SEC Division of Investment Management staff letter: RMR Real Estate Income Fund - Omission of Shareholder Proposal Submitted by Matisse Discounted Closed-End Fund Strategy — SEC — US

FIRM/AFFILIATE OFFICES

BOSTON
CHICAGO
HOUSTON
LOS ANGELES
PALO ALTO
WASHINGTON, D.C.
WILMINGTON

BEIJING
BRUSSELS
FRANKFURT
HONG KONG
LONDON
MOSCOW
MUNICH
PARIS
SÃO PAULO
SEOUL
SHANGHAI
SINGAPORE
TOKYO
TORONTO
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
FOUR TIMES SQUARE
NEW YORK 10036-6522

TEL: (212) 735-3000
FAX: (212) 735-2000 www.skadden.com
DIRECT DIAL
212-735-3406
617-573-4836
DIRECT FAX
917-777-3406
617-305-4836
EMAIL ADDRESS
MICHAEL.HOFFMAN@SKADDEN.COM
KENNETH.BURDON@SKADDEN.COM
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL (IMshareholderproposals@sec.gov) U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Office of the Chief Counsel Division of Investment Management 100 F Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20549 RE: RMR Real Estate Income Fund Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 Omission of Shareholder Proposal Pursuant to Rule 14a-8 Ladies and Gentlemen:
We are writing on behalf of the RMR Real Estate Income Fund (the "Fund"), pursuant to Rule 14a-8(j) promulgated under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") to request that the staff (the "Staff") of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") concur with the Fund's view that, for the reasons stated below, the shareholder proposal and supporting statement (collectively, the "Proposal") of Matisse Discounted Closed-End Fund Strategy (the "Proponent") may be properly omitted from the proxy materials (the "Proxy Materials") to be distributed by the Fund in connection with its 2019 annual meeting of shareholders. In accordance with Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14D (Nov. 7, 2008), this letter and its attachments are being emailed to imshareholderproposals@sec.gov. In accordance with Rule 14a-8(j)(1), a copy of this letter and its attachments are being sent simultaneously to the

Office of the Chief Counsel
Division of Investment Management
Proponent. We take this opportunity to inform the Proponent that if the Proponent elects to submit correspondence to the Commission or the Staff with respect to the Proposal or this letter, a copy of that correspondence should be furnished concurrently to the undersigned on behalf of the Fund pursuant to Rule 14a-8(k) and Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14D. We request that such copy be emailed to us at michael.hoffman@skadden.com and kenneth.burdon@skadden.com. The Fund advises that it intends to begin distribution of its definitive Proxy Materials on or after February 28, 2019. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 14a-8(j), this letter is being submitted not less than 80 days before the Fund currently intends to file its definitive Proxy Materials with the Commission. BACKGROUND On November 8, 2018, the Fund received the Proposal, which was accompanied by a cover letter from the Proponent and a letter from UMB Bank (collectively, the "Submission"). A copy of the Submission is attached hereto as Exhibit A. In accordance with Rule 14a-8(f)(1), on November 20, 2018, the Fund sent a letter to the Proponent, pointing out certain procedural and eligibility deficiencies with the Submission (the "Deficiency Letter"). As suggested in Section G.3 of Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14 (July 13, 2001) ("SLB No. 14"), the Deficiency Letter included a copy of Rule 14a-8. The Deficiency Letter notified the Proponent that the Proposal failed to comply with Rule 14a-8(c) because the Proposal included two proposals. The Fund also pointed out that the Proposal failed to comply with Rule 14a-8(d) because the Proposal exceeded 500 words. The Fund additionally stated that the Submission failed to comply with Rule 14a-8(b)(1). The Fund requested that the Proponent correct these deficiencies and provide appropriate documentation by mail or electronic transmission to the Fund no later than 14 calendar days after the date the Proponent received the Deficiency Notice. A copy of the Deficiency Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit B. In response to the Deficiency Notice, the Fund received two emails from the Proponent on November 20, 2018 (together, the "November 20 Emails"). In the November 20 Emails, the Proponent asserted that the Proposal, "per Microsoft Word count, is 496 words" and that the shareholder proposal consists of a single proposal. The Proponent also attached a revised letter from UMB Bank. Copies of the November 20 Emails are attached hereto as Exhibit C. Although not required to do so, the Fund responded to the Proponent by email on November 27, 2018. The Fund confirmed that it would accept the revised UMB Bank letter and reasserted the Fund's position that the Proposal failed to comply with Rules 14a-8(c), 14a-8(d) and 14a-8(f)(1). The Proponent responded to the Fund via email the same day and also submitted a slightly revised Proposal, which failed to correct the remaining procedural and eligibility deficiencies. Copies of the November 27, 2018 email correspondence between
the Fund and the Proponent (the "November 27 Emails") and the revised Proposal are attached hereto as Exhibit D. The Fund has received no further revisions to the Proposal.

Office of the Chief Counsel
Division of Investment Management
BASES FOR EXCLUSION
The Fund believes that the Proposal may be properly excluded from the Proxy Materials pursuant to:
 Rule 14a-8(d) and Rule 14a-8(f)(1) because the Proposal exceeds 500 words;  Rule 14a-8(c) and Rule 14a-8(f)(1) because the Proposal includes two proposals;  Rule 14a-8(i)(3) because the Proposal contains materially false and misleading statements; and  Rule 14a-8(i)(8)(iii) because the Proposal questions the competence and business judgment of the Board of Trustees (the "Board," and each member a "Trustee"), two members of which will stand for election at the Fund's 2019 annual meeting of shareholders. ANALYSIS

The Fund may exclude the Proposal pursuant to Rule 14a-8(d) and Rule 14a8(f)(1) because the Proposal exceeds 500 words and the Proponent failed to correct this
deficiency after proper notice.
Rule 14a-8(d) provides that a proposal, including any supporting statement, may not exceed 500 words. The Staff has explained that "[a]ny statements that are, in effect, arguments in support of the proposal constitute part of the supporting statement" for purposes of the 500-word limitation. See SLB No. 14. On numerous occasions, the Staff has concurred that a company may exclude a proposal under Rule 14a-8(d) and Rule 14a-8(f)(1) because the proposal exceeds 500 words. See, e.g., General Electric Company (Dec. 30, 2014); Danaher Corp. (Jan. 19, 2010); Procter & Gamble Co. (July 29, 2008); Amgen, Inc. (Jan. 12, 2004) ("Amgen 2004") (in each instance concurring in the exclusion of a proposal that contained more than 500 words). See also Amoco Corp. (Jan. 22, 1997) (concurring in the exclusion of a proposal where the company argued that the proposal included 503 words and the proponent stated that the proposal included 501 words). For purposes of calculating the number of words in a proposal, the Staff has indicated that hyphenated terms should be treated as multiple words. See Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. (Feb. 27, 2000) (concurring in the exclusion of a proposal that contained 504 words, but would have contained 498 words if hyphenated terms and words separated by "/" were counted as one word). Similarly, the Staff has indicated that numbers and symbols should be treated as separate words. See Intel Corp. (Mar. 8, 2010) (stating that, in determining that the proposal appeared to exceed the 500-word limitation, "we have counted each percent symbol and dollar sign as a separate word"); Amgen 2004 (permitting the exclusion of a proposal where the company counted each number and letter used to enumerate paragraphs as separate words);

Office of the Chief Counsel
Division of Investment Management
Aetna Life and Casualty Co. (Jan. 18, 1995) (permitting the exclusion of a proposal under the predecessor to Rules 14a-8(d) and 14a-8(f)(l) where the company argued that "each numeric entry should be counted as a word for purposes of applying the 500-word limitation"). Following the principles applied in the precedents described above, the Fund has determined that the Proposal contains 524 words. As part of its calculation:
 The Fund has counted "Resolved" because it is not used as a title or heading; instead, it is part of the first sentence of the Proposal. 1  The Fund has counted each symbol (including "+" and "%") as a separate word.  The Fund has counted each number as a single word (although the Fund has not counted each digit within each number as a single word).  The Fund has counted hyphenated words, such as "at-NAV," "long-suffering," "open-end" and "closed-end," as multiple words. Such treatment is further supported by the definition of "hyphenate". According to the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (the Eleventh Edition), "hyphenate" means "to connect (as two words) or divide (as a word at the end of a line of print) with a hyphen." In each of these four instances ("at-NAV," "long-suffering," "open-end" and "closedend"), the hyphen was used to connect two words rather than to divide a word that is at the end of a line. As such, each of the above hyphenated words should count as multiple words rather than just one word. 2  The Fund has counted each date that references a day, a month and a year as three words. For example, the Fund has counted "6/30/18" as three words.  The Fund has counted undefined acronyms and abbreviations, such as "NAV" and "CPA," as if such acronyms or abbreviations were spelled out. Just as a proponent would not be able to circumvent the 500-word limitation by using excessive hyphenation or slashes, a proponent should not be able to artificially circumvent the 500-word limitation by using excessive acronyms and abbreviations. However, even if the word "Resolved" is ignored and the undefined acronyms "NAV" and "CPA" are each treated as a single word, the total number of words would be 513, in excess of the 500-word limit. Therefore, regardless of the treatment for the word "Resolved" and the undefined acronyms "NAV" and "CPA," the Fund believes that the Proposal already exceeds the 500-word limitation prescribed by Rule 14a-8(d).

