The investment advisory agreements (the "Investment Advisory Agreements") between the RS Funds (the "Funds") and RS Investment Management Co. LLC ("RS Investments") are subject to annual approval by (i) the vote of the Trustees or of a majority of the outstanding voting securities (as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940) of each affected Fund, and (ii) the vote of a majority of the Trustees who are not "interested persons" (as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940) of RS Investment Trust or RS Variable Products Trust (together, the "Trusts") or RS Investments (the "disinterested Trustees").  Each Investment Advisory Agreement is terminable with respect to a Fund by RS Investments, the applicable Trust, or a vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of the affected Fund, without penalty, on 60 days' written notice and will terminate automatically in the event of its assignment.

The Investment Advisory Agreements also provide that RS Investments may, at its own expense, delegate certain of its responsibilities under the Investment Advisory Agreements to sub-advisers for the Funds, who would be required to furnish an investment program and make investment decisions for the Funds.  The sub-advisory agreements (the "Sub-Advisory Agreements, and collectively with the Investment Advisory Agreements, the "Advisory Agreements") between RS Investments and various sub-advisers (the "Sub-Advisers") are also subject to annual approval by (i) the vote of the Trustees or of a majority of the outstanding voting securities (as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940) of each affected Fund, and (ii) the vote of a majority of the disinterested Trustees.

The Trustees meet over the course of the year with investment advisory personnel from RS Investments and regularly review detailed information regarding the investment program and performance of each Fund.

2009
The Board of Trustees of the Trusts, including all the disinterested Trustees, met in person on August 11-12, 2009, to consider the continuation of the Advisory Agreements for the one-year period commencing August 31, 2009. During the previous several weeks, the Trustees met with the independent Trustees' counsel and independent consultants in preparation for this meeting. In an executive session immediately prior to the meeting, the disinterested Trustees (i) had confirmed their receipt of all the information they had requested from RS Investments, (ii) had reviewed again the memorandum prepared by counsel regarding the fiduciary duties of the disinterested Trustees, and (iii) had reviewed the conclusions they had reached relating to annual renewal matters. The independent Trustees' counsel stated that at this time the disinterested Trustees had no further requests for information from RS Investments. The Chair of the Board of Trustees, who is an independent Trustee, thanked RS Investments for providing complete responses to all of the Trustees' questions in connection with their consideration of the annual continuation of the Advisory Agreements.

The independent Trustees' counsel summarized for the Trustees the steps the Trustees had taken in connection with consideration of the annual continuation of the Funds' investment advisory arrangements, including the materials they had reviewed. He noted that the review had encompassed the Advisory Agreements for all of the Funds, and the distribution agreements and Rule 12b-1 plans for all of the Funds. In the discussion, the Chair stated that the Trustees had found the assistance of independent consultants helpful in their review of the written materials relating to Fund performance and expenses.

The independent Trustees' counsel noted that the Trustees had been assisted in their review by the Chief Compliance Officer of the Trusts, who reviewed all of the information presented to the Trustees and, with the independent Trustees' counsel's assistance, prepared a written report on the key factors for the Trustees to consider in determining whether to continue the Advisory Agreements. The independent Trustees' counsel noted that the Chief Compliance Officer had concluded in the written report that the information that RS Investments had provided to the Trustees provided a reasonable basis for the Trustees to conclude that the advisory fees proposed in connection with the continuation of the Advisory Agreements were reasonable with respect to each Fund.

The independent Trustees' counsel reported that the Trustees had considered the nature, extent, and quality of the services provided by RS Investments. He said that, in this regard, the Trustees had taken into account the experience of the Funds' portfolio management teams and of RS Investments' senior management, and the time and attention devoted by each to the Funds. He said that the Trustees had considered RS Investments' significant responsibilities in monitoring the services provided by the Funds' sub-advisers.

The independent Trustees' counsel noted that RS Investments had reported that the fees charged by RS Investments to the Funds reflect a number of factors, such as, for example, the generally high quality of the investment management teams at RS Investments, the high levels of compensation that are required to retain the firm's investment professionals, and the alternative employment opportunities available to many of those professionals. The independent Trustees' counsel stated that RS Investments had reported that, in the case of sub-advised Funds, RS Investments pays the majority, in most cases the large majority, of the fees it receives to the Funds' sub-advisers.

