco is unable to vote all of its clients' proxies despite using commercially reasonable efforts to do so. For example, Invesco may not receive proxy materials from the relevant fund or client custodian with sufficient time and information to make an informed independent voting decision. In other cases, voting may not be practicable due to operational limitations. In such cases, Invesco may choose not to vote, to abstain from voting, to vote in line with management or to vote in accordance with proxy advisor recommendations. These matters are left to the discretion of the relevant portfolio manager.

VIII. Proxy Voting Guidelines

The following guidelines describe Invesco's general positions on various proxy voting issues. The guidelines are not intended to be exhaustive or prescriptive. As noted above, Invesco's proxy process is investor-driven, and each portfolio manager retains ultimate discretion to vote proxies in the manner he or she deems most appropriate, consistent with Invesco's proxy voting principles and philosophy discussed in Sections I. through IV. Individual proxy votes therefore will differ from these guidelines from time to time.

Invesco generally affords management discretion with respect to the operation of a company's business and will generally support a board's discretion on proposals relating to ordinary business practices and routine matters, unless there is insufficient information to decide about the nature of the proposal.

Invesco generally abstains from voting on or opposes proposals that are "bundled" or made contingent on each other (e.g., proposals to elect directors and approve compensation plans) where there is insufficient information to decide about the nature of the proposals.

A. Shareholder Access and Treatment of Shareholder Proposals – General

Invesco reviews on a case by case basis but generally votes in favor of proposals that would increase shareholders' opportunities to express their views to boards of directors, proposals that would lower barriers to shareholder action, and proposals to promote the adoption of generally accepted best practices in corporate governance, provided that such proposals would not require a disproportionate amount of management attention or corporate resources or otherwise that may inappropriately disrupt the company's business and main purpose, usually set out in their reporting disclosures and business model. Likewise, Invesco reviews on a case by case basis but generally votes for shareholder proposals that are designed to protect shareholder rights if a company's corporate governance standards indicate that such additional protections are warranted (for example, where minority shareholders' rights are not adequately protected).

B. Environmental, Social and Corporate Responsibility Issues

Invesco believes that a company's long-term response to environmental, social and corporate responsibility issues can significantly affect long-term shareholder value. We recognize that to manage a corporation effectively, directors and management may consider not only the interests of shareholders, but also the interests of employees, customers, suppliers, creditors and the local community, among others. While Invesco generally affords management discretion with respect to the operation of a company's business, Invesco generally will evaluate proposals relating to environmental, social and corporate responsibility issues on a case by case basis and will vote on those proposals in a manner intended to maximize long-term shareholder value. Invesco may choose, however, to abstain on voting on proposals relating to environmental, social and corporate responsibility issues.

Invesco reviews on a case by case basis but generally supports the following proposals relating to these issues:

∙Gender pay gap proposals

∙Political contributions disclosure/political lobbying disclosure/political activities and action

∙Data security, privacy, and internet issues

∙Report on climate change/climate change action

∙Gender diversity on boards

C. Capitalization Structure Issues

i.Stock Issuances

Invesco generally supports a board's proposal to issue additional capital stock to meet ongoing corporate needs, except where the request could adversely affect Invesco clients' ownership stakes or voting rights. Some capitalization proposals, such as those to authorize common or preferred stock with special voting rights or to issue additional stock in connection with an acquisition, may

require additional analysis. Invesco generally opposes proposals to issue additional stock without preemptive rights, as those issuances do not permit shareholders to share proportionately in any new issues of stock of the same class. Invesco generally opposes proposals to authorize classes of preferred stock with unspecified voting, conversion, dividend or other rights ("blank check" stock) when they appear to be intended as an anti-takeover mechanism; such issuances may be supported when used for general financing purposes.

ii.Stock Splits

Invesco generally supports a board's proposal to increase common share authorization for a stock split, provided that the increase in authorized shares would not result in excessive dilution given the company's industry and performance in terms of shareholder returns.

iii.Share Repurchases

Invesco generally supports a board's proposal to institute open-market share repurchase plans only if all shareholders participate on an equal basis.