1 The Fund has excluded the headings "Shareholder Proposal" and "Supporting Statement" from the word count. 2 However, the Fund has counted the Proponent's phone number as one word.

Office of the Chief Counsel
Division of Investment Management
Pursuant to Rule 14a-8(f)(1), if a proponent fails to follow one of the eligibility or procedural requirements prescribed in Rule 14a-8(a) through (d), the company may omit the proponent's proposal, so long as it has notified the proponent of the deficiency within 14 calendar days of receiving the proposal, and the proponent has failed adequately to correct such deficiency. As described above, the Fund duly notified the Proponent of the fact that the original Proposal, submitted on November 8, 2018, exceeded the 500-word limitation in the Deficiency Letter and reasserted the Fund's position in the November 27 Emails. The revised Proposal, submitted on November 27, 2018, also exceeded the 500-word limitation, and the Fund has received no further revisions to the Proposal. Accordingly, we respectfully request the Staff's concurrence with the Fund's view that the Proposal, as revised, may be excluded from the Proxy Materials because it exceeds the 500-word limitation contained in Rule 14a-8(d) and Rule 14a8(f)(1).
2. The Fund may exclude the Proposal pursuant to Rule 14a-8(c) and Rule 14a8(f)(1) because the Proposal constitutes more than one proposal.
Rule 14a-8(c) provides that "[e]ach shareholder may submit no more than one proposal to a company for a particular shareholders' meeting." In adopting the rule, the Commission in Exchange Act Release No. 12999 (Nov. 22, 1976) noted the possibility that some proponents may attempt to evade the rule's limitations through various maneuvers. 3 The oneproposal limitation applies not only to proponents who submit multiple proposals as separate submissions, but also to proponents who submit proposals that are comprised of multiple parts even though the parts may seemingly address one general concept. See, e.g., Streamline Health Solutions, Inc. (Mar. 23, 2010) (permitting exclusion of a multi-part proposal that the proponent claimed all related to the election of directors); and American Electric Power Co., Inc. (Jan. 2,
2001) (permitting exclusion of a multi-part proposal that the proponent claimed all related to
"corporate governance"). The Staff also has concurred that proposals that require a "variety of corporate actions" may be excluded. See, e.g., Morgan Stanley (Feb. 4, 2009) (permitting exclusion of a proposal that requested stock ownership guidelines for director candidates, new conflict of interest disclosures for director nominees, and new limits on compensation of directors and nominees); and General Motors Corporation (April 9, 2007) (permitting exclusion of a proposal that included several separate and distinct steps to restructure the company). The Fund believes that the Proposal violates Rule 14a-8(c) because the Proposal includes two separate and distinct proposals: (1) it resolves that all investment advisory and management agreements between the Fund and RMR Advisors LLC (the "Advisor") be terminated; and (2) it recommends that the Board propose a plan to liquidate or open-end the Fund. Either proposal could be implemented independently of the other. And, each proposal involves separate and distinct considerations and approvals by the Board and the Fund's shareholders. The Proponent specifically acknowledges the second proposal in the fifth

3 The predecessor to Rule 14a-8(c) initially provided that each proponent may submit two proposals; the rule was subsequently amended in 1983 to provide for the current one-proposal limitation.

Office of the Chief Counsel
Division of Investment Management paragraph of the supporting statement, which reads as follows: "In addition to voting for our proposal, we also hope that all RIF shareholders will join us in asking management for, and voting in favor of, a proposal to liquidate or open-end the Fund" (emphasis added). The Proposal is distinguishable from Franklin Limited Duration Income Trust (July 27, 2016) ("Franklin 2016"), in which the Staff was unable to concur with the exclusion of a proposal requesting that the board consider authorizing a tender offer. 4 In Franklin 2016, the second element of the proposal is dependent on the results of the first element; moreover, the proponent did not assert in its supporting statement that it was recommending a separate corporate transaction at the same annual meeting. Although the Proponent, in the November 27 Emails, claims that the Proposal is "one proposal which is a conditional proposal," the inclusion of the fifth paragraph is an attempt by the Proponent to advocate for a separate proposal in a manner designed to circumvent the requirements of Rule 14a-8(c). Therefore, the Proponent should not be able to recast the proposals as a "conditional proposal." Pursuant to Rule 14a-8(f)(1), the Fund duly notified the Proponent that the Proposal, submitted on November 8, 2018, exceeded the one-proposal limitation in the Deficiency Letter. The revised Proposal, which contains no revisions to the supporting statement, also exceeds the one-proposal limitation, and the Fund has received no further revisions to the Proposal. Accordingly, we respectfully request the Staff's concurrence with the Fund's view that the Proposal may be excluded from the Proxy Materials because it exceeds the one-proposal limitation contained in Rule 14a-8(c) and Rule 14a-8(f)(1).
3. The Fund may exclude the Proposal pursuant to Rule 14a-8(i)(3) in violation
of Rule 14a-9 because the Proposal is materially false and misleading.
Rule 14a-8(i)(3) permits a company to omit a shareholder proposal and related supporting statement from its proxy materials if "the proposal or supporting statement is contrary to any of the Commission's proxy rules, including Rule 14a-9, which prohibits materially false or misleading statements in proxy soliciting materials." Note (b) to Rule 14a-9 specifies that a statement may be misleading if it "directly or indirectly impugns character, integrity or personal reputation, or directly or indirectly makes charges concerning improper, illegal or immoral conduct or associations, without factual foundation." The Staff has concurred that a company may properly exclude entire shareholder proposals and supporting statements where they contain false and misleading statements or omit material facts necessary to make such statements not false and misleading. See Entergy Corp. (Feb. 14, 2007) (permitting the exclusion of the entire proposal which contained false and misleading statements relating to management and the board); The Swiss Helvetia Fund, Inc. (April 3, 2001) (permitting exclusion of entire proposal

4 The proposal submitted to Franklin Limited Duration Income Trust reads: "BE IT RESOLVED, that the shareholders of Franklin Limited Duration Income Trust (the "Fund"), requests that the Board of Trustees (the "Board") consider authorizing a self-tender offer for all outstanding shares of the Fund at or close to net asset value ("NAV"). If more than 50% of the Fund's outstanding shares are submitted for tender, the tender offer should be cancelled and the Board should take the steps necessary to liquidate or convert the Fund into an openend mutual fund."

Office of the Chief Counsel
Division of Investment Management due to unsupported statements insinuating that directors may have violated, or may choose to violate, their fiduciary duties); and General Magic, Inc. (May 1, 2000) (permitting exclusion of proposal relating to change of name of company which contained false and misleading statements). Additionally, Section B.4 of Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14B (CF) (Sept. 15, 2004) provides that the Staff "may find it appropriate for companies to exclude the entire proposal, supporting statement, or both as materially false or misleading if a proposal or supporting statement would require detailed and extensive editing in order to bring it into compliance with the proxy rules." As discussed below, the Fund believes that the entire Proposal should be excluded pursuant to Rule 14a-8(i)(3) as materially false and misleading in violation of Rule 14a-9. The supporting statement is replete with statements and assertions that are materially false and misleading. For example, the first bullet point in the first paragraph of the supporting statement falsely claims that the Advisor receives the Fund's total net expense ratio:
"[E]mployees and owners of RMR Advisors: Collect a 'total net expense ratio ranked in the fourth quartile within . . . the Morningstar Classification Group, exceeding . . . the Morningstar Classification Group median by 44 basis points', per the Board's analysis." To the contrary, the Fund's 2018 Semi-Annual Report (the "Report"), which the Proponent quotes from, clearly provides that the Advisor receives only the advisory fee. 5 To claim otherwise misleads the Fund's shareholders into believing the Fund's investment adviser receives compensation from the Fund well in excess of what it actually receives, and implies the Board has breached its fiduciary duties in approving the Fund's advisory contract. This mischaracterization of the Fund's expense structure, presented in the form of what appears to be intentional and selective editing of disclosure in the Report, is a desperate attempt to smear the Board and mislead the Fund's shareholders. Not only does this statement falsely claim that the Fund's investment adviser receives compensation beyond what it actually receives, the selective editing obfuscates and omits the Board's actual considerations regarding the compensation paid to the Fund's investment adviser, which was that the advisory fee was at the median relative to the Morningstar Classification Group and was within the range of advisory fees charged by comparable funds. To take another example, the third bullet point in the first paragraph of the supporting statement also falsely claims that the "employees and owners of RMR Advisors: . . . Can cement their own position by voting their shares in favor of . . . the aforesaid rights offering." Shareholders of the Fund have no right under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the "1940 Act") to vote on the Fund's determination to conduct a rights offering, and the Fund has been advised by its Maryland counsel that no such right exists under Maryland state law either. To claim otherwise misleads shareholders into believing that they were improperly disenfranchised in connection with the Fund's 2017 rights offering. Nothing could be further

5 Note B of the Notes to Financial Statements of the Report states the following: "RMR Advisors is compensated at an annual rate of 0.85% of the Fund's average daily managed assets. Managed assets means the total assets of the Fund less liabilities other than any indebtedness entered into for purposes of leverage."