The independent Trustees' counsel noted in this regard that the Trustees had reviewed information compiled by the independent Lipper organization showing a comparison of RS Investments' fee rate for each Fund compared to peer mutual funds having similar objectives and strategies, and within the same broad range of asset sizes. He said that the Trustees had been aided by an analysis prepared by an independent consultant retained by the independent Trustees to compare the Funds' advisory fees, expenses and performance to the Funds' peers. He noted that, in his report, the Chief Compliance Officer had stated that the data showed RS Investments' fees to be within the range of comparable mutual funds, even though the fees with respect to some of the Funds tended to be at the higher end of the range.

The independent Trustees' counsel said that the Trustees had reviewed information from the Lipper report showing total expenses for the Funds in comparison to peer funds. He said that the Trustees had considered the total expense ratios of the Funds and noted that the Funds' renegotiated custodial arrangements had resulted in savings for several of the Funds in the prior year. The independent Trustees' counsel said that the outside consultant's report noted that, for a number of the Funds that had been identified as having high expense issues because of limited assets, RS Investments was considering proposing that those Funds be reorganized into another Fund or liquidated.

The independent Trustees' counsel said that the Trustees had considered information provided by RS Investments as to the fees charged by RS Investments to clients other than the Funds, including for institutional separate accounts and for mutual funds for which RS Investments serves as sub-adviser. He said that the Chief Compliance Officer had noted that RS Investments generally charges lower fees to those accounts. He said that the Chief Compliance Officer had noted that, in a number of cases, such an account pays fees at the same rate as the comparable Fund on assets up to a specified level, and then at lower rates on additional assets; in some cases, an account's fee rate will be lower at all levels than that of the comparable Fund. The independent Trustees' counsel noted that RS Investments had reported that administrative, compliance, reporting, and other legal burdens of providing investment advice to mutual funds exceed those required to provide advisory services to non-mutual fund clients such as institutional accounts for retirement or pension plans. The independent Trustees' counsel also noted that RS Investments had explained that there is substantially greater legal and other risk to RS Investments in managing public mutual funds than in managing private accounts or in sub-advising mutual funds sponsored by others, and that the services and resources required of RS Investments where it sub-advises mutual funds sponsored by others are substantially less than in the case of the Funds, since many of the administrative and compliance responsibilities related to the management function are retained by the primary adviser.

The independent Trustees' counsel said that the Trustees had reviewed performance information for each Fund for various periods. He said that their review had included an examination of comparisons of the performance of the Funds to relevant securities indexes and various peer groups of mutual funds prepared by the Lipper and Morningstar organizations with respect to various periods, and relative rankings of the Funds compared to peer funds during various periods. He said that the Trustees noted that, in his report, the Chief Compliance Officer had found that no Fund appeared to have substantially lagged all peer mutual funds and indexes for all relevant periods, except for those Funds for which action has been taken or is proposed, such as changes to portfolio management, reorganization, or liquidation (such as the RS Large Cap Value VIP Series), or where the discipline associated with the strategy explains a Fund's underperformance (such as the RS Global Natural Resources Fund's lower commodity exposure compared to peer funds, and the high-quality strategy of the RS Money Market Fund).

The independent Trustees' counsel noted that the Trustees had reviewed the detailed financial information provided to them by RS Investments, showing the substantial costs to RS Investments of providing services to the Funds. He said that the Trustees had considered the Chief Compliance Officer's statement, in his report, that he had discussed with RS Investments the basis for the allocation of RS Investments' general or common expenses to the cost analysis for the Funds and that he believed the allocation methodology and resulting allocations were reasonable. The independent Trustees' counsel said that the Trustees had also considered RS Investments' detailed profitability analysis with respect to each Fund for the year ended December 31, 2008, and for the five months ended May 31, 2009. He said that the Trustees had considered the statements of the Chief Compliance Officer, in his report, to the effect that the Value Funds had generally been more profitable over the periods covered than Funds in other investment disciplines, and that the VIP Funds had been less profitable generally than the retail Funds. The independent Trustees' counsel said that the Trustees had also noted the statement in the Chief Compliance Officer's report that the profitability from the Funds to RS Investments had declined in 2008 and that the trend had continued so far in 2009, but that RS Investments has stated that it remains committed to providing high-quality services to the Funds. He said that the Trustees had also noted that RS Investments' sub-advisory business had a lower profit margin due to the reduced fees it receives in respect of that business. He said that the Trustees had also taken into account that the Chief Compliance Officer had noted in his report that a comparable or higher profit margin relating to RS Investments' services to the Funds appeared justifiable by the higher risk and responsibilities associated with the mutual fund business. As to the profitability of the Funds' sub-advisers, he said that the Trustees had considered information provided by RS Investments that had been requested and collected from those sub-advisers, which shows that the profitability of the Funds to GIS, an affiliate of RS Investments, is within the range of profitability for RS Investments, and generally lower.