D.Corporate Governance Issues

i.General

Invesco reviews on a case by case basis but generally supports the following proposals related to governance matters:

∙Adopt proxy access right

∙Require independent board chairperson

∙Provide right to shareholders to call special meetings

∙Provide right to act by written consent

∙Submit shareholder rights plan (poison pill) to shareholder vote

∙Reduce supermajority vote requirement

∙Remove antitakeover provisions

∙Declassify the board of directors

∙Require a majority vote for election of directors

∙Require majority of independent directors on the board

∙Approve executive appointment

∙Adopt exclusive forum provision

Invesco generally supports a board's discretion to amend a company's articles concerning routine matters, such as formalities relating to shareholder meetings. Invesco generally opposes non-routine

amendments to a company's articles if any of the proposed amendments would limit shareholders' rights or there is insufficient information to decide about the nature of the proposal.

ii.Board of Directors

1.Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections

Subject to the other considerations described below, in an uncontested director election for a company without a controlling shareholder, Invesco generally votes in favor of the director slate if it is comprised of at least a majority of independent directors and if the board's key committees are

fully independent, effective and balanced. Key committees include the audit, compensation/remuneration and governance/nominating committees. Invesco's standard of independence excludes directors who, in addition to the directorship, have any material business or family relationships with the companies they serve.

2.Director Nominees in Contested Elections

Invesco recognizes that short-term investment sentiments influence the corporate governance landscape and may influence companies in Invesco clients' portfolios and more broadly across the market. Invesco recognizes that short-term investment sentiment may conflict with long-term value creation and as such looks at each proxy contest matter on a case by case basis, considering factors such as:

∙Long-term financial performance of the company relative to its industry

∙Management's track record

∙Background to the proxy contest

∙Qualifications of director nominees (both slates)

∙Evaluation of what each side is offering shareholders as well as the likelihood that the proposed objectives and goals can be met

∙Stock ownership positions in the company

3.Director Accountability

Invesco generally withholds votes from directors who exhibit a lack of accountability to shareholders. Examples include, without limitation, poor attendance (less than 75%, absent extenuating circumstances) at meetings, director "overboarding" (as described below), failing to implement shareholder proposals that have received a majority of votes and/or by adopting or approving egregious corporate-governance or other policies. In cases of material financial restatements, accounting fraud, habitually late filings, adopting shareholder rights plan ("poison pills") without shareholder approval, or other areas of poor performance, Invesco may withhold votes from some or all of a company's directors. Invesco generally supports shareholder proposals relating to the competence of directors that are in the best interest of the company's performance and the interest of its shareholders. In situations where directors' performance is a concern, Invesco may also support shareholder proposals to take corrective actions such as so-called "clawback" provisions.

Invesco generally withholds votes from directors who serve on an excessive number of boards of directors ("overboarding"). Examples of overboarding may include when (i) a non-executive director is sitting on more than six public company boards, and (ii) a CEO is sitting on the board of more than two public companies besides the CEO's own company, excluding the boards of majority-owned subsidiaries of the parent company.

4.Director Independence

Invesco generally supports proposals to require a majority of directors to be independent unless particular circumstances make this not feasible or in the best interests of shareholders. We generally vote for proposals that would require the board's audit, compensation/remuneration, and/or governance/nominating committees to be composed exclusively of independent directors because this minimizes the potential for conflicts of interest.

5.Director Indemnification

Invesco recognizes that individuals may be reluctant to serve as corporate directors if they are personally liable for all related lawsuits and legal costs. As a result, reasonable limitations on directors' liability can benefit a company and its shareholders by helping to attract and retain qualified directors while preserving recourse for shareholders in the event of misconduct by directors. Accordingly, unless there is insufficient information to make a decision about the nature of the proposal, Invesco will generally support a board's discretion regarding proposals to limit directors' liability and provide indemnification and/or exculpation, provided that the arrangements are limited to the director acting honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the company and, in criminal matters, are limited to the director having reasonable grounds for believing the conduct was lawful.

6.Separate Chairperson and CEO

Invesco evaluates these proposals on a case by case basis, recognizing that good governance requires either an independent chair or a qualified, proactive, and lead independent director.