Office of the Chief Counsel
Division of Investment Management from the truth. This again smacks of the Proponent's desperate attempt to smear the Board without any factual basis and mislead the Fund's shareholders. The second paragraph of the supporting statement is also materially misleading because the Proponent uses non-standardized total return figures without providing (1) a source for the performance data, (2) a definition of what is meant by "total returns," and (3) accompanying "standardized" total return information (i.e., average annual total returns calculated in accordance with standards set forth by the Commission). The Proponent omitted references that would have enabled shareholders to verify and evaluate such information. The Proponent should have also provided accompanying standardized total returns in order to present shareholders with balanced performance information. Therefore, the non-standardized performance information provided by the Proponent is misleading and should be excluded pursuant to Rule 14a-8(i)(3). Moreover, the fourth paragraph of the supporting statement is materially misleading because it impugns the character, integrity and reputation of the Trustees. For example, the fourth paragraph states: "[B]y allowing such a large discount to persist, by giving current management a "pass" despite poor performance, and by conducting a rights offering . . . the Board has ignored its fiduciary duty." The Proponent's assertion effectively alleges that the Trustees have failed to discharge their fiduciary duties in violation of the 1940 Act and Maryland state law. The Proponent has no factual basis from which to discover or evaluate such an assertion. Such an allegation of improper conduct is entirely conclusory, self-serving and is made without any factual support whatsoever. A determination regarding whether the Board has violated its fiduciary duty as a result of the Proponent's alleged grievances is a determination properly made by a court of competent jurisdiction, not the Proponent, and no such determination with respect to the Fund's Board has been made. The Proponent's assertion that the Trustees have violated their fiduciary duty does not make it a fact. This statement therefore is in direct violation of Note (b) to Rule 14a-9. Furthermore, the fifth paragraph of the supporting statement is materially false and misleading because the Proponent fails to disclose that the Proponent, a registered open-end management investment company, cannot independently vote in support of any shareholder proposals, including its own shareholder proposals. The Proponent, however, states that it intends to vote in favor of its proposals, which would be in direct violation of Section 12(d)(1)(F) of the 1940 Act. As stated in the Proponent's prospectus filed on July 27, 2018 (the "Prospectus"), the Proponent invests in the securities of other investment companies pursuant to
Section 12(d)(1)(F) of the 1940 Act. Compliance with Section 12(d)(1)(F) is required of the
Proponent because more than 10% of the value of its total assets consists of other registered investment companies and the Fund represents more than 5% of the value of its total assets. 6
Section 12(d)(1)(F) requires that a registered investment company seeking to rely on its

6
See the Proponent's Form N-Q for the period ended June 30, 2018, filed on August 29, 2018 (File No. 811- 22298); and https://matissefunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/MDCEX-Fact-Sheet-10.31.18.pdf.

Office of the Chief Counsel
Division of Investment Management provisions exercise its voting rights in an underlying registered fund in accordance with the provisions of Section 12(d)(1)(E) of the 1940 Act. Section 12(d)(1)(E)(iii) provides that an investing fund "either to seek instructions from its security holders with regard to the voting of all proxies with respect to such security and to vote such proxies only in accordance with such instructions, or to vote the shares held by it in the same proportion as the vote of all other holders of such security." The Prospectus, including the proxy voting policy attached to the Statement of Additional Information incorporated by reference therein, contains no reference to the voting requirements of Section 12(d)(1)(F). Moreover, the aforementioned proxy voting policy appears to in fact violate Section 12(d)(1)(F) on its face, as it provides for voting shares of registered investment companies on a basis other than the required “mirror” or “pass through” voting. This pattern of illegal voting appears to be further borne out by the Proponent’s proxy voting records filed on Form N-PX, which do not indicate that mirror or pass through voting was used for registered investment company proxies, and the fact that the Proponent inexplicably deleted disclosure in the Prospectus about Section 12(d)(1)(F)’s voting requirements and its policy to vote consistent therewith that appeared in its 2017 prospectus filed with the Commission on August 1, 2017. Additionally, the fifth paragraph suggests that the Proponent is engaging in activities inconsistent with its fundamental investment restrictions. The Proponent fails to disclose that the Proponent is specifically prohibited, as a matter of fundamental policy, from making investments for the purpose of exercising control or management of any company. 7 The submission of the Proposal and the content of the fifth paragraph of the supporting statement are blatant violations of the Proponent's fundamental investment restrictions. None of these restrictions and limitations on the Proponent’s activities are disclosed in the Proposal. A reasonable shareholder desiring to support the Proposal would at least want to know that the Proponent itself cannot vote in favor of the Proposal and that, in fact, the Proponent may be legally required to cast more votes AGAINST the Proposal than FOR the Proposal as a result of Section 12(d)(1)(F) compliance. We note that the Proponent’s total assets have declined precipitously over the past year and a half. The Proponent reported approximately $110 million in total assets as of March 31, 2017. 8 The Proponent reports $66.7 million in assets as of September 30, 2018 – a nearly 40% drawdown in under two years. 9 The Proposal may be an attempt to save a failing strategy that was and continues, at least according to the Prospectus, to be predicated upon a “proprietary research process that attempts to forecast whether the

7 The Prospectus states that as a fundamental investment policy, the Proponent may not "[m]ake investments for the purpose of exercising control or management over a portfolio company." 8 See Proponent's annual shareholder report for fiscal year ended March 31, 2017, filed on Form N-CSR on June 19, 2017 (File No. 811-22298). 9 See https://matissefunds.com/total-returns-for-period-ending-63014/47-2/.

Office of the Chief Counsel
Division of Investment Management market discount on a closed-end fund will increase or decrease” – not attempts to exercise control or management over a closed-end fund. In pursuing the Proposal, it appears that the Proponent is willing to not only mislead the Fund’s shareholders, but also violate clear 1940 Act requirements and its own investment policies, presumably to the detriment of its own shareholders. The fifth paragraph directly violates Rule 14a-8(i)(3). For the reasons discussed above, the Fund has concluded that the Proposal is excludable under Rule 14a-8(i)(3). The Fund believes that the sheer number of materially false and misleading statements renders the entire Proposal materially false and misleading to shareholders of the Fund.
4. The Fund may exclude the Proposal pursuant to Rule 14a-8(i)(8)(iii) because
the Proposal questions the competence and business judgment of the Board. Under Rule 14a-8(i)(8)(iii), a shareholder proposal may be excluded from a company's proxy materials if it "[q]uestions the competence, business judgment, or character of one or more nominees or directors." In 2010, the Commission adopted amendments to Rule 14a8(i)(8) to codify prior Staff interpretations and expressly allow for the exclusion of a proposal that "[q]uestions the competence, business judgment, or character of one or more nominees or directors." Exchange Act Release No. 34-62764 (Aug. 25, 2010) (the "2010 Release"). As explained in the 2010 Release, the recent amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(8) "was not intended to change the staff's prior interpretations or limit the application of the exclusion" but rather was intended to "codify certain prior staff interpretations with respect to the types of proposals that would continue to be excludable" and "provide more clarity to companies and shareholders regarding the application of the exclusion." On a number of occasions, the Staff has permitted a company to exclude a proposal under Rule 14a-8(i)(8)(iii) where the proposal, together with the supporting statement, questions the competence, business judgment or character of directors. See Rite Aid Corp. (April 1, 2011) (concurring with the exclusion of a shareholder proposal to prohibit nomination of any non-executive board member who has "had any financial or business dealings . . . with any member of senior management or the Company" because the supporting statement "appear[ed] to question the business judgment of board members" expected to stand for reelection); Marriott International, Inc. (March 12, 2010) (shareholder proposal criticizing suitability of members of the board of directors to serve, and such members were expected to be nominated by the company for election at the upcoming annual meeting of shareholders); Brocade Communication Systems, Inc. (January 31, 2007) (shareholder proposal criticizing directors who ignore certain shareholder votes was excludable); Exxon Mobil Corp. (March 20, 2002) (shareholder proposal condemning the chief executive officer for causing "reputational harm" to the company and for "destroying shareholder value" was excludable); AT&T Corp. (February 13, 2001) (shareholder proposal criticizing the board chairman, who was the chief executive officer, for company performance was excludable); Honeywell International Inc. (March 2, 2000) (shareholder proposal making directors who fail to enact resolutions adopted by shareholders ineligible for election was excludable); Black & Decker Corp. (January 21, 1997) (allowing exclusion of a