The independent Trustees' counsel noted that the Trustees had discussed with RS Investments whether economies of scale would likely be realized as the Funds grow and whether a reduction in the advisory fees paid by the Funds by means of breakpoints would be appropriate. The Trustees reviewed various information provided by RS Investments and considered the conclusions of the Chief Compliance Officer in this regard, noting that the following factors raised by RS Investments and the Chief Compliance Officer had been taken into account: (1) that the profits from the Funds enable RS Investments to devote greater resources to the management of the Funds, including organizational enhancements and financial incentives for the portfolio managers, analysts, and other personnel who in many cases have lucrative alternative employment and business opportunities available to them; (2) that RS Investments is committed to achieving consistently superior investment performance as shown by RS Investments' reinvestment of its resources in an effort to improve its investment processes and in an effort to recruit and retain the best professionals available to it; (3) that RS Investments maintains that one of its strengths generally is the tenure of its investment management teams; and (4) that certain investment styles, such as small-cap and some mid-cap strategies, do not as readily benefit from economies of scale because of the limited ability to increase the size of a Fund's investment in certain portfolio holdings. The independent Trustees' counsel said that the Trustees had taken into account specifically the substantial decline in asset levels of the Funds and the concomitant reduction in revenues and profitability to RS Investments in recent periods, and had determined that, although it may be appropriate to consider breakpoints in the future for certain RS Funds, such a step would not be appropriate at this time.

The independent Trustees' counsel reported that the Trustees had considered the research and other similar services RS Investments receives from many of the broker-dealers with which it places the Funds' (as well as other RS Investments clients') portfolio transactions and from third parties with which these broker-dealers have arrangements. He said that the Trustees had considered the benefit to RS Investments and its affiliates from such services including that (1) the services are of value to RS Investments and its affiliates in advising RS Investments' clients (including the Funds) and (2) RS Investments might otherwise be required to purchase some of these services for cash. He said that, on the basis of the information provided to the Trustees at the meeting and throughout the year, the Trustees had concluded that the benefit to RS Investments of these "soft dollar" relationships did not appear unreasonable and that the Funds appeared to benefit from them.

The independent Trustees' counsel said that the Trustees had reviewed the detailed information provided to them regarding the various sub-advisers to the Funds, including information as to compliance with federal securities laws, capabilities and experience of portfolio management personnel and any changes in such personnel in the past year, certain financial information as to the sub-advisers, information as to their trading practices, and general information as to the pricing of the sub-advisers' services. He said that, on the basis of that information, information provided to them throughout the year, and their periodic meetings with representatives of the sub-advisers, the services provided by them to the Funds was generally acceptable.

The independent Trustees' counsel said that the Trustees had considered generally the nature and quality of the administrative services provided to the Funds by RS Investments and by GIS, including, among other things, their performance during the course of the preceding year and the responsiveness of senior management to the Trustees' requests. He said that the Trustees had considered generally the continuing favorable interaction of the legacy investment teams at RS Investments and GIS, improvements in control functions between the two firms over the past year, and RS Investments' increased role in providing administrative services to the Funds and were generally satisfied with the services currently being provided by the two firms.