Voting decisions may consider, among other factors, the presence or absence of:

∙a designated lead director, appointed from the ranks of the independent board members, with an established term of office and clearly delineated powers and duties

∙a majority of independent directors

∙completely independent key committees

∙committee chairpersons nominated by the independent directors

∙CEO performance reviewed annually by a committee of independent directors

∙established governance guidelines

7.Majority/Supermajority/Cumulative Voting for Directors

The right to elect directors is the single most important mechanism shareholders have to promote accountability. Invesco generally votes in favor of proposals to elect directors by a majority vote. Except in cases where required by law in the jurisdiction of incorporation or when a company has

adopted formal governance principles that present a meaningful alternative to the majority voting standard, Invesco generally votes against actions that would impose any supermajority voting requirement, and generally supports actions to dismantle existing supermajority requirements.

The practice of cumulative voting can enable minority shareholders to have representation on a company's board. Invesco generally opposes such proposals as unnecessary where the company has adopted a majority voting standard. However, Invesco generally supports proposals to institute the practice of cumulative voting at companies whose overall corporate-governance standards indicate a particular need to protect the interests of minority shareholders.

8.Staggered Boards/Annual Election of Directors

Invesco generally supports proposals to elect each director annually rather than electing directors to staggered multi-year terms because annual elections increase a board's level of accountability to its shareholders.

9.Board Size

Invesco believes that the number of directors is an important factor to consider when evaluating the board's ability to maximize long-term shareholder value. Invesco approaches proxies relating to board size on a case by case basis but generally will defer to the board with respect to determining the optimal number of board members, provided that the proposed board size is sufficiently large to represent shareholder interests and sufficiently limited to remain effective.

10.Director Term Limits and Retirement Age

Invesco believes it is important for a board of directors to examine its membership regularly with a view to ensuring that the company continues to benefit from a diversity of director viewpoints and experience. We generally believe that an individual board's nominating committee is best positioned to determine whether director term limits would be an appropriate measure to help achieve these goals and, if so, the nature of such limits. Invesco generally opposes proposals to limit the tenure of outside directors through mandatory retirement ages.

iii.Audit Committees and Auditors

1.Qualifications of Audit Committee and Auditors

Invesco believes a company's Audit Committee has a high degree of responsibility to shareholders in matters of financial disclosure, integrity of the financial statements and effectiveness of a company's internal controls. Independence, experience and financial expertise are critical elements of a well-functioning Audit Committee. When electing directors who are members of a company's Audit Committee, or when ratifying a company's auditors, Invesco considers the past performance of the Audit Committee and holds its members accountable for the quality of the company's financial statements and reports.

2.Auditor Indemnifications

A company's independent auditors play a critical role in ensuring and attesting to the integrity of the company's financial statements. It is therefore essential that they perform their work in accordance with the highest standards. Invesco generally opposes proposals that would limit the liability of or indemnify auditors because doing so could serve to undermine this obligation.

3.Adequate Disclosure of Auditor Fees

Understanding the fees earned by the auditors is important for assessing auditor independence. Invesco's support for the re-appointment of the auditors will take into consideration the availability of adequate disclosure concerning the amount and nature of audit versus non-audit fees. Invesco generally will support proposals that call for this disclosure if it is not already being made.

E. Remuneration and Incentives

Invesco believes properly constructed compensation plans that include equity ownership are effective in creating incentives that induce management and employees of portfolio companies to create greater shareholder wealth. Invesco generally supports equity compensation plans that promote the proper alignment of incentives with shareholders' long-term interests, and generally votes against plans that are overly dilutive to existing shareholders, plans that contain objectionable structural features, and plans that appear likely to reduce the value of the client's investment.

i.Independent Compensation/Remuneration Committee

Invesco believes that an independent, experienced and well-informed compensation/remuneration committee is critical to ensuring that a company's remuneration practices align with shareholders' interests and, therefore, generally supports proposals calling for a compensation/remuneration committee to be comprised solely of independent directors.