Office of the Chief Counsel
Division of Investment Management proposal under the predecessor to Rule 14a-8(i)(8) that questioned the independence of board members where contentions in the supporting statement questioned the business judgment, competence and service of a chief executive officer standing for reelection to the board). Like the proposals and supporting statements in the foregoing no-action letters, the supporting statement explicitly criticizes the business judgment, competence and service of the Trustees. The Proponent, without any factual foundation, accuses the Board of "ignor[ing] its fiduciary duty," in particular in connection with the Fund's discount, the Board's consideration of the Fund's investment advisory agreement and the Board's approval of the Fund's 2017 rights offering. Such an assertion clearly questions the competence, business judgment and service of the Trustees. Moreover, the Proponent's assertion is intended to cause shareholders to reconsider their support for the Fund's nominees to the Board at the Fund's 2019 annual meeting of shareholders. Accordingly, the Proposal is excludable from the Proxy Materials pursuant to Rule 14a-8(i)(8)(iii). *

Exhibit A
(see attached)

4#
Jvsq># Ly}rl/#Qmglippi#+FSW,#
Xs># Ly}rl/#Qmglippi#+FSW,#
Wyfnigx># J[>#_I|xa#J[>#VMJ#47e0<#wlevilsphiv#tvstswep#exxeglih#_I\XIVREPa# Hexi># 452;2534<#7>44>67#TQ# GG>### FGG># Qiwweki>## Jvsq>#Ivmg#Fsyklxsr#@ivmgDqexmwwiget1gsqB# Hexi>#Rsziqfiv#</#534<#ex#8>5=>4;#TQ#IWX# Xs>#%mrjsDvqvjyrhw1gsq%#@mrjsDvqvjyrhw1gsqB/#%mvDvqvjyrhw1gsq%#@mvDvqvjyrhw1gsqB/# %qopimjkiwDfpssqfivk1rix%#@qopimjkiwDfpssqfivk1rixB# Wyfnigx> VMJ#47e0<#wlevilsphiv#tvstswep#exxeglih#_I\XIVREPa Tpiewi#jmrh#exxeglih#e#47e0<#wlevilsphiv#tvstswep#jsv#mrgpywmsr#sr#}syv#tvs|}#jsv#xli# ytgsqmrk#erryep#qiixmrk#sj#xli#VQV#Viep#Iwxexi#Mrgsqi#Jyrh1# [i#{mpp#epws#qemp#e#gst}#sj#xlmw#xs#Nirrmjiv#Gpevow#exxirxmsr#ex#X{s#Ri{xsr#Tpegi/#588# [ewlmrkxsr#Wxviix/#Wymxi#633/#Ri{xsr/#QE#3578</#tiv#xli#mrwxvygxmsrw#mr#xli#Jyrhw# jmpmrkw1# Xs#wmqtpmj}#jyxyvi#gsqqyrmgexmsrw/#tpiewi># 0Pix#yw#ors{#{lex#mw#xli#fiwx#erh#tvstiv#wmrkpi#iqemp#ehhviww#xs#{lmgl#{i#qe}#qeoi# sjjmgmep#gsvviwtsrhirgi# 0Vitp}#xs#xlmw#iqemp#gsrjmvqmrk#xlex#}sy#lezi#vigimzih#mx# 0Mrhmgexi#xlex#+mjC,#}sy#{mpp#eggitx#iqempih#gsvviwtsrhirgi#ew#sjjmgmep#{vmxxir# gsvviwtsrhirgi# Gsrkvexw#sr#xli#Vih#Ws|$##Q}#Gyfw#{ivi#syx#e#pmxxpi#xss#wssr#jsv#q}#xewxi#xlmw#}iev1##Kix# iq#ri|x#}iev1# 0Ivmg#Fsyklxsr# Exxeglqirxw> mqeki3361trk# EXX333341lxq# mqeki3391trk# EXX333351lxq# mqeki33;1trk# EXX333361lxq# mqeki33<1trk# EXX333371lxq# VMJ#44#<#4<1hsg|# EXX333381lxq# S{rivwlmt#Pixxiv#0#Qexmwwi#VQV#Viep#Iwxexi#Mrgsqi#Jh1thj#

5#
EXX333391lxq#

Exhibit B
(see attached)

Exhibit C
(see attached)

4#
Jvsq># Nirrmjiv#Gpevo#+Ehzmwsvw,#_NGpevoDVQVKvsytEhzmwsvw1gsqa# Xs># Fyvhsr/#Oirrixl#I#+FSW,?#Ly}rl/#Qmglippi#+FSW,?#Lsjjqer/#Qmgleip#O#+R]G,?#Gslir/# Qevkevix#V#+FSW,# Wyfnigx># _I|xa#J{h>#VMJ#47+e,+<,#Pixxiv#_I\XIVREPa# Hexi># 442582534<#7>54>53#TQ# GG>### Tsvxrs}/#Eheq?#Eheq#Tsvxrs}#+Ehzmwsvw,# FGG># Qiwweki>## Jvsq>#Ivmg#Fsyklxsr#@ivmgDqexmwwiget1gsqB# Wirx>#Xyiwhe}/#Rsziqfiv#53/#534<#5>3=#TQ# Xs>#Nirrmjiv#Gpevo#+Ehzmwsvw,# Wyfnigx>#VI>#VMJ#47+e,+<,#Pixxiv#_I\XIVREPa## Exxeglih mw e vi{svhih s{rivwlmt pixxiv1 Tpiewi gsrjmvq mx rs{ qiixw xli gpevmx} wxerhevhw1 Jvsq>#Nirrmjiv#Gpevo#+Ehzmwsvw,#@NGpevoDVQVKvsytEhzmwsvw1gsqB# Wirx>#Xyiwhe}/#Rsziqfiv#53/#534<#<>77#EQ# Xs>#Ivmg#Fsyklxsr#@ivmgDqexmwwiget1gsqB# Wyfnigx>#VMJ#47+e,+<,#Pixxiv# Eric, Please see the attached letter. Regards, Jennifer Clark JENNIFER B. CLARK / Secretary The RMR Real Estate Income Fund T: 617-796-8183 Two Newton Place 255 Washington Street, Suite 300

5#
Newton, Massachusetts 02458
Exxeglqirxw>
S{rivwlmt#Pixxiv#0#Qexmwwi#VQV#Viep#Iwxexi#Mrgsqi#Jh#5rh#exxiqtx1thj#

UMB Bank, n.a.
928 Grand Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64106 umb.com
Member FDIC
November 8, 2018
Eric Boughton, CFA
Portfolio Manager
Matisse Capital
4949 Meadows Road, Suite 200
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
This letter is to confirm that as October 6, 2017, UMB Bank, N.A. 2450, a DTC participant, in its capacity as custodian, held 238,423 shares of RMR Real Estate Income Fd on behalf of the Matisse Discounted Closed End Fund. These shares are held in the Bank’s position at the Depository Trust Company registered to the nominee name of Cede & Co. Further, this is to confirm that the position in RMR Real Estate Income Fd held by the bank on behalf of the Matisse Discounted Closed-End Fund during the year long period from October 6, 2017 to November 8, 2018 did not loan out its shares and continuously exceeded an ownership market value of $2,000.00. Sincerely, Mandee Crawford, Assistant Vice President UMB Bank, n.a.