• The independent Trustees' counsel then said that the Trustees had considered specifically a number of additional factors cited by the Chief Compliance Officer in his report: RS Investments continues to integrate the respective RS Investments and GIS organizations. Most of the changes have strengthened the organization and its ability to devote greater resources to the services provided to the Funds. RS is continuing its integration work in this regard.
• RS Investments has been responsive to concerns raised by the Trustees with respect to the performance of various Funds and the interaction of members across portfolio management teams. RS Investments acted decisively and effectively to avoid potentially serious problems and disruptions in response to the departure of a portfolio management team in recent months.
• RS Investments has recommended, discussed, and sought approval from the Boards of Trustees as needed to implement various significant changes affecting the Funds, including liquidations, reorganizations, and expense limitations, both in response to its internal review of various Funds or to concerns expressed by the Boards. In most cases, RS Investments has anticipated issues and addressed them actively with the Boards.
• RS Investments has provided all necessary staffing, training, and other compliance resources necessary for the Chief Compliance Officer to perform his responsibilities as the Chief Compliance Officer.
• Overall, the independent Trustees noted evidence presented by RS Investments and statements from the Chief Compliance Officer the RS Investments provides (and is committed to providing) very high quality advisory and related services to the Funds.

After considering all of the information described above, including the Chief Compliance Officer's written report, the Trustees voted unanimously to approve the continuation of the various Advisory Agreements, including the advisory fees proposed in connection with that continuation, for the one-year period commencing August 31, 2009.

2008
The Board of Trustees of the Trusts, including all the disinterested Trustees, met in person on August 12 - 13, 2008, to consider the continuation of the Advisory Agreements for the one-year period commencing August 31, 2008, for all 23 series of RS Investment Trust and all 17 series of RS Variable Products Trust:  RS Emerging Growth Fund, RS Smaller Company Growth Fund, RS Select Growth Fund, RS MidCap Opportunities Fund, RS Growth Fund, RS Technology Fund, RS Partners Fund, RS Value Fund, RS Investors Fund, RS Global Natural Resources Fund, RS Core Equity Fund, RS Small Cap Core Equity Fund, RS Equity Dividend Fund, RS MidCap Opportunities VIP Series, RS Technology VIP Series, RS Partners VIP Series, RS Value VIP Series, RS Global Natural Resources VIP Series, RS Core Equity VIP Series, RS Small Cap Core Equity VIP Series, and RS Equity Dividend VIP Series (the "RS-Managed Funds"); RS Large Cap Value Fund, RS S&P 500 Index Fund, RS Asset Allocation Fund, RS International Growth Fund, RS Emerging Markets Fund, RS Investment Quality Bond Fund, RS Low Duration Bond Fund, RS High Yield Bond Fund, RS Tax-Exempt Fund, and RS Money Market Fund, RS Large Cap Value VIP Series, RS S&P 500 Index VIP Series, RS Asset Allocation VIP Series, RS International Growth VIP Series, RS Emerging Markets VIP Series, RS Investment Quality Bond VIP Series, RS Low Duration Bond VIP Series, RS High Yield Bond VIP Series, and RS Money Market VIP Series (the "Sub-Advised Funds", and together with the RS-Managed Funds, the "Funds").

RS Investments is responsible for the day-to-day investment management of the RS-Managed Funds; the Sub-Advisers overseen by RS Investments are responsible for the day-to-day investment management of the Sub-Advised Funds. UBS Global Asset Management (Americas) Inc. serves as Sub-Adviser to RS Large Cap Value Fund and RS Large Cap Value VIP Series; Guardian Investor Services LLC ("GIS"), a subsidiary of The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, serves as Sub-Adviser to RS S&P 500 Index Fund, RS Asset Allocation Fund, RS Investment Quality Bond Fund, RS Low Duration Bond Fund, RS High Yield Bond Fund, RS Tax-Exempt Fund, RS Money Market Fund, RS S&P 500 Index VIP Series, RS Asset Allocation VIP Series, RS Investment Quality Bond VIP Series, RS Low Duration Bond VIP Series, RS High Yield Bond VIP Series, and RS Money Market VIP Series; Guardian Baillie Gifford Limited serves as Sub-Adviser, and Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited serves as Sub-Sub-Adviser to RS International Growth Fund, RS Emerging Markets Fund, RS International Growth VIP Series, and RS Emerging Markets VIP Series (the sub-sub-advisory agreements relating to these Funds are also considered "Sub-Advisory Agreements" and "Advisory Agreements" for purposes of this discussion, and the sub-sub-adviser is also considered a Sub-Adviser for purposes of this discussion).