ii.Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation

Invesco believes that an independent compensation/remuneration committee of the board, with input from management, is generally best positioned to determine the appropriate components and levels of executive compensation, as well as the appropriate frequency of related shareholder advisory votes. This is particularly the case where shareholders can express their views on remuneration matters through annual votes for or against the election of the individual directors who comprise the compensation/remuneration committee. Invesco, therefore, generally will support management's recommendations regarding the components and levels of executive compensation and the frequency of shareholder advisory votes on executive compensation. However, Invesco will vote against such recommendations where Invesco determines that a company's executive remuneration policies are not properly aligned with shareholder interests or may create inappropriate incentives for management.

iii.Equity Based Compensation Plans

Invesco generally votes against plans that contain structural features that would impair the alignment of incentives between shareholders and management. Such features include, without limitation, the ability to reprice or reload options without shareholder approval, the ability to issue options below the stock's current market price, or the ability to replenish shares automatically without shareholder approval.

iv.Severance Arrangements

Invesco considers proposed severance arrangements (sometimes known as "golden parachute" arrangements) on a case by case basis due to the wide variety among their terms. Invesco acknowledges that in some cases such arrangements, if reasonable, may be in shareholders' best interests as a method of attracting and retaining high quality executive talent. Invesco generally votes in favor of proposals requiring advisory shareholder ratification of senior executives'

severance agreements while generally opposing proposals that require such agreements to be ratified by shareholders in advance of their adoption.

v."Claw Back" Provisions

Invesco generally supports so called "claw back" policies intended to recoup remuneration paid to senior executives based upon materially inaccurate financial reporting (as evidenced by later restatements) or fraudulent accounting or business practices.

vi.Employee Stock Purchase Plans

Invesco generally supports employee stock purchase plans that are reasonably designed to provide proper incentives to a broad base of employees, provided that the price at which employees may acquire stock represents a reasonable discount from the market price.

F. Anti-Takeover Defenses

Measures designed to protect a company from unsolicited bids can adversely affect shareholder value and voting rights, and they have the potential to create conflicts of interests among directors, management and shareholders. Such measures include adopting or renewing shareholder rights plans ("poison pills"), requiring supermajority voting on certain corporate actions, classifying the election of directors instead of electing each director to an annual term, or creating separate classes of common or preferred stock with special voting rights. In determining whether to support a proposal to add, eliminate or restrict anti-takeover measures, Invesco will examine the elements of the proposal to assess the degree to which it would adversely affect shareholder rights of adopted. Invesco generally supports shareholder proposals directing companies to subject their anti-takeover provisions to a shareholder vote, as well as the following proposals:

∙Provide right to act by written consent

∙Provide right to call special meetings

∙Adopt fair price provision

∙Approve control share acquisition

Invesco generally opposes payments by companies to minority shareholders intended to dissuade such shareholders from pursuing a takeover or another change (sometimes known as "greenmail") because these payments result in preferential treatment of some shareholders over others.

Companies occasionally require shareholder approval to engage in certain corporate actions or transactions such as mergers, acquisitions, name changes, dissolutions, reorganizations, divestitures and reincorporations. Invesco generally determines its votes for these types of corporate actions after a careful evaluation of the proposal. Generally, Invesco will support proposals to approve different types of restructurings that provide the necessary financing to save the company from involuntary bankruptcy. However, Invesco will generally oppose proposals to change a company's corporate form or to "go dark" (i.e., going private transactions) without shareholder approval.

Reincorporation involves re-establishing the company in a different legal jurisdiction. Invesco generally will vote for proposals to reincorporate a company if the board and management have demonstrated sound financial or business reasons for the move. Invesco generally will oppose

proposals to reincorporate if they are solely part of an anti-takeover defense or intended to limit directors' liability.

Invesco will generally support proposals that ask the board to consider non"shareholder constituencies or other non"financial effects when evaluating a merger or business combination.

		PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES
I	Applicable to		All Advisory Clients, including the Invesco
			Funds
	Risk Addressed by the		Breach of fiduciary duty to client under
	Guidelines		Investment Advisers Act of 1940 by placing
			Invesco's interests ahead of client's best
			interests in voting proxies
	Relevant Law and Other Sources		U.S. Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as
			amended
	Last		April 19, 2016
	☒Reviewed ☒Revised
	by Compliance for Accuracy
	Guideline Owner		U.S. Compliance and Legal
	Policy Approver		Invesco Advisers, Inc., Invesco Funds Board
	Approved/Adopted Date		May 3-4, 2016

The following guidelines apply to all institutional and retail funds and accounts that have explicitly authorized Invesco Advisers, Inc. ("Invesco") to vote proxies associated with securities held on their behalf (collectively, "Clients").