4#
Jvsq># Nirrmjiv#Gpevo#+Ehzmwsvw,#_NGpevoDVQVKvsytEhzmwsvw1gsqa# Xs># Lsjjqer/#Qmgleip#O#+R]G,?#Tsvxrs}/#Eheq?#Eheq#Tsvxrs}#+Ehzmwsvw,?#Ly}rl/#Qmglippi# +FSW,?#Gslir/#Qevkevix#V#+FSW,# Wyfnigx># _I|xa#J{h>#VMJ#47+e,+<,#Pixxiv#_I\XIVREPa# Hexi># 442532534<#45>5<>74#TQ# GG>### FGG># Qiwweki>## Jvsq>#Ivmg#Fsyklxsr#@ivmgDqexmwwiget1gsqB# Wirx>#Xyiwhe}/#Rsziqfiv#53/#534<#43>4=#EQ# Xs>#Nirrmjiv#Gpevo#+Ehzmwsvw,# Gg>#Wgsxx/#Texvmgo#J1# Wyfnigx>#VI>#VMJ#47+e,+<,#Pixxiv#_I\XIVREPa## 41 Q} gywxshmer mw vi0gvejxmrk xli s{rivwlmt pixxiv ws xlex mx mw qsvi gpiev1 M xlmro mxw epvieh} gpiev irsykl/#fyx#M#{mpp#wirh#xlex#mr#xli#ri|x#he}#sv#x{s1# 51 Q}#tvstswep#erh#wyttsvxmrk#wxexiqirx/#tiv#Qmgvswsjx#[svh#gsyrx/#mw#7=9#{svhw1##Xli#irxmvi# hsgyqirx#mw#;;;#{svhw#mrgpyhmrk#xli#pixxiv#xs#xli#fsevh1##Xli#pixxiv#xs#xli#fsevh#mw#rsx#tvstivp}# tevx#sj#xli#wlevilsphiv#tvstswep#sv#wyttsvxmrk#wxexiqirx#+ew#mx#mw#rsx#mrgpyhih#mr#xli#tvs|}# hsgyqirx,/ erh xlivijsvi mw rsx tvstivp} gsyrxih jsv xli WIGw 833 {svh tyvtswi1 61 M#qehi#e#wmrkpi#tvstswep1##Xli#tvstswep#mw#mr#mxw#iwwirgi#e#gsrhmxmsrep#tvstswep/#er#mj0xlir# wxexiqirx1##M#ger#vitlvewi#mx#xs#qeoi#mx#e#wmrkpi#wirxirgi#f}#vitpegmrk#xli#tivmsh#{mxl#e# wiqmgspsr erh glerkmrk xli jspps{mrk {svh mj xs xli {svh tvszmhih/ erh ehhmrk xlex mj ejxiv ls{iziv1 Xli {svhw mr xli wyttsvxmrk wxexiqirx hs rsx geywi q} wmrkpi tvstswep xs figsqi#51# M#eq#gst}mrk#Texvmgo#Wgsxx/#WIG#+wii#fips{,/#sr#xlmw#gsqqyrmgexmsr/#mr#gewi#li/#sv#wsqisri#ipwi#ex#xli# WIG/#ger#tvszmhi#e#uymgo#mrhmgexmsr#ew#xs#{ls#mw#gsvvigx#sr#xliwi#qexxivw1# Nirrmjiv/#tpiewi#vitp}#xs#q}#gsqqyrmgexmsr#mrhmgexmrk#xlex#}sy#evi#{mxlhve{mrk#}syv#sfnigxmsrw#sr#xli# sri sv x{s tvstswepw erh {svh gsyrx hmwekviiqirxw1 TEXVMGO#J1#WGSXX Wirmsv#Gsyrwip# YW#Wigyvmxmiw#erh#I|glerki#Gsqqmwwmsr# Hmzmwmsr#sj#Mrziwxqirx#Qerekiqirx# 433#J#Wxviix/#RI# [ewlmrkxsr/#HG#5387=# Tlsri535088409;96

5#
Eric Boughton, CFA
Portfolio Manager, Chief Analyst at Matisse Capital Address 4949 Meadows Rd. Ste. 200 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Phone (503) 210-3005 Email eric@matissecap.com Website https://www.matissecap.com/ Qexmwwi#Getmxep#mw#sr#PmroihMr/#Jegifsso/#erh#Mrwxekveq> MQTSVXERX>#Xlmw#iqemp#erh#xli#mrjsvqexmsr#gsrxemrih#livimr#mw#gsrjmhirxmep#erh#mw#mrxirhih#wspip}#jsv#xli#vigmtmirx1#Hipmziv}#sj#xlmw#iqemp#sv#er}#sj#xli#mrjsvqexmsr# gsrxemrih#livimr#xs#er}sri#sxliv#xler#xli#vigmtmirx#sv#xlimv#hiwmkrexih#vitviwirxexmzi#mw#yreyxlsvm~ih#erh#er}#sxliv#ywi/#vitvshygxmsr/#hmwxvmfyxmsr#sv#gst}mrk#sj# xlmw#iqemp#sv#xli#mrjsvqexmsr#gsrxemrih#livimr/#mr#{lspi#sv#mr#tevx/#{mxlsyx#xli#tvmsv#{vmxxir#gsrwirx#sj#Hiwglyxiw#Tsvxjspms#Wxvexik}/#PPG#+hfe#Qexmwwi#Getmxep,#mw# tvslmfmxih1 Xlmw#iqemp#erh#xli#mrjsvqexmsr#gsrxemrih#livimr#wlepp#rsx#gsrwxmxyxi#er#sjjiv#xs#wipp#sv#xli#wspmgmxexmsr#sj#er#sjjiv#xs#tyvglewi#er#mrxiviwx#mr#er}#jyrh#sv#qyxyep#jyrh1# Er}#wygl#sjjiv#sv#wspmgmxexmsr#{mpp#fi#qehi#xs#uyepmjmih#mrziwxsvw#srp}/#f}#qierw#sj#er#sjjivmrk#qiqsverhyq#erh#vipexih#wyfwgvmtxmsr#ekviiqirx/#sv#tvswtigxyw1# Wigyvmxmiw#wlepp#rsx#fi#sjjivih#sv#wsph#mr#er}#nyvmwhmgxmsr#mr#{lmgl#wygl#sjjiv/#wspmgmxexmsr#sv#wepi#{syph#fi#yrpe{jyp#yrxmp#xli#viuymviqirxw#sj#xli#pe{w#sj#wygl# nyvmwhmgxmsr#lezi#fiir#wexmwjmih1 Er}#tivjsvqergi#mrjsvqexmsr#gsrxemrih#livimr#qe}#fi#yreyhmxih#erh#iwxmqexih1#Tewx#tivjsvqergi#mw#rsx#mrhmgexmzi#sj#jyxyvi#viwypxw1 Mj#}sy#lezi#vigimzih#xlmw#qiwweki#mr#ivvsv/#tpiewi#rsxmj}#xli#wirhiv#mqqihmexip}#erh#hipixi#xlmw#qiwweki#erh#er}#vipexih#exxeglqirxw1 Jvsq>#Nirrmjiv#Gpevo#+Ehzmwsvw,#@NGpevoDVQVKvsytEhzmwsvw1gsqB## Wirx>#Xyiwhe}/#Rsziqfiv#53/#534<#<>77#EQ# Xs>#Ivmg#Fsyklxsr#@ivmgDqexmwwiget1gsqB# Wyfnigx>#VMJ#47+e,+<,#Pixxiv# Eric, Please see the attached letter. Regards, Jennifer Clark JENNIFER B. CLARK / Secretary The RMR Real Estate Income Fund T: 617-796-8183 Two Newton Place 255 Washington Street, Suite 300 Newton, Massachusetts 02458 Vjg!nkpmgf!kocig!ecppqv!dg!fkurnc{gf/!!Vjg!hkng!oc{!jcxg!dggp!oqxgf-!tgpcogf-!qt!fgngvgf/!Xgtkh{!vjcv!vjg!nkpm!rqkpvu!vq!vjg!eqttgev!hkng!cpf!nqecvkqp/ Vjg!nkpmgf!kocig!ecppqv!dg!fkurnc{gf/ !! Vjg!hkng!oc{!jcxg!dggp!oqxgf-!tgpcogf- ! qt!fgngvgf/!Xgtkh{!vjcv!vjg!nkpm!rqkpvu!vq ! vjg!eqttgev!hkng!cpf!nqecvkqp/ Vjg!nkpmgf!kocig!ecppqv!dg!fkurnc{gf/ !! Vjg!hkng!oc{!jcxg!dggp!oqxgf-!tgpcogf- ! qt!fgngvgf/!Xgtkh{!vjcv!vjg!nkpm!rqkpvu!vq ! vjg!eqttgev!hkng!cpf!nqecvkqp/ Vjg!nkpmgf!kocig!ecppqv!dg!fkurnc{gf/ !! Vjg!hkng!oc{!jcxg!dggp!oqxgf-!tgpcogf- ! qt!fgngvgf/!Xgtkh{!vjcv!vjg!nkpm!rqkpvu!vq ! vjg!eqttgev!hkng!cpf!nqecvkqp/

6#
Exxeglqirxw> mqeki3381trk# mqeki3391trk# mqeki33;1trk# mqeki33<1trk# VMJ#44#<#4<1hsg|# VMJ#gsqter}#viwtsrwi#44#53#4<1thj#

Exhibit D
(see attached)