At their meeting, the Trustees considered a number of factors in determining to approve the continuation of the Advisory Agreements. In all of their deliberations regarding the Advisory Agreements, the Trustees who are not interested persons of the Funds were advised by their independent counsel, with whom they had separate meetings and discussions on a number of occasions during and preceding the dates of the official Board meeting.  In addition, the Trustees were assisted in their review by the Chief Compliance Officer of the Trusts, who reviewed all of the information presented to the Trustees and, with the assistance of independent counsel to the disinterested Trustees, prepared a written report on the key factors for the Trustees.  That written report discussed a number of the factors described below and concluded that the information that RS Investments had provided to the Trustees provided a reasonable basis for the Trustees to conclude that the advisory fees proposed in connection with the continuation of the Advisory Agreements were reasonable with respect to each Fund.

The Trustees were also assisted in their review by two independent consultants retained by the Trustees. The consultants provided assistance in a variety of aspects of the Trustees' review, including, among other things, the development of appropriate expense and performance peer groups for the Funds, review of expense and performance data received by the Trustees, consideration of economies of scale, analysis of profitability data from RS Investments and the Sub-Advisers, and evaluation of industry trends. The consultants met with the Trustees on a number of occasions, both by telephone and at the August 2008 in-person meeting.

In their consideration of the Advisory Agreements, the Trustees considered generally the continuing, favorable interaction of the legacy investment teams at RS Investments and GIS.  They also considered improvements in service over the course of the year through realignments of various administrative, accounting, and control functions between the two firms, and were generally satisfied with those services currently being provided by the two firms.

The Trustees considered the fees charged by RS Investments to the Funds under the Investment Advisory Agreements and the fees paid to the various Sub-Advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this connection, representatives of RS Investments noted to the Trustees that the fees charged by RS Investments to the Funds reflect a number of factors. They noted, for example, the generally high quality of the investment management teams at RS Investments, the high levels of compensation that are required to retain the firm's investment professionals, and the alternative employment opportunities available to many of those professionals. They also noted that, as to the Sub-Advised Funds, RS Investments pays a large part, in most cases the large majority, of the fees it receives to the Sub-Advisers.

The Trustees considered information provided by RS Investments as to the fees charged by RS Investments to clients other than the Funds, including institutional separate accounts and mutual funds for which RS Investments serves as sub-adviser.  RS Investments generally charges lower fees to those accounts. In a number of cases, such an account pays fees at the same rate as the comparable Fund on assets up to a specified level, and then at lower rates on additional assets. In some cases, an account's fee rate will be lower at all levels than that of the comparable Fund.  Representatives of RS Investments explained that administrative, compliance, reporting, and other legal burdens of providing investment advice to mutual funds exceed those required to provide advisory services to non-mutual fund clients such as institutional accounts for retirement or pension plans. In addition, they pointed out that there is substantially greater legal and other risk to RS Investments in managing public mutual investment products than in managing private accounts or in sub-advising mutual funds sponsored by others. They also explained that the services and resources required of RS Investments where it sub-advises mutual funds sponsored by others are substantially less than in the case of the Funds, since many of the administrative and compliance responsibilities related to the management function are retained by the primary adviser.

RS Investments furnished information to the Trustees compiled by the independent Lipper organization showing a comparison of RS Investments' fee rate for each Fund compared to peer mutual funds having similar objectives, strategies, and within the same broad range of asset sizes.  RS Investments also worked with an independent consultant to the disinterested Trustees in identifying peer groups of mutual funds with respect to each Fund.  One of the independent consultants prepared an analysis of comparative management fees and expenses, and discussed his conclusions with the disinterested Trustees.  In his report, the Chief Compliance Officer stated that the data showed RS Investments' fees to be within the range of comparable mutual funds, even though the fees with respect to some of the Funds tended to be at the higher end of the range.
 
The Chief Compliance Officer noted that the advisory fees for the variable versions of the retail Funds, although the same as those of the retail Funds, were relatively high compared to peer variable product funds.  He also noted that, although the total expense ratios of the variable Funds also tended to be higher than those of their peers, it appeared that the differences were generally attributable to the small asset size of the variable Funds. The Chief Compliance Officer also noted that the advisory fee for RS Smaller Company Growth Fund appeared to be higher in relation to its peer funds than the other Funds; in the course of their discussions with the Trustees, representatives of RS Investments noted that, in light of those expenses and other factors, RS Investments would likely consider strategic alternatives for that Fund in the coming year.

