Correcting The Record

Saba’s proposal materials repeatedly conflate independent Board actions, unrelated litigation, and decisions made by others with Merk, the Funds' investment adviser, and me personally. The result is a misleading narrative that obscures the actual governance structure of ASA and the actions actually taken by the parties involved.

Saba’s “Entrenchment” Claim

Saba’s central narrative is that Merk is “entrenched.” That assertion is false.

ASA is, and has been, overseen by an independent Board of Directors, none of whom are affiliated with Merk. The past actions of the Board were legally and operationally independent of Merk. It is therefore misleading for Saba to attribute independent Board actions to Merk or to me personally.

Just as importantly, the Board had a responsibility to evaluate Saba’s allegations objectively, rather than treat them as a premise for changing ASA’s adviser or abandoning ASA’s precious metals mandate.

Merk Supported Shareholder Choice

Perhaps the clearest evidence that Merk was not seeking entrenchment is that in an effort to assist with the 2-2 split Board deadlock, Merk helped facilitate discussions between a large Canadian mining investor and the Board regarding a proposal that did not include Merk as investment manager.^(*)

The proposal contemplated a significant investment into ASA, a tender offer near NAV, and a shareholder vote regarding future management of the Fund. The Saba-nominated Directors rejected considering this offer.

False Attribution of Independent Board Actions

• In its proposal to the Board, Saba repeatedly attempts to attribute actions taken by prior independent directors to me personally, despite those directors being wholly independent of both me and Merk. Saba is aware of this distinction but repeatedly blurs it in its proposal materials.
• Merk’s role has been limited to serving as the Fund’s investment manager. Saba attributes various events to me and Merk despite our having no involvement in them.
• I served as an interested trustee for less than eighteen months and have not served on the Board since spring 2024. I therefore had no involvement in Board decisions thereafter.^(**)
• The independent directors were legally independent of Merk. It is therefore inaccurate and misleading to attribute their actions to me or to characterize those actions as evidence of management entrenchment.
• I was on the Board when the initial poison pill was adopted, which a court later declared to be valid. The decision to put the poison pill in place was the decision of the entire Board and was considered to be in the best interests of the majority of Fund shareholders given Saba’s refusal to engage.
• I was not on the Board when the Board experienced a 2-2 split and therefore, had no related role in responding to the deadlock.
• I was not on the Board during the ongoing legal battles and therefore did not have any role in the Board-approved expenses or decision-making.
• Nonetheless, Merk elected to provide a voluntary waiver of a portion of the advisory fees to counteract those expenses and benefit shareholders at Merk's expense.^(***)

I had little involvement in any of the actions listed on the timeline included on page 9 of Saba’s Presentation because I was on the Board for only a limited period of time. Saba’s presentation is attempting to conflate the actions of the former independent directors with me and Merk, which I believe is grossly inappropriate and suggests bad faith.

Bermuda Litigation Mischaracterizations

• It is defamatory to suggest that a Bermuda court found wrongdoing or misuse of power by Merk. No such finding exists, and Merk was never a party to the Bermuda litigation. Saba nevertheless attempts to conflate independent Board actions and litigation involving other parties with Merk and me personally.

If you are a shareholder, regulators should hear directly from you. File a complaint with the SEC to help ensure these actions receive immediate scrutiny before further harm occurs.

(*) The proposal could have benefited shareholders, including Saba, but not Merk—because it did not include Merk as investment manager. Specifically, the investor proposed:

• To invest $100 million in mining securities to ASA; this proposal happened when ASA’s assets were less than a third of current assets, making the offer much more significant than it appears at current asset levels.
• To allow a tender offer to exit investors to exit at (or near) NAV.
• The main condition was to have all disputes on the Board settled.
• The proposal included a shareholder vote on having them manage the Fund going forward.
• In its 2025 proxy fight to add a fifth Board member in a Special General Meeting, Saba conflated two proposals by unrelated parties; ASA’s board never properly evaluated the proposal.

(**) The independent directors of ASA asked me in the fall of 2022 to join ASA’s Board as the sole interested director to assist the Board in various administrative tasks. The position was without compensation but added liability. I assumed that role in a good faith effort to support ASA.

(***) In addition, Merk has consistently taken upmost care to contain Fund expenses. This starts with not charging for trips to attend Board meetings, but also active efforts to keeping Fund expenses low, including helping to organize, then present the Board lower cost alternatives to the changing service providers. Merk has also voluntarily waived fees in response to the escalating extraordinary expenses the Fund was faced with as a result of Saba’s engagement.