4#
Jvsq># Ly}rl/#Qmglippi#+FSW,#
Xs># Ly}rl/#Qmglippi#+FSW,#
Wyfnigx># J[>#_I|xa#J{h>#VMJ#47+e,+<,#Pixxiv#_I\XIVREPa# Hexi># 452;2534<#7>88>8;#TQ# GG>### FGG># Qiwweki>## Jvsq>#Wgsxx/#Texvmgo#J1#@wgsxxteDwig1kszB# Wirx>#[ihriwhe}/#Rsziqfiv#5</#534<#43>7;#EQ# Xs>#Ivmg#Fsyklxsr?#Nirrmjiv#Gpevo#+Ehzmwsvw,# Wyfnigx>#VI>#VMJ#47+e,+<,#Pixxiv#_I\XIVREPa## As I have previously indicated, if you are intentionally including me on your emails, it is highly inappropriate. I have not been assigned to any matter to which this email pertains and I am not in any position to reply to nor comment on this. If I continue to get the emails from you that are not pertinent to my purview, I will need to raise the issue to another office, to find out more formally how have this pattern desist. Thank you for your attention, TEXVMGO#J1#WGSXX Wirmsv#Gsyrwip# YW#Wigyvmxmiw#erh#I|glerki#Gsqqmwwmsr# Hmzmwmsr#sj#Mrziwxqirx#Qerekiqirx# 433#J#Wxviix/#RI# [ewlmrkxsr/#HG#5387=# Tlsri535088409;96 Vjg!nkpmgf!kocig!ecppqv!dg!fkurnc{gf/!!Vjg!hkng!oc{!jcxg!dggp!oqxgf- ! tgpcogf-!qt!fgngvgf/!Xgtkh{!vjcv!vjg!nkpm!rqkpvu!vq!vjg!eqttgev!hkng!cpf ! nqecvkqp/

5#
Htqo<!Gtke!Dqwijvqp!]ocknvq<gtkeBocvkuugecr/eqo_!
Ugpv<!Vwgufc{-!Pqxgodgt!38-!3129!7<46!RO!
Vq<!Lgppkhgt!Enctm!)Cfxkuqtu*!
Ee<!Ueqvv-!Rcvtkem!H/!
Uwdlgev<!TG<!TKH!25)c*)9*!Ngvvgt!]GZVGTPCN_
Vikevhmrk#xli#833#{svhw>#
0Tiv#lxxtw>22{{{1wig1ksz2mrxivtw2pikep2gjwpf47m1lxq Vypi 47e0<+h, mw mrxirhih xs pmqmx xli eqsyrx sj wtegi e wlevilsphiv tvstswep qe} sggyt} mr e gsqter}w tvs|} wxexiqirx1Wii#Vipiewi#Rs1#67045===# +Rsz1 55/ 4=;9,1 Wmrgi xli tevx sj q} pixxiv xlex ehhviwwiw xli Fsevh mw RSX xs ks mrxs xli tvs|} wxexiqirx/ xli {svhw jvsq xlex tevx wlsyphrx gsyrx/ f} gsqqsr wirwi1 0tvstswep/ mrgpyhmrk er} eggsqter}mrk wyttsvxmrk wxexiqirx/ qe} rsx i|giih 833 {svhw1 Mw xli tpemr xi|x sj Vypi 47e0<1 M lezi gpievp} pefipih q} gsqqyrmgexmsr xs }sy {mxl xli tsvxmsrw wlevilsphiv tvstswep erh Wyttsvxmrk wxexiqirx1 E gpiev gsqqsr0wirwi hijmrmxmsr sj xli hmvigx {svhmrk sj 47e0< pmriw yt tivjigxp} {mxl xli {svh gsyrx sj q} tvstswep/ mrgpyhmrk er} eggsqter}mrk wyttsvxmrk wxexiqirx1 0Fi xlerojyp xlex M eq rsx xeomrk xli WIGw epps{ergi erh wirhmrk }sy kvetlmgw$ 0M#riih#xli#833#{svhw#xs#qeoi#q}#tsmrx#{mxl#wyjjmgmirx#jegxw#erh#hsgyqirxexmsr1# 0WIG#kymhergi#we}w#xli#LIEHMRKW#evi#xs#gsyrx#mr#xli#833#{svhw/#rsx#xli#pixxiv#xs#xli#Fsevh#tsvxmsr1# 0M vinigx }syv gsyrwipw zekyi gmxexmsr sj ettpmgefpi rs egxmsr pixxivw1 Mj xli} lsph xs xlmw pmri/ xli}h fixxiv#gmxi#xliq#i|egxp}1# 0Ew mx wxerhw/ M vijywi xs vihygi q} {svhw/ erh }syh fixxiv rsx i|gpyhi q} tvstswep sr xliwi xirysyw kvsyrhw$# Vikevhmrk xli tlerxsq 5 tvstswepw> Exxeglih#mw#e#wpmklx#vitlvewmrk#sj#q}#wmrkpi#tvstswep/#qeomrk#mx#epp#sri#wirxirgi#erh#jyvxliv#gpevmj}mrk#mxw# sri tvstswep {lmgl mw e gsrhmxmsrep tvstswep rexyvi1 Srgi ekemr/ M eq rsx ksmrk xs epxiv q} tvstswep er} jyvxliv fewih sr xli jegx xlex }syv gsyrwip hsiwrx yrhivwxerh gsrhmxmsrep pskmg$ Gsrwmhiv xlex mr q} wyttsvxmrk wxexiqirx/ M izir gepp sr wlevilsphivw xs nsmr mr ewomrk#qerekiqirx#jsv/#erh#zsxmrk# mr jezsv sj/ e tvstswep xs pmuymhexi sv stir0irh xli Jyrh1 Sfzmsywp}/ q} tvstswep gerx mxwipj fi#mrxivtvixih#ew#tvstswmrk#xs#stir0irh#sv#pmuymhexi#xli#jyrh/#{lir#mr#wyttsvx#sj#mx#M#yvki#