The Trustees also reviewed information from that compilation showing total expenses for the Funds in comparison to peer funds.  The Trustees considered the total expense ratios of the Funds and noted that a number of them were higher than the median of their peer funds.  They noted that in some cases that appeared to be due to the level of the Funds' advisory fees and, in many cases, due to the fact that the Funds' custodial fees were relatively high.  In the course of their discussions with the Trustees, representatives of RS Investments informed the Trustees that RS Investments would lower the expense limitation with respect to both the RS S&P 500 Index Fund and the RS Money Market Fund, thereby improving those Funds' comparative advisory fee and total operating expense levels in comparison with their peers.  They also noted in this regard that the Funds' recently renegotiated custodial arrangements were likely to result in savings to the Funds in the coming year.  The Trustees noted in the course of the discussion that, in a number of cases, especially in respect of variable Funds, the number of peer funds was quite limited, potentially limiting the utility of the data provided.
 
RS Investments furnished detailed financial information, in the form of a consolidated profit and loss statement, showing the revenues and expenses related to the management of the RS Funds as a whole and each of RS Investments' other categories of advisory clients, respectively. That information showed the substantial costs of providing services to the Funds.  The Chief Compliance Officer also noted in his report that he had discussed with RS Investments the basis for the allocation of RS Investments' general or common expenses to the cost analysis for the Funds and that he believed the allocation methodology and resulting allocations were reasonable.
  
RS Investments also furnished a detailed profitability analysis with respect to each Fund for the year ended December 31, 2007, and for the five months ended May 31, 2008.  In his report, the Chief Compliance Officer noted that the Value Funds had generally been more profitable over the periods covered than Funds in other investment disciplines, and that the variable Funds had been less profitable generally than the retail Funds.  The Trustees noted that the range of profitability for the Core Funds, the Growth Funds, and the Value Funds was wide, but that RS Investments' profitability on its mutual fund business as a whole was higher than the profitability of the separate account advisory business.  The Trustees also noted that RS Investments' subadvisory business had a lower profit margin due to the reduced fees it receives in respect of that business.  The Chief Compliance Officer noted in his report that a comparable or higher profit margin relating to RS Investments' services to the Funds appeared justifiable by the higher risk and responsibilities associated with the mutual fund business.
 
The Chief Compliance Officer also noted in his report that the profitability of the Funds to GIS, an affiliate of RS Investments, is within the range of profitability for RS Investments, and generally lower, with the most profitable Fund being the RS S&P 500 Index VIP Series, which did not have any performance or expense concerns to note.

The Trustees considered whether economies of scale would likely be realized as the Funds grow and whether a reduction in the advisory fees paid by the Funds by means of breakpoints would be appropriate. The Trustees also considered a report provided to them by their independent consultants as to economies of scale, both generally and as to the Funds specifically, and the consultants' recommendations that the Trustees give careful consideration to the manner in which shareholders might realize some of the benefit of such economies over time, as the Funds grow in size.  In his report, the Chief Compliance Officer noted that the profits from the Funds enable RS Investments to devote greater resources to the management of the Funds, including organizational enhancements and financial incentives for the portfolio managers, analysts, and other personnel who in many cases have lucrative alternative employment and business opportunities available to them.  He also noted RS Investments' commitment to achieving consistently superior investment performance as shown by RS Investments' reinvestment of its resources in an effort to improve its investment processes and in an effort to recruit and retain the best professionals available to it.  The Chief Compliance Officer also noted that RS Investments maintains that one of its strengths is the tenure of its investment management teams.  He noted, as well, that certain investment styles, such as small-cap and some mid-cap strategies, do not as readily benefit from economies of scale because of the limited ability to increase the size of a Fund's investment in certain portfolio holdings.  The Trustees discussed specifically with RS Investments and among themselves the advisability of implementing advisory fee breakpoints for three of the largest Funds and, after discussions with management, determined that, although it may be appropriate to implement breakpoints in the future for those Funds, such a step did not appear warranted at the time, in light of, among other things, the performance of the Funds, current and anticipated market conditions, and other factors. 
 