A. INTRODUCTION

Invesco Ltd. ("IVZ"), the ultimate parent company of Invesco, has adopted a global policy statement on corporate governance and proxy voting (the "Invesco Global Proxy Policy"). The policy describes IVZ's views on governance matters and the proxy administration and governance approach. Invesco votes proxies by using the framework and procedures set forth in the Invesco Global Proxy Policy, while maintaining the Invesco-specific guidelines described below.

B. PROXY VOTING OVERSIGHT: THE MUTUAL FUNDS' BOARD OF TRUSTEES

In addition to the Global Invesco Proxy Advisory Committee, the Invesco mutual funds' board of trustees provides oversight of the proxy process through quarterly reporting and an annual in-person presentation by Invesco's Global Head of Proxy Governance and Responsible Investment.

ITEM 8. PORTFOLIO MANAGERS OF CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES

As of February 29, 2020, the following individuals are jointly and primarily responsible for the day-to-day management of the Trust:

∙Thomas Ewald, Portfolio Manager, who has been responsible for the Trust since 2010 and has been associated with Invesco Senior Secured and/or its affiliates since 2000.

∙Scott Baskind, Portfolio Manager, who has been responsible for the Trust since 2013 and has been associated with Invesco Senior Secured and/or its affiliates since 1999.

∙Philip Yarrow, Portfolio Manager, who has been responsible for the Trust (or the predecessor Trust) since 2007 and has been associated with Invesco Senior Secured and/or its affiliates since 2010.

Portfolio Manager Fund Holdings and Information on Other Managed Accounts

Invesco's portfolio managers develop investment models which are used in connection with the management of certain Invesco Funds as well as other mutual funds for which Invesco or an affiliate acts as sub- adviser, other pooled investment vehicles that are not registered mutual funds, and other accounts managed for organizations and individuals. The 'Investments' chart reflects the portfolio managers' investments in the Fund(s) that they manage and includes investments in the Fund's shares beneficially owned by a portfolio manager, as determined in accordance with Rule 16a-1(a)(2) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (beneficial ownership includes ownership by a portfolio manager's immediate family members sharing the same household). The 'Assets Managed' chart reflects information regarding accounts other than the Funds for which each portfolio manager has day-to-day management responsibilities. Accounts are grouped into three categories: (i) other registered investment companies; (ii) other pooled investment vehicles; and (iii) other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts pay advisory fees that are based on account performance (performance-based fees), information on those accounts is specifically noted. In addition, any assets denominated in foreign currencies have been converted into U.S. dollars using the exchange rates as of the applicable date.

Investments

The following information is as of February 29, 2020 (unless otherwise noted):

	Portfolio Manager			Dollar Range of Investments in the
				Fund
	Invesco Senior Income Trust

Scott Baskind	None
Thomas Ewald	None
Philip Yarrow	None

Assets Managed

The following information is as of February 29, 2020 (unless otherwise noted):

Other Registered

Other Pooled

Other

Investment Companies

Investment Vehicles

Accounts

Portfolio

Managed

Managed

Managed

Manager

Number

Assets

Number

Assets

Number

Assets

of

of

of

(in millions)

(in millions)

(in millions)

Accounts

Accounts

Accounts

Invesco Senior Income Trust

Scott Baskind

4

$8,595.1

4

$6,036.6

22

$8,499.4

Thomas Ewald

2

$2,604.4

3

$5,917.1

None

None

Other Registered

Other Pooled

Other

Investment Companies

Investment Vehicles

Accounts

Portfolio

Managed

Managed

Managed

Manager

Number

Assets

Number

Assets

Number

Assets

of

of

of

(in millions)

(in millions)

(in millions)