6# wlevilsphivw#xs#ewo#jsv#e#witevexi#tvstswep#jvsq#qerekiqirx#xs#eggsqtpmwl#xlswi#xlmrkw$##Rs/# q} tvstswepw {svhw evi gpievp} wmrkypev mr xlimv pikep ijjigx erh tyvtswi1 M gsyph nywx ew iewmp} lezi qehi e wmrkpi tvstswep> Xli qerekiqirx gsrxvegx wlepp fi xivqmrexih yrpiww Nytmxiv gsppmhiw {mxl Qevw mr Eykywx/ fyx M glswi xs qeoi e wmrkpi tvstswep> Xli qerekiqirx gsrxvegx wlepp fi xivqmrexih yrpiww xli jyrh tyxw e pmuymhexmsr sv stir0irhmrk mr tvsgiww1 Mj xli#jsvqiv/#{syph#}syv#gsyrwip#we}#M#{ew#qeomrk#5#tvstswepw>#4,#xivqmrexi#xli#MQE/#erh#5,# tywl#5#tperixw#xskixlivC##]sy#riih#e#ri{#gsyrwip1 Eric Boughton, CFA Portfolio Manager, Chief Analyst at Matisse Capital Address 4949 Meadows Rd. Ste. 200 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Phone (503) 210-3005 Email eric@matissecap.com Website https://www.matissecap.com/ Qexmwwi#Getmxep#mw#sr#PmroihMr/#Jegifsso/#erh#Mrwxekveq> MQTSVXERX>#Xlmw#iqemp#erh#xli#mrjsvqexmsr#gsrxemrih#livimr#mw#gsrjmhirxmep#erh#mw#mrxirhih#wspip}#jsv#xli#vigmtmirx1#Hipmziv}#sj#xlmw#iqemp#sv#er}#sj#xli#mrjsvqexmsr# gsrxemrih#livimr#xs#er}sri#sxliv#xler#xli#vigmtmirx#sv#xlimv#hiwmkrexih#vitviwirxexmzi#mw#yreyxlsvm~ih#erh#er}#sxliv#ywi/#vitvshygxmsr/#hmwxvmfyxmsr#sv#gst}mrk#sj# xlmw#iqemp#sv#xli#mrjsvqexmsr#gsrxemrih#livimr/#mr#{lspi#sv#mr#tevx/#{mxlsyx#xli#tvmsv#{vmxxir#gsrwirx#sj#Hiwglyxiw#Tsvxjspms#Wxvexik}/#PPG#+hfe#Qexmwwi#Getmxep,#mw# tvslmfmxih1 Xlmw#iqemp#erh#xli#mrjsvqexmsr#gsrxemrih#livimr#wlepp#rsx#gsrwxmxyxi#er#sjjiv#xs#wipp#sv#xli#wspmgmxexmsr#sj#er#sjjiv#xs#tyvglewi#er#mrxiviwx#mr#er}#jyrh#sv#qyxyep#jyrh1# Er}#wygl#sjjiv#sv#wspmgmxexmsr#{mpp#fi#qehi#xs#uyepmjmih#mrziwxsvw#srp}/#f}#qierw#sj#er#sjjivmrk#qiqsverhyq#erh#vipexih#wyfwgvmtxmsr#ekviiqirx/#sv#tvswtigxyw1# Wigyvmxmiw#wlepp#rsx#fi#sjjivih#sv#wsph#mr#er}#nyvmwhmgxmsr#mr#{lmgl#wygl#sjjiv/#wspmgmxexmsr#sv#wepi#{syph#fi#yrpe{jyp#yrxmp#xli#viuymviqirxw#sj#xli#pe{w#sj#wygl# nyvmwhmgxmsr#lezi#fiir#wexmwjmih1 Er}#tivjsvqergi#mrjsvqexmsr#gsrxemrih#livimr#qe}#fi#yreyhmxih#erh#iwxmqexih1#Tewx#tivjsvqergi#mw#rsx#mrhmgexmzi#sj#jyxyvi#viwypxw1 Mj#}sy#lezi#vigimzih#xlmw#qiwweki#mr#ivvsv/#tpiewi#rsxmj}#xli#wirhiv#mqqihmexip}#erh#hipixi#xlmw#qiwweki#erh#er}#vipexih#exxeglqirxw1 Jvsq>#Nirrmjiv#Gpevo#+Ehzmwsvw,#@NGpevoDVQVKvsytEhzmwsvw1gsqB# Wirx>#Xyiwhe}/#Rsziqfiv#5;/#534<#5>7=#TQ# Vjg!nkpmgf!kocig!ecppqv!dg!fkurnc{gf/!!Vjg!hkng!oc{!jcxg!dggp!oqxgf-!tgpcogf-!qt!fgngvgf/!Xgtkh{!vjcv!vjg!nkpm!rqkpvu!vq!vjg!eqttgev!hkng!cpf!nqecvkqp/ Vjg!nkpmgf!kocig!ecppqv!dg!fkurnc{gf/!!Vjg ! hkng!oc{!jcxg!dggp!oqxgf-!tgpcogf-!qt ! fgngvgf/!Xgtkh{!vjcv!vjg!nkpm!rqkpvu!vq!vjg ! eqttgev!hkng!cpf!nqecvkqp/ Vjg!nkpmgf!kocig!ecppqv!dg!fkurnc{gf/!!Vjg ! hkng!oc{!jcxg!dggp!oqxgf-!tgpcogf-!qt ! fgngvgf/!Xgtkh{!vjcv!vjg!nkpm!rqkpvu!vq!vjg ! eqttgev!hkng!cpf!nqecvkqp/ Vjg!nkpmgf!kocig!ecppqv!dg!fkurnc{gf/!!Vjg ! hkng!oc{!jcxg!dggp!oqxgf-!tgpcogf-!qt ! fgngvgf/!Xgtkh{!vjcv!vjg!nkpm!rqkpvu!vq!vjg ! eqttgev!hkng!cpf!nqecvkqp/

7#
Xs>#Ivmg#Fsyklxsr#@ivmgDqexmwwiget1gsqB#
Wyfnigx>#VI>#VMJ#47+e,+<,#Pixxiv#_I\XIVREPa#
Ivmg/#
Xli#vizmwih#s{rivwlmt#pixxiv#mw#mr#eggitxefpi#jsvq1# Syv#gsyrwip#ehzmwiw#xlex#xli#tvstswep#i|giihw#833#{svhw#fewih#sr#xli#kymhergi#mr#Vypi#47+e,+<,#erh# ettpmgefpi#rs#egxmsr#pixxivw1#]sy#qe}#{erx#xs#gsrjiv#{mxl#}syv#gsyrwip#xs#gsrjmvq1#Pmoi{mwi/#{i#wxmpp# xlmro#xlivi#evi#x{s#tvstswepw#vexliv#xler#sri1# ]sy#lezi#yrxmp#Higiqfiv#7#xs#gsvvigx#xliwi#hijmgmirgmiw1# Nirrmjiv# Wirx#jvsq#Qemp#jsv#[mrhs{w#43# Jvsq>#Ivmg#Fsyklxsr Wirx>#Xyiwhe}/#Rsziqfiv#53/#534<#7>3=#TQ# Xs>#Nirrmjiv#Gpevo#+Ehzmwsvw, Wyfnigx>#VI>#VMJ#47+e,+<,#Pixxiv#_I\XIVREPa# Exxeglih mw e vi{svhih s{rivwlmt pixxiv1 Tpiewi gsrjmvq mx rs{ qiixw xli gpevmx} wxerhevhw1 Jvsq>#Nirrmjiv#Gpevo#+Ehzmwsvw,#@NGpevoDVQVKvsytEhzmwsvw1gsqB# Wirx>#Xyiwhe}/#Rsziqfiv#53/#534<#<>77#EQ# Xs>#Ivmg#Fsyklxsr#@ivmgDqexmwwiget1gsqB# Wyfnigx>#VMJ#47+e,+<,#Pixxiv# Eric, Please see the attached letter. Regards, Jennifer Clark

8#
JENNIFER B. CLARK / Secretary
The RMR Real Estate Income Fund
T: 617-796-8183
Two Newton Place
255 Washington Street, Suite 300
Newton, Massachusetts 02458
Exxeglqirxw> mqeki3341trk# mqeki3351trk# mqeki3361trk# mqeki3371trk# mqeki3381trk#

JbiXUXe#7+#1/07# GXaa\YXe#?-#@_Te^+#NXVeXgTel# MIM#MXT_#BfgTgX#FaVbX#ChaW#
Ojb#JXjgba#L_TVX#
144#RTf[\aZgba#NgeXXg#
Nh\gX#2//#
JXjgba+#I>##/1347#
MX9#03T,7#N[TeX[b_WXe#LebcbfT_#Ybe#hcVb\aZ#TaahT_#XXg\aZ# AXTe#ITWT9# ITg\ffX#A\fVbhagXW#@_bfXW,BaW#ChaW#NgeTgXZl+#T#PN#bcXa,XaW#hghT_#YhaW#(IA@BS+#Vhf\c# 7441/Q323)#\f#g[X#UXaXY\V\T_#bjaXe#bY#biXe#0/+///#Vbba#f[TeXf#bY#MIM#MXT_#BfgTgX#FaVb`X# ChaW-#IA@BS#[Tf#[X_W#g[XfX#N[TeXf#Vbag\ahbhf_l#Ybe#biXe#01#`bag[f#TaW#\agXaWf#gb#Vbag\ahX# gb#[b_W#g[X#N[TeXf#g[ebhZ[#g[X#WTgX#bY#g[X#aXkg#`XXg\aZ#bY#f[TeX[b_WXef-#Bi\WXaVX#bY#g[\f#YTVg#\f# \a#bhe#chU_\V#TaahT_#TaW#fX`\,TaahT_#eXcbegf+#Tf#jX__#Tf#\a#g[X#dhTegXe_l#02Y#Y\_\aZf#bY#bhe# \aiXfg`Xag#TWi\fXe+#ITg\ffX#@Tc\gT_;#TaW#T#_XggXe#bY#iXe\Y\VTg\ba#Yeb`#bhe#VhfgbW\Ta+#PI?#?Ta^+# iXe\Yl\aZ#g[XfX#fgTgX`Xagf+#\f#XaV_bfXW-# RX#[XeXUl#fhU`\g#g[X#Yb__bj\aZ#cebcbfT_#TaW#fhccbeg\aZ#fgTgX`Xag#chefhTag#gb#Mh_X#03T,7#bY# L@= 2=;MJALA=K &P;@8F?= ";L G> fnhiT 8K 8E=F<=\<T >GJ AF;DMKAGF AF L@= ;GEH8FQYK HJGPQ fgTgX`Xag#Ybe#g[X#aXkg#>aahT_#IXXg\aZ#bY#f[TeX[b_WXef#(g[X#baX#gb#UX#[X_W#\a#VT_XaWTe#1/08+# ceXfh`TU_l)-#0=J D8KL Q=8JYK 8FFM8D E==LAF? E8L=JA8DKT ZN[TeX[b_WXe#cebcbfT_f#\agXaWXW#gb#UX# ceXfXagXW#chefhTag#gb#Mh_X#03T,7#haWXe#g[X#BkV[TaZX#>Vg#Tg#g[X#ChaW'f#1/08#TaahT_#`XXg\aZ#bY# f[TeX[b_WXef#`hfg#UX#eXVX\iXW#Tg#g[X#ChaW'f#ce\aV\cT_#XkXVhg\iX#bYY\VXf#ba#be#UXYbeX# JbiX`UXe#02+#1/07#\a#beWXe#gb#UX#Vbaf\WXeXW#Ybe#\aV_hf\ba#\a#g[X#ChaW'f#cebkl#fgTgX`Xag#Ybe#\gf# 1/08#TaahT_#`XXg\aZ#bY#f[TeX[b_WXe[-##FY#g[X#Vb`cTal#UX_\XiXf#g[\f#cebcbfT_#\f#\aVb`c_XgX#be# bg[Xej\fX#WXY\V\Xag#\a#Tal#eXfcXVg+#c_XTfX#VbagTVg#Be\V#?bhZ[gba+#@C>+#\XW\TgX_l#fb#g[Tg#jX# Tl#cebcg_l#TWWeXff#Tal#T__XZXW#WXY\V\XaV\Xf+#Tg#(4/2)#10/,2//4#be#Xe\V=Tg\ffXVTc-Vb-# N\aVXeX_l+# ITg\ffX#A\fVbhagXW#@bfXW,BaW#ChaW#NgeTgXZl# Be\V#?bhZ[gba+#@C># LbegYb\b#ITaTZXe#