The Trustees considered the nature, extent, and quality of the services provided by RS Investments. In this regard, the Trustees took into account the experience and skills of the Funds' portfolio management teams and of RS Investments' senior management, and the time and attention devoted by each to the Funds. The Trustees considered the performance of each Fund while also considering its applicable investment objective and strategy and its overall expense ratio. The Trustees also received information throughout the year regarding the capabilities of RS Investments in securities trading, and changes in personnel in RS Investments' trading staff. The Trustees also considered RS Investments' significant responsibilities in monitoring the services provided by the Sub-Advisers.
 
The Trustees reviewed performance information for each Fund for various periods. That review included an examination of comparisons of the performance of the Funds to relevant securities indexes and various peer groups of mutual funds prepared by the independent Lipper and Morningstar organizations with respect to various periods, and relative rankings of the Funds compared to peer funds during various periods. The Trustees noted that, in his report, the Chief Compliance Officer had found that, except as noted below, no Fund appeared to have substantially lagged all peer mutual funds and indexes for all relevant periods.  The Chief Compliance Officer noted specifically that each of RS Smaller Company Growth Fund, RS Asset Allocation Fund, RS High Yield Bond Fund,  RS Asset Allocation VIP Series, and RS High Yield Bond VIP Series had underperformed its peers' averages for various periods.  The Chief Compliance Officer noted that both RS High Yield Bond Fund and RS High Yield Bond VIP Series had experienced a significant portfolio manager change, and that RS Investments was engaging in internal discussions about plans to address the performance concerns of those other three Funds.  Representatives of RS Investments also noted that they were considering strategic alternatives for each of the Asset Allocation Funds in the coming months.
 
The Trustees considered the research and other similar services RS Investments receives from many of the broker-dealers with which it places the Funds' (as well as other RS Investments clients') portfolio transactions and from third parties with which these broker-dealers have arrangements.  The Trustees receive information on those arrangements quarterly throughout the year and have the opportunity to discuss that information with representatives of RS Investments at the meetings.  The Trustees considered the benefit to RS Investments and its affiliates from such services including that (1) the services are of value to RS Investments and its affiliates in advising RS Investments' clients (including the Funds) and (2) RS Investments might otherwise be required to purchase some of these services for cash.  The Trustees considered information provided to them quarterly during the year regarding the benefits to RS Investments of research and brokerage services provided in connection with so-called "bundled brokerage" arrangements.  The Trustees concluded that these "soft dollar" relationships' benefit to RS Investments was reasonable and that the Funds also benefited from them.
 
The Trustees reviewed detailed information regarding the various Sub-Advisers to the Funds, including information as to compliance with federal securities laws, capabilities and experience of portfolio management personnel and any changes in such personnel in the past year, financial information as to the Sub-Advisers, information as to their trading practices, and general information as to the pricing of the Sub-Advisers' services.
 
The Trustees considered generally the nature and quality of the administrative services provided to the Funds by RS Investments and by GIS, including, among other things, changes in and enhancements to the firms' personnel and capabilities, their performance during the course of the preceding year, and the responsiveness of senior management to the Trustees' requests.

The Trustees noted a number of specific recent enhancements to the services provided by RS Investments, including, among others, the following factors cited by the Chief Compliance Officer:

• RS Investments continues to integrate the respective RS and GIS organizations.  Most of the changes have strengthened the organization and its ability to devote greater resources to the services provided to the Funds.  Integration work continues, particularly with respect to the management of the New York office's activities by personnel in San Francisco.
• RS Investments has been responsive to concerns raised by the Trustees with respect to the performance of various Funds and the interaction of members across portfolio management teams in order to reduce the compartmentalization of RS Investments.
• RS Investments has invested in the firm by working to improve its portfolio management and client service activities, as well as by consulting outside experts about how best to improve the firm.
• RS Investments has provided necessary staffing, training, and other compliance resources necessary for the Chief Compliance Officer to perform his responsibilities as the Chief Compliance Officer.

The Trustees also considered the Chief Compliance Officer's conclusion that RS Investments provides high quality advisory and related services to the Funds.
 
After considering all of the information described above, including the Chief Compliance Officer's written report, the Trustees unanimously voted to approve the continuation of the Advisory Agreements, including the advisory fees proposed in connection with that continuation, for the one-year period commencing August 31, 2008.