Accounts

Accounts

Accounts

Philip Yarrow

3

$3,807.4

3

$5,917.1

None

None

Potential Conflicts of Interest

Actual or apparent conflicts of interest may arise when a portfolio manager has day-to-day management responsibilities with respect to more than one Fund or other account. More specifically, portfolio managers who manage multiple Funds and/or other accounts may be presented with one or more of the following potential conflicts:

The management of multiple Funds and/or other accounts may result in a portfolio manager devoting unequal time and attention to the management of each Fund and/or other account. The Adviser and each Sub-Adviser seek to manage such competing interests for the time and attention of portfolio managers by having portfolio managers focus on a particular investment discipline. Most other accounts managed by a portfolio manager are managed using the same investment models that are used in connection with the management of the Funds.

If a portfolio manager identifies a limited investment opportunity which may be suitable for more than one Fund or other account, a Fund may not be able to take full advantage of that opportunity due to an allocation of filled purchase or sale orders across all eligible Funds and other accounts. To deal with these situations, the Adviser, each Sub-Adviser and the Funds have adopted procedures for allocating portfolio transactions across multiple accounts.

The Adviser and each Sub-Adviser determine which broker to use to execute each order for securities transactions for the Funds, consistent with its duty to seek best execution of the transaction. However, for certain other accounts (such as mutual funds for which Invesco or an affiliate acts as sub-adviser, other pooled investment vehicles that are not registered mutual funds, and other accounts managed for organizations and individuals), the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser may be limited by the client with respect to the selection of brokers or may be instructed to direct trades through a particular broker. In these cases, trades for a Fund in a particular security may be placed separately from, rather than aggregated with, such other accounts. Having separate transactions with respect to a security may temporarily affect the market price of the security or the execution of the transaction, or both, to the possible detriment of the Fund or other account(s) involved.

Finally, the appearance of a conflict of interest may arise where the Adviser or Sub-Adviser has an incentive, such as a performance-based management fee, which relates to the management of one Fund or account but not all Funds and accounts for which a portfolio manager has day-to-day management responsibilities. None of the Invesco Fund accounts managed have a performance fee.

The Adviser, each Sub-Adviser, and the Funds have adopted certain compliance procedures which are designed to address these types of conflicts. However, there is no guarantee that such procedures will detect each and every situation in which a conflict arises.

Description of Compensation Structure

For the Adviser and each affiliated Sub-Adviser

The Adviser and each Sub-Adviser seek to maintain a compensation program that is competitively positioned to attract and retain high-caliber investment professionals. Portfolio managers receive a base salary, an incentive cash bonus opportunity and a deferred compensation opportunity. Portfolio manager compensation is reviewed and may be modified each year as appropriate to reflect changes in the market, as well as to adjust the factors used to determine bonuses to promote competitive Fund performance. The Adviser and each Sub-Adviser evaluate competitive market compensation by reviewing compensation survey results conducted by an independent third party of investment industry compensation. Each portfolio manager's compensation consists of the following three elements:

Base Salary. Each portfolio manager is paid a base salary. In setting the base salary, the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser's intention is to be competitive in light of the particular portfolio manager's experience and responsibilities.

Annual Bonus. The portfolio managers are eligible, along with other employees of the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser, to participate in a discretionary year-end bonus pool. The Compensation Committee of Invesco Ltd. reviews and approves the firm-wide bonus pool based upon progress against strategic objectives and annual operating plan, including investment performance and financial results. In addition, while having no direct impact on individual bonuses, assets under management are considered when determining the starting bonus funding levels. Each portfolio manager is eligible to receive an annual cash bonus which is based on quantitative (i.e. investment performance) and non-quantitative factors (which may include, but are not limited to, individual performance, risk management and teamwork).

Each portfolio manager's compensation is linked to the pre-tax investment performance of the Funds/accounts managed by the portfolio manager as described in Table 1 below.