.40<249612<#,<9;9=06#
-(.+)/('&##>__#\aiXfgXag#TWi\fbel#TaW#TaTZXXag#TZeXXXagf#UXgjXXa#MIM# MXT_#BfgTgX#FaVbX#ChaW#TaW#MIM#>Wi\fbef#HH@#f[T__#UX#gXe\aTgXW#Ul#g[X#ChaW+# chefhTag#gb#g[X#e\Z[g#bY#fgbV^[b_WXef#Tf#XUbW\XW#\a#NXVg\ba#04(T)(2)#bY#g[X# FaiXfgXag#@bcTal#>Vg#bY#083/#TaW#Tf#eXdh\eXW#gb#UX#\aV_hWXW#\a#fhV[# TZeXXXagf+#Tg#g[X#XTe_\Xfg#WTgX#g[X#ChaW#\f#XZT__l#cXe\ggXW#gb#Wb#fb;#cebi\WXW+# [bjXiXe+#g[Tg#\Y#g[X#?bTeW#cebcbfXf+#TaW#f[TeX[b_WXef#TccebiX+#Tg#g[\f#XXg\aZ+#T# c_Ta#gb#\dh\WTgX#be#bcXa,XaW#g[X#ChaW#j\g[\a#baX#lXTe+#g[Xa#g[X#\aiXfgXag# TWi\fbel#TaW#TaTZXXag#TZeXXXagf#UXgjXXa#MIM#MXT_#BfgTgX#FaVbX#ChaW# TaW#MIM#>Wi\fbef#HH@#f[T__#eXT\a#\a#XYYXVg#Tf#baZ#Tf#aXVXffTel#gb#`c_XXag# g[XfX#TVg\baf-## .?;;9<>583#.>0>2728># MIM#MXT_#BfgTgX#FaVbX#ChaW#[Tf#geTWXW#Tg#Ta#XkgeXX_l#_TeZX#W\fVbhag#gb#\gf#J>Q#Ybe#lXTef+# XYYXVg\iX_l#[b_W\aZ#f[TeX[b_WXef#VTcg\iX+#f\aVX#g[Xl#VTa#ba_l#Xk\g#g[X\e#\aiXfgXag#Ybe# fhUfgTag\T__l#Xff#g[Ta#\g#\f#jbeg[-##IXTaj[_X+#Xc_blXXf#TaW#bjaXef#bY#MIM#>Wi\fbef9# ' $GDD=;L 8 ZgbgT_#aXg#XkcXafX#eTg\b#eTa^XW#\a#g[X#Ybheg[#dhTeg\_X#j\g[\aX L@= Ibea\aZfgTe# @_Tff\Y\VTg\ba#Debhc+#XkVXXW\aZX#g[X#Ibea\aZfgTe#@_Tff\Y\VTg\ba#Debhc#XW\Ta#Ul#33# UTf\f#cb\agf[T H=J L@= #G8J<YK 8F8DQKAKW ' ?XaX>AL=< >JGE L@= =PH8FKAGF G> L@= >MF<YK 8KK=LK AF D8KL Q=8JYK ;G=J;AN= 8F< <ADMLAN= e\Z[gf#bYYXe\aZ-# ' @Ta#VXXag#g[X\e#bja#cbf\g\ba#Ul#ibg\aZ#g[X\e#f[TeXf#\a#YTibe#bY#T#Vbag\ahXW#XkVXff\iX# TaTZXXag#YXX#TaW#\a#YTibe#bY#g[X#TYbeXfT\W#e\Z[gf#bYYXe\aZ-# ' ETiX#cebWhVXW#Vbaf\fgXag_l#cbbe#cXeYbeTaVX-# O[X#VbU\aTg\ba#bY#g[X#_TeZX#TaW#j\WXa\aZ#W\fVbhag+#TaW#g[X#cbbe#Tg,J>Q#cXeYbeTaVX+#[Tf# cebWhVXW#TaX\V#eXgheaf#Ybe#f[TeX[b_WXef-##Cbe#XkTc_X+#Ybe#g[X#4#lXTe#cXe\bW#XaW\aZ#5.2/.07+# gbgT#eXgheaf#TeX#Tf#Yb__bjf9# IN@F#PN#MBFO#FaWXk9# # *38&# MFC#Tg#J>Q# # *27&# MFC#Tg#Te^Xg#ce\VX# # *16&# R[Tg#fg\aZf#XiXa#beX#\f#g[Tg#g[\f#\f#g[X#fTX#TWi\fbe+#j\g[#ce\Te_l#g[X#fTX#cbegYb_\b# TaTZXef+#j[b+#Yeb#01.20./5,01.20.0/+#TaTZXW#g[X#MIM#MXT#BfgTgX#FaVbX#ChaW#gb#T#38&# ($)#Tg,J>Q#_bff+#j[\_X#g[X#IN@F#PN#MBFO#FaWXk#_bfg#ba_l#04&$# Fa#bhe#i\Xj+#9Q 8DDGOAF? KM;@ 8 D8J?= \<AK;GMFL LG H=JKAKLT 9Q ?ANAF? ;MJJ=FL E8F8?=E=FL 8 ZH8KK[ WXfc\gX#cbbe#cXeYbeTaVX+#TaW#Ul#VbaWhVg\aZ#T#e\Z[gf#bYYXe\aZ#j[\V[#YbeVXW#eXgT_#\aiXfgbef#gb# VbX#hc#j\g[#YeXf[#VTf[#\a#beWXe#gb#ceXiXag#g[X\e#\aiXfgXag#Yeb`#UX\aZ#W_hgXW#fhUfgTag\T__l+#

g[X#?bTeW#[Tf#\ZabeXW#\gf#Y\WhV\Tel#Whgl-##FafgXTW#bY#UX\aZ#W_hgXW+#baZ,fhYYXe\aZ#f[TeX[b_WXef# WXfXeiX#g[X#bccbegha\gl#gb#eXVX\iX#Yh_#iT_hX#Ybe#g[X\e#f[TeXf#gbWTl-# Fa#TWW\g\ba#gb#ibg\aZ#Ybe#bhe#cebcbfT_+#jX#T_fb#[bcX#g[Tg#T__#MFC#f[TeX[b_WXef#j_#]b\a#hf#\a# Tf^\aZ#TaTZXXag#Ybe+#TaW#ibg\aZ#\a#YTibe#bY+#T#cebcbfT#gb#\dh\WTgX#be#bcXa,XaW#g[X#ChaW-### R[b#TeX#jX<#RX#TeX#Ta#bcXa,XaW#hghT_#YhaW#(ITg\ffX#A\fVbhagXW#@_bfXW,BaW#ChaW#NgeTgXZl+# IA@BS)#j[\V[#[Tf#bjaXW#f[TeXf#bY#MFC#Vbag\ahbhf_l#Ybe#g[X#cTfg#lXTe-#Khe#\agXeXfgf#TeX#T_\ZaXW# fb_X_l#j\g[#g[Tg#bY#T__#bg[Xe#f[TeX[b_WXef+#TaW#g[X#eXXWl#jX#TeX#fhZZXfg\aZ#jbh_W#UXaXY\g#T__# f[TeX[b_WXef#XdhT__l-#CXX#YeXX#gb#VbagTVg#hf#TUbhg#g[\f#`TggXe;#jX#TeX#[Tccl#gb#W\fVhff-# @bagTVg#Be\V#?bhZ[gba+#@C>+#Tg#(4/2)#10/,2//4-#

SEC Division of Investment Management staff letter: RMR Real Estate Income Fund - Omission of Shareholder Proposal Submitted by Matisse Discounted Closed-End Fund Strategy

Incoming Letter

FIRM/AFFILIATE OFFICES

Lineage