Table 1

Sub-Adviser	Performance time period1
Invesco2	One-, Three- and Five-year performance against
Invesco Deutschland	Fund peer group
Invesco Hong Kong2
Invesco Asset Management
Invesco India
Invesco Listed Real Assets Division3
Invesco Senior Secured2, 3	Not applicable
Invesco Capital2,4
Invesco Canada4	One-year performance against Fund peer group
	Three- and Five-year performance against entire
	universe of Canadian funds
Invesco Japan5	One-, Three- and Five-year performance

High investment performance (against applicable peer group and/or benchmarks) would deliver compensation generally associated with top pay in the industry (determined by reference to the third-party provided compensation survey information) and poor investment performance (versus applicable peer group) would result in low bonus compared to the applicable peer group or no bonus at all. These decisions are reviewed and approved collectively by senior leadership which has responsibility for executing the compensation approach across the organization.

With respect to Invesco Capital, there is no policy regarding, or agreement with, the Portfolio Managers or any other senior executive of the Adviser to receive bonuses or any other compensation in connection with the performance of any of the accounts managed by the Portfolio Managers.

Deferred / Long Term Compensation. Portfolio managers may be granted a deferred compensation award based on a firm-wide bonus pool approved by the Compensation Committee of Invesco Ltd. Deferred compensation awards may take the form of annual deferral awards or long-term equity awards. Annual deferral awards may be granted as an annual stock deferral award or an annual fund deferral award. Annual stock deferral awards are settled in Invesco Ltd. common shares. Annual fund deferral awards are notionally invested in certain Invesco Funds selected by the Portfolio Manager and are settled in cash. Long-term equity awards are settled in Invesco Ltd. common shares. Both annual deferral awards and long-term equity awards have a four-year ratable vesting schedule. The vesting period aligns the interests of the Portfolio Managers with the long-term interests of clients and shareholders and encourages retention.

Retirement and health and welfare arrangements. Portfolio managers are eligible to participate in retirement and health and welfare plans and programs that are available generall

1Rolling time periods based on calendar year-end.

2Portfolio Managers may be granted an annual deferral award that vests on a pro-rata basis over a four-year period.

3Invesco Senior Secured's bonus is based on annual measures of equity return and standard tests of collateralization performance.

4Portfolio Managers for Invesco Capital base their bonus on Invesco results as well as overall performance of Invesco Capital.

5Portfolio Managers for Invesco Pacific Growth Fund's compensation is based on the one-, three- and five-year performance against the appropriate Micropol benchmark.

ITEM 9. PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES BY CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANY AND AFFILIATED PURCHASERS.

Not applicable.

ITEM 10. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS.

None

ITEM 11. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES.

(a)As of April 14, 2020, an evaluation was performed under the supervision and with the participation of the officers of the Registrant, including the Principal Executive Officer

("PEO") and Principal Financial Officer ("PFO"), to assess the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures, as that term is defined in Rule 30a-3(c) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 ("Act"), as amended. Based on that evaluation, the Registrant's officers, including the PEO and PFO, concluded that, as of April 14, 2020, the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures were reasonably designed so as to ensure: (1) that information required to be disclosed by the Registrant on Form N-CSR is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified by the rules and forms of the Securities and Exchange Commission; and (2) that material information relating to the Registrant is made known to the PEO and PFO as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

(b)There have been no changes in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 30a-3(d) under the Act) that occurred during the period covered by this report that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the

Registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

ITEM 12. DISCLOSURE OF SECURITIES LENDING ACTIVITIES FOR CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES.

Not applicable.

ITEM 13.	EXHIBITS.
13(a) (1)	Code of Ethics.
13(a) (2)	Certifications of principal executive officer and principal financial officer as required by
	Rule 30a-2(a) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and Section 302 of the
	Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
13(a) (3)	Not applicable.
13(a) (4)	Not applicable.
13(b)	Certifications of principal executive officer and principal financial officer as required by
	Rule 30a-2(b) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and Section 906 of the
	Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

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.

Registrant: Invesco Senior Income Trust

By:	/s/ Sheri Morris
	Sheri Morris
	Principal Executive Officer
Date:	May 6, 2020

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the Registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

By:	/s/ Sheri Morris
	Sheri Morris
	Principal Executive Officer
Date:	May 6, 2020
By:	/s/ Kelli Gallegos
	Kelli Gallegos
	Principal Financial Officer
Date:	May 6, 2020

Item 1. Report to Stockholders.